Kareem's Peak?

[jlauber]

Instead of continuing the topic in a non-related thread, I will carry it over to a new one.

Just when was Kareem at his PEAK?


I wish basketball reference gave the mpg in

their box scores too. Quite a few of his 25-30 point games

against the expansion teams were lobsided blowouts. I don't

think it's a stretch to conclude that he sat out a few 4th

quarters, and that his mpg was below his average for the

season. CONTEXT.

But anyway, this is a little beside the point. The ABA sapped

the NBA of talent. That's undeniable. No Gilmore or Mel Daniels

or Zelmo Beaty or Dan Issel or even a Gerald Govan (Tenacious

rebounder and great post defender) or a Julius Keye (Supposedly

one of the best shot blockers of the early 70s) to contend

with.


Actually the ABA took some of the NBA's better forwards.

Players like Barry and Cunningham. IMHO, only Gilmore would

have been among best centers in the NBA at the time. Beaty was

a very good offensive player (he probably scored as much

against a prime Chamberlain as any center in the league), but

he was nearing the end of his career. And IMHO, Mel Daniels was

a good, but not great center.

The center position was the NBA's true strength. Players like

McAdoo (who, IMHO, is the 4th greatest scoring center in NBA

history, behind Wilt, Kareem, and Shaq), Lanier, Cowens, Hayes,

Bellamy, Reed, Thurmond, Kareem , and Chamberlain. And the next

tier players, like Walk, Lacey, and Ray, were decent.

Considering there were "only" 17 teams, those guys were being

challenged nearly every night.

Back to Kareem.

How about his 71-72 season? Granted he shot-jacked against

Chamberlain (he was taking 30+ FGAs against Wilt in nearly

every game), but he averaged 40 ppg on .500 shooting in the

regular season (here again, Wilt's Lakers went 4-1 against

Kareem's Bucks, and in Kareem's biggest scoring games, his

teams were wiped out by LA.) And without taking the time to

look up the actual numbers, I suspect that he was around 44 ppg

against Cowens.

The fact was, Kareem was just blistering the NBA in 70-71 and

71-72. I stand by MY take that he reached his PEAK by that

time. Is that unusual? Not really. McAdoo peaked in three

years. MJ had his career high ppg in his 4rd season, and his

4th and 5th seasons were his best. Chamberlain, himself, was

difficult to access. He was clearly the best player in the game

for the decade of the 60's (sorry Russell.) But he was scoring

40 ppg on Russell, and 53 ppg on Bellamy, in only his third

season. However, even in his 11th season, and before shredding

his knee, he was scoring 32 ppg on .579 shooting.

Take a look at the best rebounders in NBA history. Most all of

them hit their peak rebounding seasons, early on. And, while

most all of them develop offensive skills, those gains in

skills are off-set by losses in physical abilities.

And the reality is/was, that many of the truly great players

reach their statistical peaks early on, as well. Here again, MJ

scoring 37 ppg in his third season. McAdoo with a 35 ppg season

in his third year. Chamberlain with his 50 ppg season in his

third year. And Kareem with 32 and 35 ppg seasons in his 2nd

and 3rd seasons.

I would also contend that ages 22-25 (and even 21 in some

cases) are quite often a players absolute peak. Those three

years combine peak athleticism with a gaining of skills. Moses

was running away with the rebound title (by FIVE per game) at

age 23. Barry, at age 22 was averaging 36 ppg. Barkley was

winning a rebound title at age 23, and had his career ppg at

age 24. Tiny Archibald was scoring 34 ppg and handing out 11

apg at age 24. Oscar, at age 23, had a triple double season.

Kobe wasn't at his peak at age 24, but he was already at 30

ppg.

True, some players hit their absolute peak later in their

careers. Shaq's peak was around 2000, at age 27, BUT, take a

look at his numbers in his 2000 season, and compare them with a

more athletic Shaq at age 21. In 2000 Shaq averaged 40.0 mpg,

29.7 ppg, 13.6 rpg, 3.0 bpg, and shot .574 from the field. Now

compare that with a young Shaq, in his second season, and at

age 21. 39.8 mpg, 29.3 ppg, 13.2 rpg, 2.9 bpg, and a .599 FG%.

Virtually no difference at all.

How about Hakeem? In his rookie season, at age 22, he would

shoot a career in FG%, at .538. In his second season, in 85-86,

he played 36.3 mpg, averaged 23.5 ppg, 11.5 rpg, 3.4 bpg, and

shot .526. At his supposed peak in '94, and at age 31, he

averaged 41 mpg, 27.3 ppg, 11.9 rpg, 3.7 bpg, and shot .528.

Give the second year Hakeem another 5 mpg, and his offensive

numbers are nearly identical (take a look at their respective

Per/36 numbers.)

Continued...

[jlauber]

Continuing...

IMHO, Kareem was already a top-5 NBA center, by his sophomore

season at UCLA. By his rookie season, he was probably top-3.

And by his second season, he was already the best in the game.

Of course, that also coincided with a declining Chamberlain,

who was nearing his mid-30's, and playing on a surgically

repaired knee.

In any case, and as I have argued, the game came so quickly and

easily for Kareem, that IMHO, he became complacent. Geez, in

his SECOND season, he led the NBA, and by a considerable

margin, in scoring, shot a sensational FG%, won the league MVP

playing on a 66-16 team that ran away with the best record in

the league. Then, in the playoffs, they annihilated everyone,

en route to a 12-2 post-season run, culminated by a sweeping

win in the Finals.

Now, there was a minor blip in that run, though. In the WCF's,

a 34 year old Chamberlain battled the 24 year Kareem to a

statistical draw, and in fact, the media at the time declared

Wilt the "winner" in that series. This, in arguably Wilt's

WORST season, and only a year removed from major knee surgery.

In any case, I suspect that Kareem felt he could dominate

anytime he wanted to, and even the "experts" were tabbing

Kareem and his young Bucks' teammates (except for Oscar), to

put together a Dynasty that would rival Russell's Celtics.

It never happened. The Lakers, who FINALLY acquired a BRILLIANT

head coach, who then convinced a shell of what he once was,

Baylor, to hang it up. He then convinced Wilt and his aged

roster that they could RUN. And with Chamberlain anchoring the

defense, dominating the glass, and fueling the break with

pinpoint outlets, they did indeed just destroy the NBA that

season. Virtually NO ONE predicted that the Lakers would run

the NBA to death that season.

Still, Kareem was scoring at will, and while his Bucks dipped

slightly to a 63-19 record, and were even beaten 4-1 in the

regular season series with LA, most experts were expecting them

to romp to another title. However, in the opening round of the

playoffs, Kareem suddenly ran into a massive stumbling block.

Nate Thurmond not only held Kareem to a horrid .405 FG% in that

series, he OUTSCORED and OUTSHOT him. Still, the Bucks had a

huge edge in talent, and easily won the series.

And after Kareem and his Bucks dominated Wilt and his Lakers in

the first game of the '72 WCF's, all was normal again. It was

only a matter of time, and Kareem would again be holding the

trophy. Except...it didn't happen. The Lakers edged the Bucks

in game two. Then, from game's three thru six, the Lakers, and

especially Chamberlain, asserted themselves. Wilt held Kareem

to an awful .414 FG% over the course of the last four games of

that series, and LA began dominating Milwaukee. In game five

they annihilated the Bucks, 115-90, in a game in which Kareem

was just playing like a deer caught in headlights. Wilt was

knocking the skyhook all over the gym, and he had intimidated

Kareem to the point that even his makes were pure luck. And in

the clinching game six, Chamberlain engineered a 4th quarter 10

point comeback, in which he completely shut Kareem down, and

even RAN him ragged, while pounding him mercilessly. At the end

of the series, it was UNIVERSALLY accepted that an OLD Wilt had

outplayed the 10 year younger Kareem, and in Kareem's finest

statistical season. Time Magazine went so far as to claim that

Wilt had DECISIVELY outplayed Kareem.

[magnax1]

I'd say it was either 74 or 77. While he had some awesome statistical seasons before 74, his skillset seemed to fill out that year from the little I've seen of him. That was also the first year he really picked it up in the playoffs instead of having a dropoff in the playoffs. Really though, every year from 74-80 he seemed pretty much the same to me. His most impressive playoff run aws definitely 77, but just going off the regular season, there isn't much separating them from my point of view.

[jlauber]

Continuing...

The Bucks were still a great team, and with Kareem having

another great season in 72-73 (albeit, a decline from '72.)

Milwaukee and LA tied in the West with 60-22 records, and it

was a foregone conclusion that the two would meet in the WCF's.

However, the 47-35 Warriors, behind the brilliant defense of

Thurmond, SHOCKED the Bucks. Kareem couldn't hit the Grand

Canyon from the ledge, and Golden St. came back to stun the

Bucks in six games. As a sidenote, Thurmond and his Warriors

were blown out against Wilt and HIS 60-22 Lakers in the WCF's.

Chamberlain just crushed Thurmond, and LA romped to a 4-1

series win.

With Wilt "retiring" before the start of the 73-74 season, the

door was now flung wide open for Kareem and his Bucks to

finally fulfill the predictions of a Dynasty. Kareem's play was

still elite, but it was mysteriously declining. Still, the

Bucks would put up the best record in the NBA, at 59-23, and

with Wilt gone, they wiped out the Lakers in the first round.

They would reach the Finals, go up against the 56-26 Celtics

and the pesky 6-9 red-head, Dave Cowens. Boston had more

talent, to be sure, but with Kareem easily outplaying Cowens

for much of the series, it more than off-set that talent

differential. With the series tied, 3-3, and going back tio

Milwaukee, the Bucks were solid favorites to finally win their

second ring.

And with Cowens picking up his fifth personal foul late in the

third quarter, it was now looking like a lock. Except they

forgot to tell Cowens. He not only continued to play, he played

like a madman. He started hitting shots from all over the

floor, and hounded Kareem into repeated misses and turnovers.

The Celtics pulled away, and routed Milwaukee on their home

floor.

How important was OSCAR to those great Buck teams? He retired

following that season, and the Bucks immediately plummetted to

a 38-44 record. Granted, Kareem foolishly busted his hand, and

missed 17 games (with the Bucks going 3-14 in his absence.)

But, even with Kareem, the Bucks were only an ordinary 35-30.

As a sidenote, the 48-34 Warriors, with Rick Barry, and rookie

Keith (Jamaal) Wilkes, and a cast of "no names" won the NBA

title. More on that later.

[jlauber]

Continuing...

Kareem was disgruntled with management, and even Milwaukee,

too. And his play had been on a downward slide since his

dominating regular season of '72. The Bucks finally grew tired

of the distractions, and shipped Kareem off for several players

to LA. BTW, they would go 38-44 the very next season, as well.

Now, here is where it gets interesting. Kareem was traded to a

Laker team with an average, at best, roster. They had players

like Cazzie Russell and Gail Goodrich, but both were nearing

the ends of their careers. Here was the perfect opportunity for

Kareem to show the world just how dominant he could be. With a

Laker team that had gone 30-52 the year before, it was expected

that Kareem would be filling up the box-scores.

I have long maintained that Kareem was somewhat of a "stats-

padder" in his 71-72 season. He played 44.2 mpg on a Bucks'

team that had gone 63-19, and had a +11.1 ppg differential. And

he put up career high scoring numbers of 34.8 ppg and on a

sensational .574 FG%. Why was he playing so much on a team that

just waltzed to 63 wins, with may blowouts along the way?

Which brings us back to his 75-76 season with a poor Laker

roster. Instead of playing 44 mpg, he could "only" go for 41.2

mpg. And instead of putting up monster games and on eye-popping

efficiencies, he DECLINED to 27.7 ppg on one of his WORST

seasons ever in FG% at .529. True, he won a rebounding title,

but in one of the weakest seasons ever in that category. In any

case, where were Kareem's plethora of 40 ppg games? If there

was ever an opportunity to challenge Wilt's scoring records,

Kareem's 75-76 season was it. BTW, Bob McAdoo completed his

third straight season of running away with the scoring title,

with a 31.1 ppg average (and 34.5 ppg just the year before.)

Here was a 3rd and 4th year McAdoo torching the NBA, while

Kareem was well behind him in scoring. Why?

The Lakers started rebuilding, and would have the best record

in the league in 76-77, at 53-29. Some here have claimed that

THIS was a PEAK Kareem. I would argue that he was nowhere near

a PEAK Kareem. He did shoot a career high .579 (but in a league

that was now up .465 shooting (unlike his '71 season when he

shot .577 in a league that shot .449.) His scoring had now

dropped to 26.2 ppg, and even his rebounding was beginning to

slide, as well, (13.3 rpg.)

He did explode in the post-season that year, albeit against a

46-36 Warrior team with an old Cliff Ray, and a rookie Robert

Parish splitting time at center. He just murdered the Warriors

in that seven game series. And in the clinching game seven win,

he hung a 36 point, 26 rebound game on GS. Which now set up the

widely anticipated matchup with Bill Walton and his 49-33

Blazers.

In game one Walton battled Kareem to a draw, and the Blazers

won easily. In game two, Kareem just wiped the floor with

Walton, outscoring him 40-14, BUT, Walton's teammates badly

outplayed his, and the Blazers went up 2-0. From that point on,

Walton took over the series, and his Blazers swept Kareem's

Lakers.

[jlauber]

Continuing...


All of which was interesting. For those that claim that a 76-77

Kareem was at his PEAK, the fact was, he was no longer the

clear-cut best center in the league. Players like Lanier and

Gilmore even outscored him in their H2H's that season, and

players like Walton and Cowens were narrowing the gap. While

the rest of the NBA centers were elevating their level of play,

Kareem was resting on his past. True, he could still shell a

Walton when he was motivated, but the problem was, Kareem was

no longer the hungry Abdul-Jabbar who just terrorized the NBA

in his second and third seasons.And while his skills had

improved, his athleticism, particularly his quickness, was

declining. He was seldom doing the quick catch-and-shoot "sky-

hook, and instead, was methodically putting the ball on the

floor in attempt to get better position.

The Lakers went all out during the 77-78 season. They had BY

FAR, the most LOADED roster in the NBA. Lou Hudson, Norm Nixon,

Charlie Scott, Don Chaney, Kermit Washington, and then they

added Adrian Dantley, who was averaging 27 ppg when they

acquired him. Oh, and they had 4th year pro Jamaal Wilkes, too.

The more seasoned Wilkes, who had teamed with Rick Barry to win

a title in 74-75.

The stage was set for a Laker rampage. Alas, it never occurred.

With Kareem continuing his decline (now down to 25.8 ppg on

.550 shooting, and only 12.9 rpg), and with chemistry issues,

the Lakers struggled to a 45-37 record. True, Kareem again

busted his hand (again in a stupid moment), and the Lakers

could go only go 8-13 without him. But here again, with all of

that talent, they only went 37-24 WITH Kareem.

Even worse, they were whipped by a 47-35 Sonics team in the

first round, and in the clinching game three loss, Marvin

Webster (who?) battled Kareem to a draw. This, from a Seattle

team which had ONE borderline HOF player. Incidently, a 44-38

Bullets team would go on to win the NBA title.

Ok, with basically the same roster, but now with a year

together, the 78-79 Lakers were poised to dominate the NBA.

Kareem had a good season, scoring 23.8 ppg on .577 shooting,

with 12.8 rpg, but he was now a far cry from the Kareem that

could score 40+ on anyone.

Not only that, but a young Moses had taken the NBA by storm,

and he just shelled the NBA in that 78-79 season. From that

point on, it was now MOSES who was the best center in the NBA.

Once again, the 78-79 Lakers badly under-achieved, and they

finished a disappointing 47-35. And once again, they were

crushed in the 2nd round of the playoffs, 4-1, by a 52-30

Sonics team that had nowhere near the talent that LA had.

That was Kareem's PRIME. His first TEN years in the league. And

CLEARLY, his PEAK had come early in his career.

Of course, he would then be the beneficiary of the arrival of

MAGIC, and the rest was history.

[jlauber]

One area which is often overlooked in Kareem's career, was his DEFENSE early in his career.

His 70-71 thru 73-74 Bucks were the league's #1 FG% Against team in the league, and some by HUGE margins. And they were 1-3 in PPG allowed, too.

He was probably at his peak, defensively, early in his career, as well.

[ThunderStruk022]

Sorry, I only read the first couple of those long posts, but it seems to me that you put almost all of your stock into a player's peak based on their statistical peak without considering the other things that make them better all-around players. Just because a player has his best statistical seasons at age 22, 23, 24, doesn't mean they were better then than they were at 27-30 years old. It's not just about putting up your best statistical seasons to define your peak in my opinion.

[jlauber]

Sorry, I only read the first couple of those long posts, but it seems to me that you put almost all of your stock into a player's peak based on their statistical peak without considering the other things that make them better all-around players. Just because a player has his best statistical seasons at age 22, 23, 24, doesn't mean they were better then than they were at 27-30 years old. It's not just about putting up your best statistical seasons to define your peak in my opinion.

There are examples both ways. But, the overwhelming evidence suggests that the truly great players were already at an elite level from almost day one in their NBA careers. Many hit statistical peaks very early, and then slowly decline. Injuries, coaching, and the league adapting to them all contribute, but in my research, the best players are generally hitting their statistical peaks early on.

AND, I have long maintained that players do not slowly get better, reach a peak, and then slowly decline. They almost always have peaks and valleys. Kareem is a great example of that. In his first ten seasons, he was absolutely a monster in seasons two and three. He had a slight decline in four and five. And I consider his 6th season as a major drop. In what should have been his peak scoring season, he declined badly, and even his shooting was near a career low.

Some here have claimed that he reached his pinnacle in his 76-77 season. However, they must be basing on it his 11 game playoff series. His numbers during the regular season were nowhere near as dominant as they were in seasons' two and three.

Of course, there are those that do hold a few playoff games as some kind of career indicator, which is folley IMHO. In a short playoff series, there are the same matchups, with the same strategies. And, of course, injuries and even slumps play a major factor in a short series.

That is not to say that Kareem was a "short series" star in his career. He had a TON of great playoff performances. He crushed that '77 Warrior tandem of an old Ray and a rookie Parish in a seven game series. He was on his way to a FMVP in '80 when he sprained his ankle in a heroic game five, and missed the clinching game six. And I was never more proud of Kareem than his '85 Finals. He was written off as washed up after a game one blowout. Then, a re-energized Kareem just took over the rest of that series, and dominated the Celtic front line at perhaps their peak.

But, for all of his post-season brilliance, he was also involved in a his share of "flop jobs", as well. Whether it be in a BIG game, or a series, or even a complete post-season, he had his share of failures.

In the '70 ECF's, he completely outplayed Reed until the clinching game five loss, when Reed whipped him handily and his Knicks annihilated Kareem's Bucks.

In the '71 WCF's, Kareem, by most accounts was outplayed by a Chamberlain in the worst season of Wilt's career. In fact, in their entire 10 game H2H's that season, Wilt held a slight statistical advantage. Even more damning for Kareem, was the fact, that as Chamberlain exited the floor in the last minute of the game five loss to the Bucks, he received a standing ovation...and the game was played in MILWAUKEE.

I have already documented Kareem's post-season play in his 71-72 season. Keep in mind that this was Kareem's greatest statistical season, too. And yet, he was outscored and outshot by Thurmond. And then he was universally acclaimed to have been outplayed by Wilt in the WCF's.

And the very next season, Thurmond again held Kareem to just awful shooting, and the 47-35 Warriors shocked the 60-22 Bucks.

In the 73-74 Finals, Kareem played exceptionally well in the first six games, but the series was still tied, 3-3. The Bucks had homecourt, though, for game seven, and were favored to win it all. However, the 6-9 red-head Dave Cowens outplayed Kareem, and particularly in the 4th quarter, and the Celtics walloped the Bucks on their home floor.

Oscar retired before the start of the 74-75 season, and the Bucks never recovered. Yes, Kareem broke his hand unnecessarily, and missed 17 games, but even with him, they only went 35-30. Clearly, the Dynasty that had been proclaimed after year two never materialized. The Bucks dealt Kareem to the Lakers, and even without him, they duplicated their 38-44 record the very next year.

I have always maintained that Kareem was primed to just obliterate the NBA in the 75-76 season. A six year Kareem, on a team that had gone 30-52 the year before, was an ideal setting to explode. If there was ever a season in which someone could have remotely challenged Wilt's scoring records, it was in '76. Keep in mind, too, that McAdoo had averaged 34.5 ppg in '75 (and would average 31.1 ppg in '76, too.)

Instead, a lethargic Kareem went thru the motions, "only" played 41 mpg, "only" scored 27.7 ppg, and had one of the worst shooting seasons of his career, at .529. Why didn't Kareem just crush the league that season? Once again, McAdoo blew him away in the scoring race, too.

Kareem's 76-77 season was outstanding. He took an average roster, to a league best 53-29 record. Still, his numbers were nowhere near as dominant as a '71 or '72 Kareem. And while he blew away the Warriors in a close even game series, and outplayed Walton in game two of the WCF's, Walton was more clutch in the other games, and the 49-33 Blazers swept Kareem's Lakers.

And I have already documented Kareem's '78 and '79 seasons. Playing with LOADED rosters, and in a weak NBA, his teams were unexplicably early round cannon-fodder.

Of course, that all changed with the arrival of MAGIC, and the rest was history. Kareem was still among the best players in the NBA for most of the decade of the 80's. Hell, a 38-39 year old Kareem just murdered a 22-23 Hakeem in their ten straight H2H's in '85 and '86. 33 ppg on an eye-popping .630 shooting. THREE games of 40+, and a multitude of .700+ shooting performances. He also waxed Ewing in a game in which he outscored him by a 40-9 margin, and outshot him, 15-22 to 3-17.

Still, by the late 70's, it was now MOSES who was the best center in the league. And in their 80's H2H's, and especially in the post-season, Moses just abused Kareem.

So, overall, and IMHO, Kareem's career, as great as it was, I consider it somewhat of a disappointment.

[Poochymama]

Peak : 77
Prime : 75-81

[Poochymama]

In the '71 WCF's, Kareem, by most accounts was outplayed by a Chamberlain in the worst season of Wilt's career. In fact, in their entire 10 game H2H's that season, Wilt held a slight statistical advantage. Even more damning for Kareem, was the fact, that as Chamberlain exited the floor in the last minute of the game five loss to the Bucks, he received a standing ovation...and the game was played in MILWAUKEE.

Out of curiosity. If your goal is to prove that Kareem peak in 71, why did you go off on a tangent about how "Wilt owned Kareem" that year?

[DatAsh]

As other have said, the best estimate for Kareem's absolute peak is probably 76-77.

Kareem was a great player coming in as a rookie, but there's simply no way he peaked in his second year. Kareem has even come out and basically said that the only reason he put up his best stats in his first few years is that no one payed attention to him on defense like they did in the late 70s.

[Smoke117]

I've never really seen footage of Kareem vs Wilt as it has never been of much interest but I know that quote of Wilt saying Kareem was the first player that he ever felt he needed a double to guard, so was he even playing Kareem straight up in these series? Were the Lakers doubling Kareem regularly or was Wilt playing him straight up?

[StateOfMind12]

It's either 1976-77 or 1970-71. People mostly say it was 76-77 so I guess I'll go with that.

[jlauber]

Out of curiosity. If your goal is to prove that Kareem peak in 71, why did you go off on a tangent about how "Wilt owned Kareem" that year?

Wilt did not "own" Kareem that season, (only a pre-injury Wilt could have made that claim.) He did face him in 10 total H2H's (five in the regular season, and five in the playoffs), and Kareem outscored Wilt, per game, 26 ppg to 22.8 ppg, while Chamberlain outrebounded Kareem, per game, 17.6 to 15.6 rpg, and outshot Kareem, .481 to .454 (including holding Kareem to .438 shooting the five regular season H2H's.)

However, if you factor in BOTH his regular season domination (and keep in mind that Kareem only played 40 mpg that season), as well as his overall post-season play, it was probably his all-around greatest season. Remember, he put up a 27.8 ppg, .486 series on Thurmond; a 25 ppg .489 series on Wilt; and then 27-19 .605 four game series sweep on Unseld. ALL in the HOF.

[Poochymama]

Wilt did not "own" Kareem that season, (only a pre-injury Wilt could have made that claim.) He did face him in 10 total H2H's (five in the regular season, and five in the playoffs), and Kareem outscored Wilt, per game, 26 ppg to 22.8 ppg, while Chamberlain outrebounded Kareem, per game, 17.6 to 15.6 rpg, and outshot Kareem, .481 to .454 (including holding Kareem to .438 shooting the five regular season H2H's.)

However, if you factor in BOTH his regular season domination (and keep in mind that Kareem only played 40 mpg that season), as well as his overall post-season play, it was probably his all-around greatest season. Remember, he put up a 27.8 ppg, .486 series on Thurmond; a 25 ppg .489 series on Wilt; and then 27-19 .605 four game series sweep on Unseld. ALL in the HOF.

I agree that Kareem was great that year, and that was probably his best statistical season, but he was no where near the player that he would become later on in the decade.

[jlauber]

I've never really seen footage of Kareem vs Wilt as it has never been of much interest but I know that quote of Wilt saying Kareem was the first player that he ever felt he needed a double to guard, so was he even playing Kareem straight up in these series? Were the Lakers doubling Kareem regularly or was Wilt playing him straight up?

I honestly don't know why Wilt made that claim. He was almost EXCLUSIVELY guarding Kareem one-on-one, (as did Thurmond BTW.) And incredibly, as Wilt became more familiar with Kareem's game, he began to dramatically reduce his effectiveness. In his last season, covering six H2H games, Chamberlain held a 26 year old Kareem to .450 shooting (while shooting .737 himself.) He even outscored Kareem in one game, 24-21, while outshooting him, 10-14 to 10-27.

And Chamberlain was the only center in NBA history that could block a skyhook while in the air.

[Owl]

The center position was the NBA's true strength. Players like

McAdoo (who, IMHO, is the 4th greatest scoring center in NBA

history, behind Wilt, Kareem, and Shaq), Lanier, Cowens, Hayes,

Bellamy, Reed, Thurmond, Kareem , and Chamberlain. And the next

tier players, like Walk, Lacey, and Ray, were decent.

Considering there were "only" 17 teams, those guys were being

challenged nearly every night.

Continuing...

But, even with Kareem, the Bucks were only an ordinary 35-30.

As a sidenote, the 48-34 Warriors, with Rick Barry, and rookie

Keith (Jamaal) Wilkes, and a cast of "no names" won the NBA

title. More on that later.
I appreciate that "no names" is in inverted commas, but please, consistency.

Ray is also reffered to as "old" in '77 twice (in seperate posts). He turned 28 in January that year and shot better from the field than he ever would before or after though his rebounding was down. He (statistically at least) peaked earlier in career matching your theories (though people might argue era had something to do with it, honestly I don't really know) but wasn't completely over the hill or anything.

[jlauber]

I agree that Kareem was great that year, and that was probably his best statistical season, but he was no where near the player that he would become later on in the decade.

I have said it before, but in any case, while Kareem's basketball skills improved, his physical skills eroded. Yes, he was still a great athlete, even into the late 70's, but the quickness, and the explosion was noticeably diminishing. Instead of the quick, "catch-and-shoot skyhook", it became a more methodical, sky-hook, and IMHO, it lost some of it's effectiveness.

Once again, too, take a look at his DEFENSIVE IMPACT from '71 thru '74.

In '71 the Bucks were third in ppg, but a first in FG% against, at .424.

In '72 Milwaukee was second in ppg allowed, and again, first in FG% allowed at .420. BTW, the next best team was at .432.

In '73 the Bucks were second in scoring defense (at 99.0 ppg BTW), and were again first, and by a solid margin, in FG% allowed, at .422.

And in '74 they were third in ppg allowed, at 99.0 ppg, and as always, first in FG% allowed, at .425.

[jlauber]

I appreciate that "no names" is in inverted commas, but please, consistency.

Well, that Warrior team clearly over-achieved. They traded HOFer Thurmond for Ray. And gone were players like Cazzie Russell and Clyde Lee. And high-scoring Jeff Mullins was relegated to back of the bench. Virtually no one predicted the season that they would have. And they then swept the 60-22 Bullets in the playoffs.

Having said that, the 75-76 Warriors, with the addition of Gus Johnson, just dominated the NBA, but under-achieved in the post-season, losing a six game series against a 40-42 Suns team.

[dunksby]

I've never really seen footage of Kareem vs Wilt as it has never been of much interest but I know that quote of Wilt saying Kareem was the first player that he ever felt he needed a double to guard, so was he even playing Kareem straight up in these series? Were the Lakers doubling Kareem regularly or was Wilt playing him straight up?
I have read about this a few places but I too wanna know if the Lakers were doubling him or not, I'd say it's probable since Kareem always dropped huge numbers against them and they would have been crazy not to do it.

[Punpun]

Jlauber showcasing he can't into copypasting thing correctly. Do you ever post original content ?

[jlauber]

Ray is also reffered to as "old" in '77 twice (in seperate posts). He turned 28 in January that year and shot better from the field than he ever would before or after though his rebounding was down. He (statistically at least) peaked earlier in career matching your theories (though people might argue era had something to do with it, honestly I don't really know) but wasn't completely over the hill or anything.


You're completely right. Ray was a decent defender, and a tough rebounder, albeit a poor shooter.

And I will give Kareem his due, here, he just torched him in the '77 playoffs.

The reality was, Kareem, at his best, was about as unstoppable as Wilt and Shaq at their peaks.

I just honestly believe that Kareem did not play with the motivation that he should have. IMHO, he could have, and SHOULD have, had an even greater career.

[The Iron Fist]

There are examples both ways. But, the overwhelming evidence suggests that the truly great players were already at an elite level from almost day one in their NBA careers. Many hit statistical peaks very early, and then slowly decline. Injuries, coaching, and the league adapting to them all contribute, but in my research, the best players are generally hitting their statistical peaks early on.

AND, I have long maintained that players do not slowly get better, reach a peak, and then slowly decline. They almost always have peaks and valleys. Kareem is a great example of that. In his first ten seasons, he was absolutely a monster in seasons two and three. He had a slight decline in four and five. And I consider his 6th season as a major drop. In what should have been his peak scoring season, he declined badly, and even his shooting was near a career low.

Some here have claimed that he reached his pinnacle in his 76-77 season. However, they must be basing on it his 11 game playoff series. His numbers during the regular season were nowhere near as dominant as they were in seasons' two and three.

Of course, there are those that do hold a few playoff games as some kind of career indicator, which is folley IMHO. In a short playoff series, there are the same matchups, with the same strategies. And, of course, injuries and even slumps play a major factor in a short series.

That is not to say that Kareem was a "short series" star in his career. He had a TON of great playoff performances. He crushed that '77 Warrior tandem of an old Ray and a rookie Parish in a seven game series. He was on his way to a FMVP in '80 when he sprained his ankle in a heroic game five, and missed the clinching game six. And I was never more proud of Kareem than his '85 Finals. He was written off as washed up after a game one blowout. Then, a re-energized Kareem just took over the rest of that series, and dominated the Celtic front line at perhaps their peak.

But, for all of his post-season brilliance, he was also involved in a his share of "flop jobs", as well. Whether it be in a BIG game, or a series, or even a complete post-season, he had his share of failures.

In the '70 ECF's, he completely outplayed Reed until the clinching game five loss, when Reed whipped him handily and his Knicks annihilated Kareem's Bucks.

In the '71 WCF's, Kareem, by most accounts was outplayed by a Chamberlain in the worst season of Wilt's career. In fact, in their entire 10 game H2H's that season, Wilt held a slight statistical advantage. Even more damning for Kareem, was the fact, that as Chamberlain exited the floor in the last minute of the game five loss to the Bucks, he received a standing ovation...and the game was played in MILWAUKEE.

I have already documented Kareem's post-season play in his 71-72 season. Keep in mind that this was Kareem's greatest statistical season, too. And yet, he was outscored and outshot by Thurmond. And then he was universally acclaimed to have been outplayed by Wilt in the WCF's.

And the very next season, Thurmond again held Kareem to just awful shooting, and the 47-35 Warriors shocked the 60-22 Bucks.

In the 73-74 Finals, Kareem played exceptionally well in the first six games, but the series was still tied, 3-3. The Bucks had homecourt, though, for game seven, and were favored to win it all. However, the 6-9 red-head Dave Cowens outplayed Kareem, and particularly in the 4th quarter, and the Celtics walloped the Bucks on their home floor.

Oscar retired before the start of the 74-75 season, and the Bucks never recovered. Yes, Kareem broke his hand unnecessarily, and missed 17 games, but even with him, they only went 35-30. Clearly, the Dynasty that had been proclaimed after year two never materialized. The Bucks dealt Kareem to the Lakers, and even without him, they duplicated their 38-44 record the very next year.

I have always maintained that Kareem was primed to just obliterate the NBA in the 75-76 season. A six year Kareem, on a team that had gone 30-52 the year before, was an ideal setting to explode. If there was ever a season in which someone could have remotely challenged Wilt's scoring records, it was in '76. Keep in mind, too, that McAdoo had averaged 34.5 ppg in '75 (and would average 31.1 ppg in '76, too.)

Instead, a lethargic Kareem went thru the motions, "only" played 41 mpg, "only" scored 27.7 ppg, and had one of the worst shooting seasons of his career, at .529. Why didn't Kareem just crush the league that season? Once again, McAdoo blew him away in the scoring race, too.

Kareem's 76-77 season was outstanding. He took an average roster, to a league best 53-29 record. Still, his numbers were nowhere near as dominant as a '71 or '72 Kareem. And while he blew away the Warriors in a close even game series, and outplayed Walton in game two of the WCF's, Walton was more clutch in the other games, and the 49-33 Blazers swept Kareem's Lakers.

And I have already documented Kareem's '78 and '79 seasons. Playing with LOADED rosters, and in a weak NBA, his teams were unexplicably early round cannon-fodder.

Of course, that all changed with the arrival of MAGIC, and the rest was history. Kareem was still among the best players in the NBA for most of the decade of the 80's. Hell, a 38-39 year old Kareem just murdered a 22-23 Hakeem in their ten straight H2H's in '85 and '86. 33 ppg on an eye-popping .630 shooting. THREE games of 40+, and a multitude of .700+ shooting performances. He also waxed Ewing in a game in which he outscored him by a 40-9 margin, and outshot him, 15-22 to 3-17.

Still, by the late 70's, it was now MOSES who was the best center in the league. And in their 80's H2H's, and especially in the post-season, Moses just abused Kareem.

So, overall, and IMHO, Kareem's career, as great as it was, I consider it somewhat of a disappointment.
In the finals 10 times winning 6.

Huge fail.

On your part.

[jlauber]

Jlauber showcasing he can't into copypasting thing correctly. Do you ever post original content ?

I challenge YOU to find that exact "copy" anywhere else on the internet. In fact, I typed it into a notepad, because I knew it would take some time. I didn't bother formatting it.

The only "copies" of that post will be MY previous takes, which have been close. Here again, though, that was ALL done off the top of my head.

[Punpun]

Oh please. Your post on the OP and the two following posts are clear as water copypasted.

[jlauber]

In the finals 10 times winning 6.

Huge fail.

On your part.

Your obviously forgetting the REAL reason why Kareem was fortunate enough to win five rings in his last ten seasons. How about MAGIC's IMPACT?

Before Magic...loaded LA rosters that were early round cannon-fodder.

DURING Magic, and with Kareem, FIVE titles and eight Finals in ten seasons.

AFTER Kareem,...the Lakers IMPROVE from a 57-25 team, to a 63-19 team, which was their second best record ever in the Magic-era. And a year later, Magic takes a declining and injured Laker team to the Finals.

AFTER Magic...records of 43-39 and 39-43...or about where he found them.

Kareem was a major factor in '80 and '85. However, Magic was THE reason in '80, as well as '82, '87 and '88. In fact, I have long maintained that the '87 Lakers would have been good enough with Thompson and Green sharing his minutes, to win the title. As for '88...the Lakers won a ring DESPITE Kareem, who was putrid in the post-season, and simply awful in the Finals.

[jlauber]

Oh please. Your post on the OP and the two following posts are clear as water copypasted.

PROVE IT. They must be out there somewhere, right?

[Punpun]

The formatting makes it pretty clear you copypasted that on the ish QR/R.

[jlauber]

The formatting makes it pretty clear you copypasted that on the ish QR/R.

I already explained that.

In any case, please, find me that exact "copy" that must exist out there somewhere, and post it. Once again, you might find MY previous posts that are very similar, but I have done it so often, I can do it in my sleep now.

[oolalaa]

27. That's the magic number. When players scratch the ceiling of their talents. It's usually their absolute best season, or, if not, the 1st year of their prime. We've seen it over and over and over again. It's when they put it ALL together - their entire repertoire. Go look up the 27 year old season (On Basketball Reference) of Jordan, Russell, Magic, Bird, Wilt, Shaq, West, Kobe, Lebron, Moses, Baylor, Dirk, Garnett, Wade and Ewing (To name just a few). IT'S UNCANNY.

Saying that Kareem peaked in his 70/71 season is almost exactly the same as saying that Wilt peaked in 60/61, or that Hakeem peaked in 85/86, or that Shaq peaked in 93/94. Anyone remotely intelligent knows that Wilt (Wasn't commited defensively, wasn't a good facilitator, lack of competitive league depth), Hakeem (Limited offensive moves, defensively not quite there, terrible facilitator) and Shaq (Inconsistent defensive effort, mediocre facilitator, shut down by Rik Smits in the playoffs) didn't peak in their sophmore campaigns. It's just a laughbale notion.


Honestly, I don't exactly know when Kareem peaked. I am no Kareem Abdul-Jabbar aficionado. It could have been '76, '77, or even '80. I need to look into it in some more detail. I know Shaqattack has said that he reckons 76/77 might have been Kareem at his all round best (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=231270), and I'm inclined to agree. He makes some compelling argumemts; His expanded offensive repertoire, the increase in defensive attention he was receiving, routinely coming through in crunch time, the mediocrity of his cast etc.

From the mountains of evidence and examples we've had over the years, it's HIGHLY unlikely that it occured in just his 2nd or 3rd season. I mentioned the league quality in the early 70s. It just wasn't as deep. Depth (i.e the standard of the worst players) is what defines league quality, not necessarily the 'crem dala crem'.

And what about Oscar? Oscar is the 2nd greatest point guard of all time. He was a floor general. He could run a team with the best of them. How can we quantify the effect he had on Kareem's ppg and FG% totals? We can't, but It certainly wasn't negligible. I would guess at 3-4% on his FG%, and 2-3 points on his ppg total.

[The Iron Fist]

Your obviously forgetting the REAL reason why Kareem was fortunate enough to win five rings in his last ten seasons. How about MAGIC's IMPACT?

Before Magic...loaded LA rosters that were early round cannon-fodder.

DURING Magic, and with Kareem, FIVE titles and eight Finals in ten seasons.

AFTER Kareem,...the Lakers IMPROVE from a 57-25 team, to a 63-19 team, which was their second best record ever in the Magic-era. And a year later, Magic takes a declining and injured Laker team to the Finals.

AFTER Magic...records of 43-39 and 39-43...or about where he found them.

Kareem was a major factor in '80 and '85. However, Magic was THE reason in '80, as well as '82, '87 and '88. In fact, I have long maintained that the '87 Lakers would have been good enough with Thompson and Green sharing his minutes, to win the title. As for '88...the Lakers won a ring DESPITE Kareem, who was putrid in the post-season, and simply awful in the Finals.
Magics titles wo kareem?

[jlauber]

Magics titles wo kareem?

How about '80 and '88? Kareem was at home sleeping on his sofa when MAGIC carried that Laker team to a title in the clinching game six win on the road, and with a 42-15-7 masterpiece.

As for '88, as bad as Kareem played, I would have won a ring playing center on that team.

[The Iron Fist]

How about '80 and '88? Kareem was at home sleeping on his sofa when MAGIC carried that Laker team to a title in the clinching game six win on the road, and with a 42-15-7 masterpiece.

As for '88, as bad as Kareem played, I would have won a ring playing center on that team.
That

[jlauber]

Magics titles wo kareem?

BTW, how about Kareem's LONE ring in the '71 season?

His 66-16 Bucks whipped the 41-41 Warriors in the first round. Then, in the WCF's, they battle a 48-34 Laker team that was without BOTH West and Baylor. Then, in the Finals, they dispose of a 42-40 Bullets team.

Has there ever been an easier road to a title than what Kareem's '71 Bucks had?

[jlauber]

[QUOTE=The Iron Fist]That

[crisoner]

http://www.freeimagehosting.net/t/52yyx.jpg (http://www.freeimagehosting.net/52yyx)

[oolalaa]

I have long maintained that Kareem was somewhat of a "stats-

padder" in his 71-72 season. He played 44.2 mpg on a Bucks'

team that had gone 63-19, and had a +11.1 ppg differential. And

he put up career high scoring numbers of 34.8 ppg and on a

sensational .574 FG%. Why was he playing so much on a team that

just waltzed to 63 wins, with may blowouts along the way?


Hmmmmmmmm. You can't be serious. In 61/62, Wilt played 48.5 minutes per game on a team that played in many blowouts, and finished with the 3rd best record in the league. Yet, you have repeatedly claimed that Wilt was NOT a stats padder. He was only doing what his coach told him, you said. Their situations were not different enough to claim that one was a stat padder and the other wasn't....

[Punpun]

I already explained that.

In any case, please, find me that exact "copy" that must exist out there somewhere, and post it. Once again, you might find MY previous posts that are very similar, but I have done it so often, I can do it in my sleep now.

You copypasting former posts, you also copypasted doesn't make it Original content.

So back to the main point, do you ever post original content ?

[jlauber]

Twenty seven. That's the magic number. When players scratch the ceiling of their talents. It's usually their absolute best season, or, if not, the 1st year of their prime. We've seen it over and over and over again. It's when they put it ALL together - their entire repertoire. Go look up the 27 year old season (On Basketball Reference) of Jordan, Russell, Magic, Bird, Wilt, Shaq, West, Kobe, Lebron, Moses, Baylor, Dirk, Garnett, Wade and Ewing (To name just a few). IT'S UNCANNY.

Saying that Kareem peaked in his 70/71 season is almost exactly the same as saying that Wilt peaked in 60/61, or that Hakeem peaked in 85/86, or that Shaq peaked in 93/94. Anyone remotely intelligent knows that Wilt (Wasn't commited defensively, wasn't a good facilitator, lack of competitive league depth), Hakeem (Limited offensive moves, defensively not quite there, terrible facilitator) and Shaq (Inconsistent defensive effort, mediocre facilitator, shut down by Rik Smits in the playoffs) didn't peak in their sophmore campaigns. It's just a laughbale notion.


Honestly, I don't exactly know when Kareem peaked. I am no Kareem Abdul-Jabbar aficionado. It could have been '76, '77, or even '80. I need to look into it in some more detail. I know Shaqattack has said that he reckons 76/77 might have been Kareem at his all round best (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=231270), and I'm inclined to agree. He makes some compelling argumemts; His expanded offensive repertoire, the increase in defensive attention he was receiving, routinely coming through in crunch time, the mediocrity of his cast etc.

From the mountains of evidence and examples we've had over the years, it's HIGHLY unlikely that it occured in just his 2nd or 3rd season. I mentioned the league quality in the early 70s. It just wasn't as deep. Depth (i.e the standard of the worst players) is what defines league quality, not necessarily the 'crem dala crem'.

And what about Oscar? Oscar is the 2nd greatest point guard of all time. He was a floor general. He could run a team with the best of them. How can we quantify the effect he had on Kareem's ppg and FG% totals? We can't, but It certainly wasn't negligible. I would guess at 3-4% on his FG%, and 2-3 points on his ppg total.

Well, even if I were to agree with you, which I don't (albeit, it was very good post), the evidence suggests that those players were not significantly better, at age 27, than they were at ages 22-24.

Here again, look at the great scoring seasons in NBA history.

Wilt's 50 ppg season...in his third season.
MJ's 37 ppg season, in his third season.
Barry's 36 ppg season, in his second season.
Baylor's 35 ppg season, in his third season.
Tiny's 34 ppg season, in his third season.
McAdoo's 35 ppg season, in his third season.
Kareem's 35 ppg season, in his third season.
Oscar's triple-double season, in his second season.
Dantley's career high 30.7 ppg season...at age 23.

Sure, MJ and Wilt had greater statistical seasons. And yes, you will find other players, like Kobe, or Iverson, or Gervin, who had higher scoring seasons, later, but in any case, the fact remains that by-and-large, the "greats" are already about as dominant as they will ever become by their 2nd or 3rd seasons.

And that is especially true of most of the great rebounders, too. They generally reach their peaks, very early. Obviously, there are exceptions to that rule, like Rodman, but the majority of the best rebounders were peaking early.

[DatAsh]

Hmmmmmmmm. You can't be serious. In 61/62, Wilt played 48.5 minutes per game on a team that played in many blowouts, and finished with the 3rd best record in the league. Yet, you have repeatedly claimed that Wilt was NOT a stats padder. He was only doing what his coach told him, you said. Their situations were not different enough to claim that one was a stat padder and the other wasn't....

In some sense, all players of that era stat padded. Stars back then just played more minutes, and it wasn't really seen as a negative like it is now.Most of the elite wing guys of today would probably be playing 45+ minutes a game had they played in the 60s. In my opinion it's just one of those things that's kind of changed with the times, and not really something we should be blaming them for.

[jlauber]

You copypasting former posts, you also copypasted doesn't make it Original content.

So back to the main point, do you ever post original content ?

I am thru arguing with you on this. ALL of the original posts were MINE. Yes, I have posted SIMILAR posts before, but I can guarantee you that everything I posted in the first few posts were ORIGINAL, never-seen-before, posts.

[jlauber]

Hmmmmmmmm. You can't be serious. In 61/62, Wilt played 48.5 minutes per game on a team that played in many blowouts, and finished with the 3rd best record in the league. Yet, you have repeatedly claimed that Wilt was NOT a stats padder. He was only doing what his coach told him, you said. Their situations were not different enough to claim that one was a stat padder and the other wasn't....

Except that Chamberlain played nearly every minute of every game his ENTIRE career.

And how about his 62-63 season, then. He played on a horrible 31-49 team, that had a -2.1 differential, and that lost 35 games by single digits. In fact, they were only involved in eight games of 20+ margins, and went 4-4 in those. And yet, Chamberlain played 47.6 mpg, scored 44.8 ppg, shot a then record .528 from the field, grabbed a league-leading 24.3 rpg, even handed out 3.4 apg,. Hell, his WIN SHARES were by FAR, the best in the league (if you can accept that advanced stat...Chamberlain was directly responsible for 70% of his team's wins.) And his PER was an all-time record 31.8 mark.

[jlauber]

Geez, I hope the moderators delete the completely unnecessary photo above. What a childish post.

[oolalaa]

Well, even if I were to agree with you, which I don't (albeit, it was very good post), the evidence suggests that those players were not significantly better, at age 27, than they were at ages 22-24.

Here again, look at the great scoring seasons in NBA history.

Wilt's 50 ppg season...in his third season.
MJ's 37 ppg season, in his third season.
Barry's 36 ppg season, in his second season.
Baylor's 35 ppg season, in his third season.
Tiny's 34 ppg season, in his third season.
McAdoo's 35 ppg season, in his third season.
Kareem's 35 ppg season, in his third season.
Oscar's triple-double season, in his second season.
Dantley's career high 30.7 ppg season...at age 23.

Sure, MJ and Wilt had greater statistical seasons. And yes, you will find other players, like Kobe, or Iverson, or Gervin, who had higher scoring seasons, later, but in any case, the fact remains that by-and-large, the "greats" are already about as dominant as they will ever become by their 2nd or 3rd seasons.

And that is especially true of most of the great rebounders, too. They generally reach their peaks, very early. Obviously, there are exceptions to that rule, like Rodman, but the majority of the best rebounders were peaking early.

Why are you fixating on scoring? Is greatness defined solely by the amount of points you score??? (HOW and WHEN you score your points is far more important, anyway).

The ALL ROUND peak of a player occurs in their late 20s....

Wilt's 50 ppg season...in his third season. Wilt wasn't the consistent or destructive defensive force that he would become in the mid 60s (He first started to take the "other" end seriously in '64, thanks to Alex Hannum. Guess how old he was....). He also wasn't an especially good or willing facilitator. AND, I dispute your notion that rebounders peak in their early 20s. Wilt's per36 rebounding numbers in the early 60 were barely any better than they were in the mid 60s, despite the faster pace and the higher frequency of missed shots. Russell is the exact same way too. Hakeem's peak was at 27, Shaq's was at 27 (I'm calling his rookie rebounding totals an aberration. When you take into account the post season, Shaq's reb peak was clearly '00/'01), Ewing's was early 30s, Cowen's was at 27. Some peak as rebounders early on, and some don't. It's far from definitive. Rebounding stats are skewed by the teammates you play with, too.

MJ's 37 ppg season, in his third season. He had an incredibly inconsistent jumper at this point. He also hadn't properly learned how and when to pick his spots and he didn't see the floor as well. Most of his assists came from attacking and dishing or dumping it to the nearest teammate when he couldn't get a shot off.

Barry's 36 ppg season, in his second season. He was the definition of a shot jacker. His playmaking peak was in his late 20s/early 30s.

Baylor's 35 ppg season, in his third season. He was 26 years old, and inuries dictated that his '61-'63 stretch would be his absolute best.

Tiny's 34 ppg season, in his third season. Weak era. His Kings only finished with a 36-46 record, too.

McAdoo's 35 ppg season, in his third season. Injuries and a succession of team issues stopped him from really enjoying a prime. And again, this was a WEAK era.

Kareem's 35 ppg season, in his third season. Era, among other things.

Oscar's triple-double season, in his second season. The league was played at an absurd pace.

[oolalaa]

Except that Chamberlain played nearly every minute of every game his ENTIRE career.

And how about his 62-63 season, then. He played on a horrible 31-49 team, that had a -2.1 differential, and that lost 35 games by single digits. In fact, they were only involved in eight games of 20+ margins, and went 4-4 in those. And yet, Chamberlain played 47.6 mpg, scored 44.8 ppg, shot a then record .528 from the field, grabbed a league-leading 24.3 rpg, even handed out 3.4 apg,. Hell, his WIN SHARES were by FAR, the best in the league (if you can accept that advanced stat...Chamberlain was directly responsible for 70% of his team's wins.) And his PER was an all-time record 31.8 mark.

Are you telling me that Paul Arizin was the difference between 49 and 31 wins? 33 year old Arizin couldn't have been worth 18 wins, surely? So what accounts for the rest of the difference?

According to defensive win shares (Which I think is a reasonably accurate and pretty underrated stat if certain things are taken into account), Wilt's 62/63 season was his 2nd worst defensive year. I don't know about you, but, to me, defensive commitment is a very good indication of how commited you are to a team and it's success. My guess is that Wilt wasn't mentally all there throughout the season. Like he floated through it. Perhaps the exploits of the previous year (50 ppg and a heartbreaking game 7 loss against Boston) took something out of him. When you're not completely focused, that rubs off on your teammates, and you lose close games. It's just a fact. That the Warriors lost 35 games by single digits was almost certainly not a coincidence.


And excusing Wilt from his stat padding by saying he "played nearly every minute of every game his ENTIRE career." is :roll: . As far as I'm concerned, any blowout that Wilt played heavy minutes in is the very DEFINITION of stat padding. Considering that he averaged over 45mpg during his career, I'm guessing that was A LOT. :oldlol:

[oolalaa]

Geez, I hope the moderators delete the completely unnecessary photo above. What a childish post.

There are mods? :crazysam:

[KG215]

Why are you fixating on scoring? Is greatness defined solely by the amount of points you score??? (HOW and WHEN you score your points is far more important, anyway).


Because he's a Wilt fanboy. It's probably the same reason he seems to think a player's best statistical season is their peak.

[Owl]

BTW, how about Kareem's LONE ring in the '71 season?

His 66-16 Bucks whipped the 41-41 Warriors in the first round. Then, in the WCF's, they battle a 48-34 Laker team that was without BOTH West and Baylor. Then, in the Finals, they dispose of a 42-40 Bullets team.

Has there ever been an easier road to a title than what Kareem's '71 Bucks had?
No one was stopping that Milwaukee team. The playoffs can be a lottery with matchups, injuries etc. But that Bucks team with the points differential and SRS they had might be the greatest team ever, they were the most dominant regular season team ever that year and they followed it up with with a 12-2 postseason in which their tightest victory came by a margin of 8. So maybe it was an easy run, and New York would have made a more interesting finals, but that team was taking no prisoners. And Jabbar had to go through Thurmond, Chamberlain and Unseld.

As to peaks most players won't develop significantly after 26. Players physical peaks would come earlier obviously. But there certainly could be a case that the great players are an exception. The game's greatest players (with recent preps to pros exceptions) have tended to be remarkably skilled and productive right out of the gate. With a ceiling on how much more skilled they can get, their peaks may be closer to their athletic peaks than for other players. Certainly their play in their early twenties is much closer to their peak level than it is for non-legends.

Another explanation may be that great players tend to be drafted early and so are playing on bad teams early in their career. They are as such allowed/required to put up such spectacular statistical totals that are less feasible in a more balanced, talented team.

[millwad]

BTW, how about Kareem's LONE ring in the '71 season?

His 66-16 Bucks whipped the 41-41 Warriors in the first round. Then, in the WCF's, they battle a 48-34 Laker team that was without BOTH West and Baylor. Then, in the Finals, they dispose of a 42-40 Bullets team.

Has there ever been an easier road to a title than what Kareem's '71 Bucks had?

Yeah, easily.

Wilt in '67..

First he faced a 39 win team in the first round, then he faced a Boston team with less talent than his own team and in the final he faced a 44 win team in the playoffs.

Can't recall any other team who had the luxury of facing a 39 win team and 44 win team while also having the benifit to only have to play 3 series to win it all..

[ShaqAttack3234]

Stats vary based on eras, teammates, system, team success ect.

I'm convinced it is the 1976-1977 season. I don't feel like retyping anything so here's a post I made about this season a while ago as oolalaa linked earlier.

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=231270

Most of my arguments are made in that thread.

His regular season stats fall a bit short of his Milwaukee days, but so what? If that's all you need then you don't need a discussion, just check basketball-reference. Even Kareem says he was pretty much guarded 1 on 1 his first 4-5 years which alone skews the numbers.

Kareem and others talk about what he added to his game and at 29 years old(30 towards the end of the season/playoffs), he was still at typical prime age. I doubt he had really lost much physically and I think he had gotten stronger. Early in his career, it seemed that Kareem's thin frame could be exploited by stronger opponents.

Even by the '79-'80 season, he seemed pretty damn close to his best, it's the first season where we have a lot of games to go by, but he didn't seem to have lost much physically from the games I've seen, and his skill set was very complete while he was still leading the league in blocks. The rebounding decline was because of little more than the Lakers significant improvement at the power forward position and as a result, on the boards. Look at '79 when they got outrebounded by a terrible margin of 3.3 rpg, and '80 when they outrebounded opponents by a solid margin of 2.2 rpg.

But it just doesn't make any sense to me to call '71 or '72 Kareem's peak. He had no major injuries and certainly didn't lose any skills, in fact, it's a documented fact that he added skills, that along with experience and maturity makes it logical to conclude that Kareem and his peers were right, that he peaked in '77.

Also, pre-'74 Kareem's numbers fell significantly in the playoffs, while his numbers rose significantly in the playoffs from '74-'80. This is usually a difference between players early in their careers and later. The extra skills and knowledge make much more of a difference in the postseason.

Kareem's 3 best playoff runs were '77, '74 and '80. I don't think that's a coincidence.

Don't get me wrong, Kareem was phenomenal from the start, along with Duncan and perhaps Wilt, Bird and Russell, he was the closest to his prime/peak form at the start of his career.

I don't think it was a night and day difference between '71 and '72 Kareem and '77 Kareem, but it's still clear to me. Let meput it this way, I don't see anything that '71 and '72 Kareem could do that '77 Kareem couldn't, but I do see some things '77 Kareem was doing that he wasn't in '71 and '72 along with added maturity physically and mentally.

The edges I'll give early 70's Kareem are that I believe he ran the floor harder and was probably a better defensive anchor.

But I don't really think Kareem started declining until '82, and even then, it wasn't that clear other than an uncharacteristic midseason slump and his rebounding taking a more noticeable hit.


How about '80 and '88? Kareem was at home sleeping on his sofa when MAGIC carried that Laker team to a title in the clinching game six win on the road, and with a 42-15-7 masterpiece.

Great game, but it's ONE game. How about the entire regular season and playoff run up to that point including the first 5 games of the finals when Kareem was head and shoulders above Magic? And I firmly believe that Kareem's own game 5 was better than Magic's game 6.

Lets not diminish Kareem's importance, he was the 1st option on that team the first 7 seasons they played together until '87, and clearly the Lakers best and most valuable player the first 4 seasons until '84 when it became debatable with Magic adding an outside shot, taking over full playmaking duties with Nixon gone, and Kareem losing a bit more.


Geez, I hope the moderators delete the completely unnecessary photo above. What a childish post.

Yeah, I don't see the point of posting that disgusting nonsense on a basketball forum, especially since this is a good topic.



27. That's the magic number. When players scratch the ceiling of their talents. It's usually their absolute best season, or, if not, the 1st year of their prime. We've seen it over and over and over again. It's when they put it ALL together - their entire repertoire. Go look up the 27 year old season (On Basketball Reference) of Jordan, Russell, Magic, Bird, Wilt, Shaq, West, Kobe, Lebron, Moses, Baylor, Dirk, Garnett, Wade and Ewing (To name just a few). IT'S UNCANNY.

Saying that Kareem peaked in his 70/71 season is almost exactly the same as saying that Wilt peaked in 60/61, or that Hakeem peaked in 85/86, or that Shaq peaked in 93/94. Anyone remotely intelligent knows that Wilt (Wasn't commited defensively, wasn't a good facilitator, lack of competitive league depth), Hakeem (Limited offensive moves, defensively not quite there, terrible facilitator) and Shaq (Inconsistent defensive effort, mediocre facilitator, shut down by Rik Smits in the playoffs) didn't peak in their sophmore campaigns. It's just a laughbale notion.


Honestly, I don't exactly know when Kareem peaked. I am no Kareem Abdul-Jabbar aficionado. It could have been '76, '77, or even '80. I need to look into it in some more detail. I know Shaqattack has said that he reckons 76/77 might have been Kareem at his all round best (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=231270), and I'm inclined to agree. He makes some compelling argumemts; His expanded offensive repertoire, the increase in defensive attention he was receiving, routinely coming through in crunch time, the mediocrity of his cast etc.

From the mountains of evidence and examples we've had over the years, it's HIGHLY unlikely that it occured in just his 2nd or 3rd season. I mentioned the league quality in the early 70s. It just wasn't as deep. Depth (i.e the standard of the worst players) is what defines league quality, not necessarily the 'crem dala crem'.

And what about Oscar? Oscar is the 2nd greatest point guard of all time. He was a floor general. He could run a team with the best of them. How can we quantify the effect he had on Kareem's ppg and FG% totals? We can't, but It certainly wasn't negligible. I would guess at 3-4% on his FG%, and 2-3 points on his ppg total.

Excellent post.It is remarkable how often players peak at 27-28 years old. Although I will add in the Shaq example that he topped his '94 season statistically in '00 in every major category except FG%, and probably had a better statistical season in '01 as well, which doesn't even tell the entire story because he was now playing in the triangle, which Phil anticipated would lower his numbers.

He was raw in '94 and clearly not as close to his best, though as the numbers suggest. He had started to improve his passing and show some good footwork and a jump hook, though all of those things would improve significantly while also really making that turnaround one-handed jumper a bigger part of his arsenal.

Some differences we can see between Shaq's 29/13/4/3 '01 season and 29/13/2/3 '94 season that show the improved skills and knowledge are the fact that he relied on a lot more on dunks in '94, he was more like a 7'1" Dwight Howard. Since he averaged about 29 ppg, this is a good comparison. He had 4.6 dunks per game in '94 for 9.4 ppg and 32% of his points, and in '01, just under 3 dunks per game for 5.9 ppg and just 20.6% of his points.

This is because he had to fit his game into a more difficult offense, and also because he now had a much more diverse arsenal which allowed him to do this, which also made all the difference in the world in the playoffs.

Shaq had a pretty disappointing playoff series vs Indiana in '94 at 21 ppg, 13 rpg on 51 FG% in 3 games, while in '01, he not only averaged over 30/15 on 56%, but could have put up even better numbers had his 15-1 Lakers not been blowing out teams so often. Not to mention, this included facing two top 5 defensive teams in the conference finals, respectively in San Antonio and Philly who also happened to have probably the 3 best defensive big men and defensive players overall in Dikembe Mutombo, Tim Duncan and David Robinson, while the other 2 teams(Portland and Sacramento)also had quality centers and big men and legit 7 footers.

This is night and day compared to the '94 playoffs.

Because of Shaq's raw skill set(he was easier to stop if you prevented him from getting position...and he wasn't quite as strong either....he wasn't as poised, comfortable or patient backing his man down and using countermoves), I not only don't include '94 as part of Shaq's prime('98-'02 or '03), but don't include it in his "extended prime" or "near prime" years either('95-'03).

These are the type of things that players improve over time. Kareem was closer to his prime or peak form as a rookie and particularly a second year player than Shaq, Hakeem or Magic, but I still think he improved over time.

[dunksby]

How about '80 and '88? Kareem was at home sleeping on his sofa when MAGIC carried that Laker team to a title in the clinching game six win on the road, and with a 42-15-7 masterpiece.

As for '88, as bad as Kareem played, I would have won a ring playing center on that team.
Dude how many times are you gonna bring that tired argument of yours up?
Kareem's 80 finals average: 33.4 ppg, 13.6 rpg, 4.6 bpg, 3.2 apg on 54.9% FG
Kareem's 80 playoffs average: 32 ppg, 12 rpg, 4 bpg, 3 apg 57.2% 80% FT
Besides the fact that you disrespect Kareem every chance you get you continue to spew BS about him and try to misinform others under the guise of your wall of texts.

So, overall, and IMHO, Kareem's career, as great as it was, I consider it somewhat of a disappointment.
:facepalm

[oolalaa]

Also, pre-'74 Kareem's numbers fell significantly in the playoffs, while his numbers rose significantly in the playoffs from '74-'80. This is usually a difference between players early in their careers and later. The extra skills and knowledge make much more of a difference in the postseason.

Kareem's 3 best playoff runs were '77, '74 and '80. I don't think that's a coincidence.


Some differences we can see between Shaq's 29/13/4/3 '01 season and 29/13/2/3 '94 season that show the improved skills and knowledge are the fact that he relied on a lot more on dunks in '94, he was more like a 7'1" Dwight Howard. Since he averaged about 29 ppg, this is a good comparison. He had 4.6 dunks per game in '94 for 9.4 ppg and 32% of his points, and in '01, just under 3 dunks per game for 5.9 ppg and just 20.6% of his points.

This is because he had to fit his game into a more difficult offense, and also because he now had a much more diverse arsenal which allowed him to do this, which also made all the difference in the world in the playoffs.

Shaq had a pretty disappointing playoff series vs Indiana in '94 at 21 ppg, 13 rpg on 51 FG% in 3 games, while in '01, he not only averaged over 30/15 on 56%, but could have put up even better numbers had his 15-1 Lakers not been blowing out teams so often.


Yes, if your arsenal of offensive moves is lacking, or if your moves aren't refined or polished, this often gets exposed in the post season. Also, for perimiter players, if your jumper is inconsistent then good luck scoring with efficiency. Durant in '10, and Lebron in '07 & '08 are good recent examples of that.


Don't get me wrong, Kareem was phenomenal from the start, along with Duncan and perhaps Wilt, Bird and Russell, he was the closest to his prime/peak form at the start of his career.

I'm certainly willing to concede (To jlauber) that Kareem was one of the most NBA ready players to ever come out of college (Perhaps THE most NBA ready), and that his first 2/3 years were closer to his peak than the vast majority. But players don't peak in their 2nd/3rd/4th seasons. They just don't. Numbers lie.

I will just say, though, that I think Russell's entire game was SIGNIFICANTLY better in the early/mid 60s than it was in his first 3 years. In '57/'58/'59, he was essentially a defensive anchor/shot blocker/rebounder. I'm not entirely sure, but he either had zero offensive moves, or the moves that he did have were incredibly 'unpolished'. I think his post season scoring/efficiency bares this out.

He just wasn't the focus on offense. The Celtic's offense revolved around Cousy's fast break playmaking until around 1961. Russell then took to facilitating in the mid post. He became more and more adept as the years past at spreading the floor, picking out open shooters, and finding backdoor cutters. He peaked in '65 with 5.3 apg in the regular season and 6.3 in the post season.

His defense, however good it was right off the bat, also considerably improved. I always found it curious when Russell claimed that 63/64 was his best ever season. His raw regular season numbers were no better than other years, and he had a truly shocking shooting post season (13.1ppg on .356%). But, when you look at his defensive win shares for the season (16.1 By far the highest in history), you can see he may have had a point. For what it's worth, I think defensive win shares are a reasonably accurate and pretty underrated stat if certain things are taken into account, and Russell's 3 highest defensive win share seasons were '63, '64 & '65.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Yes, if your arsenal of offensive moves is lacking, or if your moves aren't refined or polished, this often gets exposed in the post season. Also, for perimiter players, if your jumper is inconsistent then good luck scoring with efficiency. Durant in '10, and Lebron in '07 & '08 are good recent examples of that.

I've said the exact same thing and cited '07 and '08 Lebron as well as '10 Durant as examples of players getting "exposed" in the playoffs.

'07 was a down year for Lebron anyway as far as I was concerned, I was disappointed after '06 when he showed a much improved jumper and then his jumper looked as bad as it had since it's rookie season in '07 while his free throw shooting also became an issue dipping below 70% and he wasn't having the same big games that years. Others were also disappointed, but forgot after game 5 vs Detroit, I specifically remember people speculating about Lebron being fatigued like Elton Brand after playing for Team USA.

In '07, his mid-range shot was non-existent at a horrendous 34% from 16-23 feet on 2 pointers, a poor 32% on 3s and a mediocre 70% from the line. His 3P% was the same in '08, FT% went up slightly to 71% and his 16-23 foot % went up significantly to a still mediocre 37%.

Look what happened in both playoffs, the elite defenses(San Antonio and Boston) exposed that by backing off him and he was eliminated back to back years with 35-36 FG% and 5-6 TO series.

Not surprisingly, he took his game to another level in '09 when the biggest difference was his improved jumper, he's been 1 step above where he ever was before that since, and he arguably played the best ball of his career in the '09 playoffs.

Durant is another good example for a different reason. He averages 30 in the regular season on great % of 48/37/90, but also had a pretty ridiculous ratio of 10.2 FTA on just 19.9 FGA. Now we knew that a guy who played off the ball a lot and was largely a jump shooter was not going to get that many calls in the playoffs. To put into perspective how ridiculous that FTA/FGA ratio was, peak Shaq in 2000, a guy who was exclusively a post player, probably the most physical and physically overpowering player of all-time, one of the most athletic big men and to top it off, a player that teams intentionally fouled got a similar amount of FTA(10.4) on more FGA(21.1).

And as it turned out, Durant dropped to 25 ppg on 35% in the 1st round vs LA, and amazingly, like Lebron in '08 vs Boston, he had a chance to win the series, although this has a lot to do with Kobe not being himself until prior to game 6 vs OKC when he got his knee drained.

And arguably the biggest example I've seen of a player's offensive game being exposed in the playoffs is David Robinson. He was overwhelming in the regular season since he was the fastest 7 footer and the best center I've seen run the floor, an ideal target for lob passes, too quick for other centers when he faced up, and he added a solid mid-range jumper to complement his drives. But he always lacked a go to move and never looked comfortable with his back to the basket. The lack of a strong low post game always made me think he wasn't near the offensive player his regular season numbers suggested.

As a result, his offense fell off greatly in the playoffs. The Spurs were used to Robinson averaging 25+ in the regular season, but as great of an all around player as he was, I just don't think that was ideal for his game or mentality.

The best example occurred right when the '94 Shaq example occurred. Robinson's numbers were right there, in fact, he just edged out Shaq for the scoring title on the last game of the season(although instead of Shaq's 29 on 60%, Robinson was more like 50%), but vs Utah, he struggled mightily falling all the way down to an even 20/10 on 41% with Karl Malone guarding him a lot and shutting him down. The next season, there was the classic series vs Hakeem, and in '96, almost the same thing happened vs Utah when he fell to 19.3 ppg on 47.5%.

Karl Malone is actually another example. Not that he wasn't a great scorer and didn't have skills, but his regular season numbers were imo, boosted noticeably by the easy baskets courtesy of Stockton and the system. As a result, Malone only had 2 playoff runs in his entire career consisting of at least 2 series where he shot 50%, or roughly the TS% equivalent of 50 FG%, which I'd say is 55%. This from a guy who was usually an extremely efficient scorer.


I'm certainly willing to concede (To jlauber) that Kareem was one of the most NBA ready players to ever come out of college (Perhaps THE most NBA ready), and that his first 2/3 years were closer to his peak than the vast majority. But players don't peak in their 2nd/3rd/4th seasons. They just don't. Numbers lie.

I almost completely agree, except I'll add that there are some rare occasions, though it usually has something to do with the player struggling with injuries later in their career.

There have been some rare players who never really fulfill the promise of their rookie seasons even without any major injuries, but the 27-28 club is remarkably consistent.

Of course there are other players who peak a little later, Hakeem(depending on which of the 3 years you think is his best, he peaked between 30-32), Karl Malone(a remarkable 34), Nash(33).

So there are exceptions to every rule, but 27-28 is so common that I pretty much expect it within maybe a year in either direction.


I will just say, though, that I think Russell's entire game was SIGNIFICANTLY better in the early/mid 60s than it was in his first 3 years. In '57/'58/'59, he was essentially a defensive anchor/shot blocker/rebounder. I'm not entirely sure, but he either had zero offensive moves, or the moves that he did have were incredibly 'unpolished'. I think his post season scoring/efficiency bares this out.

He just wasn't the focus on offense. The Celtic's offense revolved around Cousy's fast break playmaking until around 1961. Russell then took to facilitating in the mid post. He became more and more adept as the years past at spreading the floor, picking out open shooters, and finding backdoor cutters. He peaked in '65 with 5.3 apg in the regular season and 6.3 in the post season.

His defense, however good it was right off the bat, also considerably improved. I always found it curious when Russell claimed that 63/64 was his best ever season. His raw regular season numbers were no better than other years, and he had a truly shocking shooting post season (13.1ppg on .356%). But, when you look at his defensive win shares for the season (16.1 By far the highest in history), you can see he may have had a point. For what it's worth, I think defensive win shares are a reasonably accurate and pretty underrated stat if certain things are taken into account, and Russell's 3 highest defensive win share seasons were '63, '64 & '65.

I agree with most of this, I was referring mostly to impact, though, I had in mind Red Holzman's chapter about Russell in one of his books when he was talking about how much Russell's shot blocking changed the game right off the bat, it was the final step in me coming to appreciate Russell much more over the years, particularly focusing on his play in his own era.

Honestly, I can't see ANY use for defensive win shares to be honest. I've looked up the so called formulas, and I truly believe they are based on nothing. Especially in the 60's before any defensive stats were even kept. They're an estimate, but one where they don't have any data to make a decent estimate to begin with.

I do know that Russell's mid 60's Celtics were their best defensive teams, and as important as Russell was from the start, I'll agree that their success was owed even more to Russell by the 60's than the 50's.

I'm not sure how much Russell's passing improved, but I do know that it became a huge part of Boston's half court offense, in addition to his outlet passing.

As far as moves? Well, to be honest, I don't think he was ever a very skilled scorer. I've seen 1, maybe 2 10 foot jumpers in game footage, and don't really remember any others in highlights. I've seen him take a few hook shots in game footage as well, though they didn't seem that accurate.

I think his best attributes as a scorer were his phenomenal ability to run the floor, his rebounding and his athletic advantage, as well as me seeing him score a decent amount of times in the limited game footage on screen/rolls with Cousy. That will account for a solid amount of points in that era when the game was so fast-paced.

With that being said, he must have taken quite a few different shots than that, otherwise his FG% would be significantly higher. My guess is that he took a decent amount of hook shots, and occasional short jumpers, though I don't believe he was that proficient at either.

But his scoring numbers when he tried to score, were more than respectable for his era.

I had believed '62 to be his peak because of the additional scoring he did for that team in addition to the defense and rebounding being there as always, the Celtics 60-20 record(0-4 without Russell) and the phenomenal playoff series vs Wilt and the Warriors, and of course the Lakers, both 7 game series.

But Russell himself called '64 his best season and there is significant evidence to back this up as well, imo.

[jlauber]

Are you telling me that Paul Arizin was the difference between 49 and 31 wins? 33 year old Arizin couldn't have been worth 18 wins, surely? So what accounts for the rest of the difference?

According to defensive win shares (Which I think is a reasonably accurate and pretty underrated stat if certain things are taken into account), Wilt's 62/63 season was his 2nd worst defensive year. I don't know about you, but, to me, defensive commitment is a very good indication of how commited you are to a team and it's success. My guess is that Wilt wasn't mentally all there throughout the season. Like he floated through it. Perhaps the exploits of the previous year (50 ppg and a heartbreaking game 7 loss against Boston) took something out of him. When you're not completely focused, that rubs off on your teammates, and you lose close games. It's just a fact. That the Warriors lost 35 games by single digits was almost certainly not a coincidence.


And excusing Wilt from his stat padding by saying he "played nearly every minute of every game his ENTIRE career." is :roll: . As far as I'm concerned, any blowout that Wilt played heavy minutes in is the very DEFINITION of stat padding. Considering that he averaged over 45mpg during his career, I'm guessing that was A LOT. :oldlol:

It was more than just Arizin. Tom Gola, who was Wilt's other "HOF teammate" was traded early on, as well.

And keep this mind, too. That '63 team, with ONLY Chamberlain doing ANYTHING, lost those 35 games by single digits. Hell, they went 1-8 against the Celtics and their NINE HOFers, but six of them were close losses, and the blew them out in their lone win. ALL of the games were reasonably close going into the 4th quarters.

Then, think about this. Before the start of the '64 season, Chamberlain's new coach, Alex Hannum, conducted a pre-season scrimmage, sans Chamberlain, and against draft pics and scrubs, and guess which team came out on top?

Then, think about this. Wilt then took that same cast of misfits to a 48-32 record, and a trip to the Finals, with arguably one of the greatest post-season runs in NBA history. He averaged 34.7 ppg, 25.2 rpg, and shot .543 in a post-season NBA that averaged 105.8 ppg and shot .420.

In any case, keep that 48-32 record in mind.

Finally, think about this. The very next season, Chamberlain became very ill. He missed the early part of the season (and the Warriors went 1-6.) He came back, and played reasonably well, (in fact the NBA had expanded the lane, and Chamberlain was STILL averaging 39 ppg at mid-season), but he was nowhere near 100%. It was so bad that the Warrior team doctors diagnosed him with heart problems, and team management became frantic to unload him. Ultimately he was traded to the bottom-feeding Sixers, who had gone 34-46 the year before.

Two things. One, the Warriors would finish 17-63 (even 10-27 with Wilt, and 7-36 without), and would draft Rick Barry. They moved part-time rookie Nate Thurmond to the center position where he would become a HOFer.

So, they basically replaced Wilt with TWO HOFers...and guess what, they went 35-45. THEN, they added players like Jeff Mullins, Clyde Lee, and Fred Hetzel, and the result...a 44-37 record, and a trip to the Finals, where Chamberlain and his Sixers wiped them out in six games.

In any case, Chamberlain, and essentially by HIMSELF, carried a Warrior team to a 48-32 record and a trip to the Finals. The Warriors replaced him with TWO HOFers, and a slew of quality players, and the best they could do was go 44-37.

Secondly, Chamberlain then took that 34-46 Sixer team on his back, and they finished the 64-65 season at a modest 40-40 (injuries.) Then, with again a brilliant post-season run, Chamberlain took that bottom-feeding team thru the loaded 48-32 Royals, and then to a game seven, one point loss against a 62-18 Celtic team at it's PEAK in the "dynasty run." And, in that series, Chamberlain averaged 30.1 ppg, 31.4 rpg, and shot .555 from the field.

And, then, over the course of the next three seasons, the Sixers would put up the best record in the league, and win a dominating world title in '67 with a 68-13 team that just BURIED the eight-time defending, and 60-21, Celtics in the ECF's.

[jlauber]

No one was stopping that Milwaukee team. The playoffs can be a lottery with matchups, injuries etc. But that Bucks team with the points differential and SRS they had might be the greatest team ever, they were the most dominant regular season team ever that year and they followed it up with with a 12-2 postseason in which their tightest victory came by a margin of 8. So maybe it was an easy run, and New York would have made a more interesting finals, but that team was taking no prisoners. And Jabbar had to go through Thurmond, Chamberlain and Unseld.

As to peaks most players won't develop significantly after 26. Players physical peaks would come earlier obviously. But there certainly could be a case that the great players are an exception. The game's greatest players (with recent preps to pros exceptions) have tended to be remarkably skilled and productive right out of the gate. With a ceiling on how much more skilled they can get, their peaks may be closer to their athletic peaks than for other players. Certainly their play in their early twenties is much closer to their peak level than it is for non-legends.

Another explanation may be that great players tend to be drafted early and so are playing on bad teams early in their career. They are as such allowed/required to put up such spectacular statistical totals that are less feasible in a more balanced, talented team.

:cheers:

I personally rank that '71 Bucks team as #4 all-time, behind the '72 Lakers, who pounded a very similar Milwaukee team, 8-3, in their H2H's, the '67 Sixers, and the '96 Bulls.

The '71 Bucks had a scoring differential of +12.2 ppg, and an all-time record shooting differential of .085 (outshooting their opps, .509 to .424.) Then they romped in the post-season, 12-2 and with a post-season record point differential of +14.5 ppg.

Still, the only team that MIGHT have beaten them, were the '71 Lakers, who, unfortunately, were without BOTH West and Baylor.

And, I concur 100% on the rest of your observations.

[jlauber]

Real quickly..while I don't agree their stanzes on Kareem's peak, I do respect the opinions of both Oolalaa and ShaqAttack.

Excellent discussions.

:cheers:

[KG215]

Dude how many times are you gonna bring that tired argument of yours up?
Kareem's 80 finals average: 33.4 ppg, 13.6 rpg, 4.6 bpg, 3.2 apg on 54.9% FG
Kareem's 80 playoffs average: 32 ppg, 12 rpg, 4 bpg, 3 apg 57.2% 80% FT
Besides the fact that you disrespect Kareem every chance you get you continue to spew BS about him and try to misinform others under the guise of your wall of texts.

:facepalm

He also likes to bring up Magic getting robbed of a deserving Finals MVP in 1988 after Worthy stole it from him after his game 7 triple double. You know, kinda like how Magic "stole" the 1980s Finals MVP from Kareem after his 42-15-7 game 6. Then he downplays it even more by saying something like "Kareem was at home sleeping on the couch" making it seem like he hadn't done anything to get the Lakers to that point in the first place.

[Horatio33]

Then, think about this. Before the start of the '64 season, Chamberlain's new coach, Alex Hannum, conducted a pre-season scrimmage, sans Chamberlain, and against draft pics and scrubs, and guess which team came out on top?

You forgot to mention (I got this from John Taylor's The Rivalry) that Hannum thought the scrub's had atrophied as all they did was feed the ball to Wilt.

[BlackVVaves]

Kareem averaged 13.1 ppg, 4.1 rpg, and shot .414 in the Finals in '88. In game seven, he played 29 worthless minutes, scored four points on 2-7 shooting, had three rebounds, three turnovers, and committed five fouls. Meanwhile Laimbeer and Salley combined for 28 points, on 11-18 shooting, with 19 rebounds. Has there ever been a WORSE game seven by an all-time great?

Can't dispute facts. It's actually that reason that pushes my whims as I create my personal Top 10 All Time list. I typically place Magic at #3 and Kareem at #4, for despite Kareem's prestigious career, I truly believe Magic was more important to his championship Lakers, and truly the entire NBA, than Kareem was for the majority of the Lakers' titles.

[jlauber]

He also likes to bring up Magic getting robbed of a deserving Finals MVP in 1988 after Worthy stole it from him after his game 7 triple double. You know, kinda like how Magic "stole" the 1980s Finals MVP from Kareem after his 42-15-7 game 6. Then he downplays it even more by saying something like "Kareem was at home sleeping on the couch" making it seem like he hadn't done anything to get the Lakers to that point in the first place.

I know...I embellished Kareem's absence.

In any case, there is a considerable difference between the '88 Finals, and the '80 Finals. While Kareem did not play AT ALL in that game six, Magic played brilliantly in that game seven of the '88 Finals. In that game seven, he scored 19 points, on 6-9 shooting, and handed out 14 assists. True, Worthy's performance in that seventh game was incredible, but let's not act like Magic was sitting at home on the couch watching him put up a 36-16 game.

Incidently, I have no doubt that Kareem would have won the FMVP in '80, with even an average game six. In any case, those that feel that Kareem was "robbed" in '80 had better take a closer look at Magic's ENTIRE Finals.

21.5 ppg, 11.2 rpg (yes, 11.2 rpg), 8.7 apg (sharing the PG duties with Nixon, who was at 7.0 apg), and how about this...he shot .573 from the floor, as well (and .875 from the line.)

Given the fact that Magic played ALL six games, and played well in the first five, and then DOMINATED that game six, and withOUT Kareem playing a minute of that game...I can see why he won the FMVP.

[BlackVVaves]

He also likes to bring up Magic getting robbed of a deserving Finals MVP in 1988 after Worthy stole it from him after his game 7 triple double. You know, kinda like how Magic "stole" the 1980s Finals MVP from Kareem after his 42-15-7 game 6. Then he downplays it even more by saying something like "Kareem was at home sleeping on the couch" making it seem like he hadn't done anything to get the Lakers to that point in the first place.

Yea, Kareem definitely deserved FMVP in 1980, Magic finishes that series but Kareem's production positioned the team thusfar up until his injury.

Magic was the driving force for most of the Lakers' championships, but I don't believe 1980 was one of them in comparison to what Kareem offered.

[Freedom Kid7]

Jlaubber, I'm actually really surprised you picked the '96 Bulls as the #1 team. What makes you think that? I'm not trying to be an ass, I'm just generally curious.

As for the topic, I think Kareem was similar to Duncan in the sense of NBA readiness and starting their prime fairly early. I think '71 includes part of his prime, but as others pointed out, Kareem probably peaked in the mid-to-late 70s.

[jlauber]

You forgot to mention (I got this from John Taylor's The Rivalry) that Hannum thought the scrub's had atrophied as all they did was feed the ball to Wilt.

That was true. As Hannum noted, they had become so dependent on Wilt, that they forgot how to play the game. Incidently, if Chamberlain made any mistakes in that 62-63 season (and here was a man LEADING the NBA in FIFTEEN of their 22 statistical categories)...it was the fact that he passed the ball AT ALL. Remember, he STILL averaged 3.4 apg that season, despite scoring 44.8 ppg (and on a then record .528 FG%.) His teammates, many of whom were getting open shots all game long because Wilt was being SWARMED, collectively shot .412 that season...in a league that shot .441.

How ANYONE could call Wilt a "stats-padder" is beyond me. First of all, his COACHES asked Wilt to SHOOT. And, looking at the surrounding roster (FIFTEEN different clowns suited up with Wilt for SF that season), who could blame them? In any case, despite losing 49 games, they were in nearly every game.

Once again, they went 1-8 against the HOF-laden Celtics, but six of those losses were close (one of them was a 15 point OT loss.) And, all Wilt did was outscore Russell, per game, 38 ppg to 14 ppg. Take Wilt out and they likely would have lost every game that season.

And please, don't bring up Wilt's two "all-star" teammates, either. There was a rule in place back then (thanks to Owl BTW) that prohibited teams from having more than three all-stars.

In any case, Wilt's two best teammates were Tom Meschery, who had his best season of his career (for those that claim that Wilt held his teammates back), with a 16.0 ppg, 9.8 rpg, .425 season, and in only 64 games.

His next best teammates was Guy Rodgers, who was quite possibly, the WORST shooter in NBA history (as compared against league averages.) He was a skilled passer, to be sure, but the problem was, he thought he could shoot, so he continued to mis-fire his entire career. There was footage of the second half of game four of the '64 Finals, and it was truly laughable. He would run down the floor, and with no teammates within 50 feet of him, just hurl up horrible shots that would clank off the top of the backboard, or airball into the seats. Here was Chamberlain scoring 27 points, on 12-23 shooting, and Rodgers completely ignoring him, and just throwing up shots that would make a blind man shooting in wind-tunnel look more accurate.

The FACT was, Meschery would have been around Boston's 8th or 9th best player that season (the '63 Celts had NINE HOFers.) He was a decent player in his NBA career, and nothing more.

That '63 Warrior roster, with a total of 16 different players, SEVERAL of whom only played a short time in the NBA, was just pathetic.

And yet Chamberlain essentially took that same inept cast of dorks to a 48-32 record the very next season (albeit, they did add rookie Nate Thurmond, who played part-time, out of position, and shot .395.)

And once again, Chamberlain was traded at mid-season in the 64-65 season, and the last place Warriors drafted Rick Barry. They then replaced Wilt with Thurmond, who would have a HOF career. So, they basically replaced Wilt with TWO HOFers, and STILL could only go 35-45. Then they added Jeff Mullins, Clyde Lee, and Fred Hetzel, (and keep in mind that they still had Meschery, as well) and they STILL could only go 44-37. And yet, in the 63-64 season, Chamberlain single-handedly carried a far worse roster to a 48-32 record.

[jlauber]

Jlaubber, I'm actually really surprised you picked the '96 Bulls as the #1 team. What makes you think that? I'm not trying to be an ass, I'm just generally curious.

As for the topic, I think Kareem was similar to Duncan in the sense of NBA readiness and starting their prime fairly early. I think '71 includes part of his prime, but as others pointed out, Kareem probably peaked in the mid-to-late 70s.

Actually, (and probably to no one's surprise, I have the '72 Lakers at #1, the '67 Sixers at #2, and those '96 Bulls at #3.) But, all anyone need do is research that '72 Laker team. They just destroyed the NBA that season. I could go on for paragraphs, but the bottom line was, they wiped out EVERY team they faced that season. And keep in mind that they played EVERY team at least FOUR times, and as many as SIX. How dominant were they? They beat the defending champion Bucks, who went 63-19, 8-3 in their H2H's (including six games in the WCF's.) Their WORST record against an opponent, was 4-2 against the 49-33 Suns. They went 7-1 against the 57-25 Bulls, 5-1 against the 51-31 Warriors (including wins by margins of 129-99 and 162-99), they went 4-1 against the 56-26 Celtics, and 8-2 against the HOF-laden Knicks (FIVE HOFers.)

As for the Kareem "peak" argument. Kareem was never more dominant, in his entire NBA career, and against his peers, as he was in his '71 and '72 seasons. Hell, by the late 70's, he wasn't even the best center in the league (Moses was...and Moses would just abuse Kareem in the majority of the 40 H2H's, as well.)

And once again, take a look at Kareem's impact at the defensive end on the Buck teams in '71 and '72 (as well as '73 and '74.) They were CLEARLY the best defensive teams in the league in those four seasons.

[b1imtf]

Tl; Dr

[jlauber]

Tl; Dr

Thanks for taking time away from your busy evening to tell us all that you couldn't read the OP.

[b1imtf]

Thanks for taking time away from your busy evening to tell us all that you couldn't read the OP.
Not busy, just boring! Throw up some Wilt highlights

[jlauber]

One thing is certain in all of this...no other player played at such a high level for as many seasons as Kareem did. Throw out his last two seasons, and he had 18 seasons of very good, to downright dominating basketball. His best seasons rank near the very top of any all-time list.

[ShaqAttack3234]

:cheers:

I personally rank that '71 Bucks team as #4 all-time, behind the '72 Lakers, who pounded a very similar Milwaukee team, 8-3, in their H2H's, the '67 Sixers, and the '96 Bulls.

The '71 Bucks had a scoring differential of +12.2 ppg, and an all-time record shooting differential of .085 (outshooting their opps, .509 to .424.) Then they romped in the post-season, 12-2 and with a post-season record point differential of +14.5 ppg..

There's no doubt that they're one of the great teams, but ahead of the '86 Celtics? I also don't see the '96 Bulls above the '86 Celtics. I'm not even sure the '96 Bulls are the best Bulls team. I may take the '92 Bulls. I consider the '86 Celtics the best team.

The point differential is remarkable, though, and beyond that, they had an all-time great franchise player, as good of a sidekick as you could hope for in Oscar(though he was slightly past his prime) and an underrated player in Bob Dandridge who did several things very well and was among the best all around forwards of the 70's. Jon McGlockin was also an excellent shooter.

And then you consider how well they were constructed, their big 3 fit together perfectly, they had the big man, guard and forward, plus there's the defense. When you add a great defense with all-star talent, it makes a team unstoppable.


As for the Kareem "peak" argument. Kareem was never more dominant, in his entire NBA career, and against his peers, as he was in his '71 and '72 seasons. Hell, by the late 70's, he wasn't even the best center in the league (Moses was...and Moses would just abuse Kareem in the majority of the 40 H2H's, as well.)

I'm still not understanding your argument for '71 Kareem over '77, but anyway, I'm more responding to your last comment.

Moses did NOT pass Kareem in the late 70's. What argument does Moses or anyway have over Kareem in '79?

I'm assuming we can forget 1980, Kareem was clearly the dominant player that season. He didn't have the same success in '81, but he was probably still the same player.

Moses didn't pass Kareem until 1982, that's when Moses became the dominant player of the league, and it became more clear in '83. I don't think Moses was necessarily better in '83 than '82, but Kareem was the 2nd best player in '82 and probably fell off just slightly in '83, though he did average 27/8/3 with 4 bpg on 57% during the playoffs.

Even though Moses seemed to be clearly above everyone else in '82 with that unbelievable stretch in February and March, it seemed more obvious in '83 since in '82, he didn't have the team success(not his fault) and he was disappointing in the playoffs, while in '83, he had the team success and a dominant playoff run erasing any doubt.


Incidently, I have no doubt that Kareem would have won the FMVP in '80, with even an average game six. In any case, those that feel that Kareem was "robbed" in '80 had better take a closer look at Magic's ENTIRE Finals.

I have, I've seen the series more than once and it wasn't close through 5 games. Magic had a fine overall series, but Kareem was having an all-time great series. And Kareem at that point was just a much better player than Magic.


Yea, Kareem definitely deserved FMVP in 1980, Magic finishes that series but Kareem's production positioned the team thusfar up until his injury.

Magic was the driving force for most of the Lakers' championships, but I don't believe 1980 was one of them in comparison to what Kareem offered.

Of course, Kareem was not only clearly the Lakers best player, but clearly the best player in the league.

Magic was an excellent rookie and really sparked that team, but not even the best rookie that year.

Magic wasn't even arguably the Lakers best player until '84, and it was still debatable.

[jlauber]

The '71 Bucks had one weakness, and it showed early in the '72 season...the PF position. They simply didn't have one. Meanwhile, LA had one of the best in the league in Happy Hairston. Milwaukee realized early on in '72 that they couldn't matchup with the Lakers front court, and shipped off Greg Smith for the 6-7 Curtis Perry. Perry was a gifted athlete (and I have read somewhere where he reportedly could touch the top of the backboard...take that with a grain of salt.)

Perry did have some monster games against the Lakers, as well. I believe he had a playoff game with 24 rebounds against them, However, when the Bucks lost Smith, they lost a ket element on their '71 team...speed. And while the '72 Lakers were not running a 4x100 relay team out on the floor, with Chamberlain anchoring the defense, dominating the glass, and with perhaps the greatest outlet pass of all-time (sorry Walton and Unseld), they just blitzed the NBA that season. 121 ppg in a league that averaged 110, and with the next best team at 116 ppg. The Bucks did as good job of containing the Laker break as anyone in the league, ...but with that explosive break, the Lakers would inevitably put together a few runs in a game, and ultimately, Milwaukee couldn't stay with them for an entire game.

Interesting, too, was that Milwaukee won three games against the Lakers that season, including the playoffs, and all were blowout wins. Meanwhile the Lakers beat them a total of eight times, winning all the close games, and routing them in three games.

True, Oscar was hurting in the playoffs, but on the flip-side, West was mired in the worst shooting slump of his career. However, the Lakers had one trump card on their bench that the Bucks could not match, and that was Flynn Robinson. Most here have probably not heard of him, but he was one of the most explosive shooters in the league, and believe it, or not (according to Charley Rosen BTW), he was the Lakers best pure shooter (and I DO agree with that), on a team that had West and Goodrich. In that '72 season, he averaged 10 ppg in 16 mpg. In game five of the WCF's, Sharman went to him early, and he ignited a Laker explosion which put the game out of reach relatively early, in a 25 point win.

The Lakers not only went 4-1 against the Bucks in the regular season, but after a miserable shooting game one in the WCF's, in which they scored an unthinkable 72 points, they went on to win four of the next five games in that series. Here again, they were building momentum in each game, and after the blowout win in game five, they stormed back from a 10 point 4th quarter deficit in game six in Milwaukee (led by a 35 year old Wilt who not only physically pounded the 25 year old Kareem into submission, but RAN him into the ground, as well.)

IMHO, that Laker team was the most dominant in NBA history. Here again, they just wiped out EVERY team that season (although as an interesting side-note, late in the season, they LOST to the lowly Cavs...a few days after beating them by a 132-96 margin.) I watched all of the Warrior games on TV that season, and they murdered that 51-31 team. They not only went 5-1 against them (their lone loss came early in the season), but they slaughtered them by margins of 129-99, and at the time, a record 162-99 margin.

They blitzed the 56-26 Celtics, 4-1; the Knicks and their FIVE HOFers, 8-2 (including 4-1 in the Finals); the 57-25 Bulls, 7-1 (including a 4-0 sweep in the playoffs); and of course, the 63-19 Bucks, 8-3. The only team that they had two losses against in the regular season, was the 49-33 Phoenix Suns (losing one of them 110-109.) Not only did the Lakers trounce every team they faced, they had at least one rout against them all, as well.


I honestly believe that Moses surpassed Kareem in the '79 season. He won the MVP award that season, with a 25-18 season (Kareem was at 24-13 BTW.) In Kareem's '80 MVP season, in which he averaged 24.8 ppg, 10.8 rpg, and shot a career high .604, Moses was at 25.8 ppg, 14.5 rpg, and on .502 shooting. But not only that, the two went H2H in two games, and Moses outscored him 60-40 in those two H2H's. From 80-81 on Moses was miles ahead of Kareem. And, in fact, from '79 thru '85 (and really the rest of their careers), Moses was simply the better player H2H. In the '81 playoffs, he brutalized Kareem in the first two games, including a 38 point explosion in game one, in a stunning upset of the Lakers. In fact, Moses' teams went 6-1 against Kareem's teams in the post-season, and in those seven post-season games, Moses was CLEARLY the better player. I have posted their 40 H2H's before, and there is no reason to do it now, but I am sure you are aware that it was pretty much one-sided.


Kareem's first five games of the '80 Finals were among the best ever. He gutted out an ankle injury in game five, and scored 40 points in a 108-105 win. Still, he did not play at all in that game six, and Magic just dominated the game in every fashion. Not only did Magic score 42 points (on 14-23 shooting from the field, and 14-14 from the line), but his 15 rebounds were FIVE better than anyone else on the floor in that game. And once again, a 21.5 ppg, 11.2 rpg, 8.7 apg, .573, .875 series.


You and I will never agree on their impact, either. Magic immediately turned the Lakers, who were fielding the most talented teams in a very weak NBA in the late 70's, from a slightly above average team, to the best team in the league in the 80's. And IMHO, by '82 Magic was the best player on that team (and was almost always the better playoff performer, as well.) You can argue MVOP balloting all you want, but it is a pretty telling statement that Magic outvoted Kareem in their last EIGHT seasons in the league together.

And I have long maintained that had Magic been inclined, he could easily have been a 25-30 ppg scorer. As it was, no other guard in the history of the game ever put up seasons of .561 and .565 from the field (although Oscar's '63 season, in which he finished second in the league at .518, in a league that shot .441, translates to about .570 in the mid-80's.)

Furthermore, Magic was LA's best rebounder in many of their playoffs and Finals, as well as leading that offense. Even Kareem's '85 Finals, which I have already mentioned were among his best, would not have been possible without Magic. How much impact did Magic have on that '85 Laker offense in the post-season? They scored 126.3 ppg (while surrendering 116.2), and shot an unfathomable .543 from the field in that playoff run. And while Kareem had a great Finals, overall, Magic had a better playoff run (even Worthy had an argument as well...he scored 21.5 ppg on an eye-popping .622 shooting in the playoffs.)

And I don't think it was a coincidence that the Lakers did not miss a beat when Kareem retired, either. They actually improved from a 57-25 record in Kareem's last season, to 63-19 in the next without him. And before someone mentions that they did not win a title after Kareem retired, keep this mind. They won a title DESPITE Kareem in '88. Then, in Kareem's last season, they were 11-0 going into the Finals. They lost Scott before the Finals, though (and his 20 ppg), and then Magic was injured in the second half of game two (the game was tied at the time)...and were promptly swept. And, then in Magic's last season, he took a declining and injured group to a 58-24 record, and a trip to the Finals.

And it was also no coincidence that after Magic "retired" that the Lakers immediately plummetted to records of 43-39 and 39-43.

[Owl]

The '71 Bucks had one weakness, and it showed early in the '72 season...the PF position. They simply didn't have one. Meanwhile, LA had one of the best in the league in Happy Hairston. Milwaukee realized early on in '72 that they couldn't matchup with the Lakers front court, and shipped off Greg Smith for the 6-7 Curtis Perry. Perry was a gifted athlete (and I have read somewhere where he reportedly could touch the top of the backboard...take that with a grain of salt.)

Perry did have some monster games against the Lakers, as well. I believe he had a playoff game with 24 rebounds against them, However, when the Bucks lost Smith, they lost a ket element on their '71 team...speed. And while the '72 Lakers were not running a 4x100 relay team out on the floor, with Chamberlain anchoring the defense, dominating the glass, and with perhaps the greatest outlet pass of all-time (sorry Walton and Unseld), they just blitzed the NBA that season. 121 ppg in a league that averaged 110, and with the next best team at 116 ppg. The Bucks did as good job of containing the Laker break as anyone in the league, ...but with that explosive break, the Lakers would inevitably put together a few runs in a game, and ultimately, Milwaukee couldn't stay with them for an entire game.

...

I honestly believe that Moses surpassed Kareem in the '79 season. He won the MVP award that season, with a 25-18 season (Kareem was at 24-13 BTW.) In Kareem's '80 MVP season, in which he averaged 24.8 ppg, 10.8 rpg, and shot a career high .604, Moses was at 25.8 ppg, 14.5 rpg, and on .502 shooting. But not only that, the two went H2H in two games, and Moses outscored him 60-40 in those two H2H's. From 80-81 on Moses was miles ahead of Kareem. And, in fact, from '79 thru '85 (and really the rest of their careers), Moses was simply the better player H2H. In the '81 playoffs, he brutalized Kareem in the first two games, including a 38 point explosion in game one, in a stunning upset of the Lakers. In fact, Moses' teams went 6-1 against Kareem's teams in the post-season, and in those seven post-season games, Moses was CLEARLY the better player. I have posted their 40 H2H's before, and there is no reason to do it now, but I am sure you are aware that it was pretty much one-sided.


Kareem's first five games of the '80 Finals were among the best ever. He gutted out an ankle injury in game five, and scored 40 points in a 108-105 win. Still, he did not play at all in that game six, and Magic just dominated the game in every fashion. Not only did Magic score 42 points (on 14-23 shooting from the field, and 14-14 from the line), but his 15 rebounds were FIVE better than anyone else on the floor in that game. And once again, a 21.5 ppg, 11.2 rpg, 8.7 apg, .573, .875 series.


You and I will never agree on their impact, either. Magic immediately turned the Lakers, who were fielding the most talented teams in a very weak NBA in the late 70's, from a slightly above average team, to the best team in the league in the 80's. And IMHO, by '82 Magic was the best player on that team (and was almost always the better playoff performer, as well.) You can argue MVOP balloting all you want, but it is a pretty telling statement that Magic outvoted Kareem in their last EIGHT seasons in the league together.

And I have long maintained that had Magic been inclined, he could easily have been a 25-30 ppg scorer. As it was, no other guard in the history of the game ever put up seasons of .561 and .565 from the field (although Oscar's '63 season, in which he finished second in the league at .518, in a league that shot .441, translates to about .570 in the mid-80's.)

Furthermore, Magic was LA's best rebounder in many of their playoffs and Finals, as well as leading that offense. Even Kareem's '85 Finals, which I have already mentioned were among his best, would not have been possible without Magic. How much impact did Magic have on that '85 Laker offense in the post-season? They scored 126.3 ppg (while surrendering 116.2), and shot an unfathomable .543 from the field in that playoff run. And while Kareem had a great Finals, overall, Magic had a better playoff run (even Worthy had an argument as well...he scored 21.5 ppg on an eye-popping .622 shooting in the playoffs.)

And I don't think it was a coincidence that the Lakers did not miss a beat when Kareem retired, either. They actually improved from a 57-25 record in Kareem's last season, to 63-19 in the next without him. And before someone mentions that they did not win a title after Kareem retired, keep this mind. They won a title DESPITE Kareem in '88. Then, in Kareem's last season, they were 11-0 going into the Finals. They lost Scott before the Finals, though (and his 20 ppg), and then Magic was injured in the second half of game two (the game was tied at the time)...and were promptly swept. And, then in Magic's last season, he took a declining and injured group to a 58-24 record, and a trip to the Finals.

And it was also no coincidence that after Magic "retired" that the Lakers immediately plummetted to records of 43-39 and 39-43.
I don't think the Bucks missed having a strong PF like most of the 70s champs would. They outrebounded their opponents (4333 to 4004 giving them 52.0364% of available rebounds, no idea how good that is). After Kareem (who did very well there) they didn't have any especially good rebounders but plenty of okay ones. The other thing is that they shot so well that the other team didn't get many opportunites for defensive rebounds, which is where most boards are grabbed.


LA declined when Magic left because Magic left near his appex, without any plans for his replacement having only figured out about his condition in the preseason. He left a team that had been built around him. Kareem left giving a seasons notice, as a shell of his former himself, they had multiple scorers to pick up his slack already had a good backup center and would pick up another in the draft (having a years notice that he would be gone would have helped them scouting Divac too). I don't think the two are comparable.


The regular season by the numbers/advanced metrics comparison year by year for Malone and Jabbar (in case anyone wanted them all on one screen).
I would add that I think the Win Share metrics put too great a weight on team performance so Moses is getting penalised relative to KA-J in the 80-82 period.

Player Efficiency Rating
1. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar*-LAL 25.5
2. Marques Johnson-MIL 23.9
3. Moses Malone*-HOU 23.7
4. George Gervin*-SAS 23.2
5. Walter Davis-PHO 23.0

Win Shares Per 48 Minutes
1. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar*-LAL .219
2. Marques Johnson-MIL .211
3. Moses Malone*-HOU .200
4. Paul Westphal-PHO .189
5. George Gervin*-SAS .189

Win Shares
1. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar*-LAL 14.4
2. Moses Malone*-HOU 14.1
3. Artis Gilmore*-CHI 12.7
4. Marques Johnson-MIL 12.2
5. Cedric Maxwell-BOS 11.7


Player Efficiency Rating
1. Julius Erving*-PHI 25.4
2. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar*-LAL 25.3
3. Adrian Dantley*-UTA 24.3
4. Moses Malone*-HOU 24.1
5. George Gervin*-SAS 24.0

Win Shares Per 48 Minutes
1. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar*-LAL .227
2. Cedric Maxwell-BOS .214
3. Julius Erving*-PHI .213
4. Tree Rollins-ATL .208
5. Marques Johnson-MIL .206

11. Moses Malone .183 (behind Dantley, Westphal, Issel, Gus Williams and Bobby Jones)

Win Shares
1. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar*-LAL 14.8
2. Julius Erving*-PHI 12.5
3. Cedric Maxwell-BOS 12.2
4. Moses Malone*-HOU 11.9
5. Gus Williams-SEA 11.6


Player Efficiency Rating
1. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar*-LAL 25.5
2. Robert Parish*-BOS 25.2
3. Moses Malone*-HOU 25.1
4. Julius Erving*-PHI 25.1
5. Adrian Dantley*-UTA 24.3

Win Shares Per 48 Minutes
1. Julius Erving*-PHI .231
2. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar*-LAL .230
3. Robert Parish*-BOS .228
4. Bobby Jones-PHI .217
5. Marques Johnson-MIL .211

7. Moses Malone .202 (6th place was Artis Gilmore)

Win Shares
1. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar*-LAL 14.3
2. Julius Erving*-PHI 13.8
3. Moses Malone*-HOU 13.7
4. Adrian Dantley*-UTA 13.6
5. Artis Gilmore*-CHI 12.3


Player Efficiency Rating
1. Moses Malone*-HOU 26.8
2. Julius Erving*-PHI 25.9
3. Adrian Dantley*-UTA 24.2
4. George Gervin*-SAS 24.2
5. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar*-LAL 23.4

Win Shares Per 48 Minutes
1. Julius Erving*-PHI .229
2. Moses Malone*-HOU .218
3. Sidney Moncrief-MIL .216
4. Artis Gilmore*-CHI .208
5. Magic Johnson*-LAL .207

8. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar .193 (Bird and Sikma are 6 and 7)

Win Shares
1. Moses Malone*-HOU 15.4
2. Sidney Moncrief-MIL 13.4
3. Julius Erving*-PHI 13.3
4. Magic Johnson*-LAL 12.9
5. Jack Sikma-SEA 12.6

9. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar 10.7 (Dantley, Bird and Gilmore are 6,7,8)

[oolalaa]

Durant is another good example for a different reason.

And arguably the biggest example I've seen of a player's offensive game being exposed in the playoffs is David Robinson.


Btw, I didn't mean that Durant's shooting was the reason for his woeful 2010 playoffs. My brain momentarily melted down there. It was the fact that all he could do was shoot. He had no other weapons. He couldn't handle the physicality of artest, either.

And David Robinson is a great example. Built like a center, played like a small forward. I'm perhaps one of the few who would take Ewing over Robinson in his prime, and career. Robinson was just too much of a cuddly, wuddly softy.



I almost completely agree, except I'll add that there are some rare occasions, though it usually has something to do with the player struggling with injuries later in their career.

Or outside influences. Someone like David Thompson is a good example. Drugs ruined what would have been an exceptional prime (If he'd stayed healthy, I think he could have been a top 25 all time player). All things considered, he peaked in his 3rd season.



As far as moves? Well, to be honest, I don't think he was ever a very skilled scorer. I've seen 1, maybe 2 10 foot jumpers in game footage, and don't really remember any others in highlights. I've seen him take a few hook shots in game footage as well, though they didn't seem that accurate.

As far as I can tell, the only 'move' he had was a mini hook shot. More often than not, he would chuck it up near the basket and hope it got a good roll. He got more and more proficient at getting a good roll as the years passed :oldlol: . He did get a lot of points from quick darts/flashes to the rim for layups, as well.




I had believed '62 to be his peak because of the additional scoring he did for that team in addition to the defense and rebounding being there as always, the Celtics 60-20 record(0-4 without Russell) and the phenomenal playoff series vs Wilt and the Warriors, and of course the Lakers, both 7 game series.

But Russell himself called '64 his best season and there is significant evidence to back this up as well, imo.

I consider '62 & '63 to be his peak, with '65 not far behind.



Honestly, I can't see ANY use for defensive win shares to be honest. I've looked up the so called formulas, and I truly believe they are based on nothing. Especially in the 60's before any defensive stats were even kept. They're an estimate, but one where they don't have any data to make a decent estimate to begin with.

Defensive win shares are certainly not perfect. They're basically bulit around DRtg, which is an estimate of the points you allow per 100 posessions. And you're right, they are merely estimates. An assumption about the number of posessions an individual faces every trip down the floor is made, too. There must be data somewhere that tells you how often a player guarded the shooter, but basketball reference doesn't include it. BballRef just assumes a player directly faces exactly 1/5 of all opposing basket attampts.

For me, though, the main issue with DRtg is that it takes into account defensive rebounds, blocks and steals. That's why I hate it for perimiter players. Dumars is the prime example. We all know that Dumars was an outstanding, lock-down perimiter defender, but, because he was a pathetic rebounder and a surprisingly poor stealer, he gets screwed over by DRtg and DWS. He actually had minus DWS for 2 straight seasons!!! Joey D with minus DWS!!!

It also, of course, doesn't take into account the quality of the opposing player you are guarding. Larry Bird was often very high up on the DWS chart in the early/early-mid 80s (His rebounding, stls had a lot to do with that). It can't tell you that McHale or DJ would very often guard the best scorer on the other team. The effect of that is something that's just about impossible to quantify.


But, having said all that, it's a hell of a lot better for center's/defensive anchors, if you believe the defensive value of a center/defensive anchor is tied into Def Rebounds, that is (I know some people like to keep defense and rebounidng seperate). Also, center's far more often than not guard opposing center's. There's a lot less roaming and switching that takes place, compared to perimiter players, creating more parity and consistency.

Didn't you say that Kareem was probably a better defensive anchor in the early 70s than he was later on? His defensive win shares indicate this. 3 of his 4 highest DWS seasons came in '72, '73 & '74. What about Garnett? It's not a novel opinion, but I've always thought his outstanding defensive season was in '04. His DWS indicate this. His 2nd best season was '08, too. Tim Duncan? I think everyone agrees that Duncan was a defensive behemoth during his legendary '03 playoff run. His DWS shows this. The year Shaq got his act together and decided to dominate on BOTH ends? '00, his highest DWS season.

For the most part, DWS make sense. They match up what our eyes tell us. The fact that Russell claimed his 63/64 season was his best, and that his DWS were the highest of his career is quite interesting to me, as well. It tells me that DWS are probably a good general indicator of defensive value.

[Pointguard]

I think peak and prime is about a player's ability to max their head game, skill game, and physical game.

Some players don't use more mental faculty as they age, or become more skilled, or loose enthusiasm/energy for the game so they peak earlier. Some players rely moreso on their skill game or head game and peak later (point guards and versatile players rarely peak early because so much of the game is mental - Lebron can peak at 32yo, which is interesting). When you have a lot of skills, creativity and intuition it takes time to figure out how to work your magic - for those who play an instrument - you truely know what I mean. It takes a while before you truely become efficient with how to limit obstacles before you arrive with your own mastery. A player's peak will always be when he has the energy and desire to go hard after what he knows/feels and perfected on the court.

Kareem came into the league with a highly skilled and efficient weapon in the sky hook along with the ability to dribble. He didn't have to develope his game to be the very best. I believe Kareem would have been a better player if he didn't win it all so quickly because the hunger to achieve would have been motivation to keep working and trying new things. Kareem was so good he could win MVP without giving it his all: I believe he was the only guy capable of this. But I think this contributed to his problem with malaise. Kareem had dream fakes and shoulder fakes in his first year. The bounce in his legs and energy to go after all he could get his hands on was great in his first four years and in '76.

When Wilt left the game Kareem backed off on rebounds and steals. Wilt's template of being all around great in all areas of being a center wasn't motivating Kareem the same way. If Kareem had his way, it seemed like he wouldn't rebound. Kareem began looking for shortcuts and didn't always hustle after he got himself up for '76. A lot of the time, there would be ten seconds left on the shot clock and Kareem would just be getting pass the foul line on offense. So motivation could be an argument for an early prime. Kareem as a workhorse that participated in all aspects of the game was his early years. There was more bounce in his step and a bigger desire to be great and to prove his all around greatness.

He peaked in '76 to me, mainly because the knowlege aspect (knowing one's body, seeing different defenses, knowing defensive schemes). Between 23 and 25 years old he was at his peak in being motivated to proving himself and had the energy work for all that he got. I have his best years as '76, '72 and then '73 in that order.

[Punpun]

Such a word as peak has no meaning when applied to a player like KAJ whose longetivity put him out of those silly boxes.

[Freedom Kid7]

Jlauber, when you refer to peak do you mean all around dominance (like Shaq during the three peat), or when the skill set and all around play is at it's best? I feel you can give two very different answers depending on what you mean.


Such a word as peak has no meaning when applied to a player like KAJ whose longetivity put him out of those silly boxes.
I agree his longevity is the most impressive thing about his career, but having a good peak is still pretty important.

[Pointguard]

Such a word as peak has no meaning when applied to a player like KAJ whose longetivity put him out of those silly boxes.

Even the ocean and ozone layer have peaks: so longevity doesn't mean a thing. If anything peak is the best tool to break up how a long career reveals itself. The debate here is really around two years which is considerably easier than anybody else in the top ten outside of Hakeem and Bird.

[Punpun]

@Pointguard, When you've got a player such as Kareem, who dominated the league for so long, trying to pinpoint one particular year where Kareem was supposedly at his best in order to prop him or down him loses meaning. It loses meaning because as pointed out, the dude Dominated for such an absurd long time that one year (his peak) won't mean as much as player who had SHORTER career. For such player like Kareem, or Malone or Kobe, you have to change the way you go about examinating them.

[Pointguard]

@Pointguard, When you've got a player such as Kareem, who dominated the league for so long, trying to pinpoint one particular year where Kareem was supposedly at his best in order to prop him or down him loses meaning. It loses meaning because as pointed out, the dude Dominated for such an absurd long time that one year (his peak) won't mean as much as player who had SHORTER career. For such player like Kareem, or Malone or Kobe, you have to change the way you go about examinating them.
I hear you Pun.

I think dominant is a harder word to deal with than peak tho. Dominanat means supreme in all ways. Peak just means your best.

I don't know about Kareem being dominant for a long time - I think he was the best player for like a 7 year period but he was only dominant for a couple of years. I think Shaq was dominant for a longer period but wasn't the best player for as many years as Kareem was. Jordan is the only player to be clearly dominant in all aspects for more than three years (Russell and Chamberlain cancel each other out - One very dominant in one way and the other dominant in another). The top ten GOAT usually has a two year reign for its members and doesn't deviate much for almost all of them.

[ShaqAttack3234]

I honestly believe that Moses surpassed Kareem in the '79 season. He won the MVP award that season, with a 25-18 season (Kareem was at 24-13 BTW.)

Aside from those numbers, Kareem had a massive advantage with 5.4 apg and 3.5 TO compared to Malone's 1.8 apg and 4 TO, while also having a huge advantage with 4 bpg vs Malone's 1.5 bpg, and he shot 58% compared to Malone's 54%.

The difference in passing ability is visible when you watch them. As great as Moses was, he pretty much didn't pass, while Kareem was an excellent passer. This also skews their scoring because Moses forced more shots vs double teams.

Another reason stats are misleading is because Kareem in the '79 season was playing in the high post a lot more and was being used as more of a facilitator, this gave him less opportunities to score yet their scoring numbers were still similar. And finally, Kareem had the better post game and could get his shot whenever he wanted, while more of Malone's points came on offensive rebounds.

And as a follow up to Kareem's massive shot blocking advantage, Malone's Rockets were the 2nd worst defensive team in the league.

Kareem also played much better in the playoffs.

Given these facts, I don't see the argument for Moses in '79.


In Kareem's '80 MVP season, in which he averaged 24.8 ppg, 10.8 rpg, and shot a career high .604, Moses was at 25.8 ppg, 14.5 rpg, and on .502 shooting. But not only that, the two went H2H in two games, and Moses outscored him 60-40 in those two H2H's. From 80-81 on Moses was miles ahead of Kareem. And, in fact, from '79 thru '85 (and really the rest of their careers), Moses was simply the better player H2H. In the '81 playoffs, he brutalized Kareem in the first two games, including a 38 point explosion in game one, in a stunning upset of the Lakers. In fact, Moses' teams went 6-1 against Kareem's teams in the post-season, and in those seven post-season games, Moses was CLEARLY the better player. I have posted their 40 H2H's before, and there is no reason to do it now, but I am sure you are aware that it was pretty much one-sided.

So all you have is head to heads? Those don't tell you who the better player is, they just tell you a bit about how well 2 players and teams match up. Match ups make the fight.

As far as '80, all the arguments from '79 apply and then some with Kareem's 32/12/3/4, 57 FG% playoff run.


Kareem's first five games of the '80 Finals were among the best ever. He gutted out an ankle injury in game five, and scored 40 points in a 108-105 win. Still, he did not play at all in that game six, and Magic just dominated the game in every fashion. Not only did Magic score 42 points (on 14-23 shooting from the field, and 14-14 from the line), but his 15 rebounds were FIVE better than anyone else on the floor in that game. And once again, a 21.5 ppg, 11.2 rpg, 8.7 apg, .573, .875 series.

I'm aware of Magic's game 6, and also that Wilkes stepped up huge with 37/10. But 1 game does not win a series, they had 3 more wins before that.


You and I will never agree on their impact, either. Magic immediately turned the Lakers, who were fielding the most talented teams in a very weak NBA in the late 70's, from a slightly above average team, to the best team in the league in the 80's.

Here's what I don't understand...

Nobody is disputing that Magic didn't improve the Lakers significantly. When you add a great player to a good team, you expect them to improve.

This doesn't make Magic more valuable than Kareem because what do you think would happen if the '80 Lakers took Kareem off the team for the entire season? They'd be worse than the '79 Lakers for sure.

And by the way Kareem retiring after '89 is irrelevant to this.Kareem was obviously far less valuable in his early 40's than his early 30's, plus they had a decade to retool their roster as Kareem slowed down. Magic was also MUCH better in '89 and '90 than he was as a rookie, or from '80-'83 for that matter. While Kareem was much, much worse in '89 than he was in '80, or '80-'83.

Do you understand what I'm saying? And not to diminish the impact Magic made on the'80 Lakers, but they did really improve their 2 biggest weaknesses from '79, which were rebounding/size/power forward and perimeter weakness. Which also helped.


And IMHO, by '82 Magic was the best player on that team (and was almost always the better playoff performer, as well.) You can argue MVOP balloting all you want, but it is a pretty telling statement that Magic outvoted Kareem in their last EIGHT seasons in the league together.

MVP voting in '82 doesn't mean much because neither Kareem or Magic were candidates. Magic finished 8th and Kareem finished 10th, neither had a single first place vote.

Plus, I've seen you argue against MVP voting countless times when it comes to Wilt including '62, '63, '64, '69 and '72. So you can't really use it when it's convenient.

Sorry, but Magic was not better than Kareem yet in '82. Neither were in their primes, but Kareem was closer than Magic.

In '82, Kareem still had most of his scoring ability and was the Lakers one guy who drew double teams and could get his shot in the half court whenever he wanted. This is huge, look at this quote by Bernard King from '82 where he talks about being able to guard every Laker 1 on 1 when Kareem wasn't there.


"Sure, having Kareem out of there made a difference," said Bernard King, who scored 20 of his game-high 33 points in the first half for the Warriors. "With him out we could play real strong man-to-man defense."

And Kareem being the 3rd leading shot blocker and a 7'3" presence in the paint also gave him a huge advantage over Magic defensively, here's Magic talking about how teams could get inside a lot more without Kareem on the floor, from the same article as the Bernard King quote.


"They could do a lot of different things when they didn't have to worry about the big guy in there," said the Lakers' Magic Johnson. "They took advantage of that situation by running hard, getting inside and taking advantage of some mismatches."

Magic at that point didn't have his outside shot, which he'd add in '82, or his post game, which he'd add in '87. This made him too limited of a half court player to be ranked over Kareem in '82.

He was still a remarkable player, top 5 in the league, and I'm fine with you taking Magic over Kareem by '84.


And I have long maintained that had Magic been inclined, he could easily have been a 25-30 ppg scorer. As it was, no other guard in the history of the game ever put up seasons of .561 and .565 from the field (although Oscar's '63 season, in which he finished second in the league at .518, in a league that shot .441, translates to about .570 in the mid-80's.)

Magic could have averaged 25-30 ppg from '87-'90, that's for sure. I mean he got close in '87 at 24 ppg. But I'm not sure about '84-'86, maybe, it's tough to say since Kareem was still the first option and Magic's role wasn't to score as much yet.

But '80-'83? No, Magic couldn't have averaged 25-30 by that point for the reasons I stated before.

I don't doubt that prime Magic could have scored that much, though.


And I don't think it was a coincidence that the Lakers did not miss a beat when Kareem retired, either. They actually improved from a 57-25 record in Kareem's last season, to 63-19 in the next without him. And before someone mentions that they did not win a title after Kareem retired, keep this mind. They won a title DESPITE Kareem in '88. Then, in Kareem's last season, they were 11-0 going into the Finals. They lost Scott before the Finals, though (and his 20 ppg), and then Magic was injured in the second half of game two (the game was tied at the time)...and were promptly swept. And, then in Magic's last season, he took a declining and injured group to a 58-24 record, and a trip to the Finals.

This is irrelevant to the early 80's debate as I mentioned before. Kareem was 42 when he retired.

[Duncan21formvp]

1971 or 1972

[1987_Lakers]

1977 is definitely his peak for me. What he did in that postseason was amazing, only MJ & Shaq can dominate an entire postseason like Kareem dominated in 1977, it's too bad he didn't have any talent around him.

[game3524]

27. That's the magic number. When players scratch the ceiling of their talents. It's usually their absolute best season, or, if not, the 1st year of their prime. We've seen it over and over and over again. It's when they put it ALL together - their entire repertoire. Go look up the 27 year old season (On Basketball Reference) of Jordan, Russell, Magic, Bird, Wilt, Shaq, West, Kobe, Lebron, Moses, Baylor, Dirk, Garnett, Wade and Ewing (To name just a few). IT'S UNCANNY.

Saying that Kareem peaked in his 70/71 season is almost exactly the same as saying that Wilt peaked in 60/61, or that Hakeem peaked in 85/86, or that Shaq peaked in 93/94. Anyone remotely intelligent knows that Wilt (Wasn't commited defensively, wasn't a good facilitator, lack of competitive league depth), Hakeem (Limited offensive moves, defensively not quite there, terrible facilitator) and Shaq (Inconsistent defensive effort, mediocre facilitator, shut down by Rik Smits in the playoffs) didn't peak in their sophmore campaigns. It's just a laughbale notion.


Honestly, I don't exactly know when Kareem peaked. I am no Kareem Abdul-Jabbar aficionado. It could have been '76, '77, or even '80. I need to look into it in some more detail. I know Shaqattack has said that he reckons 76/77 might have been Kareem at his all round best (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=231270), and I'm inclined to agree. He makes some compelling argumemts; His expanded offensive repertoire, the increase in defensive attention he was receiving, routinely coming through in crunch time, the mediocrity of his cast etc.

From the mountains of evidence and examples we've had over the years, it's HIGHLY unlikely that it occured in just his 2nd or 3rd season. I mentioned the league quality in the early 70s. It just wasn't as deep. Depth (i.e the standard of the worst players) is what defines league quality, not necessarily the 'crem dala crem'.

And what about Oscar? Oscar is the 2nd greatest point guard of all time. He was a floor general. He could run a team with the best of them. How can we quantify the effect he had on Kareem's ppg and FG% totals? We can't, but It certainly wasn't negligible. I would guess at 3-4% on his FG%, and 2-3 points on his ppg total.


This.

By 27, most players are a finish project and they usually maintain that peak play till they are around age 30.

Since Kareem fell in that age range in 1977, it isn't a shock why most people consider that year the best of his career, even though he put up better stats in 1971.

[Psileas]

This.

By 27, most players are a finish project and they usually maintain that peak play till they are around age 30.

Since Kareem fell in that age range in 1977, it isn't a shock why most people consider that year the best of his career, even though he put up better stats in 1971.

Kareem became 27 in 1974, not 1977.

[magnax1]

Shaqattack, you always bring up passing ability when comparing Moses in Kareem, but I think it's important to point out another difference. That a lot of Moses's points were off put backs and dump offs down low. Kareem was a lot better passer, but Moses was a lot better at scoring without the offense being completely centered around him, which in some ways made it easier for his team mates to get into a scoring flow. I think from 79-81 they were similar on offense, Kareem was a much better defender, and Moses was a much better rebounder. They were pretty clearly 1 and 2 during that period, though I don't think who was better was ever that clear.