But in judging your player the judges can only judge him based on the player he was in the year you reference.
I think there's still some nuance here. For instance, let's say you take Player X from 1975. Player X has some major chemistry concerns, but he won titles in 1980 and 1982.
I think it's fair to a judge to look at the totality of his career and say, "Well, as was shown later, his chemistry didn't stop teams from winning", etc., even if that wasn't a known fact in 1975. I can see similar arguments regarding "Player Y wouldn't accept a lesser role", etc., if in fact Player Y did accept a lesser role a couple of seasons later.
I'm similarly open to arguments about a player's defense if we saw him play better defense in a different system later (or earlier) in his career, or even arguments that if his role was different, his production might have changed.
In other words, it's all fluid here, and I'm going to listen to how creative people get in their arguments. At the same time, what I *won't* do is mark down a "one year wonder" based solely upon his lack of an otherwise less stellar career. Now, I might consider that player's role on the team in his career year, and whether other factors affected his performance. However, if a go puts up 30 points and 10 assists but never does it again, I'm going to judge him on that 30 / 10, rather than his lesser career averages.