Jordan and Kareem: Playoff Defeats as Alpha

[G.O.A.T]

Michael Jordan - Playoff Series Defeats as Alpha

1985 - First Round - Milwaukee Bucks (59-23) - Three games to one - Bulls Record: 38-44 - Jordan averages: 29/6/9/3/1 on 44/83 - #2 guy: O. Woolridge 20-3-2-2 on 50/79

1986 - First Round - Boston Celtics (68-14) - Three games to none - Bulls Record: 32-50 (9-9 with MJ) - Jordan averages: 44/6/6/2/1 on 51/87 - #2 guy: O. Woolridge 21-5-1-1 on 40/87

1987 - First Round - Boston Celtics (59-23) - Three games to none - Bulls Record: 32-50 (9-9 with MJ) - Jordan averages: 36/7/6/2/2 on 42/90 - #2 guy: C. Oakley 20-15-2-1 on 38/83

1988 - Conference Semis - Detroit Pistons (54-28) - Four games to one - Bulls Record: 50-32 - Jordan averages: 27/9/5/2/1 on 49/79 - #2 guy: C. Oakley 9-12-3 on 41/93

1989 - Conference Finals - Detroit Pistons (63-19) - Four games to two - Bulls Record 47-35 - Jordan averages: 30/6/7/2/1 on 46/24/76 - #2 guy: H. Grant 9-9-2-1 on 50/82

1990 - Conference Finals - Detroit Pistons (59-23) - Four games to three - Bulls Record 55-27 - Jordan averages: 32/7/6/2/1 on 47/29/88 - #2 guy: S. Pippen 17/6/4/2/1 on 43/30/75

1995 - Conference Semis - Orlando Magic (57-25) - Four games to two - Bulls Record 47-35 (13-4 with MJ) - Jordan averages: 31/7/4/3/2 on 48/23/80 - #2 guy: S. Pippen 19/10/6/1/1 on 41/35/69

Average Opponent Record: 60-22
Average Bulls Record: 43-39
Opponents who advanced to Finals: 6/7
Opponents who won NBA Title: 3/7
Record Facing Elimination: 2-7
Series with HCA: zero
Jordan

[SMoKe0uT]

who cares? is this some kinda bait thread?

[atljonesbro]

What agenda are you trying to push? I thought eye test = god and stats are 4 nerdz

[riseagainst]

dam, teams that beat MJ and the Bulls averaged 60 wins.

:biggums:

[G.O.A.T]

Point?

This is hilarious.. Listing a bunch of stats and record that in the end seem totally irrelevant :lol

Probably a lot of work put in this but I really don't see why :lol

It's been a topic of discussion in other threads and I had some research on it.

No hidden message here just information for the people who are interested in it.


What agenda are you trying to push? I thought eye test = god and stats are 4 nerdz

No idea what you're talking about


who cares? is this some kinda bait thread?

Yes, I'm trying to bait people into a discussion.

[riseagainst]

OP could you do one for Bird, Magic, Hakeem, Kobe, Lebron, Shaq, etc

[SMoKe0uT]

It's been a topic of discussion in other threads and I had some research on it.

No hidden message here just information for the people who are interested in it.

ok? but really its meaningless, its nearly a wash.

[ArbitraryWater]

OP could you do one for Bird, Magic, Hakeem, Kobe, Lebron, Shaq, etc

Why? This is horribly pointless and won't tell you anything... There is a bunch of context to be aplied as each situation is different, circumstances, opponent, team mates, etc.

I dig the effort, but from the OP, don't really see anything to take away from, besides that maybe Kareem pushed his teams to greater regular season success.

[Roundball_Rock]

I dig the effort, but from the OP, don't really see anything to take away from, besides that maybe Kareem pushed his teams to greater regular season success.

Yeah. KAJ posted only one losing season in his 20 year career--and that was a 40-42 season after the Lakers gave an all-star, a 16/11 player, the #2 drafted player and the #8 drafted player (in that year's draft) to acquire him. The Bucks did go 38-44 one season, but that is because they went 3-14 without him so KAJ had a 35-30 record. :bowdown:

[G.O.A.T]

Why? This is horribly pointless and won't tell you anything... There is a bunch of context to be aplied as each situation is different, circumstances, opponent, team mates, etc.

I dig the effort, but from the OP, don't really see anything to take away from, besides that maybe Kareem pushed his teams to greater regular season success.

Let everyone decide what they think is pointless. and as for the bold, unless you're goal is push Kareem over Jordan that should not be what you take away from this.

[G.O.A.T]

Yeah. KAJ posted only one losing season in his 20 year career--and that was a 40-42 season after the Lakers gave an all-star, a 16/11 player, the #2 drafted player and the #8 drafted player (in that year's draft) to acquire him. The Bucks did go 38-44 one season, but that is because they went 3-14 without him so KAJ had a 35-30 record. :bowdown:

I think a big part of the reason for Kareem's Bucks having such great records is the era. Expansion really weakened the league. The Bucks/Lakers/Knicks all had insane winning streaks in 70, 71 and 72. The top teams in the league were winning a ton of games compared to later in the decade and after the merger. We saw the same thing in the 90's after that round of expansion.

It's not that Kareem wasn't great, he obviously was, and those teams were very good, though they lacked great depth, but I don't think they were as dominant as their record suggests. That's why, in my opinion Kareem has lost so much more with HCA than MJ. His teams were good enough, and the situation was just right, to win more games than the should have in the regular season.

[ArbitraryWater]

Let everyone decide what they think is pointless. and as for the bold, unless you're goal is push Kareem over Jordan that should not be what you take away from this.

*your

[G.O.A.T]

^Speaking of pointless.

I'll look for the ones I have on Bird and Magic and Wilt and Shaq

[Roundball_Rock]

Great points. I have never heard that theory expressed before but it makes sense. We have seen with the contemporary Bulls that often a team can overachieve in the regular season and then fall short relative to their record in the playoffs. In 2011 they had 62 wins and the best record but were demolished by the Heat in the ECF. In 2012 they won at a 55-56 win pace without Rose (67 win pace with him) but promptly dropped 4 out of 5 games without Rose against the #8 seeded Sixers in the playoffs. In 2013 they won 45 games to place 5th, actually won the 4/5 series in a 7 game series and then were crushed by the Heat in the ECSF. In 2014 they tied for 3rd in the conference with 48 wins, got the #4 seed but the Wizards beat them comfortably. So only in 2013 did they really perform on par with what their record suggests.


29/15/4/1/3 on 52/73

I think this illustrates how people put too much stock in team achievements. Other than 73' KAJ was doing his part every year. If he was a notorious, consistently poor playoff performer like David Robinson and Karl Malone that would be something else but KAJ showed up, usually raised his scoring and rebounding in the playoffs.

[Sarcastic]

Jordan never losing with HCA is crazy.

[G.O.A.T]

I think this illustrates how people put too much stock in team achievements. Other than 73' KAJ was doing his part every year. If he was a notorious, consistently poor playoff performer like David Robinson and Karl Malone that would be something else but KAJ showed up, usually raised his scoring and rebounding in the playoffs.

I still think team achievments are the most important factor. Not just the flat out results, but how a players play impacts them. It's just not fair to punish Kareem for not winning most of those years. You can "not reward" Kareem, but I think that's where it stops.

I still have more research to do, but from what I have gathered so far, Jordan, Russell, Kareem and Duncan are the four guys who most consistently raised their play come playoff time every year.

[ArbitraryWater]

I still think team achievments are the most important factor. Not just the flat out results, but how a players play impacts them. It's just not fair to punish Kareem for not winning most of those years. You can "not reward" Kareem, but I think that's where it stops.

I still have more research to do, but from what I have gathered so far, Jordan, Russell, Kareem and Duncan are the four guys who most consistently raised their play come playoff time every year.

See... And then with the "but how a players play impacts them"

You're already doing it wrong... This just gives you all the room in the world to spew your bullshit... Like that Walton was better than Kareem in 1977 and 1978 :facepalm :hammerhead:

[Roundball_Rock]

I still have more research to do, but from what I have gathered so far, Jordan, Russell, Kareem and Duncan are the four guys who most consistently raised their play come playoff time every year.

That sounds about right. Who are the biggest playoff decliners? Robinson and K. Malone must be high on that list?

I think team achievements matter. After all, you play to win the game. What I object to is talk like 6>5 or 5>3 or 5>2. There are so many factors that go into winning a championship you can't simply say Player A won more than Player B therefore he is better like a lot of people do. For example, Kobe vs. Shaq. Inevitably a Kobe fan will say 5>4 but how would that "4" look if Wade did not go down in the 05' ECF? How about if Nick Anderson does not choke hard in Game 1 of the 95' Finals? I still think the Rockets, due to experience, were the better team but I also think Anderson's choke destroyed the Magic's confidence. On the other side of the equation, how would Kobe's "5" look if Artest does not get that fluke rebound in the WCF in 2010 or the Celtics remained healthy in 2009 and 2010? If Shaq had 5 rings and Kobe 3 does that really change the equation? Or in KAJ's case he easily could have won rings in 74' and 77' with a healthier team.

What I look to is whether a player generally was associated with winning, not necessarily the degree of winning.

[ProfessorMurder]

Karl Malone's playoff averages are almost identical to his regular season numbers, don't give me that 'he shrunk' shit. If a couple of things bounce the Jazz's way he doesn't get that reputation at all.

[dankok8]

Don't forget Oscar's injury in '72... He averaged 9/5/5 on 36% shooting in the WCF and he played just a few minutes in Game 6. Wali Jones and Jon McGlocklin were also hobbled in that series.

In '81 Magic missed a lot of games and when he came back he was feuding with Nixon and coach Westhead who ended up getting fired in the off season. A lot of chemistry problems in LA and it was a 3-game miniseries to begin with.

Apart from '73 it's hard to blame Kareem for any loss in his career. The OP shows how crazy good he was from year to year.

[G.O.A.T]

Don't forget Oscar's injury in '72... He averaged 9/5/5 on 36% shooting in the WCF and he played just a few minutes in Game 6. Wali Jones and Jon McGlocklin were also hobbled in that series.

In '81 Magic missed a lot of games and when he came back he was feuding with Nixon and coach Westhead who ended up getting fired in the off season. A lot of chemistry problems in LA and it was a 3-game miniseries to begin with.

Apart from '73 it's hard to blame Kareem for any loss in his career. The OP shows how crazy good he was from year to year.

I added the Oscar injury in '72 and took away '74, that was a mistake on my part. In '74 he was hurting, but he still was able to play pretty much every important minute of the playoffs, in '72 as you noted, that was not the case.

I probably should add McGlocklin too, although I think he already lost his starting spot by mid-season.

[Roundball_Rock]

Don't forget Oscar's injury in '72... He averaged 9/5/5 on 36% shooting in the WCF and he played just a few minutes in Game 6. Wali Jones and Jon McGlocklin were also hobbled in that series.

In '81 Magic missed a lot of games and when he came back he was feuding with Nixon and coach Westhead who ended up getting fired in the off season. A lot of chemistry problems in LA and it was a 3-game miniseries to begin with.

Apart from '73 it's hard to blame Kareem for any loss in his career. The OP shows how crazy good he was from year to year.

:applause:

[Anaximandro1]

I still have more research to do, but from what I have gathered so far, Jordan, Russell, Kareem and Duncan are the four guys who most consistently raised their play come playoff time every year.
Well, the Spurs want to avoid at all costs things that could derail their title hopes during the regular season (injuries, lack of chemistry or rest ...)

They take a conservative approach. They don't give 100%

Longtime Spurs fans know that prime Duncan had an extra gear hidden away that you couldn't see in February (unless it's the Jazz in the late 90s. There are good reasons)

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-R-PyGK8rJMQ/U8iE0XQFXiI/AAAAAAAADU4/GNEBafrW2Nc/s1600/1.jpg

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-wY9logccyfE/U8iE0d8aCrI/AAAAAAAADVQ/OfZ0t-v9P64/s1600/2.jpg

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-nbxjYx0aRSY/U8iE1KlPv5I/AAAAAAAADVA/0hjMZtFREW4/s1600/4.jpg


Duncan was usually reliable in the fourth quarter.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-a4ASSt6LRkQ/U8iE0YIXIEI/AAAAAAAADU8/2DtFWYRE3wY/s1600/3.jpg

[dankok8]

I still have more research to do, but from what I have gathered so far, Jordan, Russell, Kareem and Duncan are the four guys who most consistently raised their play come playoff time every year.

I wouldn't put Duncan there. His performances against strong defensive teams have actually been pretty terrible. Look at his playoff series against Rasheed Wallace, Kevin Garnett, Marcus Camby etc.

As far as raising his game I'd put Hakeem on the list. His numbers really shot up in the playoffs where he played on a really high level!


I added the Oscar injury in '72 and took away '74, that was a mistake on my part. In '74 he was hurting, but he still was able to play pretty much every important minute of the playoffs, in '72 as you noted, that was not the case.

I probably should add McGlocklin too, although I think he already lost his starting spot by mid-season.


In 1974 Oscar was hurting like you said and starting SG Lucious Allen DNP in the postseason.

[Dragic4Life]

MJ never lost in the Finals, that's the only thing that counts in this argument of yours.

[G.O.A.T]

I wouldn't put Duncan there. His performances against strong defensive teams have actually been pretty terrible. Look at his playoff series against Rasheed Wallace, Kevin Garnett, Marcus Camby etc.

As far as raising his game I'd put Hakeem on the list. His numbers really shot up in the playoffs where he played on a really high level!



In 1974 Oscar was hurting like you said and starting SG Lucious Allen DNP in the postseason.

Overall Duncan is still in that group for me, but you're right about adding Hakeem. Often his team was not up to snuff, but when they were competitive he was great.

Also thanks for correcting my errors regarding the 70s Bucks injuries. Nice to see others who've researched that era.

[beastee]

don't really see anything to take away from, besides that maybe Kareem pushed his teams to greater regular season success.
72-10 says Hello.

[Spurs5Rings2014]

Well, the Spurs want to avoid at all costs things that could derail their title hopes during the regular season (injuries, lack of chemistry or rest ...)

They take a conservative approach. They don't give 100%

Longtime Spurs fans know that prime Duncan had an extra gear hidden away that you couldn't see in February (unless it's the Jazz in the late 90s. There are good reasons)

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-R-PyGK8rJMQ/U8iE0XQFXiI/AAAAAAAADU4/GNEBafrW2Nc/s1600/1.jpg

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-wY9logccyfE/U8iE0d8aCrI/AAAAAAAADVQ/OfZ0t-v9P64/s1600/2.jpg

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-nbxjYx0aRSY/U8iE1KlPv5I/AAAAAAAADVA/0hjMZtFREW4/s1600/4.jpg


Duncan was usually reliable in the fourth quarter.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-a4ASSt6LRkQ/U8iE0YIXIEI/AAAAAAAADU8/2DtFWYRE3wY/s1600/3.jpg

:applause:

[SexSymbol]

Incredible stat is that Jordan opponents AVERAGE is 60-22.
Lost only against great teams

[jstern]

It was pretty interesting OP, I have no idea why so many people at the start of the thread are putting it down. It paints a picture of the player's performances and their competition. I wish I could see such stats for all big time players .

[dankok8]

The opponent records in the OP are misleading when taken at face value and undersell Kareem's competition.

The 1977 Blazers were a great team. Many observers have called them the greatest passing team ever (along with the 1986 Celtics) and one of the best defensive teams ever. Most lists have them in the top 15 of all time. They went just 47-35 that year but Bill Walton played just 65 games.

With Walton they went 44-21 (56-win pace)
Without Walton they went 5-12 (24-win pace)

The team Kareem faced was quite a juggernaut and the Lakers also had one starter out for the series in PF Kermit Washington and another hobbled in SG Lucious Allen.

The following season they cemented their all-time great status. With Walton in the line-up the Blazers went an unprecedented 48-10 (68-win pace). Of course he suffered basically career-ending injuries from then on and was never the same. Blazers went 10-14 (34-win pace) to finish the season and crashed out of the playoffs.

In 1978-1979 playing without Walton, they went a respectable 47-35.



As for the 1978 and 1979 Sonics, no superstars but an insanely physical cohesive squad on both ends with a monster backcourt. I always like to refer to the late 1970's Sonics as the Bad Boys of that decade. Gus = Isiah, DJ = Dumars, and Sikma = Laimbeer and they had tons of depth and strong defense. Meanwhile the Lakers were a horrific rebounding team with no perimeter defense.

The 3-headed dragon at guard for Seattle - Gus Williams, Dennis Johnson, and back-up "downtown" Freddie Brown were the best backcourt in the league and they obliterated Norm Nixon and whatever scrubs LA could muster. Tom Lagarde, Lonnie Shelton, and Paul Silas didn't have the scoring flair of Wilkes and Dantley but they killed it on defense and on the boards. The C position where Kareem dominated Sikma is literally the only match-up LA didn't lose.

[G.O.A.T]

In 1978-1979 playing without Walton, they went a respectable 47-35.

They added Mychal Thompson though if I remember. And Ronnie Brewer, both high draft picks.




As for the 1978 and 1979 Sonics, no superstars but an insanely physical cohesive squad on both ends with a monster backcourt. I always like to refer to the late 1970's Sonics as the Bad Boys of that decade. Gus = Isiah, DJ = Dumars, and Sikma = Laimbeer and they had tons of depth and strong defense. Meanwhile the Lakers were a horrific rebounding team with no perimeter defense.

It's a stretch, but there are a lot of similarities, especially the three man back court and the depth up front. Pistons team had more veteran guys though, I'd say they were more talented man for man too, battle tested and they faced much stiffer competition.


The 3-headed dragon at guard for Seattle - Gus Williams, Dennis Johnson, and back-up "downtown" Freddie Brown were the best backcourt in the league and they obliterated Norm Nixon and whatever scrubs LA could muster. Tom Lagarde, Lonnie Shelton, and Paul Silas didn't have the scoring flair of Wilkes and Dantley but they killed it on defense and on the boards. The C position where Kareem dominated Sikma is literally the only match-up LA didn't lose.

I'm not one to sell the Sonics short, but let's not exaggerate how good they were as Kareem backers often seem to do.

The Lakers were favored in the '78 and '79 series according to Sports Illustrated. This could reflect the flow of money moving towards them, but the teams were very close in terms of W/L record each year and they split each regular season series 2-2. Additionally the Sonics played the best they had ever played during the 1980 season and the Lakers, having swapped Robish/Boone/Wilkes/Hudson for Chones/Magic/Cooper in the rotation made short work of them.

I don't think rookie Magic Johnson, aging Jim Chones and essentially rookie Michael Cooper are a significant talent up grade over an all-NBA and all-ABA combo past their primes in Hudson/Boone and a future scoring champion in Dantley.

To me the difference between the '79 and '80 Lakers was chemistry, which Magic brought naturally, they fir together better and made a huge jump.

The '78 and '79 Lakers teams had more talent man for man than anyone in the league. The were not the best team, but they were good enough to beat anyone.

Saying that every team Kareem played against was better than their record and every team Kareem played on was worse than the record is not a valid point in my opinion.

As usual I'll try to makes this clear, I'm not blaming Kareem for them losing, but I'm giving him credit for "almost winning" because he played so great. There is a quote out there about the '77 series vs. the Blazers where Kareem says, "The Blazers had a great series, Walton had a great series, I had a great series, but the Lakers had a poor series" that's not exact, but it's true to the spirit of the comment. While all of the things Kareem said are true, if I were his teammate I'd be pissed. The fact that Kareem's teammates never connected with him and vice versa has a lot to do with his lack of team success in the 70's post Oscar and pre-Magic. One more time, not blaming Kareem, but writing him a list of excuses either.

[LAZERUSS]

It's not only the surrounding rosters, but the COMPETITION, as well. For instance, in Wilt's 13 post-seasons, he only played one that did not either win the title, or lose to the eventual champions.

His '61 team lost three straight close games to the Nats, in a series in which Chamberlain averaged a 37-23...all while his teammates collectively shot .332 from the field. His three "HOF" teammates were simply awful. Guy Rodgers shot .368 from the field (which amazingly, was not his worst post-season). Paul Arizin shot .325. And without question, the worst "HOF" player in post-season history, Tom Gola (who has as much buisness being in an NBA HOF as I do), shot...get this.. .206.

Wilt's TEAM's lost TEN times to the eventual champions. SEVEN of them to the greatest dynasty in major professional team sports' history. Then his TEAMs lost twice to the Knicks, who featured FOUR and then SIX HOFers in those two losses. And his injury-riddled '71 Lakers (no West nor Baylor) lost to the 66-16 Bucks (arguably a top-4 team all-time.) Included were FIVE GAME SEVEN's, FOUR of which were decided by margins of 2, 1, 4, and 2 points.

And, his '67 Sixers blew away the 8-time defending champion Celtics, 4-1 (they were four points away from a sweep in game four.) And then in '72, his Lakers stopped what many had figured would be the next great dynasty, the Bucks, 4-2 (and they went 4-1 in the last five games,...as well as 4-1 against them in the regular season.) They also crushed the Knicks and their FIVE HOFers in the Finals that season, 4-1.

Chamberlain, with putrid rosters in the first half of his career, nearly won two rings single-handedly. And with his rosters generally either puking all over the floor, or just decimated with injuries, he nearly won THREE more rings. And he also took what had been a 31-49 roster to a 48-32 record and a trip to the Finals, where his team, outgunned 8-3 in HOFers, lost 4-1, but the last two losses were in the waning seconds. And again, in his last season, his injury-plagued team lost 4-1, but all four losses came in the last minute (and by margins of 4, 4, 5, and 9 points.)

The REALITY was, Chamberlain was an eyelash away from winning 4-5 more rings, and with even slightly more help, as much as SEVEN more. And Wilt was the best player on the floor in SEVEN of his eight post-season series against the Celtics. He also outplayed Kareem in their '71 matchup. And in '72, by virtually all accounts, he outplayed him again. He was certainly better than FMVP Reed in the '70 Finals (on one leg he battled a much healthier Reed to a draw in the first four games...and over the course of the last three, he outscored Reed by a collective 88-11 margin; outrebounded him by a 71-3 margin; and outshot him from the floor by a .710 to .400 margin.) Even in his last Finals, while Reed won the FMVP, Chamberlain basically outplayed him.

[magnax1]

^Speaking of pointless.

I'll look for the ones I have on Bird and Magic and Wilt and Shaq
I feel like Magic's will look pretty bad.
Kareem's is pretty damn bad looking too honestly. Jordan had a 17 win difference vs Kareem's winning three more.

[G.O.A.T]

I feel like Magic's will look pretty bad.
Kareem's is pretty damn bad looking too honestly. Jordan had a 17 win difference vs Kareem's winning three more.

Magic's is very up and down.

One thing to keep in mind about Kareem's 1970's team is all the untimely injuries they had. Also of note is that a couple of Kareem's "worst" losses are in 3 game series where a fluke is a lot more likely.

[magnax1]

Magic's is very up and down.

One thing to keep in mind about Kareem's 1970's team is all the untimely injuries they had. Also of note is that a couple of Kareem's "worst" losses are in 3 game series where a fluke is a lot more likely.
Magic's probably shouldn't have been anything but up. Rarely was he without the most talented team in the league or best (at least one of the) second option.
There were a lot of untimely injuries for kareem, undoubtedly, but his play against Thurmond cost him a shot at another championship too. It's surprising how well he did against Wilt in 72 in comparison.

[LAZERUSS]

Magic's probably shouldn't have been anything but up. Rarely was he without the most talented team in the league or best (at least one of the) second option.
There were a lot of untimely injuries for kareem, undoubtedly, but his play against Thurmond cost him a shot at another championship too. It's surprising how well he did against Wilt in 72 in comparison.

Kareem did average 33.7 ppg against Wilt in the '72 WCF's, BUT, it came on a .457 FG% (in a season in which he averaged 34.8 ppg on a .574 FG%.) AND, in the last FOUR games of that series, KAJ shot .414 (three of them Laker wins.)

Kareem was a better player than Chamberlain in '72, but by virtually all accounts, Wilt outplayed KAJ in that series. Time Magazine went to far as to claim that he "DECISIVELY" outplayed a Kareem who was 11 years younger.

[LAZERUSS]

BTW, a 34 year old Wilt, only a year removed from major knee surgery, statistically outplayed a PEAK Kareem (Alcindor) in the '71 WCF's. In fact, if you break down the games, it was probably by a 3-1-1 margin.

[LAZERUSS]

The opponent records in the OP taken are misleading when taken at face value and undersell Kareem's competition.

The 1977 Blazers were a great team. Many observers have called them the greatest passing team ever (along with the 1986 Celtics) and one of the best defensive teams ever. Most lists have them in the top 15 of all time. They went just 47-35 that year but Bill Walton played just 65 games.

With Walton they went 44-21 (56-win pace)
Without Walton they went 5-12 (24-win pace)

The team Kareem faced was quite a juggernaut and the Lakers also had one starter out for the series in PF Kermit Washington and another hobbled in SG Lucious Allen.

The following season they cemented their all-time great status. With Walton in the line-up the Blazers went an unprecedented 48-10 (68-win pace). Of course he suffered basically career-ending injuries from then on and was never the same. Blazers went 10-14 (34-win pace) to finish the season and crashed out of the playoffs.

In 1978-1979 playing without Walton, they went a respectable 47-35.



As for the 1978 and 1979 Sonics, no superstars but an insanely physical cohesive squad on both ends with a monster backcourt. I always like to refer to the late 1970's Sonics as the Bad Boys of that decade. Gus = Isiah, DJ = Dumars, and Sikma = Laimbeer and they had tons of depth and strong defense. Meanwhile the Lakers were a horrific rebounding team with no perimeter defense.

The 3-headed dragon at guard for Seattle - Gus Williams, Dennis Johnson, and back-up "downtown" Freddie Brown were the best backcourt in the league and they obliterated Norm Nixon and whatever scrubs LA could muster. Tom Lagarde, Lonnie Shelton, and Paul Silas didn't have the scoring flair of Wilkes and Dantley but they killed it on defense and on the boards. The C position where Kareem dominated Sikma is literally the only match-up LA didn't lose.

Kareem had no chance against Walton's Blazers in the '77 WCF's. The Blazers best player in that series was PF Maurice Lucas (the best PF in the league), who simply had no competition. Lucas was the Blazers leading scorer in that series, and according to KAJ, himself, he outrebounded the Laker starting PF, 50-12 in that series.

Not only that, but KAJ didn't have his starting PG in the first two games of that series, either. It was truly laughable at watching the footage in game two, when the Laker guards couldn't even get the ball past half court.

In any case, and for those that may not have seen it, KAJ just annihilated Walton in game two (and in a series in which he was CLEARLY the better player.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=coHMKlx7Was&playnext=1&videos=YqP06ya0k4w

Walton had no chance one-on-one, and even doubling KAJ did no good. They finally resorted to swarming him, and even then KAJ was able to score.

Had those two swapped rosters in that post-season, and it would have been KAJ going to the Finals.

[magnax1]

Kareem did average 33.7 ppg against Wilt in the '72 WCF's, BUT, it came on a .457 FG% (in a season in which he averaged 34.8 ppg on a .574 FG%.) AND, in the last FOUR games of that series, KAJ shot .414 (three of them Laker wins.)

Kareem was a better player than Chamberlain in '72, but by virtually all accounts, Wilt outplayed KAJ in that series. Time Magazine went to far as to claim that he "DECISIVELY" outplayed a Kareem who was 11 years younger.
Are you jlauber.....?

[SamuraiSWISH]

So young, raw Jordan sans any legit, trust worthy help pre 1990 was basically only getting beat by 60+ win, in many cases ... all-time GOAT level basketball teams? Interesting. Basically whenver Mike had good enough help, he was winning championships. As underdogs, or favorites.

[Angel Face]

Good thread. To those who say Jordan can't win w/o Pippen, look at the teams young Jordan and the Bulls has to go through in the playoffs. East was stacked as fck during that era.

[GimmeThat]

I did not know they had losers bracket.

[Roundball_Rock]

Good thread. To those who say Jordan can't win w/o Pippen, look at the teams young Jordan and the Bulls has to go through in the playoffs. East was stacked as fck during that era.

What people say about MJ without Pippen is backed up by the OP: MJ was going in with lousy seeds (admittedly with lousy help) and hence facing great teams in the first round. Even as late as 1989 the Bulls were 13-12 to start the year; Pippen became a permanent starter and they promptly went on a 9-2 roll. Pippen averaged 10/4/2 in 25 mpg as a reserve; as a starter he jumped to 16/7/4 in 35 mpg and the Bulls results jumped concomitantly. The Bulls went 43-30 with Pip; 4-5 without him. That is the difference between 48 wins and 36 wins over 82 games in terms of pace. While MJ always was the best player, Pippen becoming a permanent starter was the watershed moment for Chicago (just as Magic joining the Lakers took them to a higher level even though KAJ was the best player).

Chicago before Pippen starting in 1985-1989

38-44, 1-3 in the playoffs
30-52, 0-3
40-42, 0-3
50-32, 2-2 (Pippen started Game 5--had a big game--and then started in the ECSF)
13-11

Chicago after Pippen starting

32-24, ECF
55-27, ECF
61-21, champions
67-15, champions
57-25, champions
55-27, ECSF
47-35, ECSF
72-10, champions
69-13, champions
38-9, champions

:bowdown:

http://4.kicksonfire.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/jordan-pippen-champagne.jpg

[Asukal]

Gaylauber trying to hijack the thread again with his "btw Wilt did this bullshit.....". :facepalm :banghead: :facepalm

[dankok8]

They added Mychal Thompson though if I remember. And Ronnie Brewer, both high draft picks.

Yes they had Mychal that year.


It's a stretch, but there are a lot of similarities, especially the three man back court and the depth up front. Pistons team had more veteran guys though, I'd say they were more talented man for man too, battle tested and they faced much stiffer competition.

They aren't as good as the Pistons but they are an overlooked team all-time. They were very balanced, very rough, very defensive. I think the Bad Boys analogy is pretty good since neither team had a top 5 MVP candidate.


I'm not one to sell the Sonics short, but let's not exaggerate how good they were as Kareem backers often seem to do.

The Lakers were favored in the '78 and '79 series according to Sports Illustrated. This could reflect the flow of money moving towards them, but the teams were very close in terms of W/L record each year and they split each regular season series 2-2. Additionally the Sonics played the best they had ever played during the 1980 season and the Lakers, having swapped Robish/Boone/Wilkes/Hudson for Chones/Magic/Cooper in the rotation made short work of them.

I don't think rookie Magic Johnson, aging Jim Chones and essentially rookie Michael Cooper are a significant talent up grade over an all-NBA and all-ABA combo past their primes in Hudson/Boone and a future scoring champion in Dantley.

To me the difference between the '79 and '80 Lakers was chemistry, which Magic brought naturally, they fir together better and made a huge jump.

The '78 and '79 Lakers teams had more talent man for man than anyone in the league. The were not the best team, but they were good enough to beat anyone.

Saying that every team Kareem played against was better than their record and every team Kareem played on was worse than the record is not a valid point in my opinion.

As usual I'll try to makes this clear, I'm not blaming Kareem for them losing, but I'm giving him credit for "almost winning" because he played so great. There is a quote out there about the '77 series vs. the Blazers where Kareem says, "The Blazers had a great series, Walton had a great series, I had a great series, but the Lakers had a poor series" that's not exact, but it's true to the spirit of the comment. While all of the things Kareem said are true, if I were his teammate I'd be pissed. The fact that Kareem's teammates never connected with him and vice versa has a lot to do with his lack of team success in the 70's post Oscar and pre-Magic. One more time, not blaming Kareem, but writing him a list of excuses either.


Lakers got killed by the Sonics because of rebounding...


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.

The 1979 Lakers got outrebounded by 13.2 rebounds per game by Seattle while the 1980 Lakers won the battle by 3.8 rebounds per game. That's the biggest reason although lack of perimeter defense and poor chemistry didn't help either.

[LAZERUSS]

I have said it before, but swap rosters with KAJ and Walton in '77, and very likely Kareem wins another ring. And it would have been Walton on the receiving end of a sweep in the WCF's.

[Hey Yo]

So young, raw Jordan sans any legit, trust worthy help pre 1990 was basically only getting beat by 60+ win, in many cases ... all-time GOAT level basketball teams? Interesting. Basically whenver Mike had good enough help, he was winning championships. As underdogs, or favorites.
MJ was getting beat by 60 win teams because he couldn't get his team higher than an 8th seed.

#1 seeds usually beat #8 seeds. Regardless who's on the 8th seed.

Not a secret.

[DatAsh]

Like that Walton was better than Kareem in 1977 and 1978 :facepalm :hammerhead:

Apart from offensive box score stats, what is it - in your opinion - about the notion of 77 Walton over 77 Kareem that seems so unreasonable?

[Roundball_Rock]

MJ was getting beat by 60 win teams because he couldn't get his team higher than an 8th seed.

#1 seeds usually beat #8 seeds. Regardless who's on the 8th seed.

Not a secret.

Exactly. :lol I love how that is overlooked.

[SamuraiSWISH]

Exactly. :lol I love how that is overlooked.
It's not overlooked. He had absolute shit of a supporting cast until the 1989 season when Pippen began coming into his own more, thanks to playing along side Mike everyday in practice.

We're attempting to knock him for his team's record as a rookie, a sophomore who missed most of the season, and as a 3rd year player with no help?

:oldlol:

MJ led the Bulls to a 50 - 32 record in the '88 season with Sam Vincent, Charles Oakley, and Dave Corzine as his next best players. And super geen rookie Pippen off the bench.

[Roundball_Rock]

That's the knock on him. How many times were the other GOAT candidates going in with #8 seeds even with poor teams around them?

It is interesting MJ fans invoke his team to explain his defeats--but don't do this with other legends--and ignore the team when it comes to MJ's success.


MJ led the Bulls to a 50 - 32 record in the '88 season with Sam Vincent, Charles Oakley, and Dave Corzine as his next best players. And super geen rookie Pippen off the bench.

Yeah--and the Bulls were on their way to choking against a 42 win team in the first round until super green Pippen made his first career start, had a big game and helped the Bulls win in a close game. The Bulls also started the next year 13-12; Pippen played 25 minutes in his first start, they lost, but then promptly went on a 9-2 roll. The rest is history. The Bulls never looked back just as the Lakers did not after 1980.

It is a legitimate point that MJ had a weak team around him, although he did have a 20+ ppg second option in Woolridge his first two years. The knock is that he didn't lift them much. 27 wins to 38 wins as a rookie, 9-9 in his second year and 40-42 in his third. By his third year he was #2 in MVP voting.

Does this matter, though? Not really. The reason people bring it up is MJ stans invoke "he never lost with HCA" and use that against other legends. While it can be argued that he never lost to a superior team, it can also be fairly argued he didn't elevate bad teams past their natural level as much as other legends. In other words, he wasn't getting HCA with bad teams in the first place.

My personal view is MJ needed to learn how to win and learn how to play within a team concept. This is where Jackson and Pippen were key. MJ as an old geezer in Washington improved a 19 win team to 0.500 ball. He also had a major impact on the 95' Bulls fresh from the baseball diamond. Why couldn't MJ with fresh legs do it early in his career then? He didn't know how to play within a team. To his credit, he learned to, with key assists from Jackson, Pippen and Tex Winter (it is no coincidence Chicago's first title came the first year they implemented the triangle offense and the first year Pippen, who became the team's primary ballhandler, led the team in assists. Both changes reduced the time the ball was in MJ's hands and generated more ball movement and kept other players involved in the game.). The rest is history.

[juju151111]

That's the knock on him. How many times were the other GOAT candidates going in with #8 seeds even with poor teams around them?

It is interesting MJ fans invoke his team to explain his defeats--but don't do this with other legends--and ignore the team when it comes to MJ's success.



Yeah--and the Bulls were on their way to choking against a 42 win team in the first round until super green Pippen made his first career start, had a big game and helped the Bulls win in a close game. The Bulls also started the next year 13-12; Pippen played 25 minutes in his first start, they lost, but then promptly went on a 9-2 roll. The rest is history. The Bulls never looked back just as the Lakers did not after 1980.

It is a legitimate point that MJ had a weak team around him, although he did have a 20+ ppg second option in Woolridge his first two years. The knock is that he didn't lift them much. 27 wins to 38 wins as a rookie, 9-9 in his second year and 40-42 in his third. By his third year he was #2 in MVP voting.

Does this matter, though? Not really. The reason people bring it up is MJ stans invoke "he never lost with HCA" and use that against other legends. While it can be argued that he never lost to a superior team, it can also be fairly argued he didn't elevate bad teams past their natural level as much as other legends. In other words, he wasn't getting HCA with bad teams in the first place.

My personal view is MJ needed to learn how to win and learn how to play within a team concept. This is where Jackson and Pippen were key. MJ as an old geezer in Washington improved a 19 win team to 0.500 ball. He also had a major impact on the 95' Bulls fresh from the baseball diamond. Why couldn't MJ with fresh legs do it early in his career then? He didn't know how to play within a team. To his credit, he learned to, with key assists from Jackson, Pippen and Tex Winter (it is no coincidence Chicago's first title came the first year they implemented the triangle offense and the first year Pippen, who became the team's primary ballhandler, led the team in assists. Both changes reduced the time the ball was in MJ's hands and generated more ball movement and kept other players involved in the game.). The rest is history.
The only reason the bulls didn't win earlier is because they were freaking garbage it's that simple. Mj never lost with HCA and sometimes won without it. It's a fact Mj lost to 60 win teams. Don't spin it no other way. Pippen and the other Bulls just wasn't ready. The Pistons players said has much. 89 and 90 where was Pip.:lol