Why did Kareem only win one championship in the 70's?

[magnax1]

I can understand why he only won one, I get his teams weren't the best, but what I really want to know is why Kareem wasn't capable of winning with teams with talent like Bob Dandrige, Lucius Allen, and Oscar Robertson, or the 79 Lakers, when Rick Barry was capable of winning with the 75 warriors.
I'm not trying to be unfair to Kareem, I just really want to know why. Did he just choke? Was his team worse then the stats suggested? His teams definitely seemed talented enough going by the stat sheet, but I wanted to hear from some one who watched him playing early in Milwaukee.

[zizozain]

why legend Muhammad Ali was banned from boxing for 3

[PurpleChuck]

The bigger qns is why Wilt only won one championship.

Inb4 ppl say Bill Russell.

[magnax1]

The bigger qns is why Wilt only won one championship.

Inb4 ppl say Bill Russell.
he won 2

[jlauber]

The bigger qns is why Wilt only won one championship.

Inb4 ppl say Bill Russell.

Wilt won TWO.

[jlauber]

There are those here who love to rip Wilt for his "failures", but they will find "excuses" for Kareem's failings. The fact was Kareem was the best player in the league in the 70's, and he could be an overwhelmingly dominant player. But he also lost focus for much of that period, and played many games with disinterest.

Yes, he had legitimate excuses. But, he also played poorly in some of his biggest series and biggest games. And, what was really puzzling was that after Wilt retired following the '73 season, ...the NBA became mired in a very weak decade. You mentioned Barry's 48-34 Warriors in '75. The 49-33 Blazers swept Kareem's Lakers in '77 (despite great play by Kareem). The 42-40 Bullets won the title in '78. And the '79 Soincs won with a 52-30 record (and only one borderline HOF player in Dennis Johnson.)

[magnax1]

What always confuses me is why the 79 Lakers didn't beat the Sonics. I've actually watched one game in that series.... and I just don't get it.

[eliteballer]

1970: Loses to Champs
71: Wins Championship
72: Loses to Champs
73:Loses to Warriors
74: Loses in 7 game Finals
75: Oscar retires, misses playoffs
76: Joins Laker team that won 30 games the year before, wins 40 but misses playoffs
77: Loses to NBA Champ
78: Loses to NBA Finalist(Sonics)
79: Loses to NBA Champ: Sonics

Really...73 is the only year where you can really criticize.

[PurpleChuck]

Wilt won TWO.

Sorry for the mistake. My point is, Wilt should and could have won far far more. He's made to win, but somehow couldn't.

[jlauber]

I always found it fascinating that in the 71-72 season, Kareem played 44 mpg, on a team that went 63-19 and had a scoring differential of +11.1 ppg, and he led the NBA in scoring at 34.8 ppg and shot .574 (with 16.6 rpg.) In the post-season, he shot .405 against Thurmond (he was outscored and outshot by Thurmond BTW), and then he shot .457 against Wilt (and only .414 in the last four games of that series.)

YET, he goes to a bad Laker team (40-42) in the 75-76 season, and "only" plays 41 mpg, scoring 27.7 ppg on .529 shooting, with 16.9 rpg.

He could dominate meaningless games on a powerful team, and yet, when his team obviously needed him to carry them, as in the 75-76 season, his numbers were considerably less than in his 71-72 season.

[eliteballer]

On 73 btw: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TavBp-0cqZY.

Listen to 2:20 and the explanation below:


Schenkel doesn't explain very well why Kareem is not at the game. What actually happened is that In 1973, while a member of the Milwaukee Bucks, he was voted to the All-Star team but chose not play. Several of his friends were slain that year in a confrontation between rival Muslim factions at a home in Washington that Abdul-Jabbar owned. He served as a pallbearer at their funerals during the All-Star break.

[jlauber]

Sorry for the mistake. My point is, Wilt should and could have won far far more. He's made to win, but somehow couldn't.

I have posted this many times, but Wilt came within an eyelash of winning FIVE more titles (FIVE game seven's...and four of them losses by 2, 1, 4, and 2 points), and had injuries not decimated his '71 and '73 teams, it might have been as many as SEVEN.

[PurpleChuck]

I always found it fascinating that in the 71-72 season, Kareem played 44 mpg, on a team that went 63-19 and had a scoring differential of +11.1 ppg, and he led the NBA in scoring at 34.8 ppg and shot .574 (with 16.6 rpg.) In the post-season, he shot .405 against Thurmond (he was outscored and outshot by Thurmond BTW), and then he shot .457 against Wilt (and only .414 in the last four games of that series.)

YET, he goes to a bad Laker team (40-42) in the 75-76 season, and "only" plays 41 mpg, scoring 27.7 ppg on .529 shooting, with 16.9 rpg.

He could dominate meaningless games on a powerful team, and yet, when his team obviously needed him to carry them, as in the 75-76 season, his numbers were considerably less than in his 71-72 season.

And yet alot of ppl put Kareem>Wilt which I find to be :facepalm -worthy.
Why ask this qns "Why did Kareem only win one championship in the 70's?" when you can ask this "Why did Wilt only win two championship in the 70's?"

[jlauber]

And yet alot of ppl put Kareem>Wilt which I find to be :facepalm -worthy.
Why ask this qns "Why did Kareem only win one championship in the 70's?" when you can ask this "Why did Wilt only win two championship in the 70's?"

Wilt "only" won ONE title in the 70's...on that great 71-72 Laker team that won 33 straight games, and went 69-13, and then dominated the post-season (BTW, they went 8-3 against Kareem's Bucks that year.)

BUT, Wilt retired after the 72-73 season (playing on an injury-riddled team that STILL went to the Finals, where, despite a 4-1 series loss, they were in EVERY game into the final minute.) So, Chamberlain only played in the first third of that decade.

[eliteballer]

I always found it fascinating that in the 71-72 season, Kareem played 44 mpg, on a team that went 63-19 and had a scoring differential of +11.1 ppg, and he led the NBA in scoring at 34.8 ppg and shot .574 (with 16.6 rpg.) In the post-season, he shot .405 against Thurmond (he was outscored and outshot by Thurmond BTW), and then he shot .457 against Wilt (and only .414 in the last four games of that series.)

YET, he goes to a bad Laker team (40-42) in the 75-76 season, and "only" plays 41 mpg, scoring 27.7 ppg on .529 shooting, with 16.9 rpg.

He could dominate meaningless games on a powerful team, and yet, when his team obviously needed him to carry them, as in the 75-76 season, his numbers were considerably less than in his 71-72 season.


No this is ridiculous. Kareem was the core of that Milaukee offense. He scored 16 more PPG than the next highest player. Acting as if he didnt carry the offense and was just along for the ride is absurd

The Lakers had a 10 game improvement the year he joined them, and that's not considering Sharman's coaching philosophy or the difference in pace. He was still 2nd in the league in scoring.

[jlauber]

No this is ridiculous. Kareem was the core of that Milaukee offense. He scored 16 more PPG than the next highest player. Acting as if he didnt carry the offense and was just along for the ride is absurd

The Lakers had a 10 game improvement the year he joined them, and that's not considering Sharman's coaching philosophy or the difference in pace

It's not ridiculous at all. Kareem played GREAT in that 71-72 season...BUT, here he was leading the league in scoring (34.8 ppg) and minutes (44.2 mpg), and shooting .574...on a team that went 63-19 and had a scoring differential of +11.1 ppg. His numbers then dropped considerably in the post-season.

Furthermore, he went to a bad Laker team, and yet, when his team needed him to score and play extended minutes, he did both at considerably less than in that 71-72 season (and he shot considerably worse, as well.)

Contrast that with Wilt's 62-63 season, when, playing with an absolute joke of a roster, his team went 31-49 (BUT, they only had a -2.1 differential, and lost 35 games by single digits.) All Wilt did that season was play 47.6 mpg, led the league in scoring with 44.8 ppg (Baylor was a distant second at 34.0), led the league in rebounding, at 24.6 rpg, and set a then-record .528 FG%. In fact, Wilt LED the NBA in FIFTEEN of the 22 major statistical categories...or nearly 70%! Yet, there are those here who label him a "stats-padder."

[eliteballer]

He was 2nd in the league in scoring that year, how can he be at fault?:facepalm

[AirJordan&Magic]

I can understand why he only won one, I get his teams weren't the best, but what I really want to know is why Kareem wasn't capable of winning with teams with talent like Bob Dandrige, Lucius Allen, and Oscar Robertson, or the 79 Lakers, when Rick Barry was capable of winning with the 75 warriors.
I'm not trying to be unfair to Kareem, I just really want to know why. Did he just choke? Was his team worse then the stats suggested? His teams definitely seemed talented enough going by the stat sheet, but I wanted to hear from some one who watched him playing early in Milwaukee.


In 1975, the Bucks missed the playoffs and that was due to Kareem missing 17 games (The Bucks went 3-14 without him) and Lucious Allen missing practically the entire season.

And Imo, the reason the Lakers lost to the Blazers in 1977 was the poor play of the Lakers' point guards.

[MiseryCityTexas]

I can understand why he only won one, I get his teams weren't the best, but what I really want to know is why Kareem wasn't capable of winning with teams with talent like Bob Dandrige, Lucius Allen, and Oscar Robertson, or the 79 Lakers, when Rick Barry was capable of winning with the 75 warriors.
I'm not trying to be unfair to Kareem, I just really want to know why. Did he just choke? Was his team worse then the stats suggested? His teams definitely seemed talented enough going by the stat sheet, but I wanted to hear from some one who watched him playing early in Milwaukee.


dont forget he also played with adrian dantly on the lakers also and didn't win jack shit either. :eek: :wtf: :eek:

[G.O.A.T]

If you talk to someone who is interested in defending Kareem here are the reasons/excuses you'll get.

1970 - Bucks lose 4-1 to Knicks in Eastern Finals.
Explanation: As a Rookie he didn't have a strong enough supporting cast

1971 - NBA Championship and Both MVP's for Lew Alcindor

1972 - The Lakers beat them 4-2. Explanation: Oscar was Hurt during the season and not healthy by the playoff despite playing every game.

1973 - 60 Win Bucks are upset by 47 win Warriors in six. Explanation: Oscar was still hurt....I mean...Dandridge....I mean Lou Allen sucks...Larry Costello errr... it's his fault. (A lot of times they skip this one)

1974 - Bucks lose to underdog Celtics in a classic seven game NBA Finals series. Explanation: It wasn't his fault the Celtics beat them, he played great. (Make sure they don't mention the fact that Kareem's worst game was game seven and that the Bucks got pasted at home.)

1975 - In the second worst season (as per competition level) in post-shot clock NBA history, the Bucks miss the playoffs. Explanation: Kareem broke his hand during the season (missed 14 games) and Oscar retired, that cast of scrubs he played with had no chance.

1976 - In the worst season in post shot clock history, Kareem's new team, the Lakers miss the playoffs. Explanation: They were a 30-win team in '74. Kareem broke his hand during the season (didn't miss any games though) and the Lakers sucked without him. (Who cares that they lost 6 of their last 8 with a healthy Kareem and missed the playoff by just two games.)

1977 - Despite being the top team in the NBA during the regular season the Lakers were swept by Portland in the playoffs. Explanation: The cast around him sucked. Lou Allen and Kermit Washington were hurt otherwise the Lakers would have won. (Same Lou Allen who wasn't good enough to help the '75 Bucks make the playoffs)

1978 - 45-win Lakers lose in first round to 47-win Seattle 2-1. Explanation: The supporting cast was garbage no one could win with these guys. (The roster included six former or future all-stars and four former or future NBA Champion starters. {five if you count Don Chaney}

1979 - 47-win Lakers lose in second round to 52-win Soncis 4-1. Explanation: Same cast of scrubs, no chance for Kareem.


I happen to think Kareem was a terrible leader and poor teammate. He was always talking about how one man can not win a title. Which of course is a weak excuse and probably did little for the confidence of his team. He was easily the top individual player of the NBA's weakest decade and emerged with just one Championship ring. For me it cripples his case as one of the top two all-time, but most people never really look into his career with an open-mind.

Once Magic joined the Lakers and Riley took over, Kareem became a role player. His role was as the Lakers half court offense and he was awesome. He quit running back on the break and stopped working to be a top-notch defender and rebounder. That was how Kareem won four titles in eight years as oppose to the two in 12 years he won (watched one being won from home) as a superstar.

End scene

[brownmamba00]

1977 - Despite being the top team in the NBA during the regular season the Lakers were swept by Portland in the playoffs. Explanation: The cast around him sucked. Lou Allen and Kermit Washington were hurt otherwise the Lakers would have won. (Same Lou Allen who wasn't good enough to help the '75 Bucks make the playoffs)


This reminds me of Lebron on the Cavs team.

[DetroitPiston]

Joey: I think you're the greatest, but my dad says you don't work hard enough on defense.

[Kareem's getting mad]

Joey: And he says that lots of times, you don't even run down court. And that you don't really try... except during the playoffs.

Roger Murdock: The hell I don't! LISTEN KID! I've been hearing that crap ever since I was at UCLA. I'm out there busting my buns every night. Tell your old man to drag Walton and Lanier up and down the court for 48 minutes.

[ZenMaster]

What always confuses me is why the 79 Lakers didn't beat the Sonics. I've actually watched one game in that series.... and I just don't get it.

Maybe watch the rest?

[guy]

I have posted this many times, but Wilt came within an eyelash of winning FIVE more titles (FIVE game seven's...and four of them losses by 2, 1, 4, and 2 points), and had injuries not decimated his '71 and '73 teams, it might have been as many as SEVEN.

What? Wilt only went to FOUR more Finals after the two he won. In 2 of those Finals, his team lost in 5, in one of them it went to a game 7 and they lost by 14, and then 1 of them went to a game 7 and they lost by 2. Thats hardly an "eyelash of winning FIVE more titles." He came within an eyelash of winning 1 more and that team was such overwhelming favorites that it probably shouldn't have gotten to game 7 in the first place. Those 3 other game 7s were not in the Finals, so they still would've had to win at least another series to win it all. Like I said, hardly an eyelash. You're really overexaggerating by saying he was that close to going from TWO to SEVEN titles.

[TonyBulls91]

On 73 btw: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TavBp-0cqZY.

Listen to 2:20 and the explanation below:

yeah it was the black mafia from philly,they killed his friends at his penthouse and drowned the babies in the tub:(

[G.O.A.T]

What? Wilt only went to FOUR more Finals after the two he won. In 2 of those Finals, his team lost in 5, in one of them it went to a game 7 and they lost by 14, and then 1 of them went to a game 7 and they lost by 2. Thats hardly an "eyelash of winning FIVE more titles." He came within an eyelash of winning 1 more and that team was such overwhelming favorites that it probably shouldn't have gotten to game 7 in the first place. Those 3 other game 7s were not in the Finals, so they still would've had to win at least another series to win it all. Like I said, hardly an eyelash. You're really overexaggerating by saying he was that close to going from TWO to SEVEN titles.

In 1962 the Warriors were eliminated by the Celtics in the EDF in a seven game series. The Celtics won the title that year.

In 1965 the 76ers lost in game seven to the Celtics by one point in the famous "Havlicek stole the ball" game. That was the EDF as well, but in the Finals the Lakers were without Baylor and would have offered either team little resistance.

In the 1968 EDF the 76ers lost game seven by four points to the Celtics, the eventual Champions who beat LA in six.

Those are three examples of Wilt coming very close to winning the title without going to the Finals.

[jlauber]

What? Wilt only went to FOUR more Finals after the two he won. In 2 of those Finals, his team lost in 5, in one of them it went to a game 7 and they lost by 14, and then 1 of them went to a game 7 and they lost by 2. Thats hardly an "eyelash of winning FIVE more titles." He came within an eyelash of winning 1 more and that team was such overwhelming favorites that it probably shouldn't have gotten to game 7 in the first place. Those 3 other game 7s were not in the Finals, so they still would've had to win at least another series to win it all. Like I said, hardly an eyelash. You're really overexaggerating by saying he was that close to going from TWO to SEVEN titles.

Well, they lost to Boston in three ECF's that went to seven games, and by margins of 2, 1, and 4 points. Boston went on to win the title in those years. They lost to Boston in game seven in the Finals in '69. I have documented that series before, but their were a MULTITUDE of things that went against Wilt's Lakers in that series. BUT, the biggest reason came down to ONE PLAY. Johnny Egan losing the ball in game four in the waning seconds. Had he been able to hang onto the ball, the Lakers win that game to go up 3-1, and then after they routed Boston in game five, it would have been a 4-1 series romp.

As for the game seven in the '70 Finals...there was no question that the Knicks were a better team. BUT, the series was tied 2-2. In game five, Wilt was abusing Reed in the first quarter, and LA led by ten points, when Reed went down with his thigh injury. The Lakers extended the lead to 13 at the half. HOWEVER, as even NY TIMES writer Leonard Koppett wrote, the officials swallowed their whistles in the second half of that game. The Knicks were committing what would have been manslaughter on the streets...Wilt got two shots, and West only three shots, in the entire second half! NY came back to win that game, 107-100, BUT, it was clearly aided by the officiating. So the series went back to LA, with NY leading 3-2, instead of the Lakers leading 3-2. In that game six in LA, the Lakers, behind Chamberlain's monumental 45 point, 27 rebound game (on 20-27 shooting) routed the Reedless Knicks, 135-113. SO, had the officials not handed the Knicks game five, the Lakers stun NY in six games.

As for the other two series...in '71, LA played the Bucks without Baylor and West, and then Erickson went down with an injury early in the series. I am not saying that the Lakers would have beaten the Bucks, but they clearly would have been better than their 4-1 loss. And, in the '73 Finals, LA was playing with Hairston, who had missed almost the entire season, and was nowhere near 100%...and even more importantly, West was playing with TWO injured knees. Despite that, the Lakers lost four CLOSE games (4, 4, 5, and 9 points), and ALL four were decided in the last minute. And while NY was the better team in '70, a healthy Laker squad was clearly a better team in '73.

So, hopefully that gives you a better perspective. Chamberlain's teams could easily have won FIVE rings. AND, had they not been decimated by injuries in '71 and '73 they MIGHT have won two more.

[Pointguard]

I happen to think Kareem was a terrible leader and poor teammate. He was always talking about how one man can not win a title. Which of course is a weak excuse and probably did little for the confidence of his team. He was easily the top individual player of the NBA's weakest decade and emerged with just one Championship ring. For me it cripples his case as one of the top two all-time, but most people never really look into his career with an open-mind.

Once Magic joined the Lakers and Riley took over, Kareem became a role player. His role was as the Lakers half court offense and he was awesome. He quit running back on the break and stopped working to be a top-notch defender and rebounder. That was how Kareem won four titles in eight years as oppose to the two in 12 years he won (watched one being won from home) as a superstar.

Yeah, and the league was still center oriented until the 80's with the emergence of Bird and Magic. What makes Kareem even further deplorable is that he didn't give Magic/Riley credit for adding 7 years to his career which got him his most outstanding records and put him in people's top five. Well, we know how ego works but he could have stood up and said some good things about Magic/Riley. Magic had the league recognize that Kareem was leaving and the opposing teams granted him cars and other outstanding gifts. Kareem acted like he deserved this stuff. In reality he wouldn't have gotten the recognition without Magic. People thought of KAJ as aloof, self centered and self absorbed and now you know why.

[guy]

In 1962 the Warriors were eliminated by the Celtics in the EDF in a seven game series. The Celtics won the title that year.

In 1965 the 76ers lost in game seven to the Celtics by one point in the famous "Havlicek stole the ball" game. That was the EDF as well, but in the Finals the Lakers were without Baylor and would have offered either team little resistance.

In the 1968 EDF the 76ers lost game seven by four points to the Celtics, the eventual Champions who beat LA in six.

Those are three examples of Wilt coming very close to winning the title without going to the Finals.

And the 62 Finals went 7 games with the Celtics only winning by 3 in that game. So we're saying that Wilt would've been a shoe-in for about 1 more title, 1965, if it weren't for a close game 7?

[boozehound]

because bill walton was a better player and twice the leader on court.

[jlauber]

Yeah, and the league was still center oriented until the 80's with the emergence of Bird and Magic. What makes Kareem even further deplorable is that he didn't give Magic/Riley credit for adding 7 years to his career which got him his most outstanding records and put him people's top five. Well, we know how ego works but he could have stood up and said some good things about Magic/Riley. Magic had the league recognize that Kareem was leaving and they opposing teams granted him cars and other outstanding gifts. Kareem acted like he deserved this stuff. In reality he wouldn't have gotten the recognition without Magic. People thought of KAJ as aloof, self centered and self absorbed and now you know why.

Excellent post. I don't think it was any coincidence that after Magic arrived, LA went to NINE Finals (one of them AFTER Kareem), and won FIVE rings. Hell, even withOUT Kareem LA had records of 63-19 and 58-24. BUT, AFTER Magic retired the Lakers went 43-39 and then an even worse 39-43.

IMHO, withOUT Magic, Kareem probably retires in the mid-80's with ONE ring.

[magnax1]

1979 - 47-win Lakers lose in second round to 52-win Soncis 4-1. Explanation: Same cast of scrubs, no chance for Kareem.


I happen to think Kareem was a terrible leader and poor teammate. He was always talking about how one man can not win a title. Which of course is a weak excuse and probably did little for the confidence of his team. He was easily the top individual player of the NBA's weakest decade and emerged with just one Championship ring. For me it cripples his case as one of the top two all-time, but most people never really look into his career with an open-mind.

Once Magic joined the Lakers and Riley took over, Kareem became a role player. His role was as the Lakers half court offense and he was awesome. He quit running back on the break and stopped working to be a top-notch defender and rebounder. That was how Kareem won four titles in eight years as oppose to the two in 12 years he won (watched one being won from home) as a superstar.
How was his team in 79 a bunch of scrubs though? He had Dantley, Wilkes and Nixon. I definitely have the same problem with Kareem, and I'm thinking of moving him down from the 2nd spot to the fourth, but it's especially this one year I don't get. I don't even think the one game I watched on NBA TV of that series is on Youtube let alone the whole series (at least I can't find it) but I just don't get how they lost. I know about his 73 year where he got dominated by Thurmound but I don't get the 79 year at all, and I hoped someone had an explanation for it.

[nycelt84]

And the 62 Finals went 7 games with the Celtics only winning by 3 in that game. So we're saying that Wilt would've been a shoe-in for about 1 more title, 1965, if it weren't for a close game 7?

The '62 Warriors were also dealing with an injury to one of their top players Tom Gola. He only played in 3 games of the Eastern Conference Finals and in 1 of those games appeared in only 1 quarter. But defeating the Celtics would not have guaranteed that the '62 Warriors would have defeated the Lakers that season who were one shot away from beating the Celtics that year.

[G.O.A.T]

And the 62 Finals went 7 games with the Celtics only winning by 3 in that game. So we're saying that Wilt would've been a shoe-in for about 1 more title, 1965, if it weren't for a close game 7?

All I was saying is that if you only look at finals appearances you won't get the whole story.

I was just telling something I thought maybe you didn't know that would help you understand what the other person (Jlauber) was saying.

[G.O.A.T]

How was his team in 79 a bunch of scrubs though? He had Dantley, Wilkes and Nixon. I definitely have the same problem with Kareem, and I'm thinking of moving him down from the 2nd spot to the fourth, but it's especially this one year I don't get. I don't even think the one game I watched on NBA TV of that series is on Youtube let alone the whole series (at least I can't find it) but I just don't get how they lost. I know about his 73 year where he got dominated by Thurmound but I don't get the 79 year at all, and I hoped someone had an explanation for it.

I'm just giving the excuses/reasons people always provide when defending Kareem's lack of team success in the 1970's. Nixon and Dantley were very young, they may not have been ready for primetime, especially on defense. I can't speak to that specifically, but it wouldn't surprise me if that was the case. That being said the Sonics were very young as well. Lou Hudson was past his prime, Wilkes was playing out of position etc.

To me they are all excuses, that team should have been in the Western Conference Finals at least based on Kareem alone. Throw in three future all-stars, one of them a future scoring champ, another the best player on an NBA Championship team. Off the bench, a former All-NBA scorer in Hudson and Ron Boone who was a 20 per game scorer and All-ABA first team player just four years earlier. That's a Championship caliber team, especially in the chaotic aftermath of the merger.

[magnax1]

I'm just giving the excuses/reasons people always provide when defending Kareem's lack of team success in the 1970's. Nixon and Dantley were very young, they may not have been ready for primetime, especially on defense. I can't speak to that specifically, but it wouldn't surprise me if that was the case. That being said the Sonics were very young as well. Lou Hudson was past his prime, Wilkes was playing out of position etc.

To me they are all excuses, that team should have been in the Western Conference Finals at least based on Kareem alone. Throw in three future all-stars, one of them a future scoring champ, another the best player on an NBA Championship team. Off the bench, a former All-NBA scorer in Hudson and Ron Boone who was a 20 per game scorer and All-ABA first team player just four years earlier. That's a Championship caliber team, especially in the chaotic aftermath of the merger.
That's what I was thinking. Dantley seemed to have injury problems, he averaged 26 ppg before he came to LA, but even then both Wilkes and Nixon were in their prime. I really wish there were more games of Kareem, because I have a hard time believing they lost only because he didn't play 100% in the playoffs, because it doesn't seem that way.

[guy]

Well, they lost to Boston in three ECF's that went to seven games, and by margins of 2, 1, and 4 points.

Okay. In 62, the Lakers/Celtics went 7 games with the Lakers only losing game 7 by 3 points. So even if the Warriors win that game 7, you can say that its hardly a given that they win it all.

In 65, like GOAT said, Lakers were without Baylor, so I'll agree with you that the Sixers could've "easily" won that year if it weren't for that game 7.

In 68, the Lakers still took the Celtics to 6 games in the Finals. Its hardly a given that the Sixers would've "easily" won a title that year.

Either way, it doesn't matter cause they still LOST those game 7s. Superstars/leaders are supposed to win those important games and not make excuses.



Boston went on to win the title in those years. They lost to Boston in game seven in the Finals in '69. I have documented that series before, but their were a MULTITUDE of things that went against Wilt's Lakers in that series. BUT, the biggest reason came down to ONE PLAY. Johnny Egan losing the ball in game four in the waning seconds. Had he been able to hang onto the ball, the Lakers win that game to go up 3-1, and then after they routed Boston in game five, it would have been a 4-1 series romp.

I can think of a ton of series that really came down to one play. Either way, first of all, who is to say that the Celtics still don't come back down 3-1 like they did down 3-2? The Lakers were overwhelming favorites over a 35-year old player-coach Bill Russell led team. I don't really see how any excuses could be made for this.



As for the game seven in the '70 Finals...there was no question that the Knicks were a better team. BUT, the series was tied 2-2. In game five, Wilt was abusing Reed in the first quarter, and LA led by ten points, when Reed went down with his thigh injury. The Lakers extended the lead to 13 at the half. HOWEVER, as even NY TIMES writer Leonard Koppett wrote, the officials swallowed their whistles in the second half of that game. The Knicks were committing what would have been manslaughter on the streets...Wilt got two shots, and West only three shots, in the entire second half! NY came back to win that game, 107-100, BUT, it was clearly aided by the officiating. So the series went back to LA, with NY leading 3-2, instead of the Lakers leading 3-2. In that game six in LA, the Lakers, behind Chamberlain's monumental 45 point, 27 rebound game (on 20-27 shooting) routed the Reedless Knicks, 135-113. SO, had the officials not handed the Knicks game five, the Lakers stun NY in six games.

And maybe if the Knicks MVP center wasn't injured they would've won anyway. Maybe they win in 6 games instead of 7. See what I did there?

Bad officiating and bad calls in general is not an outlier in NBA history. It happens all the time. You're going to honestly say Wilt's teams never benefitted from bad officiating in a big game in the sense that if a game was called 100% correct that his team would've lost? Either way, the Knicks gave them a chance to win with Reed pretty much being nothing for the last 2 games.

And aren't you a Laker fan? Cause if thats the case, would you say that the 1988 Pistons and 2002 Kings deserved to be champs but were the victims to bad officiating that benefitted the Lakers?



As for the other two series...in '71, LA played the Bucks without Baylor and West, and then Erickson went down with an injury early in the series. I am not saying that the Lakers would have beaten the Bucks, but they clearly would have been better than their 4-1 loss. And, in the '73 Finals, LA was playing with Hairston, who had missed almost the entire season, and was nowhere near 100%...and even more importantly, West was playing with TWO injured knees. Despite that, the Lakers lost four CLOSE games (4, 4, 5, and 9 points), and ALL four were decided in the last minute. And while NY was the better team in '70, a healthy Laker squad was clearly a better team in '73.

Those 2 guys still played though. Its very common for Finals teams to not be 100% because its the very end of a very long season. And since when was 9 points close? And you do realize that in the one game they won, they only won by 3? That means using your logic I could say that the Knicks could've easily SWEPT them. In fact, I could go through all those 7-game series' Wilt's teams lost that you mentioned and nitpick all the close GAMES that Wilt's teams won and say that if the other team won those games, it wouldn't have even been a 7-game series.



So, hopefully that gives you a better perspective. Chamberlain's teams could easily have won FIVE rings. AND, had they not been decimated by injuries in '71 and '73 they MIGHT have won two more.

Not really. All I hear is excuses about injuries and officiating which are very common in the NBA. I hear excuses about close games that he didn't win disregarding the fact that a very important part of a superstar's legacy and team basketball in general is being able to close out games. Basically all you're saying is that Wilt was a great player that left his career more open for interpretation instead of others that cemented their legacy and left people without any question that they were just flat-out WINNERS. I'm not saying Wilt was a loser. I'm just saying he couldn't have "easily" won more, cause winning championships isn't easy in the first place and he really wasn't as close as you imply.

Going by your logic, I could say a bunch of teams would've won more. Look at the 90s Knicks for example:
1992 - Lose in 7 games to eventual champion Bulls. They gave them the hardest fight, so we can assume they win it all if it wasn't for them.
1993 - Lose in 6 games to eventual champion Bulls. It could've easily went 7 if Charles Smith hits a one of the many layups he got blocked on in game 5, and game 7 would've been on their floor. Plus they would've given the Suns many matchup problems.
1994 - If Starks hits that 3 at the end, they defeat the Rockets.
1995 - If the ridiculous 8 points in 8 seconds or Ewing hits that easy finger roll, they defeat the Pacers, and they would've beaten the less experienced Magic and would've had HC against the Rockets, so they win it all.
1999 - If Ewing isn't injured they beat the Spurs.

There you go, the Knicks could've "easily" won 5 titles and Patrick Ewing is a top 10 player of all-time.

How about the 80s Pistons? If not for Isiah's blunder against the Celtics in 87, his ankle injury in the 88 Finals and a bad call from an official, the Pistons would've easily won 4 straight.

How about the 00s Pistons? If not for 2 Overtime games where Sheed stupidly left Horry wide open in 05 and one of the greatest games ever from Lebron in 07, the Pistons would've easily won championships in 3 out of 4 years.

How about the 00s Heat? If not for Wade's injuries in the 05 ECF and his injuries in 07 where he looked like the best player in the league, the Heat would've easily won 3 straight. Wade would have 3 titles already and Shaq would have 6.

How about the current Celtics? If not for KG's injury in 09 and Perkins injury in the 10 Finals, the Celtics would've easily won 3 straight.

Seriously, I could go on and on.

[guy]

All I was saying is that if you only look at finals appearances you won't get the whole story.

I was just telling something I thought maybe you didn't know that would help you understand what the other person (Jlauber) was saying.

I know. Thanks. I'm still not buying jlauber's logic. It just really overexaggerates things.

[ShaqAttack3234]

I can understand why he only won one, I get his teams weren't the best, but what I really want to know is why Kareem wasn't capable of winning with teams with talent like Bob Dandrige, Lucius Allen, and Oscar Robertson, or the 79 Lakers, when Rick Barry was capable of winning with the 75 warriors.

What people often overlook with teams like the '75 Warriors, '94 Rockets, '03 Spurs ect. is that team chemistry and role players stepping up at the right time can be more important than just having several all-stars.

Anyway, as far as Kareem only winning one title?

1970- Kareem as a rookie turned an expansion franchise that had just come off a 27-55 inaugural season to a 56-26 team. All of his numbers went way up in the playoffs including scoring, rebounding and FG%. Can't ask for anything more in a rookie season. He averaged 35/17/4 on 57% shooting in the playoffs.

1972- Based on the numbers, Kareem probably should've played better, but they lost to a 69-13 Laker team that had a 33 game winning streak during the season

1973- Kareem played poorly vs the Warriors, I'm not going to deny that.

1974- Kareem carried Milwaukee to the finals despite Lucius Allen not playing in the playoffs. Allen had averaged 18/4/5/2 on 50% shooting and he was a key member of the team. As a result, Kareem's team had just 2 other double digit scorers(Robertson and Dandridge) and by himself, Kareem averaged just 1 fewer ppg than they did. Kareem's numbers rose in the playoffs this year, most notably his scoring and FG%, but also rebounding and assists. Oscar had a subpar finals, while Kareem extended the series to 7 with one of the greatest shots in finals history. Down by 1 in double overtime, Kareem hit a gamewinning sky hook. Kareem averaged 32/16/5 on 56% shooting in the playoffs, he's still one of only 2 players to average over 30/15 for a playoff run of atleast 15 games.

1975- The team was just 3-14 without Kareem, but 35-30 with him.

1976- Kareem joined a team that had gome 30-52 and he improved them by 10 wins, but due to a ridiculous format that saw teams 38-44 and 36-46 records make the playoffs, Kareem missed the playoffs, despite his team being better than either of those.

1977- He didn't have a strong cast to begin with so the injuries really hurt. Kareem played out of his mind during the playoffs, but the team was exposed as a one man team like Lebron's 2009 Cavs. Go watch the 3 playoff games available from this run. Kareem averaged 35/18/4/4 on 61% shooting in the playoffs.

1978- The team started off something like 8-13 without Kareem, yet they ended up 45-37, this should show how great Kareem is and how average this cast was. His playoff numbers were again atleast as good as his regular season numbers or better. He averaged 27/14/4/4 on 52% shooting in the playoffs. The only thing that stands out is his unusually poor FT% in the playoffs(56%).

1979- This team seriously lacked a power forward which forced Jamaal Wilkes and Adrian Dantley to play the position. Dantley turned into a great scorer, but at this point, he wasn't as great at that yet, and Dantley was a guy who wasn't exactly a well-rounded versatile player. Their backcourt got lit up by Seattle's as well. Adding Jim Chones and Spencer Haywood in 1980 solved their problems at power forward while Magic gave them more talent and Michael Cooper helped them defensively, that made them a much more well rounded team. But Kareem still raised his game in the playoffs averaging 29/13/5/4 on 58% shooting.

Kareem was stuck on mediocre teams for a lot of the decade, and some seasons when he wasn't, like in 1974, a key player missed the entire playoffs.

The fact that he turned the Bucks around so well and carried them so far in '74. He didn't play up to his standards in '72 and '73, but again, one of those losses was to a 69-13 team. And of course, the '75 team sucked without him. A good cast doesn't go 3-14 without their best player.

With the Lakers? I can't see one season from '76-'79 where Kareem should've won a title. He didn't have a chance in '76 due to the ridiculous format, he played incredible basketball in '77 and he got no help. Of course the mediocrity of his cast was again exposed in '78 when he missed an extended period of time for one of the few times in his career and not having a legit PF who can play defense and rebound in '79 as well as his backcourt getting lit up is hardly his fault.

To disprove any tehories of Kareem being a choker.

Kareem's regular season numbers from '70-'79 28.6 ppg, 14.8 rpg, 4.5 apg, 3.5 bpg, 1.3 spg, 55.1 FG%, 70.6 FT%

Kareem's playoff numbers from '70-'79 30.2 ppg, 16.4 rpg, 4.1 apg, 3.2 bpg, 1.3 spg, 52.1 FG%, 71.6 FT%

Now that I've presented the facts, you can make up your own minds.

[G.O.A.T]

What people often overlook with teams like the '75 Warriors, '94 Rockets, '03 Spurs ect. is that team chemistry and role players stepping up at the right time can be more important than just having several all-stars.

Anyway, as far as Kareem only winning one title?

1970- Kareem as a rookie turned an expansion franchise that had just come off a 27-55 inaugural season to a 56-26 team. All of his numbers went way up in the playoffs including scoring, rebounding and FG%. Can't ask for anything more in a rookie season. He averaged 35/17/4 on 57% shooting in the playoffs.

1972- Based on the numbers, Kareem probably should've played better, but they lost to a 69-13 Laker team that had a 33 game winning streak during the season

1973- Kareem played poorly vs the Warriors, I'm not going to deny that.

1974- Kareem carried Milwaukee to the finals despite Lucius Allen not playing in the playoffs. Allen had averaged 18/4/5/2 on 50% shooting and he was a key member of the team. As a result, Kareem's team had just 2 other double digit scorers(Robertson and Dandridge) and by himself, Kareem averaged just 1 fewer ppg than they did. Kareem's numbers rose in the playoffs this year, most notably his scoring and FG%, but also rebounding and assists. Oscar had a subpar finals, while Kareem extended the series to 7 with one of the greatest shots in finals history. Down by 1 in double overtime, Kareem hit a gamewinning sky hook. Kareem averaged 32/16/5 on 56% shooting in the playoffs, he's still one of only 2 players to average over 30/15 for a playoff run of atleast 15 games.

1975- The team was just 3-14 without Kareem, but 35-30 with him.

1976- Kareem joined a team that had gome 30-52 and he improved them by 10 wins, but due to a ridiculous format that saw teams 38-44 and 36-46 records make the playoffs, Kareem missed the playoffs, despite his team being better than either of those.

1977- He didn't have a strong cast to begin with so the injuries really hurt. Kareem played out of his mind during the playoffs, but the team was exposed as a one man team like Lebron's 2009 Cavs. Go watch the 3 playoff games available from this run. Kareem averaged 35/18/4/4 on 61% shooting in the playoffs.

1978- The team started off something like 8-13 without Kareem, yet they ended up 45-37, this should show how great Kareem is and how average this cast was. His playoff numbers were again atleast as good as his regular season numbers or better. He averaged 27/14/4/4 on 52% shooting in the playoffs. The only thing that stands out is his unusually poor FT% in the playoffs(56%).

1979- This team seriously lacked a power forward which forced Jamaal Wilkes and Adrian Dantley to play the position. Dantley turned into a great scorer, but at this point, he wasn't as great at that yet, and Dantley was a guy who wasn't exactly a well-rounded versatile player. Their backcourt got lit up by Seattle's as well. Adding Jim Chones and Spencer Haywood in 1980 solved their problems at power forward while Magic gave them more talent and Michael Cooper helped them defensively, that made them a much more well rounded team. But Kareem still raised his game in the playoffs averaging 29/13/5/4 on 58% shooting.

Kareem was stuck on mediocre teams for a lot of the decade, and some seasons when he wasn't, like in 1974, a key player missed the entire playoffs.

The fact that he turned the Bucks around so well and carried them so far in '74. He didn't play up to his standards in '72 and '73, but again, one of those losses was to a 69-13 team. And of course, the '75 team sucked without him. A good cast doesn't go 3-14 without their best player.

With the Lakers? I can't see one season from '76-'79 where Kareem should've won a title. He didn't have a chance in '76 due to the ridiculous format, he played incredible basketball in '77 and he got no help. Of course the mediocrity of his cast was again exposed in '78 when he missed an extended period of time for one of the few times in his career and not having a legit PF who can play defense and rebound in '79 as well as his backcourt getting lit up is hardly his fault.

To disprove any tehories of Kareem being a choker.

Kareem's regular season numbers from '70-'79 28.6 ppg, 14.8 rpg, 4.5 apg, 3.5 bpg, 1.3 spg, 55.1 FG%, 70.6 FT%

Kareem's playoff numbers from '70-'79 30.2 ppg, 16.4 rpg, 4.1 apg, 3.2 bpg, 1.3 spg, 52.1 FG%, 71.6 FT%

Now that I've presented the facts, you can make up your own minds.

I don't think Kareem was a choker or a failure, but he was not a leader and he didn't elevate his teammates.

As always when people defend Kareem they leave out details unique to any other all-time great.

Why no mention of game seven in the '74 Finals being Kareem's worst of the series and the only one Cowens outplayed him? Or that he missed twice as many free throws in the game as the Celtics whole team? Or how they lost by almost 20 on their home court?

Why no mention of the '76 Lakers finishing fourth in their division (it was a dumb playoff format) and losing like 6 of eight down the stretch with Kareem in the line-up and healthy?

The 1979 team had Michael Cooper, a rookie and Dave Robisch (who they traded for Chones) but chose to go with Wilkes, Dantley and Hudson as the front court rotation. Before the 1980 season Dantley was traded and Hudson retired and their were minutes available for Cooper and the newly acquired Chones. Chones/Haywood was not an upgrade over Dantley/Robisch

Here's the difference between Robisch and Chones

Robisch 1980 with Cleveland 15-8-2-52%
Chones 1979 with Cleveland 15-10-2-47%

They are the exact same age and basically had the same career except Robisch started in the ABA.

To get Haywood the Lakers had to give up AD. Don't tell us Dantley wasn't a great scorer yet, that's crap.

He was scoring 27 a game for Indiana when they traded him to the Lakers. He averaged 18 a game for the Lakers for a year and a half then went to Utah and 28 a game and his efficiency shot up.

So the '79 team downgraded talent at forward with Haywood and Chones replacing Robisch and Dantley.

And on the wing started playing Cooper who sat behind veteran All-League selections Lou Hudson and Ron Boone who retired in 1979.

The major difference was Magic Johnson of course which turned a middle of the road team in the West into a Dynasty.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Why no mention of game seven in the '74 Finals being Kareem's worst of the series and the only one Cowens outplayed him? Or that he missed twice as many free throws in the game as the Celtics whole team? Or how they lost by almost 20 on their home court?

Kareem was the only reason there was a game 7, he had carried Milwaukee for an entire playoff run and of course, had the legendary game-winner in game 6. Milwaukee lost by 15 in game 7, but how about Kareem's cast? Robertson shot 2 for 13 and had a paltry 6 points. Dandridge managed just 14 points and 3 rebounds. Kareem averaged 33/12/5 on 52% shooting in the series. Lucius Allen was one of the team's best players and he was out for the playoffs, anyway you slice it, that's significant.

Not to mention that Dandridge's level of play declined in the finals from the previous rounds and the regular season while Robertson was just an average player at that point.

I won't deny that Kareem should have dominated Cowens in game 7, but it's pretty remarkable that they even made it to game 7. Look at Kareem's teammates production, that's not what you expect out of a championship-caliber cast.


Why no mention of the '76 Lakers finishing fourth in their division (it was a dumb playoff format) and losing like 6 of eight down the stretch with Kareem in the line-up and healthy?

Again, that team was 30=52 the year before they traded for Kareem. I don't expect a championship when a player goes to a 30-52 team.


The 1979 team had Michael Cooper, a rookie and Dave Robisch (who they traded for Chones) but chose to go with Wilkes, Dantley and Hudson as the front court rotation. Before the 1980 season Dantley was traded and Hudson retired and their were minutes available for Cooper and the newly acquired Chones. Chones/Haywood was not an upgrade over Dantley/Robisch

Cooper played 3 games in 1979 and their 1980 front court was absolutely an upgrade over their '79 front court because they had legitimate size and legitimate power forwards on the floor.

You can't fault Kareem for his coach putting the wrong players on the court. If they had the size and talent at the PF position, they should have used it. You aren't going to win anything when Wilkes or Dantley have to play power forward.

Playing Wilkes at his natural position consistently and


Here's the difference between Robisch and Chones

Robisch 1980 with Cleveland 15-8-2-52%
Chones 1979 with Cleveland 15-10-2-47%

Lets look at what they did with LA?

Robisch in 1979 with LA- 4.6 ppg, 3.6 rpg, 1.2 apg, 0.3 bpg, 44.6 FG%, 15.2 mpg
Chones in 1980 with LA- 10.6 ppg, 6.9 apg, 1.8 apg, 0.8 bpg, 48.9 FG%, 29.2 mpg

Obviously Kareem and the Lakers weren't benefitting from what Robisch could bring to a team. The difference is, they did benefit from what Chones and Haywood brought to a team.


To get Haywood the Lakers had to give up AD. Don't tell us Dantley wasn't a great scorer yet, that's crap.

He was scoring 27 a game for Indiana when they traded him to the Lakers. He averaged 18 a game for the Lakers for a year and a half then went to Utah and 28 a game and his efficiency shot up.

Yeah and that Utah team went 24-58, the '81 Jazz then went 28-54, the '82 Jazz went 25-57 and the '83 Jazz went 30-52.

Sounds like empty stats to me. And Dantley was never known for his defense. Dantley averaged 17/6, that's far from the caliber of play that got him into the hall of fame.


So the '79 team downgraded talent at forward with Haywood and Chones replacing Robisch and Dantley.

Again, Robisch wasn't playing much, can't blame Kareem for that. The '80 Lakers were better in the frontcourt with Wilkes able to play small forward exclusively and the combination of Chones/Haywood.

Haywood, by the way was coming off a 20/8/2 '79 season which was more productive than Dantley's '79 season. Not only that, but they no longer suffered on the defensive end or on the boards due to playing players out of position.


And on the wing started playing Cooper who sat behind veteran All-League selections Lou Hudson and Ron Boone who retired in 1979.

Is it Kareem's fault that Cooper wasn't playing?


The major difference was Magic Johnson of course which turned a middle of the road team in the West into a Dynasty.

Yes, Magic was the major addition, but it doesn't change the fact that another diference was that Cooper helped their perimeter defense and Kareem actually had legit power forwards playing alongside him who weren't at a disadvantage defensively.

[G.O.A.T]

Kareem was the only reason there was a game 7

You can say this about every teams best player.


Lucius Allen was one of the team's best players and he was out for the playoffs, anyway you slice it, that's significant.

They were good enough to get to game seven of the Finals at home without Allen...I don't see how that point is relevant anymore.


I won't deny that Kareem should have dominated Cowens in game 7, but it's pretty remarkable that they even made it to game 7. Look at Kareem's teammates production, that's not what you expect out of a championship-caliber cast.

I don't think there is anything remarkable about being upset in a series and losing game seven on your home court. The only player on the Bucks who struggled shooting in game seven was Oscar, he was 2-13 but had a game high 11 assists. The rest of the rotation guys shot 53% from the field in that game.

If you look at the whole series, the better Kareem's support teammates played, the better he played, with that game being the exception. In the losses in games one, three and five only one or two players besides he and Oscar hit double figures. In their three wins and game seven three other players hit double figures in support.




Again, that team was 30=52 the year before they traded for Kareem. I don't expect a championship when a player goes to a 30-52 team.

Who said anything about Championships. I just wanted them to go .500 in the last two weeks and make the playoffs in the worst season of NBA competition in the last 55 years.


Cooper played 3 games in 1979 and their 1980 front court was absolutely an upgrade over their '79 front court because they had legitimate size and legitimate power forwards on the floor.

In retrospect it was an upgrade, but a big part of that was chemistry. The year before, LA had the option of going bigger, at least for another 12-15 mpg, but chose not to.


You can't fault Kareem for his coach putting the wrong players on the court. If they had the size and talent at the PF position, they should have used it. You aren't going to win anything when Wilkes (has) to play power forward.

http://www.sportsecyclopedia.com/nba/goldst/1975Warriors.jpg


Lets look at what they did with LA?

Robisch in 1979 with LA- 4.6 ppg, 3.6 rpg, 1.2 apg, 0.3 bpg, 44.6 FG%, 15.2 mpg
Chones in 1980 with LA- 10.6 ppg, 6.9 apg, 1.8 apg, 0.8 bpg, 48.9 FG%, 29.2 mpg

Obviously Kareem and the Lakers weren't benefitting from what Robisch could bring to a team. The difference is, they did benefit from what Chones and Haywood brought to a team.

What do you mean obviously? Might it have been because they traded for a 27 per game scoring Dantley and had a guy who won a title in Wilkes at forward both in their twenties? They had to play those two. Robisch didn't play because the minutes weren't available because better players were ahead of him.


Yeah and that Utah team went 24-58, the '81 Jazz then went 28-54, the '82 Jazz went 25-57 and the '83 Jazz went 30-52.

Sounds like empty stats to me. And Dantley was never known for his defense. Dantley averaged 17/6, that's far from the caliber of play that got him into the hall of fame.

Empty stats describes Dantley to a T. But his 17/6 isn't the result of his game not being mature, it's the result of a team with no Chemistry. Dantley could have scored 24 a game for LA, but they didn;t find a way to use him like that. He was a 20+ scorer for a contender six years later. Everything I've read about the 1979 Lakers leads me to believe it was a team much like the 2004 Mavericks with a lot of good pieces that just didn't fit. For the Lakers the puzzle fit together once Magic arrived.



Again, Robisch wasn't playing much, can't blame Kareem for that. The '80 Lakers were better in the frontcourt with Wilkes able to play small forward exclusively and the combination of Chones/Haywood.

Haywood, by the way was coming off a 20/8/2 '79 season which was more productive than Dantley's '79 season. Not only that, but they no longer suffered on the defensive end or on the boards due to playing players out of position.

Is it Kareem's fault that Cooper wasn't playing?

I'm not trying to blame Kareem, I'm just saying that at some point the excuses wear thin. He had more than enough Championship caliber teams in a weakened decade and for one reason or another always found a way to come up empty.

As for the defensive improvements from the revamped frontcourt of 1980, I think your reaching. Statistically they were almost equal from one year to the next, in fact, the 1979 team ranked a little higher.


Yes, Magic was the major addition, but it doesn't change the fact that another diference was that Cooper helped their perimeter defense and Kareem actually had legit power forwards playing alongside him who weren't at a disadvantage defensively.

Again I don't know that their was some big disadvantage in having the undersized power forward. And Cooper really didn't come into his own as a defender for two more years. On the ESPN DB Living History section of the NBA Finals site, Cooper talks about how he grew as a defender because that was the role he could fill on that team. I'm not saying it didn't help, but what they lose offensively is certainly more than what they gained defensively.

To me Magic is the type of guy that makes players better, Kareem is not and that was evidenced by this particular season. If you switch them places and it's Magic who gets hurt during game five, history suggests Philly wins the series and that it just becomes another excuse as to why Kareem's team didn't get it done.

[Jasper]

1970: Loses to Champs
71: Wins Championship
72: Loses to Champs
73:Loses to Warriors
74: Loses in 7 game Finals
75: Oscar retires, misses playoffs
76: Joins Laker team that won 30 games the year before, wins 40 but misses playoffs
77: Loses to NBA Champ
78: Loses to NBA Finalist(Sonics)
79: Loses to NBA Champ: Sonics

Really...73 is the only year where you can really criticize.

This pretty much covers it.
I watched Kareem on the Mecca floor , and the Bucks teams were solid.
Problem is just because you have two super stars in Big O and Kareem doesn't mean you can walk over the competition - the competition was very good.
Need to remember the league was smaller , and for a player to make a team was a big deal , which also means the teams could pick from a wealth of a player pool.
Milwaukee always assumed one or two more championships would of possibly be hanging from the rafters ... but nothing is a given.

[ShaqAttack3234]

They were good enough to get to game seven of the Finals at home without Allen...I don't see how that point is relevant anymore.

Because without him, the Bucks clearly weren't better than the '74 Celtics. They actually never led in the series.


I don't think there is anything remarkable about being upset in a series and losing game seven on your home court. The only player on the Bucks who struggled shooting in game seven was Oscar, he was 2-13 but had a game high 11 assists. The rest of the rotation guys shot 53% from the field in that game.

I don't consider it an upset because the Bucks got the better record than Boston with Lucius Allen.

Let me ask you something, which team looks better? Havlicek, Cowens and Jo Jo White in or near their respective primes as well as role players like Don Nelson, Paul Silas and Don Chaney or what Milwaukee had without Allen?


If you look at the whole series, the better Kareem's support teammates played, the better he played, with that game being the exception. In the losses in games one, three and five only one or two players besides he and Oscar hit double figures. In their three wins and game seven three other players hit double figures in support.

Of course, Kareem is going to play better when his teammates do, it makes the other team more hesitant to double Kareem.


Who said anything about Championships. I just wanted them to go .500 in the last two weeks and make the playoffs in the worst season of NBA competition in the last 55 years.

Well isn't this thread about why Kareem didn't win more championships in the 70's?


In retrospect it was an upgrade, but a big part of that was chemistry. The year before, LA had the option of going bigger, at least for another 12-15 mpg, but chose not to.

Yes, and this is irrelevant when discussing Kareem to me because Kareem didn't choose who played as far as I know.


http://www.sportsecyclopedia.com/nba/goldst/1975Warriors.jpg

Good catch, forgot about that team, though I'm not sure about their rotations. Wilkes played 38.4 mpg in the '79 playoffs and just 29.6 in the '75 playoffs.


What do you mean obviously? Might it have been because they traded for a 27 per game scoring Dantley and had a guy who won a title in Wilkes at forward both in their twenties? They had to play those two. Robisch didn't play because the minutes weren't available because better players were ahead of him.

And as it turned out, this probably wasn't the best choice. Either way, the '79 Lakers seriously lacked size and defense outside of Kareem. Whether they had it on the bench is irrelevant to Kareem because again, he didn't choose who played.


Empty stats describes Dantley to a T. But his 17/6 isn't the result of his game not being mature, it's the result of a team with no Chemistry. Dantley could have scored 24 a game for LA, but they didn;t find a way to use him like that. He was a 20+ scorer for a contender six years later. Everything I've read about the 1979 Lakers leads me to believe it was a team much like the 2004 Mavericks with a lot of good pieces that just didn't fit. For the Lakers the puzzle fit together once Magic arrived.

Well, if his stats were empty as you agreed and his stats weren't great to begin with on the '79 Lakers then I fail to see why that team should have been expected to win a title.


I'm not trying to blame Kareem, I'm just saying that at some point the excuses wear thin. He had more than enough Championship caliber teams in a weakened decade and for one reason or another always found a way to come up empty.

I'll agree that the '72, '73 and '74 teams were championship-caliber and I'll put a lot of blame on him for '73. Despite Kareem shooting just 46% vs the Lakers in '72, I can't penalize him for not beating a historic team like the '72 Lakers. And '74, despite my critique of the supporting cast I will concede that getting to game 7 of the finals proves it's a championship-caliber team and I'll place some blame on Kareem for game 7, however considering Lucius Allen's injury, I feel they lost to a better team.



As for the defensive improvements from the revamped frontcourt of 1980, I think your reaching. Statistically they were almost equal from one year to the next, in fact, the 1979 team ranked a little higher.

The Lakers defensive rating in the '80 playoffs was 103.4 and in the '79 playoffs it was 106.8.

Again I don't know that their was some big disadvantage in having the undersized power forward. And Cooper really didn't come into his own as a defender for two more years. On the ESPN DB Living History section of the NBA Finals site, Cooper talks about how he grew as a defender because that was the role he could fill on that team. I'm not saying it didn't help, but what they lose offensively is certainly more than what they gained defensively.


To me Magic is the type of guy that makes players better, Kareem is not and that was evidenced by this particular season. If you switch them places and it's Magic who gets hurt during game five, history suggests Philly wins the series and that it just becomes another excuse as to why Kareem's team didn't get it done.

Well, Magic's style certainly helped Wilkes who played off of Magic very well, but I can't agree one bit that Kareem didn't make other players better. A guy who blocks shots and alters so many with his agile 7'3" frame as well as a superb passer in the post who is a great enough scorer to draw double teams certainly makes his teammates better. And it's not like Kareem was a ball hog who would try to score no matter what, even vs double teams ala Moses Malone.

Magic was the second best player on the 1980 Lakers and I agree that he was the main reason for their improvement, but certainly not the only improvement over the '79 Lakers.

[PHILA]

In 68, the Lakers still took the Celtics to 6 games in the Finals. Its hardly a given that the Sixers would've "easily" won a title that year.
Matchups? By all accounts the Lakers would have been outmatched inside against a healthy Sixer team. Just too much muscle in the front court.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDCsOZRQoA8



I can think of a ton of series that really came down to one play. Either way, first of all, who is to say that the Celtics still don't come back down 3-1 like they did down 3-2? The Lakers were overwhelming favorites over a 35-year old player-coach Bill Russell led team. I don't really see how any excuses could be made for this.
Not only did Butch refuse to reinsert Chamberlain near the end of the 7th game, but he inexplicably left West in the 5th game late in the the quarter with a 20+ point lead, and he ended up badly injuring his hamstring. This injury was the key as he couldn't guard Sam Jones anymore. Of course he is lucky his name is not Wilt or he'd be accused of padding his statistics.


I'm not saying Wilt was a loser.
Yes but so many do, while conveniently blasting him for the exact same things they consistently attempt to excuse for others.

[G.O.A.T]

Because without him, the Bucks clearly weren't better than the '74 Celtics. They actually never led in the series.

I don't consider it an upset because the Bucks got the better record than Boston with Lucius Allen.

Let me ask you something, which team looks better? Havlicek, Cowens and Jo Jo White in or near their respective primes as well as role players like Don Nelson, Paul Silas and Don Chaney or what Milwaukee had without Allen?

And '74, despite my critique of the supporting cast I will concede that getting to game 7 of the finals proves it's a championship-caliber team and I'll place some blame on Kareem for game 7, however considering Lucius Allen's injury, I feel they lost to a better team.

Okay but do the '97 or '98 Bulls lose to Utah if Toni Kukoc goes down before the playoffs?

Do the 1962 Celtics not hold on against LA because Frank Ramsey goes down?

Do the 2000 Lakers lose to Indiana because Glen Rice comes up lame?

Hondo and Cowens were great players. Right there with Willis/Clyde for the best 1A/1B of the decade, but they were not on the level of Jabbar just as Karl Malone and John Stockton were not on the level of Jordan



Of course, Kareem is going to play better when his teammates do, it makes the other team more hesitant to double Kareem.

Yes, and this is irrelevant when discussing Kareem to me because Kareem didn't choose who played as far as I know.

And as it turned out, this probably wasn't the best choice. Either way, the '79 Lakers seriously lacked size and defense outside of Kareem. Whether they had it on the bench is irrelevant to Kareem because again, he didn't choose who played.

Well, if his stats were empty as you agreed and his stats weren't great to begin with on the '79 Lakers then I fail to see why that team should have been expected to win a title.

The point I am making is that Jabbar wasn't one to make the most of what was around him. Everyone just sort of co-existed, there wasn't much blending and chemistry until Magic came along.

I don't believe that guys like Michael Cooper, Kurt Rambis, Mike McGee, Byron Scott, AC Green or any number of other 1980's Lakers were any better than the players who Kareem played with in the late 70's. But those guys all fit with the team, had clear roles and thus thrived. Dantley, Wilkes, Caz Russell all looked lost and had dips in production in their time in LA. Role players (besides Lou Allen) never lasted more than a year or two.

The great superstars in the NBA can fit those guys into their game ever so subtly, the way Bird did with DJ and their backboard pass. Or the blind looks to Parish and McHale who always knew to expect it and Bird trusted to catch it.

Jordan kicking out to Paxson or Kerr for big shots. The way he pushed his teammates at practice and the confidence he instilled in them durng pressure moments.

Russell and Sam Jones relationship in crunch time. Russell and his role in the development of Satch Sanders and on Nelson.

Look at some of the guys who have thrived in San Antonio while Duncan has been there...Can Matt Bonner, Fabrico Oberto, Nazr Mohameed or Rasho Nesterovic succeed next to anyone else in the frontcourt?

Again there are a lot of examples but no so many relating to Kareem.


I'll agree that the '72, '73 and '74 teams were championship-caliber and I'll put a lot of blame on him for '73. Despite Kareem shooting just 46% vs the Lakers in '72, I can't penalize him for not beating a historic team like the '72 Lakers.

agreed, but remember they were the historic '71 Bucks, except in that season LA had no Baylor and no West for the postseason.


I can't agree one bit that Kareem didn't make other players better. A guy who blocks shots and alters so many with his agile 7'3" frame as well as a superb passer in the post who is a great enough scorer to draw double teams certainly makes his teammates better. And it's not like Kareem was a ball hog who would try to score no matter what, even vs double teams ala Moses Malone.

It is overstated to say he doesn't make other players better I concede that. But I don't think he makes specific players better. I think if you adjust to his style, he can make you better, but that's it. At least on offense. On defense your premise is sound, it's easier to gamble when he's back there.

Anyway, as always good discussion.

[jlauber]

Okay. In 62, the Lakers/Celtics went 7 games with the Lakers only losing game 7 by 3 points. So even if the Warriors win that game 7, you can say that its hardly a given that they win it all.

In 65, like GOAT said, Lakers were without Baylor, so I'll agree with you that the Sixers could've "easily" won that year if it weren't for that game 7.

In 68, the Lakers still took the Celtics to 6 games in the Finals. Its hardly a given that the Sixers would've "easily" won a title that year.

Either way, it doesn't matter cause they still LOST those game 7s. Superstars/leaders are supposed to win those important games and not make excuses.



I can think of a ton of series that really came down to one play. Either way, first of all, who is to say that the Celtics still don't come back down 3-1 like they did down 3-2? The Lakers were overwhelming favorites over a 35-year old player-coach Bill Russell led team. I don't really see how any excuses could be made for this.



And maybe if the Knicks MVP center wasn't injured they would've won anyway. Maybe they win in 6 games instead of 7. See what I did there?

Bad officiating and bad calls in general is not an outlier in NBA history. It happens all the time. You're going to honestly say Wilt's teams never benefitted from bad officiating in a big game in the sense that if a game was called 100% correct that his team would've lost? Either way, the Knicks gave them a chance to win with Reed pretty much being nothing for the last 2 games.

And aren't you a Laker fan? Cause if thats the case, would you say that the 1988 Pistons and 2002 Kings deserved to be champs but were the victims to bad officiating that benefitted the Lakers?



Those 2 guys still played though. Its very common for Finals teams to not be 100% because its the very end of a very long season. And since when was 9 points close? And you do realize that in the one game they won, they only won by 3? That means using your logic I could say that the Knicks could've easily SWEPT them. In fact, I could go through all those 7-game series' Wilt's teams lost that you mentioned and nitpick all the close GAMES that Wilt's teams won and say that if the other team won those games, it wouldn't have even been a 7-game series.



Not really. All I hear is excuses about injuries and officiating which are very common in the NBA. I hear excuses about close games that he didn't win disregarding the fact that a very important part of a superstar's legacy and team basketball in general is being able to close out games. Basically all you're saying is that Wilt was a great player that left his career more open for interpretation instead of others that cemented their legacy and left people without any question that they were just flat-out WINNERS. I'm not saying Wilt was a loser. I'm just saying he couldn't have "easily" won more, cause winning championships isn't easy in the first place and he really wasn't as close as you imply.

Going by your logic, I could say a bunch of teams would've won more. Look at the 90s Knicks for example:
1992 - Lose in 7 games to eventual champion Bulls. They gave them the hardest fight, so we can assume they win it all if it wasn't for them.
1993 - Lose in 6 games to eventual champion Bulls. It could've easily went 7 if Charles Smith hits a one of the many layups he got blocked on in game 5, and game 7 would've been on their floor. Plus they would've given the Suns many matchup problems.
1994 - If Starks hits that 3 at the end, they defeat the Rockets.
1995 - If the ridiculous 8 points in 8 seconds or Ewing hits that easy finger roll, they defeat the Pacers, and they would've beaten the less experienced Magic and would've had HC against the Rockets, so they win it all.
1999 - If Ewing isn't injured they beat the Spurs.

There you go, the Knicks could've "easily" won 5 titles and Patrick Ewing is a top 10 player of all-time.

How about the 80s Pistons? If not for Isiah's blunder against the Celtics in 87, his ankle injury in the 88 Finals and a bad call from an official, the Pistons would've easily won 4 straight.

How about the 00s Pistons? If not for 2 Overtime games where Sheed stupidly left Horry wide open in 05 and one of the greatest games ever from Lebron in 07, the Pistons would've easily won championships in 3 out of 4 years.

How about the 00s Heat? If not for Wade's injuries in the 05 ECF and his injuries in 07 where he looked like the best player in the league, the Heat would've easily won 3 straight. Wade would have 3 titles already and Shaq would have 6.

How about the current Celtics? If not for KG's injury in 09 and Perkins injury in the 10 Finals, the Celtics would've easily won 3 straight.

Seriously, I could go on and on.

You are OVER-COMPLICATING this. FOUR Game Seven's, against the BEST team in the league, in which they lost by 2, 1, 4, and 2 points. PLAIN-AND-SIMPLE.

THEN, you can add up ALL the REASONS. In the '62 ECF's...GAME SEVEN...Wilt was called for a very questionable gola-tend near the end of the game. Then Sam Jones hit a miraculous shot over Wilt's fingertips to give Boston a two-point lead. Then the timekeeper did not stop the clock, and time expired, instead of giving the Warriors 3-4 secs.

How about the '65 ECF's, GAME SEVEN? With Boston leading 110-109, Russell hit a guidewire under the Philly basket with five secs left. The Sixers were a basket away from pulling off the most remarkable upset in NBA playoff history (a 40-40 team beating a 62-18 team, that would go on to easily win the title.) BUT, "Havlicek stole the ball!"

Now, the '68 ECF's were a little different animal. It STILL came down to a GAME SEVEN, FOUR point loss for Wilt. BUT, first off, they don't have HOFer Billy Cunningham the ENTIRE series. Secondly, Luke Jackson is injured in game five, in a series that the Sixers were leading 3-1. Then Wilt injures his thigh in game five, and is hobbled in game six. And, Wali Jones was also injured in game five. All of this from a roster that was not very deep to begin with. Of all of Wilt's team's that lost game seven's, this team was CLEARLY the best team that did not win. They had run away from the league, just like their '67 team. BUT, unlike their '67 team, their '68 team was DECIMATED by injuries. The bottom line, though, was that with ALL of the injuries, and with Wilt strangely not getting the ball in game seven, and with Chamberlain's TEAMMATES shooting blanks in that game seven (33%), the Sixers lost a GAME SEVEN by FOUR points.

The '69 Finals came down to yet ANOTHER GAME SEVEN...and a TWO-point loss. BUT, take a closer look at the ENTIRE series. Boston hit TWO miraculous last minute or last second shots to win games...including GAME SEVEN. But that was only PART of the reason for that series loss. Van Breda Kolf leaving Wilt on the bench in the last few minutes was THE biggest reason. You can't tell me that Phil Jackson or Pat Riley would have played someone like Mel Counts (who shot 4-13), over perhaps the greatest player of all-time. Not only that, but Van Breda Kolf NEVER knew how to even use Wilt. The Lakers would have been better off with Krusty the Clown coaching them. Then, Baylor was WORTHLESS in games three thru five, two of them close losses. Then, as I have said before, had Johnny Egan been able to hold onto the ball in game four, the Lakers would have been up 3-1. Not only that, but Sam Jones, while falling down, hit a shot at the buzzer to win the game. Now, you can argue that Boston might have played differently than they did in game five, but in any case, in that game five, Wilt outrebounded Russell 31-13, and the Lakers won easily, 117-104. So, based on that, ONE PLAY, in game four, cost the Lakers a 4-1 series romp.

I have already detailed the '70 Finals. No less than a NY TIMES writer stated that the Knicks were HANDED game five by the officials. Here again, I agree that the Knicks were the better team, BUT, based on that second HALF, had the officials not given NY the game, the Lakers would have been up 3-2, and then, after they crushed the Knicks in game six, they would have won the series, 4-2.

I conceded that they only MIGHT have won in '71, but let's at least get real here. Does anyone honestly believe that the Bucks would have beaten LA 4-1, had BOTH West and Baylor played?

As for the '73 Finals, just like the Knicks were the better team in '70, the Lakers were the better team in '73. HOWEVER, Hairston was nowhere near 100%, and even more importantly, West was playing with TWO injured knees. Despite that, the Lakers lost FOUR close games, by 4, 4, 5, and 9 points.

The bottom line...in FOUR of those GAME SEVEN's, Wilt's TEAM's were beaten by a COMBINED NINE points. In another GAME SEVEN, Wilt's team was obviouslyt robbed in a game five, which ultimately cost them the series. And in two other post-season series, INJURIES just DECIMATED Wilt's team's (in fact, in THREE, ... '68, '71, and '73.)

So, when I say that Wilt was an eyelash away from winning FIVE more rings, he CLEARLY was. And, had his team's not been devastated by injuries in two other series, he MIGHT have won two more rings...for a TOTAL of SEVEN.

And I am not even counting his OWN injury in the '60 ECF's, when he played two games with an injured wrist, in a series that resulted in a close game six loss. Nor am I counting his '64 team, which was outgunned 7-2 by HOFers (and Thurmond was a rookie, playing part-time, and out of position), in a series in which his team lost in the Finals, 4-1 (despite Chamberlain playing brilliantly.)

Now, I wouldn't expect him to have won rings in every one of those instances, but it is downright amazing that he didn't win in ANY of them.

[Round Mound]

Why the f. does everything have to do with winning a championship.

F. this...now people are going to say Magic made Kareem better? :rolleyes: :no:

Kareem owned the 70s despite not winning a ring

[jlauber]

Why the f. does everything have to do with winning a championship.

F. this...now people are going to say Magic made Kareem better? :rolleyes: :no:

Kareem owned the 70s despite not winning a ring

I'm sorry, but here are the facts. BEFORE Magic, Kareem's Lakers never sniffed a title. Immediately WITH Magic, they win one., In fact, Magic takes over in the clinching game six to win the series....with Kareem at home.

Over the course of Magic's 12 seasons, LA AVERAGED 59 wins per season. They went to NINE Finals. And they won FIVE rings. Furthermore, AFTER Kareem retired, Magic led LA to the BEST record in the league at 63-19, and then, in the following season, he took a 58-24 team to the Finals. Finally, AFTER Magic retired, the Lakers returned to their PRE-Magic days by going 43-39 and then 39-43.

Here is how I break it down. Had Magic never played for LA, Kareem wins absolutely NO titles in his Laker years. HOWEVER, even if Kareem had not played, Magic would probably have won at least TWO rings (in '87 and '88), and possibly in '85. Who knows? Maybe even in '80 and '82.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Okay but do the '97 or '98 Bulls lose to Utah if Toni Kukoc goes down before the playoffs?

I actually don't think they win without Kukoc in '98.


Do the 1962 Celtics not hold on against LA because Frank Ramsey goes down?

Well, Ramsey was the team's 5th leading scorer in the regular season and the 6th leading scorer in the playoffs, so I don't think this is a good example.


Do the 2000 Lakers lose to Indiana because Glen Rice comes up lame?

Another example that I don't really think applies. I followed that 2000 Laker team regularly and throughout the season, Rice's defense and inability to fit into the offense were regularly discussed. Many felt that he wasn't that important, and many said that Phil never liked Rice or thought he was that important. Rice claimed that LA never offered him a contract after the season and Glen's wife accused Phil of purposely trying to prove that he wasn't needed.

Shaq was able to carry the Lakers even with Kobe's injuries vs a more well-balanced Pacer team, but I don't think LA wins the series with an injured Kobe who was struggling and an often ineffective Rice if they're going up against a team like the '74 Celtics.


Hondo and Cowens were great players. Right there with Willis/Clyde for the best 1A/1B of the decade, but they were not on the level of Jabbar just as Karl Malone and John Stockton were not on the level of Jordan

I don't agree with this logic, nobody on the 2010 Celtics was anywhere near Lebron's level and nobody on the '93 Sonics was anywhere near Hakeem's level, nor was anyone on the 'late 80's/'90 Pistons near Jordan's level.

Regarding the Jordan vs Malone/Stockton comparison, well, it wasn't just Jordan, Pippen was better than any of Malone's teammates, plus they had Kukoc, Rodman and good shooters.


The point I am making is that Jabbar wasn't one to make the most of what was around him. Everyone just sort of co-existed, there wasn't much blending and chemistry until Magic came along.

I don't know the early 70's Bucks seemed to blend well, again, I just feel they lost to better teams in '72 and '74, and as I mentioned '73 was a disappointment, but the '71 Bucks as you mentioned are considered one of the best teams of all-time.

I also just don't think several of those 70's teams had the talent to win it all, I think this is evidenced by the '75 Bucks and '78 Lakers records without Kareem.

I think a lot of the 80's Lakers players were better open court players which is why they played so well with Magic. Kareem, especially by that point was a halfcourt player. But I do think he did an excellent job finding his teammates when they cut to the basket or were open on the perimeter, hence his assist numbers.


I don't believe that guys like Michael Cooper, Kurt Rambis, Mike McGee, Byron Scott, AC Green or any number of other 1980's Lakers were any better than the players who Kareem played with in the late 70's. But those guys all fit with the team, had clear roles and thus thrived. Dantley, Wilkes, Caz Russell all looked lost and had dips in production in their time in LA. Role players (besides Lou Allen) never lasted more than a year or two.

I agree, but coaching can also be a factor in this. The '97 and '98 Lakers were more talented, IMO than the 3peat Lakers, especially the '98 Lakers.


Look at some of the guys who have thrived in San Antonio while Duncan has been there...Can Matt Bonner, Fabrico Oberto, Nazr Mohameed or Rasho Nesterovic succeed next to anyone else in the frontcourt?

Honestly, a lot of those players didn't stand out in San Antonio to me when I list the key role players from the championship teams.


agreed, but remember they were the historic '71 Bucks, except in that season LA had no Baylor and no West for the postseason.

Yeah, I'm just saying that nobody has approached the winning streak that the '72 Lakers had and they did win 6 more games than the Bucks so it's not a stretch to say that the Lakers were just the better team.


Anyway, as always good discussion.

Thanks.

[Pointguard]

I'm sorry, but here are the facts. BEFORE Magic, Kareem's Lakers never sniffed a title. Immediately WITH Magic, they win one., In fact, Magic takes over in the clinching game six to win the series....with Kareem at home.

Over the course of Magic's 12 seasons, LA AVERAGED 59 wins per season. They went to NINE Finals. And they won FIVE rings. Furthermore, AFTER Kareem retired, Magic led LA to the BEST record in the league at 63-19, and then, in the following season, he took a 58-24 team to the Finals. Finally, AFTER Magic retired, the Lakers returned to their PRE-Magic days by going 43-39 and then 39-43.

Here is how I break it down. Had Magic never played for LA, Kareem wins absolutely NO titles in his Laker years. HOWEVER, even if Kareem had not played, Magic would probably have won at least TWO rings (in '87 and '88), and possibly in '85. Who knows? Maybe even in '80 and '82.

Kareem really played off of Magic. Magic made it possible for him to walk down court while everybodye else ran. Magic could get him the ball without interference. Magic kept him inspired. If Kareem was more into defense and boards, Magic's Lakers would have at least one more ring. While people are saying was the 2nd best player on the 80 championship team - I don't know about that. If Magic doesn't play in any game in the playoffs - they loose that game. Kareem doesn't play and they didn't miss a beat. Magic at center was one of the most interesting moments in the sport.

Magic was absolutely integral to all of their playoff wins. Without Magic the car had no gas. Kareem was important, no question, but he was not as important as Magic in any of those runs. Anybody who seen them play knows that.

[jlauber]

Kareem really played off of Magic. Magic made it possible for him to walk down court while everybodye else ran. Magic could get him the ball without interference. Magic kept him inspired. If Kareem was more into defense and boards, Magic's Lakers would have at least one more ring. While people are saying was the 2nd best player on the 80 championship team - I don't know about that. If Magic doesn't play in any game in the playoffs - they loose that game. Kareem doesn't play and they didn't miss a beat. Magic at center was one of the most interesting moments in the sport.

Magic was absolutely integral to all of their playoff wins. Without Magic the car had no gas. Kareem was important, no question, but he was not as important as Magic in any of those runs. Anybody who seen them play knows that.

:cheers:

[Round Mound]

I'm sorry, but here are the facts. BEFORE Magic, Kareem's Lakers never sniffed a title. Immediately WITH Magic, they win one., In fact, Magic takes over in the clinching game six to win the series....with Kareem at home.

Over the course of Magic's 12 seasons, LA AVERAGED 59 wins per season. They went to NINE Finals. And they won FIVE rings. Furthermore, AFTER Kareem retired, Magic led LA to the BEST record in the league at 63-19, and then, in the following season, he took a 58-24 team to the Finals. Finally, AFTER Magic retired, the Lakers returned to their PRE-Magic days by going 43-39 and then 39-43.

Here is how I break it down. Had Magic never played for LA, Kareem wins absolutely NO titles in his Laker years. HOWEVER, even if Kareem had not played, Magic would probably have won at least TWO rings (in '87 and '88), and possibly in '85. Who knows? Maybe even in '80 and '82.

GTFOH they would not have 87 or 88 without Kareem. He was solid down low and provided shot blocking.

Magic did inherit a great cast ALL of his prime career:

Nixon (All Star, should be in the HOF if DJ is in)
MCAdoo (All Star, Superstar, MVP and a Top 50 IMO, Superb Scorer, Rebounder and Defender, 6thman of the Best Ever)
Lucas (All Star, Superb Rebounder)
Wothy (All Star, Most Difficult Player to Guard in the Baseline of the 80s, Great Finisher)
Scott (All Star-level)
Green (Solid Defender, Great Rebounder Per Minute)
Divac (All Star later after the 80s Great Centers retired)

And Kareem

Yes Kareem was the Best Till 1985.

Kareem got ROBBED from the 1980 Finals MVP: Statsitically He Owned Magic and Everyone

The Magic Smile Appeared :facepalm

Magic was great but he had too much help and everything designed well.

He never deserved the 1990 MVP...Charles was robbed

Ofcourse Magic had the smile an all that bull-sh-it that fans and media like

Even after he left the Lakers where capable of going to the play-offs with ease

Kareem was THEE MAN til 1985 and before him he had to carry the load himself against Superior teams.

Kareem was DOMINANT a 27-35 PPG (55-60% FG); 14-15 RPG, 4-5 APG and 3-4 PBG in his 20s and early-mid 30s.

Magic was lucky to have the Most Skilled Center Ever

Magic`s FG% dropped the last 4 years because of Kareem`s decline. He was doubled Magic never

[purple32gold]

:cheers:
what were kareems stats for the first 4 games of that series before his ankles injury which forced him to stay in LA while the team traveled? Especially after game 1
the two posts above me are polar opposites. one hates kareem one hates magic. everyone copy and past both of them and save it as a word document, there's no need for this thread to be open anymore.

[Round Mound]

what were kareems stats for the first 4 games of that series before his ankles injury which forced him to stay in LA while the team traveled? Especially after game 1

The Whole Series:

33.3 PPG (54.9% FG), 13.6 RPG, 3.2 APG, 4.6 BPG, 0.6 SPG

[jlauber]

what were kareems stats for the first 4 games of that series before his ankles injury which forced him to stay in LA while the team traveled? Especially after game 1

Kareem played brilliantly in the first five games (33 ppg), BUT, I found it fascinating that when he missed one game, Magic stepped up with a 42-15-7 game, and led the Lakers to a championship clinching ROAD win.

Kareem was also exceptional in the '85 Finals, BUT, here again, Magic was leading that offense that exploded for 126 ppg in the entire post-season.

Furthermore, Kareem was only a decent player in '87, and the Lakers won DESPITE him in '88.

There was a reason that Magic outvoted Kareem in the MVP balloting in EIGHT of their TEN seasons together (the LAST eight BTW.)

[purple32gold]

Kareem played brilliantly in the first five games (33 ppg), BUT, I found it fascinating that when he missed one game, Magic stepped up with a 42-15-7 game, and led the Lakers to a championship clinching ROAD win.

Kareem was also exceptional in the '85 Finals, BUT, here again, Magic was leading that offense that exploded for 126 ppg in the entire post-season.

Furthermore, Kareem was only a decent player in '87, and the Lakers won DESPITE him in '88.

There was a reason that Magic outvoted Kareem in the MVP balloting in EIGHT of their TEN seasons together (the LAST eight BTW.)
you act as if he missed the game because he rolled out of bed late and missed the flight. he had a bad high ankle sprain and the idea was to keep him in LA in case they needed him if a game 7 was needed. in the 85 finals, the lakers don't win without kareem going off for big games in games 3 and 5 i think. terrible first game, absolutely deserving (considering the circumstances of his age and the abilities of his teammates). there is absolutely no way someone can intelligently discredit kareem for 1980 and magic winning a mvp award. i believe that magic did in fact deserve it, but once again its all a matter of circumstance. any time a rookie has a game like that, on the road, against a great team, without his teams best player is amazing.

[purple32gold]

The Whole Series:

33.3 PPG (54.9% FG), 13.6 RPG, 3.2 APG, 4.6 BPG, 0.6 SPG
if putting up stats like that in a series winning effort isn't good enough for some of you...well....

[jlauber]

you act as if he missed the game because he rolled out of bed late and missed the flight. he had a bad high ankle sprain and the idea was to keep him in LA in case they needed him if a game 7 was needed. in the 85 finals, the lakers don't win without kareem going off for big games in games 3 and 5 i think. terrible first game, absolutely deserving (considering the circumstances of his age and the abilities of his teammates). there is absolutely no way someone can intelligently discredit kareem for 1980 and magic winning a mvp award. i believe that magic did in fact deserve it, but once again its all a matter of circumstance. any time a rookie has a game like that, on the road, against a great team, without his teams best player is amazing.

Kareem was a GREAT player. I watched him at UCLA, and IMHO, in his soph season, he was probably already a top-5 center in the WORLD. And, he almost always played his best against the best centers in the league. There were times in the prime of his career (the 70's) when he just crushed teams.

The problem I have with Kareem is that, as G.O.A.T and other's have stated. He just did not blend well with quality teammates. I'll give you a great example. Rick Barry led a 48-34 team to a title in the '75 season. Who was his best teammate? Rookie Keith (Jamaal) Wilkes. Kareem played with not only Wilkes, but Norm Nixon, Lou Hudson, and Adrian Dantley, in an NBA that was suffering from it's worst team's in the history of the league. The Warriors won in '75; the 49-33 Blazers won in '77; the 42-40 Bullets won in '78; and the 52-30 Sonics, with one borderline HOFer (Dennis Johnson) won in '79.

How could Kareem go thru the entire decade with only one title (in a season in which the only team that could have beaten them was Wilt's Lakers...who were without BOTH West and Baylor)? And who did the Bucks defeat to win the title that season? A 42-40 Bullets team led by 6-7 Wes Unseld.

Kareem just did not blend in well with his teammates. Magic was the complete opposite. He made ALL of his teammates much better. There have been a handful of players like that...Russell, Duncan, and Magic come to mind. They made their team's greater than the sum of their parts.

And, I agree that the Lakers would not have won their title in '80 without Kareem. They probably would not have won without him in '82 or '85 either. BUT, I really believe that a Mychal Thompson was good enough to win titles in '87 and '88. So, once again, without Magic, IMHO, Kareem retires in the mid-80's with the ONE ring he had from '71. However, without Kareem, Magic still wins at least two rings (in '87 and '88.)

[purple32gold]

Kareem was a GREAT player. I watched him at UCLA, and IMHO, in his soph season, he was probably already a top-5 center in the WORLD. And, he almost always played his best against the best centers in the league. There were times in the prime of his career (the 70's) when he just crushed teams.

The problem I have with Kareem is that, as G.O.A.T and other's have stated. He just did not blend well with quality teammates. I'll give you a great example. Rick Barry led a 48-34 team to a title in the '75 season. Who was his best teammate? Rookie Keith (Jamaal) Wilkes. Kareem played with not only Wilkes, but Norm Nixon, Lou Hudson, and Adrian Dantley, in an NBA that was suffering from it's worst team's in the history of the league. The Warriors won in '75; the 49-33 Blazers won in '77; the 42-40 Bullets won in '78; and the 52-30 Sonics, with one borderline HOFer (Dennis Johnson) won in '79.

How could Kareem go thru the entire decade with only one title (in a season in which the only team that could have beaten them was Wilt's Lakers...who were without BOTH West and Baylor)? And who did the Bucks defeat to win the title that season? A 42-40 Bullets team led by 6-7 Wes Unseld.

Kareem just did not blend in well with his teammates. Magic was the complete opposite. He made ALL of his teammates much better. There have been a handful of players like that...Russell, Duncan, and Magic come to mind. They made their team's greater than the sum of their parts.

And, I agree that the Lakers would not have won their title in '80 without Kareem. They probably would not have won without him in '82 or '85 either. BUT, I really believe that a Mychal Thompson was good enough to win titles in '87 and '88. So, once again, without Magic, IMHO, Kareem retires in the mid-80's with the ONE ring he had from '71. However, without Kareem, Magic still wins at least two rings (in '87 and '88.)
quite a subjective view on the topic. assuming that a series of events COULD have happened doesn't make them any more plausible or believable in my opinion.

[Pointguard]

And, I agree that the Lakers would not have won their title in '80 without Kareem. They probably would not have won without him in '82 or '85 either. BUT, I really believe that a Mychal Thompson was good enough to win titles in '87 and '88. So, once again, without Magic, IMHO, Kareem retires in the mid-80's with the ONE ring he had from '71. However, without Kareem, Magic still wins at least two rings (in '87 and '88.)

Yeah Kareem was outstanding in the first three championships. The Lakers beat people because they got more easy baskets than the other teams. Kareem's post game was an easy basket as well. The Lakers primary option was to run or cause havoc in transition. Should that not work Magic slowed the game down and waited for Kareem to set up shop. It was not a Walton type setup where Kareem was point center. Kareem received it in the low post and kicked it back out to Magic where Magic read the defensive alignment and that's when the offense began in the half-court.

The thing that separates the two is that Magic wins at least three times as many rings in the 70's. Magic could make anybody who ran the court look good (Green, Worthy Scott), anybody who could shoot would look good (Scott, Cooper, Wilkes), any low post player look good (Kareem, Worthy) anybody with good hands look good (Rambis Green, Worthy), anybody that was athletic (R. Sampson, Cooper, Worthy). Magic was an enhancer (like MSG does to food - it enhances the ingredients to their max flavor). He was the engine and the hand that held the five fingers together.

In '87 and '88 Worthy's post game was more efficient and productive than Kareems and they could have deployed a much faster line-up without Kareem. By '88 Mychal Thompson was more productive in less minutes than Kareem anyway. Kareem was somewhat in the way in the '88.

[purple32gold]

Yeah Kareem was outstanding in the first three championships. The Lakers beat people because they got more easy baskets than the other teams. Kareem's post game was an easy basket as well. The Lakers primary option was to run or cause havoc in transition. Should that not work Magic slowed the game down and waited for Kareem to set up shop. It was not a Walton type setup where Kareem was point center. Kareem received it in the low post and kicked it back out to Magic where Magic read the defensive alignment and that's when the offense began in the half-court.

The thing that separates the two is that Magic wins at least three times as many rings in the 70's. Magic could make anybody who ran the court look good (Green, Worthy Scott), anybody who could shoot would look good (Scott, Cooper, Wilkes), any low post player look good (Kareem, Worthy) anybody with good hands look good (Rambis Green, Worthy), anybody that was athletic (R. Sampson, Cooper, Worthy). Magic was an enhancer (like MSG does to food - it enhances the ingredients to their max flavor). He was the engine and the hand that held the five fingers together.

In '87 and '88 Worthy's post game was more efficient and productive than Kareems and they could have deployed a much faster line-up without Kareem. By '88 Mychal Thompson was more productive in less minutes than Kareem anyway. Kareem was somewhat in the way in the '88.
he was pushing his late 30's early 40's in the period you describe. you are comparing a young worthy (who completely deteriorated post 1990...VERY quickly) to a center who had already played through 2 generations of ball. give the guy a break, the fact he was a legitimate starting center that old, not just some dude that was in there to plug up space and maybe block a few shots. kareem was in the game because he was an important part of their offense. obviously not the most important part, but some of the things he did at an advanced age are just incredible. personally im one of those people that truly believes longevity and production are really undervalued in the sport.

[TennesseeFan]

Because hes a Muslim

[Pointguard]

he was pushing his late 30's early 40's in the period you describe. you are comparing a young worthy (who completely deteriorated post 1990...VERY quickly) to a center who had already played through 2 generations of ball. give the guy a break, the fact he was a legitimate starting center that old, not just some dude that was in there to plug up space and maybe block a few shots. kareem was in the game because he was an important part of their offense. obviously not the most important part, but some of the things he did at an advanced age are just incredible. personally im one of those people that truly believes longevity and production are really undervalued in the sport.

Don't get me wrong I think he's a great player - I got him in my top five. I think in the GOAT conversation he has the same number of rings as Jordan and more than Magic. I think that's deceptive.

[jlauber]

he was pushing his late 30's early 40's in the period you describe. you are comparing a young worthy (who completely deteriorated post 1990...VERY quickly) to a center who had already played through 2 generations of ball. give the guy a break, the fact he was a legitimate starting center that old, not just some dude that was in there to plug up space and maybe block a few shots. kareem was in the game because he was an important part of their offense. obviously not the most important part, but some of the things he did at an advanced age are just incredible. personally im one of those people that truly believes longevity and production are really undervalued in the sport.

You don't have to convince me on just how great an aged Kareem was. Fatal9 posted several games from the 85-86 regular season, in which Kareem torched Hakeem, and then Ewing. Kareem put up games of 35, 42, and 46 (on 21-30 shooting) on Hakeem, and in the same week that he scored 46 on Hakeem, he shelled Ewing with a 40 point game (holding a helpless Patrick to 2-16 shooting as well.)

Even after that season, and from the '86-87 season thru his final year in '88-89, he outshot Hakeem in their 13 battles by a .567 to .475 margin, and in his six H2H games against Ewing, he outshot Patrick by a .551 to .483 margin. And while both opponents slightly outscored Kareem in those battles, it is just an amazing fact that a player in his 40's could battle two of the all-time greatest centers, in or near their primes, to near statistical draws.

Back to the OP, though. Kareem played on six title teams...one with Oscar, and five with Magic. Furthermore, after Oscar retired, his Bucks dropped from a team that had gone to a seven-game Finals, to a 38-44 team the very next season. Granted, there were some other reasons for it, including the fact that Kareem missed 16 games, but even when he did play, the Bucks only went 35-30.

Then, Kareem's TEAMS went 40-42, 53-29 (and were swept by the 49-33 Blazers in the playoffs), 45-37 (and were beaten in the first round by the Sonics...who would lose to the 42-40 Bullets in the Finals), and then were blown away, 4-1, by the 52-30 Sonics in the 78-79 playoffs. And, as been pointed out, those teams included players like Nixon, Wilkes, Hudson, and Dantley.

Of course we all know what happened when Magic joined the Lakers. They were the dominant team in the decade of the 80's, and even AFTER Kareem retired, they posted seasons of 63-19 and 58-24 (with yet another Finals appearance.) AND, AFTER Magic retired, the Lakers went 43-39 and 39-43 the next two seasons. I think that says it all.

[Fatal9]

How was his team in 79 a bunch of scrubs though? He had Dantley, Wilkes and Nixon. I definitely have the same problem with Kareem, and I'm thinking of moving him down from the 2nd spot to the fourth, but it's especially this one year I don't get. I don't even think the one game I watched on NBA TV of that series is on Youtube let alone the whole series (at least I can't find it) but I just don't get how they lost. I know about his 73 year where he got dominated by Thurmound but I don't get the 79 year at all, and I hoped someone had an explanation for it.
Lakers lost to the Sonics because a) they didn't have a PF and b) their perimeter defenders (some of who you mentioned) were some of the worst in the league. They got lit up by Seattle's back court. Gus Williams had the best series of his career. He averaged 32 ppg on them. The biggest story from the series was how much the Laker backcourt was torched. Gus was a great player and all but he should not be putting up Jordan/Kobe numbers in a series on you (averaged 19 ppg in regular season that year and 20 ppg for rest of the playoffs excluding the Laker series).

Dantley was benched at the start of the playoffs that year because of his defense. His 17 ppg is good but useless if he's giving up 25 on the other end.

One significant change for LA: Don Ford is now starting at forward instead of Adrian Dantley, who s healthy again. Rea- son, according to West, is defense. - LA Times, Apr 9, 1979

KAJ averaged 29/13/4/5 on 57% in the series, Lakers lost two games at the buzzer and their only win came with KAJ hitting game clinching FTs. KAJ made them a decent defensive team because of his shot blocking in the paint, but he can't do much when perimeter players are going off from 15+ feet out. This is why Cooper playing with LA in '80 was huge because he could come in and slow down these players.

http://news.google.ca/newspapers?id=YGwyAAAAIBAJ&sjid=6LEFAAAAIBAJ&pg=3702,4774916

Lakers can't slow Williams

Jerry West - "It looks like he's been playing with no one in front of him"

In some games it looked like the Fourth of July the way the Laker guards were being lit up on defense.

http://news.google.ca/newspapers?id=2XURAAAAIBAJ&sjid=_eEDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6781,6352782

Lakers can't stop Gus Williams therefore can't beat Sonics

[ShaqAttack3234]

Ok, enough of the overrating of Magic and underrating of Kareem.

Forget 1980, Kareem was FAR better than Magic that year. Not even close, Kareem was still one of the league's premier defensive players. He averaged 24.8 ppg, 10.8 rpg, 4.5 apg and 3.4 bpg on 60.4% shooting in the regular season, he won a well deserved MVP by a wide margin. He led the league in blocks, finished second in FG%, 3rd in TS%, 6th in scoring and 8th in rebounding. Magic didn't even win the rookie of the year, much less the MVP.

In the playoffs, Kareem stepped up his game averaging 31.9 ppg, 12.1 rpg, 3.1 apg and 3.9 bpg on 57.2% shooting.

Here is a break down of the 1980 finals

Kareem- 33.4 ppg, 13.6 rpg, 3.2 apg, 4.6 bpg, 54.9 FG%
Magic- 21.5 ppg, 10.2 rpg, 8.7 apg, 2.7 spg, 57.3 FG%

Lets look at the Lakers 3 wins before game 6.

Game 1
Kareem- 33 points, 14 rebounds, 5 assists, 6 blocks, 14/21 FG, 5/5 FT, 3 turnovers
Magic- 16 points, 9 rebounds, 10 assists, 3 steals, 8/12 FG, 2 turnovers

Game 3
Kareem- 33 points, 14 rebounds, 3 assists, 4 blocks, 13/30 FG, 7/9 FT, 3 turnovers
Magic- 16 points, 11 rebounds, 5 assists, 2 steals, 6/12 FG, 4/6 FT, 5 turnovers

Game 5
Kareem- 40 points, 15 rebounds, 1 assist, 4 blocks, 16/24 FG, 8/9 FT, 5 turnovers
Magic- 14 points, 15 rebounds, 10 assists, 3 steals, 4/13 FG, 6/7 FT, 10 turnovers

Don't forget that Kareem had his own legendary moment in this game when he sprained his ankle late in 3rd and then came back in the 4th quarter with 14 points, and with the game tied at 103, he scored and got fouled to put LA up 106-103 with 33 seconds left.

So Kareem was EASILY more valuable than Magic in the first 3 LA wins.

As far as the Lakers winning that year without Kareem? :roll: No chance, Kareem was the best offensive and defensive player in the league.

Yes, Magic stepped up big, but how often was Magic going to off for 42/15/7 and how often was Jamaal Wilkes going to get 37 points and 10 rebounds? That's often forgotten how much Wilkes stepped up.

Everyone keeps talking about what Magic did for the Laers, yeah, well, what about Kareem?

Who carried the Lakers in the half court in the early 80's? Hell, Kareem did this into the mid 80's. Who was the Lakers go to guy down the stretch? Again, that would be Kareem. Who made a bigger defensive impact? Even in the mid 80's, Kareem was blocking 2+ shots per game and altering far more shots than Magic with his length.

Fatal tracked Magic and Kareem's +/- in the 1985 playoffs and Kareem's was much better in every series.

Guess who Pat Riley thought was the Laker's best player circa 1984?


I wave a red flag and say, 'We're going to Kareem. our best player, and we re going to let him shoot that hook.' -Pat Riley March 10th, 1984 Los Angeles Times


He's a superior athlete the best of our time. Without him, we're just an ordinary team Pat Riley on Kareem after the 1985 finals http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=EMwPAAAAIBAJ&sjid=uY0DAAAAIBAJ&pg=3489,3454907&dq=kareem+best+player&hl=en

People forget that Magic didn't start expanding his offensive game until the mid/late 80's. When he came into the league, he couldn't even really shoot, his scoring was very reliant on fast breaks. Slowly, he started to add that set shot and eventually as he got older, the post game. There's a reason why Kareem was the guy teams were more likely to double team until 1985 or 1986.

The Lakers don't win shit without Kareem from '80-'85. As Pat Riley said, withot him, they'd just be an ordinary team.

For the record, I would classify the 1985 title as more of a 1.A/1.B situaton with one player not being clearly better or more valuable than the other. Kareem was the man in the halfcourt and Magic was the man on the break.

[jlauber]

Ok, enough of the overrating of Magic and underrating of Kareem.

Forget 1980, Kareem was FAR better than Magic that year. Not even close, Kareem was still one of the league's premier defensive players. He averaged 24.8 ppg, 10.8 rpg, 4.5 apg and 3.4 bpg on 60.4% shooting in the regular season, he won a well deserved MVP by a wide margin. He led the league in blocks, finished second in FG%, 3rd in TS%, 6th in scoring and 8th in rebounding. Magic didn't even win the rookie of the year, much less the MVP.

In the playoffs, Kareem stepped up his game averaging 31.9 ppg, 12.1 rpg, 3.1 apg and 3.9 bpg on 57.2% shooting.

Here is a break down of the 1980 finals

Kareem- 33.4 ppg, 13.6 rpg, 3.2 apg, 4.6 bpg, 54.9 FG%
Magic- 21.5 ppg, 10.2 rpg, 8.7 apg, 2.7 spg, 57.3 FG%

Lets look at the Lakers 3 wins before game 6.

Game 1
Kareem- 33 points, 14 rebounds, 5 assists, 6 blocks, 14/21 FG, 5/5 FT, 3 turnovers
Magic- 16 points, 9 rebounds, 10 assists, 3 steals, 8/12 FG, 2 turnovers

Game 3
Kareem- 33 points, 14 rebounds, 3 assists, 4 blocks, 13/30 FG, 7/9 FT, 3 turnovers
Magic- 16 points, 11 rebounds, 5 assists, 2 steals, 6/12 FG, 4/6 FT, 5 turnovers

Game 5
Kareem- 40 points, 15 rebounds, 1 assist, 4 blocks, 16/24 FG, 8/9 FT, 5 turnovers
Magic- 14 points, 15 rebounds, 10 assists, 3 steals, 4/13 FG, 6/7 FT, 10 turnovers

Don't forget that Kareem had his own legendary moment in this game when he sprained his ankle late in 3rd and then came back in the 4th quarter with 14 points, and with the game tied at 103, he scored and got fouled to put LA up 106-103 with 33 seconds left.

So Kareem was EASILY more valuable than Magic in the first 3 LA wins.

As far as the Lakers winning that year without Kareem? :roll: No chance, Kareem was the best offensive and defensive player in the league.

Yes, Magic stepped up big, but how often was Magic going to off for 42/15/7 and how often was Jamaal Wilkes going to get 37 points and 10 rebounds? That's often forgotten how much Wilkes stepped up.

Everyone keeps talking about what Magic did for the Laers, yeah, well, what about Kareem?

Who carried the Lakers in the half court in the early 80's? Hell, Kareem did this into the mid 80's. Who was the Lakers go to guy down the stretch? Again, that would be Kareem. Who made a bigger defensive impact? Even in the mid 80's, Kareem was blocking 2+ shots per game and altering far more shots than Magic with his length.

Fatal tracked Magic and Kareem's +/- in the 1985 playoffs and Kareem's was much better in every series.

Guess who Pat Riley thought was the Laker's best player circa 1984?

-Pat Riley March 10th, 1984 Los Angeles Times

Pat Riley on Kareem after the 1985 finals http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=EMwPAAAAIBAJ&sjid=uY0DAAAAIBAJ&pg=3489,3454907&dq=kareem+best+player&hl=en

People forget that Magic didn't start expanding his offensive game until the mid/late 80's. When he came into the league, he couldn't even really shoot, his scoring was very reliant on fast breaks. Slowly, he started to add that set shot and eventually as he got older, the post game. There's a reason why Kareem was the guy teams were more likely to double team until 1985 or 1986.

The Lakers don't win shit without Kareem from '80-'85. As Pat Riley said, withot him, they'd just be an ordinary team.

For the record, I would classify the 1985 title as more of a 1.A/1.B situaton with one player not being clearly better or more valuable than the other. Kareem was the man in the halfcourt and Magic was the man on the break.

Interesting, then, that Magic outvoted Kareem in MVP balloting in EIGHT of their TEN seasons together (the LAST eight BTW.)

Furthermore, Magic was injured for much of the '80-81 season (he missed 45 games), and was nowhere near 100% in the post-season. In fact, he was awful in that post-season. So what happened? Moses outplayed Kareem, and the 40-42 Rockets knocked off the Lakers in the first round of the playoffs.

Magic was CLEARLY the better player in the '82 regular season, AND post-season.

And while Magic was labeled "Tragic" in the '84 Finals, he put up considerably better numbers than Kareem (including outrebounding him.) In fact, Magic had SEASONS in which he outrebounded Kareem, and FIVE Finals in which he outrebounded Kareem.

And, while Kareem put up great numbers in the '85 post-season, the Lakers RAN their opponents to death, scoring 126 ppg in the post-season.

Kareem was only their third best player in the '86-87 championship season, and he was AWFUL in the '87-88 post-season (particularly the Finals.) So, I contend that LA would have won their rings in both seasons with Mychal Thompson.

Of course, LA was 11-0 going into the 88-89 Finals, and when Magic went down in game two, the Lakers lost a close game, and then were swept. BTW, Kareem was worthless in that series.

And, AFTER Kareem retired, the Lakers IMPROVED, going a league best 63-19. The next year they went 58-24, and lost to Bulls in the Finals.

What happened after Magic retired? LA flopped to 43-39, and then an even worse 39-43 the next year.

And while Magic could step up his game when Kareem was out, Kareem could not do it when Magic was hurting or out.

[Fatal9]

The major difference was Magic Johnson of course which turned a middle of the road team in the West into a Dynasty.

Talk about Magic turning around franchises (more like improving, turning around is take bad teams and making them contenders), er, what about Kareem?

He joined the expansion Bucks who won 25 games in

[Fatal9]

And, while Kareem put up great numbers in the '85 post-season, the Lakers RAN their opponents to death, scoring 126 ppg in the post-season.

+/- from the playoff run that year (which almost always with certainty points out the best player on each team):

KAJ = +214. +13.38 ppg when on. -5.25 ppg when off. Net = +18.6
Magic = +153. +9.56 ppg when on. -1.44 ppg when off. Net = +11
Worthy = +101. +6.31 ppg when on. +1.81 ppg when off. Net = +4.5

This is by a huge margin.

Broken down by playoff series (except first round for which not all the games exist, it was inconsequential anyways):

Vs. Celtics (KAJ wins Finals MVP):
Kareem – +47. +7.83 ppg when on. -5.17 ppg when off. Net = +13 ppg
Magic – +35. +5.83 ppg when on. -3.17 ppg when off. Net = + 9 ppg
Worthy – +23. +3.83 ppg when on. – 1.17 ppg when off. Net = +5 ppg


Vs. Nuggets:

KAJ: +95, +19 ppg when on, -7.2 when off. Net +26.2
Magic: +70, +14 ppg when on, -2.2 when off. Net +16.2
Worthy: +32, +6.4 ppg when on, +5.4 when off. Net +1


Vs. Blazers:

KAJ: +14.4 ppg when on. -3.4 ppg when off. Net +/- = +17.8
Magic: + 9.6 ppg when on. +1.4 ppg when off. Net +/- = +8.2
Worthy: +9.2 ppg when on. +1.8 ppg when off. Net +/- = +7.4

Something seems remarkably consistent about this.

[Fatal9]

To get Haywood the Lakers had to give up AD. Don't tell us Dantley wasn't a great scorer yet, that's crap.

He was scoring 27 a game for Indiana when they traded him to the Lakers. He averaged 18 a game for the Lakers for a year and a half then went to Utah and 28 a game and his efficiency shot up.

So the '79 team downgraded talent at forward with Haywood and Chones replacing Robisch and Dantley.


Dantley as early as his first year already had the cancerous no defense playing label. In his first two years in the league, he won rookie of the year, but was traded twice. Now tell me how many times a young ROY gets traded around in their first two years in the league? As great as Dantley's stats were in the 80s, one thing he could never do is help his teams win.

Secondly, if you had actually researched the topic you would know that Jerry West was extremely frustrated with Dantley on the defensive end. He even benched Dantley in some games at the end of the season because of it. The Laker problems in ’79 were never offensive, they were defensive. They had no one to guard anyone on the perimeter and were lit up by Gus Williams who had a career series vs them (averaged 32 ppg LOL). They had no one in the PF spot to rebound when going against Seattle’s big frontline. Kareem would lead everyone in rebounding and pull his share but no one there after him.

Dantley is a career loser for a reason. After he got traded to the Lakers, his teams won 24, 28, 25, 30 games. Pistons traded him for a less talented Aguirre because Dantley did not want to take a lesser role in the offense or commit on defense, and won two championships after they traded him.

And btw he was not scoring 27 a game for Indiana, he was scoring 23 a game over a two month stretch. Before that he was scoring 20 a game. So he was not "the" Adrian Dantley yet. Edit: read his per 36 stats by mistake. Point still stands, he was no where near 30 ppg (at 26.5) and wasn't even shooting 50% yet (compared to 55+% in 80s). He didn't get "worse" when he was playing with LA. His efficiency rose, he played less minutes and actually had to share the ball with other weapons on offense.

Dantley and Kareem fit quite well offensively actually. I actually thought they wouldn’t because of the way Dantley scored. They had a top 5 offensive rating in the league and I’ve seen several games of their time together. Kareem was averaging career high in assists by that point, having some of the highest assist numbers ever for a center, because he wanted to take lesser roll to start setting up guys like Dantley/Wilkes etc.


And as I mentioned earlier, Dantley's defense was getting him benched in games during the playoffs (didn't even average 30 mpg in them).

In some games it looked like the Fourth of July the way the Laker guards were being lit up on defense.

One significant change for LA: Don Ford is now starting at forward instead of Adrian Dantley, who s healthy again. Rea- son, according to West, is defense. - LA Times, Apr 9, 1979


1977 - Despite being the top team in the NBA during the regular season the Lakers were swept by Portland in the playoffs. Explanation: The cast around him sucked. Lou Allen and Kermit Washington were hurt otherwise the Lakers would have won. (Same Lou Allen who wasn't good enough to help the '75 Bucks make the playoffs)
Lucious Allen was also hurt. You really should watch that series sometime. Two of the four games are up on youtube I think. Your ignorance regarding this topic has been exposed many times on this board. IIRC you thought both teams were fully healthy and that Walton outplayed Kareem.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=coHMKlx7Was&#t=4m6s
tough to win games when THIS happens after you go to the bench with a lead.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ybv618uKanM
Musberger - If there was been a key thing in this series, it's the inability of the Laker guards to bring the ball upcourt.


1978 - 45-win Lakers lose in first round to 47-win Seattle 2-1. Explanation: The supporting cast was garbage no one could win with these guys. (The roster included six former or future all-stars and four former or future NBA Champion starters. {five if you count Don Chaney}
This cast also went 8-13 without him. No need to act like they were some all-NBA type of cast. They were 37-24 with Kareem. How remarkable is this turnaround? With Kareem they were the #2 seed with a pace of 50+ wins, without him they were on pace for 31 wins, in other words in contention for being the worst team in the NBA. There were no all-stars on this team, and no need to act like there was tremendous help here when we already saw how good the team was without him.



Why no mention of game seven in the '74 Finals being Kareem's worst of the series and the only one Cowens outplayed him? Or that he missed twice as many free throws in the game as the Celtics whole team? Or how they lost by almost 20 on their home court?
First of all Cowens and Kareem’s series averages.

KAJ – 32.6 ppg, 12.1 rpg, 5.4 apg, 2.1 blks, 1.1 stl 52.4 FG% (led all players in pts, rebounds, blks, shot higher FG% than anyone who matters, third in assists behind White and Oscar)
Cowens – 22.7 ppg, 9.9 rpg, 4.6 apg, .3 blks, 1.1 spg, 43.9 FG%

Secondly, Kareem made a game saving block in game 2 (in the same game he had 36/15/6 and made clutch shots in OT) and game winner in game 6. Bucks were without Lucius Allen, who was their SECOND best player statistically during the regular season. The fact that you ignore this as a minor loss is laughable. How would others do without their second best players in the playoffs? Magic/Kareem if Worthy gets taken away? Wait we already saw that – they were swept. Bird if we took McHale or Parish away? Jordan if we take Pippen or Grant away? Think they are winning all those countless close series still?

I ask everyone to take a look at the playoff rosters of the two teams and laugh at the suggestion that Bucks had the better team. Celtics had Havlicek, Cowens, Jo Jo White (all stars), Bucks had Kareem (all-star), Dandridge (good, wasn’t considered an all-star though), a 35 year old Oscar a month away from his retirement and not much after that. Let me know if you come away with the conclusion that Bucks were the better “team”. He took an overmatched roster which should not have won more than one game (the other two wins coming from two clutch performances by him) against the Celtics to 7 games. And what happened in the seventh game? Well yes, he only had 26/13/4 on 10/21 shooting, why don't you mention one of the most well known story lines of that series? That Kareem was being fronted by two players and doubled or tripled all game after because Heinsohn realized his teammates weren't going to beat them - Kareem was.

[Fatal9]

Once Magic joined the Lakers and Riley took over, Kareem became a role player.
Not sure if this comment is serious. After '86? Sure. Before that though? This comment is completely idiotic.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Interesting, then, that Magic outvoted Kareem in MVP balloting in EIGHT of their TEN seasons together (the LAST eight BTW.)

Funny, you ignore the fact that Jerry West got more MVP votes than Wilt in '72 and still label Wilt the best player on the team. Not that I necessarily disagree, but some consistency would be nice. By the way, Kenny Smith got more MVP votes than Hakeem Olajuwon in '91, and they were on the same team.


Furthermore, Magic was injured for much of the '80-81 season (he missed 45 games), and was nowhere near 100% in the post-season. In fact, he was awful in that post-season. So what happened? Moses outplayed Kareem, and the 40-42 Rockets knocked off the Lakers in the first round of the playoffs.

First of all, when your point guard is playing as awful as Magic, that's going to hurt in a best of 3 series. Magic shot 39% in the series and had virtually as many shot attempts as points. He also air balled a potential game-winner on a play designed for Kareem. That was the difference in the series, I mean Houston won 2 games to 1.

I'll have to watch the series before I'll concede that Moses outplayed Kareem as well. He actually out-rebounded Moses, and while Moses outscored him, Kareem was a much more impactful offensive player because unlike Moses, he could and would pass, and he was much better at getting the ball in the post and scoring. Plus, Kareem was much more of a defensive force than Moses. I'll have to watch the series to even see if Moses and Kareem guarded each other most of the time because it wasn't uncommon for Moses to match up with power forwards.


Magic was CLEARLY the better player in the '82 regular season, AND post-season.

No, Kareem was still averaging 24 ppg, 9 rpg, 3 apg and 3 bpg. He was a much better defensive player than Magic. And before you mentioned rebounds, you might want to watch the games and see how many loose rebounds the big men let him get so he could start the break. This was similar to Jason Kidd who also got a lot of rebounds.

And again, Magic in 1982 didn't have the offensive game to force double teams or score consistently in the half court, that was Kareem's territory, same with baskets down the stretch.


Kareem was only their third best player in the '86-87 championship season, and he was AWFUL in the '87-88 post-season (particularly the Finals.) So, I contend that LA would have won their rings in both seasons with Mychal Thompson.

Of course, LA was 11-0 going into the 88-89 Finals, and when Magic went down in game two, the Lakers lost a close game, and then were swept. BTW, Kareem was worthless in that series.

And, AFTER Kareem retired, the Lakers IMPROVED, going a league best 63-19. The next year they went 58-24, and lost to Bulls in the Finals.

How old was Kareem? Yeah, you leave that out.......

Nobody is claiming Kareem was on Magic's level in those last 2 championships.


What happened after Magic retired? LA flopped to 43-39, and then an even worse 39-43 the next year.

Worthy played 78 games in '91, he played 54 games in '92
Perkins played 73 games in '91, he played 63 games in '92
Divac played 82 games in '91, he played just 36 in '92

But this, like many other important points have been brought up many times, and you ignore them to prop up Magic and diminish Kareem(and often Bird).

You're driven by a clear agenda, and I think I've made my points. Hopefully everyone can see through your agenda when it comes to Magic vs Kareem.

[AirJordan&Magic]

The hypocrisy regarding Kareem's career, especially on this forum, is ridiculous.

[Jacks3]

lol @ jlauber diminishing Kareem. Agenda.

:facepalm

[jlauber]

Worthy played 78 games in '91, he played 54 games in '92
Perkins played 73 games in '91, he played 63 games in '92
Divac played 82 games in '91, he played just 36 in '92

But this, like many other important points have been brought up many times, and you ignore them to prop up Magic and diminish Kareem(and often Bird).

I'm done arguing with you in this thread about Kareem. You're driven by a clear agenda, and I think I've made my points. Hopefully everyone can see through your agenda when it comes to Magic vs Kareem.

Like so many important points you fail to bring up the Lakers' '92-93 season (two years after Magic retired.)

They went 39-43, which was even WORSE than in 91-92.

Worthy played in all 82 games. Divac played in all 82 games. Perkins only played in 49 but was traded.

So, YES, Magic;s departure KILLED LA....UNLIKE Kareem's, which didn't affect them at ALL.


And btw he was not scoring 27 a game for Indiana, he was scoring 23 a game over a two month stretch. Before that he was scoring 20 a game. So he was not "the" Adrian Dantley yet. I don't know why you are lying with your numbers (you've used the 27 figure in more than one post).


Good ole Fatal9 with HIS lies. Dantley was averaging 26.5 ppg when LA acquired him. AND, he immediately averaged 28 ppg AFTER he left the team. Once again, Kareem HINDERED a HOFer.


+/- from the playoff run that year (which almost always with certainty points out the best player on each team):



A COMPLETELY B.S. stat. That is a TEAM stat, and does NOT take into account the teammates on the floor, or the opposing players on the floor.

If you are going to use a B.S. stat, then so will I. Magic had a HIGHER PER, a HIGHER Win Share, and a HIGHER WS/PER 48 in that post-season. BTW, Kareem did NOT elevate his play in the post-season, BUT Magic's assist went up DRAMATICALLY, which was THE reason that the Lakers scored 8 ppg MORE than they averaged in the regular season.

The REAL bottom line? BEFORE Magic...LA was an average-at-best team. WITH Magic, a GREAT team. AFTER Kareem, they IMPROVED. AFTER Magic, they went back to an average team...in BOTH seasons following his retirement.

Kareem was a great player individually, but he was no leader. Magic was a GREAT leader.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Like so many important points you fail to bring up the Lakers' '92-93 season (two years after Magic retired.)

They went 39-43, which was even WORSE than in 91-92.

Worthy played in all 82 games. Divac played in all 82 games. Perkins only played in 49 but was traded.

So, YES, Magic;s departure KILLED LA....UNLIKE Kareem's, which didn't affect them at ALL.


:oldlol: at this.

First of all, quit ignoring '92, even with all of those injuries to key players after Magic's departure, they still went 43-39 and made the playoffs.

'93? The injuries had caught up to Worthy, why else was he playing just 28.8 mpg compared to 39 mpg in '92?

Byron Scott also missed 24 games in '93 and his minutes were cut back as well like Worthy's due to age and injuries.

Anything else?

As far as Kareem's departure? He was 42 and his production had been cut in half from '85.

Just clearing up everything so people don't fall for such obvious deception.


A COMPLETELY B.S. stat. That is a TEAM stat, and does NOT take into account the teammates on the floor, or the opposing players on the floor.

If you are going to use a B.S. stat, then so will I. Magic had a HIGHER PER, a HIGHER Win Share, and a HIGHER WS/PER 48 in that post-season. BTW, Kareem did NOT elevate his play in the post-season, BUT Magic's assist went up DRAMATICALLY, which was THE reason that the Lakers scored 8 ppg MORE than they averaged in the regular season.

The REAL bottom line? BEFORE Magic...LA was an average-at-best team. WITH Magic, a GREAT team. AFTER Kareem, they IMPROVED. AFTER Magic, they went back to an average team...in BOTH seasons following his retirement.

Kareem was a great player individually, but he was no leader. Magic was a GREAT leader.

Win shares has been proven crap by the fact that Gasol has led the Lakers several times, Drexler led the '95 Rockets in the playoffs, Kobe in the '01 playoffs and Mutombo in the '01 playoffs.

+/- is actually a good stat when comparing stars on the same team who both start.

If someone wants to call them 1.A/1.B for '85, then that's fine with me. Hell, if someone even wants to give Magic a slight edge then I won't waste my time. However, Kareem was still the team's best scorer, a bigger defensive presence than Magic and the go to guy down the stretch in the half court. He was no sidekick in '85, particularly when the team's coach called him the best player on the team the year before and said after the '85 finals that they'd be an ordinary team without Kareem.

[DatWasNashty]

Like so many important points you fail to bring up the Lakers' '92-93 season (two years after Magic retired.)

They went 39-43, which was even WORSE than in 91-92.

Worthy played in all 82 games. Divac played in all 82 games. Perkins only played in 49 but was traded.

So, YES, Magic;s departure KILLED LA....UNLIKE Kareem's, which didn't affect them at ALL.



Good ole Fatal9 with HIS lies. Dantley was averaging 26.5 ppg when LA acquired him. AND, he immediately averaged 28 ppg AFTER he left the team. Once again, Kareem HINDERED a HOFer.



A COMPLETELY B.S. stat. That is a TEAM stat, and does NOT take into account the teammates on the floor, or the opposing players on the floor.

If you are going to use a B.S. stat, then so will I. Magic had a HIGHER PER, a HIGHER Win Share, and a HIGHER WS/PER 48 in that post-season. BTW, Kareem did NOT elevate his play in the post-season, BUT Magic's assist went up DRAMATICALLY, which was THE reason that the Lakers scored 8 ppg MORE than they averaged in the regular season.

The REAL bottom line? BEFORE Magic...LA was an average-at-best team. WITH Magic, a GREAT team. AFTER Kareem, they IMPROVED. AFTER Magic, they went back to an average team...in BOTH seasons following his retirement.

Kareem was a great player individually, but he was no leader. Magic was a GREAT leader.
This guy is such a fukking clown. I can guarantee he hasn't seen the Showtime Lakers play.

"But MAGIC could DO anything HE WANTED. Oh my GOD. MAGIC was so HANDSOME. I was the ONE who gave HIM HIV." :facepalm

[jlauber]

This guy is such a fukking clown. I can guarantee he hasn't seen the Showtime Lakers play.

"But MAGIC could DO anything HE WANTED. Oh my GOD. MAGIC was so HANDSOME. I was the ONE who gave HIM HIV." :facepalm

What a pathetic post.

Let's make this simple, shall we? Kareem missed the sixth game of the '80 Finals. How did Magic do in his absence? He LED BOTH teams in rebounds, and by a HUGE margin, with 15. He LED BOTH teams in scoring, with 42 points. And while Wilkes scored 37, he shot 16-30 from the field. Meanwhile Magic shot 14-23 from the floor. He also made ALL 14 of his FTs. And he even found time to hand out 7 assists!

And what was the result? MAGIC led that Laker team, withOUT Kareem, to a clinching ROAD win and a championship.

[nycelt84]

Win shares are not a bs stat. Disagreeing with a stat simply because it does not come to the same conclusion as you does not make the stat invalid. Perhaps you are not truly appreciating how great players like Drexler in '95 or Kobe in '01 were. Especially in the case of Drexler who was the Rockets best and most important player in the '95 playoffs in the series against the Jazz and the Suns.

[jlauber]

Win shares are not a bs stat. Disagreeing with a stat simply because it does not come to the same conclusion as you does not make the stat invalid. Perhaps you are not truly appreciating how great players like Drexler in '95 or Kobe in '01 were. Especially in the case of Drexler who was the Rockets best and most important player in the '95 playoffs in the series against the Jazz and the Suns.

I personally take these "advanced" stats with a grain of salt. I do agree with you, that the majority of time, they VALIDATE what a great player accomplished. BUT, at the same time, ocassionally you will get an outlier based on a limited number of games. I use the TOTALITY of advanced stats, along with the major stats, to confirm just how great a player was.

[juju151111]

Win shares are not a bs stat. Disagreeing with a stat simply because it does not come to the same conclusion as you does not make the stat invalid. Perhaps you are not truly appreciating how great players like Drexler in '95 or Kobe in '01 were. Especially in the case of Drexler who was the Rockets best and most important player in the '95 playoffs in the series against the Jazz and the Suns.
Kobe and Drexler wasn't the best throughout the playoffs those years. What the hell do you mean same conclusion? Did you watch the games?

[KG5MVP]

I always thought of Kareem as extremely overrated and a statpadder, and people were saying he's GOAT, lol.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Let's make this simple, shall we? Kareem missed the sixth game of the '80 Finals. How did Magic do in his absence? He LED BOTH teams in rebounds, and by a HUGE margin, with 15. He LED BOTH teams in scoring, with 42 points. And while Wilkes scored 37, he shot 16-30 from the field. Meanwhile Magic shot 14-23 from the floor. He also made ALL 14 of his FTs. And he even found time to hand out 7 assists!

And what was the result? MAGIC led that Laker team, withOUT Kareem, to a clinching ROAD win and a championship.

Yes, it was a phenomenal game, an all-time great game, but it was one game, it doesn't change who was the Lakers best player by far in the previous 3 wins, or throughout the season.

The point is, Wilkes wasn't getting 37/10 daily and Magic wasn't getting 42/15/7 daily. They stepped up big in one game, doesn't take away from who the team's best and most valuable player was all season.


Win shares are not a bs stat. Disagreeing with a stat simply because it does not come to the same conclusion as you does not make the stat invalid. Perhaps you are not truly appreciating how great players like Drexler in '95 or Kobe in '01 were. Especially in the case of Drexler who was the Rockets best and most important player in the '95 playoffs in the series against the Jazz and the Suns.

Yes, win shares are a shitty stat. I know exactly how good Kobe was in 2001, but he wasn't as good as Shaq. Drexler? Great player, and he did play at a very high level in '95, but nobody with half a brain who watched those playoffs would attempt to claim that he was on Olajuwon's level. Kobe was closer to Shaq's level than Drexler was to Olajuwon's.

Ok, here are the 2008-2009 leaders in win shares

1.Lebron James
2.Chris Paul
3.Dwyane Wade
4.Pau Gasol
5.Dwight Howard
6.Brandon Roy
7.Kobe Bryant
8.Ray Allen
9.Dirk Nowitzki
10.Yao Ming

Not to mention that according to win shares, Mo Williams was top 15 that year. And we're supposed to take a stat seriously that suggests Gasol and Brandon Roy were better than Kobe and Ray Allen was better than Nowitzki in 2009? :roll:

1.Lebron James
2.Kevin Durant
3.Dwight Howard
4.Dwyane Wade
5.Dirk Nowitzki
6.Gerald Wallace
7.Pau Gasol
8.Tim Duncan
9.Al Horford
10.Nene Hilario

Kobe wasn't even top 20......look at that garbage, Wallace, Horford and Nene are top 10.

And in the 2010 playoffs, Gasol had 4.3 win shares while Kobe had just 3.6

I have yet to see a valid argument against my opinion of win shares. It's a horrible, idiotic stat.

[jlauber]

Yes, it was a phenomenal game, an all-time great game, but it was one game, it doesn't change who was the Lakers best player by far in the previous 3 wins, or throughout the season.

The point is, Wilkes wasn't getting 37/10 daily and Magic wasn't getting 42/15/7 daily. They stepped up big in one game, doesn't take away from who the team's best and most valuable player was all season.



That is just ONE example, as well. The facts were, if Magic played poorly, the Lakers had no chance. If Kareem played poorly, or not at all, Magic could rise to the occassion.

We have explored the '80 Finals, and the '85 Finals, but how about the '82 Finals?

Game six. Magic took THREE shots. Kareem took 13. Who was the best player in that clinching game six win?

Kareem went 6-13 from the field, 6-9 from the line, with 18 points, 11 rebounds, and 4 assists. Magic went 2-3 from the floor, 9-9 from the line, with 13 points, 13 rebounds, and 15 assists.

For the series? Kareem averaged 18.0 ppg, a pathetic 7.7 rpg, 3.8 apg, and shot .531 from the floor, and .537 from the line.

How about Magic? A near triple double (and had he not been sharing the ball handling with Nixon, he would have easily averaged a triple-double.) 16.2 ppg, a staggering 10.8 rpg (which was by far the best on LA), 8.0 apg, as well as shooting .533 from the field, and .846 from the line.

I won't even bother bringing up the '87 or '88 Finals, in which Kareem was nowhere near the player that Magic was (and in fact, LA won the title DESPITE an awful performance by Kareem in the '88 post-season.) Nor will I bring up the '89 post-season, in which the Lakers went 11-0 going into the Finals, and when Magic went down mid-way in game two, they were SWEPT.

How about the '84 Finals, when so many idiots called Magic, "Tragic" Johnson?

Kareem averaged 26.6 ppg, a pathetic 7.4 rpg, 4.4 apg, shot a weak .481 from the field, and .679 from the line. "Tragic" averaged 18.1 ppg, a team-leading 7.7 rpg, a staggering 13.6 apg, shot a phenomenal .560 from the field, and .744 from the line.

IMHO, MAGIC was the BETTER player in the '84 Finals (a seven game series loss in which the Lakers handed Boston the title.)

Magic was injured in the '81 season, and missed 45 games. He was still hurting and rusty in the playoffs, and what happened? Kareem was outplayed by Moses, and the Lakers could not overcome Magic's play, and lost to the 40-42 Rockets.

How about the '83 Finals. Once again, Magic played poorly, but in the meantime, Kareem was beaten to a pulp by Moses, and the Lakers were SWEPT.

So, in '85 we had Magic surpassing his regular season numbers, and LEADING the Lakers to a 126 ppg average, and a title. Kareem played far less minutes, and his overall contributions in the '85 were less.

In the '80 post-season, Kareem played brilliantly in the first five games, BUT, even withOUT him, MAGIC led LA to a clinching ROAD win, with perhaps the greatest game in post-season history. Who knows what kind of numbers he would have put up had Kareem not played at all?

The bottom line? Kareem was probably slightly more valuable in the '80 post-season. Magic was slightly more valuable in the '85 post-season. And in the '82, '87 and '88 post-seasons, Magic was CLEARLY more valuable.

Not only that, but Magic was a better player in '84 and '89, and oh BTW, how about the '86 post-season. Kareem averaged 25.9 ppg, a horrid 5.9 rpg, 3.5 apg, .557 from the field, and .786 from the line. Magic averaged 21.6 ppg, a team leading 7.1 rpg, a whopping 15.1 apg, and shot .537 from the field and .766 from the line.

Overall, Kareem was slightly better in '80, and in '81. Magic was slightly better in '84 and '85. He was clearly better in '82, '86, '87, '88, and '89. And, in '83, they both sucked. That gives Magic a 7-2-1 edge in the 80's post-seasons. AND, in the majority of those seven, he was CLEARLY better.

[purple32gold]

That is just ONE example, as well. The facts were, if Magic played poorly, the Lakers had no chance. If Kareem played poorly, or not at all, Magic could rise to the occassion.

We have explored the '80 Finals, and the '85 Finals, but how about the '82 Finals?

Game six. Magic took THREE shots. Kareem took 13. Who was the best player in that clinching game six win?

Kareem went 6-13 from the field, 6-9 from the line, with 18 points, 11 rebounds, and 4 assists. Magic went 2-3 from the floor, 9-9 from the line, with 13 points, 13 rebounds, and 15 assists.

For the series? Kareem averaged 18.0 ppg, a pathetic 7.7 rpg, 3.8 apg, and shot .531 from the floor, and .537 from the line.

How about Magic? A near triple double (and had he not been sharing the ball handling with Nixon, he would have easily averaged a triple-double.) 16.2 ppg, a staggering 10.8 rpg (which was by far the best on LA), 8.0 apg, as well as shooting .533 from the field, and .846 from the line.

I won't even bother bringing up the '87 or '88 Finals, in which Kareem was nowhere near the player that Magic was (and in fact, LA won the title DESPITE an awful performance by Kareem in the '88 post-season.) Nor will I bring up the '89 post-season, in which the Lakers went 11-0 going into the Finals, and when Magic went down mid-way in game two, they were SWEPT.

How about the '84 Finals, when so many idiots called Magic, "Tragic" Johnson?

Kareem averaged 26.6 ppg, a pathetic 7.4 rpg, 4.4 apg, shot a weak .481 from the field, and .679 from the line. "Tragic" averaged 18.1 ppg, a team-leading 7.7 rpg, a staggering 13.6 apg, shot a phenomenal .560 from the field, and .744 from the line.

IMHO, MAGIC was the BETTER player in the '84 Finals (a seven game series loss in which the Lakers handed Boston the title.)

Magic was injured in the '81 season, and missed 45 games. He was still hurting and rusty in the playoffs, and what happened? Kareem was outplayed by Moses, and the Lakers could not overcome Magic's play, and lost to the 40-42 Rockets.

How about the '83 Finals. Once again, Magic played poorly, but in the meantime, Kareem was beaten to a pulp by Moses, and the Lakers were SWEPT.

So, in '85 we had Magic surpassing his regular season numbers, and LEADING the Lakers to a 126 ppg average, and a title. Kareem played far less minutes, and his overall contributions in the '85 were less.

In the '80 post-season, Kareem played brilliantly in the first five games, BUT, even withOUT him, MAGIC led LA to a clinching ROAD win, with perhaps the greatest game in post-season history. Who knows what kind of numbers he would have put up had Kareem not played at all?

The bottom line? Kareem was probably slightly more valuable in the '80 post-season. Magic was slightly more valuable in the '85 post-season. And in the '82, '87 and '88 post-seasons, Magic was CLEARLY more valuable.

Not only that, but Magic was a better player in '84 and '89, and oh BTW, how about the '86 post-season. Kareem averaged 25.9 ppg, a horrid 5.9 rpg, 3.5 apg, .557 from the field, and .786 from the line. Magic averaged 21.6 ppg, a team leading 7.1 rpg, a whopping 15.1 apg, and shot .537 from the field and .766 from the line.

Overall, Kareem was slightly better in '80, and in '81. Magic was slightly better in '84 and '85. He was clearly better in '82, '86, '87, '88, and '89. And, in '83, they both sucked. That gives Magic a 7-2-1 edge in the 80's post-seasons. AND, in the majority of those seven, he was CLEARLY better.
once again im unsure why you're trying to subjectively compare a player in his mid to late 30's and his performances in the playoffs with a young not even in the prime of his career magic. it doesn't make any sense, and it's very fair. 7 boards a game on knees that have been pounding the courts for 20+ years is amazing considering he was always playing difficult frontcourt.

[jlauber]

once again im unsure why you're trying to subjectively compare a player in his mid to late 30's and his performances in the playoffs with a young not even in the prime of his career magic. it doesn't make any sense, and it's very fair. 7 boards a game on knees that have been pounding the courts for 20+ years is amazing considering he was always playing difficult frontcourt.

It is not a question of being fair to Kareem. I have already acknowledged that he was a great offensive player from '80 to '85. BUT, he was NOT the Lakers' BEST player in the majority of those years, and he was nowhere near the Lakers' BEST player from '86 on.

And very few here will mention the OBVIOUS...that Magic made ALL the Laker players better. You want an example? How about Kareem? Kareem's CAREER FG% was .559. From Magic's first year in the league, thru his eighth, Kareem shot BETTER than that .559 average EVERY season. Kareem was a complete washout in his '88 and '89 seasons (the last two of the ten that he played with Magic), and he only shot .532 and .475 (at ages 40 and 41.) His previous best season, BEFORE Magic, was .579. In Magic's first year, Kareem shot a career high .604. Hell, even at age 37 he shot .599.

As for his rebounding, the facts are the facts. Kareem was a POOR rebounder from the '81-82 season on. Interesting too, that there are those here who attempt to disparage Wilt at every turn, but in Wilt's last season, at age 36 (and nearly 37), he LED the league in rebounding. Not only that, but in Wilt's LAST post-season, he averaged 22.5 rpg in his 17 post-season games, including outrebounding Nate Thurmond by seven rpg in their five game series. How about Kareem at ages 36 and 37? 7.3 rpg and 7.9 rpg...and 8.2 rpg and 8.1 rpg in the post-season.

Not only that, but Magic had SEASONs where he outrebounded Kareem. Hell, in FIVE of their eight Finals, he outrebounded Kareem. And very few fans mention just how EFFICIENT Magic was. In NINE of 12 full seasons with the Lakers, he shot over 50% from the field. In his 83-84 and 84-85 seasons, he shot an eye-popping .565 and .561 from the floor...which is just staggering for a point guard.

There was a reason that Magic was outvoting Kareem for MVP in EIGHT of their TEN seasons together. He was clearly the BETTER player. And one more time...take Magic off the Lakers, and Kareem probably retires in the mid-80's with ONE ring. Now, take Kareem off of the Lakers, and Magic STILL wins a ring in '87 and '88. The real question is...would Magic have been able to carry his team's to titles in '80, '82, and '85? I doubt it, but the bottom line was that he could lead Laker teams to records of 63-19 and 58-24 without Kareem. Kareem never sniffed 60 wins on his Laker teams that he played on before Magic. And he had LOADED rosters in 77-78 and 78-79.

Magic just made EVERY player MUCH better. And withOUT Magic, they were ALL much worse.

[Pointguard]

First of all, quit ignoring '92, even with all of those injuries to key players after Magic's departure, they still went 43-39 and made the playoffs.

'93? The injuries had caught up to Worthy, why else was he playing just 28.8 mpg compared to 39 mpg in '92?

Byron Scott also missed 24 games in '93 and his minutes were cut back as well like Worthy's due to age and injuries.

Anything else?
Both Scott and Worthy never got back to their worse shooting percentage they had with Magic after he retired (3 years for Worthy and 6 for Scott). Worthy shot 433% regular season without Magic while being 549% with him (116 difference). Neither Scott or Worthy even looked like good players. Scott played ok that first year. But he was no current day Ray Allen. Worthy never proved he could play without Magic. Byron Scott shot 498% with Magic and 443% without him (55 pt differential).

Worthy averaged a 592 shooting percentage (like Shaq in his prime) his first 4playoff years with Magic yet averaged 372%(like Kwame Brown with 15 footers) without him the playoffs (a 220 pt decrease). Sobeit this is only a five game sample after Magic retired but that is what he was reduced to.


However, Kareem was still the team's best scorer, a bigger defensive presence than Magic and the go to guy down the stretch in the half court. He was no sidekick in '85, particularly when the team's coach called him the best player on the team the year before and said after the '85 finals that they'd be an ordinary team without Kareem.
It was no secret then that Kareem needed his ego stroked backed then - he was known to sulk if Magic got too much attention (yeah one more endurable quality about the ingrate). Magic controlled the tempo of the game. The inspirational leader and overall leader. The engine that made the team go. Was the glue to the team. The guy that made the running game and the post game gel. The guy that made all the pieces fit together.

[jlauber]

Both Scott and Worthy never got back to their worse shooting percentage they had with Magic after he retired (3 years for Worthy and 6 for Scott). Worthy shot 433% regular season without Magic while being 549% with him (116 difference). Neither Scott or Worthy even looked like good players. Scott played ok that first year. But he was no current day Ray Allen. Worthy never proved he could play without Magic. Byron Scott shot 498% with Magic and 443% without him (55 pt differential).

Worthy averaged a 592 shooting percentage (like Shaq in his prime) his first 4playoff years with Magic yet averaged 372%(like Kwame Brown with 15 footers) without him the playoffs (a 220 pt decrease). Sobeit this is only a five game sample after Magic retired but that is what he was reduced to.


It was no secret then that Kareem needed his ego stroked backed then - he was known to sulk if Magic got too much attention (yeah one more endurable quality about the ingrate). Magic controlled the tempo of the game. The inspirational leader and overall leader. The engine that made the team go. Was the glue to the team. The guy that made the running game and the post game gel. The guy that made all the pieces fit together.

Well said.

:cheers:

[Pointguard]

It is not a question of being fair to Kareem. I have already acknowledged that he was a great offensive player from '80 to '85. BUT, he was NOT the Lakers' BEST player in the majority of those years, and he was nowhere near the Lakers' BEST player from '86 on.

And very few here will mention the OBVIOUS...that Magic made ALL the Laker players better. You want an example? How about Kareem? Kareem's CAREER FG% was .559. From Magic's first year in the league, thru his eighth, Kareem shot BETTER than that .559 average EVERY season. Kareem was a complete washout in his '88 and '89 seasons (the last two of the ten that he played with Magic), and he only shot .532 and .475 (at ages 40 and 41.) His previous best season, BEFORE Magic, was .579. In Magic's first year, Kareem shot a career high .604. Hell, even at age 37 he shot .599.

As for his rebounding, the facts are the facts. Kareem was a POOR rebounder from the '81-82 season on. Interesting too, that there are those here who attempt to disparage Wilt at every turn, but in Wilt's last season, at age 36 (and nearly 37), he LED the league in rebounding. Not only that, but in Wilt's LAST post-season, he averaged 22.5 rpg in his 17 post-season games, including outrebounding Nate Thurmond by seven rpg in their five game series. How about Kareem at ages 36 and 37? 7.3 rpg and 7.9 rpg...and 8.2 rpg and 8.1 rpg in the post-season.

Not only that, but Magic had SEASONs where he outrebounded Kareem. Hell, in FIVE of their eight Finals, he outrebounded Kareem. And very few fans mention just how EFFICIENT Magic was. In NINE of 12 full seasons with the Lakers, he shot over 50% from the field. In his 83-84 and 84-85 seasons, he shot an eye-popping .565 and .561 from the floor...which is just staggering for a point guard.

There was a reason that Magic was outvoting Kareem for MVP in EIGHT of their TEN seasons together. He was clearly the BETTER player. And one more time...take Magic off the Lakers, and Kareem probably retires in the mid-80's with ONE ring. Now, take Kareem off of the Lakers, and Magic STILL wins a ring in '87 and '88. The real question is...would Magic have been able to carry his team's to titles in '80, '82, and '85? I doubt it, but the bottom line was that he could lead Laker teams to records of 63-19 and 58-24 without Kareem. Kareem never sniffed 60 wins on his Laker teams that he played on before Magic. And he had LOADED rosters in 77-78 and 78-79.

Magic just made EVERY player MUCH better. And withOUT Magic, they were ALL much worse.
:cheers: I didn't even see your post but its the right compliment to mines above.

[G.O.A.T]

Guess who Pat Riley thought was the Laker's best player circa 1984?

"I wave a red flag and say were going to Kareem, our best player and were going to let him shoot that hook."

-Pat Riley March 10th, 1984 Los Angeles Times

He must not have held that opinion much longer...Here's one about the 1984 NBA Finals regarding the timeout Magic called after McHale missed two free throws in game two. LA was up two, 113-111 at the time. Here's what Riley said about what happened next.

"I just assumed He (McHale) did (make the free throws). Earvin did what he was told. It was my fault. I should have been more conscious of what was unfolding. My best player had rebounded the ball, and all he had to do was run up the floor and the game would have been over."

And as for Kareem's stats, here's an example of how little they matter to the players involved with this debate.

After game one, in which Kareem scored 32 with 8 rebounds, 5 assists and 2 blocks in game one of thr 1984 Finals, here's what Bird said he was concerned with:

"Magic pick us apart tonight. He got his guys easy baskets. I didn't like what I saw."

I think the think that's interesting about this debate is this.

Most people would agree Kareem was more talented than Magic until at least 1984. Most people would agree Magic was more important to the team than Kareem from 1982 on.

And that's sort of the essence of the debate. They don't win in '80, '82 or '85 without either one of them and that's why it's so hard to really pick a side.

This thread is supposed to be about Kareem in the 1970's though, so I digress.

I think I'll put a Magic/Kareem thread together. Something with a bit of research put into it before we open the discussion.

[Da_Realist]

He must not have held that opinion much longer...Here's one about the 1984 NBA Finals regarding the timeout Magic called after McHale missed two free throws in game two. LA was up two, 113-111 at the time. Here's what Riley said about what happened next.

"I just assumed He (McHale) did (make the free throws). Earvin did what he was told. It was my fault. I should have been more conscious of what was unfolding. My best player had rebounded the ball, and all he had to do was run up the floor and the game would have been over."

And as for Kareem's stats, here's an example of how little they matter to the players involved with this debate.

After game one, in which Kareem scored 32 with 8 rebounds, 5 assists and 2 blocks in game one of thr 1984 Finals, here's what Bird said he was concerned with:

"Magic pick us apart tonight. He got his guys easy baskets. I didn't like what I saw."

I think the think that's interesting about this debate is this.

Most people would agree Kareem was more talented than Magic until at least 1984. Most people would agree Magic was more important to the team than Kareem from 1982 on.

And that's sort of the essence of the debate. They don't win in '80, '82 or '85 without either one of them and that's why it's so hard to really pick a side.

This thread is supposed to be about Kareem in the 1970's though, so I digress.

I think I'll put a Magic/Kareem thread together. Something with a bit of research put into it before we open the discussion.

That would be an interesting read

[jlauber]

He must not have held that opinion much longer...Here's one about the 1984 NBA Finals regarding the timeout Magic called after McHale missed two free throws in game two. LA was up two, 113-111 at the time. Here's what Riley said about what happened next.

"I just assumed He (McHale) did (make the free throws). Earvin did what he was told. It was my fault. I should have been more conscious of what was unfolding. My best player had rebounded the ball, and all he had to do was run up the floor and the game would have been over."

And as for Kareem's stats, here's an example of how little they matter to the players involved with this debate.

After game one, in which Kareem scored 32 with 8 rebounds, 5 assists and 2 blocks in game one of thr 1984 Finals, here's what Bird said he was concerned with:

"Magic pick us apart tonight. He got his guys easy baskets. I didn't like what I saw."

I think the think that's interesting about this debate is this.

Most people would agree Kareem was more talented than Magic until at least 1984. Most people would agree Magic was more important to the team than Kareem from 1982 on.

And that's sort of the essence of the debate. They don't win in '80, '82 or '85 without either one of them and that's why it's so hard to really pick a side.

This thread is supposed to be about Kareem in the 1970's though, so I digress.

I think I'll put a Magic/Kareem thread together. Something with a bit of research put into it before we open the discussion.

Exceptional post. I was a HUGE Kareem fan all the way back to his UCLA days, but, the more I study his career, the less stellar it has become. At one time I had him ranked at #3 all-time. Currently I have him at #5. And i am debating whether to drop him below both Shaq and Duncan.

He was a great offensive player, albeit, great defensive centers like Thurmond and Wilt held him way below his normal averages. He played with stacked teams in the early 70's, and won only one title...in a year in which the only team that could have beaten his Bucks, were Wilt's Lakers...and they were without BOTH West and Baylor. And those who witnessed that playoff series gave Chamberlain the edge. Of course, Wilt was a year removed from major knee surgery, and well past his prime, too.

Kareem played on a 63-19 Buck team that was the defending champs, and he was outplayed by both Thurmond and Wilt in the post-season. And Chamberlain had Kareem figured out from game three on, too. In fact, the Lakers annihilated Milwaukee in game five, and then, behind the inspired and dominant play of Chamberlain in game six, they came from behind to beat the Bucks...all with Jerry West having the most miserable post-season of his career.

In '73, Kareem was once again completely neutralized by Thurmond, and his 60-22 Bucks went down in flames (despite Oscar's brilliant play BTW) to the 47-35 Warriors. BTW, in the next round, the 60-22 Lakers behind Chamberlain's overwhelming defense and rebounding, crushed the Warriors 4-1 (including a 126-70 win in Oakland.)

In '74 the 59-23 Bucks were knocked off in game seven by the 56-26 Celtics, in a seventh game in which Kareem was outplayed by little Dave Cowens. Of course, the pro-Kareemers will tell you he was doubled by Boston. Well-well, welcome to Wilt's CAREER (in fact, the Celtics used to SWARM Wilt and let his teammates shoot open shots all game long.)

In '75, Oscar retired, and Kareem broke his hand and missed 16 games. (BTW, Chamberlain not only PLAYED in a clinching game in the Finals, with TWO badly injured wrists ...one being FRACTURED...he DOMINATED that game.) The Bucks went 3-13 without Kareem, but only 35-30 with him. Obviously Oscar, who brought Kareem his only title in the 70's, was far more important than many thought. Meanwhile, Rick Barry and a bunch of no-names go 48-34 and win the title.

In '76, Kareem was traded to the Lakers. His old Buck team went 38-44 withOUT him (their identical record from the year before.) His new Laker team, with HOFer Goodrich and explosive shooter Cazzie Russell, along with Lucius Allen, only went 40-42. Even more interesting was the fact that in Kareem's '72 season, he played 44 mpg, and averaged 34.8 ppg on .574 (with Oscar of course), on a team that went 63-19, and had an +11.1 ppg differential. YET, when the '76 Lakers obviously needed him to step up, he averaged 41.2 mpg, 27.7 ppg, and shot .529. Great numbers to be sure, but hardly the spectacular numbers he had with OSCAR in Milwaukee.

In '77 Kareem's Lakers went 53-29, BUT, in the post-season, despite Kareem's great play, they are SWEPT by Walton's 49-33 Blazers.

In '78, Kareem, with players like Nixon, Hudson, Wilkes, and Dantley, get shredded in the first round of the playoffs by a Sonic team with one borderline HOFer, and that would lose to the 42-40 Bullets in the Finals.

In '79, with basically the same roster, the Lakers are ripped by the 52-30 Sonics in the second round of the playoffs, 4-1.

MAGIC arrives, and while Kareem played well, it was fascinating that Kareem was at home with an ankle injury (jeez, Wilt played in the post-season with surgically repaired knees, severe thigh injuries, broken hands, and arthritic knees)...and MAGIC put up a 42 point game (which LED all scorers), a 15 rebound game (which LED all rebounders, by a WIDE margin) on 14-23 shooting (Wilkes scored 37 on 16-30 shooting BTW), with seven assists...and playing SEVERAL positions...in leading LA to a clinching ROAD win.

Of course, from that season on, Magic CLEARLY led LA to their FOUR other rings. He was not only their leader with his brilliant passing and running the break, but he was also their best rebounder in several seasons and in several Finals. By '86 Kareem was reduced to LA's third best player, and by '88 he was being CARRIED by the entire roster. So, in reality, he was only the real best player in LA's run in ONE title...and even that was questionable, since it was MAGIC who won the clinching game six withOUT Kareem.

Kareem was battered by Moses in '81 and '83. He was awful in stretches of '84. He was a horrible rebounder and defender from '85 on. And by '86 he was only a third, at best, option.

Take Magic away from Kareem's career, and IMHO, Kareem retires in the mid-80's with ONE ring. Take Kareem away from Magic's career, and Magic wins at least TWO rings (in '87 and '88.) And given the fact that Magic elevated the play of ALL of his teammates (especially Kareem), there is a strong possibility that LA wins in '85, as well. And, as well as Magic played in '82 (CLEARLY the Lakers BEST player), they might have won in that year, as well.

[magnax1]

I think that this thread has sort of lowered my ranking of Kareem (not entirely this thread obviously, but it's part of it) Before I thought Kareem in his peak was up with the top 3, but I don't really think so anymore. It's partially to do that lately I've had time to watch more games of him also. His defense isn't as good as advertised, and his teams were really up to the challenge of winning at least 3 rings in the 70's.

[ShaqAttack3234]

He must not have held that opinion much longer...Here's one about the 1984 NBA Finals regarding the timeout Magic called after McHale missed two free throws in game two. LA was up two, 113-111 at the time. Here's what Riley said about what happened next.

"I just assumed He (McHale) did (make the free throws). Earvin did what he was told. It was my fault. I should have been more conscious of what was unfolding. My best player had rebounded the ball, and all he had to do was run up the floor and the game would have been over."

Good find, I'd say that based on that quote, the quote I found from a few months earlier and Riley's quote after the '85 finals stating that the Lakers would only be an ordinary team, he probably viewed it as 1.A/1.B by that point. And I think it's fair enough to call them 1.A and 1.B in the mid 80's.


And as for Kareem's stats, here's an example of how little they matter to the players involved with this debate.

I'm not basing most of my argument on stats. My argument for Kareem was that he was their best scorer, by far their first option in the halfcourt and first option down the stretch/go to guy down the stretch as well as a bigger defensive presence than Magic.

But based on the fact that Magic was by far their best playmaker, such a good rebounder for his position and the key to their fastbreak, which was their trademark, I can agree on it being 1.A and 1.B.



I think I'll put a Magic/Kareem thread together. Something with a bit of research put into it before we open the discussion.

I look forward to the discussion, I just got done rewatching the '83 finals and I'm currently watching a regular season game from 1980 vs the Clippers which I'll post on youtube(not Magic's debut from earlier in the year).




Of course, from that season on, Magic CLEARLY led LA to their FOUR other rings.

No, he wasn't clearly the best, otherwise there wouldn't be so many debates about it.


By '86 Kareem was reduced to LA's third best player

No, he wasn't, I'll cover that below.


Kareem was battered by Moses in '81 and '83. He was awful in stretches of '84. He was a horrible rebounder and defender from '85 on. And by '86 he was only a third, at best, option.

I can't comment on the '81 series until I see it, but he wasn't "battered" by Moses in '83. I just watched the series again, and Moses did one thing better than him, rebound, and he did that much better, but he didn't even match up with Kareem for stretches on both ends. Not to mention that Kareem was not even in his prime anymore and Moses was at his peak. Moses was also the best player in the NBA that year and he was on one of the greatest teams in NBA history.

He was NOT a third option. Magic was the Lakers best player in '86, IMO, but Kareem still led the team with 23.4 ppg and 1.6 bpg. He led them in scoring in the playoffs as well with 25.9 ppg.

Kareem was second to only Magic in '86, Worthy was not better than Kareem yet.

[magnax1]

I think after 82 Magic was at least the equal of Kareem. The guy was averaging 18-9-9 with average D. As of 82 Kareem was only averaging 24-9-3 with some okay post D, and good rim protection. Maybe one was better then the other, but it's not a big enough difference to make a really good argument either way.

[nycelt84]

Yes, it was a phenomenal game, an all-time great game, but it was one game, it doesn't change who was the Lakers best player by far in the previous 3 wins, or throughout the season.

The point is, Wilkes wasn't getting 37/10 daily and Magic wasn't getting 42/15/7 daily. They stepped up big in one game, doesn't take away from who the team's best and most valuable player was all season.



Yes, win shares are a shitty stat. I know exactly how good Kobe was in 2001, but he wasn't as good as Shaq. Drexler? Great player, and he did play at a very high level in '95, but nobody with half a brain who watched those playoffs would attempt to claim that he was on Olajuwon's level. Kobe was closer to Shaq's level than Drexler was to Olajuwon's.

Ok, here are the 2008-2009 leaders in win shares

1.Lebron James
2.Chris Paul
3.Dwyane Wade
4.Pau Gasol
5.Dwight Howard
6.Brandon Roy
7.Kobe Bryant
8.Ray Allen
9.Dirk Nowitzki
10.Yao Ming

Not to mention that according to win shares, Mo Williams was top 15 that year. And we're supposed to take a stat seriously that suggests Gasol and Brandon Roy were better than Kobe and Ray Allen was better than Nowitzki in 2009? :roll:

1.Lebron James
2.Kevin Durant
3.Dwight Howard
4.Dwyane Wade
5.Dirk Nowitzki
6.Gerald Wallace
7.Pau Gasol
8.Tim Duncan
9.Al Horford
10.Nene Hilario

Kobe wasn't even top 20......look at that garbage, Wallace, Horford and Nene are top 10.

And in the 2010 playoffs, Gasol had 4.3 win shares while Kobe had just 3.6

I have yet to see a valid argument against my opinion of win shares. It's a horrible, idiotic stat.

Regarding Drexler/Olajuwon in the '95 Playoffs.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/blog/?p=5519
http://www.basketball-reference.com/blog/?p=5500

[G.O.A.T]

Kareem's teammates with the Lakers 1975-1979

1975-76
Gail Goodrich (32) - 20-3-6 - 5x All-star, 1x All-NBA
Lucius Allen (28) - 15-2-5
Cazzie Russell (31) - 12-3-2 - 1x all-star
Cornell Warner (27) - 7-9-1
----------------------------------------
Donnie Freeman (31) 11-3-3 - 5x ABA All-star, 4x All-ABA
Don Ford (23) - 10-4-2

1976-77
Don Chaney (30) - 6-4-4 - Starting guard on 1974 NBA Champions
Lucius Allen (29) - 15-3-5 - (missed 4 games in '77 playoffs)
Cazzie Russell (32) - 16-4-3
Kermit Washington (25) - 10-9-1 - 1x All-star (injured for '77 playoffs)
----------------------------------
Earl Tatum (23) - 9-3-2
Bo Lamar (25) - 7-1-3
Johnny Neumann - 6-1-2

1977-78 (West Revamps Roster)
Norm Nixon (22) - 13-3-7 - 2x All-star
Charlie Scott (29) - 12-3-5 - 3x NBA All-star 2x ABA All-star
Jamaal Wilkes (24) - 13-8-4 - 3x All-star
Adrian Dantley (21) - 19-7-3 - 6x All-star, 2x All-NBA
----------------------------------
Lou Hudson (33) - 14-2-2 - 6x All-star, 1x All-NBA
Dave Robisch (28) - 5-3-1

1978-79 (Revamped roster settles in)
Norm Nixon (23) - 17-3-9
Ron Boone - (32) - 7-2-2 - 4x ABA All-star, 2x All-ABA
Jamaal Wilkes (25) - 19-7-3
Adrian Dantley (22) - 17-6-2
----------------------------------
Lou Hudson (34) - 10-2-2
Dave Robisch (29) - 5-3-1
Kenny Carr (23) - 7-4-1

Breakdown
Gail Goodrich - Goodrich was less than two years removed from All-NBA first team honors and coming off the last of his five all-star selections. His points, rebounds, assists and field goal percentage all dropped in his only season with Kareem. The next year he signed with New Orleans as a free agent to team up with Pistol Pete but was injured and never the same player.

Lucius Allen - Allen was a rookie reserve on the Bucks '71 Title team with Alcindor. He and Alcindor played at UCLA together and were a good fit in the NBA. Traded in early 1974-75 to the Lakers. Reunited with Kareem less than a year later when Kareem was traded. In 56 games as Laker without Kareem, Allen averaged 19.5 points 4.4 rebounds 5.7 assists and 2.2 steals. In 154 as a Laker with Kareem Allen averaged 14.6 points 3.0 rebounds 5.0 assists and 1.4 steals.

Cazzie Russell - In the four seasons prior to Jabbar becoming his teammate Russell had averaged 21, 16, 21 and 16 points per game for the Warriors and Lakers. In 1975-76 his number plummeted, by the following year was his finest in five scoring 17 a game on a career best 49% shooting. However following the 1977 playoffs, Russell was released. He played a limited role with Chicago the next year before retiring.

Cornell Warner - Barely an NBA player. Did well alongside Kareem in '75 with Bucks and was sold to Lakers after Kareem was traded. did well again for his skill set in '76 but was out of the league shortly after.

Donnie Freeman - Once averaged as much as 27 points per game. Had averaged 16 on 45% shooting in 1975, dropped to 11 on 43% in his only season with Kareem.

Don Ford - Borderline NBA player, only played cause Lakers had no one else ready. Five years in LA as backup, two in Cleveland.

Don Chaney - Brought in to be a starter in 1976-77, had worst season of his career as a starter shooting a career low 40% and posting his lowest scoring and rebounding averages of his career in a starting role. Got even worse to start 1977-78 season before being traded.

Kermit Washington - Preeminent enforcer of his era. In 78 starts alongside Kareem he averaged 10.2 points 9.9 rebounds 1.0 blocks. In 267 starts over the next three and half years with Boston, the Clippers and Portland Washington would average 12.3 points 10.1 rebounds 1.4 blocks and became an all-star in 1980.

Earl Tatum - Rookie played key role in 1977, especially after Lou Allen injury. Had his best two seasons with LA. Struggled with Detroit in '79 before a knee injury ended his career in 1980.

Bo Lamar - Played three ABA seasons leading up to being traded to the Lakers and averaged 20, 21 and 16 ppg. Averaged just 7ppg in only season with LA.

Johnny Neumann - Super talented guard with a reputation of being a selfish guy who only wanted to play his way. Played with six ABA teams in four seasons, but was always effective. Averaged 20-4-6 at age 21, in '76 the year before he joined the Lakers he scored 13 ppg in 20 mpg for Virginia and Kentucky in the ABA.

Charlie Scott - A great scorer plain and simple, averaged 33 a game in one ABA season. Averaged 18 a game in '76 and '77 and was posting better than 16 per for Boston in 77-78 when LA traded for him. Proceeded to post the lowest scoring numbers of his career in total and per 48 minutes in his half season alongside Kareem.

Adrian Dantley - Dantley, who was the 1977 rookie of the year, joined 1977 MVP Kareem early in the 77-78 season via trade. Dantley had averaged over 20 a game as a rookie and was scoring 27 a night for the Pacers when LA acquired him. In 116 Laker games Dantley averaged 18 points per game and shot 51% from the floor. He left the Lakers after the '79 season. he averaged 28 a game in '80 and over 30 a night for the next four straight seasons. His field goal percentage never dropped below 51 again and scoring never below 20 until he was traded by Detroit in early 1989 at the age of 32.

Lou Hudson - Came to the Lakers past his prime, but did have his worst two scoring seasons both per game and per minute of his career alongside Kareem.

Dave Robisch - In six NBA and ABA season prior to joining the Lakers, Robisch never averaged lower than 12 points or 6 rebounds per game. In two years with LA, a team without a PF according to many critics, the PF averaged less than 5 points and 4 rebounds. The first season after he left LA he averaged 15 and 8 for the Cavaliers and remained a double figure scorer for two more seasons after that.

Ron Boone - Former ABA star averaged 22-4-4 with the Knicks in '77, 18-3-4 in '78 and 7-2-2 with the Lakers in '79. He was injured in the '79 off season, traded early in that season to Utah and averaged 13-3-4 for the Jazz.

Kenny Carr - Carr averaged 6 and 7 ppg in two seasons playing with Jabbar, in his eight other NBA seasons he never averaged less than 10.

Jamaal Wilkes as a starter:
W/GS - 3 seasons - 17-9-2-46% - 1 Ring
W/Kareem, no Magic - 2 seasons - 16-7-3-47% - 0 rings
W/Kareem+Magic - 5 seasons - 20-5-3-53% - 2 Rings

Norm Nixon as a starter:
W/Kareem, no Magic - 2 seasons - 15-3-8-52% - 0 rings
W/Kareem+Magic - 4 seasons - 17-3-8-49% - 2 rings
W/Clippers - 3 seasons - 16-3-9-45% - 0 rings

There is no questioning Kareem's individual dominance in the 1970's the stats don't lie.

But there is also no questioning his inability to make teammates better, or even allow them to be themselves, again, the stats don't lie.

[magnax1]

Never realized the 76 team was that talented yet didn't make the playoffs. Though they did have a better record then the pistons who made it? Weird.

[PHILA]

G.O.A.T, what is your opinion (if any) on KAJ's comments regarding his play vs. Chamberlain & Russell?



The Milwaukee Journal - Nov 15, 1978 (http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=EmMaAAAAIBAJ&sjid=MyoEAAAAIBAJ&pg=6402,3265566&dq)

But despite his high point total, Abdul-Jabbar's new ways were apparent. The 7 foot 2 inch center, who for nine seasons insulted the art of scoring by assuming the same low post position every time down the floor before catching the inevitable pass and taking the inevitable shot, has changed his act. He is now, to a large extent, a high post center. He shoots from the high post. He passes from the high post. He runs plays from the high post, as the Lakers, winners of 10 straight games, use his talents to emphasize his teammates' talents.

Coach Don Nelson of the Bucks equates Abdul-Jabbar's transformation with that of Wilt Chamberlain in his final years of pro basketball. Chamberlain, once a great scorer, concentrated on defense and passing as he led the Lakers to an NBA title.

"The Lakers are the best team I've seen this season," Nelson said. They are a great team. And much of the reason is because Kareem is scoring less.

"Kareem has never been selfish, but now he seems to be in the syndrome of concentrating on defense and passing the ball, a la Chamberlain. He's more valuable now than if he was scoring 40-45 points a game."

Abdul-Jabbar disagrees with Nelson's assessment.

"Wilt was forced into changing his game because when they widened the lane, his offensive game was hurt," Abdul-Jabbar said. That's not the case with me. I can still go down low. But we have players who work well when I'm out high.

"Wilt had all the stats and personal glory. But Bill Russell won the championships and was held in higher esteem. Russell was the first player I ever watched closely, and I'm playing similarly to Russell now."

[G.O.A.T]

G.O.A.T, what is your opinion (if any) on KAJ's comments regarding his play vs. Chamberlain & Russell?



The Milwaukee Journal - Nov 15, 1978 (http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=EmMaAAAAIBAJ&sjid=MyoEAAAAIBAJ&pg=6402,3265566&dq)

But despite his high point total, Abdul-Jabbar's new ways were apparent. The 7 foot 2 inch center, who for nine seasons insulted the art of scoring by assuming the same low post position every time down the floor before catching the inevitable pass and taking the inevitable shot, has changed his act. He is now, to a large extent, a high post center. He shoots from the high post. He passes from the high post. He runs plays from the high post, as the Lakers, winners of 10 straight games, use his talents to emphasize his teammates' talents.

Coach Don Nelson of the Bucks equates Abdul-Jabbar's transformation with that of Wilt Chamberlain in his final years of pro basketball. Chamberlain, once a great scorer, concentrated on defense and passing as he led the Lakers to an NBA title.

"The Lakers are the best team I've seen this season," Nelson said. They are a great team. And much of the reason is because Kareem is scoring less.

"Kareem has never been selfish, but now he seems to be in the syndrome of concentrating on defense and passing the ball, a la Chamberlain. He's more valuable now than if he was scoring 40-45 points a game."

Abdul-Jabbar disagrees with Nelson's assessment.

"Wilt was forced into changing his game because when they widened the lane, his offensive game was hurt," Abdul-Jabbar said. That's not the case with me. I can still go down low. But we have players who work well when I'm out high.

"Wilt had all the stats and personal glory. But Bill Russell won the championships and was held in higher esteem. Russell was the first player I ever watched closely, and I'm playing similarly to Russell now."

Well first, thanks very much for the article, I've never seen that.

I certainly don't know enough about the '78 Lakers to comment on Kareem's style of play in that or really any particular season. But I have a number of thoughts in response to that article.

I don't think his assessment of Chamberlain is accurate at all. The significant rise and Wilt's FG% and decrease of his FGA, which did not coincide with any rule changes, clearly show it was a stylistic change, not a production change. Alex Hannum stated from day one that Wilt would look to score less because the talent around him was sufficient that they were better that way.

Kareem certainly wasn't getting Russell results if he was playing that way. Guys like Dantley and Robisch would have thrived with Russell. They have specific obvious weaknesses with defense and rebounding, Russell would cover that up and work to make them stars on offense in their roles. Also all the old ABA stars who were never able to succeed alongside Kareem, those are the type of players that came to the Celtics and played key roles.

I buy that Kareem was working harder on defense and rebounding and that he believed he had good players around him, because he did. West rebuilt the roster for him between the end of the '77 sweep to Portland and mid-season 1977-78. Every starter changed, every key reserve changed. By the start of the 1978-79 season, not a single player besides Kareem was left from the roster than was swept by Portland.

I think the timing, coming off the Portland series in '77 and the Seattle series in '78, where he was beat by balanced scoring defensive teams, and specifically a center who modeled his game after Russell (Walton) is very telling.

Kareem was sick of being labeled a loser or a malcontent and he played very good basketball over the next two seasons and was actually less of a stick in the mud than usual by most accounts. But he still didn't get it. He still didn't understand chemistry even though he understood it was important.

[jlauber]

G.O.A.T

Just a great post. I, of course, witnessed much of Kareem's career. Off the top of my head, in his first game in the NBA against Elvin Hayes, he torched him for 46 points. He hung 50 on Wilt, and then had a 40 point playoff game against Chamberlain. Without looking it up, I believe he burned Walton for 50, and averaged a 35-18-60% playoff series against him. In his '72 regular season he averaged something like 40 ppg against Cowens. In his rookie season, and against Reed in the '70 playoffs, he averaged over 30 ppg. The list was endless. He could simply dominate any player he faced, and he did it so easily.

Not only that, but in his second season, the Bucks acquired Oscar, and just romped through the league. They went 66-16, and had a +12.2 scoring differential. They set a record FG% differential that still stands, of .085 (.509 to .424.) They then stormed through the regular season, going 12-2, and setting a scoring differential record of +14.5, which still stands today. He had a solid post-season series against Thurmond (28 ppg on .486 shooting), and the Bucks annihilated the Warriors, 4-1 (including a 50 point in one game.)They blew out Wilt's Lakers, 4-1 (albeit, both West and Baylor missed the series...and Wilt, at the very least battled him to a statistical draw in that series.) And then they swept Unseld's 42-40 Bullets, 4-0. Kareem was the both the regular season and Finals MVP. He averaged 31.7 ppg on a phenomenal .577 shooting. All in only his second season.

Virtually EVERY basketball "expert" and publication predicted that the Bucks would have a dynasty that would rival the Celtic dynasty of the 50's and 60's. Aside from Oscar, they were a very young team (Dandridge, Allen, McGlocklin, Greg Smith, and Kareem were all either early in their careers, or their primes.)

And the Bucks started out the 71-72 season much the same. They were 16-1 at one point. They were universally regarded as not only a great team, but perhaps the greatest ever.

Meanwhile, the Lakers quietly made a coaching change. They brought in Bill Sharman. He came to a team that was aged, and injury-riddled. All five starters were over 30 (Baylor, West, Hairston, Goodrich, and Wilt.) Baylor had missed all but two games in the '71 season, and all of the post-season. West had missed the last fourth of the of the season, and all of the playoffs. Wilt was just a little over a year removed from major knee surgery, and was 35. Most pre-season polls had the Lakers finishing well down in the Pacific Division. NO ONE gave them ANY chance of beating the Bucks.

On top of that, Sharman decided early on that he was going to play FAST-BREAK basketball...which was just laughable at the time. How was he going to RUN with five starters over 30 (some well over 30), and several of them coming off of severe injuries? The first thing he did was go to Wilt. He asked Wilt to focus on rebounding, defense, AND igniting the break. Chamberlain welcomed the idea, and in fact, would relish it. Sharman convinced West that they could run, and West agreed. The biggest hurdle, though, was Baylor. Baylor had run the Lakers since the 60's. In the first half of the decade, he was among the greatest players ever. However, he suffered a devastating knee injury in the mid-60's (a nearly identical injury to Wilt's BTW), and his explosion was gone. He could still shoot well enough to score, but his rebounding began to decline, and his defense, which was never very good, only became worse. IMHO, Baylor actually had hindered the Lakers in their '68-69 season. In any case, Sharman got Baylor to retire after the ninth game, and inserted second year player Jim McMillian into the starting lineup. And the rest was history.

The Lakers IMMEDIATELY ran off a 33 game winning streak. Not only were they winning, but they were crushing their opponents. During that 33 game winning streak, they only had ten games decided by single digits, and they won those game, on average by 16 ppg. They would go two months without a loss. In an early season encounter, they beat the Bucks, and surpassed them with the best record in the league. A lead that they would never relinquish.

However, the Bucks did end their 33 game winning streak on national TV, 120-104, and while Milwaukee still trailed them in the standings, most everyone believed that they would still easily catch the Lakers. But, the Lakers continued to roll, and they would beat the Bucks three more times during the regular season, to go 4-1 against them. In that 50 point game by Kareem against Wilt, the Lakers were never threatened, and they won easily, 123-107 (Wilt also outrebounded Kareem in that game, 25-8.)

The Lakers continued to pound opponents. They had a ton of 130+ point games, and several over 140, as well as some 150+ point games. They even destroyed the 51-31 Warriors in one game, by a 162-99 margin. They only had ONE game under 100 points all season. They finished the year at 69-13, which was the best record ever at the time. They also had a +12.3 point differential, which is still a record (tied by the '96 Bulls.)

They swept the 57-25 Bulls in the first round of the playoffs. Meanwhile, for the first time in his athletic career, Kareem struggled. Thurmond outscored and outshot him in their first-round battle. It was so bad, that Kareem only shot .405 during that series. Still, the Bucks were a vastly superior team, and they knocked off the pesky Warriors, 4-1.

That set up the most anticipated playoff series in NBA history. The 69-13 Lakers against the defending champion, 63-19 Bucks. Despite LA's better record, most experts tabbed the Bucks as solid favorites. And, in game one, with Kareem torching Wilt, and the Laker players firing bricks, the Bucks blew out LA 93-72. The Lakers had lost HCA, and the "experts" were now even predicting a sweep. Kareem played well in game two, but with a miracle bounce late, the Lakers, behind 42 points from McMillian, edged the Bucks, 135-132.

It was at this point that Sharman challenged Wilt. He asked Wilt to physically dominate Kareem, at BOTH ends. And, from that point on, thru the end of the following season, when Wilt would retire, Kareem would seldom have even a good game against him.

With Wilt holding Kareem to awful shooting the rest of the series (.414 over the last four games), and even blocking some five skyhooks per game (as well as double digit blocks on the other Buck's players), the Lakers slowly asserted themselves. With the series tied 2-2, the series shifted back to LA for game five. Chamberlain was now challenging EVERY Kareem shot, and the great Buck center looked like a deer caught in the headlights of a speeding semi. With his skyhook now resembling something along the lines of shooting a bowling ball at a thimble, the Lakers buried the Bucks in game five, 115-90.

The proud Bucks and Kareem fought back in Milwaukee in game six. They forged a ten point lead early in the 4th quarter. Then, as West would later say, Wilt put on the greatest "ball-****ing" performance that West had ever seen. He thoroughly shut down Kareem in that last period. He was diving for loose balls. He was outrunning Kareem down the floor. He blocked two of Kareem's skyhooks late (six for the game...and 11 total blocks in all.) He eevn powered thru Kareem at the offensive end, scoring 20 points on 8-12 shooting. LA came all the way back to win.

The Lakers, behind Wilt's incredible play in the Finals, particularly his clinching game five, and with both badly damaged wrists heavily-wrapped, carried LA to their first ever championship in Los Angeles.

Meanwhile, the predicted "dynasty" of the Bucks never materialized. Kareem's confidence had been shaken by both Thurmond and Wilt, and he was no longer invincible. In the following season, (72-73), Kareem continued to struggle against Wilt (being outshot by a .637 to .450 margin...including one game in which Wilt, who now rarily shot, outscored Kareem by outshooting him 10-14 to 10-27.)

In the playoffs, Kareem was once again battered by Thurmond, only shooting .428 from the field. And, even with Oscar playing brilliantly (21 ppg, 7 apg, and 50% shooting), the Bucks could not overcome his bad shooting. The 47-35 Warriors stunned the heavily-favored 60-22 Bucks, 4-2.

Wilt retired after that season, and everyone thought that Kareem would now completely dominate the NBA. He was the best player in the league, but, in the Finals in the '73-74 season, he picked a horrible time to get outplayed, in a game seven loss to the Celtics.

Oscar retired, and the Bucks immediately fell to 38-44. The Bucks traded Kareem to LA the very next season, and the Lakers only improved slightly, going 40-42 and missing the playoffs (the Bucks again went 38-44 without Kareem BTW.)

G.O.A.T pretty much covered the rest of the decade. Kareem, playing with talented and loaded rosters, could not get his team's anywhere near the Finals. Even more disturbing, was the fact that the NBA was the weakest it had been in it's history. There were simply no dominate teams, and in fact, not even exceptional champions. Barry, with Wilkes, took a 48-34 team to a title. The 49-33 Blazers swept Kareem's Lakers and won the title. The '78 Bullets, at 42-40, won the title. And the '79 Sonics, at 52-30, and with one borderline HOFer in Dennis Johnson, won the title.

[jlauber]

"Wilt was forced into changing his game because when they widened the lane, his offensive game was hurt," Abdul-Jabbar said. That's not the case with me. I can still go down low. But we have players who work well when I'm out high

Obviously, Kareem did not have a clue. The NBA widened the lane TWICE in Wilt's career. Once before he arrived, and the other before the 64-65 season. In the first half of that 64-65 season, Wilt averaged 39 ppg on 50% shooting. He was traded at mid-season, and with better teammates, his scoring dropped some, to 34.7 ppg on .510 shooting. HOWEVER, in the following season, he averaged 33.5 ppg on a then-record .540 FG%, and in his very last game of the season, and in the ECF's, he hung 46 points on Russell.

After that 65-66 season, Wilt dramatically cut back his scoring, BUT his FG% rose to levels never seen before, or since. AND, he routinely put up the HIGH point games in every season until he sustained his knee injury at the beginning of the '69-70 season (in which he was averaging 32.2 pp in those first nine games BTW.)

In fact, from the 66-67 season through the '68-69 season, Wilt had THREE 60+ point games (out of his career 32)...despite shooting half as often as he had in his "scoring" seasons.

Even late in his career, in the 71-72 season, in which he was only averaing 14 ppg, he had TWO 30-30 games (30 point, 30 rebound games), which is one more than Kareem had in his entire career. Of course, Wilt also had another 107 of them, as well (109 of the 127 total 30-30 games in NBA history.)

[jlauber]

BTW,

I have sometimes compared Kareem's career, PRE-MAGIC, to that of Wilt's entire career. Both were the most overwhelming offensive players of their respective era's (although Wilt was a much better rebounder and defender.) And both were EXPECTED to win many more titles than they did.

However, in Wilt's defense, he faced the greatest dynasty in NBA history, and in most of those season's, he was badly outgunned. AND, after Russell retired, Wilt had to battle the '70 Knicks, with their FOUR HOFers, all in their PRIMES, their much deeper roster, and their HOF coach. Then, he had to engage Kareem's great '71 Bucks...and without BOTH Baylor and West. And after Wilt led the '72 Lakers to an overwhelming title, his '73 Lakers, with Hairston rusty and nowhere 100%, and with West nursing two injured knees, they were beaten by a Knick team with SIX HOFers (Reed, Lucas, Monroe, Bradley, DeBusschere, and Frazier.)

Kareem NEVER came close to facing the quality of opponents in the 70's, that Chamberlain had to battle in his career.

[Alhazred]

However, in Wilt's defense, he faced the greatest dynasty in NBA history, and in most of those season's, he was badly outgunned. AND, after Russell retired, Wilt had to battle the '70 Knicks, with their FOUR HOFers, all in their PRIMES, their much deeper roster, and their HOF coach.

I'm still convinced New York had no business winning that series. Reed was badly injured the last two games and the rest of the Knicks' lineup was less talented than the Laker's. Even Elgin Baylor(19/10/5 while shooting 46% in the playoffs) at his advanced age was putting up better numbers than anyone on the Knicks not named Frazier or Reed. Also, Wilt showed in Game 6 that he was fully capable of taking over that series by scoring 45 points and grabbing 27 rebounds. Why he didn't try to repeat that performance in Game 7 with a heavily injured Reed sitting on the sidelines is still beyond me.

[jlauber]

I'm still convinced New York had no business winning that series. Reed was badly injured the last two games and the rest of the Knicks' lineup was less talented than the Laker's. Even Elgin Baylor(19/10/5 while shooting 46% in the playoffs) at his advanced age was putting up better numbers than anyone on the Knicks not named Frazier or Reed. Also, Wilt showed in Game 6 that he was fully capable of taking over that series by scoring 45 points and grabbing 27 rebounds. Why he didn't try to repeat that performance in Game 7 with a heavily injured Reed sitting on the sidelines is still beyond me.


Quite the opposite, in fact. LA had no business getting the series to a seventh game. And, obviously you did not see that final game either, when the Knick TEAM hit 15 of their first 21 shots. A team of five Jordan's would not have beaten NY that night.

As for players...you are kidding right????

The Knicks had FOUR HOFer, Frazier, Bradley, DeBusschere, and Bradley. They had Dick Barnett who had been an all-star the year before. And they had the league's best "sixth man" in Cazzie Russell. Their bench was MUCH deeper, and it included players like Dave Stallworth, Nate Bowman, Phil Jackson, Don May, and Mike Riordan. May and Riordan would go on to have solid careers BTW. The Knicks had run away with the best record in the NBA that season, as well, at 60-22, including a then record 19 game winning streak early in the season. Meanwhile, LA had struggled all year without Wilt, and limped into the post-season at 46-36.

LA had a prime West, a severely declining Baylor, and a Chamberlain who was just four months removed from major knee surgery.,,and practically nothing else. Happy Hairston had played well in Wilt's absence, but did nothing in the playoffs.

Of course, YOU expected Wilt to put up a 45-27 EVERY game, right? In any case, even before Reed's injury, Wilt had battled him to a draw in the first four games, and the series was tied 2-2. Furthermore, in the 5th game, Chamberlain was pounding him in the first period, and the Lakers led by ten points when Reed went down with his thigh injury. The Lakers extended the lead to 13 at the half, and even the most ardent Knick fan had given up. BUT, as was noted by NY TIMES writer, Leonard Koppett, the Knicks got away with manslaughter in the second half, and West only got three shots in the second half, and Wilt only two. The Knicks, behind the generosity of the officials, came back to win that game 107-100.

The series went back to LA, and with Chamberlain playing one of the greatest game's in Finals history (regardless of the fact that Reed did not play...how many other players in Finals history have put up a 45-27 game?)...the Lakers swamped the Knicks, 135-113.

Of course, it was WILT who got the blame in that seventh game...despite 21 points, on 10-16 shooting, and 24 rebounds. And, it was Reed, with his famous 4-3 game, that was the hero. Forget about Frazier finally outplaying West, and then putting up a 36 point, 19 assist game.

Nope, Reed, hobbled by a thigh injury, and scoring a TOTAL of 11 points, with a TOTAL of three rebounds, over the course of the last three games, was the "hero",...while all Wilt did, playing at nowhere near 100% and on a surgically repaired knee, in those final three games was score 88 points, on 39-55 shooting (71%), and grab 71 rebounds...and just as YOU have done, he was considered the "goat."

Once again...the DOUBLE STANDARD.

Had ANYONE ELSE had a 23.2 ppg, 24.1 rpg, .625 Finals series, against a FAVORED Knick team that had HCA...and doing so only four months removed from major knee surgery...well, they would STILL be hailing that performance today. BUT, since it was WILT, and his team lost...well, of course, it was WILT's fault.

[G.O.A.T]

Kareem is the 2nd greatest player of all time, but time and time again it was proven that you need a great team if you want to win multiple NBA titles.

Basketball is a team sports.

Actually what time has really proven is that you need a Great player to build your team around and that nearly all average to above average NBA players put in the right situation with the right leadership can form the nucleus for Championship team, again as long as you have that catalyst who is elite. There are very few exceptions only one for sure:

1979 Sonics

And a few that are debatable like the '78 Bullets, '04 Pistons and '51 Royals.

Basketball is a team sport dominated by the teams with the greatest individual players in the league headlining their rosters. As this thread can begin to teach you, Kareem had enough talent around him to win for most of if not all of the decade and yet he only won once.

Calling him the second best player of all-time is fine, but I doubt you know enough about his career to come into this thread make that statement with any weight behind it.

[Niquesports]

Actually what time has really proven is that you need a Great player to build your team around and that nearly all average to above average NBA players put in the right situation with the right leadership can form the nucleus for Championship team, again as long as you have that catalyst who is elite. There are very few exceptions only one for sure:

1979 Sonics

And a few that are debatable like the '78 Bullets, '04 Pistons and '51 Royals.

Basketball is a team sport dominated by the teams with the greatest individual players in the league headlining their rosters. As this thread can begin to teach you, Kareem had enough talent around him to win for most of if not all of the decade and yet he only won once.

Calling him the second best player of all-time is fine, but I doubt you know enough about his career to come into this thread make that statement with any weight behind it.


Great point. However teams like Barkley's Suns Dirk Mav's The Shaq Kobe Malone Payton Lakers all had elite players with strong support the reason I think they didnt win was leadership. I think thats what wins Championships. not so much as the quality of support players.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Great point. However teams like Barkley's Suns Dirk Mav's The Shaq Kobe Malone Payton Lakers all had elite players with strong support the reason I think they didnt win was leadership. I think thats what wins Championships. not so much as the quality of support players.

The Shaq/Kobe/Malone/Payton team didn't get good performances out of most of their team.

Malone was playing great before his injury, but he only played half the season. Payton was never a good fit, but he was terrible in the playoffs and finals. Malone was injured and didn't impact the finals either. That's a big reason why they lost, in the end, the supporting cast around Shaq and Kobe wasn't particularly good at the time of the finals.

[Fatal9]

Gail Goodrich - Goodrich was less than two years removed from All-NBA first team honors and coming off the last of his five all-star selections. His points, rebounds, assists and field goal percentage all dropped in his only season with Kareem. The next year he signed with New Orleans as a free agent to team up with Pistol Pete but was injured and never the same player.
Um, Goodrich had been declining statistically every year before '76. In '72 he was averaging 26 ppg on 49%. In '73, 24 ppg on 47%. In '74, 25 ppg on 44%. In '75 23 ppg on 46%. And finally 20 ppg on 44% in '76 as he turned 33 at the end of the season.

It's interesting to see you mention field goal percentage for Goodrich and not the many other players who saw a rise in their FG% immediately by playing with Kareem.



Lucius Allen - Allen was a rookie reserve on the Bucks '71 Title team with Alcindor. He and Alcindor played at UCLA together and were a good fit in the NBA. Traded in early 1974-75 to the Lakers. Reunited with Kareem less than a year later when Kareem was traded. In 56 games as Laker without Kareem, Allen averaged 19.5 points 4.4 rebounds 5.7 assists and 2.2 steals. In 154 as a Laker with Kareem Allen averaged 14.6 points 3.0 rebounds 5.0 assists and 1.4 steals.
Why don't you keep track of their entire time together? You know, back on the Bucks teams when Allen was hitting career highs and having his best statistical season - playing alongside Jabbar. He had to play 10 games at the start of the '75 season without Kareem, how did he fare? Shot a career low 41.5% at the time. You mention field goal percentage for Goodrich but why not here? Allen's FG% actually rose by 2%, why was he averaging less points? He was taking less shots and having the ball in his hands less. His efficiency rose, given their already winning history together, I don't know why you're trying to imply he declined suddenly playing with Kareem. Seems like you already reached a conclusion before you decided to do this "breakdown".


Cazzie Russell - In the four seasons prior to Jabbar becoming his teammate Russell had averaged 21, 16, 21 and 16 points per game for the Warriors and Lakers. In 1975-76 his number plummeted, by the following year was his finest in five scoring 17 a game on a career best 49% shooting. However following the 1977 playoffs, Russell was released. He played a limited role with Chicago the next year before retiring.
In '76 his numbers "plummeted" because he was coming off the bench, playing less minutes to back up Goodrich (his fg% actually rose). In '77 he began to get minutes again, and despite being 33, he put together his most efficient scoring year of his career - 16.4 ppg on 49% compared to his directly pre-KAJ scoring numbers of 15.5 ppg on 45.5%. And directly post-KAJ? He was averaging 8.8 ppg on 43.9%. Why is this side of the "breakdown" missing?


Donnie Freeman - Once averaged as much as 27 points per game. Had averaged 16 on 45% shooting in 1975, dropped to 11 on 43% in his only season with Kareem.
Er, his 27 ppg came in the 1970 ABA (back when the ABA wasn't even a serious league) and not to mention it was SIX years before he played with Kareem. And again, you are comparing ABA numbers with NBA ones when most veteran perimeter players of the ABA saw a big decline in their numbers when they came over to the NBA (Dr. J being a fine example of this). The fact he couldn't get a job in the league after '76 says enough.


Don Chaney - Brought in to be a starter in 1976-77, had worst season of his career as a starter shooting a career low 40% and posting his lowest scoring and rebounding averages of his career in a starting role. Got even worse to start 1977-78 season before being traded.
Um, he went from averaging 9.3 ppg on 41.8% in the ABA to 6.1 ppg on 40.8% in the NBA. In between this time he had a fractured knee (reason he played so few games in '76), so not only was he a bonafide scrub, he was coming off an injury on top of that. Anyways, the season right after, he averaged 5 ppg on 39% with Boston. Again - why is that fact not mentioned?



Bo Lamar - Played three ABA seasons leading up to being traded to the Lakers and averaged 20, 21 and 16 ppg. Averaged just 7ppg in only season with LA.
And only lasted in the NBA for one season - enough said.



Johnny Neumann - Super talented guard with a reputation of being a selfish guy who only wanted to play his way. Played with six ABA teams in four seasons, but was always effective. Averaged 20-4-6 at age 21, in '76 the year before he joined the Lakers he scored 13 ppg in 20 mpg for Virginia and Kentucky in the ABA.
Averaged 4.2 ppg on 40.7% in '78 with the Pacers, got waived 20 games in. Was Kareem on Indiana making him worse too?


Lou Hudson - Came to the Lakers past his prime, but did have his worst two scoring seasons both per game and per minute of his career alongside Kareem.
Came on as a 33/34 year old and ended up having one of his best season efficiency wise. He went from 16.7 ppg on 45.6% to 13.7 ppg on 49.7%. This is a decline in scoring ability? To average a couple of points less on way better efficiency? And again, this is at ages 33-34...ie. a time when he should be declining but after playing with Kareem, he had his most efficient scoring season in years. Again...why is this not mentioned? You were quick to point out a 1.8% decline in Goodrich's FG% but why not here?



Kenny Carr - Carr averaged 6 and 7 ppg in two seasons playing with Jabbar, in his eight other NBA seasons he never averaged less than 10.
He was a backup rookie on the bench when he was with the Lakers playing behind Dantley/Wilkes. per 36, his scoring wasn't much different from his prime. So this is apparently Jabbar's fault how again?


Jamaal Wilkes as a starter:
W/GS - 3 seasons - 17-9-2-46% - 1 Ring
W/Kareem, no Magic - 2 seasons - 16-7-3-47% - 0 rings
W/Kareem+Magic - 5 seasons - 20-5-3-53% - 2 Rings
Can you at least mention Wilkes' major injury in '78 (he averaged 12.9 ppg on 44% that season). Interesting to note that you included that injury riddled year but not '85 (when he averaged 8.3 ppg) in your aggregate stats. Is there a reason for this? In his only healthy season with Kareem ('79) he posted 18.6 ppg on 50.4%, which were both career highs for him at the time and by far exceeded his production with GS.



Norm Nixon as a starter:
W/Kareem, no Magic - 2 seasons - 15-3-8-52% - 0 rings
W/Kareem+Magic - 4 seasons - 17-3-8-49% - 2 rings
W/Clippers - 3 seasons - 16-3-9-45% - 0 rings
Nixon was a rookie in '78. And in '79 he had his best statistical year of his career - as a second year player - playing with Kareem not Magic. He shot 54.2% (by far exceeds his FG% in any other year) and averaged 9 apg, 17.1 ppg and 2.5 spg.


There is no questioning Kareem's individual dominance in the 1970's the stats don't lie.
The stats might not lie, but they do when you do this sort of a superficial biased analysis.

It's actually quite interesting what was done here. You look at numbers, present what you want, when you want. If FG% of teammate declines one year, you mention it, but in the (more numerous) case where it rose? It's ignored. And no context is placed on roles for some reason (ie. whether coming off bench, playing behind other players and playing less minutes etc). Then you compare the numbers either pre-LA or post-LA, but only one of them, depending on what suits your argument, you pick one side and ignore the other and use an uneven criteria. Hell, some years you even try to compare numbers that are 5 or 6 seasons apart like it means anything.

You're right though, one of the most winningest high school, college and NBA players of all time had a net negative impact on teammates :rolleyes:. A player who had one losing season in his entire career (at any level), and that was a mere 40-42 (after joining the worst team in the conference from year before). A player who in his very first year turned a bottom feeder expansion team into a contender. It's like you haven't even seen him play a single game.

[Alhazred]

Quite the opposite, in fact. LA had no business getting the series to a seventh game. And, obviously you did not see that final game either, when the Knick TEAM hit 15 of their first 21 shots. A team of five Jordan's would not have beaten NY that night.

Pure hyperbole. They got hot, but that was hardly a super team. LA crushed them in Game 6, mainly due to Wilt taking over and dominating them. Why couldn't he do the same in Game 7 against a hobbled Reed?


As for players...you are kidding right????

The Knicks had FOUR HOFer, Frazier, Bradley, DeBusschere, and Bradley. They had Dick Barnett who had been an all-star the year before. And they had the league's best "sixth man" in Cazzie Russell. Their bench was MUCH deeper, and it included players like Dave Stallworth, Nate Bowman, Phil Jackson, Don May, and Mike Riordan. May and Riordan would go on to have solid careers BTW.

1. Phil Jackson did not play for the 1970 Knicks.

2. Bradley's numbers weren't much better than the Lakers' Dick Garrett, who shot 51% from the field compared to Bradley's 42.9% in the playoffs.

3. Don May, Nate Bowman, Dave Stallworth and Mike Riordan? What did they ever do? Might as well list the entire Knicks' bench while you're at it. Outside of their starting five, they weren't that great.

4. Barnett was a solid scorer, but he was also 33 and not in his prime. I would much rather have Baylor that year over him.


The Knicks had run away with the best record in the NBA that season, as well, at 60-22, including a then record 19 game winning streak early in the season. Meanwhile, LA had struggled all year without Wilt, and limped into the post-season at 46-36.

And the tables had turned by Game 5 when Reed went down. New York was without a legit center and clearly had a hole in the middle which Wilt showed in Game 6.


LA had a prime West, a severely declining Baylor, and a Chamberlain who was just four months removed from major knee surgery.,,and practically nothing else. Happy Hairston had played well in Wilt's absence, but did nothing in the playoffs.

The Lakers were hardly a three man team. Dick Garrett and Keith Erickson both had similar stats to Bill Bradley and Cazzie Russell in the playoffs that year, so it's not like the Lakers only consisted of West, Chamberlain, Baylor and a bunch of scrubs. L.A. also had Happy Hairston and Mel Counts coming off the bench, that's not bad at all.


Of course, YOU expected Wilt to put up a 45-27 EVERY game, right?

Nope, just when the series was on the line and the opposing team's star center is crippled by injuries. I don't think it's unreasonable to assume Wilt could have repeated his performance, it's not like New York had anyone to contain him at that point(Well, no one who didn't have a bad leg and could barely move, that is).


In any case, even before Reed's injury, Wilt had battled him to a draw in the first four games, and the series was tied 2-2. Furthermore, in the 5th game, Chamberlain was pounding him in the first period, and the Lakers led by ten points when Reed went down with his thigh injury. The Lakers extended the lead to 13 at the half, and even the most ardent Knick fan had given up. BUT, as was noted by NY TIMES writer, Leonard Koppett, the Knicks got away with manslaughter in the second half, and West only got three shots in the second half, and Wilt only two. The Knicks, behind the generosity of the officials, came back to win that game 107-100.

So did the Lakers lose because they didn't have enough talent and weren't deep enough, or was it a case of them being able to win it all, but lost due to the officials? By the way, from what I've read it seems that the Knicks' Game 5 win had less to do with the officials swallowing their whistles and more to do with New York adjusting their gameplan.


Game 5 back in the Garden is justly remembered as a golden moment in pro basketball history. With a little more than eight minutes gone in the first quarter, Los Angeles had raced to a 25-15 lead. Then Reed caught a pass at the foul line, and Chamberlain was there to meet him. Reed went to his left around Wilt but tripped over Wilt's foot and fell forward, tearing a large muscle in his leg. The New York center lay writhing in pain as the action raced the other way and Knicks coach Red Holzman screamed for the refs to stop the game.

Reed was out, and the Lakers still had the hot hand. The Garden crowd grew quiet. Holzman tried to boost his players' spirits during the timeout. He inserted Nate Bowman to play Chamberlain, and that worked for a time. Then Holzman went with 6-foot-7 reserve forward Bill Hoskett, who hadn't seen a minute of playing time in the entire playoffs. Hoskett hounded Chamberlain effectively enough, but it really wasn't getting the Knicks anywhere. By the half, they were down by 13 points.

In the locker room, Bradley suggested that they forget about using a pivotman and instead go to a 3-2 zone offense, which would either force Chamberlain to come out from under the basket or give them open shots. Holzman was happy with the idea. He sent Russell, Bradley, Barnett, Frazier and DeBusschere out to answer the horn for the second half.

"Outside, we had two wings with a point man," Bradley later explained. "Inside, we had one guy on the baseline and a roamer. When we saw Wilt not playing a man, it was like attacking a zone. Just hit the open spaces in a zone."

It began working in the third quarter. The Lakers seemed almost possessed by the notion of taking advantage of the mismatch in the post. Time after time, they attempted to force the ball into Chamberlain, and the Knicks got several steals and forced turnovers. The fourth period opened with the Lakers holding an 82-75 lead but in obvious disarray. And the Knickerbockers were surging, cheered on by the awakened Garden crowd. "Let's go Knicks! Let's go Knicks!" the 19,500 spectators chanted over and over.

After a brief flurry, the Knicks took the game, 107-100, and the series edge. Los Angeles had been forced into an incredible 30 turnovers for the game. In the second half, West didn't have a field goal and Chamberlain scored only four points, despite being guarded by much shorter players such as DeBusschere and Dave Stallworth.

"The fifth game," DeBusschere said proudly 20 years later, "was one of the greatest basketball games ever played."

http://www.nba.com/history/finals/19691970.html


The series went back to LA, and with Chamberlain playing one of the greatest game's in Finals history (regardless of the fact that Reed did not play...how many other players in Finals history have put up a 45-27 game?)...the Lakers swamped the Knicks, 135-113.

So then we know that without a healthy Reed, LA was capable of destroying New York, which once again begs the question, "what the Hell happened in Game 7?"


Of course, it was WILT who got the blame in that seventh game...despite 21 points, on 10-16 shooting, and 24 rebounds. And, it was Reed, with his famous 4-3 game, that was the hero. Forget about Frazier finally outplaying West, and then putting up a 36 point, 19 assist game.

Nope, Reed, hobbled by a thigh injury, and scoring a TOTAL of 11 points, with a TOTAL of three rebounds, over the course of the last three games, was the "hero",...while all Wilt did, playing at nowhere near 100% and on a surgically repaired knee, in those final three games was score 88 points, on 39-55 shooting (71%), and grab 71 rebounds...and just as YOU have done, he was considered the "goat."

This is the problem. New York had no one in the middle to deal with Wilt, and they were crushed in Game 6. With a heavily-injured Reed in Game 7 and no one else capable of guarding Wilt by themselves, New York cruised to an easy win. What the Hell happened? You can't just blame it on West for being outplayed by Frazier. Why didn't Wilt take over like he did before? Reed only played 27 minutes in Game 7 and was hardly able to move, he couldn't even contest Wilt for the opening jumper. Despite that, Reed held Wilt to 2-9 shooting at one point and played spectacular defense despite his injury. Wilt was also only 1-11 from the free throw line for the entire game, which only hurt LA even more.


Once again...the DOUBLE STANDARD.

Had ANYONE ELSE had a 23.2 ppg, 24.1 rpg, .625 Finals series, against a FAVORED Knick team that had HCA...and doing so only four months removed from major knee surgery...well, they would STILL be hailing that performance today. BUT, since it was WILT, and his team lost...well, of course, it was WILT's fault.

Clearly, Wilt wasn't the only reason for LA losing nor does he deserve all of the blame. West getting outplayed in Game 7 by Frazier also hurt the team as well as other circumstances, but Wilt should have played more aggressively like he did in Game 6. Also, letting a hobbled Reed contain him during the first half and going 1-11 from the free throw line certainly didn't help, either.

One more thing I'd like to mention, Wilt's free throw shooting in Game 7 was awful. Take a look at the 4:04 mark of this video when Wilt half-asses two free throw attempts and puts up a miss and a brick. Just ugly.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNYsOBDmWik&feature=related

[jlauber]

Let's go down the list one-by-one...


Pure hyperbole. They got hot, but that was hardly a super team. LA crushed them in Game 6, mainly due to Wilt taking over and dominating them. Why couldn't he do the same in Game 7 against a hobbled Reed?

The Knicks hit 15 of their first 21 shots. Wilt hardly TOUCHED the ball. The game was over by half-time. That is ALL you need to know about game seven. BTW, it was not thr first time a Wilt-led team was ripped to shreds by great shooting. In game one of the '72 Finals, the Knicks could not miss, particularly Jerry Lucas who was hitting shots from the freeway. However, that was game one, and they returned to normal, and the Lakers wiped them out on the four games.



1. Phil Jackson did not play for the 1970 Knicks.

2. Bradley's numbers weren't much better than the Lakers' Dick Garrett, who shot 51% from the field compared to Bradley's 42.9% in the playoffs.

3. Don May, Nate Bowman, Dave Stallworth and Mike Riordan? What did they ever do? Might as well list the entire Knicks' bench while you're at it. Outside of their starting five, they weren't that great.

4. Barnett was a solid scorer, but he was also 33 and not in his prime. I would much rather have Baylor that year over him.



I was going by memory, and you are right Jackson wasn't on that team. As for the rest, Bradley is in the HOF, Dick Garrett is still an unknown. Don May would average 20.2 ppg the VERY NEXT SEASON in Buffalo. Riordan? He would average 18 ppg on .510 shooting three years later. Bowman, a career backup, and who combined with Stallworth to give the Knicks a decent combo backup for Reed.

Barnett was an all-star just two years earlier, and would score 18.6 ppg in that Finals series...which was MORE than Baylor BTW (17.9.)


And the tables had turned by Game 5 when Reed went down. New York was without a legit center and clearly had a hole in the middle which Wilt showed in Game 6.



Interesting...let's reverse this shall we...how come the Knicks, with a reasonably healthy Reed, and the Lakers with a Wilt that was nowhere near 100%, were only tied 2-2, and in fact, were DOWN by ten points when Reed went down with that injury? Let's give Wilt his due, even injured he battled a healthier Reed to a standstill, and in fact was outplaying him in that game five. Which leads me to believe, that despite a worse team, and worse surrounding players, that Wilt did fine. So, even with Wilt matching Reed, the series was still only tied, DESPITE Reed's better supporting cast (once again, Reed and his THREE HOF teammates, Barnett, Cazzie Russell, and much deeper bench.) It was clearly a testament to the play of West and Wilt, that the Lakers were tied 2-2.


The Lakers were hardly a three man team. Dick Garrett and Keith Erickson both had similar stats to Bill Bradley and Cazzie Russell in the playoffs that year, so it's not like the Lakers only consisted of West, Chamberlain, Baylor and a bunch of scrubs. L.A. also had Happy Hairston and Mel Counts coming off the bench, that's not bad at all.



Hairston was a complete flop in the post-season, and particularly the Finals (6.5 ppg and 4.3 rpg.) Garrett matched Bradley, but Bradley and Cazzie combined torched him. Counts? He played a total of 27 minutes in the entire series, and was worthless. No, the Lakers were easily beat from players 3-thru 10 (DeBusschere was CLEARLY better than Baylor...and LA had no one to match Barnett.) And with Frazier finally outplaying West in game seven, the Lakers lost their only other edge other than Wilt. And once again, history seems to have forgotten that Wilt was NOWHERE near 100%. In fact, Reed was about the worst possible matchup for Wilt at that time, simply because he didn't have the laterla mobility to chase Reed out to 15 feet.


Nope, just when the series was on the line and the opposing team's star center is crippled by injuries. I don't think it's unreasonable to assume Wilt could have repeated his performance, it's not like New York had anyone to contain him at that point(Well, no one who didn't have a bad leg and could barely move, that is).


Yep...Wilt SHOULD have scored 45 points with 27 rebounds every game he played. THAT was the EXPECTATION level for Wilt, and Wilt alone. Once again, I don't know how many players, other than Wilt, who have had 45-27 games in the post-season, much less the Finals, but I can guarantee you it is a very small list.

And, of course, when he did put a 21-24 game on 10-16 shooting, well, he was obviously a "choker." Despite doing so on a surgically repaired knee and just four months removed from that surgery. Oh, and BTW, Reed, with his thigh injury, could only put up a 4-3 game. But, of course, when HIS teammates are completely blowing WILT's teammates away in that game seven...well, Reed must have outplayed Wilt, right?


So did the Lakers lose because they didn't have enough talent and weren't deep enough, or was it a case of them being able to win it all, but lost due to the officials? By the way, from what I've read it seems that the Knicks' Game 5 win had less to do with the officials swallowing their whistles and more to do with New York adjusting their gameplan.



Robert Cherry on page 235...


]"However, Leonard Koppett, THE NEW YORK TIMES reporter, broached the subject in his coverage, suggesting that the Knicks had clawed their way back into the game and that the response of the two referees, Mendy Rudolph and Richie Powers, "was to watch carefully as the Knicks defense swarmed over the Lakers, especially Jerry West and Wilt Chamberlain, and top decide that most Knick harrassment was legal."

Notice that Koppett, a precise writer, wrote the referees decided "most" of the Knicks harrassment was legal--not all. Forty-two years later, and in an interview with the author, Koppett said matter-of-factly, "The Lakers were robbed, pure-and-simple. In the second half, the Knicks started cutting the lead. The crowd went crazy and the officials wouldn't call anything [against the Knicks.]""[/COLOR]


So then we know that without a healthy Reed, LA was capable of destroying New York, which once again begs the question, "what the Hell happened in Game 7?"



What happened was what I already described. The Knicks came out and could not miss their shots.Meanwhile, West was being constantly harrassed into turnovers by Frazier. Wilt seldom saw the ball, and by halftime, the game was over.

Once again,.those games happen. I already mentioned game on of the '72 Finals. How about the famous "Memorial Day Massacre" in game one of the '85 Finals? Boston wiped out the Lakers behind just unconscious shooting. Luckily for LA, it was game one, and after that, the Celts returned to normal, and the Lakers easily beat them in six games. Unfortunately for the outmanned '69 Lakers, they did not have that luxury...and they were blown out by a better team in game seven.


This is the problem. New York had no one in the middle to deal with Wilt, and they were crushed in Game 6. With a heavily-injured Reed in Game 7 and no one else capable of guarding Wilt by themselves, New York cruised to an easy win. What the Hell happened? You can't just blame it on West for being outplayed by Frazier. Why didn't Wilt take over like he did before? Reed only played 27 minutes in Game 7 and was hardly able to move, he couldn't even contest Wilt for the opening jumper. Despite that, Reed held Wilt to 2-9 shooting at one point and played spectacular defense despite his injury. Wilt was also only 1-11 from the free throw line for the entire game, which only hurt LA even more.



Watch the damn game. The Knicks swarmed (and abused) Wilt from the outset. NONE of Wilt's teammates could do a thing, and with the Knicks scoring from everywhere on the court, it probably would not have mattered had Wilt put up another 45-27 game. It was OVER by halftime.

And, NO, Reed did not hold Wilt to 2-9 shooting in that first half, no matter what nba.com says. Chamberlain only missed SIX shots, and went 10-16 for the game. Once again, Reed was a statue in that game, but he had plenty of help against Wilt. And Chamberlain's teammates, including West, did nothing to help the situation.

As for Wilt's FT shooting, no it didn't help, nor did it hinder. The game was decided early on, and it was just a question of what the final score would be. Furthermore, the BETTER TEAM won the game, despite Wilt's SLIGHT physical advantage over Reed (remember, Wilt, himself, was playing on one leg.)

[jlauber]

Continuing...


Clearly, Wilt wasn't the only reason for LA losing nor does he deserve all of the blame. West getting outplayed in Game 7 by Frazier also hurt the team as well as other circumstances, but Wilt should have played more aggressively like he did in Game 6. Also, letting a hobbled Reed contain him during the first half and going 1-11 from the free throw line certainly didn't help, either.

One more thing I'd like to mention, Wilt's free throw shooting in Game 7 was awful. Take a look at the 4:04 mark of this video when Wilt half-asses two free throw attempts and puts up a miss and a brick. Just ugly.



CLEARLY Wilt was the ONLY reason they even got to a game seven. AND, had the officials not HANDED game five to the Knicks, Wilt's performance in game six, when he SINGLE-HANDEDLY carried that Laker team to a win...would have been the clinching game winner.

Once again, aside from West, and small contributions from an over-the-hill Baylor, Wilt had NO HELP. BUT, the bottom line was, the Knicks were CLEARLY a better team. It was amazing that the series even went to a game seven.

I have always found it interesting that the 56-26 Bucks, with basically the same roster that they would bring into their 70-71 championship season, except for Oscar replacing Flynn Robinson and his 21.9 ppg average (which was more than Oscar in '71 BTW), were blwon out by the Knicks, 4-1. True, Kareem played well, but obviously, he couldn't do any better than Wilt, who took a 46-36 team, and on one leg, and battling a healthier Reed to a draw in the first four games, had that series tied at 2-2. AND, they were even AHEAD in game five, WITH REED on the floor. Yet, no one mentions that fact.

The Knicks were CLEARLY a better team, and then in game seven, they EXPLODED. The Lakers were fortunate to even get to that game seven.

[Alhazred]

Let's go down the list one-by-one...



The Knicks hit 15 of their first 21 shots. Wilt hardly TOUCHED the ball. The game was over by half-time. That is ALL you need to know about game seven. BTW, it was not thr first time a Wilt-led team was ripped to shreds by great shooting. In game one of the '72 Finals, the Knicks could not miss, particularly Jerry Lucas who was hitting shots from the freeway. However, that was game one, and they returned to normal, and the Lakers wiped them out on the four games.

:rolleyes: Giving Wilt the ball would have done what, exactly? They tried that in Game 5 and the Knicks tore them to shreds, plus Wilt got shut down in the first half. Also, part of the reason New York torched LA was due to the Lakers' poor defense. Part of the blame has to go to Wilt since he was their defensive anchor.


I was going by memory, and you are right Jackson wasn't on that team. As for the rest, Bradley is in the HOF, Dick Garrett is still an unknown. Don May would average 20.2 ppg the VERY NEXT SEASON in Buffalo. Riordan? He would average 18 ppg on .510 shooting three years later. Bowman, a career backup, and who combined with Stallworth to give the Knicks a decent combo backup for Reed.

Barnett was an all-star just two years earlier, and would score 18.6 ppg in that Finals series...which was MORE than Baylor BTW (17.9.)


1. Bradley and Garrett had nearly identical statistics. What happened outside of that season is irrelevant.

2. Don May averaged 20 points per game for one season out of his entire career. Care to show me the rest of his yearly statistics?

3. Bowman and Stallworth were scrubs, pure and simple. Were they really any better than a Will Purdue or Chris Dudley? I doubt it.

4. Garnett outscored Baylor, but Baylor shot more efficiently, outrebounded him by a considerable margin and averaged more assists.

5. Future and past statistics really don't mean much when we're only discussing one season.

"Man, I can't believe Wilt only won 31 games with a future 18/11/5 guard(Rodgers) and two previous championship winners(Gola and Arizin)!" See how ridiculous that is?


Interesting...let's reverse this shall we...how come the Knicks, with a reasonably healthy Reed, and the Lakers with a Wilt that was nowhere near 100%, were only tied 2-2, and in fact, were DOWN by ten points when Reed went down with that injury? Let's give Wilt his due, even injured he battled a healthier Reed to a standstill, and in fact was outplaying him in that game five.

Yeah, the injury excuse isn't going to fly. He showed he was just fine in Game 6, which discredits any argument that Wilt wasn't at his best. Psychologically, maybe. Physically? I don't see it.

As for the series being tied 2-2? Check out some of the numbers West and Baylor were posting. In game 4, for example, Baylor had a 30 point/13 rebound/3 assist performance while West scored 37 points, had 18 assists and 5 rebounds. They were more than adequate support for a player of Wilt's stature, plus throw in some solid role players like Keith Erickson, Garrett and Happy Hairston(18/12 player) and you have a title contender. It's not like championships haven't been won with less talent before.

It also seems to me that you think Wilt never had enough support when he lost. Do you think Wilt has ever lost a playoff series legitimately, or has it always come down to him either being hopelessly outgunned or robbed by the offficials?


Which leads me to believe, that despite a worse team, and worse surrounding players, that Wilt did fine. So, even with Wilt matching Reed, the series was still only tied, DESPITE Reed's better supporting cast (once again, Reed and his THREE HOF teammates, Barnett, Cazzie Russell, and much deeper bench.)

My point isn't that Wilt was awful and wasn't valuable to LA. My point is that he and the rest of the Lakers let a battered team take advantage of them when their best player was injured and limping. How did New york have an advantage with an injured Reed from Games 5 through 7, exactly?


Hairston was a complete flop in the post-season, and particularly the Finals (6.5 ppg and 4.3 rpg.) Garrett matched Bradley, but Bradley and Cazzie combined torched him. Counts? He played a total of 27 minutes in the entire series, and was worthless. No, the Lakers were easily beat from players 3-thru 10 (DeBusschere was CLEARLY better than Baylor...and LA had no one to match Barnett.) And with Frazier finally outplaying West in game seven, the Lakers lost their only other edge other than Wilt. And once again, history seems to have forgotten that Wilt was NOWHERE near 100%. In fact, Reed was about the worst possible matchup for Wilt at that time, simply because he didn't have the laterla mobility to chase Reed out to 15 feet.

If Hairston was a flop, then so were Riordan, Stallworth and Bowman, plus Hairston averaged 18/12 the year before with Detroit. Garrett did just fine, even if he was a defensive liability.

As for DeBusschere "clearly" being better than Baylor? Don't make me laugh DeBusschere had a slight edge in scoring(but less efficiently), a slight edge in rebounding and inferior passing numbers. It was a draw, at best. Barnett was the only real mismatch, and he was really nothing more than a decent scorer.

Also, Wilt by the same token was am mismatch for Reed seeing as how Wilt had a good three inches on him and several pounds.


Yep...Wilt SHOULD have scored 45 points with 27 rebounds every game he played. THAT was the EXPECTATION level for Wilt, and Wilt alone. Once again, I don't know how many players, other than Wilt, who have had 45-27 games in the post-season, much less the Finals, but I can guarantee you it is a very small list.

:rolleyes: He had a 45 point/27 rebound performance just the game prior. What was the problem, was he "too tired"? :oldlol:

Of course Wilt shouldn't have been expected to have 45/27 performances every game. But, when it's a game 7 and you show that you're capable of taking over just the game prior, people are going to call you out when you're team gets blown out and you end up getting shut down for nearly half the game by an injured player who is physically inferior to you.


And, of course, when he did put a 21-24 game on 10-16 shooting, well, he was obviously a "choker." Despite doing so on a surgically repaired knee and just four months removed from that surgery. Oh, and BTW, Reed, with his thigh injury, could only put up a 4-3 game. But, of course, when HIS teammates are completely blowing WILT's teammates away in that game seven...well, Reed must have outplayed Wilt, right?

Larry Bird didn't have to sit out of that blowout because of injuries, though. Blowouts happen, I admit, but when it's against an opposing team who's captain and best player is crippled with injuries?

Also, what happened to Wilt several months beforehand is kind of irrelevant. He had already shown that his knee wasn't an issue that series, Game 6 proved that. What we do know is that after tearing a crippled New York lineup apart, he and the rest of the Lakers got their asses handed to them by a team that had no business winning that series after Reed's injury.


Robert Cherry on page 235...

Leonard Koppett is entitled to his opinion, but I don't take his words as gospel, especially after I read that he claimed Dolph Shayes was a better player than Bob Pettit.


What happened was what I already described. The Knicks came out and could not miss their shots.Meanwhile, West was being constantly harrassed into turnovers by Frazier. Wilt seldom saw the ball, and by halftime, the game was over.

I was just watching the game and I saw Wilt get the ball plenty of times in the first half. He just didn't seem like he wanted to take over. If he did, he certainly didn't show it.


Once again,.those games happen. I already mentioned game on of the '72 Finals. How about the famous "Memorial Day Massacre" in game one of the '85 Finals? Boston wiped out the Lakers behind just unconscious shooting. Luckily for LA, it was game one, and after that, the Celts returned to normal, and the Lakers easily beat them in six games. Unfortunately for the outmanned '69 Lakers, they did not have that luxury...and they were blown out by a better team in game seven.

The thing is, Larry Bird wasn't suffering from a severe leg injury and forced to limp around that game. If Reed had been healthy, that's one thing, but LA had no reason to lose that game. They were healthier and had more talent overall, especially with Reed injured.


Watch the damn game. The Knicks swarmed (and abused) Wilt from the outset. NONE of Wilt's teammates could do a thing, and with the Knicks scoring from everywhere on the court, it probably would not have mattered had Wilt put up another 45-27 game. It was OVER by halftime.

It was over by halftime because Wilt could barely score on a crippled Reed. I've watched that game and New York did not abuse Wilt the way you described, I saw Reed mostly guarding Wilt 1-on-1, and that
s while limping up and down the court.


And, NO, Reed did not hold Wilt to 2-9 shooting in that first half, no matter what nba.com says. Chamberlain only missed SIX shots, and went 10-16 for the game. Once again, Reed was a statue in that game, but he had plenty of help against Wilt. And Chamberlain's teammates, including West, did nothing to help the situation.

You're right, Chamberlain was 10-16, I suppose they must've included missed free throws possibly, kind of misleading of them. That being said, Reed played solid defense that first half and didn't need much help, at least not from what I've seen. Can you name some examples from Game 7 where Wilt was getting abused?

[Alhazred]

As for Wilt's FT shooting, no it didn't help, nor did it hinder. The game was decided early on, and it was just a question of what the final score would be. Furthermore, the BETTER TEAM won the game, despite Wilt's SLIGHT physical advantage over Reed (remember, Wilt, himself, was playing on one leg.)

Wilt's free throw shooting didn't hurt?! :wtf: That's an extra ten points in a 14 point game wasted. And once again, if Wilt's leg was that bad, he certainly didn't show it. At the very least, it wasn't nearly as severe as Reed's injury which he had suffered during that same series, not several months prior with time to recuperate.


CLEARLY Wilt was the ONLY reason they even got to a game seven. AND, had the officials not HANDED game five to the Knicks, Wilt's performance in game six, when he SINGLE-HANDEDLY carried that Laker team to a win...would have been the clinching game winner.

Wilt was not the only reason they made it to Game 7, give credit to West for his 33 point/13 assist/6 rebound performance in Game 6, as well as Dick Garrett, Happy Hairston and Elgin Baylor who all helped contribute to that win. Wilt was one of the main reasons for their wins, but he wasn't the only good player they had like you make it seem.


Once again, aside from West, and small contributions from an over-the-hill Baylor, Wilt had NO HELP. BUT, the bottom line was, the Knicks were CLEARLY a better team. It was amazing that the series even went to a game seven.

Outside of L.A.'s "Big Three", they had Erickson, Garrett, and Hairston. That's not bad when they're complimenting players like Elgin Baylor, Jerry West and Wilt Chamberlain.


I have always found it interesting that the 56-26 Bucks, with basically the same roster that they would bring into their 70-71 championship season, except for Oscar replacing Flynn Robinson and his 21.9 ppg average (which was more than Oscar in '71 BTW), were blwon out by the Knicks, 4-1. True, Kareem played well, but obviously, he couldn't do any better than Wilt, who took a 46-36 team, and on one leg, and battling a healthier Reed to a draw in the first four games, had that series tied at 2-2. AND, they were even AHEAD in game five, WITH REED on the floor. Yet, no one mentions that fact.

You missed the fact that Wilt was getting torched in some of those games, like in Game 3 when Reed outscored Wilt 38-21 in a three point loss. Also, West and Baylor deserve a lot of credit for those first two LA wins. In Game 4, Baylor had 30 points, 13 rebounds and 3 assists while West had 37 points, 18 assists and 5 rebounds and in Game 2 West led the team in scoring by a wide margin. Wilt deserves credit for those wins, too, but the point is that he wasn't alone.

As for Kareem's Bucks, acquiring Oscar Robertson put them over the top, since Oscar was a more well-rounded player than Robinson, plus Dandridge and Kareem weren't rookies anymore in 1971 and had an older, experienced vet to run the offense. Had the 71 Bucks played the 70 Knicks, that series would have been a lot closer.


The Knicks were CLEARLY a better team, and then in game seven, they EXPLODED. The Lakers were fortunate to even get to that game seven.

The Lakers had a legit chance to win that series even before Reed went down. New York may have been slightly deeper, but LA had a better starting five. Wilt was easily better than Reed while West and Frazier were a wash, DeBusschere and Baylor were a draw, with the rest of New York's lineup having a slight edge. When Reed hurt his leg, that edge vanished with the obvious hole in the middle the Knicks suddenly had. Wilt had a mismatch in his favor from Games 5 through 7 and LA went 1-2 despite previously going 2-2 against a healthier lineup in Games 1-4.

EDIT: I know my post comes off as kind of harsh against Wilt. I'm not saying he chocked, exactly. He definitely played well and had an epic performance in Game 6, and it was impressive that he did that after missing most of the season, but I do think he could have stepped up a little in Game 7. That being said, New York was definitely on a roll after Reed made those baskets at the start of the game.

Wilt was a great player and was extremely valuable to LA, I admit that. That being said, I don't think the 1970 Finals was as lop-sided as you make it out to be, Jlauber. Wilt had some excellent teammates that year and had a legit shot at the championship, that's all I'm saying.

[jlauber]

I just finished rewatching that nightmare first half. And here are the numbers:

Wilt went 5-10 from the field, and 1-8 from the line. 11 points and 12 rebounds. (He would finish 10-16, 1-11, 21 points, and 24 rebounds.)

Wilt shot 50% in that first half, the entire Laker team shot 33%.

Wilt TOUCHED the ball on the offensive end in the first half, 25 times. Here is the best breakdown that I can give you. He was singled by Reed 10 times, and he was doubled or swarmed, 12 times. He was fouled five times (Reed with three.) He passed the ball 6 times, and had two assists. He had it stolen or made a stolen pass, three times (all doubled or worse.)

25 times sounds like a lot, but those were TOUCHES. EVERY Laker starter was in double-digits in TOUCHES.

Here is another breakdown...the score of the game each time he touched the ball...

NY leads 2-0
Tied at 2-2
Tied at 2-2
NY leads 5-2
Ny leads 5-2
NY leads 9-2
NY leads 11-4
NY leads 15-8
NY leads 17-10
NY leads 26-16
NY leads 28-17
NY leads 30-17
NY leads 32-23
NY leads 38-24

End of 1st period. Frazier had 15 first period points. Wilt was 3-7 from the floor, 0-3 from the line, 6 pts and 7 rebs.

NY leads 42-25
NY leads 44-25
NY leads 46-29
NY leads 53-33
NY leads 57-33
NY leads 57-35
NY leads 59-37
NY leads 61-37
NY leads 61-38
NY leads 69-40
NY leads 69-42

Halftime...and game over!

I'll respond to the rest of Alhazred's post a little later.

In any case, Wilt did not play well, but his performance in that first half was certainly not the reason the Lakers were getting killed. The game was out of control early, and it was a blowout mid-way thru the second quarter.

[jlauber]

Wilt's free throw shooting didn't hurt?! That's an extra ten points in a 14 point game wasted. And once again, if Wilt's leg was that bad, he certainly didn't show it. At the very least, it wasn't nearly as severe as Reed's injury which he had suffered during that same series, not several months prior with time to recuperate

This is ridiculous. Take a look at that footage. Wilt was clearly hurting, and was very slow moving side-to-side. And even though he stated at the time that it didn't impact his vertical very much, just watch his Finals performance in the clinching game five win in '72. A totally different Chamberlain, who was SKYING to block shots (at age 35.)

As for not been as severe as Reed's...? Reed was hobbled, sure, but his knee did not require surgery, and her played nearly the entire next season.

As for Wilt, HIS injury was truly devastating. And not just because virtually EVERY medical opinion stated that he was not only done for the season, but there were even some who quietly felt his career might be over. The tragic side of it was that, before the start of the 69-70 season, Wilt's new coach, Joe Mullaney, who had replaced the incompetent Van Breda Kolf, immediately went to Wilt, and asked him to become the focal point of the offense. Keep in mind that in Wilt's three previous season's, his coaches had asked him to faciltate, and to shoot much less. He had had season's of 24.1 ppg, 24.3 ppg, and then Van Breda Kolf's 20.5 ppg. Wilt relished the return to a "scorer" and was averaging 32.2 ppg over the course of his first nine games (games of 33, 35, 37, 38, 42, and 43...and in another game, he pounded Kareem with a 25 point, 25 rebound, 9-14 game.) In fact, he was having one of his greatest games when he pulled up lame. He had just scored 33 points, on a perfect 13-13 shooting when the injury occurred. Tragically, he would never again be the scorer that he had been. He would still be able to overpower opposing centers, but much of his lateral mobility suffered.

In any case, since Wilt was considered "Superman", he couldn't use an injury as an excuse, like virtually every other great player had, including Baylor, West, and yes, Reed. It STILL amazes me that so much credit was given to Reed, in a series in which he was basically outplayed, and was crushed from game five on...all by a player who had just undergone what most everyone had assumed would be season-ending surgery. Nope...the pundits pinned the blame directly on Wilt, and heeped the praise on a hobbled statue.

I always found it fascinating, that when Wilt suffered a knee injury in game seven of the '69 Finals (on the same leg that he would shatter the very next season), he STILL grabbed TWO rebounds on that knee, before finally coming out. He was only out for a couple of minutes, and then requested to go back in. Van Breda the Idiot, denied him, and the Lakers went on to lose that game seven by two points. What was fascinating was that the media, and even Russell, just ripped Wilt for coming out of that game. And, yet, players like Kareem could miss an entire game, or Reed could miss half of one game, three-quarters of another, and then a FULL game...and no one ever said a word. No DOUBLE STANDARD there.



Wilt was not the only reason they made it to Game 7, give credit to West for his 33 point/13 assist/6 rebound performance in Game 6, as well as Dick Garrett, Happy Hairston and Elgin Baylor who all helped contribute to that win. Wilt was one of the main reasons for their wins, but he wasn't the only good player they had like you make it seem.



Alright, Wilt was not the ONLY reason, but he certainly was a MAJOR reason with that brilliant 45 point, 20-27 shooting, 27 rebound game. Of course, in putting up that monumental game, instead of being applauded for it...all it did was give his critics ammo for his more "normal" game seven of 21 points, 10-16 shooting, and 24 rebounds. Just like you, they asked, where was the game six performance? Obviously they didn't WATCH the game. The Knicks came out on fire, hitting 15 of their first 21 shots. Wilt was swarmed and fouled early. And his teammates were either bricking shots, or were getting picked clean. The game was over early, and by halftime it was 69-42.


Outside of L.A.'s "Big Three", they had Erickson, Garrett, and Hairston. That's not bad when they're complimenting players like Elgin Baylor, Jerry West and Wilt Chamberlain

Baylor was outplayed by DeBusschere, an all-first team NBA defender, who outrebounded and outscored him. West outplayed Frazier for the first six games of the series, but he was the REAL flop in that game seven. He missed his shots early, he couldn't stop Frazier at all, and Frazier stole the ball from him some six times in the first half.

Wilt was playing on one-leg, and while Reed was probably not 100%, he was clearly in better physical shape than Wilt. And, as I mentioned earlier, he was one of the toughest opponents for Wilt BECAUSE of Chamberlain's injury. Reed was a pop-up shooter from 15 ft. So, Wilt, with limited mobility, had to TRY and guard him in those first four games. Reed had two spectacular offensive games against Wilt, but Chamberlain severely hamper his shooting in the other two, and as always, Wilt outrebounded him in EVERY game of that series, most by double-digits. ALL while playing on one leg. Furthermore, with the series tied 2-2, Wilt was thoroughly outplaying Reed in game five BEFORE his thigh injury. And the Lakers were leading by 10 points when the injury occurred.

As for the rest of the matchups, the Knicks had a HUGE edge the rest of the rosters. Bradley is in the HOF. Dick Barnett was an all-star just a couple of seasons before, and would average 19 ppg in this series. Cazzie Russell was the game's best sixth man at that point, and an explosive scorer. Stallworth and Bowman provided good minutes for Reed, and if nothing else, they could use 12 fouls on Wilt.

The Knicks had seven players average 7 ppg or more. LA only had five. And after West and Wilt, the rest of the Laker players were outscored, man-for-man, by a solid margin.

[jlauber]

Continuing...


You missed the fact that Wilt was getting torched in some of those games, like in Game 3 when Reed outscored Wilt 38-21 in a three point loss. Also, West and Baylor deserve a lot of credit for those first two LA wins. In Game 4, Baylor had 30 points, 13 rebounds and 3 assists while West had 37 points, 18 assists and 5 rebounds and in Game 2 West led the team in scoring by a wide margin. Wilt deserves credit for those wins, too, but the point is that he wasn't alone.

As for Kareem's Bucks, acquiring Oscar Robertson put them over the top, since Oscar was a more well-rounded player than Robinson, plus Dandridge and Kareem weren't rookies anymore in 1971 and had an older, experienced vet to run the offense. Had the 71 Bucks played the 70 Knicks, that series would have been a lot closer.



Yes, Reed offensively gave Wilt a lot of trouble, particularly in games one and three. But, once again, he was the league's MVP, and much healthier than Wilt in those four games. And Wilt still pounded him on the glass.

As for West...he was outstanding in the first six games (he averaged 33 ppg in those six games), and he was dominating Frazier. Of course, in the critical game seven, West was completely outplayed in that first half, and while it is hard to blame him for that loss, since he was LA's second best player, he was certainly much more responsible for that loss than Chamberlain.

Regarding Kareem's Bucks. They had still gone 56-26 during the regular season. And the only player that they would replace was Robinson for Oscar. No doubt an upgrade, but Robinson was probably a better offensive player by that time in their careers (Robinson was a tremendous shooter and scorer.) Still, the rest of that Buck roster would be the same pieces the next season, when they would overwhelm the NBA. I will give Oscar his due, he clearly made the Bucks a champion, but still, for the 56-26 Bucks to get buried 4-1 by the Knicks was a telling statement to just how strong that 60-22 Knick team was. And yet, with a one-legged Wilt, the Lakers had battled the healthy Knicks to a 2-2 tie, and were LEADING in game three when Reed went down.

Furthermore, without the questionable officiating in the rest of that game five, the Lakers would have been up 3-2, and with Chamberlain's incredible game six, they would have won that series, 4-2.


The Lakers had a legit chance to win that series even before Reed went down. New York may have been slightly deeper, but LA had a better starting five. Wilt was easily better than Reed while West and Frazier were a wash, DeBusschere and Baylor were a draw, with the rest of New York's lineup having a slight edge. When Reed hurt his leg, that edge vanished with the obvious hole in the middle the Knicks suddenly had. Wilt had a mismatch in his favor from Games 5 through 7 and LA went 1-2 despite previously going 2-2 against a healthier lineup in Games 1-4.



I think I covered this above. I don't believe for an instant that LA had a better starting five. With a healthy Reed, the Knicks had THREE first-team defenders. And a much healthier Reed was probably a wash, at the very best for LA, against a one-legged Wilt. West had a slight edge over Frazier, and completely outplayed him in the first six games,...but once again, at the worst possible time, he folded.

DeBusschere was clearly better than a Baylor who could do nothing but occassionally shoot. DeBusschere was a better scorer at this point, a better rebounder, and a much better defender.

Bradley did not play particularly well, although he had very good game seven. Erickson may have outplayed him slightly in that series, but it was only a slight edge. And going into the series, virtually no one would have given the edge to him.

That brings us to the Barnett-Garrett matchup. Here again, going into that series, no one would have given an edge to Garrett. And, Barnett was a key player for NY in this series. He would be there third leading scorer at 18.6 (which was even more than Baylor, who only scored 17.9...and was outscored by DeBusschere who had 19 ppg and 12.6 rpg.) Garrett played reasonably well, but he was no match for Barnett.

The Lakers had ZERO help from their bench, while the Knicks had Russell's 9.3 ppg and 50% shooting. Stallworth also gave them 7.0 ppg and 4.6 rpg, as well, which was better than Hairston for LA.

On top of all of that, the Knicks had HCA...which proved to be HUGE in both game five, and in game seven.


I know my post comes off as kind of harsh against Wilt. I'm not saying he chocked, exactly. He definitely played well and had an epic performance in Game 6, and it was impressive that he did that after missing most of the season, but I do think he could have stepped up a little in Game 7. That being said, New York was definitely on a roll after Reed made those baskets at the start of the game.

Wilt was a great player and was extremely valuable to LA, I admit that. That being said, I don't think the 1970 Finals was as lop-sided as you make it out to be, Jlauber. Wilt had some excellent teammates that year and had a legit shot at the championship, that's all I'm saying

I applaud your discussion. The fact that LA DID get to a game seven gives your argument validity. Still, the Knicks were solid favorites going in. Now, had Reed been injured in game one, and I think the Lakers would have won that series, even with Wilt at less than 100%. But, he was injured in game five, and with a little"help" from the officials, who swallowed their whistles in game five, they were able to eke out a win. And, in game seven, they just exploded. I have long maintained that even another monumental performance by Wilt would not have been enough. The fact was, Wilt played a solid first half, with 11 points, on 5-10 shooting, with 12 rebounds...but his teammates once again melted in a game seven. Of course, his final nuimbers were actually quite good, 21 points, on 10-16 shooting (albeit 1-11 from the line), and 24 rebounds. West and Baylor's final numbers in that game were not bad either, but they were terrible in the first half...and that was when the game was decided.

The bottom line, though, was that the PERCEPTION of that game was that Reed came out and "intimidated" Wilt by hitting those two shots early. The REAL story was that Frazier, and his other teammates, came out on fire, and then, with Wilt's teammates firing blanks and getting their pockets picked in the entire first half, the Knicks TEAM just destroyed the LAKERs. And, as always, Wilt was unfairly blamed. Even worse...very few acknowledged his heroic effort of even PLAYING in the post-season. Here again, there is the expectation level of every other NBA player...and then there was the expectation level for Wilt. And, unfortunately for Wilt...no matter how well he performed, it was never enough.

[ThaRegul8r]

With a healthy Reed, the Knicks had THREE first-team defenders.


The fact that LA DID get to a game seven gives your argument validity. Still, the Knicks were solid favorites going in. Now, had Reed been injured in game one, and I think the Lakers would have won that series, even with Wilt at less than 100%. But, he was injured in game five, and with a little"help" from the officials, who swallowed their whistles in game five, they were able to eke out a win.


Round 1 in the highly anticipated Willis Reed vs. Wilt Chamberlain matchup went to Reed, who led the Knicks with 37 points on 16-of-30 shooting. Instead of battling Chamberlain in the low post, Reed unexpectedly settled for midrange jumpers; Chamberlain often did not come out to guard him, and Reed continued to knock down outside shots. Reed's 16 field goals were a Knicks playoff record. He also added 16 rebounds and five assists, despite injuring his left shoulder on a first-half dunk.

[quote]Reed, who was especially effective from outside against a Chamberlain who seemed to be somewhat slowed by a leg operation from which he still is recovering, appeared somewhat anxious about his left shoulder following the opening game triumph.

[jlauber]

Reed was injured before Game 5. It was a cumulative thing, and then Game 5 was THE injury, the straw that broke the camel's back. But he wasn't "healthy" since the first half of Game 1.

Of course, I could use the same argument that is COMMONLY used against Wilt. If Reed were hurting in game one, how could he have games of 37 and 38 points in games one and three? The COMMON argument being, "if Wilt could put up a 45-27 game in game six, why couldn't he do it against a "helpless" Reed in game seven?"

The bottom line is that history paints a "heroic" picture of Reed in that series, and, as was almost always the case in Wilt's career, he was considered the "goat", the "choker", and the "failure." Even more puzzling was that it is seldom even mentioned that Chamberlain was playing only four months removed from major knee surgery. Had that been ANY OTHER player, and had that player performed as well as Chamberlain did in that series, they would still be hailing the "heroic" effort in a losing cause. But, since it was Wilt, well, as always, there were a different set of expectations for him.

Furthermore, while Frazier is given SOME credit (but not nearly enough), where are the critics of West, who, as I have noted, played brilliantly in the first six games, but was just awful in the first half of that game seven?

In any case, the facts were these...

The Knicks were a better team, with better players, and more of them, in the PRIMES of their careers. Meanwhile, the Lakers had a PRIME West, at his best, an over-the-hill Baylor, and a considerably less than 100% Chamberlain, and very little else. It was actually quite amazing that the series even went to seven games. And, once again, Reed was certainly in better shape than Chamberlain before that game five. It was testament to the greatness of both West and Wilt that the Lakers were even tied 2-2 at that point (and in fact, were leading by ten points in game five when Reed went down.) Once again, remember that the Knicks had romped over Alcindor's 56-26 Bucks in the previous series, 4-1.

And those that blame WILT for that game seven loss need only watch the footage, all of which is out there on YouTube. The Knicks came out hitting 15 of their first 21 shots, and the Lakers not only were missing their shots, they were losing the ball repeatedly, as well. I have long maintained that another 45-27 performance by Wilt would probably not have been enough. And, he certainly played decently in the first half, with 11 points on 5-10 shooting, and 12 rebounds. The REST of the team shot in the low 30's in that half, while NY was close to 60%.

I do agree somewhat with Dick Shaap, who noted that Wilt seemed to, subconsciously at least, "let up" on Reed. That was Wilt's biggest weakness. Shaq would have knocked Reed out on the game's first possession. BUT, I don't think even that would have made a difference. Frazier and his teammates were just on fire. And, those Knick players were comprised of HOFers, all-stars, and a quality bench. It was not as if Reed was the only HOFer on that team. And, given the fact that they managed to overcome a ten point deficit in game five withOUT Reed (in fact, it was 13 at the half), illustrates just how strong that team was.

[the_wise_one]

Kareem was great, but it was a strong era. Don't believe people who claim the 70s is a weak era.

[97 bulls]

Of course, I could use the same argument that is COMMONLY used against Wilt. If Reed were hurting in game one, how could he have games of 37 and 38 points in games one and three? The COMMON argument being, "if Wilt could put up a 45-27 game in game six, why couldn't he do it against a "helpless" Reed in game seven?"

The bottom line is that history paints a "heroic" picture of Reed in that series, and, as was almost always the case in Wilt's career, he was considered the "goat", the "choker", and the "failure." Even more puzzling was that it is seldom even mentioned that Chamberlain was playing only four months removed from major knee surgery. Had that been ANY OTHER player, and had that player performed as well as Chamberlain did in that series, they would still be hailing the "heroic" effort in a losing cause. But, since it was Wilt, well, as always, there were a different set of expectations for him.

Furthermore, while Frazier is given SOME credit (but not nearly enough), where are the critics of West, who, as I have noted, played brilliantly in the first six games, but was just awful in the first half of that game seven?

In any case, the facts were these...

The Knicks were a better team, with better players, and more of them, in the PRIMES of their careers. Meanwhile, the Lakers had a PRIME West, at his best, an over-the-hill Baylor, and a considerably less than 100% Chamberlain, and very little else. It was actually quite amazing that the series even went to seven games. And, once again, Reed was certainly in better shape than Chamberlain before that game five. It was testament to the greatness of both West and Wilt that the Lakers were even tied 2-2 at that point (and in fact, were leading by ten points in game five when Reed went down.) Once again, remember that the Knicks had romped over Alcindor's 56-26 Bucks in the previous series, 4-1.

And those that blame WILT for that game seven loss need only watch the footage, all of which is out there on YouTube. The Knicks came out hitting 15 of their first 21 shots, and the Lakers not only were missing their shots, they were losing the ball repeatedly, as well. I have long maintained that another 45-27 performance by Wilt would probably not have been enough. And, he certainly played decently in the first half, with 11 points on 5-10 shooting, and 12 rebounds. The REST of the team shot in the low 30's in that half, while NY was close to 60%.

I do agree somewhat with Dick Shaap, who noted that Wilt seemed to, subconsciously at least, "let up" on Reed. That was Wilt's biggest weakness. Shaq would have knocked Reed out on the game's first possession. BUT, I don't think even that would have made a difference. Frazier and his teammates were just on fire. And, those Knick players were comprised of HOFers, all-stars, and a quality bench. It was not as if Reed was the only HOFer on that team. And, given the fact that they managed to overcome a ten point deficit in game five withOUT Reed (in fact, it was 13 at the half), illustrates just how strong that team was.you know J, the more excuses you use for wilt, the more im starting to loose respect for wilt. All teams have injuries bro. Why does wilt get a pass. If his teams have to be perfect in order for him to win, how great was he really?

[jlauber]

you know J, the more excuses you use for wilt, the more im starting to loose respect for wilt. All teams have injuries bro. Why does wilt get a pass. If his teams have to be perfect in order for him to win, how great was he really?

You obviously didn't read my entire post. The Knicks were a BETTER TEAM. The Lakers had no business getting to a game seven. As far as injuries go, Chamberlain suffered an injury that, at the time, and a best case scenario...a season-ender. There was even the possibility of it being a career-ender. Chamberlain STUNNED medical opinion when he came back WAY ahead of schedule. And, while he was not at a 100%, he certainly played well. His performance in the Finals that year, of 23.2 ppg, 24.1 rpg, and a .625 FG%, is the only time an NBA player has ever had a 20-20 .600 Finals.

But, as I have mentioned many times...when anyone else was injured, they were excused if they played poorly, or missed games (Reed for one), but Wilt was RIPPED for it.

Furthermore, if ANY other player had put up a 45 point, 20-27 shooting, 27 rebound game, they would still be raving about it today. BUT, with Wilt it was, "why didn't he do it in EVERY game?"

Just another example of the DOUBLE STANDARD.

[97 bulls]

You obviously didn't read my entire post. The Knicks were a BETTER TEAM. The Lakers had no business getting to a game seven. As far as injuries go, Chamberlain suffered an injury that, at the time, and a best case scenario...a season-ender. There was even the possibility of it being a career-ender. Chamberlain STUNNED medical opinion when he came back WAY ahead of schedule. And, while he was not at a 100%, he certainly played well. His performance in the Finals that year, of 23.2 ppg, 24.1 rpg, and a .625 FG%, is the only time an NBA player has ever had a 20-20 .600 Finals.

But, as I have mentioned many times...when anyone else was injured, they were excused if they played poorly, or missed games (Reed for one), but Wilt was RIPPED for it.

Furthermore, if ANY other player had put up a 45 point, 20-27 shooting, 27 rebound game, they would still be raving about it today. BUT, with Wilt it was, "why didn't he do it in EVERY game?"

Just another example of the DOUBLE STANDARD.
Its not just this thread J. Its every single post you put up that refers to wilt. They're either about his gawdy stats or a bunch of excuse as to why his team lost or almost won. Like I said, that's sports bro. Every season in every sport, team must endure injuries. Look at the lakers this year. Or the heat or the bulls. .

And as far as the "why doesnt he do it every game" quote, the only reason that people say it is cuz people like to paint wilt as this mythical figure that could pick up a bus with one hand while racing a mustang, while running backwards.

[ThaRegul8r]

Of course, I could use the same argument that is COMMONLY used against Wilt. If Reed were hurting in game one, how could he have games of 37 and 38 points in games one and three? The COMMON argument being, "if Wilt could put up a 45-27 game in game six, why couldn't he do it against a "helpless" Reed in game seven?"

All I'm doing is stating fact. No more, no less. I'm not interested in what's "commonly said." Otherwise, I'd be repeating the same tired line that anyone who didn't play in the modern era was a scrub, just like most of the other uninformed people with limited knowledge.


The bottom line is that history paints a "heroic" picture of Reed in that series, and, as was almost always the case in Wilt's career, he was considered the "goat", the "choker", and the "failure."

Frankly, I couldn't care less. Reed gets overrated for that series. I've said numerous times that Walt Frazier was the MVP of the Finals, and I repeated it in the "Biggest Finals M.V.P. Award' Steal" (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=193684) thread:


Reed over Frazier in 1970.

I'm on record as having Reed below Frazier on my personal ballot for the 1969-70 season despite the contention of some others. So I'm not much interested in what "other people say (have said)" when I haven't said it.

[jlauber]

Its not just this thread J. Its every single post you put up that refers to wilt. They're either about his gawdy stats or a bunch of excuse as to why his team lost or almost won. Like I said, that's sports bro. Every season in every sport, team must endure injuries. Look at the lakers this year. Or the heat or the bulls. .

And as far as the "why doesnt he do it every game" quote, the only reason that people say it is cuz people like to paint wilt as this mythical figure that could pick up a bus with one hand while racing a mustang, while running backwards.

As far as "excuses" go, let me ask you this...

Did MJ ever lead a 49-31 up against a 60-20 team, that had a 6-3 edge in HOFers, and get that team to a game seven, two-point loss?

Did MJ ever lead a 40-40 team up against a 62-18 team, that had a 5-2 edge in HOFers, and get that team to a game seven, one-point loss?

Did MJ ever take the best team in the league, against the second best team, withOUT his team's THIRD BEST player for the ENTIRE series (say Grant or later Rodman)? And, not only that, but have two STARTERS get injured in game five, and basically contribute nothing the rest of that same series? On top of all of that, did Jordan suffer an injury in the third game of that series, which would NOTICEABLY hobble him the rest of that same series? Not done yet, either...did MJ in that same series, then watch as his teammates refuse to pass him the ball, and instead they, themselves, would collectively shoot 33% in that game seven? Now, after ALL of that, was MJ able to take that team, under those conditions, and against the second best team in the league, to a game seven, four point loss?

Did MJ ever play on a team with the best record in the league (barely, going 55-25 to the Celtics 54-26), and then play nearly as well as he did in the regular season, like Wilt did in the ECF's when he averaged 28 ppg, 30 rpg, and shot .509 against Russell mind you (his regular season numbers, against ALL centers were 33.5 ppg, 24.6 rpg, and .540)...BUT, have his best teammates shoot .325, .325, .375, .429, and .161?

Did MJ ever take the best team in the league, into a Finals, in which his coach would essentially say to him, "I know that you have been the greatest scorer of all-time. I know that even on this team you could average 20.5 ppg on .583 shooting. But, I am going to have you only shoot 10 FGAs per game, and not only that, I want you to pass to a teammate who will basically shoot .385 in the post-season. Furthermore, if you get hurt in a game seven, and have to come out for a couple of minutes, and then ask to go back in, I will deny your request, and instead go with Jason Caffey to lead us in the last three minutes of a close game." ? But, I am still not done yet, either. Then, with a 2-1 series lead in that series, an 88-87 lead late, and the having the ball, did MJ watch a teammate lose the damn ball, and then watch as an opposing player would hit the game-winner at the buzzer, while falling down? Or, watch another opposing player hit still another miracle shot near the end of that game seven, in a two -point loss?

Did MJ ever take a 46-36 team, up against a 60-22, with a HOF-laden cast, in their primes, and with a deeper bench, and play brilliantly...all just four months removed from major knee surgery...to a game seven defeat? Not only that, but in one of those games, the officials will "help" that superior team to a win?

Now, I know MJ was a great player, and an even greater player in the post-season. But, I also know that he played on three losing teams in his first three years. I also know that he did not win a title, nor did he even get to the Finals with a 50-32 team in 87-88. I also know that he did not win a title until he had players like Pippen, Grant, Cartwright, Paxson, and Armstrong were in place. And, I also know that those title teams were loaded by the simple fact that the Bulls went from a 57-25 championship team with him, to a 55-27 team, that would lose a close game seven to the Knicks, who would lose a close game seven to the Rockets...withOUT him. And I know that he was playing with Pippen, a HOFer, Rodman (who should be in the HOF), Kukoc, Harper, and Kerr in his second three-peat.

I bring all of that up just to put MJ's career into a little better perspective when comparing his career against Wilt's. Wilt seldom had the best team in the league, and when he did, and they didn't win the title, it was because his team's were decimated by injuries (including injuries to himself), or because he had an incompetent coach, or because his teammates played just awful.

The bottom line, though, was that Wilt almost always played brilliantly, and he had legitimate excuses for not winning. I just gave you a list. Now, you tell me what else he could have done?

[97 bulls]

As far as "excuses" go, let me ask you this...

Did MJ ever lead a 49-31 up against a 60-20 team, that had a 6-3 edge in HOFers, and get that team to a game seven, two-point loss?

Did MJ ever lead a 40-40 team up against a 62-18 team, that had a 5-2 edge in HOFers, and get that team to a game seven, one-point loss?

Did MJ ever take the best team in the league, against the second best team, withOUT his team's THIRD BEST player for the ENTIRE series (say Grant or later Rodman)? And, not only that, but have two STARTERS get injured in game five, and basically contribute nothing the rest of that same series? On top of all of that, did Jordan suffer an injury in the third game of that series, which would NOTICEABLY hobble him the rest of that same series? Not done yet, either...did MJ in that same series, then watch as his teammates refuse to pass him the ball, and instead they, themselves, would collectively shoot 33% in that game seven? Now, after ALL of that, was MJ able to take that team, under those conditions, and against the second best team in the league, to a game seven, four point loss?

Did MJ ever play on a team with the best record in the league (barely, going 55-25 to the Celtics 54-26), and then play nearly as well as he did in the regular season, like Wilt did in the ECF's when he averaged 28 ppg, 30 rpg, and shot .509 against Russell mind you (his regular season numbers, against ALL centers were 33.5 ppg, 24.6 rpg, and .540)...BUT, have his best teammates shoot .325, .325, .375, .429, and .161?

Did MJ ever take the best team in the league, into a Finals, in which his coach would essentially say to him, "I know that you have been the greatest scorer of all-time. I know that even on this team you could average 20.5 ppg on .583 shooting. But, I am going to have you only shoot 10 FGAs per game, and not only that, I want you to pass to a teammate who will basically shoot .385 in the post-season. Furthermore, if you get hurt in a game seven, and have to come out for a couple of minutes, and then ask to go back in, I will deny your request, and instead go with Jason Caffey to lead us in the last three minutes of a close game." ? But, I am still not done yet, either. Then, with a 2-1 series lead in that series, an 88-87 lead late, and the having the ball, did MJ watch a teammate lose the damn ball, and then watch as an opposing player would hit the game-winner at the buzzer, while falling down? Or, watch another opposing player hit still another miracle shot near the end of that game seven, in a two -point loss?

Did MJ ever take a 46-36 team, up against a 60-22, with a HOF-laden cast, in their primes, and with a deeper bench, and play brilliantly...all just four months removed from major knee surgery...to a game seven defeat? Not only that, but in one of those games, the officials will "help" that superior team to a win?

Now, I know MJ was a great player, and an even greater player in the post-season. But, I also know that he played on three losing teams in his first three years. I also know that he did not win a title, nor did he even get to the Finals with a 50-32 team in 87-88. I also know that he did not win a title until he had players like Pippen, Grant, Cartwright, Paxson, and Armstrong were in place. And, I also know that those title teams were loaded by the simple fact that the Bulls went from a 57-25 championship team with him, to a 55-27 team, that would lose a close game seven to the Knicks, who would lose a close game seven to the Rockets...withOUT him. And I know that he was playing with Pippen, a HOFer, Rodman (who should be in the HOF), Kukoc, Harper, and Kerr in his second three-peat.

I bring all of that up just to put MJ's career into a little better perspective when comparing his career against Wilt's. Wilt seldom had the best team in the league, and when he did, and they didn't win the title, it was because his team's were decimated by injuries (including injuries to himself), or because he had an incompetent coach, or because his teammates played just awful.

The bottom line, though, was that Wilt almost always played brilliantly, and he had legitimate excuses for not winning. I just gave you a list. Now, you tell me what else he could have done?
I know you pick jordan cuz he's the benchmark that other greats are judged by. But how many all-time greats have had the opportunity to play on the best team in the league? How many teams have started a season with so much promise only to have it end in the same ways that wilts teams did? How many times has say for instance, would dominique put up an amazing game only to loose due to not having the horses to compete. Not everybody can be on the best team. And wilt was no different. And he has lost to teams he shouldve beat.

And jordan has beaten teams even when the bulls weren't the favorite. 91,93 and 98 are prime examples. He's also beaten teams even though his teammates were injured. That's what the greta do bro. They overcome adversity.

[Fatal9]

Um, Goodrich had been declining statistically every year before '76. In '72 he was averaging 26 ppg on 49%. In '73, 24 ppg on 47%. In '74, 25 ppg on 44%. In '75 23 ppg on 46%. And finally 20 ppg on 44% in '76 as he turned 33 at the end of the season.

It's interesting to see you mention field goal percentage for Goodrich and not the many other players who saw a rise in their FG% immediately by playing with Kareem.


Why don't you keep track of their entire time together? You know, back on the Bucks teams when Allen was hitting career highs and having his best statistical season - playing alongside Jabbar. He had to play 10 games at the start of the '75 season without Kareem, how did he fare? Shot a career low 41.5% at the time. You mention field goal percentage for Goodrich but why not here? Allen's FG% actually rose by 2%, why was he averaging less points? He was taking less shots and having the ball in his hands less. His efficiency rose, given their already winning history together, I don't know why you're trying to imply he declined suddenly playing with Kareem. Seems like you already reached a conclusion before you decided to do this "breakdown".


In '76 his numbers "plummeted" because he was coming off the bench, playing less minutes to back up Goodrich (his fg% actually rose). In '77 he began to get minutes again, and despite being 33, he put together his most efficient scoring year of his career - 16.4 ppg on 49% compared to his directly pre-KAJ scoring numbers of 15.5 ppg on 45.5%. And directly post-KAJ? He was averaging 8.8 ppg on 43.9%. Why is this side of the "breakdown" missing?


Er, his 27 ppg came in the 1970 ABA (back when the ABA wasn't even a serious league) and not to mention it was SIX years before he played with Kareem. And again, you are comparing ABA numbers with NBA ones when most veteran perimeter players of the ABA saw a big decline in their numbers when they came over to the NBA (Dr. J being a fine example of this). The fact he couldn't get a job in the league after '76 says enough.


Um, he went from averaging 9.3 ppg on 41.8% in the ABA to 6.1 ppg on 40.8% in the NBA. In between this time he had a fractured knee (reason he played so few games in '76), so not only was he a bonafide scrub, he was coming off an injury on top of that. Anyways, the season right after, he averaged 5 ppg on 39% with Boston. Again - why is that fact not mentioned?


And only lasted in the NBA for one season - enough said.


Averaged 4.2 ppg on 40.7% in '78 with the Pacers, got waived 20 games in. Was Kareem on Indiana making him worse too?


Came on as a 33/34 year old and ended up having one of his best season efficiency wise. He went from 16.7 ppg on 45.6% to 13.7 ppg on 49.7%. This is a decline in scoring ability? To average a couple of points less on way better efficiency? And again, this is at ages 33-34...ie. a time when he should be declining but after playing with Kareem, he had his most efficient scoring season in years. Again...why is this not mentioned? You were quick to point out a 1.8% decline in Goodrich's FG% but why not here?


He was a backup rookie on the bench when he was with the Lakers playing behind Dantley/Wilkes. per 36, his scoring wasn't much different from his prime. So this is apparently Jabbar's fault how again?


Can you at least mention Wilkes' major injury in '78 (he averaged 12.9 ppg on 44% that season). Interesting to note that you included that injury riddled year but not '85 (when he averaged 8.3 ppg) in your aggregate stats. Is there a reason for this? In his only healthy season with Kareem ('79) he posted 18.6 ppg on 50.4%, which were both career highs for him at the time and by far exceeded his production with GS.


Nixon was a rookie in '78. And in '79 he had his best statistical year of his career - as a second year player - playing with Kareem not Magic. He shot 54.2% (by far exceeds his FG% in any other year) and averaged 9 apg, 17.1 ppg and 2.5 spg.


The stats might not lie, but they do when you do this sort of a superficial biased analysis.

It's actually quite interesting what was done here. You look at numbers, present what you want, when you want. If FG% of teammate declines one year, you mention it, but in the (more numerous) case where it rose? It's ignored. And no context is placed on roles for some reason (ie. whether coming off bench, playing behind other players and playing less minutes etc). Then you compare the numbers either pre-LA or post-LA, but only one of them, depending on what suits your argument, you pick one side and ignore the other and use an uneven criteria. Hell, some years you even try to compare numbers that are 5 or 6 seasons apart like it means anything.

You're right though, one of the most winningest high school, college and NBA players of all time had a net negative impact on teammates :rolleyes:. A player who had one losing season in his entire career (at any level), and that was a mere 40-42 (after joining the worst team in the conference from year before). A player who in his very first year turned a bottom feeder expansion team into a contender. It's like you haven't even seen him play a single game.
g.o.a.t, want to explain or defend your stupid/misleading post or are you going to act like this thread doesn't exist now?

I see you got real mad and negged me for this reply :oldlol:

[32jazz]

If you talk to someone who is interested in defending Kareem here are the reasons/excuses you'll get.

1970 - Bucks lose 4-1 to Knicks in Eastern Finals.
Explanation: As a Rookie he didn't have a strong enough supporting cast

1971 - NBA Championship and Both MVP's for Lew Alcindor

1972 - The Lakers beat them 4-2. Explanation: Oscar was Hurt during the season and not healthy by the playoff despite playing every game.

1973 - 60 Win Bucks are upset by 47 win Warriors in six. Explanation: Oscar was still hurt....I mean...Dandridge....I mean Lou Allen sucks...Larry Costello errr... it's his fault. (A lot of times they skip this one)

1974 - Bucks lose to underdog Celtics in a classic seven game NBA Finals series. Explanation: It wasn't his fault the Celtics beat them, he played great. (Make sure they don't mention the fact that Kareem's worst game was game seven and that the Bucks got pasted at home.)

1975 - In the second worst season (as per competition level) in post-shot clock NBA history, the Bucks miss the playoffs. Explanation: Kareem broke his hand during the season (missed 14 games) and Oscar retired, that cast of scrubs he played with had no chance.

1976 - In the worst season in post shot clock history, Kareem's new team, the Lakers miss the playoffs. Explanation: They were a 30-win team in '74. Kareem broke his hand during the season (didn't miss any games though) and the Lakers sucked without him. (Who cares that they lost 6 of their last 8 with a healthy Kareem and missed the playoff by just two games.)

1977 - Despite being the top team in the NBA during the regular season the Lakers were swept by Portland in the playoffs. Explanation: The cast around him sucked. Lou Allen and Kermit Washington were hurt otherwise the Lakers would have won. (Same Lou Allen who wasn't good enough to help the '75 Bucks make the playoffs)

1978 - 45-win Lakers lose in first round to 47-win Seattle 2-1. Explanation: The supporting cast was garbage no one could win with these guys. (The roster included six former or future all-stars and four former or future NBA Champion starters. {five if you count Don Chaney}

1979 - 47-win Lakers lose in second round to 52-win Soncis 4-1. Explanation: Same cast of scrubs, no chance for Kareem.


I happen to think Kareem was a terrible leader and poor teammate. He was always talking about how one man can not win a title. Which of course is a weak excuse and probably did little for the confidence of his team. He was easily the top individual player of the NBA's weakest decade and emerged with just one Championship ring. For me it cripples his case as one of the top two all-time, but most people never really look into his career with an open-mind.

Once Magic joined the Lakers and Riley took over, Kareem became a role player. His role was as the Lakers half court offense and he was awesome. He quit running back on the break and stopped working to be a top-notch defender and rebounder. That was how Kareem won four titles in eight years as oppose to the two in 12 years he won (watched one being won from home) as a superstar.

End scene



Insulting & embarrassing to Kareem that his supporters would have to make soooo many excuses for an entire decade of his career.:facepalm
Reminds me of the MJ worshippers who excuse away ANY of his team failures.:facepalm

With the exception of 81 (when Magic was overcoming major knee surgery) there is no need to nor this huuge concerted effort made to excuse away MAgics' team failures. 81 is the only season I & MOST others site since somehow he is trashed( by Kareem apologists) for admirably trying to come back from major knee surgery to help his team which OBVIOUSLY/unquestionably needed MAgic to win it all. No questions.

The mere fact that so many excuses are made by so many for Kareem is.......:confusedshrug:


GOAT & JLAUBER are owning this thread.:cheers: Leaving little to add in most cases.

[G.O.A.T]

Insulting & embarrassing to Kareem that his supporters would have to make soooo many excuses for an entire decade of his career.:facepalm

With the exception of 81 (when Magic was overcoming major knee surgery) there is no need to nor this huge concerted effort made to excuse away Magics' team failures. 81 is the only season I & MOST others site since somehow he is trashed( by Kareem apologists) for admirably trying to come back from major knee surgery to help his team which OBVIOUSLY/unquestionably needed MAgic to win it all. No questions.

The mere fact that so many excuses are made by so many for Kareem is.......:confusedshrug:

A couple things...

There are always reasons/excuses for why teams/great players lose. Some fans though can't accept that a favorite player or their's great achievements say enough about them...They need to also blame someone or something else for their failures.

Magic fans do it to. I know it wasn't your intent, but when citing 1981, you didn't mention that Magic also feuded with Norm Nixon both privatley and publicly that season leading up to and in the playoffs. That unqeustionably hurt the teams focus.

Regardless, I like to focus on the things players did accomplish, not what they might have or could have if circumstances would have broke their way.

Kareem's individual greatness alone makes him a top ten player automatically, add in the amount of team success he had regardless of what you or I or anyone thinks of his attitude and I can't see him outside the top 6.

There are only three players in NBA history who exceeded Kareem in titles won as the #1 option (The truest measure of rather a player is elite or not). And of those three, only Jordan can come close to matching Kareem's individual brilliance.

[PHILA]

titles won as the #1 option (The truest measure of rather a player is elite or not).Or we can look at another criteria presented by a couple of posters of this forum, that being raising level of play in the playoffs from regular season. Their GOAT happens to be KAJ, while Russell apparently is an inferior playoff performer to Hakeem Olajuwon.

By their standard, there are only two top tier elite players in league history (unless I'm missing somebody) that can indisputably say they stepped up their game in the playoffs every single year they played.

http://i51.tinypic.com/1zxxlah.jpg

[32jazz]

A couple things...

There are always reasons/excuses for why teams/great players lose. Some fans though can't accept that a favorite player or their's great achievements say enough about them...They need to also blame someone or something else for their failures.

Magic fans do it to. I know it wasn't your intent, but when citing 1981, you didn't mention that Magic also feuded with Norm Nixon both privatley and publicly that season leading up to and in the playoffs. That unqeustionably hurt the teams focus.

Regardless, I like to focus on the things players did accomplish, not what they might have or could have if circumstances would have broke their way.

Kareem's individual greatness alone makes him a top ten player automatically, add in the amount of team success he had regardless of what you or I or anyone thinks of his attitude and I can't see him outside the top 6.

There are only three players in NBA history who exceeded Kareem in titles won as the #1 option (The truest measure of rather a player is elite or not). And of those three, only Jordan can come close to matching Kareem's individual brilliance.

The reason I cited 81 is some here love to point out how Magic(rarely plaYED THAT POOR) came back from major knee surgery & have a poor 1st rd series(WITHOUT MAGIC the LAKERS DO NOT WIN RING ANYWAY ) otherwise there are no excuses for the Lakers/Magics subesequent losses other than being beat by better teams. That being said he played poor & the Lakers lost.:confusedshrug:

Without going into much detail my take on Magic/Lakers failures.

83 they lost to one of the GOAT teams. No shame/ no excuses.:confusedshrug:

In 84 Magic played great but he & WORTHY 'especially'(Worthy gets let off the hook for giving away game 2) made some crucial crunch time mistakes & a better team will take advantage of it. This one still makes me naseated but they lost to the better team.



86- The Lakers lost to a team of younger up & coming STARS.

88- The Lakers/Magic should have probably lost that series to be honest.

89- The Lakers luck had run out. No shame/no excuses. Better team

90- They simply blew a great regular season (63 wins) with second round loss. No excuses. Time to think about tweaking this team.

91- Beat by a better Bulls team. It was definitely time to tweak the Lakers then.

No apologies given /excuses needed for Magics failures. He & his teams lost. No 5 page paragraphs or essays trashing teammates/coaches & sundry other excuses needed.


Why must MJ worshippers & KAreem apologists find every excuse in the book for failures?

I RARELY hear this type of 'CONCERTED'/'CONSTANT' nonsense(excuses) from Magic Johnson fans like myself.

[G.O.A.T]

Pertaining to the debate about the 1972 WCF

Here is an article from the Milwaukee Journal from my archives.

http://www.jsonline.com/historicarchive/search/?searchBy=word&searchText=Kareem+Abdul+Jabbar+Bucks+dynasty&dat=&fromDate=&nid=jvrRlaHg2sAC&s.x=0&s.y=0

[Alhazred]

This is ridiculous. Take a look at that footage. Wilt was clearly hurting, and was very slow moving side-to-side. And even though he stated at the time that it didn't impact his vertical very much, just watch his Finals performance in the clinching game five win in '72. A totally different Chamberlain, who was SKYING to block shots (at age 35.)

You're right, Wilt did look a bit better in 72. He probably wasn't at 100%. Still, he looked a lot better than Reed did in Game7, who was limping up and down the court.


As for not been as severe as Reed's...? Reed was hobbled, sure, but his knee did not require surgery, and her played nearly the entire next season.

He did play the next season, but his numbers took a hit in '72 and he was out of the league by 1975 at only age 31.


As for Wilt, HIS injury was truly devastating. And not just because virtually EVERY medical opinion stated that he was not only done for the season, but there were even some who quietly felt his career might be over.

I'm sure Wilt's knee injury was serious, but I don't think it was bothering Wilt in Game 7 the way Reed's injury was bothering him at that point. You can see Wilt running down court with Reed barely limping and finally having to leave the game after only 27 minutes. Also, Wilt went on to have three straight seasons without missing a regular season game until he retired. Reed started to detoriate after 71 and was never the same after that.


In any case, since Wilt was considered "Superman", he couldn't use an injury as an excuse, like virtually every other great player had, including Baylor, West, and yes, Reed. It STILL amazes me that so much credit was given to Reed, in a series in which he was basically outplayed, and was crushed from game five on...all by a player who had just undergone what most everyone had assumed would be season-ending surgery. Nope...the pundits pinned the blame directly on Wilt, and heeped the praise on a hobbled statue.

:oldlol: Reed's injury was very recent compared to Wilt's, which you don't seem to be taking into consideration. Wilt had nearly a full season to recuperate and had surgery on it several months prior, unlike Reed. It's not that Wilt's injury wasn't serious, but suffering a severe injury right in the middle of the Finals sounds a lot less desirable than taking off most of the regular season to heal a knee injury.


I always found it fascinating, that when Wilt suffered a knee injury in game seven of the '69 Finals (on the same leg that he would shatter the very next season), he STILL grabbed TWO rebounds on that knee, before finally coming out. He was only out for a couple of minutes, and then requested to go back in. Van Breda the Idiot, denied him, and the Lakers went on to lose that game seven by two points. What was fascinating was that the media, and even Russell, just ripped Wilt for coming out of that game. And, yet, players like Kareem could miss an entire game, or Reed could miss half of one game, three-quarters of another, and then a FULL game...and no one ever said a word. No DOUBLE STANDARD there.

As much as you put down Van Breda Kolf, his decision to remove Wilt made sense. When he put in Counts to replace Wilt, L.A. was down by 7 and was able to cut the lead down to 1 while Wilt was on the bench. Also, Wilt had injured the same knee that kept him out of most of the 1970 regular season. What if Van Breda Kolf had let Wilt stay in the game and he ended up injuring it further? Van Breda Kolf himself said that he didn't think Wilt was faking it. Although Van Breda Kolf didn't get along with Wilt, there's a good chance he was just making sure he didn't want to end up getting Wilt hurt more.


Alright, Wilt was not the ONLY reason, but he certainly was a MAJOR reason with that brilliant 45 point, 20-27 shooting, 27 rebound game. Of course, in putting up that monumental game, instead of being applauded for it...all it did was give his critics ammo for his more "normal" game seven of 21 points, 10-16 shooting, and 24 rebounds. Just like you, they asked, where was the game six performance? Obviously they didn't WATCH the game. The Knicks came out on fire, hitting 15 of their first 21 shots. Wilt was swarmed and fouled early. And his teammates were either bricking shots, or were getting picked clean. The game was over early, and by halftime it was 69-42./QUOTE]

The 45 point performance came when Reed didn't even play. It's a nice statline, but it kind of loses its edge when you realize New York had no one to contain Wilt.

[quote]Baylor was outplayed by DeBusschere, an all-first team NBA defender, who outrebounded and outscored him. West outplayed Frazier for the first six games of the series, but he was the REAL flop in that game seven. He missed his shots early, he couldn't stop Frazier at all, and Frazier stole the ball from him some six times in the first half.

DeBusschere had a slight edge in scoring and rebounding, also Baylor had better passing numbers.

Although West did get outplayed badly in Game 7, he also led L.A. in scoring that game.


Wilt was playing on one-leg, and while Reed was probably not 100%, he was clearly in better physical shape than Wilt. And, as I mentioned earlier, he was one of the toughest opponents for Wilt BECAUSE of Chamberlain's injury. Reed was a pop-up shooter from 15 ft. So, Wilt, with limited mobility, had to TRY and guard him in those first four games. Reed had two spectacular offensive games against Wilt, but Chamberlain severely hamper his shooting in the other two, and as always, Wilt outrebounded him in EVERY game of that series, most by double-digits. ALL while playing on one leg. Furthermore, with the series tied 2-2, Wilt was thoroughly outplaying Reed in game five BEFORE his thigh injury. And the Lakers were leading by 10 points when the injury occurred.




As for the rest of the matchups, the Knicks had a HUGE edge the rest of the rosters. Bradley is in the HOF. Dick Barnett was an all-star just a couple of seasons before, and would average 19 ppg in this series. Cazzie Russell was the game's best sixth man at that point, and an explosive scorer. Stallworth and Bowman provided good minutes for Reed, and if nothing else, they could use 12 fouls on Wilt.

The Knicks had seven players average 7 ppg or more. LA only had five. And after West and Wilt, the rest of the Laker players were outscored, man-for-man, by a solid margin.

That's kind of misleading, West outscored New York's highest scorer Reed by 8 points, while LA had two players average 20 points compared to New York with only one.

[PHILA]

Chamberlain has been blasted for the '62 series (which was decided at the last second of the 7th game), yet Abdul-Jabbar has been excused numerous times by certain posters for in '72. Would Chamberlain's teams have had a chance at winning a series against the Celtics in 7, (never mind 4 games to 1) if he played below par as KAJ did against Thurmond?

As Chamberlain noted here in this 1997 interview (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6eIE5cznPS8#t=0m40s), "I think that you always need the best, to bring the best out in you. So I was always fortunate to have to know that I was going to play against the Celtics and William Felton Russell. The other teams in the NBA always knew that if we were going to win and be winners, we had to go into the Boston Garden and come out in some kind of way. And so you got inspired and you got up to do that. How they maintained for so long I'm not sure, but we had to continually try to drive ourselves to be just out there with them without being embarrassed."




The Milwaukee Journal - Apr 24, 1972 (http://news.google.com/newspapers/p/milwaukee_journal?id=izgdAAAAIBAJ&sjid=zCgEAAAAIBAJ&pg=7036,2591442&dq)

When the Milwaukee Bucks won the National Basketball Association championship a year ago, there was talk that they had a dynasty in the making.

But their dynasty ended before it really began, and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar's reputation as the greatest center of all time was tarnished in the process.

Abdul-Jabbar failed to outplay either Nate Thurmond of the Golden State Warriors or Wilt Chamberlain of the Los Angeles Lakers in the playoffs, and his inability to contain Chamberlain finally made the difference in the Laker series that ended in disaster at the Arena Saturday.

In the semifinal series with the Lakers, Abdul-Jabbar had a tremendous edge in scoring, 202-67, but was oturebounded, 116-105, and was outmuscled by a greater margin that that. He actually reached the point on occasion where he was intimidated by Chamberlain as he headed toward the basket, and who ever heard of the Big Buck being intimidated?

The Lakers eliminated the Bucks in six games, and the turning point occurred, with the series tied at 202, when Chamberlain finally took advantage of his tremendous advantage in weight and strength and began pushing Abdul-Jabbar around. Wilt is listed at 275 pounds but probably weighs 290, to Abdul-Jabbar's 230.

Perhaps the best illustration of Abdul-Jabbar's difficulties lay in his shooting averages. He shot .574 in the regular season but only .437 in the playoffs - .405 against Thurmond and .457 against Chamberlain.

Because of the strong defensive work of his two veteran rivals, Abdul-Jabbar often was forced away from his favorite positions. He took hook shots from 12-15 feet away instead of from 8-10, and sometimes he even resorted to 15 foot jump shots.

Abdul-Jabbar took more jump shots Saturday as the Lakers ended the series with a 104-100 victory, and Bucks coach Larry Costello said, "I don't want Kareem taking 15 footers. You do that and you're just not playing your game."

But Chamberlain's dominating presence obviously had much to do with Abdul-Jabbar's change in tactics, and Wilt's performance against the man who supposedly had usurped his title as king of the giants must have been one of the most satisfying of his long career.

With Abdul-Jabbar not playing up to par and Oscar Robertson scarcely able to play at all, the Bucks were handicapped on the two biggest counts imaginable.

[PHILA]

As much as you put down Van Breda Kolf, his decision to remove Wilt made sense. When he put in Counts to replace Wilt, L.A. was down by 7 and was able to cut the lead down to 1 while Wilt was on the bench. Also, Wilt had injured the same knee that kept him out of most of the 1970 regular season. What if Van Breda Kolf had let Wilt stay in the game and he ended up injuring it further? Van Breda Kolf himself said that he didn't think Wilt was faking it.
You neglect to mention they cut a 17 point deficit to 7 with Chamberlain on the floor.

After he went to the bench, he Celtics did force some bad outside shots after Russell initially got a bit excited with Mel Counts guarding him. They could have fed Chamberlain as Bill Russell was clearly sagging off him, in hopes of fouling him out, therefore giving the Lakers a more decisive advantage on the glass with Russell out. The point is that Chamberlain was not given an opportunity to help his team win the championship at the end as noted by Sonny Hill below.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESDFppbQ2zM#t=3m34s


This is not to down Jerry West's performance, but you need to watch the full 4th quarter on Youtube. Count how many touches Chamberlain actually received in the pivot. As soon as Russell picked up foul number 5, Chamberlain goes down low next possession attempting to take him out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3k9eWPEbXE#t=3m20s


Although Van Breda Kolf didn't get along with Wilt, there's a good chance he was just making sure he didn't want to end up getting Wilt hurt more.

:roll:

[Alhazred]

Continuing...
Yes, Reed offensively gave Wilt a lot of trouble, particularly in games one and three. But, once again, he was the league's MVP, and much healthier than Wilt in those four games. And Wilt still pounded him on the glass.

As Regul8r already explained, Reed wasn't healthy himself either. And yes, Wilt outrebounded him. I'm not arguing that Reed was better.


As for West...he was outstanding in the first six games (he averaged 33 ppg in those six games), and he was dominating Frazier. Of course, in the critical game seven, West was completely outplayed in that first half, and while it is hard to blame him for that loss, since he was LA's second best player, he was certainly much more responsible for that loss than Chamberlain.

They both were responsible. Wilt's defense and poor free-throw shooting along with West's turnovers cost them the game, as well as other factors.


]Regarding Kareem's Bucks. They had still gone 56-26 during the regular season. And the only player that they would replace was Robinson for Oscar. No doubt an upgrade, but Robinson was probably a better offensive player by that time in their careers (Robinson was a tremendous shooter and scorer.) Still, the rest of that Buck roster would be the same pieces the next season, when they would overwhelm the NBA. I will give Oscar his due, he clearly made the Bucks a champion, but still, for the 56-26 Bucks to get buried 4-1 by the Knicks was a telling statement to just how strong that 60-22 Knick team was. And yet, with a one-legged Wilt, the Lakers had battled the healthy Knicks to a 2-2 tie, and were LEADING in game three when Reed went down.

The Bucks were good, but the Lakers were more talented from top to bottom when they had Wilt playing. The Bucks outside of Kareem, Dandridge and Flynn Robinson really weren't that talented, and as good as Kareem was he and Dandridge were both rookies. that year.


Furthermore, without the questionable officiating in the rest of that game five, the Lakers would have been up 3-2, and with Chamberlain's incredible game six, they would have won that series, 4-2.

Hypothetical scenarios are nice, but eventually lead to nowhere.


I think I covered this above. I don't believe for an instant that LA had a better starting five. With a healthy Reed, the Knicks had THREE first-team defenders. And a much healthier Reed was probably a wash, at the very best for LA, against a one-legged Wilt. West had a slight edge over Frazier, and completely outplayed him in the first six games,...but once again, at the worst possible time, he folded.

I think Wilt was definitely better than Reed and West had a clear advantage against Frazier for the first six games like you said. I do agree that New York was more balanced, though.


DeBusschere was clearly better than a Baylor who could do nothing but occassionally shoot. DeBusschere was a better scorer at this point, a better rebounder, and a much better defender.

Baylor was still a solid passer and rebounder. He even had a triple-double in Game 3. DeBusschere scored more but less efficiently, played better d and outrebounded him slightly with inferior passing. I consider it a wash between them.


That brings us to the Barnett-Garrett matchup. Here again, going into that series, no one would have given an edge to Garrett. And, Barnett was a key player for NY in this series. He would be there third leading scorer at 18.6 (which was even more than Baylor, who only scored 17.9...and was outscored by DeBusschere who had 19 ppg and 12.6 rpg.) Garrett played reasonably well, but he was no match for Barnett.

This is the only matchup where I think New York had a clear advantage.


The Lakers had ZERO help from their bench, while the Knicks had Russell's 9.3 ppg and 50% shooting. Stallworth also gave them 7.0 ppg and 4.6 rpg, as well, which was better than Hairston for LA.

L.A.'s Keith Erickson actually put up better than numbers than Russell. Strictly judging each team's six best players, I'd say it's just about even. Wilt and West had an edge over Frazier and Willis, while the rest of the matchups were either a draw or in New York's favor.


I applaud your discussion. The fact that LA DID get to a game seven gives your argument validity. Still, the Knicks were solid favorites going in. Now, had Reed been injured in game one, and I think the Lakers would have won that series, even with Wilt at less than 100%. But, he was injured in game five, and with a little"help" from the officials, who swallowed their whistles in game five, they were able to eke out a win. And, in game seven, they just exploded.

I agree that New York was the favorite entering the series, my issue is really with what happened from Games 5 through 7. Reed going down in Game 5


I have long maintained that even another monumental performance by Wilt would not have been enough. The fact was, Wilt played a solid first half, with 11 points, on 5-10 shooting, with 12 rebounds...but his teammates once again melted in a game seven. Of course, his final nuimbers were actually quite good, 21 points, on 10-16 shooting (albeit 1-11 from the line), and 24 rebounds. West and Baylor's final numbers in that game were not bad either, but they were terrible in the first half...and that was when the game was decided.

Like I said, I don't think it was all Wilt's fault, everyone else on the Lakers was getting outplayed badly. I'm just saying that he still underperformed.


The bottom line, though, was that the PERCEPTION of that game was that Reed came out and "intimidated" Wilt by hitting those two shots early. The REAL story was that Frazier, and his other teammates, came out on fire, and then, with Wilt's teammates firing blanks and getting their pockets picked in the entire first half, the Knicks TEAM just destroyed the LAKERs. And, as always, Wilt was unfairly blamed.

I always thought the story was that Reed hit two shots to open the game and that inspired the Knicks' victory? Regardless, yes, Wilt does take some unnecessary blame for some of his teams' victories including the 1970 Game 7, I will admit that. Still, he did deserve some of the blame. His difficulty in guarding outside shooters and poor free-throw shooting was part of the reason LA got blown out so badly.

[Alhazred]

You neglect to mention they cut a 17 point deficit to 7 with Chamberlain on the floor.

After he went to the bench, he Celtics did force some bad outside shots after Russell initially got a bit excited with Mel Counts guarding him. They could have fed Chamberlain as Bill Russell was clearly sagging off him, in hopes of fouling him out, therefore giving the Lakers a more decisive advantage on the glass with Russell out. The point is that Chamberlain was not given an opportunity to help his team win the championship at the end as noted by Sonny Hill below.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESDFppbQ2zM#t=3m34s

I'm not blaming Wilt for not winning that game, I'm just presenting the other side of the situation for why the benching occurred and why it wasn't as bad as how Jlauber describes it. Counts was doing pretty well and helped cut the lead to 1 with three minutes left, plus the game wasn't really decided until Nelson made that crazy shot.


This is not to down Jerry West's performance, but you need to watch the full 4th quarter on Youtube. Count how many touches Chamberlain actually received in the pivot. As soon as Russell picked up foul number 5, Chamberlain goes down low next possession attempting to take him out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3k9eWPEbXE#t=3m20s

Wilt could have turned that game around had he stayed in, but to be fair Counts was doing well in his place. Also, what if Van Breda Kolff had let Wilt back in and Wilt ended up hurting his knee even worse? That was the same knee that kept him out of most the next season after the Finals.


:roll:

I apologize for how I phrased that sentence, I should have edited it.

What I meant was that Van Breda Kolff probably didn't want to risk injuring one of his star players when the current lineup on the floor was doing fine. From Wilt's Wikipedia page, "Van Breda Kolff came to Chamberlain's defense, insisting the often-maligned Lakers center hardly was able to move in the end." I know Wikipedia can be inaccurate, so I apologize if that really wasn't the case.

Just to be clear, I don't consider Wilt a choker or a loser, that would be way too harsh. He was a great player, wonderful interviewee and a truly revolutionary player, among other things.

[jlauber]

Alhazred,

I don't think either of us are ever going to completely agree on the '70 Finals. I think you believe that LA should have won games five and seven, and under the circumstances, they probably should have. But, IMHO, the Lakers had no business being tied at 2-2 in the first four games. So, while you believe that the Lakers should have don much better in games 5-7, I think they did an amazing job in games 1-4.

I do agree though, that game five was the pivotal game. When Reed went down the Lakers were up by ten. They would extend it to 13 at the half, and even the most ardent Knick fans had probably given up. Most recaps claim that NY just swarmed LA in the second half (I didn't see the game, and I don't think it was nationally televised.) But, it was suspicious that West and Wilt could only get five shots combined in that second half. Especially when, in the very next game, Wilt went 20-27 from the floor, and the Lakers, from the outset, just annihilated the Knicks.

So, while I just don't think there was anything they could have done to stop the Knick freight-train in game seven, they should have won game five.

You and I both seem to agree that Wilt was wrongly blamed for that series loss, though. Yes, he probably could have done more in that game seven. As I mentioned earlier, there were those that felt that when Reed came stumbling out of the tunnel, that Wilt and the Lakers were "intimidated." Nothing could be further from the truth. The Lakers had battled a much healthier NY team to a draw in the first four games, and had even outplayed them with Reed in game five. So, a noticeably hobbled Reed had no "intimidating" effect. However, Dick Shaap made the comment that Wilt probably "let up" on Reed in that game. Unfortunately for Chamberlain, that was his biggest weakness. He lacked the "killer instinct" of Russell (and Magic, MJ, and Shaq.)

Still, having rewatched that game, almost everytime Wilt touched the ball, his team was falling further-and-further behind. And, as you alluded, his FT shooting didn't help. The Knicks doubled him and fouled him early on, and he couldn't convert his FT's (and the single, non-penalty, FT attempts of that era didn't help.)

But, for me at least, I truly believe that Chamberlain played exceptionally well in that series...especially considering his knee surgery. 23.2 ppg, 24.1 rpg, and .625 shooting are clearly indicative of just how well he played. And, while West was brilliant in the first six games, IMHO, he deserved more blame for that game seven loss than Chamberlain.

Of course, the history books tell a completely different story. Wilt's surgery is hardly mentioned, nor is the fact that the Knicks just ran away from the league that year. Once again, they bull-dozed right over the 56-26 Bucks in the previous round.

Nope...what we get are these facts: Wilt only got a couple of shots in the second half of game five, and the Knicks, without Reed, had a stirring comeback win. Then, the story continues, Wilt took advantage of Reed's absence in game six, and overpowered a helpless Knick frontline. BUT, that was still the same frontline that had limited Wilt to just two shots in the second half of game five. Furthermore, the history books just gloss over his incredible stats from that game (45 points, 20-27 shooting, and 27 rebounds.) They make it seem like ANYONE else would have done it. Not only that, but they diminish it to the point that you would think Wilt was playing against an eighth-grade church league team when he accomplished it. Once again, how many other players, in the HISTORY of the NBA, have had a 45-27 Final's game? I really don't know the answer, but I can guarantee you, it was not many.

And, then of course, the history book brings up game seven. Of course, even the source you quoted, from nba.com was wrong (I'm not blaming you BTW, but it is just another example of the "powers-that-be" seemingly disparaging Wilt.) That article claims that LA repeatedly went into Wilt, and Reed, almost by himself, held Wilt to 2-9 shooting, and total frustration. Well, the exact story was a little different. Wilt did get single coverage about one-third of the time, and he was generally fouled by Reed under those circumstances, although, to be fair, he missed a couple of shots against him. But, the rest of the half, Wilt was either immediately doubled, or swarmed. AND, he STILL shot 5-10, with 11 points, and 12 rebounds (albeit, only 1-8 from the line.) Those numbers are not sensational, but compared to the rest of his team's performance in that first half, he was light-year's better than anyone else wearing a Laker uniform. And, as I said earlier,...almost everytime Wilt touched the ball, his team was further behind.


I do have to address another point, though...


As much as you put down Van Breda Kolf, his decision to remove Wilt made sense. When he put in Counts to replace Wilt, L.A. was down by 7 and was able to cut the lead down to 1 while Wilt was on the bench. Also, Wilt had injured the same knee that kept him out of most of the 1970 regular season. What if Van Breda Kolf had let Wilt stay in the game and he ended up injuring it further? Van Breda Kolf himself said that he didn't think Wilt was faking it. Although Van Breda Kolf didn't get along with Wilt, there's a good chance he was just making sure he didn't want to end up getting Wilt hurt more.

As PHILA pointed out, the Lakers had cut a 4th quarter, 17 point deficit down to seven when Wilt left. And, here again, the history books never mention the fact that Boston was on their last legs by that point in the game. Their aged team had played as well as they could have for three-quarters, but they were out of gas with five minutes left.

Furthermore, while the history books rip Wilt for pulling himself out of the game at that point, they NEVER mention this fact: That Russell had been nowhere to be found in that 4th quarter. Watch the YouTube footage of that entire 4th period. Russell, with five fouls, was hiding the entire quarter. In fact, I honestly believe that Wilt had as many rebounds, with his injured knee, on two consecutive possessions, as Russell had the entire stanza.

And, as PHILA also pointed out...WHY didn't the Lakers pound the ball into Wilt in that last quarter. Russell meekly let him score on him early in the period. But, no, they ignored Wilt, as was the case in the '68 ECF's, and it ultimately cost the Lakers a title.

As for Van Breda Kolf...his ONLY reason for keeping Wilt on the bench was because he wanted to prove that he could win without him. Even in the interview that was done with him years later, the only thing he could spit out was, that he felt that they were playing better without Wilt. Ok, so how come Wilt's replacement, Mel Counts, missed two shots down the stretch, and his shooting for the entire game was only 4-13? Oh, and BTW, how did Wilt shoot in that game seven? 7-8 (Russell was at only 2-7 BTW.) The fact was, West was FURIOUS when he found out that Chamberlain had asked to go back in, and was refused. And, it was no coincidence that Van Breda Kolf was fired shortly after that loss. In any case, I just can't imagine ANY OTHER coach leaving Wilt on the bench in the last 3-4 minutes of a game seven...and going with Mel ****ing Counts!

Van Breda Kolf's decision basically cost him his career, and delayed the Lakers a title until Bill Sharman came to the rescue in the '71-72 season. I have long maintained that the 68-69 Lakers would have ROMPED to a title with Sharman as their coach. He took over an aged, and injury-riddled roster before the start of that 71-72 season, that had all five starters over the age of 30, and a team that had gone 48-34 the year before. But he instead of just throwing five players out on the floor, as van Breda Kolf had done a few years earlier, he molded the team to it's strength's, which were Wilt's rebounding, defense, and outlet passing...and West's and Goodrich's shooting. Players like McMillian (who Sharman quickly replaced the worthless Baylor with early in the season), and Hairston (who had over a 1000 rebounds) were given key roles, and they performed brilliantly. IF only Sharman had coached that '68-69 team.

Anyway, once again, we will probably never agree on the '69-70 Finals, but I will say that it has been a pleasure discussing the topic with someone as knowledgeable as yourself. I may not agree with everything you state, but I certainly respect it.

[Alhazred]

Alhazred,

I don't think either of us are ever going to completely agree on the '70 Finals. I think you believe that LA should have won games five and seven, and under the circumstances, they probably should have. But, IMHO, the Lakers had no business being tied at 2-2 in the first four games. So, while you believe that the Lakers should have don much better in games 5-7, I think they did an amazing job in games 1-4.

Fair enough, I exaggerated a bit when I said New York had no business winning. They were a great team, I just think L.A.(Not just Wilt) should have taken over at that point when Reed went down. That being said, they were on fire in Game 7 and in Game 5 they adjusted their game plan to take advantage of Wilt's weaknesses, which involved some great coaching from Holzman. I will cut Wilt a break for that series since he was out for so long with that knee injury. I know how knee injuries can greatly affect a player's career.


I do agree though, that game five was the pivotal game. When Reed went down the Lakers were up by ten. They would extend it to 13 at the half, and even the most ardent Knick fans had probably given up. Most recaps claim that NY just swarmed LA in the second half (I didn't see the game, and I don't think it was nationally televised.) But, it was suspicious that West and Wilt could only get five shots combined in that second half. Especially when, in the very next game, Wilt went 20-27 from the floor, and the Lakers, from the outset, just annihilated the Knicks.

So, while I just don't think there was anything they could have done to stop the Knick freight-train in game seven, they should have won game five.

Well said. :cheers:


You and I both seem to agree that Wilt was wrongly blamed for that series loss, though. Yes, he probably could have done more in that game seven. As I mentioned earlier, there were those that felt that when Reed came stumbling out of the tunnel, that Wilt and the Lakers were "intimidated." Nothing could be further from the truth. The Lakers had battled a much healthier NY team to a draw in the first four games, and had even outplayed them with Reed in game five. So, a noticeably hobbled Reed had no "intimidating" effect. However, Dick Shaap made the comment that Wilt probably "let up" on Reed in that game. Unfortunately for Chamberlain, that was his biggest weakness. He lacked the "killer instinct" of Russell (and Magic, MJ, and Shaq.)

This is what keeps me from considering Wilt the GOAT. I usually have him in my top three, but what keeps me from ranking him #1 is that he didn't have that do or die attitude that the others had. What he did give to the game was better than most, though, and even then he was in shape consistently and rarely missed games, along with having some excellent playoff performances. I kind of have a similar problem with Shaq because of his lack of conditioning and tendency to burn bridges with former teams, although I still consider him a personal favorite of mine.


Still, having rewatched that game, almost everytime Wilt touched the ball, his team was falling further-and-further behind. And, as you alluded, his FT shooting didn't help. The Knicks doubled him and fouled him early on, and he couldn't convert his FT's (and the single, non-penalty, FT attempts of that era didn't help.)

But, for me at least, I truly believe that Chamberlain played exceptionally well in that series...especially considering his knee surgery. 23.2 ppg, 24.1 rpg, and .625 shooting are clearly indicative of just how well he played. And, while West was brilliant in the first six games, IMHO, he deserved more blame for that game seven loss than Chamberlain.

Wilt was decent that game, I wouldn't say that he was bad, either. I blame the entire Lakers team for that loss, not just Wilt. And again, I do applaud Wilt for playing so well despite missing so much time.


Of course, the history books tell a completely different story. Wilt's surgery is hardly mentioned, nor is the fact that the Knicks just ran away from the league that year. Once again, they bull-dozed right over the 56-26 Bucks in the previous round.

Nope...what we get are these facts: Wilt only got a couple of shots in the second half of game five, and the Knicks, without Reed, had a stirring comeback win. Then, the story continues, Wilt took advantage of Reed's absence in game six, and overpowered a helpless Knick frontline. BUT, that was still the same frontline that had limited Wilt to just two shots in the second half of game five. Furthermore, the history books just gloss over his incredible stats from that game (45 points, 20-27 shooting, and 27 rebounds.) They make it seem like ANYONE else would have done it. Not only that, but they diminish it to the point that you would think Wilt was playing against an eighth-grade church league team when he accomplished it. Once again, how many other players, in the HISTORY of the NBA, have had a 45-27 Final's game? I really don't know the answer, but I can guarantee you, it was not many.

Sorry if I discredited his Game 6 performance. Regardless of who he played against, I do admit that it was a great effort on Wilt's part.


And, then of course, the history book brings up game seven. Of course, even the source you quoted, from nba.com was wrong (I'm not blaming you BTW, but it is just another example of the "powers-that-be" seemingly disparaging Wilt.) That article claims that LA repeatedly went into Wilt, and Reed, almost by himself, held Wilt to 2-9 shooting, and total frustration. Well, the exact story was a little different. Wilt did get single coverage about one-third of the time, and he was generally fouled by Reed under those circumstances, although, to be fair, he missed a couple of shots against him. But, the rest of the half, Wilt was either immediately doubled, or swarmed. AND, he STILL shot 5-10, with 11 points, and 12 rebounds (albeit, only 1-8 from the line.) Those numbers are not sensational, but compared to the rest of his team's performance in that first half, he was light-year's better than anyone else wearing a Laker uniform. And, as I said earlier,...almost everytime Wilt touched the ball, his team was further behind.

New York was definitely on fire and from what I've see they played excellent team defense. You are right that New York did double Wilt alot, but I think Reed did an admirable job even when covering Wilt by himself, considering his injury.



As PHILA pointed out, the Lakers had cut a 4th quarter, 17 point deficit down to seven when Wilt left. And, here again, the history books never mention the fact that Boston was on their last legs by that point in the game. Their aged team had played as well as they could have for three-quarters, but they were out of gas with five minutes left.

Furthermore, while the history books rip Wilt for pulling himself out of the game at that point, they NEVER mention this fact: That Russell had been nowhere to be found in that 4th quarter. Watch the YouTube footage of that entire 4th period. Russell, with five fouls, was hiding the entire quarter. In fact, I honestly believe that Wilt had as many rebounds, with his injured knee, on two consecutive possessions, as Russell had the entire stanza.

I don't know, Counts obviously wasn't as great as Wilt but he didn't really hurt the team, either. If Wilt had stayed in, I do think that he could have given Boston trouble and turned that game around.


And, as PHILA also pointed out...WHY didn't the Lakers pound the ball into Wilt in that last quarter. Russell meekly let him score on him early in the period. But, no, they ignored Wilt, as was the case in the '68 ECF's, and it ultimately cost the Lakers a title.

As for Van Breda Kolf...his ONLY reason for keeping Wilt on the bench was because he wanted to prove that he could win without him. Even in the interview that was done with him years later, the only thing he could spit out was, that he felt that they were playing better without Wilt. Ok, so how come Wilt's replacement, Mel Counts, missed two shots down the stretch, and his shooting for the entire game was only 4-13? Oh, and BTW, how did Wilt shoot in that game seven? 7-8 (Russell was at only 2-7 BTW.) The fact was, West was FURIOUS when he found out that Chamberlain had asked to go back in, and was refused. And, it was no coincidence that Van Breda Kolf was fired shortly after that loss. In any case, I just can't imagine ANY OTHER coach leaving Wilt on the bench in the last 3-4 minutes of a game seven...and going with Mel ****ing Counts!

I know Van Breda Kolff and Wilt didn't get along, but I did post a quote from Wikipedia where Van Breda Kolff said that Wilt didn't look like he was in the best of shape. He may have kept him on the bench for personal reasons, as well, but I think it may have also been more complicated than that.



Anyway, once again, we will probably never agree on the '69-70 Finals, but I will say that it has been a pleasure discussing the topic with someone as knowledgeable as yourself. I may not agree with everything you state, but I certainly respect it.

Thanks, it was a good discussion.

I apologize if I sounded kind of bitchy before. Don't take this personally, but I kind of had you pegged as a troll at one point, but now I see that I was off base with that assumption. You're a decent poster with a strong bias, but then so do most posters here including myself.

Thanks again for also being gracious. I'd rep you but I have to wait until I spread more.

[jlauber]

Fair enough, I exaggerated a bit when I said New York had no business winning. They were a great team, I just think L.A.(Not just Wilt) should have taken over at that point when Reed went down. That being said, they were on fire in Game 7 and in Game 5 they adjusted their game plan to take advantage of Wilt's weaknesses, which involved some great coaching from Holzman. I will cut Wilt a break for that series since he was out for so long with that knee injury. I know how knee injuries can greatly affect a player's career.



Well said. :cheers:



This is what keeps me from considering Wilt the GOAT. I usually have him in my top three, but what keeps me from ranking him #1 is that he didn't have that do or die attitude that the others had. What he did give to the game was better than most, though, and even then he was in shape consistently and rarely missed games, along with having some excellent playoff performances. I kind of have a similar problem with Shaq because of his lack of conditioning and tendency to burn bridges with former teams, although I still consider him a personal favorite of mine.



Wilt was decent that game, I wouldn't say that he was bad, either. I blame the entire Lakers team for that loss, not just Wilt. And again, I do applaud Wilt for playing so well despite missing so much time.



Sorry if I discredited his Game 6 performance. Regardless of who he played against, I do admit that it was a great effort on Wilt's part.



New York was definitely on fire and from what I've see they played excellent team defense. You are right that New York did double Wilt alot, but I think Reed did an admirable job even when covering Wilt by himself, considering his injury.




I don't know, Counts obviously wasn't as great as Wilt but he didn't really hurt the team, either. If Wilt had stayed in, I do think that he could have given Boston trouble and turned that game around.



I know Van Breda Kolff and Wilt didn't get along, but I did post a quote from Wikipedia where Van Breda Kolff said that Wilt didn't look like he was in the best of shape. He may have kept him on the bench for personal reasons, as well, but I think it may have also been more complicated than that.




Thanks, it was a good discussion.

I apologize if I sounded kind of bitchy before. Don't take this personally, but I kind of had you pegged as a troll at one point, but now I see that I was off base with that assumption. You're a decent poster with a strong bias, but then so do most posters here including myself.

Thanks again for also being gracious. I'd rep you but I have to wait until I spread more.


:cheers:

[Lebron23]

because he didn't have a Magic Johnson ( TOP 5), Pat Riley (top 3 coach)and a James worthy ( TOP 50 IN 1997) in the 1970's. Lew Alcindor was a great individual player, but he also needed some support from his teammates.

[La Frescobaldi]

because he didn't have a Magic Johnson ( TOP 5), Pat Riley (top 3 coach)and a James worthy ( TOP 50 IN 1997) in the 1970's. Lew Alcindor was a great individual player, but he also needed some support from his teammates.

this thread is amazing.

Lot of people don't remember how often people were comparing Kareem to Chamberlain in those days. Same overwhelming skills, same amazing ability to destroy everything in their path..... same lack of championships.

The short answer is, generally, injuries. Their teammates went down, a lot.

But Centers are unique in basketball; more than any other position, they have to have teammates around them to get them the ball. Doesn't matter how great they are, if they are getting triple teamed, as both those guys always were in the paint when it counted, it's just about impossible to get them the rock.

[fpliii]

What do you guys see happening in 77-78 and 78-79 if the Lakers don't trade Kermit Washington and Don Chaney for Charlie Scott?