Why is KAJ blamed for his teams' performance in the 70's? [Archive] - Message Board Basketball Forum

Roundball_Rock

06-23-2014, 05:01 PM

The only "argument" you ever hear about KAJ is that he won "only" 1 ring in the 70's. This is what usually is cited by those who argue KAJ is not the GOAT. Is this a sensible argument, though? For one, it ignores the 80's and conveniently brushes aside 1980, his final prime year when he was MVP. KAJ remained a MVP caliber player through 1986.

It is interesting to see KAJ losing as an argument for him not being the GOAT. That is quite odd because it places a unique burden on KAJ: that he be able to win by himself, and manage to keep his teammates healthy. Why is that unique burden placed on KAJ, especially if he is not your GOAT? People like MJ were routinely losing in the first round when he lacked the team around him. Moreover, to hold his team's performance/health against him one has to assume that others would outproduce what KAJ did and magically "will" his teammates to be healthy.

KAJ's playoff numbers in the 1970's

1970: 35/17/4 57% (lost in the ECF with an expansion team that won 29 games the previous year). KAJ averaged 34 ppg in the ECF.

1971: 27/17/3 52% (won the championship). 27/19/3 on 61% in the Finals.

1972: 29/18/5 44%(lost in the WCF to the 69 win Wilt/West Lakers). KAJ averaged 34 ppg in the WCF. Oscar Robertson and Lucius Allen were playing hurt in the series.

1973: 23/16/3 on 43% (lost in the WCSF).

1974: 32/16/5/2/1 on 56% (lost in 7 games in the Finals). KAJ averaged 33/12/5/2/1 on 52% and had the game winner in Game 6. KAJ had 26/13 on 48% in the game. Oscar Robertson had 6/3 on 15% in Game 7 and 12/3/8 on 43% in the series. The Bucks reached the Finals despite Lucius Allen getting hurt at the end of the season--and taking his 18 ppg with him. Imagine the Bulls with Pippen going down at the end of the season or the early 2000's Lakers without Kobe or the Heat of recent years without Wade. This is KAJ's fault?

In 1975 the Bucks missed the playoffs as they went 3-14 (a 14 win pace) without KAJ, although they had a winning record with him. Somehow this is used against KAJ by his detractors!

In 1976 the Lakers missed the playoffs under different rules where the top teams from each division would make it, not the top teams from the conference as a whole. Under modern playoff rules, the Lakers would have made it. Moreover, this was a Lakers team that did add KAJ but had to give up an all-star, a 16/11 center and the #2 pick and another top 10 pick in that year's draft to get him. In other words, the team was gutted. Imagine, say, MJ being traded to the Bulls with Pippen, Grant leaving Chicago in that trade. How far would that team go?

In 1977 KAJ had arguably the GOAT playoff run. 35/18/4/4/2 on 61%. The team lost in the WCF, though. KAJ averaged 30 ppg in the series. Once again Lucius Allen went down. Portland had a chance to be a dynasty if it were not for Walton's injury next season. They started the following year something like 50-5 before Walton got hurt. So once again KAJ's team lost, but did so to an all-time great team.

1978: 27/14/4/4/1 on 52%. The Lakers lost 2-1 in the first round to the eventual Western champion (Seattle), who would lose in 7 games in the NBA Finals and win the title the following year. The 1978 Lakers were 8-13 without Kareem, a 31 win pace.

1979: 29/13/5/4/1 on 58%. The Lakers lost to the Sonics again, this time in the WCSF. KAJ averaged 29 ppg against them.

In 1980, of course, KAJ again had a playoff run for the ages but because Magic was a 18/7/7 player in 1980 that does not count.

For detail on each of these runs see http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=340692 .

Other than 1972 and 1973, where he could have shot better, how is KAJ to be blamed for this teams losses? He consistently increased his scoring and rebounding in the playoffs, dominated but had bad luck in terms of injuries and his uncompetitive teams did not fare well without him (3-14, 8-13). It isn't as if his teams were capable of battling all year for the #1 seed without him and KAJ was not lifting them up.

There is too much emphasis placed on team success by basketball fans. There are a variety of factors that go into whether a team wins a championship--and one player can only contribute so much. To hold Kareem liable for his teams losing in the 70's judges him be an unfair standard that is not applied to any other player. Jordan was losing in the first round perennially and not even getting past 0.500 when his teams were poor and had 5 losing seasons (KAJ never had a losing season in 20 years--his 1975 and 1978 teams were 35-30 and 37-24 when he played). Wilt routinely put up big numbers and lost. Shaq was swept perennially in the 90's. Hakeem lost in the first round 9 times. Peak Kobe was losing in the first round. The list goes on and on. Winning should be a factor but even then should be invoked when one player had a much higher degree of winning, i.e. comparing Wilt to Russell. KAJ is the greatest winner in basketball history after Russell. 6 NBA rings, 3 NCAA titles in 3 years (KAJ was so dominant the NCAA had to ban dunking to attempt to limit him. KAJ as a freshmen led the freshman squad to victory over the #1 team in the country. Can you name any other player in history who could have done that?), 3 titles in high school. Given his record, it is extremely ironic that "lack of winning" is basically the only argument used against him.

What players would have fared better than KAJ with his 70's teams? It can only be held against him if you believe there are some who would have performed even better than KAJ did and managed to lift their teams to more success. Who are these players and what in their actual record suggests they could do that?

KAJ may not be the GOAT, but to discredit him based on team factors in the 70's is unfair and often agenda-driven because outside of that there is really nothing to use against KAJ in his 20 year record. He arguably was the most dominant player ever at his peak, he had a 11 year prime (who else had such a run at that kind of performance level?), he has the clear GOAT longevity, he had team success and he was a clutch player who was even at the end of his career his team's choice in clutch situations.

navy

06-23-2014, 05:23 PM

There is too much emphasis placed on team success by basketball fans. There are a variety of factors that go into whether a team wins a championship--and one player can only contribute so much.
Seeing as you answered your own question and very few people here are qualified to discuss the 70s.....

Mission Accomplished.

livinglegend

06-23-2014, 05:29 PM

Members on this forum dont know anything about the 70s.

TheReal Kendall

06-23-2014, 05:31 PM

I was born in 85 bro. I'll check the youtube highlights and get back to you.

Ne 1

06-23-2014, 05:53 PM

ArbitraryWater

06-23-2014, 06:10 PM

:applause:

Jordan/Kareem/LeBron = 3 GOAT's :bowdown:

ArbitraryWater

06-23-2014, 06:11 PM

As correction: Hakeem lost in the 1st 8 times... lets not go too far here :lol

BTW, you have Kareem as GOAT right? MJ 3rd behind Russell if i remember correctly?

Hey Yo

06-23-2014, 09:04 PM

:applause:

Jordan/Kareem/LeBron = 3 GOAT's :bowdown:
this

Asukal

06-23-2014, 09:06 PM

lol these bran stans. :facepalm

2/5 is not goat material. :oldlol: :lol :roll:

Roundball_Rock

06-24-2014, 10:19 AM

Great post. It's incredible, the Bucks went from 26 wins to 56 wins when Kareem was added (BTW, Oscar wasn't even added yet!). Milwaukee made no other significant additions and in fact lost their 3rd leading scorer.

Milwaukee was on pace for 15-20 wins when Kareem broke his hand, and then when he came back they won at a pace of 55 wins. Lakers, when he broke his hand for a second time in '78, also were a lottery bound team without him.

His value to teams he led in his prime is just absolutely remarkable. Anyone else embody the title of MVP more than him?

:applause:

It is both amusing and odd how him dragging weak teams to respectability is used against him. KAJ played for 20 years and had a winning season every year. In fact, KAJ never had a losing season in the pros, college or high school. Yet he "did not win enough"? :roll:

Thanks for the correction. Hakeem lost in the first round 8 times and also missed the playoffs once.

Yes, I have KAJ 1st, Russell 2nd, MJ 3rd, Wilt 4th and Shaq 5th.

ArbitraryWater

06-24-2014, 11:10 AM

Inbf G.O.A.T

stanlove1111

06-24-2014, 11:18 AM

Members on this forum dont know anything about the 70s.

Replace the 70s with basketball and you have it right..

The ignorance around here is amazing..

G.O.A.T

06-24-2014, 11:21 AM

I don't think he gets blamed, (not by people who are not pushing an agenda anyway) as much as he (or rather his results) is/are questioned.

He was clearly the best player of the 1970's, in fact probably more clearly the best player of that decade than anyone else is in any decade. Additionally the competition level was the lowest it's ever been (arguably, but I feel pretty strong) with some of the weakest Championship teams ever emerging as a result of expansion and the ABA competing for talent. Aside from Jabbar, the next best players of the 1970's were Rick Barry, Artis Gilmore, Julius Erving, guys who spent half the decade in the ABA. The best NBA players of the early half were on the tail end of their careers, guys like Wilt, Thurmond, Reed, West and Oscar Robertson. All of this, you would think would lead to several or at least multiple titles for Jabbar and the Bucks than Lakers. Even you must admit, while not blaming Kareem surely, that you at least find it surprising he won just once.

The year he did win, they beat the Lakers when West was hurt and the Bullets when Gus Johnson was hurt. I still think they could have and probably would have won those series, but it is worth noting.

They should have won in 1974, but Dave Cowens played a sensational game seven and even typically brilliant Kareem was not enough. The Milwaukee years in total were a slight disappointment, with sufficient explanation, like Oscar's injuries in '72 and '73, but In '70 and '75 without Oscar, the Bucks were average to borderline contenders. The Lakers acquired Kareem for roughly 50 cents on the dollar, got better, but not great. They missed the playoffs in '76 (40-42 with Kareem healthy) had the best record but were derailed by injuries and swept out by the Blazers in '77 and were boomed by the Sonics in '78 and '79 while Kareem was playing the best ball of his career.

Were the Sonics better than the Lakers?

Probably, but not by much. Baby Dennis Johnson, Gus Williams, John Johnson an aging Paul Silas and a young Jack Sikma (first two years) is this the team that derails the Greatest Player of All-time in his prime when he has guys like Norm Nixon, Jamaal Wilkes and Adrian Dantley on his team?

Dantley and Wilkes were both second fiddle for contenders during their careers, Nixon an all-star.

Again this is not to say that this should be counted against FLA/KAJ but it's a fair question to raise.

Are the supporting cast of Rick Barry's 1975 Warriors better than what Kareem played with?
How about the 1976 Celtics or Suns rosters?

The Bullets made four trips to the finals in the decade led by Wes Unseld, a center nine inches shorter than Kareem whose high-scoring sidekick was a world famous malcontent for three of the four trips.

What made the Blazers so much better than the Lakers when Walton was healthy?

Why was Wilt able to get as many rings in his twilight as Kareem got in his prime?

How come Frazier and Reed won more rings than Kareem and Oscar?

You can give me good answers for all of those and I will continue to emphasize that using these facts to discredit Kareem as an all-time great is unfair. However I don't have the same questions about guys like Russell, Jordan, Magic and Duncan. Even Bird and Shaq and Kobe, who I do not consider to be as great in an all-time context as Jabbar did a better job of winning when the chances were there.

It's not a far to cry to imagine a healthy West giving LA the edge over Milwaukee in 1971 nor would anyone have been stunned in Jabbar walked away in 1986 like he for most of that season thought he would.

Had those things happened, you're looking at a guy with three rings instead of six and I don't think he enters the conversation for greatest ever anymore than someone like Shaq, Wilt or Larry Bird.

stanlove1111

06-24-2014, 11:22 AM

Great post. It's incredible, the Bucks went from 26 wins to 56 wins when Kareem was added (BTW, Oscar wasn't even added yet!). Milwaukee made no other significant additions and in fact lost their 3rd leading scorer.

Milwaukee was on pace for 15-20 wins when Kareem broke his hand, and then when he came back they won at a pace of 55 wins. Lakers, when he broke his hand for a second time in '78, also were a lottery bound team without him.

His value to teams he led in his prime is just absolutely remarkable. Anyone else embody the title of MVP more than him?

Clowns on this site who only count titles as proof of greatness would never be wise enough to understand that what Jabbar did as a rookie was much more impressive then what some others had accomplished by winning titles in different situations..

GimmeThat

06-24-2014, 11:29 AM

no one gave Michael any rings without Pippen.

didn't watch him play either.

Ne 1

06-24-2014, 11:58 AM

People also don't know Kareem was out for two extended periods during his prime and his teams were the worst in the league without him (and on pace for around 50 wins with him). People can keep getting at him for not winning more in the mid to late 70s, but there comes a point where you have to realize your team just sucks and you can't win even if you play like a God, like Kareem did. Kareem could have won in '74, Milwaukee made the Finals, and he had one of the most amazing Finals performances ever (33/12/5/4), which included sinking a game winner in a double overtime to keep his team alive, and abusing the entire Celtics front line. But what else can he do in a game 7, when his second best player (aging Oscar) shoots just 2-13? Even Jordan, who many people regard as the "clear GOAT" couldn't win game 7s when his team disappeared (Pistons in 1990 for example, something Jordan fans love to use too).

Kareem put up 35/18/4/5 in the playoffs one time but I guess he "choked" because he was swept by Walton's team. Dropped a near 40/20 on Walton in one game for example (I've seen footage of this), got his teammates involved (who would literally shoot air balls), but when he went to the bench, I remember a comical sequence of them turning over the ball 3-4 times in 10 seconds (you must see it to believe it).

Kids will probably log on to their little basketballreference.com site, see that Kareem lost in first round to the Sonics and think "choke!!"...but what you don't know is Kareem had 5 blocks in the 4th quarter to save his team from getting eliminated.

Ne 1

06-24-2014, 12:07 PM

Here's another post on Kareem "only" winning 1 ring in the 70s: The 1970s was an era in which you had 8 different champions in 10 years! The competition and parity was insane. A team that had a shot at winning it all, could easily lose in the first round. The journey to the championship was just much harder, especially with the casts that Kareem had for the latter half of the 70s.

Why Kareem only managed to win 1 title in that era?:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kareem was stuck on mediocre teams for a lot of the decade, and some seasons when he wasn't, like in 1974, a key player missed the entire playoffs and in Game 7 of the Finals Oscar had an absolutely dreadful game. I don't look down on him because this was his last NBA game ever but he was awful. Couldn't make a shot to save his life (he shot 2/13) and was having problems taking care of the ball.

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

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

dankok8

06-24-2014, 03:53 PM

G.O.A.T

06-24-2014, 04:28 PM

The only year in the 70's that you can really rip Kareem for his playoff performance is 1973. Yes the Warriors were talented and Dandridge was injured but it's no excuse. Kareem was terrible including from the free throw line. He should have played better as simple as that.

Someone mentioned the Sonics as a team Kareem should have beat... NO WAY. Offensively the Lakers were just as talented but how about rebounding? Defense? Lakers had no one outside of Kareem who did those things. DJ, Gus, and Fred Brown obliterated the Lakers guards because they couldn't defend. And their forwards killed LA on the glass. Kareem was leading in rebounds and blocking shots left and right but he can't defend and box out the whole opposing team. Adrian Dantley "the cancer" never gave a shit about anything other than scoring. And poor Jamaal Wilkes was forced to play PF out of position.

I think you're referencing my post in regards to the Sonics. It's not that I think the Lakers were clearly better or should have won, certainly not that I'm blaming kareem. I'm just saying that they are among the most pedestrian championship teams and that man for man their roster was nothing more marginally better than The Lakers.

As to Wilkes and Dantley, Jamaal, then Keith was miscast at the 4 for 1975 World Champion Warriors as well and Rick Barry and Am Attles made it work.

As to Dantley, I am not fond his game and I agree he cares more about AD than We. However, as pistons will tell you, he brings h him professionalism, work ethic, and efficiency unrivaled. Detroit deserved to win the 1988 Finals with Dantley as second in command.

Point is those guys could help you win a title in the roles played for the Lakers but it didn't come together with Kareem for whatever reason.

Finally consider this, name as many support or role players as you can that thrived with Kareem as the team's alpha prior to Magic

Then consider the ones who thrived once Magic was on board. Guys like Scott, AC Green, Rambis, Cooper, Thompson, Kupchak etc.

My problem with Kareem is that he never made others better. He made other people's job easier by being so damn good individually, but he never changed his attitude, game or approach to fit teammates and a result he was very hard to build a winner around without an elite star alongside him.

Just an opinion.

G.O.A.T

06-25-2014, 10:49 AM

Clowns on this site who only count titles as proof of greatness would never be wise enough to understand that what Jabbar did as a rookie was much more impressive then what some others had accomplished by winning titles in different situations..

Very much disagree. A lot more players can turn a team around and take them from bad to good. That step from good to great is the hardest one to take.

What Kareem did was very impressive, but we've seen Duncan, Bird, Unseld, Steve Nash, Chambers and KJ, David Robinson, Carmelo, KG and Allen and Jason Kidd all do that. A lot more too I'm sure, those are just the ones commonly discussed.

Pointguard

06-25-2014, 01:02 PM

Everybody gets called out for not winning more, except Russell. Why would Kareem be held to a different standard? Players themselves will tell you they only want the opportunity. Rick Barry wins the chip with a pretty bad team. Its fair to ask that of Kareem.

Roundball_Rock

06-25-2014, 02:25 PM

Everybody gets called out for not winning more, except Russell.

Jordan, Bird, Magic, Shaq, Hakeem, Duncan do not--and other than MJ all of these players have less rings than KAJ. KAJ has 6 NBA titles, 3 NCAA titles in 3 years (88-2 record) and 3 high school titles and is arguably the GOAT at each level yet he "did not win enough"? :wtf:

My problem with Kareem is that he never made others better. He made other people's job easier by being so damn good individually, but he never changed his attitude, game or approach to fit teammates and a result he was very hard to build a winner around without an elite star alongside him.

That is a fair point but couldn't the same be said about other legends? Did MJ, Shaq, Hakeem, and Kobe really improve their teammates?

You also have to look at the injuries his teams suffered. KAJ cannot be blamed for that. Had his teams been healthy, he almost certainly would have won championships in 1974 and 1977 at least. That would give him 3 rings in the 70's along with 5 in the 80's. He did not have the same luck with injuries that other legends had.

Rick Barry wins the chip with a pretty bad team. Its fair to ask that of Kareem.

So did Duncan in 03'--but MJ and Kobe were losing in the first round with similar teams. That is not held against them.

KAJ played 20 seasons and posted a winning record in every one. He had a winning record every year of his life, at every level. Yet he is not a winner?

Great points, Ne_1 and dank. :applause:

JellyBean

06-25-2014, 02:29 PM

He was the face of the team. Of course he is going to get the blame. He was LeBron back in the 70s.

Jailblazers7

06-25-2014, 02:30 PM

dankok8

06-25-2014, 04:13 PM

I think you're referencing my post in regards to the Sonics. It's not that I think the Lakers were clearly better or should have won, certainly not that I'm blaming kareem. I'm just saying that they are among the most pedestrian championship teams and that man for man their roster was nothing more marginally better than The Lakers.

As to Wilkes and Dantley, Jamaal, then Keith was miscast at the 4 for 1975 World Champion Warriors as well and Rick Barry and Am Attles made it work.

As to Dantley, I am not fond his game and I agree he cares more about AD than We. However, as pistons will tell you, he brings h him professionalism, work ethic, and efficiency unrivaled. Detroit deserved to win the 1988 Finals with Dantley as second in command.

Point is those guys could help you win a title in the roles played for the Lakers but it didn't come together with Kareem for whatever reason.

Finally consider this, name as many support or role players as you can that thrived with Kareem as the team's alpha prior to Magic

Then consider the ones who thrived once Magic was on board. Guys like Scott, AC Green, Rambis, Cooper, Thompson, Kupchak etc.

My problem with Kareem is that he never made others better. He made other people's job easier by being so damn good individually, but he never changed his attitude, game or approach to fit teammates and a result he was very hard to build a winner around without an elite star alongside him.

Just an opinion.

The disparity in back-court talent was pretty pronounced. Lakers had Nixon and two relative scrubs in Don Ford and Ron Boone. Seattle had Gus Williams (who averaged 31 ppg in '79 against LA and 29 ppg in the finals), Dennis Johnson (who won Finals MVP), and downtown Freddie Brown to back them up.

Undersized Wilkes at PF and Dantley couldn't (or wouldn't...) keep up on the boards with Lonnie Shelton and Paul Silas who were tough and rugged.

Offensively LA could hold their own but perimeter defense and rebounding were a clear edge to Seattle. ENORMOUS edge if you ask me.

The one area where the Lakers improved enormously in 79-80 compared to the two previous years is not scoring or even playmaking. It's rebounding! And to a lesser extent, giving a developing Michael Cooper more minutes helped defend the Sonic explosive trio at guard.

Kareem had just about identical impact as the year before but the Lakers killed the Sonics in 1980.

78-79 Lakers

Regular Season

-3.27 rebounds per game (21st of 22)
ORB% of 27.6% (22nd of 22)
DRB% of 66.5% (14th of 22)

Kareem averaged 12.8 rebounds per game (T-2nd) and 17.6 TRB% (11th) in the league.

Playoffs

Overall

ORB% of 21.4% (12th of 12 and by far the worst in the league)
DRB% of 62.9% (8th of 12)

vs. Nuggets

-7.33 rebounds per game

vs. Sonics

-13.2 rebounds per game

Kareem averaged 12.6 rebounds per game (4th) and 15.5 TRB% (top 15) in the league.
Against the Sonics Kareem averaged 12.2 rebounds per game.

79-80 Lakers

Regular Season

+2.24 rebounds per game (5th of 22)
ORB% of 23.6% (14th out of 22)
DRB% of 66.9% (10th of 22)

Kareem averaged 10.8 rebounds per game (8th) and 15.4 TRB% (T-20th) in the league.

Playoffs

Overall

ORB% of 38.2% (1st of 12)
DRB% of 72.1% (1st of 12)

vs. Suns

+10.4 rebounds per game

vs. Sonics

+3.8 rebounds per game

vs. Sixers

+14.2 rebounds per game

Kareem averaged 12.1 rebounds per game (2nd) and 15.7 TRB% (8th) in the league.
Against the Sonics Kareem averaged 11.6 rebounds per game.

Pointguard

06-25-2014, 04:30 PM

Jordan, Bird, Magic, Shaq, Hakeem, Duncan do not--and other than MJ all of these players have less rings than KAJ. KAJ has 6 NBA titles, 3 NCAA titles in 3 years (88-2 record) and 3 high school titles and is arguably the GOAT at each level yet he "did not win enough"? :wtf:

I do not know where you've been. Do you read these boards? If Lebron wins in 2011 and last year he's top three. He doesn't he's questionably top 10.

Hakeem gets it the worse. Magic rarely didn't make it to the finals but gets it for the three years he didn't - and these arguments are going on right now as we speak. Obviously Bird gets it if Magic gets it. I have been on these boards forever saying that Magic, Russell, Jordan and Duncan have a special relationship with winning. Duncan perhaps won more than he should have so he shouldn't get it. If Wilt won just two more times he's the GOAT. If Oscar win two more times he gets bumped up maybe six places on the all time list. West, with two more rings possibly 7 or 8 place higher. This is very considerable. And if they did it in the 70's as opposed to the 60's it wouldn't have the same luster.

In the 1970's it perhaps the best decade to win titles in as Kareem had the biggest separation in talent that a player ever had in this league since the 50's. It was wide open. Do you have a decade that you think was easier than the 70's to win a title in a diluted league?

Why do you think Russell is number one on people's list? Winning is a big factor for a lot of people.

So did Duncan in 03'--but MJ and Kobe were losing in the first round with similar teams. That is not held against them.

That argument is on these boards. Plus losing to prime Magic/Bird and Duncan is way different than losing to Gus Williams and Rick Barry.

KAJ played 20 seasons and posted a winning record in every one. He had a winning record every year of his life, at every level. Yet he is not a winner?

Great points, Ne_1 and dank. :applause:
Do you really think he's a winner like Magic, Duncan, Russell and Jordan?

Roundball_Rock

06-25-2014, 04:39 PM

Do you have a decade that you think was easier than the 70's to win a title in a diluted league?

The 70's were the most competitive decade, seeing parity similar to the NFL over the past decade in terms of champions. There were 8 champions in 10 years; no team was a dynasty and teams that rose to a dominant level lacked staying power.

Do you really think he's a winner like Magic, Duncan, Russell and Jordan?

No. He is a bigger winner than all of them except Russell. 20 seasons, 20 winning records. 6 NBA titles. 3 NCAA titles in 3 years and an 88-2 record. 3 high school championships and something like 2-3 losses during those three years. He won with freshmen as a freshman against the #1 team in the country. Can you envision any of those other players doing that?

Do you read these boards? If Lebron wins in 2011 and last year he's top three. He doesn't he's questionably top 10.

Which is evidence of overreaction--selective overreaction.

Hakeem gets it the worse.

Hakeem has 2 rings and basically, outside of those two years and 86' and 97' did nothing in terms of title contention. He lost in the first round or missed the playoffs 9 times in 18 seasons. KAJ was in the Finals 10 times and the conference finals 14 times.

Magic and Bird had consistently strong teams but ultimately they achieved less in terms of winning than KAJ and are not criticized for not winning enough.

Jordan had 5 losing seasons and was swept in the first round twice. When he had lousy teams, he could not even make them respectable like KAJ did with 14 win-type teams. Yet MJ gets a pass and KAJ is attacked? Both joined similar teams: KAJ a 29 win team and MJ a 27 win team. KAJ took the Bucks to the conference finals and 56 wins out the gate; MJ the Bulls to 38 wins and a first round loss.

Why do you think Russell is number one on people's list? Winning is a big factor for a lot of people.

Winning, longevity, peak play, individual dominance usually are the criteria for judging players. By those metrics KAJ should be the consensus GOAT--but he isn't because of this bizarre standard regarding the 70's.

Pointguard

06-25-2014, 05:35 PM

The 70's were the most competitive decade, seeing parity similar to the NFL over the past decade in terms of champions. There were 8 champions in 10 years; no team was a dynasty and teams that rose to a dominant level lacked staying power.

Basketball is a dynastic sport. Winning the chip gives a team great experience and know how to win it again. No team in the 70's had any great continuity or player's in their prime beasting together. All of the greats were off their prime. The players in their prime were not great. The competition wasn't great, it was more like equally mediocre.

No. He is a bigger winner than all of them except Russell. 20 seasons, 20 winning records. 6 NBA titles. 3 NCAA titles in 3 years and an 88-2 record. 3 high school championships and something like 2-3 losses during those three years. He won with freshmen as a freshman against the #1 team in the country. Can you envision any of those other players doing that?

To be honest, the harder question for me is thinking of who on my TOP 10 GOAT list could only manage one ring in the 70's and only two finals appearances. Frazier and Cowen's did better than that. And what Rick Barry and Gus Williams did was just as impressive. But I do have Kareem higher than most on my GOAT list. When Kareem played a lesser role and when he wasn't on the team Magic's winning percentage increased quite a bit. And he still was making it to the finals - if we go the injury route he probably wins two without Kareem. The only time the Lakers two peated was when Kareem took a lesser role.

Magic and Bird had consistently strong teams but ultimately they achieved less in terms of winning than KAJ and are not criticized for not winning enough.
In the same way the 70's were weak with star players in their prime, the 80's were the tough.

Jordan had 5 losing seasons and was swept in the first round twice. When he had lousy teams, he could not even make them respectable like KAJ did with 14 win-type teams. Yet MJ gets a pass and KAJ is attacked? Both joined similar teams: KAJ a 29 win team and MJ a 27 win team. KAJ took the Bucks to the conference finals and 56 wins out the gate; MJ the Bulls to 38 wins and a first round loss.

Winning, longevity, peak play, individual dominance usually are the criteria for judging players. By those metrics KAJ should be the consensus GOAT--but he isn't because of this bizarre standard regarding the 70's.
It was the opportune time to win. If there were a lot of great players in their prime then it would be different. But the talent pool was lacking, the league was diluted, dynasties non-existent. Gus Williams and Rick Barry seized the opportunity.

If Jordan played in the 70's, there is no way he doesn't get more accolades. Jordan was shutting out prime Shaq, K, Malone, Barkley, Robinson, Ewing and Hakeem, and I'm talking about FMVP's as well. There was not one player in the 70's I would put on their level in Kareem's time minus a very aged Wilt, and the best players weren't in their prime either except McAdoo who did have three stellar years. Jordan could have gotten every accolade in his time and the 70's would have been a bit easier.

Marchesk

06-25-2014, 05:40 PM

Roundball_Rock

06-25-2014, 05:49 PM

There was not one player in the 70's I would put on their level in Kareem's time minus a very aged Wilt, and the best players weren't in their prime either except McAdoo who did have three stellar years.

Cowens? Hondo? Moses? Dr. J? Walton, whose team beat KAJ's best 70's Lakers team, was on a top 10 all-time trajectory before injuries took their toll.

Ewing, Hakeem, young Shaq, Malone, Robinson are not vastly superior to that list. Moreover, MJ did that with a team that without him was comparable or better than the teams those other guys had. They won 55 games (with a D-Leaguer replacing MJ and with injuries to Pippen and Grant for parts of the season. When both Pip and Grant played the team was on a 63 win pace), the Knicks 57, Rockets 58, Magic 50, Jazz 53, Spurs 55, Suns 56 that same year. KAJ did not have that luxury. His teams were 14 win and 31 win type teams without him.

If Jordan played in the 70's, there is no way he doesn't get more accolades.

Jordan did play on lousy teams. Here is what happened: nothing. There is nothing in MJ's actual record to suggest he could do anything with a team that was 3-14 or 8-13 without him. When he had such teams, the results were marginal improvements (a 27 win team to 38 wins or a 27 win pace to a 41 win pace).

It was the opportune time to win. If there were a lot of great players in their prime then it would be different. But the talent pool was lacking, the league was diluted, dynasties non-existent. Gus Williams and Rick Barry seized the opportunity.

I see the argument but it is a team game. Prime Kareem was a 30/16/5/4 player. What more could he have done? Would the other players you mentioned fared better?

Injuries can't be discounted. KAJ can't be faulted for his teams losing when a major factor, especially in 1974 and 1977 were injuries. If MJ lost Pippen or even Rodman or Grant for an entire playoffs his teams would have lost too. The same applies to other legends and their teams.

When Kareem played a lesser role and when he wasn't on the team Magic's winning percentage increased quite a bit.

KAJ still averaged 22 ppg in the Finals and 19 ppg in the 87' playoffs so he wasn't exactly a role player. Even in 88' he averaged Chris Bosh in 2012 and 2013 numbers in the playoffs. He was still being called upon in clutch situations in those years. The year after he retired the Lakers lost in the WCSF despite having the league's best record. Magic without Kareem: WCSF, backdoor sweep in the Finals and a first round loss. Yet, amusingly Magic is not diminished for not winning without KAJ while KAJ is penalized for winning with Magic, even though he won without Magic and took a team without its second option to Game 7 in the NBA Finals.

the 80's were the tough.

Perhaps. Or the 80's were a decade where the talent funneled itself to a handful of teams: LAL, PHI, BOS, DET. It makes it easier to win when you are one of the 3-4 legitimate title contenders every year.

Like I said, I see the argument but I disagree with the reasoning and don't see MJ, Shaq, Kobe, Magic, Wilt et al. doing better than KAJ in the same scenario. Of course, all this is hypothetical so there is no way to confirm for sure. That is why records without a player are helpful...it provides some real world data. What we saw is KAJ's losing teams were trash without him.

G.O.A.T

06-25-2014, 06:45 PM

That is a fair point but couldn't the same be said about other legends? Did MJ, Shaq, Hakeem, and Kobe really improve their teammates?

You also have to look at the injuries his teams suffered. KAJ cannot be blamed for that. Had his teams been healthy, he almost certainly would have won championships in 1974 and 1977 at least. That would give him 3 rings in the 70's along with 5 in the 80's. He did not have the same luck with injuries that other legends had.

You certainly can't say it about MJ. There was a clear change in the way he played the game from 1989-90 on that made Grant and Pippen stars and saw more consistent production from the PG and C spot throughout the remainder of his career. I also think that the teams Hakeem won with demonstrate that he was able to elevate others, especially the 1994 roster. Shaq and Kobe I do put in the same class as Kareem, incomplete players in that their individual greatness was always present, but they never seemed to fully understand what it too to win. They needed to be coached or lead by someone else into doing the right thing for the team, their instincts were more self serving, which is common when you're the best in the world at something.

I don't blame Kareem for the injuries of course, but I don't hand him titles either. I don't believe they would have won in '77. The Blazers were a much better team and were peaking come playoff time. Even healthy that series goes 5 or 6 at most. As for '74 the chance was right there. If he limits Cowens in game seven or has a special game where he is the best guy on the floor they win. But a las these are just my opinions versus yours.

The problem with "ifs" and "buts" is they work both ways equally ineffectively. If the Lakers are healthy in 1971 I think they win the title, same for the Celtics in 1987. If the refs don't blow a call in the last second of game six in 1988, the Pistons win that title.

I don't think the High School or College stuff matters that much for this conversation. He played at Elite programs in both instances as well and I don't think anyone is gonna call Kareem a loser, if they do I think the are worth ignoring.

Also the 20 winning seasons thing is wrong. Barely, but wrong. 40-42 in 1976. He played all 82 games. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I do not see a case for Kareem as the best player of all-time based on what I value, which first and foremost is winning. If you could control players like chess pieces then I think Kareem would be the obvious first choice I think, but since the pieces have a mind of their own, I have to consider how they handle setback, pressure, personalities, adjustments etc.

Kareem is clearly a better player than Bill Russell in terms of measurable skill, but I know I'd rather have Russell because there was only one situation in his whole career he couldn't overcome and that was the one guy in the league bigger stronger and faster modeling his game after Bill Russell. That guy could only do it for about 18 months. Kareem never showed he could or felt he needed to. Once Jordan figured it out, he lost just twice, once because of the infamous Pippen Migraine game in '90 and once when he was out of shape in '95. He avenged both of those losses the next season with sweeps. Russell figured it out at a younger age and by the time he hit the NBA he was rolling. the two times someone or something stopped him, in '58 and '67, he too avenged both of those losses in short order.

Not trying to change your mind here, just sharing a different perspective.

G.O.A.T

06-25-2014, 06:48 PM

Realistically, he should probably be considered GOAT. Greatest career ever with amazing longevity. The only thing is that Jordan easily wins the narrative contest.

2 3-peats, global marketing icon, charming public persona, the rise of ESPN, etc. Greatness has a lot to do with perception.

I never understand this opinion. It presumes that only the people who share it are smart enough to see the truth.

I've never considered anything but what happened on the court (or things that lead to what happened on the court like getting coaches fired, players traded etc.) when I evaluate players.

Jordan won six titles as his teams best player and leader, Kareem won 2-4 depending on how generous you are. That alone allows for a pro-Jordan argument.

Pointguard

06-25-2014, 06:50 PM

Moses and Julius?
Moses hits his stride in '80. While he was very good in '79 he was more a bundle of energy and I'm not taking him above the guys I mentioned even in '79. Julius is close but look at his stats, it took three years, when his ppg jumps up 3 points per game which was 1980 before he adapts to the NBA. They hit their stride in the 80's.

Pointguard

06-25-2014, 07:12 PM

Cowens? Hondo? Moses? Dr. J? Walton, whose team beat KAJ's best 70's Lakers team, was on a top 10 all-time trajectory before injuries took their toll.

Ewing, Hakeem, young Shaq, Malone, Robinson are not vastly superior to that list. Moreover, MJ did that with a team that without him was comparable or better than the teams those other guys had. They won 55 games (with a D-Leaguer replacing MJ and with injuries to Pippen and Grant for parts of the season. When both Pip and Grant played the team was on a 63 win pace), the Knicks 57, Rockets 58, Magic 50, Jazz 53, Spurs 55, Suns 56 that same year. KAJ did not have that luxury. His teams were 14 win and 31 win type teams without him.

If you think Cowens, Hondo, young Moses, Off peak Dr J, hobbled Walton is equal to Shaq, Malone, Robinson, Ewing, Barkley then the conversation doesn't really need to continue.

Jordan did play on lousy teams. Here is what happened: nothing. There is nothing in MJ's actual record to suggest he could do anything with a team that was 3-14 or 8-13 without him. When he had such teams, the results were marginal improvements (a 27 win team to 38 wins or a 27 win pace to a 41 win pace).

That's the Magic, Bird, Detroit era. Those were great teams.

I see the argument but it is a team game. Prime Kareem was a 30/16/5/4 player. What more could he have done? Would the other players you mentioned fared better?

Injuries can't be discounted. KAJ can't be faulted for his teams losing when a major factor, especially in 1974 and 1977 were injuries. If MJ lost Pippen or even Rodman or Grant for an entire playoffs his teams would have lost too. The same applies to other legends and their teams.

Kareem was great and would have been in any era. Just like Shaq. But without great teammates I question their ability to make a great team atmosphere where their team feels like they can beat everybody.

KAJ still averaged 22 ppg in the Finals and 19 ppg in the 87' playoffs so he wasn't exactly a role player. Even in 88' he averaged Chris Bosh in 2012 and 2013 numbers in the playoffs. He was still being called upon in clutch situations in those years. The year after he retired the Lakers lost in the WCSF despite having the league's best record. Magic without Kareem: WCSF, backdoor sweep in the Finals and a first round loss. Yet, amusingly Magic is not diminished for not winning without KAJ while KAJ is penalized for winning with Magic, even though he won without Magic and took a team without its second option to Game 7 in the NBA Finals.

Magic wins it in '89 if it weren't for injuries. His second and third best players were injured in 91 as well. Magic still gets to the finals in a very competitive era.

Perhaps. Or the 80's were a decade where the talent funneled itself to a handful of teams: LAL, PHI, BOS, DET. It makes it easier to win when you are one of the 3-4 legitimate title contenders every year.
But if you are beating great teams its very different than losing to non great teams. Your chances are better in one of those scenario's.

Like I said, I see the argument but I disagree with the reasoning and don't see MJ, Shaq, Kobe, Magic, Wilt et al. doing better than KAJ in the same scenario. Of course, all this is hypothetical so there is no way to confirm for sure. That is why records without a player are helpful...it provides some real world data. What we saw is KAJ's losing teams were trash without him.
He was a great player. I just don't think he's the type of guy that can carry a team year in and year out. People here dog Allen Iverson all the time, yet he did carry a team to the finals one year.

Pointguard

06-25-2014, 07:16 PM

I do not see a case for Kareem as the best player of all-time based on what I value, which first and foremost is winning. If you could control players like chess pieces then I think Kareem would be the obvious first choice I think, but since the pieces have a mind of their own, I have to consider how they handle setback, pressure, personalities, adjustments etc.

Kareem is clearly a better player than Bill Russell in terms of measurable skill, but I know I'd rather have Russell because there was only one situation in his whole career he couldn't overcome and that was the one guy in the league bigger stronger and faster modeling his game after Bill Russell. That guy could only do it for about 18 months. Kareem never showed he could or felt he needed to. Once Jordan figured it out, he lost just twice, once because of the infamous Pippen Migraine game in '90 and once when he was out of shape in '95. He avenged both of those losses the next season with sweeps. Russell figured it out at a younger age and by the time he hit the NBA he was rolling. the two times someone or something stopped him, in '58 and '67, he too avenged both of those losses in short order.

Not trying to change your mind here, just sharing a different perspective.

Well said!

G.O.A.T

06-25-2014, 07:30 PM

Another thing to consider Roundball when you mention Kareem's teams records without him. The '75 Bucks that started 1-13 were awful sure, but the reason they were so bad had more to do with what they replaced Kareem with. Nothing. They had no other center and in fact had only one player above 6'7" in their rotation and he was a journeyman who could be likened to a poor mans Reggie Evans.

Give them even an average center and that's a much better, or at least competitive team.

The Bucks were built around Kareem, so losing him for an extended period of time would be a predictable death note.

Good discussion in this thread overall.

Asukal

06-25-2014, 07:51 PM

Roundball_Rock

06-25-2014, 08:06 PM

You certainly can't say it about MJ. There was a clear change in the way he played the game from 1989-90 on that made Grant and Pippen stars and saw more consistent production from the PG and C spot throughout the remainder of his career.

They also had to change the offense and shift primary ball-handling duties to another player to finally win.

I also think that the teams Hakeem won with demonstrate that he was able to elevate others, especially the 1994 roster.

True but what people forget is Hakeem's team was similar to most other top teams that year: one superstar, another all-star caliber player, and a few other solid role players. New York, Chicago, Seattle, San Antonio all fit that mold. Phoenix had a superstar in Barkley and a borderline superstar type in KJ and Utah had Stockton and Malone. Indiana actually had no superstar and the same could be said about Atlanta. So other than Phoenix and Utah no other top team had that much more talent than Houston. Hakeem did elevate that team, but it was in a context of a season where there was parity among the top teams and where most of his competition had similar rosters. Ewing did for New York what Hakeem did for Houston and was one three pointer away from winning the championship. The following year Houston needed to trade for Drexler, a borderline superstar at that point, two win again.

1994 and 1995 also were outliers for Hakeem. If he had that ability to elevate his teams that much, it just never happened outside of those two years (I'll stop in 97', his last elite year):

48 wins, first round
51 wins, Finals
42 wins, WCSF
46 wins, first round
45 wins, first round
41 wins, first round
52 wins, first round
42 wins, missed playoffs
55 wins, WCSF
58 wins, champions
47 wins, champions
48 wins, WCSF
57 wins, WCF.

They were defeated in the first round both of the following next seasons as well, although Hakeem was past his prime by then. I do wonder, though, why Hakeem gets a pass for having the worst team performance, by far, of any top 10 all-time player. They caught lightening in a bottle for two years, taking advantage of an opening caused by MJ retiring in 94'. Had MJ not retired and Grant stayed in 95', Houston would have never won. This would be, although not a perfect analogy since KAJ=MJ in their respective eras, if Bill Walton decided to retire two days before training camp in 77' and KAJ won the title that year. Keep in mind it was not just MJ retiring but that he did it so late that the defending champs could not find a legitimate replacement for him.

Shaq and Kobe I do put in the same class as Kareem, incomplete players in that their individual greatness was always present, but they never seemed to fully understand what it too to win. They needed to be coached or lead by someone else into doing the right thing for the team, their instincts were more self serving, which is common when you're the best in the world at something.

Fair analysis.

I don't blame Kareem for the injuries of course, but I don't hand him titles either. I don't believe they would have won in '77. The Blazers were a much better team and were peaking come playoff time. Even healthy that series goes 5 or 6 at most. As for '74 the chance was right there. If he limits Cowens in game seven or has a special game where he is the best guy on the floor they win. But a las these are just my opinions versus yours.

The problem with "ifs" and "buts" is they work both ways equally ineffectively. If the Lakers are healthy in 1971 I think they win the title, same for the Celtics in 1987. If the refs don't blow a call in the last second of game six in 1988, the Pistons win that title.

All fair points. That I suppose is the fun with hypotheticals: they are never ending and there is no clear answer.

He played at Elite programs in both instances as well and I don't think anyone is gonna call Kareem a loser, if they do I think the are worth ignoring.

True, but KAJ did manage to beat the #1 ranked UCLA team with a team of freshman. It was one game but can you envision any other player doing that?

I do not see a case for Kareem as the best player of all-time based on what I value, which first and foremost is winning. If you could control players like chess pieces then I think Kareem would be the obvious first choice I think, but since the pieces have a mind of their own, I have to consider how they handle setback, pressure, personalities, adjustments etc.

I understand your argument. The second part of this quote is why I don't have MJ as GOAT. I think he needed a bit more around him to win, which is why he is the only GOAT caliber player to struggle so much when he had a poor team.

Once Jordan figured it out, he lost just twice, once because of the infamous Pippen Migraine game in '90 and once when he was out of shape in '95.

This is partly what led to my original post. Jordan's losses are excused. His 90' ECF loss is placed entirely on another player. That ignores Pippen's role in there even being a Game 7, but also is a luxury that is not afforded KAJ. There is no substantive difference in Pippen's Game 7 ECF performance and Oscar Robertson's in Game 7 of the NBA Finals (7 points versus 6 if my memory is correct). MJ also gets a pass for his role in bullying Pippen, who had blurred vision, into playing. That was not exactly wise leadership. With MJ the story usually goes like this: MJ won, the team lost. With KAJ it is KAJ lost. In 95' MJ choked. Yeah, he was not in ideal shape and rusty but he is the one who quit on the team at the last minute the previous year and then waited until March to return. KAJ played 20 consecutive seasons, basically only got hurt twice for 15-20 games, and played at an elite level for 17 of those seasons. KAJ showed a unique dedication, staying power. MJ needed breaks twice in his career.

If you think Cowens, Hondo, young Moses, Off peak Dr J, hobbled Walton is equal to Shaq, Malone, Robinson, Ewing, Barkley then the conversation doesn't really need to continue.

:oldlol: typical overrating of the 90's. Off peak Dr. J? He was all-NBA first team and/or top 5 in MVP voting every year from 1977-1983. It is a similar thing with Moses, he was MVP in 1979.

Ewing was never higher than 4th in MVP voting. Malone and Robinson were perennial playoff underperformers. Barkley lacked sufficient dedication to winning, as evidenced by him being out of shape.

That's the Magic, Bird, Detroit era. Those were great teams.

What does that have to do with being a below average team? No one is saying he should have won titles, although that standard is applied to KAJ but curiously not to the "clear GOAT." The argument against him is those teams were not even close to being competitive.

But without great teammates I question their ability to make a great team atmosphere where their team feels like they can beat everybody.

Fair enough--but I ask the same question about MJ, Kobe, and some others.

Magic wins it in '89 if it weren't for injuries.

Probably--but KAJ gets no breaks for injuries so "the record" should show Magic never won without KAJ.

People here dog Allen Iverson all the time, yet he did carry a team to the finals one year.

KAJ actually won a title in the 70's and made another Finals and two other conference finals. AI made it past the second round only once.

Correct GOAT. The Lakers did go 40-42 with KAJ playing all 82 games. Still, 19 winning seasons and one 40-42 season is on par with any great. MJ and Oscar had numerous losing seasons.

And of course he ignores the fact that MJ faced great teams in the first round.

Yeah, that is what happens when you are the #8 or #7 seed...MJ is the only GOAT caliber player who entered the league and spent several years as first round fodder. He is not the only one to join bad teams. Most of them did. That is how the draft works: the worst teams get the highest picks. Shaq took a 21 win team to 41 wins as a rookie, KAJ a 29 win team to 56 wins and the ECF, Russell a 39-33 team to the title, Bird a 27 win team to 56 wins and the ECF, Wilt a 32-40 team to the ECF, even Lebron out of high school improved a 17 win team to 35 wins. Then you have MJ: 27 wins to 38 wins...and stuck there for several years before the team started to improve. If MJ is the clear GOAT, and easy to build around, why did it take Chicago a years long project to build a champion around him? It took them 7 years to even reach the Finals. No other GOAT candidate needed more than 3.

So I am with you GOAT. I just apply your reasoning to MJ based on a different interpretation of MJ's record. I just can't see KAJ losing in the first round three consecutive seasons or having five losing seasons.

The bulls in 89 was the only team to give the pistons their only 2 losses in the playoffs

They also were a 47 win team that needed a last game, end of game shot to even get out the first round.

Asukal

06-25-2014, 08:11 PM

So I am with you GOAT. I just apply your reasoning to MJ based on a different interpretation of MJ's record. I just can't see KAJ losing in the first round three consecutive seasons or having five losing seasons.

How can you lose in the first round playing in a weak era? You get to the finals in that era and you still face a <50 win team. :oldlol:

And how can you not win 5 championships playing with another GOAT candidate? :rolleyes:

How can the GOAT be outplayed by his team mate 4/6 times in his championship runs? :lol

Artillery

06-25-2014, 08:13 PM

G.O.A.T

06-25-2014, 08:16 PM

Jordan had 5 losing seasons and was swept in the first round twice. When he had lousy teams, he could not even make them respectable like KAJ did with 14 win-type teams. Yet MJ gets a pass and KAJ is attacked? Both joined similar teams: KAJ a 29 win team and MJ a 27 win team. KAJ took the Bucks to the conference finals and 56 wins out the gate; MJ the Bulls to 38 wins and a first round loss.

You are excluding some major facts here.

1) Jordan had 2 losing actual seasons not five. He was injured for his second year and no one is counting the Wizards years unless they are trying to discredit him.

2) Kareem came to a league where 5 of the 14 teams were expansion teams plus the Celtics had just lost the core of their roster and were essentially an expansion team. The Bucks went 24-2 against Seattle, Phoenix, San Diego and Boston and 32-24 against the rest of the league.

3) In the playoffs the Bucks beat a 42 win Sixers team and got man handled by the Knicks. Yes they made the conference finals but for Jordan to do the same as a rookie he'd of needed to beat the 58-win Bucks then the 59-win Sixers.

4) No one does anything but praise Kareem for turning the Bucks around.

5) The Bucks also drafted another top-100 all-time player that year, Bob Dandridge.

Winning, longevity, peak play, individual dominance usually are the criteria for judging players. By those metrics KAJ should be the consensus GOAT--but he isn't because of this bizarre standard regarding the 70's.

He isn't the GOAT because based on those criteria he's just one of 8-10 guys you could make an argument for.

MiseryCityTexas

06-25-2014, 08:16 PM

It's all Adrian Dantley and Lucious Allen's fault.

mehyaM24

06-25-2014, 08:18 PM

Jordan, Bird, Hakeem, Duncan, and Shaq never played with another top ten all-time teammate. Kareem had Magic. Not to mention those guys never played in the weakest era in NBA history like Kareem did(70s).

shaq did. bird made up for not playing with a top 10 all-time teammate by playing with 2 top 10 bigs (at that time). duncan played with 2 of the greatest internatonal superstars ever alongside the GOAT coach. jordan played with the GOAT wing defender, GOAT rebounder, and arguably the GOAT coach.

KAJ > duncan btw

Roundball_Rock

06-25-2014, 08:39 PM

1) Jordan had 2 losing actual seasons not five. He was injured for his second year and no one is counting the Wizards years unless they are trying to discredit him.

He had four and one 9-9 season. The Wizards years do count, at least vis-a-vis KAJ. Longevity is a metric to measure player greatness. KAJ at 38 was still an all-NBA first team player and top 5 in MVP voting. That was in his 17th season. MJ did not play more than 15 years, and he played 18 and 17 games in two of them. So he had fresher legs than KAJ at 38. KAJ should get credit for his GOAT longevity; MJ, like every other player in NBA history, could not match it. You are more well-versed in NBA history than I am. Is there any player who at 38 was first team all-NBA (over Hakeem, Ewing...) and top 5 in MVP voting? I am not aware of any such player.

3) In the playoffs the Bucks beat a 42 win Sixers team and got man handled by the Knicks. Yes they made the conference finals but for Jordan to do the same as a rookie he'd of needed to beat the 58-win Bucks then the 59-win Sixers.

If that team won 42 games it would have been the #5 seed; with 46 it could have been the #4 seed. KAJ, presumably, would have had his teams at least at that level and avoided the 58 win Bucks in the first round. That is what MJ fans always ignore: the Bulls had low seeds and that is why they faced elite competition in the first round. MJ, though, is literally the only GOAT candidate with this on his resume.

5) The Bucks also drafted another top-100 all-time player that year, Bob Dandridge.

True, but he put up 13/8/4, so his impact does not>Pippen and Grant joining at the same time--yet MJ fans never mention their arrival in the Bulls finally getting out the first round. They were rookies and not what they would later become but you can't ignore 2 of your 5 players who averaged more than 29 mpg in the playoffs. Yeah, MJ was the main reason that team did what it did--as he was every year--but the big change from 1988 to 1987 was their arrival. Pippen had 24 points in Game 5 of the first round (the first round was 5 games back then). Absent that, the Bulls would have lost in the first round for the fourth consecutive year.

In the MJ narrative the Bulls steadily progressed through MJ's will until 1991 when Pippen and Grant finally get some credit.

He isn't the GOAT because based on those criteria he's just one of 8-10 guys you could make an argument for.

He is tops in longevity hands down. In peak play/individual dominance he is anywhere from #1 to #3-4. In winning he is anywhere from #2-#4 (you could conceivably put MJ and Magic above him in addition to Russell). I could see someone not having him as GOAT and having him in the middle of the top pack, though, based on different assessments.

Jordan, Bird, Hakeem, Duncan, and Shaq never played with another top ten all-time teammate. Kareem had Magic.

The 80's Celtics had 4-5 HOF'ers and several more all-stars. Jordan, in practically every ECF or Finals he was in, had the advantage in HOF'ers because he usually only faced 1. Shaq played with Kobe.

The Magic argument also assumes Magic was at a top 10 all-time level from day one. He put up 18/7/7 as a rookie--numbers Lebron is ridiculed for in the 11' Finals.

It is true, though, that KAJ had a teammate superior to any other GOAT candidate. What is conveniently ignored is this: KAJ was 32 when Magic arrived. He had only one prime year with Magic. Those other players had their "running mate" in their primes. The 80's Lakers were no more stacked than the 80's Celtics or the early 80's Sixers or the late 80's Pistons. The 90's Bulls had no team on their level. Neither did the 60's Celtics, for that matter. So yeah, KAJ had Magic but basketball is a team game with 7-9 rotation players on any given team. Did the Lakers stand head and shoulders above the competition like, say, MJ and Russell's teams did? I don't think so.

shaq did. bird made up for not playing with a top 10 all-time teammate by playing with 2 top 10 bigs (at that time). duncan played with 2 of the greatest internatonal superstars ever alongside the GOAT coach. jordan played with the GOAT wing defender, GOAT rebounder, and GOAT coach.

Yeah, those guys had their own advantages in their own eras.

Asukal

06-25-2014, 08:45 PM

It is true, though, that KAJ had a teammate superior to any other GOAT candidate. What is conveniently ignored is this: KAJ was 32 when Magic arrived. He had only one prime year with Magic. Those other players had their "running mate" in their primes. The 80's Lakers were no more stacked than the 80's Celtics or the early 80's Sixers or the late 80's Pistons. The 90's Bulls had no team on their level. Neither did the 60's Celtics, for that matter. So yeah, KAJ had Magic but basketball is a team game with 7-9 rotation players on any given team. Did the Lakers stand head and shoulders above the competition like, say, MJ and Russell's teams did? I don't think so.

Now we are going to act like MJ's Bulls were the clear cut favorite every year? :rolleyes:

KAJ should be thankful Magic came along or he wouldn't even be in the GOAT conversation. :oldlol:

Artillery

06-25-2014, 09:14 PM

shaq did.

I don't consider Kobe a top-ten all-time player. I have Bryant in the 12-15 range. Shaq basically carried the Lakers in 2000 as the best offensive and defensive player on the team. Kareem has never been that dominant.

bird made up for not playing with a top 10 all-time teammate by playing with 2 top 10 bigs (at that time).

Kareem had Magic and Worthy. Much more significant than having two really good bigs. Not to mention the 80s Lakers played in the weakest conference in NBA history. Basically, a free trip to the Finals every year.

duncan played with 2 of the greatest internatonal superstars ever

Parker's one of the worst playoff performers of his generation. Ginobili's legit but he's never been able to play superstar minutes due to his stamina/durability issues.

alongside the GOAT coach.

Phil has 11 rings. He's the GOAT.

jordan played with the GOAT wing defender, GOAT rebounder, and arguably the GOAT coach.

Jordan was the best player on every one of his championship teams. 6 for 6. Kareem is 2 for 6 in comparison. He won most of his titles as a sidekick. Kareem only started winning titles on a consistent basis when he had another top-ten player to latch onto

jKAJ > duncan btw

Offensively, yes. But KAJ's rebounding/defense is incredibly overrated.

G.O.A.T

06-25-2014, 09:35 PM

He had four and one 9-9 season. The Wizards years do count, at least vis-a-vis KAJ. Longevity is a metric to measure player greatness.

The Wizards thing happened three years after he retired the second time. He was not the same player, his goal was not to win Championships, it's like counting Magic's return or Cousy's time as a player coach, or Mikan in his short lived 1956 return.

The numbers only hurt MJ and I think that's the only reason someone would focus on them. Kareem surely gets the longevity nod.

KAJ at 38 was still an all-NBA first team player and top 5 in MVP voting. That was in his 17th season. MJ did not play more than 15 years, and he played 18 and 17 games in two of them. So he had fresher legs than KAJ at 38.

That seems like a pretty big assumption. Jordan used a lot more energy with his style of play than Kareem did. Plus his game, because of his size, is more dependent on athleticism with fades with age for everyone unavoidably. Kareem was not what I would call lazy by any means, but by the time he made it to the Lakers he had developed a reputation for not always getting down the court in transition.

The point is this: Kareem was methodical. He intended to play for a long time and his style of play was conducive to that end. For Kareem, it was a marathon not a sprint, he always saw the bigger picture. He was not as physical as Russell or Wilt or Shaq or Moses or Mikan, or even Duncan, Hakeem and Robinson. He was a finesse and fundamental player. The parts of his game that required athleticism and physicality like rebounding, shot blocking and defense showed great regression in the last third of his career, as to be expected of a player in his mid-late thirties.

Conversely Jordan was Explosive. He was a player who either out ran you out jumped you or outworked you and was equipped with the physical skill set to achieve this goal more often than anyone else ever could. Every moment was personal, every battle essential to win. His game took a lot out of him mentally and physically, similar to what Russell went through. I expected him to burn out quickly.

Remember even though Kareem's longevity, 20 years, 18 at an all-star level at least, is unique and essentially unrivaled, Jordan did leave the game as the best player in the league. That's a different type of longevity.

KAJ should get credit for his GOAT longevity; MJ, like every other player in NBA history, could not match it. You are more well-versed in NBA history than I am. Is there any player who at 38 was first team all-NBA (over Hakeem, Ewing...) and top 5 in MVP voting? I am not aware of any such player.

I never hear anyone argue another player's longevity over Kareem. The guy was absurdly consistent on the offensive end and even though his defense and his rebounding eventually feel off, he outlasts most other centers (aside from Wilt/Duncan) in terms of effectiveness on that end.

If that team won 42 games it would have been the #5 seed; with 46 it could have been the #4 seed. KAJ, presumably, would have had his teams at least at that level and avoided the 58 win Bucks in the first round.

Let's say Jordan and the Bulls won 46 games and got the 4 seed and won in the first round, the World Champions were waiting in the conference semis. It was a different league than the one Kareem was in and more importantly, nobody ranks Jordan above Kareem because of what he did in 1985 and Kareem isn't ranked below Jordan because of what he didn't do in 1974 Finals or anything. They are judged more on what they did do than what they failed to do.

That is what MJ fans always ignore: the Bulls had low seeds and that is why they faced elite competition in the first round. MJ, though, is literally the only GOAT candidate with this on his resume.

True, but he put up 13/8/4, so his impact does not>Pippen and Grant joining at the same time--yet MJ fans never mention their arrival in the Bulls finally getting out the first round.

Not sure what you mean, I was only talking about Jordan's rookie season.

They were rookies and not what they would later become but you can't ignore 2 of your 5 players who averaged more than 29 mpg in the playoffs. Yeah, MJ was the main reason that team did what it did--as he was every year--but the big change from 1988 to 1987 was their arrival. Pippen had 24 points in Game 5 of the first round (the first round was 5 games back then). Absent that, the Bulls would have lost in the first round for the fourth consecutive year. In the MJ narrative the Bulls steadily progressed through MJ's will until 1991 when Pippen and Grant finally get some credit.

Their impact as rookies was small in the short term, but big in the long term. Both Grant and Pippen came along nicely during the '88 season, I liken them to a pair of Piston rookies from '87, Rodman and Salley. Just as the Spider and the Worm helped the pistons take the next step, Grant and Pippen paved the way for a makeover that would eventually lead the Bulls to three straight titles. Because of their emergence and evident potential the Bulls traded Charles Oakley to the Knicks for Bill Cartwright, giving the Knicks a true power forward and the Bulls a true center while opening up more minutes for Grant and Pippen.

The think about the narrative you speak of is what I'll address next. To me it comes down to Pippen and Grant getting seasoned. In '88 they got a taste, in '89 their were expectations and both players played below their typical level of play. In 1990 they seemed ready. Jordan has often said he was sure the Bulls were going to win the title that season. Pippen played amazing in the first round, very good in the second round and better than ever before against Detroit for six games. Then the migraine game, game seven of the ECF. Pippen goes 1 for 10. 2 points 2 rebounds 2 assists (or something close) Grant is unable to pick up the slack and goes like 2 for 15 and even though Jordan gets his 30-35 the Bulls get smashed by 20 points and the Pistons go on to a second title. The next season Pippen plays great in the first round and never drops off, the Bulls role to the title losing just once in the finals and conference finals and the Bulls win the title.

So the narrative, while oversimplifying things quite a bit, is accurate. Once Jordan's supporting players had the experience necessary to maintain a high level of play under pressure Chicago was unstoppaBULL. sorry.

G.O.A.T

06-25-2014, 09:49 PM

I don't consider Kobe a top-ten all-time player. I have Bryant in the 12-15 range. Shaq basically carried the Lakers in 2000 as the best offensive and defensive player on the team. Kareem has never been that dominant.

He was in 1971 and 1980 winning titles and carrying his team on both ends of the court I'd say. I do consider Shaq's 2000 campaign among the most dominant ever, but Kareem's best work is not far behind.

Parker's one of the worst playoff performers of his generation. Ginobili's legit but he's never been able to play superstar minutes due to his stamina/durability issues.

Parker? Why? He basically puts up the same numbers he puts up all year and his teams win 3/4 of their series.

Jordan was the best player on every one of his championship teams. 6 for 6. Kareem is 2 for 6 in comparison. He won most of his titles as a sidekick. Kareem only started winning titles on a consistent basis when he had another top-ten player to latch onto

I think you have to give Kareem 3. He's got a case in both '82 and '85. He and Magic were usually right next to each other in MVP voting from '82 to '86 and both Kareem's scoring and professionalism and Magic's play-making and leadership were essential to Showtimes success.

It wasn't until 86-87 when Riley made the shift (with Kareem's blessing) to Magic as the primary offensive option.

Duncan21formvp

06-25-2014, 10:23 PM

Kareem missed the playoffs twice in the 70's in his absolute peak. A Duncan led team that would have never happened. Not to mention his teammate has more finals mvp's than he does.

Artillery

06-25-2014, 11:33 PM

Parker? Why? He basically puts up the same numbers he puts

Compare his regular season(RS) and post-season(PS) stats. His numbers fall across the board.

PER RS: 19.1
PER PS: 17.4

WS/48 RS: .151
WS/48 PS: .091

TS% RS: .551
TS% PS: .516

ORtg RS: 109
ORtg PS: 103

DRtg RS: 104
DRtg PS: 107

I attribute most of the Spurs success from 1999 to 2007 to Duncan and Manu. As soon as Parker became the first option, they stopped winning titles(2008-2013). They won this year because they played team basketball. Even then, TP was probably only the 4th most important on the team after Duncan/Manu/Kawhi.

G.O.A.T

06-26-2014, 12:30 AM

Compare his regular season(RS) and post-season(PS) stats. His numbers fall across the board.

PER RS: 19.1
PER PS: 17.4

WS/48 RS: .151
WS/48 PS: .091

TS% RS: .551
TS% PS: .516

ORtg RS: 109
ORtg PS: 103

DRtg RS: 104
DRtg PS: 107

I attribute most of the Spurs success from 1999 to 2007 to Duncan and Manu. As soon as Parker became the first option, they stopped winning titles(2008-2013). They won this year because they played team basketball. Even then, TP was probably only the 4th most important on the team after Duncan/Manu/Kawhi.

I'm not seeing slight changes in advanced metrics that I find a bit flawed anyway to mean much. Also the Spurs have played team ball forever, not just this year. Parker didn't take any more or less shots this playoffs than he has before.

To explain the slight decrease in stats it seems most likely because for the last five years Duncan and Manu play a lot less in the regular season than in the playoffs leaving more of a load on Parker during the regular season. To me Parker is the #2 piece behind Duncan for the Spurs decade plus reign. As far as shooting, shots get tougher in playoffs for obvious reasons, almost everyone's fg% goes down.

Pointguard

06-28-2014, 02:13 AM

:oldlol: typical overrating of the 90's. Off peak Dr. J? He was all-NBA first team and/or top 5 in MVP voting every year from 1977-1983. It is a similar thing with Moses, he was MVP in 1979.

Dr. J made first team in 1977 21.6 and 8.5 rebounds
Made first team in 1978 20.6 and 6.5 rebounds
Made first team in 1979 23.7 and 7.2 rebounds shot 491% 1.7 steals 1.3 blocks

In 1980 he's 26.9 and 7.4 shot 519% 2.2 steals and 1.8 blocks
You can't tell that this is a significant difference? His '70's numbers would have never made 3rd team all NBA in Jordan's era. Not one year. That's how bad the 70's were.

Malone did rebound like crazy in '79 but his scoring average went up by 6 ppg in the 80's. And he was just a better player overall after '79.

Ewing was never higher than 4th in MVP voting. Malone and Robinson were perennial playoff underperformers. Barkley lacked sufficient dedication to winning, as evidenced by him being out of shape.
So in your mind young Moses is equal to Shaq, Off peak Dr J. equal to Hakeem, 2 years of Walton equal to 12 years of Malone , Hondo equal to Robinson, Frazier equal to Barkley and Ewing.

In the 90's finishing above Jordan and Shaq in MVP races was incredibly hard. Hakeem and Barkley were also dropping crazy numbers. And David Robinson was going crazy.

Probably--but KAJ gets no breaks for injuries so "the record" should show Magic never won without KAJ.
You made an excuse for an entire decade for Kareem and when Magic gets to the finals twice after Kareem and experiences real injuries it doesn't count.

Let the record show:

Note that once Kareem stepped down it was the only time they two-peated.

And the five years after Kareem stepped down and away from the game, the team had a much better record than with Kareem the previous five years.

And Kareem without Magic 2 trips to the finals and one chip in 10 years in a very weak era.
Kareem with Magic 8 of 10 years he makes it to the finals and wins 5 chips in a great era.

Yeah, that is what happens when you are the #8 or #7 seed...MJ is the only GOAT caliber player who entered the league and spent several years as first round fodder. He is not the only one to join bad teams. Most of them did. That is how the draft works: the worst teams get the highest picks. Shaq took a 21 win team to 41 wins as a rookie, KAJ a 29 win team to 56 wins and the ECF, Russell a 39-33 team to the title, Bird a 27 win team to 56 wins and the ECF, Wilt a 32-40 team to the ECF, even Lebron out of high school improved a 17 win team to 35 wins. Then you have MJ: 27 wins to 38 wins...and stuck there for several years before the team started to improve. If MJ is the clear GOAT, and easy to build around, why did it take Chicago a years long project to build a champion around him? It took them 7 years to even reach the Finals. No other GOAT candidate needed more than 3.
Wait so Kareem wins in his second year and doesn't have to be worried about for the next 8 years is somehow better than Jordan waiting 5 years to dominate the next six titles when he's in shape?

Nowitness

06-28-2014, 02:35 AM

Cause he slowly began to look like an alien?

houston

06-28-2014, 03:46 AM

great thread

LAZERUSS

06-28-2014, 10:49 AM

No one in their right mind would take Kareem, in his last ten seasons, over a Kareem in his first ten seasons. And yet, a prime Kareem, only won one ring, and only went to two Finals (and missed two playoffs.)

That is not a knock on Kareem, per se, but it clearly demonstrates that the game of basketball is a TEAM game. The better (or perhaps healthier) teams almost always win.

Jordan didn't sniff a title until he had the best supporting casts in the league in the decade of the 90's. In fact, as great as his '91-93 rosters were, his '96 to '98 rosters were probably superior.

Russell never played a season without the most talented rosters in the league. Hell, his '66-67 Celtic team was perhaps the deepest team in NBA history (only rivaled by his '62-63 roster), and despite going 60-21, they were blown out by an equally talented Sixer (albeit, not as deep) team in the EDF's.

And the critics almost always fail to mention the competition in these discussions, either. The stacked Celtics of the 80's, loaded with HOFers the entire decade, "only" won three titles. Why? Because of the Sixers of the first half of the decade; the Pistons in the last half of the decade; and the Lakers of the entire decade.

Dr.J4ever

06-28-2014, 10:57 AM

G.O.A.T

06-28-2014, 11:13 AM

Jordan didn't sniff a title until he had the best supporting casts in the league in the decade of the 90's. In fact, as great as his '91-93 rosters were, his '96 to '98 rosters were probably superior.

I don't think this is true. I think the Blazers, Suns, Knicks and Cavs all had better rosters than the Bulls if you take the top player of each. Remember that Grant and Pippen were young role players during the Bulls '89 and '90 playoff runs and Pippen was a borderline all-star during the 1991 season in most eyes. I feel comfortable saying that the Bulls never had the best roster in the league during their six titles.

Russell never played a season without the most talented rosters in the league. Hell, his '66-67 Celtic team was perhaps the deepest team in NBA history (only rivaled by his '62-63 roster), and despite going 60-21, they were blown out by an equally talented Sixer (albeit, not as deep) team in the EDF's.

Also not true. Look at the '68 and '69 rosters compared to the teams they beat.

The '67 roster was an all-time great roster? Two of their top eight players were cut by multiple teams before the Celtics got them, The Jones boys were past their prime and Satch Sanders was on the down slide and not even a passable offensive player at that point.

Everyone agrees that you need a good team to win, but the most important thing is a Great Player who can lead.

As I often say, one of the same 12 players has been in the NBA Finals in 58 of 67 seasons. That is so different than all of team sports it shows without question that the NBA is unique. It's about superstars. Superstars who understand the team concept and apply that skill and understanding.

LAZERUSS

06-28-2014, 11:28 AM

As a sidenote, there is a TON of evidence which supports the view that KAJ's PEAK came very early in his career. I have long maintained that his PEAKED from the last half of his rookie season (69-70), including the playoffs, thru his entire 70-71 season, and thru the entire 71-72 regular season. After that his league-wide domination, on both an individual, and team level, was never again anywhere near as great.

I will do a more thorough post on the topic, but as just one example, a 70-71 KAJ, in five H2H's, averaged 41.4 ppg on a .609 FG% against Dave Cowens; and a 71-72 KAJ, again in five H2H's, averaged 44.8 ppg on a .570 FG% against Cowens. However, by the mid-70's Cowens was playing him nearly even. In KAJ's 75-76 (MVP) season, and in four H2H's, KAJ averaged 25.8 ppg on a .458 FG% against Cowens.

And a KAJ from '70-71 thru '73-74, anchored the best defensive teams in the league.

Hos overall domination waned considerably, and by the end of the decade of the 70's, players like Lanier, Gilmore, and Moses were giving him all he could handle (and a McAdoo in the mid-70's was his equal.)

LAZERUSS

06-28-2014, 11:55 AM

I don't think this is true. I think the Blazers, Suns, Knicks and Cavs all had better rosters than the Bulls if you take the top player of each. Remember that Grant and Pippen were young role players during the Bulls '89 and '90 playoff runs and Pippen was a borderline all-star during the 1991 season in most eyes. I feel comfortable saying that the Bulls never had the best roster in the league during their six titles.

Also not true. Look at the '68 and '69 rosters compared to the teams they beat.

The '67 roster was an all-time great roster? Two of their top eight players were cut by multiple teams before the Celtics got them, The Jones boys were past their prime and Satch Sanders was on the down slide and not even a passable offensive player at that point.

Everyone agrees that you need a good team to win, but the most important thing is a Great Player who can lead.

As I often say, one of the same 12 players has been in the NBA Finals in 58 of 67 seasons. That is so different than all of team sports it shows without question that the NBA is unique. It's about superstars. Superstars who understand the team concept and apply that skill and understanding.

The '67 Celtic roster had Havlicek, Sam Jones, Bailey Howell (an over-rated HOFer, but always an excellent and efficient scorer), Satch Sanders and KC Jones (two of the elite defenders of the 60's); bench players like Larry Siegfried (14 ppg), Wayne Embry (an all-star caliber player), and Don Nelson (who was a career 10 ppg scorer, with seasons as high as 15.) Even Jim Barnett and Toby Kimball, both were decent players.

How good was that '67 roster? THREE players of 20+ ppg, and FOUR players in the top-ten in defensive win-shares (Russell, Havlicek, Howell, and KC Jones.) BTW, Russell gets a ton of credit for his defense throughout his career, but keep in mind that his rosters were FILLED with defensive stars. For example, his 62-63 team had SEVEN of the top-ten defensive players in terms of defensive win shares; his 63-64 team had SIX; his '65 team had SIX (including the top-3); and his '66 team had FIVE.

And we BOTH know that his 67-68 team was NOWHERE near as great as the '67-68 Sixers. Had that Sixer team even been remotely healthy, the Sixers would have repeated their blowout series win of '67.

As for '69, the Lakers had no depth, and were poorly coached. In fact, after West and Wilt, Boston was better player-for-player. And even West's margin was not much over his counter-part Havlicek.

Again, Russell played on STACKED team his ENTIRE career. FOUR to as many as EIGHT (and almost always FIVE) HOF teammates.

People forget that he was basically traded by the Hawks before he was drafted, by a 39-33 Celtic team. Not only that, but the Celtics drafted Tommy Heinsohn (who would win ROY and go to have a HOF career himself) before they drafted Russell. How good was THAT '56-57 Celtic team? They went 28-20 WITH Russell (.583), and 16-8 withOUT him (.667.)

Furthermore, they Auerbach ALWAYS ADDED personnel. He drafted Sam Jones the very next year. Again, how good was that '57-58 Celtic team? In the Finals against the Hawks, the series was tied 1-1, and in game three, Russell injured his ankle. The Hawks eked out a 111-108 win, but Boston outscored them withOUT Russell in that game. Then, with Russell missing both games four and five, Boston easily won game four, and lost game game five by a 102-100 margin. And Russell returned to play in game six, but had to leave the game in the first half. The Celtics lost that game, 110-109, but again, they outscored the Hawks withOUT Russell.

And each after that Auerbach would replace and ADD players. His 62-63 team had NINE HOFers, including Clyde Lovellette. Lovellette was an elite player in the NBA even in his last season in St. Louis. The Celtics acquired him, and guess what...he was their EIGHTH best player.

Russell NEVER had even ONE season without a HOF-laden roster.

LAZERUSS

06-28-2014, 12:04 PM

Originally Posted by G.O.A.T
I don't think this is true. I think the Blazers, Suns, Knicks and Cavs all had better rosters than the Bulls if you take the top player of each. Remember that Grant and Pippen were young role players during the Bulls '89 and '90 playoff runs and Pippen was a borderline all-star during the 1991 season in most eyes. I feel comfortable saying that the Bulls never had the best roster in the league during their six titles.

The 92-93 Bulls went 57-25 and won a title. The 93-94 Bulls, withOUT Jordan, went 55-27. They basically replaced MJ with bench players Toni Kukoc and Pete Myers, and dropped TWO games. Furthermore, that '94 Bulls team lost a close (and controversial) seven game series to the 56-26 Knicks. That Knicks team lost a close seven game series in the Finals to the 58-24 Rockets (and they outscored them as well.) The REALITY was, the Bulls, withOUT Jordan, were legitimate title contenders.

And most Jordan fans conveniently overlook the fact that the '94-95 Bulls had lost Horace Grant to the Magic.

They added Rodman in 95-96, and were clearly the best roster in the league, and likely a title contender withOUT Jordan.

Jordan didn't sniff a title without ELITE supporting casts, and in fact, those players, just like Havlickek and Sam Jones did for Russell, often won playoff games, several of them in key games.

Incidently, in MJ's first three playoff series against the "Bad Boys", his numbers declined considerably (especially his shooting efficiency.) And in his fourth playoff series against them, the Pistons were already in a state of decline.

Had MJ faced the equivalent of the "Bad Boys" from '88 thru '90, for EIGHT playoff series, like Wilt had to against the Celtics in the 60's, his overall post-season career likely would have looked much different.

Roundball_Rock

06-28-2014, 12:51 PM

I don't think this is true. I think the Blazers, Suns, Knicks and Cavs all had better rosters than the Bulls if you take the top player of each.

This isn't a hypothetical. We saw this with the Bulls and here is what happened:

Blazers with Drexler: 48 wins
Suns with Barkley: 56 wins
Knicks with Ewing: 57 wins
Cavs with Price: 47 wins
Utah with Malone: 53 wins
Rockets with Hakeem: 58 wins
Spurs with Robinson: 55 wins
Orlando with Shaq: 50 wins
Bulls without Jordan: 55 wins

Which one is not like the others? So those teams were on par or inferior to Chicago without Jordan yet we are to believe that those teams would be better than Chicago sans Jordan if they too lost their best player? That does not make sense. What people forget is MJ was not even replaced by a NBA player because he retired 2 days before training camp. Imagine if the Bulls were able to replace him with a legitimate NBA SG, i.e. Jeff Hornacek, who they sought to acquire mid-season (and who was interested in Chicago because he wanted to play for a title contender--which is further proof of how the 94' Bulls were perceived, in contrast to MJ revisionists who act like no one noticed that CHI was at the top of the East standings all year, including being in the lead at the all-star break).

Mark Price missed practically the entire 1990 season. They went 33-49 and missed the playoffs. When he returned the following year they went 57-25 and made the ECF. We famously saw the same story with the Spurs when Robinson missed almost all of the 97' season. They won a mere 21 games. The only team that comes close to what Chicago did without MJ is Orlando without Shaq--and that comes with a caveat. In 96' Shaq missed considerable time but his team did not suffer. The formula was similar: a superstar wing player filling the void (Penny), an all-star PF (Horace Grant--incidentally Chicago's former PF), and some other solid role players in Nick Anderson and Dennis Scott. However, the following year when they could not take comfort in knowing Shaq would be back they replaced Shaq with not a scrub but a very good player--17/10 Rony Seikley--and won 42 or 45 games and were bounced from the first round despite a great series from Penny. So the one comparable non-Bulls case worked only for part of a season and the predictable collapse occurred the following year.

The discrepancy between on the court results and perceptions of talent is due, in my view, to talent not directly translating to results in sports. Cleveland, Phoenix for 2 seasons, and Portland on paper did have more talent than Chicago once you got past the top 2 players. However, the same thing could be said today about the Thunder, Clippers, and Rockets versus the Heat and Spurs yet no one is arguing any of those teams are the best in the league. Talent only goes so far. Chemistry, leadership, motivation, coaching, among other things influence results. The Bulls, judging by their performance, had the best combination and were the best team, just as the current Spurs are the best team despite having less talent than OKC, LAC, HOU. The whole often is greater than the sum of its parts in sports.

Remember that Grant and Pippen were young role players during the Bulls '89 and '90 playoff runs and Pippen was a borderline all-star during the 1991 season in most eyes.

In most eyes during the season, yes, but not after the season. He was the third player picked for the Dream Team after MJ and Magic after that year. He put up 22/9/6 in the playoffs and 21/9/7 in the Finals and his defense against Magic "changed the fortunes" of the series according to Phil Jackson. Those are not borderline all-star numbers--they mirror what he did the following season (21/8/7 in the regular season and 21/8/8 in the Finals). In the 90' playoffs Pippen had 19/7/6. Those are not role player numbers, although it is fair to say he was considered a borderline all-star at the time.

MJ may indeed be the GOAT but the evidence clearly suggests he had a better team around him than his contemporaries in the 90's--one who happened to be on his team (Chicago was the only team to have two MVP caliber players for several years, although Orlando did for 2 seasons). Name one other superstar of the 90's, other than Pippen (98' Bulls), who could be replaced and see his team perform at that high a level. MJ was the Russell of his era because, like Russell, he enjoyed the best team with the best coach during his title years. Seeing MJ's rings touted as dispositive when comparing him to any legend not named Russell is an unfair metric because it ignores the team situations of other players. Put KAJ, Wilt, or Bird on the 90's Bulls and how many rings do they win?

G.O.A.T

06-28-2014, 01:28 PM

The 92-93 Bulls went 57-25 and won a title. The 93-94 Bulls, withOUT Jordan, went 55-27. They basically replaced MJ with bench players Toni Kukoc and Pete Myers, and dropped TWO games.

Several things to consider here.

1) The 1992-93 team was running on fumes after the two titles, not only did the regular season not matter that much to them, they were getting everyone's best shot every night.

2) They added Kukoc, Kerr, Longley and Wennington four of their top eight in the rotation on the 72-win team. None of them are great players, but they all were role players who fit the triangle system very well and took minutes from aging first three-peat mainstays John Paxson and Bill Cartwright.

3) Pippen had a down year in 1992-93 and maybe the best year of his career in 93-94 when he was motivated to prove himself without Jordan. The whole team, and it's coach had a lot to prove that year.

[I]

SHAQisGOAT

06-28-2014, 01:53 PM

Great post OP

G.O.A.T

06-28-2014, 02:04 PM

This isn't a hypothetical. We saw this with the Bulls and here is what happened:

Blazers with Drexler: 48 wins
Suns with Barkley: 56 wins
Knicks with Ewing: 57 wins
Cavs with Price: 47 wins
Utah with Malone: 53 wins
Rockets with Hakeem: 58 wins
Spurs with Robinson: 55 wins
Orlando with Shaq: 50 wins
Bulls without Jordan: 55 wins

As I mention in a previous post, that is not the same team that the Bulls played with in 1993. And the circumstances were different in terms of motivation etc. And just for fun if we are to suppose the casts and circumstances are equal and that Jordan's impact was only two regular season wins, than lets subtract two wins from those other teams. Looks like the Knicks, Suns, Rockets and Spurs are all about equal to the Bulls.

Which one is not like the others? So those teams were on par or inferior to Chicago without Jordan yet we are to believe that those teams would be better than Chicago sans Jordan if they too lost their best player?

As we learn from following your path here, Jordan (best player in the league) only equals two wins so you're only subtracting a half to 1.9 wins from everyone else, so my answer to your question would be, yes, look at the numbers.

But as you can see my real point is that the 1994 Bulls only proved one thing in relationship to MJ. They weren't good enough to win a title without him.

That does not make sense. What people forget is MJ was not even replaced by a NBA player because he retired 2 days before training camp. Imagine if the Bulls were able to replace him with a legitimate NBA SG, i.e. Jeff Hornacek, who they sought to acquire mid-season (and who was interested in Chicago because he wanted to play for a title contender--which is further proof of how the 94' Bulls were perceived, in contrast to MJ revisionists who act like no one noticed that CHI was at the top of the East standings all year, including being in the lead at the all-star break).

Can't revise what happened. That all happened and they lost in the second round.

Mark Price missed practically the entire 1990 season. They went 33-49 and missed the playoffs. When he returned the following year they went 57-25 and made the ECF.

Other injuries in 1991 (i think the year you mean), plus a bit of tanking down the stretch, that was Cavs team that was a work in progress since the '89 season when they made the Nance/KJ trade. 1991-92 was the first year they were fully healthy all season, but still you're point is understood here.

We famously saw the same story with the Spurs when Robinson missed almost all of the 97' season. They won a mere 21 games.

That was a super tank job.

The only team that comes close to what Chicago did without MJ is Orlando without Shaq--and that comes with a caveat. In 96' Shaq missed considerable time but his team did not suffer. The formula was similar: a superstar wing player filling the void (Penny), an all-star PF (Horace Grant--incidentally Chicago's former PF), and some other solid role players in Nick Anderson and Dennis Scott. However, the following year when they could not take comfort in knowing Shaq would be back they replaced Shaq with not a scrub but a very good player--17/10 Rony Seikley--and won 42 or 45 games and were bounced from the first round despite a great series from Penny. So the one comparable non-Bulls case worked only for part of a season and the predictable collapse occurred the following year.

That Bulls situation is such a unique one that I don't think we can look at one season as enough evidence to draw any conclusions except that without Jordan they did not win.

The discrepancy between on the court results and perceptions of talent is due, in my view, to talent not directly translating to results in sports. Cleveland, Phoenix for 2 seasons, and Portland on paper did have more talent than Chicago once you got past the top 2 players. However, the same thing could be said today about the Thunder, Clippers, and Rockets versus the Heat and Spurs yet no one is arguing any of those teams are the best in the league. Talent only goes so far. Chemistry, leadership, motivation, coaching, among other things influence results. The Bulls, judging by their performance, had the best combination and were the best team, just as the current Spurs are the best team despite having less talent than OKC, LAC, HOU. The whole often is greater than the sum of its parts in sports.

Well, here we agree on everything. That's no fun.

In most eyes during the season, yes, but not after the season. He was the third player picked for the Dream Team after MJ and Magic after that year. He put up 22/9/6 in the playoffs and 21/9/7 in the Finals and his defense against Magic "changed the fortunes" of the series according to Phil Jackson. Those are not borderline all-star numbers--they mirror what he did the following season (21/8/7 in the regular season and 21/8/8 in the Finals). In the 90' playoffs Pippen had 19/7/6. Those are not role player numbers, although it is fair to say he was considered a borderline all-star at the time.

I agree everything changed in 1991, remember 1990 was the playoffs where he played progressively worse as the postseason went on. 1991 he got better as it went on. Pippen took another step in 1994 I believe too. His leadership that year has been cited by multiple teams and Jackson as key to their success.

MJ may indeed be the GOAT but the evidence clearly suggests he had a better team around him than his contemporaries in the 90's--one who happened to be on his team (Chicago was the only team to have two MVP caliber players for several years, although Orlando did for 2 seasons). Name one other superstar of the 90's, other than Pippen (98' Bulls), who could be replaced and see his team perform at that high a level.

He did, but he made that team. Those guys grew up from '88 to '90 with Jordan dragging them into battles they had no business being in. It's not as if the Bulls just went out and signed and elite SF and an all-star third wheel. They were forged through playoff series and Jordan's incredible drive and will. That's something you see with Jordan, Russell, Duncan, Magic, Bird...guys who get better every year while playing alongside a superstar with that will and drive. You can say it's because they played for great organizations and this is true, but it's Chicken and Egg to me. How great have the Bulls, Celtics, Lakers and Spurs been without those guys versus with them. How many overachievers like Havlicek, Heinsohn, Kerr, Pippen, Parker, Ginobili, Scott, Cooper, Parish, Ainge, guys who were all supposed to be one thing but became something greater, have been created when those franchises were lead by George Gervin, Artis Gilmore, Paul Pierce or Elgin Baylor. Great Players, Hall of Famers, but a different level of player and a different level of impact on others.

MJ was the Russell of his era because, like Russell, he enjoyed the best team with the best coach during his title years. Seeing MJ's rings touted as dispositive when comparing him to any legend not named Russell is an unfair metric because it ignores the team situations of other players. Put KAJ, Wilt, or Bird on the 90's Bulls and how many rings do they win?

It doesn't matter to me. Because we don't know and can't know. My truthful guess is less than six. I don't see any windows that Jordan left open and all those guys I've seen fall short before.

I get what you're saying, but when I have a choice between what I know someone can do and what I believe someone can do...easy decision.

G.O.A.T

06-28-2014, 02:30 PM

The '67 Celtic roster had Havlicek, Sam Jones, Bailey Howell (an over-rated HOFer, but always an excellent and efficient scorer), Satch Sanders and KC Jones (two of the elite defenders of the 60's); bench players like Larry Siegfried (14 ppg), Wayne Embry (an all-star caliber player), and Don Nelson (who was a career 10 ppg scorer, with seasons as high as 15.) Even Jim Barnett and Toby Kimball, both were decent players.

How good was that '67 roster? THREE players of 20+ ppg, and FOUR players in the top-ten in defensive win-shares (Russell, Havlicek, Howell, and KC Jones.) BTW, Russell gets a ton of credit for his defense throughout his career, but keep in mind that his rosters were FILLED with defensive stars. For example, his 62-63 team had SEVEN of the top-ten defensive players in terms of defensive win shares; his 63-64 team had SIX; his '65 team had SIX (including the top-3); and his '66 team had FIVE.

The reason Bailey Howell is a HOFer is Bill Russell and the Celtics
The reason they had three 20ppg scorers is Bill Russell and the Celtics system
The reason Siegfried and Nelson were in the league is the Celtics system (both were cut prior to joining Boston, basically they're Sam Mack and Chuckie Brown on the 90's Rockets)
The reason so many Celtics rank so high in defensive win shares is because the Celtics won so many games.
The reason the Celtics won so many games is because of their defense
The reason their defense was so good is because of...

And we BOTH know that his 67-68 team was NOWHERE near as great as the '67-68 Sixers. Had that Sixer team even been remotely healthy, the Sixers would have repeated their blowout series win of '67.

First part I agree, second part I do not. I'll stick with what happened over what you believe would have happened.

As for '69, the Lakers had no depth, and were poorly coached. In fact, after West and Wilt, Boston was better player-for-player. And even West's margin was not much over his counter-part Havlicek.

#3 guy: Elgin Baylor was first team All-NBA, Sam Jones got benched mid-season. Don't base Baylor's level of effectiveness on 20-30 mins of archival footage mostly of game seven of the finals.

#4 guy: Mel Counts vs. Bailey Howell is a Celtics edge.

The rest are all after thought players. Look at Bryant, Siegfried and Nelson before they got to Boston. Egan, Hawkins and Crawford have similar resumes before they got to LA. The Lakers also had Keith Erickson on that team who would have a solid NBA career comparable to Satch Sanders for Boston.

My other question would be if having the best top three in the league was enough to make the Bulls roster the best in the 90's, how come it's not enough for the Lakers in 1969?

Again, Russell played on STACKED team his ENTIRE career. FOUR to as many as EIGHT (and almost always FIVE) HOF teammates.

You know enough to understand that that fact does not mean what you are implying it means. You understand the context and you know I do too.

People forget that he was basically traded by the Hawks before he was drafted, by a 39-33 Celtic team. Not only that, but the Celtics drafted Tommy Heinsohn (who would win ROY and go to have a HOF career himself) before they drafted Russell. How good was THAT '56-57 Celtic team? They went 28-20 WITH Russell (.583), and 16-8 withOUT him (.667.)

People also forget apparently that the Celtics gave up two hall of famers (Ed Macauley and Cliff Hagan to get Russell. They also forget to mention that the Celtics had been winning at a similar rate for six years but had never won more than one playoff series before Russell.

Furthermore, they Auerbach ALWAYS ADDED personnel. He drafted Sam Jones the very next year. Again, how good was that '57-58 Celtic team? In the Finals against the Hawks, the series was tied 1-1, and in game three, Russell injured his ankle. The Hawks eked out a 111-108 win, but Boston outscored them withOUT Russell in that game. Then, with Russell missing both games four and five, Boston easily won game four, and lost game game five by a 102-100 margin. And Russell returned to play in game six, but had to leave the game in the first half. The Celtics lost that game, 110-109, but again, they outscored the Hawks withOUT Russell.

So based on what you've compiled the Celtics should have cut Russell as they seem to be better without him.

You can't have it both ways. The Celtics can't be so much better than everyone and still go to so many game sevens and be pushed to the brink by so many different teams over the years.

And each after that Auerbach would replace and ADD players. His 62-63 team had NINE HOFers, including Clyde Lovellette. Lovellette was an elite player in the NBA even in his last season in St. Louis. The Celtics acquired him, and guess what...he was their EIGHTH best player.

Russell NEVER had even ONE season without a HOF-laden roster.

Actually every season he played was without a HOF laden roster because none of those guys were HOFers yet and without playing alongside Russell, most of them never would have been based on the fate of their contemporaries with similar resumes minus the rings.

LAZERUSS

06-28-2014, 05:56 PM

The reason Bailey Howell is a HOFer is Bill Russell and the Celtics
The reason they had three 20ppg scorers is Bill Russell and the Celtics system
The reason Siegfried and Nelson were in the league is the Celtics system (both were cut prior to joining Boston, basically they're Sam Mack and Chuckie Brown on the 90's Rockets)
The reason so many Celtics rank so high in defensive win shares is because the Celtics won so many games.
The reason the Celtics won so many games is because of their defense
The reason their defense was so good is because of...

The reason RUSSELL won 11 rings was because of players like Tommy Heinsohn, a multiple 20+ ppg scorer; Bill Sharman, a 20 ppg scorer before Russell, and considered the best pure shooter of the 50's; Bob Cousy, a multiple 20+ ppg scorer BEFORE Russell, and a multiple 20+ scorer WITH Russell; Sam Jones, who was a multiple 20+ ppg scorer WITH Russell, including 26 ppg one season, and two playoff runs of 29 and 27 ppg (one of which came in 66-67); Bailey Howell, who was a 24 and 23 ppg scorer BEFORE Russell (including a season in which he finished 4th in FG%), as well as a 20+ ppg WITH Russell. And Havlicek was a consistent 20+ ppg scorer WITH Russell, and post-season runs of 24, 25, 26, and 27 ppg WITH Russell...as well as a 28 and 29 ppg scorer AFTER Russell.

And KC Jones and Satch Sanders were WIDELY recognized as the two top defensive players at their positions for almost the entire decade of the 60's. And again, Havlicek was an elite defender his entire career.

There is NO question that Heinsohn, Sam Jones, Cousy, and Havlicek would have been HOFers. Hell, Havlicek led Celtic teams to a team record 68-14 mark in '73, and two titles in '74 and '76.

And Sam Jones would probably have been a 25-30 ppg scorer on any other team in the 60's. But even aside from that fact, how about this comment from Russell:

http://www.celtic-nation.com/interviews/sam_jones/sam_jones_page1.htm

“In the years that I played with the Celtics,” says Russell, “in terms of total basketball skills, Sam Jones was the most skillful player that I ever played with. At one point, we won a total of eight consecutive NBA championships, and six times during that run we asked Sam to take the shot that meant the season. If he didn’t hit the shot we were finished – we were going home empty-handed. He never missed.”

You can make a strong case that Russell won SIX rings because of Jones alone. And Havlicek not only was Boston's best player in the '68 and '69 post-seasons, he probably saved Russell another ring on one play alone in game seven of the '65 EDF's, when "Havlicek stole the ball!"

First part I agree, second part I do not. I'll stick with what happened over what you believe would have happened.

What ACTUALLY happened was this: The 67-68 Sixers were MILES better than the Celtics (and Chamberlain was FAR greater, as well.) However, the Sixer team that destroyed the league in the regular season, was NOWHERE NEAR the Sixer team that Boston edged out in game seven by FOUR points.

Even without HOFer Cunningham, the Sixers jumped all over Boston for a 3-1 series lead. And for all the criticism that Wilt got for his play in games six and seven of that series, in the "closeout" game five, he CRUSHED Russell, HOWEVER, BOTH Luke Jackson and Wali Jones went down with leg injuries (and in a close game at the time), and were worthless the last two games, as well. And again, this was not a deep Sixer team, either. Furthermore, Chamberlain played the entire series with MULTIPLE injuries, and in fact, was NOTICEABLY LIMPING throughout that series (and he STILL played every minute of those seven games BTW.) Even Russell said afterwards, "A lessor man would not have played", which was basically saying that NO ONE else would have played under those circumstances.

A healthy Sixer squad crushes the Celtics in the '67-68 playoffs.

#3 guy: Elgin Baylor was first team All-NBA, Sam Jones got benched mid-season. Don't base Baylor's level of effectiveness on 20-30 mins of archival footage mostly of game seven of the finals.

#4 guy: Mel Counts vs. Bailey Howell is a Celtics edge.

The rest are all after thought players. Look at Bryant, Siegfried and Nelson before they got to Boston. Egan, Hawkins and Crawford have similar resumes before they got to LA. The Lakers also had Keith Erickson on that team who would have a solid NBA career comparable to Satch Sanders for Boston.

My other question would be if having the best top three in the league was enough to make the Bulls roster the best in the 90's, how come it's not enough for the Lakers in 1969?

:roll: :roll: :roll:

Aside from Van Breda Kolff, Baylor was THE reason why the Lakers lost in the '69 Finals. It wasn't just his horrible game seven, but how about his awful games three, four, and five? In those three games he collectively averaged 8 ppg on get this...a .222 FG%. If you throw in his putrid shot-jacking game seven, in those four games (three of them losses), he averaged 11 ppg on a ... .269 FG%!

BTW, in that game seven, if you subtract Wilt's and Russell's FG/FGAs, Russell's teammates outshot Wilt's by a .477 to .363 margin...in a TWO point win. Oh, and in that game seven, Russell's "role" players, Em Bryant and Don Nelson, scored 20 and 16 (and Nelson hit the game winner), and "past his prime" Sam Jones had 24. Meanwhile, Wilt's "role players", Egan, Counts, and Erickson combined for 24 points on 9-34 shooting (.265!)

Again, Boston had a MUCH deeper roster in '69.

You know enough to understand that that fact does not mean what you are implying it means. You understand the context and you know I do too.

And YOU KNOW that those Celtic rosters were CLEARLY the best in the league, as well. Year-after-year. Even his '67 and '68 Celtic squads were the equals of Wilt's...but Chamberlain was a FAR greater player in those years (as he was his entire career.)

People also forget apparently that the Celtics gave up two hall of famers (Ed Macauley and Cliff Hagan to get Russell. They also forget to mention that the Celtics had been winning at a similar rate for six years but had never won more than one playoff series before Russell.

Essentially Hagan and McCauley for Heinsohn and Russell. Oh, and McCauley was washed up two years later and out of the league in three. And the '57 Celtics were able to win 67% of their games withOUT Russell because they had a legitimate backup center in Arnie Risen. It was actually one of the few times in Russell's career in which that was the case.

So based on what you've compiled the Celtics should have cut Russell as they seem to be better without him.

You can't have it both ways. The Celtics can't be so much better than everyone and still go to so many game sevens and be pushed to the brink by so many different teams over the years.

The FACTS were, these were LOADED Celtic teams that could withstand the loss of Russell, and still contend for titles. Their '58 squad damn near beat the champion Hawks withOUT Russell, and in fact, played better withOUT Russell.) In their '58-59 season, Russell missed two games. Guess what? Boston won those games by margins of 130-105, and...get this... 173-139. If the argument is that Russell made them a much better defensive team, then it can be argued that without him, they were a better offensive team.

So, while Russell was the key player in that dynasty, he was not the ONLY one. They were STACKED from top-to-bottom, year-after-year.

Actually every season he played was without a HOF laden roster because none of those guys were HOFers yet and without playing alongside Russell, most of them never would have been based on the fate of their contemporaries with similar resumes minus the rings.

That is a ridiculous argument. Cousy was an MVP WITH Russell (and finsihed THIRD the year before that.) Sharman was the league's best shooter, BEFORE Russell. Sam Jones was as valuable in several post-seasons. And Havlicek was not only a better player in Russell's last two seasons, he would go on to win two more rinsg AFTER Russell. ALL would have been in the HOF, as well (as would Heinsohn.)

The real question should be...how many rings does Russell win in the first half of his career without just ONE of these players...Cousy, Sharman, Sam Jones, and Heinsohn? And how many does he win the second half of his career without even ONE of these players... Sam Jones, Havlicek, and Bailey Howell?
Not to mention all of the key "role" players that he had in his career, and his HOF COACH.

Roundball_Rock

06-28-2014, 10:08 PM

3) Pippen had a down year in 1992-93 and maybe the best year of his career in 93-94 when he was motivated to prove himself without Jordan.

Interestingly, several players had career years without MJ there to "make them better."

As I mention in a previous post, that is not the same team that the Bulls played with in 1993.

No team goes without changes from year to year. While they added some players, they obviously lost some and Paxson declined substantially from 1993 and Cartwright also declined. Both would retire after that season. Paxson was no longer a significant contributor by 94'. Longley did not even join the Bulls until the final third of the season, having no appreciable impact on their results. Hell, I believe the Bulls actually fell from 1st to 3rd in the East after the Longley-King trade. Wennington was playing 18 mpg. Kukoc was a 11/4/3 rookie. Kerr put up 9/2/3. Did the new arrivals, as a whole, make the team stronger? Yes, but they were not a big change. It is interesting, though, that it is often argued the 94' team was a remake of the 93' team, especially by citing Kukoc, who posted 9/4/4 in the playoffs. However, Pippen and Grant joining the Bulls is ignored in the Bulls finally getting out the first round even though their impact was likely greater than Kukoc/Kerr/Wennington's. That improvement is attributed solely to MJ.

Moreover, the 94' team was wracked by injuries. Pippen and Grant both missed time (10 games for Pippen and 12 for Grant). Cartwright and Scott Williams both missed half the season. So three of the five starters missed substantial time. This had a very important affect: causing the Bulls to finish 3rd, not 1st in the East. Had Game 7 been played in Chicago, not New York, the Bulls likely would have won. 94' was during a 20-21 year stretch where no road team won a Game 7. The Rockets would snap that streak the following year. If the Bulls had better luck with injuries they likely would reach the Finals with HCA and Pippen may have won MVP if he played 82 games and CHI finished 1st. They had a 63 win pace when both Pippen and Grant played and only missed the top seed by 2 games, and that was with a last game loss because NY had the tiebreakers and both teams pulled their starters.

And just for fun if we are to suppose the casts and circumstances are equal and that Jordan's impact was only two regular season wins

This is a straw man frequently invoked. No one says MJ's impact was 2 wins. What people say is he had a team that was strong enough to contend without him. Add a GOAT caliber player to such a team and the result is domination. The point? MJ's "6" need to be put in context and not simplistically be used as a trump card over other legends who were not as fortunate. That same team that won 55 without MJ became dominant with him. However, the fact that MJ had that kind of team--a team that was comparable to or better than that of other superstars of the time even without him--is surely worth noting when talking about his rings. Had Malone or Ewing or Barkley had that luxury they would have won some rings too.

But as you can see my real point is that the 1994 Bulls only proved one thing in relationship to MJ. They weren't good enough to win a title without him.

They proved they could not win that year. That does not mean that if they were given a full window without MJ that they never would win. Would they? Probably not. There are always more contenders in every era than there are champions. Still, it is possible that they could have punched in at some point. The best comparison is with their peers, the other two best teams in the East that year, New York and Indiana. Both of those teams were perennial contenders in the 90's and made multiple ECF's and 1 or 2 Finals. It is not unreasonable to suspect that the Bulls, minus Jordan, would have had a similar record from 1990-1994. After all, all the available evidence suggests they were on par with that very New York team minus Jordan. Moreover, under this scenario they would have time to build around Pippen. The 90's Bulls were constructed around MJ. If you gave that squad a few years of tinkering who knows what they would have achieved when they remedied some of their weaknesses (a lack of a closer, a lack of a second scorer to step in when Pippen was double or triple teamed). The most likely scenario would be a 90's Knicks or 90's Pacers scenario, but you never know. Who would have had the 2011 Mavs, the 2005 Pistons winning? Those are teams that contended for years, like the 90's Knicks and Pacers, but won it all only once. There is not much of a line between them and the Knicks, Pacers.

He did, but he made that team. Those guys grew up from '88 to '90 with Jordan dragging them into battles they had no business being in.

Saying he "made" that team is a bit strong but I recognize your point. Yeah, they did benefit from gaining vital playoff experience because MJ took them further. However, in an alternative universe with no MJ, or no MJ on the Bulls, they would have indeed gotten less playoff experience but they also would have developed differently. Where they missed MJ the most in 94' was in late game situations. They squandered two double digit leads in the fourth quarter in New York in the first two games, narrowly losing in each case. One presumes had MJ been there he would have managed a few more buckets to push them over the finish line. However, he was not there and they struggled. Still, in a MJ-less universe they would have developed differently and would have had some method to close out games developed in the absence of MJ. So instead of making the ECF they would lose earlier in, say, 90', but they also could have figured out how to close out games successfully and that could have paid off in 94'. MJ's presence and the experience with MJ cuts in many ways, although on net obviously they benefited more from playing with MJ than not doing so.

G.O.A.T

07-02-2014, 12:10 AM

Interestingly, several players had career years without MJ there to "make them better."

Seems more likely that someone had to score. Armstong, Grant, Pippen all took on bigger roles, their numbers were better but they were not better players necessarily.

No team goes without changes from year to year. While they added some players, they obviously lost some and Paxson declined substantially from 1993 and Cartwright also declined. Both would retire after that season. Paxson was no longer a significant contributor by 94'. Longley did not even join the Bulls until the final third of the season, having no appreciable impact on their results. Hell, I believe the Bulls actually fell from 1st to 3rd in the East after the Longley-King trade. Wennington was playing 18 mpg. Kukoc was a 11/4/3 rookie. Kerr put up 9/2/3. Did the new arrivals, as a whole, make the team stronger? Yes, but they were not a big change.

By the end of the season the Bulls were playing Longley and Wennington at center as opposed to King and Cartwright the year prior.

Armstrong got even more minutes and Paxson less, Kerr replaced Trent Tucker.

Anyway, point is they got better, and they were different. Cartwright and Paxson were liabilities by the end of 1993. Look what Jordan had to do to win that 1993 Finals. That team was exhausted, Pippen included, and he carried them. The new blood and fresh motivation (plus not coming off a summer of Olympic basketball) was just what Pippen needed.

It is interesting, though, that it is often argued the 94' team was a remake of the 93' team, especially by citing Kukoc, who posted 9/4/4 in the playoffs. However, Pippen and Grant joining the Bulls is ignored in the Bulls finally getting out the first round even though their impact was likely greater than Kukoc/Kerr/Wennington's. That improvement is attributed solely to MJ.

Just to be clear I never ignore Pippen or Grants contributions at any point. I'm sure some do, but we both know what happened.

Moreover, the 94' team was wracked by injuries. Pippen and Grant both missed time (10 games for Pippen and 12 for Grant). Cartwright and Scott Williams both missed half the season. So three of the five starters missed substantial time. This had a very important affect: causing the Bulls to finish 3rd, not 1st in the East. Had Game 7 been played in Chicago, not New York, the Bulls likely would have won. 94' was during a 20-21 year stretch where no road team won a Game 7. The Rockets would snap that streak the following year. If the Bulls had better luck with injuries they likely would reach the Finals with HCA and Pippen may have won MVP if he played 82 games and CHI finished 1st. They had a 63 win pace when both Pippen and Grant played and only missed the top seed by 2 games, and that was with a last game loss because NY had the tiebreakers and both teams pulled their starters.

Look at the injuries the Knicks had. Or the Pacers, they are on par. Let's also remember most of the NBA's best teams were out West. They were .500 against the 50-win western conference teams.

This is a straw man frequently invoked. No one says MJ's impact was 2 wins.

I was pointing that out. Claiming that the Bulls were still as good without MJ as other elite teams based on a regular season record is silly.

What people say is he had a team that was strong enough to contend without him. Add a GOAT caliber player to such a team and the result is domination.

Maybe, not always. See the 1969 Lakers. Lost in six games in '68 Finals, added Wilt in place of two borderline all-star guards, Lost in seven games.
See 2004 Lakers, See 2004 Mavericks, See 2011 Heat etc.

The point? MJ's "6" need to be put in context and not simplistically be used as a trump card over other legends who were not as fortunate. That same team that won 55 without MJ became dominant with him. However, the fact that MJ had that kind of team--a team that was comparable to or better than that of other superstars of the time even without him--is surely worth noting when talking about his rings. Had Malone or Ewing or Barkley had that luxury they would have won some rings too.

The way I see it, who's to say MJ doesn't turn Hawkins, Dawkins, Mahorn and Gminski or Stockton, Bailey, Eaton and Griffin into his cast with six rings.

What if Jordan had a Stockton to play with? Or was drafted to a team with Moses Malone and Julius Erving? Would he get more titles?

It's a fun game to play, but I don't put stock into ifs.

They proved they could not win that year. That does not mean that if they were given a full window without MJ that they never would win. Would they? Probably not. There are always more contenders in every era than there are champions. Still, it is possible that they could have punched in at some point. The best comparison is with their peers, the other two best teams in the East that year, New York and Indiana. Both of those teams were perennial contenders in the 90's and made multiple ECF's and 1 or 2 Finals. It is not unreasonable to suspect that the Bulls, minus Jordan, would have had a similar record from 1990-1994.

This is fair, but lets remember how different the legacy of Ewing and Miller are to Pippen or Jordan. Winning changes perception.

After all, all the available evidence suggests they were on par with that very New York team minus Jordan. Moreover, under this scenario they would have time to build around Pippen. The 90's Bulls were constructed around MJ. If you gave that squad a few years of tinkering who knows what they would have achieved when they remedied some of their weaknesses (a lack of a closer, a lack of a second scorer to step in when Pippen was double or triple teamed). The most likely scenario would be a 90's Knicks or 90's Pacers scenario, but you never know. Who would have had the 2011 Mavs, the 2005 Pistons winning? Those are teams that contended for years, like the 90's Knicks and Pacers, but won it all only once. There is not much of a line between them and the Knicks, Pacers.

Again, fair extrapolation, but it doesn't change how I view Jordan or Pippen. It was arguably past his prime but we saw what happened with Pippen in Houston and Portland and he was not the same player. Still valuable, but not in the comfortable role the triangle and the Bulls defensive system allowed him. That system didn't make Pippen, but it fit him and that's important to remember.

Saying he "made" that team is a bit strong but I recognize your point. Yeah, they did benefit from gaining vital playoff experience because MJ took them further. However, in an alternative universe with no MJ, or no MJ on the Bulls, they would have indeed gotten less playoff experience but they also would have developed differently. Where they missed MJ the most in 94' was in late game situations. They squandered two double digit leads in the fourth quarter in New York in the first two games, narrowly losing in each case. One presumes had MJ been there he would have managed a few more buckets to push them over the finish line. However, he was not there and they struggled. Still, in a MJ-less universe they would have developed differently and would have had some method to close out games developed in the absence of MJ. So instead of making the ECF they would lose earlier in, say, 90', but they also could have figured out how to close out games successfully and that could have paid off in 94'. MJ's presence and the experience with MJ cuts in many ways, although on net obviously they benefited more from playing with MJ than not doing so.

You're on a roll with saying things agreeable to me. I will caution you that I find most young players develop bad habits when they play in losing or non-contending situations too long. But still your point is taken and your right to restrict me in how much credit I give MJ for Pippen and Grants development. They were good players because of what they did to become good players, I'm glad we agree on the value of playoff experience for a young player.

Very nice discussion, thanks again.

dankok8

07-02-2014, 02:09 PM

The whole "Bill Russell played with a ton of HOFers" is a weak argument.

First of all K.C. Jones, Frank Ramsey, and Satch Sanders would never be HOF players if it wasn't for Russell. Look at their numbers! And Clyde Lovellette when he played in Boston was way past his prime playing a very limited role. His career credentials were built in St. Louis. And of course even guys like Hondo, Cousy, Sam Jones, Heinsohn etc. were hardly in their primes for the entire run. Havlicek was a role player his first two seasons for instance.

Secondly, the teams Russell faced for much of his career were pretty damn stacked too. Hawks from '57-'61, Warriors from '60-'62, Lakers from '62-'69, Royals from '63-'66, and Sixers from '66-'68. Yes those opposing squads had less chemistry and continuity but a huge part of that reason was Russell himself.

I would argue that Tim Duncan in '99 and '07 had easier runs at the title than Russell did in any season. At least it's debatable.

dankok8

07-02-2014, 02:22 PM

As for Kareem, look at his situation before you blindly judge his success (or lack thereof) in the 70's. Let's look at how unlucky he was with teammate injuries in the only 4 years in his prime that he could have realistically won titles:

'72 vs. Lakers - starting PG Oscar Robertson crippled, starting SG McGlocklin and back-up guard Wali Jones injured as well
'74 vs. Celtics - starting SG Lucious Allen out for the playoffs, starting PG Oscar Robertson suffering from nagging injuries and playing like a role player that season
'77 vs. Blazers - starting PF Kermit Washington out for the playoffs, starting SG Lucious Allen plays injured
'81 vs. Rockets - Magic playing with injuries, team chemistry suffered because of Magic/Nixon clash

Apart from '73 where Kareem laid an egg and his team lost as the favorite you can't blame him for any other year. For his shit sandwich in the 70's I would imagine 5 MVP's and 1 title is pretty amazing!

Again let's look at some of the teams he lost to in his career:

1970 Knicks - one of GOAT teams
1972 Lakers - one of GOAT teams
1973 Warriors - not a great team and bad loss but those Warriors still had 2 HOFers and 3 all-stars (Nate Thurmond, Rick Barry, Jeff Mullins); those Warriors weren't this year's Bobcats
1974 Celtics - all-time great team
1977 Blazers - all-time great team
1978/1979 Sonics - great team
1981 Rockets - mediocre team but Magic injured and 3-game miniseries; Kareem plays well
1983 Sixers - one of GOAT teams
1984 Celtics - one of GOAT teams
1986 Rockets - solid team, Kareem is 39 years old and plays well
1989 Pistons - one of GOAT teams

In the 14 years Kareem did not win a championship he lost to a non-great team three times and two out of those three was when he was 39 and 42 years old.

juju151111

07-02-2014, 03:09 PM

Seems more likely that someone had to score. Armstong, Grant, Pippen all took on bigger roles, their numbers were better but they were not better players necessarily.

By the end of the season the Bulls were playing Longley and Wennington at center as opposed to King and Cartwright the year prior.

Armstrong got even more minutes and Paxson less, Kerr replaced Trent Tucker.

Anyway, point is they got better, and they were different. Cartwright and Paxson were liabilities by the end of 1993. Look what Jordan had to do to win that 1993 Finals. That team was exhausted, Pippen included, and he carried them. The new blood and fresh motivation (plus not coming off a summer of Olympic basketball) was just what Pippen neededAfter practice on Monday, he checked into Bally's Grand at 5:07 that afternoon according to a hotel employee, checked out at 11:05 P.M., was seen in the casino as late as 2:30 A.M., returned to New York and was on the Garden court for a midmorning shootaround, 10 hours before Tuesday night's game.

"You weren't taking golf lessons in Atlantic City, Michael," one Knick rooter yelled as the Knicks took a 2-0 lead.

"How's the wrist after the slots, Michael?" another shouted, referring to the brace on Jordan's damaged right wrist.

Jordan reportedly lost $5,000 playing blackjack in a private area in the baccarat pit, but that's not the issue. If he had won $5,000, it still wouldn't justify his being a two-hour limo ride from the Bulls' midtown New York hotel at 2:30 the morning of a big game."

Phil Jackson on the 93 season

"

Just to be clear I never ignore Pippen or Grants contributions at any point. I'm sure some do, but we both know what happened.

Look at the injuries the Knicks had. Or the Pacers, they are on par. Let's also remember most of the NBA's best teams were out West. They were .500 against the 50-win western conference teams.

I was pointing that out. Claiming that the Bulls were still as good without MJ as other elite teams based on a regular season record is silly.

Maybe, not always. See the 1969 Lakers. Lost in six games in '68 Finals, added Wilt in place of two borderline all-star guards, Lost in seven games.
See 2004 Lakers, See 2004 Mavericks, See 2011 Heat etc.

The way I see it, who's to say MJ doesn't turn Hawkins, Dawkins, Mahorn and Gminski or Stockton, Bailey, Eaton and Griffin into his cast with six rings.

What if Jordan had a Stockton to play with? Or was drafted to a team with Moses Malone and Julius Erving? Would he get more titles?

It's a fun game to play, but I don't put stock into ifs.

This is fair, but lets remember how different the legacy of Ewing and Miller are to Pippen or Jordan. Winning changes perception.

Again, fair extrapolation, but it doesn't change how I view Jordan or Pippen. It was arguably past his prime but we saw what happened with Pippen in Houston and Portland and he was not the same player. Still valuable, but not in the comfortable role the triangle and the Bulls defensive system allowed him. That system didn't make Pippen, but it fit him and that's important to remember.

You're on a roll with saying things agreeable to me. I will caution you that I find most young players develop bad habits when they play in losing or non-contending situations too long. But still your point is taken and your right to restrict me in how much credit I give MJ for Pippen and Grants development. They were good players because of what they did to become good players, I'm glad we agree on the value of playoff experience for a young player.

Very nice discussion, thanks again.
Why do people not consider the 92 Bulls? He claiming Grant got way better and so did the rest of the teammates, but what happened in 92 when both Grant,Pippen, and Paxton had great years and shot the ball at a high %. It's widely known that a 3 peat takes a lot out of teams and add the Olympics into the discussion and the Bulls were clearly tired. Also the Bulls were concentrated mostly on the playoffs that year which is another reason(They get bored/fatigue). Mj was gambling before playoffs games in 93 and missing. They definitely didn't have the same hunger has the first two. Here are some Quotes on the 93 season

"The grind can wear on you," Perdue said. "You have to be mentally and physically prepared. And we were."

Indeed, beyond the Bulls bringing more bodies to training camp in October 1992 to limit practice and exhibition game repetitions for the principals, Perdue said coach Phil Jackson acknowledged the rarity of the potential accomplishment from Day One.

"Instead of going two-a-days that first month in October, we had one longer practice," Perdue said. "There would be some days where after we practiced, we would lie on the floor and turn the lights off in the gym and do breathing exercises. He was trying to find ways for us to conserve energy and change things up a bit."

Adding to the cumulative wear-and-tear, Michael Jordan and Scottie Pippen participated in the 1992 Barcelona Olympics. Pippen added the 1996 Atlanta Olympics. LeBron James played in the 2012 London Olympics.

That's a lot of basketball.

"Did you see LeBron in Game 3?" Perdue asked. "He didn't sit down on chairs during timeouts. He collapsed. That's what these guys are facing, the fatigue both mentally and physically."

It takes a special to team to overcome it and three-peat