Is Kareem's legacy hurt by the NBA's popularity boom in the 80s?

[Notitlesince73]

Most people on this site agree KAJ is one of the 2 or 3 best players ever, 4th at worst. But most people aren't on this site. Kareem dominated the 70s. I mean, what else can you call it when someone wins half the MVPs in a decade.

He was also a great defender in his prime, as shown by his double digit all defense teams.

Lastly, he was an excellent rebounder, as shown by him avg 14.5 Rebounds per game in the 70s.

But here is the thing. Nobody watched basketball in the 70s. Basketball didn't become popular till the bird-magic era. By then, Kareem wasn't a good defender, couldn't rebound, and wasn't the best player on his team.

Because of this, nobody remembers the KAJ that was dominating the decade, they remember the old, bald, goggle wearing center who could score, but struggled in other aspects of his game.

I hope i have made sense, because my question is, do you think the memory of how good Kareem is by non die hard is affected by him still being good, but no longer dominant, by the time basketball became popular?

[TheBigVeto]

Most people on this site agree KAJ is one of the 2 or 3 best players ever, 4th at worst. But most people aren't on this site. Kareem dominated the 70s. I mean, what else can you call it when someone wins half the MVPs in a decade.

He was also a great defender in his prime, as shown by his double digit all defense teams.

Lastly, he was an excellent rebounder, as shown by him avg 14.5 Rebounds per game in the 70s.

But here is the thing. Nobody watched basketball in the 70s. Basketball didn't become popular till the bird-magic era. By then, Kareem wasn't a good defender, couldn't rebound, and wasn't the best player on his team.

Because of this, nobody remembers the KAJ that was dominating the decade, they remember the old, bald, goggle wearing center who could score, but struggled in other aspects of his game.

I hope i have made sense, because my question is, do you think the memory of how good Kareem is by non die hard is affected by him still being good, but no longer dominant, by the time basketball became popular?

It's all Magic's fault. He took all the credit for the Lakers' success in the 80's even though Kareem was responsible for most of it.

Ranking Magic above Kareem is just like ranking Brian Scalabrine over Michael Jordan. It just doesn't make sense and it's totally stupid.

[jongib369]

yes to a degree but the fact that he was able to prove himself as an old fart helped a lot. To me players like wilt Chamberlain, Bill Russell, Nate Thurmond, Oscar Robertson etc etc legacies were hurt more. Die hards know the players for what they were, but a lot of people just cant get past time bias.

Bridge players really say a lot about yesteryear's game...Dolph Schayes is a testament to the guys in the late 40s and 50s producing well in the early 60's. The style was WAY different and the rules were WAY different/stricter BUT stars can ball in any era..there human beings not robots they adjust....Wilt is a bridge of the late 50s and 60s into the 70s...BEASTING it out even with a completely different role. with highs of 66 and and either 64 or 60 as late as 1969. Kareem, the link from the late 60s, 70s into the 80s almost 90s. being the "less hurt" bridge of all of them. Am I saying Mikan would tear apart the league? Hell no. But why he couldn't be effective with modern training and some adjustments is within reason...the dude has the PURE fundamental low post game, a LOT of heart and played HARD... he would be listed as a 7 footer or at least 6'11...and also considering he weighed 245, probably weighing around 260 today with modern weight training...they didnt do a lot of that in the early 40s 50s....would he be the best center? the HELL if I know..one of the top potentially? IMO yes.

http://www.toledoblade.com/image/2008/02/16/800x_b1_cCM_z/Geroge-Mikan-Nat-Clifton-Babe-Pressley-Slater-Martin.jpg

Kareem and Wilt on the other hand...they would make the current crop of centers there bitch...idk how else to put it. whose going to give them trouble beyond Dwight and Andrew? who they will only face 2 to 4 times a year...when someone like Wilt went up against guys like bill Russell sometimes 8 or even more times a year!!

I looked up the games a while ago, have no idea what the exact numbers are...

but adding the total amount of games of Wilt going against Russell (143) and Kareem (28 in 4 years) was more games Shaq did against his top 5 to 8 (possibly more) competition in over a decade...thats not including a hos tof others like Walt Bellamy, nate thurmond, wes unseld ETC...think of that...Wilt went against 2 GOAT centers more than shaq did potentially 8+ of his other top piers....How many games did David Robinson and Ewing have against eachother? I think 13 off the top of my head... people need to put things into perspective...and look past when the NBA got popular....Because of that, a lot of guys will never be respected like they should...and just wait, oneday people will be shitting on shaqs competition...saying Lebron couldnt ball, kobe would be a scrub etc...The stans will deny it but it WILL happen...people are already saying Jordan wouldnt do as much! LOL :roll:

While I think the die hard/ intelligent fans will see that Jordan would not only be able to ball today...but YES...IM SORRY for putting yahwehBe down, but Jordan would be better all around...As a die hard, Id give my left nut to see


Jordan-Kobe-West go at it

West- RESPECT

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8rjREaql2U&feature=plcp

Oscar-Magic-Kidd go at it

Oscar-RESPECT

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ee2Ag5GeMQ&feature=plcp

Lebron-Pippen-Baylor go at it

Baylor- RESPECT

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3btloSB6-b4&feature=plcp

Shaq-Wilt-Kareem go at it

Wilt & Kareem- RESPECT

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pL46YUxHFOE

[CavaliersFTW]

Yes it did, the footage of Kareem in the 70's shows an incredibly mobile athletic freak second only to Wilt and Shaq that is >>>>>>> than the Kareem in the 80's. Unfortunately 70's basketball doesn't exist to most fans because widespread coverage of the NBA only began in the 80's.

[jongib369]

Yes it did, the footage of Kareem in the 70's shows an incredibly mobile athletic freak second only to Wilt and Shaq that is >>>>>>> than the Kareem in the 80's. Unfortunately 70's basketball doesn't exist to most fans because widespread coverage of the NBA only began in the 80's.
More athletic than Admiral?


Also how are the Wilt Chamberlain superman and Bill Russells vids going?

[CavaliersFTW]

More athletic than Admiral?


Also how are the Wilt Chamberlain superman and Bill Russells vids going?
From what I can see, knowing that he's almost 2 inches taller in his barefeet and seeing his athleticism from his mid 20's on to the fact that he was able to play into his 40's gives him a case as a better physical specimen than Admiral. Even if not strictly athletically - talent wise he was definitely the more potent of the two.

The vids will be finished when they're finished. Could be 2 days, 2 months, 2 years - I don't know I work on many vids at one time and don't have dead lines

[Horatio33]

I don't think he is that fondly remembered as he was shy and introverted and could be rude to interviewers and also to fans who wanted autographs.

[ThaRegul8r]

Ranking Magic above Kareem is just like ranking Brian Scalabrine over Michael Jordan. It just doesn't make sense and it's totally stupid.

I have to say... this is the first time I've ever seen Magic Johnson equated to Brian Scalabrine before.

[Punpun]

The best comparisons are the most outrageous one. But while Kareem is #2, Magic is top 5 all-time.

[G.O.A.T]

It helps and hurts it.

It hurts his legacy for a good number of the reasons you've mentioned. Most people will remember the old, bald, goggled, sky hooking curmudgeon who rarely played much more than half the game and was little more than an ancillary piece, to the casual observer, of the late-80's Showtime Lakers. So for the casual fan, one who has not otherwise researched his career, Kareem is bound to be a bit underrated.

To the more ardent fan of the NBA and it's history, but one whose age precludes them from having seen the youthful, ultra-flexible, 87-inch tall Gazelle of a curmudgeon that was 1970's Kareem. He was, unquestionably the best player of the 1970's. He was however also, unquestionably, a disappointment overall. That's the part that gets lost in translation today when you look at the numbers, the records, and the snippets of video available from that time.

For most who did live through it, who watched Kareem up close, they don't rank him above the Russell's, Jordan's or his teammate Magic Johnson who elevated his all-time ranking stock more so than Kareem did for himself.

Here, I am nearly alone on my Island that says Kareem is probably the 4th-7th best player of all-time and has NO case to be #1 on all planet. But among the people my age and a bit older who share my passion for the NBA and it's History, I tend to fit in nicely.

[fpliii]

It helps and hurts it.

It hurts his legacy for a good number of the reasons you've mentioned. Most people will remember the old, bald, goggled, sky hooking curmudgeon who rarely played much more than half the game and was little more than an ancillary piece, to the casual observer, of the late-80's Showtime Lakers. So for the casual fan, one who has not otherwise researched his career, Kareem is bound to be a bit underrated.

To the more ardent fan of the NBA and it's history, but one whose age precludes them from having seen the youthful, ultra-flexible, 87-inch tall Gazelle of a curmudgeon that was 1970's Kareem. He was, unquestionably the best player of the 1970's. He was however also, unquestionably, a disappointment overall. That's the part that gets lost in translation today when you look at the numbers, the records, and the snippets of video available from that time.

For most who did live through it, who watched Kareem up close, they don't rank him above the Russell's, Jordan's or his teammate Magic Johnson who elevated his all-time ranking stock more so than Kareem did for himself.

Here, I am nearly alone on my Island that says Kareem is probably the 4th-7th best player of all-time and has NO case to be #1 on all planet. But among the people my age and a bit older who share my passion for the NBA and it's History, I tend to fit in nicely.

What are your thoughts on how to weight/penalize for the ABA years (if at all)?

[Bigsmoke]

:biggums:

[guy]

It helps and hurts it.

It hurts his legacy for a good number of the reasons you've mentioned. Most people will remember the old, bald, goggled, sky hooking curmudgeon who rarely played much more than half the game and was little more than an ancillary piece, to the casual observer, of the late-80's Showtime Lakers. So for the casual fan, one who has not otherwise researched his career, Kareem is bound to be a bit underrated.

To the more ardent fan of the NBA and it's history, but one whose age precludes them from having seen the youthful, ultra-flexible, 87-inch tall Gazelle of a curmudgeon that was 1970's Kareem. He was, unquestionably the best player of the 1970's. He was however also, unquestionably, a disappointment overall. That's the part that gets lost in translation today when you look at the numbers, the records, and the snippets of video available from that time.

For most who did live through it, who watched Kareem up close, they don't rank him above the Russell's, Jordan's or his teammate Magic Johnson who elevated his all-time ranking stock more so than Kareem did for himself.

Here, I am nearly alone on my Island that says Kareem is probably the 4th-7th best player of all-time and has NO case to be #1 on all planet. But among the people my age and a bit older who share my passion for the NBA and it's History, I tend to fit in nicely.

Can you elaborate more? I've heard things like he was a poor leader that didn't really inspire others around him nor did he really care to.

[dunksby]

It helps and hurts it.

It hurts his legacy for a good number of the reasons you've mentioned. Most people will remember the old, bald, goggled, sky hooking curmudgeon who rarely played much more than half the game and was little more than an ancillary piece, to the casual observer, of the late-80's Showtime Lakers. So for the casual fan, one who has not otherwise researched his career, Kareem is bound to be a bit underrated.

To the more ardent fan of the NBA and it's history, but one whose age precludes them from having seen the youthful, ultra-flexible, 87-inch tall Gazelle of a curmudgeon that was 1970's Kareem. He was, unquestionably the best player of the 1970's. He was however also, unquestionably, a disappointment overall. That's the part that gets lost in translation today when you look at the numbers, the records, and the snippets of video available from that time.

For most who did live through it, who watched Kareem up close, they don't rank him above the Russell's, Jordan's or his teammate Magic Johnson who elevated his all-time ranking stock more so than Kareem did for himself.

Here, I am nearly alone on my Island that says Kareem is probably the 4th-7th best player of all-time and has NO case to be #1 on all planet. But among the people my age and a bit older who share my passion for the NBA and it's History, I tend to fit in nicely.
You are alone cause you are so dumb even the stupid majority would not agree with you.

[G.O.A.T]

What are your thoughts on how to weight/penalize for the ABA years (if at all)?

No weight or penalty, I just try to put it into context by understanding as much as possible about the strengths and weaknesses of each league. Now, having done years of research, I view it a lot like the AL/NL pre-inter-league play. Two different leagues, players who occasionally jump from one to the other, with slightly different rules playing the same basic game.

The ABA got very strong around 1971-72. Probably was comparable to the NBA in terms of overall talent. If not then, then by 1974 once Wilt and West were gone, the leagues were pretty damn even. Kareem won the 1976 MVP despite his team missing the playoffs (only time this has happened) Meanwhile in the ABA, Julius Erving had arguably the best year of his career en route to another title. Had both leagues given away one MVP, the Doctor takes it easily, but because the leagues were separate Kareem got another MVP by simply being that much better than everyone else in the NBA.

This is different than a year like 1974 (Doctor's J other GOAT ABA season) when Kareem led the Bucks to 59 wins and a few plays from a title. Kareem's dominance on an individual and team level in an NBA that included big men like Nate Thurmond, Bob McAdoo, Dave Cowens, Elvin Hayes, Wes Unseld and Bob Lanier is very impressive. The ABA's best big men at the time were Artis Gilmore, Dan Issel, Billy Paultz and Swen Nater. Guys like Mel Daniels and Zelmo Beaty were well past their prime but still productive. However overall the NBA's crop of centers were bigger and better. So even though Kareem and the Bucks lost the title to the Celtics year, I'm not sure Doc leading the Nets to an ABA title is a significantly greater achievement during that season.

The players who led their teams to titles in the ABA are as follows:

Connie Hawkins, Mel Daniels, Zelmo Beaty, George McGinnis, Artis Gilmore, Julius Erving.

Of those guys only Erving could have done it in the NBA (and even he came up short post-merger) Maybe Hawkin's if his career wasn't interrupted, but I'm not convinced. The rest of the guys would need to find themselves on a very deep, balanced team to be a contender. You don't see tje same level of players leading teams to NBA title's during that era. Those guys were Kareem, Wilt, Willis Reed, Cowens, Frazier, Rick Barry etc. All top-35 guys all-time still and elite players in any era. I think the reason for this discrepancy is two fold:

1) The ABA's style of play and rules didn't favor the big man as much as the NBA's thus smaller, more athletic centers (Daniels, Hawkins, Beaty, McGinnis) could be offensive and defensive anchors.

2) The lack of true Big Man depth in the ABA opened the door for more perimeter oriented teams to win, much like in the modern NBA.

[fpliii]

No weight or penalty, I just try to put it into context by understanding as much as possible about the strengths and weaknesses of each league. Now, having done years of research, I view it a lot like the AL/NL pre-inter-league play. Two different leagues, players who occasionally jump from one to the other, with slightly different rules playing the same basic game.

The ABA got very strong around 1971-72. Probably was comparable to the NBA in terms of overall talent. If not then, then by 1974 once Wilt and West were gone, the leagues were pretty damn even. Kareem won the 1976 MVP despite his team missing the playoffs (only time this has happened) Meanwhile in the ABA, Julius Erving had arguably the best year of his career en route to another title. Had both leagues given away one MVP, the Doctor takes it easily, but because the leagues were separate Kareem got another MVP by simply being that much better than everyone else in the NBA.

This is different than a year like 1974 (Doctor's J other GOAT ABA season) when Kareem led the Bucks to 59 wins and a few plays from a title. Kareem's dominance on an individual and team level in an NBA that included big men like Nate Thurmond, Bob McAdoo, Dave Cowens, Elvin Hayes, Wes Unseld and Bob Lanier is very impressive. The ABA's best big men at the time were Artis Gilmore, Dan Issel, Billy Paultz and Swen Nater. Guys like Mel Daniels and Zelmo Beaty were well past their prime but still productive. However overall the NBA's crop of centers were bigger and better. So even though Kareem and the Bucks lost the title to the Celtics year, I'm not sure Doc leading the Nets to an ABA title is a significantly greater achievement during that season.

The players who led their teams to titles in the ABA are as follows:

Connie Hawkins, Mel Daniels, Zelmo Beaty, George McGinnis, Artis Gilmore, Julius Erving.

Of those guys only Erving could have done it in the NBA (and even he came up short post-merger) Maybe Hawkin's if his career wasn't interrupted, but I'm not convinced. The rest of the guys would need to find themselves on a very deep, balanced team to be a contender. You don't see tje same level of players leading teams to NBA title's during that era. Those guys were Kareem, Wilt, Willis Reed, Cowens, Frazier, Rick Barry etc. All top-35 guys all-time still and elite players in any era. I think the reason for this discrepancy is two fold:

1) The ABA's style of play and rules didn't favor the big man as much as the NBA's thus smaller, more athletic centers (Daniels, Hawkins, Beaty, McGinnis) could be offensive and defensive anchors.

2) The lack of true Big Man depth in the ABA opened the door for more perimeter oriented teams to win, much like in the modern NBA.

Thanks, just three questions then...

1) You mentioned Hawkins as a fringe threat to lead his team to a title, how far off is Gilmore from this?
2) Which league's MVP would win if they were combined, in each of 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76 (you mentioned Dr. J in 74)?
3) Same as (2), but instead for which teams you'd expect to win?

You also brought up an interesting point of the lack of big man depth allowing perimeter stars to shine in the ABA. I think this is an interesting perspective, and I'm interested in hearing more on that discussion (from yourself and others).

[G.O.A.T]

Can you elaborate more? I've heard things like he was a poor leader that didn't really inspire others around him nor did he really care to.

That's a big part of it. He alienated fans and teammates in Milwaukee because he was very unhappy living there. Especially as time went on, it became clear that as great as Kareem was, he was going to step up big in the big moment (often enough) and he wasn't going to inspire the Bucks when it mattered most.

Milwaukee lost series in 1973 and 1974 against inferior teams (or at least underdogs by odds) while holding the home court advantage. In both series Kareem was outplayed by a great center on his home floor in a crucial game. First it was Thurmond during 1973's game five of the WCSF. Then Cowens in game seven of the 1974 NBA finals. Both Thurmond and Cowens are great players, but you won't find examples of Magic, Bird, Russell, Wilt or Jordan being outplayed during their physical prime by a player at their position considered a clear notch below them.

After the Bucks won the 1971 title many predicted a dynasty. After all Kareem was an even greater winner than Russell prior to his NBA days and in his first season with a roster fit to contend, he won his first title. However the Bucks were beaten the next season by the Lakers in the WCF. Despite a superb series by Kareem, an injury to Oscar Robertson cost them dearly in the series closer games and they were eliminated in six. From that point on the Bucks, then Lakers made just two more conference final appearances during the decade with Ferdinand leading the way. That's the same number of times those teams missed the postseason. Milwaukee was 7-1 in the eight games Kareem missed from 1971-1974. Larry Costello, the Bucks coach, credited Robertson's leadership with keeping those teams on track with or without Kareem. Oscar retired after the '74 Finals and Kareem injured himself during the preseason attacking the basket support. The Bucks fell apart without Kareem and weren't a lot better with him. Instead of stepping up, Kareem asked out and was traded.

In Los Angeles it was more of the same thing. They missed the playoffs the first season because of how much they struggled when Kareem was out. The next year injuries occurred and they were swept from the playoffs despite HCA. The year after the Lakers rebuilt the roster around Jabbar and moved him to the high post to play at times, still they lacked direction and consistency. More trades, more signings and almost always dissappointment in return. Players struggled to fit in or feel comfortable playing with Kareem despite his immense and unquestionable talent. When asked if he could lead the Lakers to a title in 1978, he said they were good enough to win it, but it'd be up to (coach) Jerry West and (owner) Jerry Buss to lead them there. It was in my opinion, Kareem's unwillingness to accept a leadership role that caused the Lakers to underachieve in 1978 and 1979, especially in the postseason.

To be far and away the leagues most talented player for most of the decade. For the competition to be as watered-down as it was for more than half that decade and to only escape with one ring and two trips to the Finals is tantamount to LeBron James going the rest of the big three era without a second title.

[guy]

That's a big part of it. He alienated fans and teammates in Milwaukee because he was very unhappy living there. Especially as time went on, it became clear that as great as Kareem was, he was going to step up big in the big moment (often enough) and he wasn't going to inspire the Bucks when it mattered most.

Milwaukee lost series in 1973 and 1974 against inferior teams (or at least underdogs by odds) while holding the home court advantage. In both series Kareem was outplayed by a great center on his home floor in a crucial game. First it was Thurmond during 1973's game five of the WCSF. Then Cowens in game seven of the 1974 NBA finals. Both Thurmond and Cowens are great players, but you won't find examples of Magic, Bird, Russell, Wilt or Jordan being outplayed during their physical prime by a player at their position considered a clear notch below them.

After the Bucks won the 1971 title many predicted a dynasty. After all Kareem was an even greater winner than Russell prior to his NBA days and in his first season with a roster fit to contend, he won his first title. However the Bucks were beaten the next season by the Lakers in the WCF. Despite a superb series by Kareem, an injury to Oscar Robertson cost them dearly in the series closer games and they were eliminated in six. From that point on the Bucks, then Lakers made just two more conference final appearances during the decade with Ferdinand leading the way. That's the same number of times those teams missed the postseason. Milwaukee was 7-1 in the eight games Kareem missed from 1971-1974. Larry Costello, the Bucks coach, credited Robertson's leadership with keeping those teams on track with or without Kareem. Oscar retired after the '74 Finals and Kareem injured himself during the preseason attacking the basket support. The Bucks fell apart without Kareem and weren't a lot better with him. Instead of stepping up, Kareem asked out and was traded.

In Los Angeles it was more of the same thing. They missed the playoffs the first season because of how much they struggled when Kareem was out. The next year injuries occurred and they were swept from the playoffs despite HCA. The year after the Lakers rebuilt the roster around Jabbar and moved him to the high post to play at times, still they lacked direction and consistency. More trades, more signings and almost always dissappointment in return. Players struggled to fit in or feel comfortable playing with Kareem despite his immense and unquestionable talent. When asked if he could lead the Lakers to a title in 1978, he said they were good enough to win it, but it'd be up to (coach) Jerry West and (owner) Jerry Buss to lead them there. It was in my opinion, Kareem's unwillingness to accept a leadership role that caused the Lakers to underachieve in 1978 and 1979, especially in the postseason.

To be far and away the leagues most talented player for most of the decade. For the competition to be as watered-down as it was for more than half that decade and to only escape with one ring and two trips to the Finals is tantamount to LeBron James going the rest of the big three era without a second title.

Interesting, lots of good perspective. You can argue that the 70s would not have been this forgotten era that people penalize Kareem for had Kareem led his teams to expectations.

[JMT]

The era hurts, but not as much as some of the other factors mentioned. His aloofness toward fans and media kept him from the public eye. Early on, there was considerable backlash to his conversion and name change. He then ended up paired with one of the more likeable, charismatic athletes we've ever seen. It's interesting that Kareem not wearing a big smile and worshipping as he saw fit hurt him more than Magic engaging in reckless behavior that resulted in HIV, damaging his career and franchise, hurt him in the public eye.

The other component is the big man syndrome. As Wilt famously put it, "Nobody roots for Goliath". For decades the mantra among non-basketball fans ... and even some fans ... was that all a 7 footer had to do was drop the ball in the basket. It's ridiculous, yes, but it existed none the less. Russell was not publicly beloved, nor Wilt, Kareem, etc. Among American born bigs, only Shaq really ever managed to have widespread popularity outside his team's market. The average person who isn't consumed with the game simply can't relate to people that size.

[G.O.A.T]

Thanks, just three questions then...

1) You mentioned Hawkins as a fringe threat to lead his team to a title, how far off is Gilmore from this?
2) Which league's MVP would win if they were combined, in each of 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76 (you mentioned Dr. J in 74)?
3) Same as (2), but instead for which teams you'd expect to win?

You also brought up an interesting point of the lack of big man depth allowing perimeter stars to shine in the ABA. I think this is an interesting perspective, and I'm interested in hearing more on that discussion (from yourself and others).

1) In the right situation, I could Gilmore having a Nate Thurmond-esque impact on a team. That is, he could lead a contender if you gave him a premier perimeter player. Gilmore however, despite the stats, was a pretty limited offensive player who only took very easy shots and rarely created his own shot (except on an offensive rebound) Also he didn't have the mobility/athleticism to impact the volume of plays that guys like Russell, Hakeem and even Be Wallace did while anchoring their title teams defenses.

2) 1968 would still be Wilt, I don't think Daniels would be rated above fellow tough guys Willis Reed and Wes Unseld so no change in '69. 70-72 seem pretty clearly in favor of NBA centers. '73 is pretty interesting, I give Cowens a slight edge over Billy C. 1974-1976 are the most debatable. 1974 is Kareem's IMO. 59-wins for the Bucks and astounding numbers. As good as Doc was, I'll take the big man with all things equal. 1975 is McAdoo, McGinnis or Doc. If you take away what happened in the ABA playoffs than maybe Doc gets it, but overall what McAdoo did that year deserves recognition, he'd be my MVP. 1976 is the one I'd give to the ABA for sure. Doc was brilliant and Kareem, the NBA's best, missed the postseason.

3) I'd expect the NBA team to win every season but the '75 Colonels against the '75 Warriors would be pretty damn interesting. The Colonels were loaded. I think they only lost 2 games all ABA playoffs. That one would be the most interesting. I give the '74 Nets an outside shot at the Celtics, but I think the C's get it done.

As it pertains to perimeter players excelling in the ABA, the three-point line helped a lot to. It just opens the game up so much and creates greater natural spacing. The driving lanes get a lot bigger when the defense has to cover 25 feet away from the basket one pass away.

[fpliii]

1) In the right situation, I could Gilmore having a Nate Thurmond-esque impact on a team. That is, he could lead a contender if you gave him a premier perimeter player. Gilmore however, despite the stats, was a pretty limited offensive player who only took very easy shots and rarely created his own shot (except on an offensive rebound) Also he didn't have the mobility/athleticism to impact the volume of plays that guys like Russell, Hakeem and even Be Wallace did while anchoring their title teams defenses.

2) 1968 would still be Wilt, I don't think Daniels would be rated above fellow tough guys Willis Reed and Wes Unseld so no change in '69. 70-72 seem pretty clearly in favor of NBA centers. '73 is pretty interesting, I give Cowens a slight edge over Billy C. 1974-1976 are the most debatable. 1974 is Kareem's IMO. 59-wins for the Bucks and astounding numbers. As good as Doc was, I'll take the big man with all things equal. 1975 is McAdoo, McGinnis or Doc. If you take away what happened in the ABA playoffs than maybe Doc gets it, but overall what McAdoo did that year deserves recognition, he'd be my MVP. 1976 is the one I'd give to the ABA for sure. Doc was brilliant and Kareem, the NBA's best, missed the postseason.

3) I'd expect the NBA team to win every season but the '75 Colonels against the '75 Warriors would be pretty damn interesting. The Colonels were loaded. I think they only lost 2 games all ABA playoffs. That one would be the most interesting. I give the '74 Nets an outside shot at the Celtics, but I think the C's get it done.

As it pertains to perimeter players excelling in the ABA, the three-point line helped a lot to. It just opens the game up so much and creates greater natural spacing. The driving lanes get a lot bigger when the defense has to cover 25 feet away from the basket one pass away.

very good insight, thanks

[Sarcastic]

It helps and hurts it.

It hurts his legacy for a good number of the reasons you've mentioned. Most people will remember the old, bald, goggled, sky hooking curmudgeon who rarely played much more than half the game and was little more than an ancillary piece, to the casual observer, of the late-80's Showtime Lakers. So for the casual fan, one who has not otherwise researched his career, Kareem is bound to be a bit underrated.

To the more ardent fan of the NBA and it's history, but one whose age precludes them from having seen the youthful, ultra-flexible, 87-inch tall Gazelle of a curmudgeon that was 1970's Kareem. He was, unquestionably the best player of the 1970's. He was however also, unquestionably, a disappointment overall. That's the part that gets lost in translation today when you look at the numbers, the records, and the snippets of video available from that time.

For most who did live through it, who watched Kareem up close, they don't rank him above the Russell's, Jordan's or his teammate Magic Johnson who elevated his all-time ranking stock more so than Kareem did for himself.

Here, I am nearly alone on my Island that says Kareem is probably the 4th-7th best player of all-time and has NO case to be #1 on all planet. But among the people my age and a bit older who share my passion for the NBA and it's History, I tend to fit in nicely.


:applause:

Completely agree. I have Kareem at 5 after Jordan, Wilt, Magic, Russell, with him having no claim over any of those guys.

[guy]

GOAT,

How do you view Wilt vs. Kareem? They both are players who's numbers seem to be greater then they actually were with some questionable intangibles.

[Pointguard]

Most people on this site agree KAJ is one of the 2 or 3 best players ever, 4th at worst. But most people aren't on this site. Kareem dominated the 70s. I mean, what else can you call it when someone wins half the MVPs in a decade.

He was also a great defender in his prime, as shown by his double digit all defense teams.

Lastly, he was an excellent rebounder, as shown by him avg 14.5 Rebounds per game in the 70s.

But here is the thing. Nobody watched basketball in the 70s. Basketball didn't become popular till the bird-magic era. By then, Kareem wasn't a good defender, couldn't rebound, and wasn't the best player on his team.

Because of this, nobody remembers the KAJ that was dominating the decade, they remember the old, bald, goggle wearing center who could score, but struggled in other aspects of his game.

I hope i have made sense, because my question is, do you think the memory of how good Kareem is by non die hard is affected by him still being good, but no longer dominant, by the time basketball became popular?

Kareem, when he was rebounding above 14 per game was with little fault as as a player. Around '78 and '79 he began taking shortcuts and shows signs of disinterest. Unlike now, whereas most centers are pretty goofy, take shortcuts and have focus issues, back then it showed lack of upbringing to take for granted great talent and skill. Wilt, Russell, Unseld, Reed, Thurmond, Cowens give you the impression that you fight for everything every time. This lack of hustle and seemingly concern was frowned upon by fans and society in general. So Kareem had lost favor and actually had a counter affect on the league. Boxing and Football had overtaken basketball as the number two sport in popularity and had had charismatic personalities like Baseball, the #1 sport, had.

This is why I did that thread about Kareem not being a franchise player, primarily because the business in general suffered because he was so easily the best and didn't put forth a lot of effort. Had Kareem hustled, he might have been able to continue the business success for the league that Wilt left him, and Bird/Magic would later revive. For most people who experienced the coming of Magic and Bird it was a whole different world than the one before them. The whole league got a crazy shot in the arm. All of a sudden everybody had a passion for the game. It was like to compete now you had to have a passion element. Kareem was the mummy that Ali was talking about... But when Magic came, the horses charged and everything had movement, life and vivacity. The ball moved with gusto and spunk. The black and white TV now had color.

If Kareem was a blue collar worker he gets two more rings on his own account in the sorry 70's and he's #1 all time. On the same token, if Kareem doesn't play with a true leader and inspirational player he would have been the biggest disappointment ever as well. No offense to Kareem but when Magic came to the Lakers he brought several dimensions they didn't have before. The team had a cohesion unlike it ever had before, it had excitment, flow, movement and energy and Norm Nixon was a good point guard. When Kareem was at the helm in '78 and '79 the very good team didn't play team ball on either one of those teams. I challenge anybody who saw Bball at that time to say any different. And ask anybody who remembers '78, it seemed like Kareem was going to retire in a couple of years. He was the embodiment of individual, boring, unenthusitiastic play that the league feared and wanted to get away from.

It was like Bird and Magic appeared on a spaceship.

[necya]

hurting by subjective thoughts.
he is the one who approaches the most of the perfection at center position.

[vert48]

Kareem's biggest fault is that he has never felt appreciated, and it shows in everything he has done on and off the court. He was much more interested in being an intellectual than a great basketball player, but no one else cared about that. I think he would have retired in the early 80's had his Bel Air mansion not burned down in 1983, taking with it all of his belongings.

[Owl]

Kareem, when he was rebounding above 14 per game was with little fault as as a player. Around '78 and '79 he began taking shortcuts and shows signs of disinterest. Unlike now, whereas most centers are pretty goofy, take shortcuts and have focus issues, back then it showed lack of upbringing to take for granted great talent and skill. Wilt, Russell, Unseld, Reed, Thurmond, Cowens give you the impression that you fight for everything every time. This lack of hustle and seemingly concern was frowned upon by fans and society in general. So Kareem had lost favor and actually had a counter affect on the league. Boxing and Football had overtaken basketball as the number two sport in popularity and had had charismatic personalities like Baseball, the #1 sport, had.

This is why I did that thread about Kareem not being a franchise player, primarily because the business in general suffered because he was so easily the best and didn't put forth a lot of effort. Had Kareem hustled, he might have been able to continue the business success for the league that Wilt left him, and Bird/Magic would later revive. For most people who experienced the coming of Magic and Bird it was a whole different world than the one before them. The whole league got a crazy shot in the arm. All of a sudden everybody had a passion for the game. It was like to compete now you had to have a passion element. Kareem was the mummy that Ali was talking about... But when Magic came, the horses charged and everything had movement, life and vivacity. The ball moved with gusto and spunk. The black and white TV now had color.

If Kareem was a blue collar worker he gets two more rings on his own account in the sorry 70's and he's #1 all time. On the same token, if Kareem doesn't play with a true leader and inspirational player he would have been the biggest disappointment ever as well. No offense to Kareem but when Magic came to the Lakers he brought several dimensions they didn't have before. The team had a cohesion unlike it ever had before, it had excitment, flow, movement and energy and Norm Nixon was a good point guard. When Kareem was at the helm in '78 and '79 the very good team didn't play team ball on either one of those teams. I challenge anybody who saw Bball at that time to say any different. And ask anybody who remembers '78, it seemed like Kareem was going to retire in a couple of years. He was the embodiment of individual, boring, unenthusitiastic play that the league feared and wanted to get away from.

It was like Bird and Magic appeared on a spaceship.
Kareem wasn't popular because he he was a black Muslim who associated with an Islamic sect whom Kareem supported financially, and whose leader Hamaas Abdul-Khaalis the leader of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1977_Hanafi_Siege . So was Kareem great box-office? No! Did he give good interviews? No, he was cold/hostile towards the press. Does that change how good he was as a player? No.

The league "Wilt left" wasn't a major commercial league that was constantly on TV. The reason the league wasn't a "business success" was a combination of huge wage inflation because of the ABA, a very black (both in terms of percentage of players, or of stars (in the late 70s Barry, Maravich, Cowens, and Havlicek getting are getting old injured or both, Collins and Walton constantly injured and Cunningham and West have already retired) or in terms of "militancy" or assertiveness with regard to race, plus drug problems. To expect one player to be responsible for the commercial success of a sport doesn't make sense.

Nobody gets titles "on their own".

Add an all time great and many peoples top pg of all time to a 47 win team (with an SRS that projects to a 49 win team) and they will suddenly become a contender, a 60 win team and because of that they will be happier.

[Owl]

1) In the right situation, I could Gilmore having a Nate Thurmond-esque impact on a team. That is, he could lead a contender if you gave him a premier perimeter player. Gilmore however, despite the stats, was a pretty limited offensive player who only took very easy shots and rarely created his own shot (except on an offensive rebound) Also he didn't have the mobility/athleticism to impact the volume of plays that guys like Russell, Hakeem and even Be Wallace did while anchoring their title teams defenses.

2) 1968 would still be Wilt, I don't think Daniels would be rated above fellow tough guys Willis Reed and Wes Unseld so no change in '69. 70-72 seem pretty clearly in favor of NBA centers. '73 is pretty interesting, I give Cowens a slight edge over Billy C. 1974-1976 are the most debatable. 1974 is Kareem's IMO. 59-wins for the Bucks and astounding numbers. As good as Doc was, I'll take the big man with all things equal. 1975 is McAdoo, McGinnis or Doc. If you take away what happened in the ABA playoffs than maybe Doc gets it, but overall what McAdoo did that year deserves recognition, he'd be my MVP. 1976 is the one I'd give to the ABA for sure. Doc was brilliant and Kareem, the NBA's best, missed the postseason.

3) I'd expect the NBA team to win every season but the '75 Colonels against the '75 Warriors would be pretty damn interesting. The Colonels were loaded. I think they only lost 2 games all ABA playoffs. That one would be the most interesting. I give the '74 Nets an outside shot at the Celtics, but I think the C's get it done.

As it pertains to perimeter players excelling in the ABA, the three-point line helped a lot to. It just opens the game up so much and creates greater natural spacing. The driving lanes get a lot bigger when the defense has to cover 25 feet away from the basket one pass away.
Limited is a relative term. Perhaps relative to other guys in the top 100 players of all time. But how many players average over 20ppg over their career through 35 or 36 (20.4ppg career through to 1985, 20.2ppg through '86). The pace of the era may inflate slightly as would playing in the ABA, but then playing with Gervin probably didn't help his scoring totals (4 time ppg leader, here are the guys who have come above Gervin's career usage and below his assist percentage for a single season http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/psl_finder.cgi?request=1&match=single&type=totals&per_minute_base=36&lg_id=NBA&is_playoffs=N&year_min=&year_max=&franch_id=&season_start=1&season_end=-1&age_min=0&age_max=99&height_min=0&height_max=99&birth_country_is=Y&birth_country=&is_active=&is_hof=&is_as=&as_comp=gt&as_val=0&pos_is_g=Y&pos_is_gf=Y&pos_is_f=Y&pos_is_fg=Y&pos_is_fc=Y&pos_is_c=Y&pos_is_cf=Y&qual=&c1stat=usg_pct&c1comp=gt&c1val=29.6&c2stat=ast_pct&c2comp=lt&c2val=12.2&c3stat=g&c3comp=gt&c3val=20&c4stat=mp&c4comp=gt&c4val=500&c5stat=&c5comp=gt&c6mult=1.0&c6stat=&order_by=ws ). Who was creating all his shots when he hit for 23ppg in the NBA? That notorious pass first pg Reggie Theus?

Not that Gilmore had a complex array of post moves, but Gilmore tends to suffer from the same problem as Wilt and Shaq in that because they weren't as skillful as smaller men their performances are dismissed, except Gilmore gets it worse because he was less dominant and his teams were worse, not that Gilmore is at those two's level. I might be going to far with this but my point is when you say offensively limited with percentages like Gilmore's you think Chandler or Mark West, not 20ppg guys.

[Pointguard]

Kareem wasn't popular because he he was a black Muslim who associated with an Islamic sect whom Kareem supported financially, and whose leader Hamaas Abdul-Khaalis the leader of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1977_Hanafi_Siege . So was Kareem great box-office? No! Did he give good interviews? No, he was cold/hostile towards the press. Does that change how good he was as a player? No.

You're joking right? Nobody who was educated entertained the thought of Hamaas's group. Kareem was for a minute with the Nation of Islam (less than a year) and then went orthodox Muslim (not black Muslim) and was Sunni since 1968. The most popular sports, or entertainment, figure in the World was Muhammad Ali. He was the richest as well. People thought of Kareem's group as being far less militant and more acceptable than Ali's group.

Now, deal directly with Kareem. You are trying to tell me he was hustling, a blue collar worker, was focused in 1978 and 1979? Just give me a yes or no. All of your sidebars aren't dealing with what I was saying and they aren't correct.


The league "Wilt left" wasn't a major commercial league that was constantly on TV. The reason the league wasn't a "business success" was a combination of huge wage inflation because of the ABA, a very black (both in terms of percentage of players, or of stars (in the late 70s Barry, Maravich, Cowens, and Havlicek getting are getting old injured or both, Collins and Walton constantly injured and Cunningham and West have already retired) or in terms of "militancy" or assertiveness with regard to race, plus drug problems. To expect one player to be responsible for the commercial success of a sport doesn't make sense.
Doctor J did his part...

The league was established and got traction enough to expand, get national attention and be only behind baseball when Wilt/Russell upped the game. Basketball wasn't getting front page coverage before Wilt. It was getting world wide attention. I didn't expect Kareem to hold the sport up - he simply didn't have the personality for that. But if he just plays hard, and demonstrates a work ethic, like all the other greats before him, and how people in general in sports were doing in Baseball, Football, and Hockey it does a lot in terms of people spending their hard work dollars to go to the game. You think a major network is going to go with the sport of slackers or the one that gut hard competitive. I spend about $500 on a basketball game date. I don't want to see super millionaires coasting.

Don't put that on drugs and militancy which was much bigger and widespread in Wilt's time ('67 - '73). The later 70's had a couple of players, that were caught up in that drug scenario but it wasn't why the league was failing. Its the best guys and at the top of the sport that carry it just like anything else that is successful.



Nobody gets titles "on their own".

In general I agree with that. But Rick Barry won with his best player being a rookie Jamal Wilkes. Two years later Jamal Wilkes is the like the 4th best player on Kareems team and they loose in the first round. There were no franchises at that time. It was the time to assert yourself. Rick Barry got a "title on his own."

[Owl]

You're joking right? Nobody who was educated entertained the thought of Hamaas's group. Kareem was for a minute with the Nation of Islam (less than a year) and then went orthodox Muslim (not black Muslim) and was Sunni since 1968. The most popular sports, or entertainment, figure in the World was Muhammad Ali. He was the richest as well. People thought of Kareem's group as being far less militant and more acceptable than Ali's group.
When? Ali wasn't always popular, he was polarising. People are sympathetic after the fact, but that doesn't mean Ali was universally loved.

I don't even know what the bolded means ("the thought"?). In any case the Hamaas sect evidently was militant, in a devastatingly literal sense. People can be radical whilst belonging (or claiming to belong) within any of a religions many branches.

Now, deal directly with Kareem. You are trying to tell me he was hustling, a blue collar worker, was focused in 1978 and 1979? Just give me a yes or no. All of your sidebars aren't dealing with what I was saying and they aren't correct.
You don't get to railroad debates. You can say that the points I touched on weren't central to your thesis. But you can't tell me the premises that you want me to argue for. Honestly I haven't seen enough games from that era to tell you how he played. By the numbers clearly his production fell off, I can't claim to know the causes (role, aging or apathy are typically candidates).


Doctor J did his part...

The league was established and got traction enough to expand, get national attention and be only behind baseball when Wilt/Russell upped the game. Basketball wasn't getting front page coverage before Wilt. It was getting world wide attention. I didn't expect Kareem to hold the sport up - he simply didn't have the personality for that. But if he just plays hard, and demonstrates a work ethic, like all the other greats before him, and how people in general in sports were doing in Baseball, Football, and Hockey it does a lot in terms of people spending their hard work dollars to go to the game. You think a major network is going to go with the sport of slackers or the one that gut hard competitive. I spend about $500 on a basketball game date. I don't want to see super millionaires coasting.

Don't put that on drugs and militancy which was much bigger and widespread in Wilt's time ('67 - '73). The later 70's had a couple of players, that were caught up in that drug scenario but it wasn't why the league was failing. Its the best guys and at the top of the sport that carry it just like anything else that is successful.
How did Dr J do his part? So comercially valuable that he was moved twice in the decade? Dr J was athletic and flashy and smooth, moderate, articulate promotable black athlete. He didn't stop the ABA going under though. That's the sort of argument you're employing here.

I don't know enough about the peaks and troughs of racial militancy. It may well have peaked in terms of the degree of anger in the 60's. But in a blacker league I suspect it was more constantly visible.

But on the drug use thing your stance isn't credible. I don't know about raw weights of drugs taken per player, but in terms of level of destructiveness, the late 70s/early 80s (and going on further through the 80s) freebasing "baseball" era was far more damaging. The likes of Phil Ford, David Thompson, Bernard King, Walter Davis entering the league at that time all did significant damage to their careers by taking drugs. I think there was more coverage of it too which didn't help. The 50's and to a lesser degree 60s were the booze and cigarettes era, dangerous narcotics damaged many more careers in the 70s.

The guy's at the top of the NBA would be the commissioner and league office. In any case I don't know why you're mixing basketball ability and commercial drawing power, but I wouldn't blame a single player for a lack of a teams sucess on court or a league's lack of commercial success. Speaking of which ...

In general I agree with that. But Rick Barry won with his best player being a rookie Jamal Wilkes. Two years later Jamal Wilkes is the like the 4th best player on Kareems team and they loose in the first round. There were no franchises at that time. It was the time to assert yourself. Rick Barry got a "title on his own."
In between times THE ABA entered the league. If you roughly 50% of the elite talent entering the pros between 1970 and 1975, to a league (Dr J, Moses, Gilmore, Lucas, Gervin, Issel, Thompson, Barnes and also McGinnis who arrived after the Warriors title), do you not think the team required to win a title will need to be better? Those Laker teams didn't have the level of ability to win and didn't have fit (complementary pieces) to win a title, other than by great luck (a la Barry's Warriors).

Phil Smith, Jamaal Wilkes, Clifford Ray, Jeff Mullins, Butch Beard, George Johnson and Charles Johnson will be dissapointed but I'm sure they now want to know where to send their rings as they, along with coach Al Attles, apparently had literally nothing to do with that title.

[Rubio2Gasol]

Everyday I struggle understand how Magic suddenly became a top 5 player in the history of this league.

[madmax17]

It's all Magic's fault. He took all the credit for the Lakers' success in the 80's even though Kareem was responsible for most of it.
You mean that finals game 6 against Philly in 1980 when Magic started at center replacing injured Jabbar and won the mvp?

[jlip]

Everyday I struggle understand how Magic suddenly became a top 5 player in the history of this league.

Suddenly? When did that happen?

[G.O.A.T]

Everyday I struggle understand how Magic suddenly became a top 5 player in the history of this league.

Nothing sudden about it. It happened when he was playing...

From 1989...


He is, arguably, the best player of all-time. Unquestionably, he is the most versatile. link (http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=h9whAAAAIBAJ&sjid=v2MEAAAAIBAJ&pg=5985,5152091&dq=magic+johnson+all-time+great&hl=en)


From 1988...


"You can't tell me that Magic Johnson isn't the best player in the world. ... "I think Earvin's the most valuable player of all-time"
link (http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=DM&p_theme=dm&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=0ED3CFF5ED75EE97&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM)

From the 1987 Finals...An article (http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=n0BPAAAAIBAJ&sjid=5gIEAAAAIBAJ&pg=3450,4292425&dq=greatest+basketball+player&hl=en) written from the perspective of two guys arguing at the bar rather Magic or Bird is the greatest ever.

From 1991...


Magic Johnson's career cannot be measured by mere statistics. Before his retirement he was one of the greatest basketball players of all time, not just because of what he did, but because of the tremendous impact he had on the game. link (http://www.nytimes.com/1991/11/08/sports/basketball-a-career-of-impact-a-player-with-heart.html)

From 1988...


Bird or Jordan? No, Earvin is the best link (http://news.google.com/newspapers?

id=pqdJAAAAIBAJ&sjid=HQ4NAAAAIBAJ&pg=1456,4506129&dq=greatest+basketball+player&hl=en)

Finally from 1991...


The greatest basketball player in the history of the game is playing in this NBA Championship. And it isn't Michael Jordan. Do you believe in Magic? link (http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=RAEyAAAAIBAJ&sjid=dBQEAAAAIBAJ&pg=4011,1767312&dq=greatest+basketball+player&hl=en)

[BlackVVaves]

Everyday I struggle understand how Magic suddenly became a top 5 player in the history of this league.

Dude, shut up for your one sake :facepalm

[SHAQisGOAT]

Yes it is. I have him like 1b on my all time list.

[Pointguard]

When? Ali wasn't always popular, he was polarising. People are sympathetic after the fact, but that doesn't mean Ali was universally loved.

I don't even know what the bolded means ("the thought"?). In any case the Hamaas sect evidently was militant, in a devastatingly literal sense. People can be radical whilst belonging (or claiming to belong) within any of a religions many branches.
After the Foreman fight, Ali was claimed by some national outfit, Time or Life magazine as the world's most famous man. And that's in 1974. "Entertain the thought" is an American term. ? . Hamaas sect was indeed militant, but he was accepted as a nut, only catching broken down radicals who had something against Elijah Muhammad. Kareem, was educated and was even following some Hindu guys before going Sunni Muslim (Kareem used his Eastern Yoga traditions to bring stretching to the NBA and the secret behind his longevity).


How did Dr J do his part? So comercially valuable that he was moved twice in the decade? Dr J was athletic and flashy and smooth, moderate, articulate promotable black athlete. He didn't stop the ABA going under though. That's the sort of argument you're employing here.
He was the excitment. He was the mouthpiece. He was everything that Kareem wasn't.


I don't know enough about the peaks and troughs of racial militancy. It may well have peaked in terms of the degree of anger in the 60's. But in a blacker league I suspect it was more constantly visible.

The militancy had died down hard around '75, its then when you don't hear it in the music anymore or borrowing atheletes for several much needed causes. Drugs, might have lingered in some cities.


But on the drug use thing your stance isn't credible. I don't know about raw weights of drugs taken per player, but in terms of level of destructiveness, the late 70s/early 80s (and going on further through the 80s) freebasing "baseball" era was far more damaging. The likes of Phil Ford, David Thompson, Bernard King, Walter Davis entering the league at that time all did significant damage to their careers by taking drugs. I think there was more coverage of it too which didn't help. The 50's and to a lesser degree 60s were the booze and cigarettes era, dangerous narcotics damaged many more careers in the 70s.

When you said 70's I was thinking Heroine but freebasing was around in the late 70's and early 80's. I do recall, three of the players named having problems with drugs but all of them in the 80's and not the 70's. Phil Ford, Walter Davis and David Thompson were playing their best ball in '78 and '79 the period we're talking about.

[TheBigVeto]

Everyday I struggle understand how Magic suddenly became a top 5 player in the history of this league.

You are not the only one. Dude is massively overrated - probably second most overrated after Kobe.

[TheBigVeto]

You mean that finals game 6 against Philly in 1980 when Magic started at center replacing injured Jabbar and won the mvp?

That is just the tip of the iceberg.

[magictricked]

Everyday I struggle understand how Magic suddenly became a top 5 player in the history of this league.
Because you didn't see him play. If you had you wouldn't be asking this.

Electric is the best word to describe Magic. Nobody else except maybe Jordan had the ability to take over a game like Magic did. If you look at the box scores you won't get it, you had to see it for yourself.