What's the case for Lebron over Kareem?

[RogueBorg]

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar is a more efficient scorer than Lebron, shoots a higher FG%, has more total career points, has more rebounds, blocked more shots, is 6x league MVP (to LBJ's 4), is 11x All-Defensive (to LBJ's 6), is a 2x scoring champ (to Lebron's 1x), is a 19x All-Star (to LBJ's 18x), is a 6x NBA Champion with a winning record in the NBA Finals while Lebron is 4-6 and a losing record in the NBA Finals and is the all-time leading scorer.

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar has over Lebron what Lebronstans say LBJ has over MJ, yet you say Lebron > Kareem.

How does that work exactly Bronsexuals?

[coastalmarker99]

Lebron played in a far stronger era compared to Kareem and was the alpha dog on all of his title-winning teams.


4 finals MVPs beats 2 finals MVPs.


Lebron also has a better peak and is going to crush Kareem in longevity by the time his career is over.



Also for the record, Kareem's accolades need context

Back in the 1970s, the competition was so watered down due to the ABA and Expansion that Kareem won MVP while missing the playoffs.

[1987_Lakers]

I could think of a few reasons.

- He was never a leader
- His defensive peak was a tier below guys like Walton, Russell, Hakeem etc
- Peaked during the worst era in NBA history (70's)
- At least half of his championships came as a sidekick, his last 2 chips he was no where close to his prime

But with that said, you can make a solid case for Kareem being the GOAT.

[RogueBorg]

Kareem has just about everything over Lebron, including a winning record in the Finals. He has the stats, accolades, rings, everything. Of the greatest players in NBA history, Lebron is the biggest loser.

[John_Connor]

IMO the only accolades lebron ever truly earned was his 2 mvp awards in Cleveland. after that he has zero awards or achievements that have any validity whatsoever. even his stats are manufactured from roids and no defense on his era.

so he literally has nothing over Kareem except fan support maybe. 10% of fans and players think he's above Kareem. same as kobe.. but realistically if there was a choice between having prime Kareem or prime lebron I'm taking Kareem because lebron was never a complete player. when he had his athleticism he was a poor shooter and since becoming a good shooter he can't move laterally and gasses out all the time

its not even a debate tbh. plus Kareem had some major accolades stolen from him like the 1980 fmvp and possibly 1982.

[SouBeachTalents]

Having Kareem ahead of LeBron is a perfectly legitimate opinion. But, like virtually all the older ATG's, he has shit on his resume you would absolutely kill LeBron for.

1. Losing in the first round after a 60 win season in '73, averaging 23 ppg on 23 shots and 43% in the playoffs as a center
2. Missing the playoffs b2b seasons in the heart of his prime at 27 & 28 years old
3. Only being FMVP for 2 of his 6 titles
4. Winning his last 2 titles averaging 19 & 14 ppg. There's a zero percent chance that OP or anybody on the board would EVER give LeBron credit for winning titles in that fashion.

And as others have said, the majority of his prime took place in the weakest era in NBA history, a time when several superstars weren't even playing in the NBA.

[beasted]

There's a waaay stronger argument for Kareem > LeBron than LeBron > Jordan. Bronsexuals will hide from this one.

[SouBeachTalents]

Kareem has just about everything over Lebron, including a winning record in the Finals. He has the stats, accolades, rings, everything. Of the greatest players in NBA history, Lebron is the biggest loser.
He's a bigger loser than Wilt :lol Or Bird & Hakeem having more titles & Finals appearances?

[John_Connor]

let's move on from Kareem to Duncan since this isn't even fair for lebron and the kobe thing is done to death.


Duncan is also clearly above lebron IMO

[SouBeachTalents]

IMO the only accolades lebron ever truly earned was his 2 mvp awards in Cleveland. after that he has zero awards or achievements that have any validity whatsoever. even his stats are manufactured from roids and no defense on his era.

so he literally has nothing over Kareem except fan support maybe. 10% of fans and players think he's above Kareem. same as kobe.. but realistically if there was a choice between having prime Kareem or prime lebron I'm taking Kareem because lebron was never a complete player. when he had his athleticism he was a poor shooter and since becoming a good shooter he can't move laterally and gasses out all the time

its not even a debate tbh. plus Kareem had some major accolades stolen from him like the 1980 fmvp and possibly 1982.
Literally made this shit up :lol

[RogueBorg]

I could think of a few reasons.


- His defensive peak was a tier below guys like Walton, Russell, Hakeem etc


We're not comparing KAJ to Russell and Hakeem, we're comparing him to LBJ. Facts, 11x all-defensive > 6x all-defensive.

And for a supposed Lakers fan, you sure don't know anything about Kareem's leadership.

Oh did I mention Kareem has more career points and is a more efficient scorer?

[1987_Lakers]

We're not comparing KAJ to Russell and Hakeem, we're comparing him to LBJ. Facts, 11x all-defensive > 6x all-defensive.

And for a supposed Lakers fan, you sure don't know anything about Kareem's leadership.

Oh did I mention Kareem has more career points and is a more efficient scorer?
Since when was Kareem known for his leadership? He was a quiet dude who didn't hangout with his teammates. I thought this was common knowledge. Jerry West himself said Kareem wasn't a leader.

[RRR3]

We're not comparing KAJ to Russell and Hakeem, we're comparing him to LBJ. Facts, 11x all-defensive > 6x all-defensive.

And for a supposed Lakers fan, you sure don't know anything about Kareem's leadership.

Oh did I mention Kareem has more career points and is a more efficient scorer?
Not for long.

[coastalmarker99]

Since when was Kareem known for his leadership? He was a quiet dude who didn't hangout with his teammates. I thought this was common knowledge. Jerry West himself said Kareem wasn't a leader.


If Kareem never had Magic from 1980 to 1989 he wouldn't be viewed as a top 5 player of all time nowadays.


Magic basically saved Kareem's legacy and career from being viewed as a massive disappointment.


In Kareem's first ten seasons.



His teams in POs were 9-7 in series, 44-34 in games


And won 1 title and made only 2 total Finals.


in Kareem’s 5 seasons without one of the 2 best point guards ever, which also should be 5 of, if not his 5 best seasons (ages 27-31) Kareem:

– Missed the playoffs twice – Left a team that had the same exact record after he left with the same main pieces intact

– Got swept once (With home court advantage)

– Won a grand total of 2 playoff series (one of which required 2 victories to win) –


Beat 0 teams with 50+ wins (While playing alongside 3 HOF players along the way in Goodrich, Wilkes, and Dantley.


Keep in mind Jordan, Kobe, Duncan, and LeBron are a combined 48-1 vs sub-50 win teams, so it is an accurate cutoff in deciding whether a team is elite or not).

– Won 2 MVPs (one of which he won without making the playoffs in 1976)

[RogueBorg]

He's a bigger loser than Wilt :lol Or Bird & Hakeem having more titles & Finals appearances?

Wilt is 16-19 (.457) in NBA Finals. Lebron is 22-33 (.400). Do I need to explain basic math before we move on?

Larry Bird is 16-15 (.516)

Hakeem is 10-7 (.588)

You were saying?

[tpols]

let's move on from Kareem to Duncan since this isn't even fair for lebron and the kobe thing is done to death.


Duncan is also clearly above lebron IMO

Even old Duncan owned LeBron. Duncan was like paper to Lebrons rock. He was the ultimate antidote to rim running ball dominance.

[RogueBorg]

Not for long.

Ok, but Kareem has him right now, why don't you have Kareem as the GOAT scorer? You'd get the gold for your mental gymnastics floor routine.

[RogueBorg]

If Kareem never had Magic from 1980 to 1989 he wouldn't be viewed as a top 5 player of all time nowadays.


Magic basically saved Kareem's legacy and career from being viewed as a massive disappointment.

Not based on facts. Can't be proven. The facts are Kareem is a better winner, has better stats, and is more accomplished than LBJ. Those are the facts.

[SouBeachTalents]

Wilt is 16-19 (.457) in NBA Finals. Lebron is 22-33 (.400). Do I need to explain basic math before we move on?

Larry Bird is 16-15 (.516)

Hakeem is 10-7 (.588)

You were saying?
You have to be fcking retarded to believe having a better Finals record trumps having more titles. You're literally arguing less titles AND less Finals appearances makes you less of a loser :lol

[1987_Lakers]

Since when was Kareem known for his leadership? He was a quiet dude who didn't hangout with his teammates. I thought this was common knowledge. Jerry West himself said Kareem wasn't a leader.

I'm still waiting for an answer, the fact that you actually thought Kareem was some sort of great leader just shows how little you know about him.

[coastalmarker99]

You have to be fcking retarded to believe having a better Finals record trumps having more titles. You're literally arguing less titles AND less Finals appearances makes you less of a loser :lol


I am very sure that Wilt would take another two finals MVPs' and four extra finals appearances over having a better finals record.

[RogueBorg]

Jerry West has the same exact winning % as Lebron in the NBA Finals (.400). In fact they have each played the same number of Finals games (55) and have the same record 22-33.

Jerry West is widely regarded as the biggest Finals loser. Move over Jerry, here comes the King.

For the record, Jerry West's scoring average in the Finals is 30.5 ppg to Lebron's is 28.4 ppg. Looks like Lebron is the bigger loser. Anyone want to challenge the 11x NBA champion Boston Celtics being tougher competition than what Lebron faced?

[Full Court]

Not based on facts. Can't be proven. The facts are Kareem is a better winner, has better stats, and is more accomplished than LBJ. Those are the facts.

The Bronie Bunch can't make claims based on Bronie's own record (other than longevity), so they resort to disparaging all the greats.

"Jordan sucked without Pippen."

"Kareem sucked without Magic."

But Wade, Bosch, Kyrie, AD, Love, Allen, etc. had nothing whatsoever to do with the few successes Bronie actually achieved.

[1987_Lakers]

Jerry West has the same exact winning % as Lebron in the NBA Finals (.400). In fact they have each played the same number of Finals games (55) and have the same record 22-33.

Jerry West is widely regarded as the biggest Finals loser. Move over Jerry, here comes the King.

For the record, Jerry West's scoring average in the Finals is 30.5 ppg to Lebron's is 28.4 ppg. Looks like Lebron is the bigger loser. Anyone want to challenge the 11x NBA champion Boston Celtics being tougher competition than what Lebron faced?

Okay, so you have no answer. Thanks for exposing yourself.

[RogueBorg]

I'm still waiting for an answer, the fact that you actually thought Kareem was some sort of great leader just shows how little you know about him.

You're probably the least knowledgeable Lakers fan I have ever met if you think Kareem wasn't a leader.

[SouBeachTalents]

Jerry West has the same exact winning % as Lebron in the NBA Finals (.400). In fact they have each played the same number of Finals games (55) and have the same record 22-33.

Jerry West is widely regarded as the biggest Finals loser. Move over Jerry, here comes the King.

For the record, Jerry West's scoring average in the Finals is 30.5 ppg to Lebron's is 28.4 ppg. Looks like Lebron is the bigger loser. Anyone want to challenge the 11x NBA champion Boston Celtics being tougher competition than what Lebron faced?
This retard actually believes Finals winning percentage is more important than actual championships won. You typed all this shit out like LeBron doesn't have 4x the titles that West does :lol

[coastalmarker99]

You're probably the least knowledgeable Lakers fan I have ever met if you think Kareem wasn't a leader.

If Kareem was really a leader then why did Magic get the franchise handed to him on a platter after Kareem had 5 years there by himself.

[Spurs m8]

I'm yet go see an argument that LeBarry is better

[1987_Lakers]

You're probably the least knowledgeable Lakers fan I have ever met if you think Kareem wasn't a leader.

Can you give an example to why he was a good leader?

Magic was obviously the leader on that showtime team, his team fed off his personality and fire. Even when he was with the Bucks, Kareem himself said Oscar Robertson was the leader when they won a championship in '71.

Kareem was always a distant dude who didn't say much. The fact that you have yet to give an example to his leadership and have instead chose the route to just throw insults just shows how dumb and clueless you are.

[RogueBorg]

If Kareem was really a leader then why did Magic get the franchise handed to him on a platter after Kareem had 5 years there by himself.

The fact that you guys think leaders only lead by being outspoken shows you have no idea how leaders lead. Kareem was not outspoken like Magic was, but there is no doubt Kareem was the leader at UCLA, Milwaukee, in the black community speaking out for social injustices, and the Lakers before Magic.

But nice attempt at Red Herring. Kareem has better stats, is more accomplished, and has more rings than Lebron.

[HylianNightmare]

There isn't one

[Full Court]

I'm yet go see an argument that LeBarry is better

You're not going to see an intelligent argument for Bronie. So I hope you don't have high hopes.

[1987_Lakers]

The fact that you guys think leaders only lead by being outspoken shows you have no idea how leaders lead. Kareem was not outspoken like Magic was, but there is no doubt Kareem was the leader at UCLA, Milwaukee, in the black community speaking out for social injustices, and the Lakers before Magic.

But nice attempt at Red Herring. Kareem has better stats, is more accomplished, and has more rings than Lebron.


No he wasn't.

“Oscar was just a consummate leader on the court. He always wanted everybody to do everything right. We always thought he drove us hard. But he contributed the same type of consistency and excellence that he wanted from us.” - Kareem on Oscar

Keep making yourself look like a fool.

[RogueBorg]

This retard actually believes Finals winning percentage is more important than actual championships won. You typed all this shit out like LeBron doesn't have 4x the titles that West does :lol

4/10
-86
2011
swept 3x in NBA Finals
Biggest Finals loss in NBA history
22-33 record in the Finals
all-time turnover leader in regular season and playoffs
missed playoffs 3x
15 seasons not winning the championship

[coastalmarker99]

A large reason why Kareem won 6 MVPs was because of the ABA/NBA competition.

If the ABA/NBA had merged earlier and in the start of the 70s as opposed to 76, Julius Erving and other ABA superstars at the time would have more than likely taken a few of Kareem's MVPs.



How many accolades do you think Lebron racks up?


If half of the superstars in the NBA such as durant were playing in another league for most of his prime years.

[RogueBorg]

You're not going to see an intelligent argument for Bronie. So I hope you don't have high hopes.

Nope, they're shook, have the Bronnies running in circles. The only argument they have is this leadership thing. Imagine that, that's the best they can do :roll:

[1987_Lakers]

4/10
-86
2011
swept 3x in NBA Finals
Biggest Finals loss in NBA history
22-33 record in the Finals
all-time turnover leader in regular season and playoffs
missed playoffs 3x
15 seasons not winning the championship

lol, you can't even get that right.

[coastalmarker99]

LeBron has as many 25PPG seasons as Kareem and Wilt combined


Assuming his PPG average this season holds up, this will be LeBron's 18th (consecutive) season averaging 25PPG, in his 19-year career.

For context, Kareem had 10 25PPG seasons in his 20-year career, while Wilt had 8 in his 14-year career.

LeBron also has more 25PPG seasons than Dirk (5), Wade (5), and Carmelo (7) combined - three of his most prolific contemporaries.



Not so bad for a guy that's top 10 in assists all-time.




Lebron has Goat longevity and he still likely has some more years left in the tank to add to his legacy.


I am convinced that when LeBron is 40 that he will still be putting up 21 to 25 PPG a game.

[1987_Lakers]

The only argument they have is this leadership thing.

The reason I made a big deal out of it is because you actually thought Kareem was some sort of a great leader when he wasn't, go back and learn more history before you mention Kareem again. I want someone who is actually knowledgeable about his career to make this type of thread.

[RogueBorg]

lol, you can't even get that right.

2007
2014
2018

Go to bed, the adults are speaking

[1987_Lakers]

2007
2014
2018

Go to bed, the adults are speaking

LeBron wasn't swept in 2014. :facepalm

Time for your bed time little one.

Forget about Kareem, it looks like you need a lesson in recent history as well.

:roll:

[RRR3]

Holy shit OP is embarrassing himself :oldlol:

Why are all LeBron haters braindead?

[1987_Lakers]

Holy shit OP is embarrassing himself :oldlol:

Why are all LeBron haters braindead?

It's quite comical.

[RogueBorg]

LeBron wasn't swept in 2014. :facepalm

Time for your bed time little one.

Forget about Kareem, it looks like you need a lesson in recent history as well.

:roll:

LOL you're right, I stand corrected.

[Gimmedarock]

Eye test. Watch them play. Bron is more better Bron be GOAT. Bron played in the most talented era. I don’t think anyone can argue that.

[tpols]

I'm still waiting for an answer, the fact that you actually thought Kareem was some sort of great leader just shows how little you know about him.

Wait you have Kareem as your GOAT. Now you're battling against him? :lol pretty funny.

For leadership skills out of MJ, Kareem and LeBron Jordan was easily the strongest leader. He brought his dudes to battle and conquered. While Kareem needed magic to lead and LeBron diminished half of his best teammates and gave off a whimpering underdog aura everywhere despite having super team talent.

[1987_Lakers]

Wait you have Kareem as your GOAT. Now you're battling against him? :lol pretty funny.

For leadership skills out of MJ, Kareem and LeBron Jordan was easily the strongest leader. He brought his dudes to battle and conquered. While Kareem needed magic to lead and LeBron diminished half of his best teammates and gave off a whimpering underdog aura everywhere despite having super team talent.

Did you not see my post in the 1st page?


But with that said, you can make a solid case for Kareem being the GOAT.

I personally don't have a clear GOAT, you could make a solid argument for MJ, Kareem, & LeBron.

[SouBeachTalents]

This dude doesn't even know what happened in the Finals within the last decade, and he wants to try to lecture us about basketball :lol

[RogueBorg]

This dude doesn't even know what happened in the Finals within the last decade, and he wants to try to lecture us about basketball :lol

You still haven't made a case why Lebron > Kareem when Kareem is clearly the better winner, is more accomplished, and has better stats.

[tpols]

Did you not see my post in the 1st page?



I personally don't have a clear GOAT, you could make a solid argument for MJ, Kareem, & LeBron.

That's just a weak disclaimer bro. You can't write a ton of posts and paragraphs on a guy saying one thing and think a one sentence disclaimer overrides that. You've openly exposed yourself as a hypocrite here.

[SouBeachTalents]

You still haven't made a case why Lebron > Kareem when Kareem is clearly the better winner, is more accomplished, and has better stats.
I already said Kareem has an excellent case over LeBron, I wouldn't even argue it if someone believed it. I'd personally rank LeBron ahead because he played in a much stronger era and was more instrumental to his teams championships. You can bring up that Kareem has more rings, but he was a straight up role player for his last 2, and simply didn't have to carry the overall burden for his rings on the Lakers (1980 excluded) that LeBron did for his. Him missing the playoffs b2b seasons at what is almost unanimously a players peak years (27-28) is a big mark against him too.

[1987_Lakers]

That's just a weak disclaimer bro. You can't write a ton of posts and paragraphs on a guy saying one thing and think a one sentence disclaimer overrides that. You've openly exposed yourself as a hypocrite here.

Don't get upset because you missed I originally said about Kareem and took away your "got you" moment. :oldlol:

[RRR3]

This dude doesn't even know what happened in the Finals within the last decade, and he wants to try to lecture us about basketball :lol
By his insane logic, Sun Yue is a bigger winner than Michael Jordan because he has an .800 winning percentage in the finals.

[tpols]

Don't get upset because you missed I originally said about Kareem and took away your "got you" moment. :oldlol:

I said what you said about Kareem before your reply to me lmao. Hilarious.

[kawhileonard2]

Kareem is much better than Lebron.

[Bankaii]

SouthBeach and 1987 taking turns shitting on OP this entire thread lmao.

[Pointguard]

LeBron has as many 25PPG seasons as Kareem and Wilt combined


Assuming his PPG average this season holds up, this will be LeBron's 18th (consecutive) season averaging 25PPG, in his 19-year career.

For context, Kareem had 10 25PPG seasons in his 20-year career, while Wilt had 8 in his 14-year career.

LeBron also has more 25PPG seasons than Dirk (5), Wade (5), and Carmelo (7) combined - three of his most prolific contemporaries.



Not so bad for a guy that's top 10 in assists all-time.




Lebron has Goat longevity and he still likely has some more years left in the tank to add to his legacy.


I am convinced that when LeBron is 40 that he will still be putting up 21 to 25 PPG a game.

Great Post!!! Lebron has many more great seasons than the best guys. He never took off years or seemed overburdened by the game despite coming in with more expectations than anybody. Always heard he was not the best scorer yet never had a year when he hogged the ball but barely had years when he didn't score 25 ppg and was a great passer every year. He was a premeir leader nearly every year. His mature and intelligent and hardworking approach was present more years than any other Bball player.

[ClipperRevival]

I can see no one mentioned KAJ's college career, where he won 3 chips and 3 national player of the year awards. He has a case for GOAT college player. That's a factor when weighing legacies.

This is why the "longevity" argument is unfair for KAJ and players from the past because they spent time in college whereas Bron went straight to the pros and had 4 additional years to add to his NBA totals.

KAJ>Bron

2 more MVP, 2 more chips, should've been FMVP in 1980. GOAT tier peak. Most unstoppable shot. Yeah, he had his weaknesses with lack of success in the 70's just as Bron has well known flaws in his legacy.

[1987_Lakers]

2 more MVP, 2 more chips, should've been FMVP in 1980. GOAT tier peak. Most unstoppable shot. Yeah, he had his weaknesses with lack of success in the 70's just as Bron has well known flaws in his legacy.

Kareem had an all-time great peak, no question about it. But GOAT tier? Peak wise I'd take MJ, LeBron, Shaq, & Hakeem over him without thinking twice, I feel like Kareem's defense for a man his size could have been better, not to say he was a liability on that end, but there are a handful a bigs who were better defenders. The reason why Kareem is in these GOAT convos is mostly due to his longevity, he was still producing at an all-star level at age 39. This is why longevity matters.

[ClipperRevival]

Kareem had an all-time great peak, no question about it. But GOAT tier? Peak wise I'd take MJ, LeBron, Shaq, & Hakeem over him without thinking twice, I feel like Kareem's defense for a man his size could have been better, not to say he was a liability on that end, but there are a handful a bigs who were better defenders. The reason why Kareem is in these GOAT convos is mostly due to his longevity, he was still producing at an all-star level at age 39. This is why longevity matters.

He's in that ball park. First 7 years in the league, he averaged 30.4 PPG, 15.3 RPG, 4.3 APG. Blocks were only kept for 2 of those seasons but he was at 3.4. So we would have to assume the other seasons were similar. How many can match those numbers?

[1987_Lakers]

He's in that ball park. First 7 years in the league, he averaged 30.4 PPG, 15.3 RPG, 4.3 APG. Blocks were only kept for 2 of those seasons but he was at 3.4. So we would have to assume the other seasons were similar. How many can match those numbers?

The numbers he put up were insane, his scoring for a big is obviously GOAT tier.

But keep in mind he was putting those numbers while his teams were playing at a 110 pace

For comparison sake during MJ's peak in '91 the Bulls played at a 96 pace, 2000 Shaq played at a 93 pace, '94 Hakeem at a 95 pace and '13 LeBron at a 91 pace.

As godly as those Kareem numbers are, if you put him around the time Hakeem & Shaq peaked, it's highly likely he isn't averaging those same exact numbers.

[ClipperRevival]

The numbers he put up were insane, his scoring for a big is obviously GOAT tier.

But keep in mind he was putting those numbers while his teams were playing at a 110 pace

For comparison sake during MJ's peak in '91 the Bulls played at a 96 pace, 2000 Shaq played at a 93 pace, '94 Hakeem at a 95 pace and '13 LeBron at a 91 pace.

As godly as those Kareem numbers are, if you put him around the time Hakeem & Shaq peaked, it's highly likely he isn't averaging those same exact numbers.

Yup, I'm just saying his peak is up there in rarified air.

[Baller789]

I would take Kareem over Lebron. Almost same longevity, better peak, and Kareem is more influential defensively by virtue of position, effort and size.
He's also the more decorated player and is less of a corny arse guy.

[HoopsNY]

Some have articulated the criticisms that I have of Kareem, but there are a few things that should be mentioned:

1) While he only won 2 FMVPs, he did deserve the 1980 FMVP and was clearly robbed of it.

2) Him missing the playoffs back to back seasons is a knock on his legacy, but it's unfair to say that the Bucks were a 38 win team with him as well as after they traded him. Kareem missed 17 games his last season with Milwaukee where the team was just 3-14 without him, but 35-30 with him.

It's likely Milwaukee wins at least 44 games had Kareem not missed any games that season.

3) Kareem's peak stats are remarkable, but there is a notable drop off following the NBA/ABA merger. Intuition tells me the merger and that the pace had begun to slow down may have been cause of that.

It should also be noted that his efficiency numbers started to go up, and this was before Magic came to town. Kareem put up a career high 58% FG% in the first year of the merger, so maybe the merger had nothing to do with his decline and it was purely pace? He peaked in 1980 with a 60% FG%, while Magic was just a rookie.

[Manny98]

Better peak

Played in a better era

Won more championships as the best player

[Airupthere]

I would pick kareem. Easier to build a team around him. Won't statpad just for the sake of stats. Won't freeze out teammates and kill chemistry by bronballing.

[Bronbron23]

According to bron stain logic their sn't one. Kareem is better in more areas therefore kareem is greater than bron. End thread:pimp:

[SATAN]

Kareem is better in more areas

Is he?

[RogueBorg]

Is he?

More total points
Higher FG%
Twice as many scoring titles
More rebounds
More blocks
More All-Defensive
More MVP's
More All-Stars
More rings

Yeah, Kareem has better stats, is more accomplished, and is a better winner than Lebron.

[sdot_thadon]

Kareem has a great case for goat, Lebron's case over him is he's a better overall player with a huge advantage in utility. Point blank he's able to impact games in more ways than Kareem, which ironically is a huge portion of MJ's argument over Kareem. Also despite being the previous goat standard of longevity, Lebron has blown past Kareem in this department, even if somehow he fails to secure the all time scoring record. Lebron is literally still playing elite 1st option ball in his 19th season, Kareem? Not so much. Andrew even if we were to award Kareem the finals mvp Magic stole from him, Lebron would still have more. But as it stands they hold the same advantage over one another in the mvps dept.

[eliteballer]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmB6YCUzgMU

[John8204]

Kareem for me is fifth behind MJ, Wilt, Lebron, and Larry Bird. The fact that he should have dominated the 70's and didn't is his biggest issue.

Playoffs Kareem's record against HOF centers pre-Magic not that great

Chamberlain 1-1
Cowens 0-1
Reed 0-1
Sikma 0-2
Thurmond 2-1
Unseld 1-0
Walton 0-1

[Baller789]

Kareem for me is fifth behind MJ, Wilt, Lebron, and Larry Bird. The fact that he should have dominated the 70's and didn't is his biggest issue.

Playoffs Kareem's record against HOF centers pre-Magic not that great

Chamberlain 1-1
Cowens 0-1
Reed 0-1
Sikma 0-2
Thurmond 2-1
Unseld 1-0
Walton 0-1

But then if he dominated that era you would use the weak era argument.

It's a circular argument really.

[3ba11]

Kareem has a great case for goat, Lebron's case over him is he's a better overall player with a huge advantage in utility. Point blank he's able to impact games in more ways than Kareem, which ironically is a huge portion of MJ's argument over Kareem. Also despite being the previous goat standard of longevity, Lebron has blown past Kareem in this department, even if somehow he fails to secure the all time scoring record. Lebron is literally still playing elite 1st option ball in his 19th season, Kareem? Not so much. Andrew even if we were to award Kareem the finals mvp Magic stole from him, Lebron would still have more. But as it stands they hold the same advantage over one another in the mvps dept.


Kareem was a goat quick iso player and assist target/off-ball - so he could fit high scoring into a high-assist and high ball movement team, whereas Lebron needs to hog the action and have a low-assist/low ball movement team to get his points - this requires more help and has lower team ceilings/Finals records

Lebron is the most abnormally-ball-dominant player for his position ever and it's inherently suboptimal

[theman93]

So there you have it, OP has confirmed Kareem > Lebron.

Well done OP :applause:

[John8204]

But then if he dominated that era you would use the weak era argument.

It's a circular argument really.

Do we even consider the 70's to be a "strong" era.? They gave him 5 MVP's during the 70's and he missed the playoffs twice during his peak years.

[theman93]

Do we even consider the 70's to be a "strong" era.? They gave him 5 MVP's during the 70's and he missed the playoffs twice during his peak years.

What do you know about the 70's without googling?

[Gimmedarock]

Bron played in a dramatically better era. Teams are much deeper with multiple scorers. Bron be GOAT. Just a much more skilled athlete who could do more. Bron can play every where on the court. Kareem is a center. That’s it.

[Full Court]

What do you know about the 70's without googling?

Hippies. Lots of them.

[HoopsNY]

Kareem was an absolute monster in the playoffs, which has to be considered. Looking at his prime years:

From 1970-1983 (playoffs), Kareem put up 29/14/4/3 on 54%.

In the finals he put up 27/12/4/3 on 55%.

In game 7s, he put up 31/20/4/1/3 on 52%, albeit in just 2 games.

In elimination games, he put up 30/15/4/3/1 on 53% in 15 games.

I'm sure the 70s was a weaker era prior to the merger, but he still excelled at a high level even afterwards. Let's look at post-merger numbers in the same time frame (prime years).

Playoffs '77-'83: 28/12/4/4 on 56%

Finals '77-'83: 25/10/4/3 on 54%

Elimination '77-'83: 29/16/4/3 on 55%

Game 7s '77-'83: 36/26/4/5/1 on 56% (1 game)

I'm not sure the whole "70s was a weaker era" argument can really hold up to scrutiny given how well he performed after the merger. There is a slight dip in his overall numbers, but they include a decline as his prime really included his years into ages 33-35. If he enters into the league in 1976, I think Kareem sustains similar numbers to what he saw in the early 70s.

[John8204]

What do you know about the 70's without googling?

I know they weren't as good as the 80's

[sdot_thadon]

What do you know about the 70's without googling?
Shit, what do you know about the 70s without googling? Not many here can say they do.

[jlip]

While the overall talent pre- merger was split between the two leagues, IMHO that doesn't particularly play against Kareem's individual dominance. Most of the dominant players in the ABA were guards and wings. The NBA had the dominant big men. Basically from '70-'74 Kareem was battling Hall of Fame big men such as Wilt, Thurmond, Lanier, Bellamy, Cowens, and Reed (to an extent) on a nightly basis. He faced several of them in the playoffs. At his position, Kareem faced a lot of competition at that time. Other than the early to mid 90's that era may have seen the greatest concentration of dominant centers in league history.

[Baller789]

What do you know about the 70's without googling?


Shit, what do you know about the 70s without googling? Not many here can say they do.


I know they weren't as good as the 80's

Oh the hypocracy.

[WhiteKyrie]

If Kareem never had Magic from 1980 to 1989 he wouldn't be viewed as a top 5 player of all time nowadays.


Magic basically saved Kareem's legacy and career from being viewed as a massive disappointment.


In Kareem's first ten seasons.



His teams in POs were 9-7 in series, 44-34 in games


And won 1 title and made only 2 total Finals.


in Kareem’s 5 seasons without one of the 2 best point guards ever, which also should be 5 of, if not his 5 best seasons (ages 27-31) Kareem:

– Missed the playoffs twice – Left a team that had the same exact record after he left with the same main pieces intact

– Got swept once (With home court advantage)

– Won a grand total of 2 playoff series (one of which required 2 victories to win) –


Beat 0 teams with 50+ wins (While playing alongside 3 HOF players along the way in Goodrich, Wilkes, and Dantley.


Keep in mind Jordan, Kobe, Duncan, and LeBron are a combined 48-1 vs sub-50 win teams, so it is an accurate cutoff in deciding whether a team is elite or not).

– Won 2 MVPs (one of which he won without making the playoffs in 1976)

Totally agree. Not to mention, he played with a top 15 guy in Oscar and a assumably a fellow top 5 in Magic? That’s a lot of help to get your rings. I love Wade and Pippen. But Wade is top 20. And Pippen is top 35 ish. Neither of them top 5 to 10 ever.

[sdot_thadon]

Oh the hypocracy.

Exactly. You get the point of my post. Always seems like my era of fans(Mj era) feel they have authority to question someone's viewing experience in order to slip out of a debate or discredit a younger fan. Bat shit crazy thing is we've already drawn our own " untouchable " stances about who goat is and list orders when we didn't see Dr.J live, or young Kareem, Wilt etc. Being an Mj Stan doesn't grant you a special pass that makes your half informed opinion any better than another Stan's half informed opinion.

[1987_Lakers]

The 70's were obviously a weaker era compared to the other decades. It's often regarded as the worst decade in NBA history and although I think it's obvious Kareem would have still dominated in every era you put him in, you can't ignore the fact that a good chunk of that decade he played in a league where talent was lacking, but that is common sense since a good portion of the talent played in the ABA.

Rick Barry
Julius Erving
Artis Gilmore
George Gervin
Dan Issel

Off the top of my head, these are the players that spent a good time playing in the ABA, all hall of fame players, most are first ballot. Now factor in all the other ABA players that went on to become solid NBA players once the merger happened, it's only common sense to believe that the NBA was hurting when the ABA was out in full force. Imagine if a random league started today and took away a good chunk of NBA players, even some superstars, just imagine that...you don't think a place like ISH would give EVERY NBA champion an asterisk? Or you don't think there would be threads about how the NBA is pretty much a 2nd fiddle league??

By the 70's the NBA had also turned off casual fans for it's constant drug use by players and constant fights in games. There was an LA times article around that time that estimated that 75% of players were using cocaine, it was that bad. Of course that is gonna hurt your product, and some of the teams that were winning championships in that era were a joke, woudn't even sniff a title if you put them in the 80's or 90's. NBA Ratings were also down across the board and games were on tape delay.

This was an issue that spilled into the early 80's, it still had a bad rep for drug use and games were on tape delay, that is why you often here how Magic & Bird SAVED the NBA, once they came into the league fans became more interested and by 1984 or so, games were no longer on tape delay and ratings started to flourish.

A question was asked, what was known about the 70's so I decided to give an answer.

[97 bulls]

The 70's were obviously a weaker era compared to the other decades. It's often regarded as the worst decade in NBA history and although I think it's obvious Kareem would have still dominated in every era you put him in, you can't ignore the fact that a good chunk of that decade he played in a league where talent was lacking, but that is common sense since a good portion of the talent played in the ABA.

Rick Barry
Julius Erving
Artis Gilmore
George Gervin
Dan Issel

Off the top of my head, these are the players that spent a good time playing in the ABA, all hall of fame players, most are first ballot. Now factor in all the other ABA players that went on to become solid NBA players once the merger happened, it's only common sense to believe that the NBA was hurting when the ABA was out in full force. Imagine if a random league started today and took away a good chunk of NBA players, even some superstars, just imagine that...you don't think a place like ISH would give EVERY NBA champion an asterisk? Or you don't think there would be threads about how the NBA is pretty much a 2nd fiddle league??

By the 70's the NBA had also turned off casual fans for it's constant drug use by players and constant fights in games. There was an LA times article around that time that estimated that 75% of players were using cocaine, it was that bad. Of course that is gonna hurt your product, and some of the teams that were winning championships in that era were a joke, woudn't even sniff a title if you put them in the 80's or 90's. NBA Ratings were also down across the board and games were on tape delay.

This was an issue that spilled into the early 80's, it still had a bad rep for drug use and games were on tape delay, that is why you often here how Magic & Bird SAVED the NBA, once they came into the league fans became more interested and by 1984 or so, games were no longer on tape delay and ratings started to flourish.

A question was asked, what was known about the 70's so I decided to give an answer.

The league had a big drug problem in the 80s as well. But you don't seen to see that as a big deal. You gotta be more consistent in your arguments. I find it funny that you apply context to this Kareem/Lebron debate, but won't do it for Lebron/Jordan.

Reading these texts show that there's no real argument for anybody over Jordan.

[Hey Yo]

What do you know about the 70's without googling?

That Kareem demanded to be traded mid-contract and threatened to sit out the upcoming season if he wasn't.

[1987_Lakers]

The league had a big drug problem in the 80s as well. But you don't seen to see that as a big deal. You gotta be more consistent in your arguments. I find it funny that you apply context to this Kareem/Lebron debate, but won't do it for Lebron/Jordan.

Reading these texts show that there's no real argument for anybody over Jordan.

Did you read what I said?



This was an issue that spilled into the early 80's, it still had a bad rep for drug use and games were on tape delay, that is why you often here how Magic & Bird SAVED the NBA, once they came into the league fans became more interested and by 1984 or so, games were no longer on tape delay and ratings started to flourish.

come on 97 bulls

[97 bulls]

Did you read what I said?



come on 97 bulls

Lol but you feel the 80s is one of the best eras right?

[1987_Lakers]

Lol but you feel the 80s is one of the best eras right?

Yes, it's pretty obvious the 80's were a turning point for the NBA, it was the decade that made the NBA what it is today in terms of popularity, I would say by '84 they had recovered from their bad image. There was still some drug issues, but by that point the product had flourished, with Magic, Bird, & the '84 draft, the talent was so good it was able to mask some of their drug issues. In the 70's not only did they have drug issues, but the quality of the game itself was very lacking.

[theman93]

I know they weren't as good as the 80's

Prove it.

[theman93]

Shit, what do you know about the 70s without googling? Not many here can say they do.

Who here is making claims about the 70's? Certainly wasn't me. The one making the claim bears the burden of proof. So it's up to them to prove their assertion.

[1987_Lakers]

Prove it.

I already did.

[SouBeachTalents]

Idk how anyone could dispute the 70's were an extremely weak era. Look at some of these teams that were winning titles & making the Finals

1975 Warriors, a 48 win team that Rick Barry won with arguably the weakest championship supporting cast of all time

1976 Suns, a 42 win team that I'd bet good money 95% of ISH couldn't name a single player on the roster without looking it up

1978 Bullets, a 44 win team that had some talent, but would easily be in contention for weakest championship team ever

1979 Sonics, another team that had some talent, but like the Bullets, would easily be in contention for weakest championship team ever

The fact the Bullets & Sonics made the Finals b2b years like they were the 80's Celtics/Lakers or 10's Cavs/Warriors speaks to how weak that era was.

[theman93]

I already did.

No you didn't. You gave your opinion and talked about ratings (nothing to do with skill or talent). How do you know the NBA players in the 1980's as a whole were better than the NBA players in the 1970's?

This same BS you are pulling with the 70's is the same BS you pull with the 90's. You, as a Lebron stan, have to tear down the era's MJ and Kareem played in to try and prop up Lebron in an effort to make him look better. Nobody's falling for it.

[RogueBorg]

1978 Bullets, a 44 win team that had some talent, but would easily be in contention for weakest championship team ever



That's true BUT, the Bullets would probably would have lost to Portland had Walton not been injured. Portland was on pace to win 68 games (they were 50-10) when Walton went down.

[1987_Lakers]

No you didn't. You gave your opinion and talked about ratings (nothing to do with skill or talent). How do you know the NBA players in the 1970's as a whole were better than the NBA players in the 1980's?

Yes, let's just ignore the fact that a good chunk of 70's talent was playing in a different league and the worst NBA champions came from this decade.

You would have to be brain dead to believe the 80's didn't have more talent. And I know that you know the 80's as a whole had more talent, you are just being a stubborn MJ stan.

[RogueBorg]

Lebron has blown past Kareem in this department, even if somehow he fails to secure the all time scoring record. Lebron is literally still playing elite 1st option ball in his 19th season, Kareem? Not so much.

It's not like Kareem and Lebron entered the league at the same ages. Kareem played 4 years at UCLA, he didn't enter the league until he was 22. What do you think his numbers would like if you added 4 NBA years at the front of his career? You might be looking at 45k points as the all-time scoring mark.

[sdot_thadon]

Who here is making claims about the 70's? Certainly wasn't me. The one making the claim bears the burden of proof. So it's up to them to prove their assertion.

Well that's the thing boss, everytime you argue your goat, you do exactly that....indirectly.

[3ba11]

Which guy can get 30 within a good brand of ball?

Kareem (ball movement, high team assists)... Not Lebron (low ball movement, low team assists)

So Lebron needs more help and can't carry teams as well as Kareem (can't beat good teams with high scoring and/or while defeating max defensive attention/carrying scoring load)

[theman93]

Yes, let's just ignore the fact that a good chunk of 70's talent was playing in a different league and the worst NBA champions came from this decade.

You would have to be brain dead to believe the 80's didn't have more talent. And I know that you know the 80's as a whole had more talent, you are just being a stubborn MJ stan.

And you literally have 0 way of proving the players that were in the NBA and not the ABA were overall worse than the players from 1980.

You're just trying to tear down Kareem's era the same way you try to tear down MJ's era in an effort to prop up Lebron. Get a grip :lol

[1987_Lakers]

This same BS you are pulling with the 70's is the same BS you pull with the 90's.

It's not my fault David Stern decided to add 6 teams in a 8 year span from '88-'95 to water down the league.

:oldlol:

[theman93]

Well that's the thing boss, everytime you argue your goat, you do exactly that....indirectly.

Of course. But when we argue GOAT we can point to a standard of objective statistics, accolades, and championships.

When you argue which era is better what standard are we using?

[sdot_thadon]

Which guy can get 30 within a good brand of ball?

Kareem (ball movement, high team assists)... Not Lebron (low ball movement, low team assists)

So Lebron needs more help and can't carry teams (beat good teams with high scoring and while defeating max defensive attention/carrying scoring load) as well as Kareem

That's an extremely narrow criteria, kinda ridiculous even. It would be respectable if you did that across your entire evaluation rather than just cherry pick where you zoom in.

[theman93]

It's not my fault David Stern decided to add 6 teams in a 8 year span from '88-'95 to water down the league.

:oldlol:

Adding teams doesn't water down the league, it just spreads out the talent which makes it just as even.

You say adding 6 teams watered down the league, another might say adding 6 teams supported a massive influx of talent (as you already gave up). All you have is your subjectivity.

[1987_Lakers]

Adding teams doesn't water down the league, it just spreads out the talent which makes it just as even.

You say adding 6 teams watered down the league, another might say adding 6 teams supported a massive influx of talent (as you already gave up). All you have is your subjectivity.

Yes, it spreads out talent, making it easier for MJ to beat on weaker teams. :oldlol:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p57WjbKSoJ0

[sdot_thadon]

Of course. But when we argue GOAT we can point to a standard of objective statistics, accolades, and championships.

When you argue which era is better what standard are we using?

I think people just have the generalization the media gives us. The 70s are often regarded as a weak era because alot of the elite players of that era played for another league. For many people that's a non-starter in any discussion about era quality.

[theman93]

Yes, it spreads out talent, making it easier for MJ to beat on weaker teams. :oldlol:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p57WjbKSoJ0
Except who’s to say the expansion teams were actually needed to support a huge influx of talent offsetting the talent spread?

[HoopsNY]

The 70's were obviously a weaker era compared to the other decades. It's often regarded as the worst decade in NBA history and although I think it's obvious Kareem would have still dominated in every era you put him in, you can't ignore the fact that a good chunk of that decade he played in a league where talent was lacking, but that is common sense since a good portion of the talent played in the ABA.

Rick Barry
Julius Erving
Artis Gilmore
George Gervin
Dan Issel

Off the top of my head, these are the players that spent a good time playing in the ABA, all hall of fame players, most are first ballot. Now factor in all the other ABA players that went on to become solid NBA players once the merger happened, it's only common sense to believe that the NBA was hurting when the ABA was out in full force. Imagine if a random league started today and took away a good chunk of NBA players, even some superstars, just imagine that...you don't think a place like ISH would give EVERY NBA champion an asterisk? Or you don't think there would be threads about how the NBA is pretty much a 2nd fiddle league??

By the 70's the NBA had also turned off casual fans for it's constant drug use by players and constant fights in games. There was an LA times article around that time that estimated that 75% of players were using cocaine, it was that bad. Of course that is gonna hurt your product, and some of the teams that were winning championships in that era were a joke, woudn't even sniff a title if you put them in the 80's or 90's. NBA Ratings were also down across the board and games were on tape delay.

This was an issue that spilled into the early 80's, it still had a bad rep for drug use and games were on tape delay, that is why you often here how Magic & Bird SAVED the NBA, once they came into the league fans became more interested and by 1984 or so, games were no longer on tape delay and ratings started to flourish.

A question was asked, what was known about the 70's so I decided to give an answer.

This doesn't address the fact that Kareem remained a dominant force and was still successful even after the merger. See my post above.

And some of those years included him from age 32-35. If Kareem enters into the league in 1976, he'd still put up 30/15/5/3 on 55%.

[Hey Yo]

Adding teams doesn't water down the league, it just spreads out the talent which makes it just as even.

You say adding 6 teams watered down the league, another might say adding 6 teams supported a massive influx of talent (as you already gave up). All you have is your subjectivity.

The talent was spread around so greatly... that 4yrs later the 3pt line was moved in to help increase scoring.

[HoopsNY]

No you didn't. You gave your opinion and talked about ratings (nothing to do with skill or talent). How do you know the NBA players in the 1980's as a whole were better than the NBA players in the 1970's?

This same BS you are pulling with the 70's is the same BS you pull with the 90's. You, as a Lebron stan, have to tear down the era's MJ and Kareem played in to try and prop up Lebron in an effort to make him look better. Nobody's falling for it.

He's not wrong to an extent. The '70s is widely accepted as being the weakest era, even by older fans. I'm 36 and remember as a kid hearing my uncles talk about how the 80s redefined basketball from a weakened 70s era, but their argument was always hinged on the NBA/ABA merger.

My problem with that is that Kareem sustained a very high level of play, including winning 2 MVPs, after the merger. I doubt Kareem's numbers see any fall at all had he come into the league in '76 and he probably has just as good of a career.

[theman93]

The talent was spread around so greatly... that 4yrs later the 3pt line was moved in to help increase scoring.

And then it was moved back.....in the same era.

[3ba11]

That's an extremely narrow criteria, kinda ridiculous even. It would be respectable if you did that across your entire evaluation rather than just cherry pick where you zoom in.


That's literally my criteria for the top 10:

1) knowing how to win (organic), which requires learning the best brand of ball in the league like all organic winners.. otoh, team-hoppers are talent-based winners (all-star team strategy) and don't know how to win (brand of ball)

2) being able to defeat maximum defensive attention (carry scoring load in playoffs & Finals, and carry bed-wetting teammates over top teams)

[97 bulls]

Except who’s to say the expansion teams were actually needed to support a huge influx of talent offsetting the talent spread?

And that's been my argument. The watered down theory is flawed.

Here's another reason. If the Bulls benefitted from playing lesser teams, it would stand to reason that the Lakers and Celtics should've at least remained competitive in the early and mid half of the 90s. Especially the Celtics. The Celtics were fodder in the mid and early 90s. And they had McHale and Parish and Bird. Granted they were older, but the argument is the 90s was inferior to the 80s. If those older Celtics were playing against inferior talent, they should've at least been able to go to the ECF and probably lose in 6-7 games. Or even the NBA Finals. That didn't happen.

And the Lakers were even worse.

[97 bulls]

Yes, it spreads out talent, making it easier for MJ to beat on weaker teams. :oldlol:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p57WjbKSoJ0

I'd also like to point out that Dr J said the Bulls had 2 of the top 3 American players in the league. Who was he referring to?

[97 bulls]

Yes, it's pretty obvious the 80's were a turning point for the NBA, it was the decade that made the NBA what it is today in terms of popularity, I would say by '84 they had recovered from their bad image. There was still some drug issues, but by that point the product had flourished, with Magic, Bird, & the '84 draft, the talent was so good it was able to mask some of their drug issues. In the 70's not only did they have drug issues, but the quality of the game itself was very lacking.

Lol. Bro they still had guys that had drug problems in the mid to late 80s as well. Reggie Lewis, Orlando Woolridge, Dennis Johnson. To name a few. I think the drug issue was changed for the better by the early 90s. Definitely not the mid 80s. Hell I believe the 86 draft had 4 of the top 10 players linked to cocaine. I'd have to go back and check.

[tpols]

I'd also like to point out that Dr J said the Bulls had 2 of the top 3 American players in the league. Who was he referring to?

MJ and Horace Grant?

[3ba11]

I'd also like to point out that Dr J said the Bulls had 2 of the top 3 American players in the league. Who was he referring to?


Dr. J was referring to ring count, which is a common mistake when evaluating Pippen - people refer to his ring count rather than his actual performance (because Pippen has no dominating performance that would merit top ranking)

Otoh, Bird's comments were a little more accurate but still misguided - after the super-team 80's, expansion spread the talent around evenly so 2-star teams could win - obviously, anyone would win alongside Jordan in a 2-star vs 2-star format.. Certainly Jordan would need more than 1 other star to win in the 80's, but one can conclude that he would've won every title in the 80's with Bird's cast

[97 bulls]

MJ and Horace Grant?

Lol

[97 bulls]

Dr. J was referring to ring count, which is a common mistake when evaluating Pippen - people refer to his ring count rather than his actual performance (because Pippen has no dominating performance that would merit top ranking)

Otoh, Bird's comments were a little more accurate but still misguided - after the super-team 80's, expansion spread the talent around evenly so 2-star teams could win - obviously, anyone would win alongside Jordan in a 2-star vs 2-star format.. Certainly Jordan would need more than 1 other star to win in the 80's, but one can conclude that he would've won every title in the 80's with Bird's cast

Bird called Pippen the second best player in the NBA. Lol. You're just wrong bro. Deal with it. And just for scale, Pippen only had 3 rings when Dr J made that statement.

[3ba11]

Bird called Pippen the second best player in the NBA. Lol. You're just wrong bro. Deal with it. And just for scale, Pippen only had 3 rings when Dr J made that statement.


Pippen was a 7 ppg rookie that needed a ton of development and Jordan developed him into Iggy by year 4

Then 6 rings inflated Iggy to top 30 all-time

That's the historical record if we were to equate Pippen's actual performance to a current player (Iggy).. Pippen was a non-dominant, non-go-to athlete/defender that the winning spotlight inflated into top 30

He's the only 90's sidekick with low peak capability (22/5) that never led his team in a playoff series (never a 1b), yet he has 6 chips and therefore Iggy is top 30 (I mean Pippen)

[97 bulls]

Pippen was a 7 ppg rookie that needed a ton of development and Jordan developed him into Iggy by year 4

Then 6 rings inflated Iggy to top 30 all-time

That's the historical record if we were to equate Pippen's actual performance to a current player (Iggy).. Pippen was a non-dominant, non-go-to athlete/defender that the winning spotlight inflated into top 30

He's the only 90's sidekick with low peak capability (22/5) that never led his team in a playoff series (never a 1b), yet he has 6 chips and therefore Iggy is top 30 (I mean Pippen)

Well, show me quotes of people calling Iggy a top 5 player much less a top 3 or 2 or even best player in the league like alltime greats like Jordan, Thomas, Dr J, Bird, Barkley, Drexler to name a few did with regards to Pippen. Again, you're assessments are way off.

You don't find it the least bit odd that you are the only person that feels the way you do about Scottie Pippen. Forget the fans. There are no NBA affiliated individuals that agree with your stance. They all contradict what you're saying. Strike that, you and Bill Laimberr lol. And his quote was from 1989 lol.

[1987_Lakers]

Lol. Bro they still had guys that had drug problems in the mid to late 80s as well. Reggie Lewis, Orlando Woolridge, Dennis Johnson. To name a few. I think the drug issue was changed for the better by the early 90s. Definitely not the mid 80s. Hell I believe the 86 draft had 4 of the top 10 players linked to cocaine. I'd have to go back and check.

Again, did you not real my full quote?


Yes, it's pretty obvious the 80's were a turning point for the NBA, it was the decade that made the NBA what it is today in terms of popularity, I would say by '84 they had recovered from their bad image. There was still some drug issues, but by that point the product had flourished, with Magic, Bird, & the '84 draft, the talent was so good it was able to mask some of their drug issues. In the 70's not only did they have drug issues, but the quality of the game itself was very lacking.

Come on 97.

[3ba11]

Well, show me quotes of people calling Iggy a top 5 player much less a top 3 or 2 or even best player in the league like alltime greats like Jordan, Thomas, Dr J, Bird, Barkley, Drexler to name a few did with regards to Pippen. Again, you're assessments are way off.

You don't find it the least bit odd that you are the only person that feels the way you do about Scottie Pippen. Forget the fans. There are no NBA affiliated individuals that agree with your stance. They all contradict what you're saying. Strike that, you and Bill Laimberr lol. And his quote was from 1989 lol.


People use hyperbole when discussing dynasties, so surely you can find a 3 or 4 crazy quotes over the course of 30 years, but no one thought Pippen was better than Shaq, Hakeem, Robinson, MJ, Malone, Barkley, Ewing, Drexler, Penny, Hill, Stockton or Payton - literally no one thought he was better than any of these guys

And no one can point to performance that exceeded prime Iggy.. heck, only Pippen failed to reach Horry-level in the Finals - he's 0/6 in reaching Horry's gamescore from the 95' Finals.. He was also drastically outplayed by Reggie Miller against the same playoff opponent 5/5 times .. The point is that Pippen's actual performance was inferior but the winning spotlight made him the most overrated player ever.

[97 bulls]

Again, did you not real my full quote?



Come on 97.

There's weren't "some" drug issues. There were still drug issue period.

But forget that. If the talent was sooooo bad in the 90s, and most people feel the best Bulls team was their 96 team. Which was basically The 94 Bulls with an upgrade at PF and Guard in Rodman and Jordan, it would stand to reason that the Bulls probably win 72+ games in 94 which is pre-expansion. You can't be talking about the 88 and 89 expansion teams because the Lakers and Pistons won in those years. So there goes that argument.

I'd like to get your thoughts on the above statement.

[97 bulls]

People use hyperbole when discussing dynasties, so surely you can find a 3 or 4 crazy quotes over the course of 30 years, but no one thought Pippen was better than Shaq, Hakeem, Robinson, MJ, Malone, Barkley, Ewing, Drexler, Penny, Hill, Stockton or Payton - literally no one thought he was better than any of these guys

And no one can point to performance that exceeded prime Iggy.. heck, only Pippen failed to reach Horry-level in the Finals - he's 0/6 in reaching Horry's gamescore from the 95' Finals.. He was also drastically outplayed by Reggie Miller against the same playoff opponent 5/5 times .. The point is that Pippen's actual performance was inferior but the winning spotlight made him the most overrated player ever.

But that's your opinion bro. Neither you nor I can say what they were thinking when they said it. The fact is that they said it. And they didn't have to. Those people had nothing to gain by calling Pippen a top player in the NBA in his day.

[1987_Lakers]

There's weren't "some" drug issues. There were still drug issue period.

But forget that. If the talent was sooooo bad in the 90s, and most people feel the best Bulls team was their 96 team. Which was basically The 94 Bulls with an upgrade at PF and Guard in Rodman and Jordan, it would stand to reason that the Bulls probably win 72+ games in 94 which is pre-expansion. You can't be talking about the 88 and 89 expansion teams because the Lakers and Pistons won in those years. So there goes that argument.

I'd like to get your thoughts on the above statement.

Lakers did NOT win in '88 with expansion teams, they added 2 teams for the 1988-89 season, so you are wrong again.

[97 bulls]

Lakers did NOT win in '88 with expansion teams, they added 2 teams for the 1988-89 season, so you are wrong again.

Lol. So what happened in 89? Or 90? Why didn't the Lakers get close to 70 wins?

[1987_Lakers]

Lol. So what happened in 89? Or 90? Why didn't the Lakers get close to 70 wins?

Kareem was basically done in '89, gone in '90, Michael Cooper was aging and the league itself was still filled with talent.

Not to mention the league had 29 teams in '96 compared to 25 teams in '89, and the talent wasn't as deep. There is no way in hell the Bulls win 6 chips if you place them in the 80's.

[97 bulls]

Hey 3ball, seeing as how you have so much respect for what Bills Lamibeer says, I'd like to get your opinion on who he feels is the GOAT.



https://youtu.be/qHliam4z1rY

[1987_Lakers]

Just look at the talent the NBA had in the late 80's.

Magic
MJ
Bird
Hakeem
K. Malone
Stockton
Isiah
Barkley
Ewing
Drexler
Dominique
Moses

Those are 12 dudes relatively in their prime who are basically all considered top 50 players ever to this day, 3 of them are top 10 ever, all condensed into 23 teams.

By '96, you did not have that time of superstar talent in the NBA and adding an extra 6 teams then of course you are gonna water down your league.

[97 bulls]

Kareem was basically done in '89, gone in '90, Michael Cooper was aging and the league itself was still filled with talent.

Not to mention the league had 29 teams in '96 compared to 25 teams in '89, and the talent wasn't as deep. There is no way in hell the Bulls win 6 chips if you place them in the 80's.

Kareem was an old man by 87. He just played on a high pace team which inflated his points.

I've already addressed the Bulls and the number of teams for years in question. The 94 Bulls played in the same number of teams as the Lakers and Pistons. They won 55 games. I think they're for sure a 70+ win team in 94 you replace Pete Myers with Jordan, Grant with Rodman, a more experienced Kukoc, and an upgrade of Harper at PG.

And why did the Celtics fall to a .500 team even though they had the benefit of playing expansion teams in 89? Your argument just doesn't pass the smell test bro.

[97 bulls]

Just look at the talent the NBA had in the late 80's.

Magic
MJ
Bird
Hakeem
K. Malone
Stockton
Isiah
Barkley
Ewing
Drexler
Dominique
Moses

Those are 12 dudes relatively in their prime who are basically all considered top 50 players ever to this day, 3 of them are top 10 ever, all condensed into 23 teams.

By '96, you did not have that time of superstar talent in the NBA and adding an extra 6 teams then of course you are gonna water down your league.

Please address my arguments bro. You only alluded to Kareems age. He was old by 87. But what about the rest of what I stated?

[1987_Lakers]

Please address my arguments bro. You only alluded to Kareems age. He was old by 87. But what about the rest of what I stated?

I already answered your question. I'm not gonna keep doing this to you.



By '96, you did not have that time of superstar talent in the NBA and adding an extra 6 teams then of course you are gonna water down your league.

Come on 97

[RogueBorg]

Yes, it spreads out talent, making it easier for MJ to beat on weaker teams. :oldlol:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p57WjbKSoJ0

That's a weak argument dude. There's always been weaker teams in every season, and none of those teams make the playoffs so they're irrelevant. I can go through every single season and show you a handful of teams that only won somehwere between 10 and 30 games. For example, in 1995-'96 the bottom 5 worst teams won 15, 18, 21, 25, and 26 games. In 2015-'16 the bottom 5 teams won 10, 17, 21, 23, and 29 games. And, Patrick, Charles, Clyde, Hakeem, Drob, Shaq and the like played against the same teams MJ and Pip did. MJ and Pip beat them for the chip, not the scrubs.

[1987_Lakers]

And, Patrick, Charles, Clyde, Hakeem, Drob, Shaq and the like played against the same teams MJ and Pip did. MJ and Pip beat them for the chip, not the scrubs.

All past their prime by '96.

[RogueBorg]

All past their prime by '96.

So was MJ. Anyway, you missed the point. Your dumb argument about talent being spread out doesn't hold true as there has always been weak teams in every season.

[1987_Lakers]

So was MJ. Anyway, you missed the point. Your dumb argument about talent being spread out doesn't hold true as there has always been weak teams in every season.

Dude, you thought LeBron got swept 3 times in the Finals. You are the last person who should be calling anyone dumb.

[RogueBorg]

Dude, you thought LeBron got swept 3 times in the Finals. You are the last person who should be calling anyone dumb.

Irrelevant, your statement the talent was spread out in the 90's was dumb, there's always going to be bad teams and they matter nothing in the playoffs. Also, you do realize there were 8 different NBA Champions in the 70's compared to 4 in the 80's right? In the 80's there were only 2 teams from the West (Lakers and Rockets) and 3 teams from the East (Boston, Philly, Detroit) to make the NBA Finals. You tell me which decade the talent was spread out more in. Even the 90's, there were 7 different teams from the West to make the Finals and 5 different teams from the East. Of the three decades, it appears the 80's had the least spread of talent throughout the league.

[97 bulls]

I already answered your question. I'm not gonna keep doing this to you.



Come on 97
That's subjective. You're gonna have to explain why the Lakers and Celtics couldn't cut it even though they also had the benefit from expansion bro. And again, I'm not saying they should've won championships or set the record for wins, but they were not where they should have been. Playing against lesser talent (according to you). Even if they were old, they still should've been perennial finals contenders but they weren't.

[1987_Lakers]

That's subjective. You're gonna have to explain why the Lakers and Celtics couldn't cut it even though they also had the benefit from expansion bro. And again, I'm not saying they should've won championships or set the record for wins, but they were not where they should have been. Playing against lesser talent (according to you). Even if they were old, they still should've been perennial finals contenders but they weren't.

The Lakers were Finals contenders until Magic caught HIV, despite their supporting cast obviously declining.

Bird was never the same player after '88, but despite this Boston was consistently a 50+ win team up until Bird retired. And this was with broken back Bird only averaging around 20 ppg. Come on man, use some common sense.

[1987_Lakers]

Irrelevant, your statement the talent was spread out in the 90's was dumb, there's always going to be bad teams and they matter nothing in the playoffs. Also, you do realize there were 8 different NBA Champions in the 70's compared to 4 in the 80's right? In the 80's there were only 2 teams from the West (Lakers and Rockets) and 3 teams from the East (Boston, Philly, Detroit) to make the NBA Finals. You tell me which decade the talent was spread out more in. Even the 90's, there were 7 different teams from the West to make the Finals and 5 different teams from the East. Of the three decades, it appears the 80's had the least spread of talent throughout the league.

You missed the point completely, with expansion the top teams became less dominant. You had 4 legendary teams in the 80's...'83 Sixers, Celtics, Lakers, & '89 Pistons. Thus MJ's top competition was a notch below the best teams of the 80's and that was due to expansion, making it easier for Chicago to win.

I mean, with 6 new teams from '88 to '96 that means there were like 75 open roster spots for the NBA as a whole, that means there were around 70 players or so in '96 that couldn't have made an NBA roster in 1988 because they wouldn't be good enough. That is diluted talent.

[bizil]

What Bron would have in his favor is:

- Longevity being great: Bron has been a SUPERSTAR caliber player in the league longer than anybody else. From his 2nd season in the league to this very day, he's been a superstar level player. HOWEVER Kareem was the gold standard for longevity being great. Until Bron recently passed him. The fact Kareem was Finals MVP at 38 years old is some BOSS SHIT!!

- Peak-prime value: Bron the best ALL AROUND player ever. When you factor his overall numbers and two way versatility. So because of that, his peak-prime could be considered a bit higher than Kareem's.

- Numbers: Bron is on the verge of becoming having at least 30,000 points, 10,000 dimes, and 10,000 boards. That's the most impressive OVERALL CAREER TOTAL stat line in NBA history. I think u have some guys who have more impressive SEASON career averages. But Bron's overall career totals stat line can't be touched.

- Solo Accolades: Even though Kareem has more MVP's, I thin Bron's overall solo accolades resume is a bit more impressive.

3-4 years ago, I STILL had Kareem over Bron GOAT wise. But at this point, I would go with Bron. EVEN THOUGH you could still argue Kareem. I do think Bron on a somewhat wide scale was PREMATURELY rated higher than Kareem on the GOAT charts.

[HoopsNY]

Kareem was basically done in '89, gone in '90, Michael Cooper was aging and the league itself was still filled with talent.

Not to mention the league had 29 teams in '96 compared to 25 teams in '89, and the talent wasn't as deep. There is no way in hell the Bulls win 6 chips if you place them in the 80's.

It doesn't work that way. You can't plant the '90s Bulls in the 80s without first giving Chicago

i) another superstar
ii) another star
iii) another high quality role player
iv) another high quality 6th man

Any of the above or a mixup of the above happens if Chicago is then placed in the 80s. Keep in mind, they had MJ, Pippen, Grant, and Paxson before the expansion even happened.

So what happens if you give them a 3rd co-star or a high quality role player/starter? You would have to first undo the expansion, giving Chicago a chance at another high quality player.

[1987_Lakers]

It doesn't work that way. You can't plant the '90s Bulls in the 80s without first giving Chicago

i) another superstar
ii) another star
iii) another high quality role player
iv) another high quality 6th man

Any of the above or a mixup of the above happens if Chicago is then placed in the 80s. Keep in mind, they had MJ, Pippen, Grant, and Paxson before the expansion even happened.

So what happens if you give them a 3rd co-star or a high quality role player/starter? You would have to first undo the expansion, giving Chicago a chance at another high quality player.

That's a fair point. Regardless, it would have been of hell of a lot tougher for them if you put them in the 80's dealing with Boston, Philly, & possibly the Lakers in the Finals. I could see them winning some chips, but 6 to me is out of the question.

[97 bulls]

It doesn't work that way. You can't plant the '90s Bulls in the 80s without first giving Chicago

i) another superstar
ii) another star
iii) another high quality role player
iv) another high quality 6th man

Any of the above or a mixup of the above happens if Chicago is then placed in the 80s. Keep in mind, they had MJ, Pippen, Grant, and Paxson before the expansion even happened.

So what happens if you give them a 3rd co-star or a high quality role player/starter? You would have to first undo the expansion, giving Chicago a chance at another high quality player.

I don't even think you need to go that far (even though i see your point). The 94 Bulls won 55 games and lost I'm 7 hard fought games to the Knicks who also lost in 7 hard fought games to the eventual champion Rockets. Give the Bulls an upgrade at PF in Rodman, a huge upgrade from a rookie Kukoc to a more experienced Kukoc, and most of all, replace Pete Myers for the GOAT in Jordan? Is it unreasonable to say that the Bulls don't win 70+ games under that scenario? And more importantly, a championship? Pre expansion of 96. Playing in the same league with the same amount of teams as the might Lakers and Celtics?

And let's not forget that the Bulls lost to one of those expansion teams in 96. They actually had a better record vs the rest of the league than the expansion teams.

[97 bulls]

Definitely not 6. But the Lakers don't win 5 and the Celtics don't win 3 either

[97 bulls]

The Lakers were Finals contenders until Magic caught HIV, despite their supporting cast obviously declining.

Bird was never the same player after '88, but despite this Boston was consistently a 50+ win team up until Bird retired. And this was with broken back Bird only averaging around 20 ppg. Come on man, use some common sense.

But the league was worse because of expansion right? In so factto, the Celtics should've been able to maintain their dominate over the east. It's simple

The Celtics were a 10 playing in a league that was the best ever right? Let's call the league a 10 relative to other eras. The Celtics drop down to 7 because of age and injury. But the league also drops down to 7 because of expansion. So the Celtics should still have been in the thick of it all. THAT DIDNT HAPPEN!!! The Lakers were still competitive, but expansion happens in 89 a d 90 (thanks for correcting me) why weren't the Lakers good enough to even flirt with 70 wins like the Bulls?

[HoopsNY]

Definitely not 6. But the Lakers don't win 5 and the Celtics don't win 3 either

This^. What 1987 is failing to do is apply the situation evenly. Giving Chicago another co-star would give them a leg up on Detroit, a team that went to the finals 3 times and should have won all 3. I do agree they struggle against the Celtics in '86, but beyond that, it's probably Chicago going 5-1 in the finals or something along those lines.

Granted, this presupposes that MJ doesn't retire like he did in 1993. So you're talking about peak MJ, peak Pippen, peak Grant or Rodman, BJ/Paxson, with another star? What happens if Alonzo Mourning is their center?

Chicago still dominates. Do they go 6-0? Maybe, maybe not. But the scenarios don't change all that much. And if MJ doesn't retire, then 6 titles becomes a big possibility.

[1987_Lakers]

But the league was worse because of expansion right? In so factto, the Celtics should've been able to maintain their dominate over the east. It's simple

The Celtics were a 10 playing in a league that was the best ever right? Let's call the league a 10 relative to other eras. The Celtics drop down to 7 because of age and injury. But the league also drops down to 7 because of expansion. So the Celtics should still have been in the thick of it all. THAT DIDNT HAPPEN!!! The Lakers were still competitive, but expansion happens in 89 a d 90 (thanks for correcting me) why weren't the Lakers good enough to even flirt with 70 wins like the Bulls?

The effects of expansion are not felt until years down the road, every expansion team starts off bad, it's not until they get high draft picks and sign free agents where it really starts messing with the great teams, thus spreading out the talent.

The example you gave out is bad. You are gonna say the '86 Celtics fell from a 10 to a 7 in '90 AND the league also dropped to a 7 in 1990 as well? Of course not, the best teams in say '88 were still dominant in '90. It's not until the mid 90's where the effects of expansion were noticed.

[1987_Lakers]

This^. What 1987 is failing to do is apply the situation evenly. Giving Chicago another co-star would give them a leg up on Detroit, a team that went to the finals 3 times and should have won all 3. I do agree they struggle against the Celtics in '86, but beyond that, it's probably Chicago going 5-1 in the finals or something along those lines.

Granted, this presupposes that MJ doesn't retire like he did in 1993. So you're talking about peak MJ, peak Pippen, peak Grant or Rodman, BJ/Paxson, with another star? What happens if Alonzo Mourning is their center?

Chicago still dominates. Do they go 6-0? Maybe, maybe not. But the scenarios don't change all that much. And if MJ doesn't retire, then 6 titles becomes a big possibility.

Well like you said, Chicago already had their 3 main core of players before expansion, MJ, Pippen, & Grant. Wouldn't you say if MJ started his career with 27-29 teams instead of 23, it would have been harder for Chicago to get those 2 other guys?

My point is, Chicago had pretty much already built their team before expansion, while the other teams in the league during the 90's had to form a team to compete with them with MORE teams in the league, that puts them at a disadvantage.

[theman93]

The effects of expansion are not felt until years down the road, every expansion team starts off bad, it's not until they get high draft picks and sign free agents where it really starts messing with the great teams, thus spreading out the talent.

The example you gave out is bad. You are gonna say the '86 Celtics fell from a 10 to a 7 in '90 AND the league also dropped to a 7 in 1990 as well? Of course not, the best teams in say '88 were still dominant in '90. It's not until the mid 90's where the effects of expansion were noticed.

Ok, so MJ's first 3 peat (91,92,93) wasn't against a watered down league? How were the great teams in 96-98 weaker than the great teams of 91-93?

[Thenameless]

Lebron has recency bias over Kareem.

Lebron is better at defending perimeter players, but defending the paint has always been more important until recently.

[1987_Lakers]

Ok, so MJ's first 3 peat (91,92,93) wasn't against a watered down league? How were the great teams in 96-98 weaker than the great teams of 91-93?

What really effected the early 90's wasn't expansion, it was Magic & Bird being injured/retiring. I mean, who's to say the Celtics aren't a force in the early 90's if Bird never hurts his back? Or how long do the Lakers stay relevant if Magic doesn't get HIV? These are two of the top 10 greatest players ever. Those two leaving effected MJ's competition in the early 90's as well. There was still very decent talent/teams around that time though, but again it doesn't compare to how the elite teams looked in the 80's.

[97 bulls]

Ok, so MJ's first 3 peat (91,92,93) wasn't against a watered down league? How were the great teams in 96-98 weaker than the great teams of 91-93?

This is exactly what I was about to say.

[HoopsNY]

Well like you said, Chicago already had their 3 main core of players before expansion, MJ, Pippen, & Grant. Wouldn't you say if MJ started his career with 27-29 teams instead of 23, it would have been harder for Chicago to get those 2 other guys?

My point is, Chicago had pretty much already built their team before expansion, while the other teams in the league during the 90's had to form a team to compete with them with MORE teams in the league, that puts them at a disadvantage.

You're being selective here to pinpoint an argument that isn't there. This is an entirely new hypothetical which changes the entire league, let alone Chicago, as we know it, and is far more complexed than the hypothetical of undoing expansion.

If MJ comes into the league in say 1990, then what is the state of the league as a whole, and does Chicago even get him? That's an entirely new scenario with so many more moving pieces, not to mention being far less uncertain than a scenario where Chicago is more likely to have a stronger team without expansion.

I get you're a LeBron fan, and you're entitled to think he's greater than MJ, but the expansion argument is fundamentally flawed IF we're gonna be consistent. When most people use the expansion argument, they fail to mention that other elite teams didn't sustain winning, let alone winning at a high level, the way Chicago did. In addition, they forget that expansion dilutes the strength of ALL teams, Chicago included.

This is a lot like the European players argument. As if to say the rest of the league would have sourced European talent except Chicago (who ironically drafted Toni Kukoc in the 2nd round).

[theman93]

It's not my fault David Stern decided to add 6 teams in a 8 year span from '88-'95 to water down the league.

:oldlol:


What really effected the early 90's wasn't expansion, it was Magic & Bird being injured/retiring. I mean, who's to say the Celtics aren't a force in the early 90's if Bird never hurts his back? Or how long do the Lakers stay relevant if Magic doesn't get HIV? These are two of the top 10 greatest players ever. Those two leaving effected MJ's competition in the early 90's as well. There was still very decent talent/teams around that time though, but again it doesn't compare to how the elite teams looked in the 80's.

Oh??

[HoopsNY]

What really effected the early 90's wasn't expansion, it was Magic & Bird being injured/retiring. I mean, who's to say the Celtics aren't a force in the early 90's if Bird never hurts his back? Or how long do the Lakers stay relevant if Magic doesn't get HIV? These are two of the top 10 greatest players ever. Those two leaving effected MJ's competition in the early 90's as well. There was still very decent talent/teams around that time though, but again it doesn't compare to how the elite teams looked in the 80's.

Because Chicago already beat LAL in 1991. Bird not injuring his back and playing at a high level makes Boston more of a threat, but they would have still been very beatable.

Bird put up 24/10/8 on 55% TS% in 1990, putting up 24/9/9 on 54% against the Knicks, and they still lost; this despite Lewis, McHale, putting up 20, 22 PPG, and 16 PPG, respectively.

If Larry is still putting 25/10/7 in 1991 and 1992, Boston still loses to a team like Chicago.

[1987_Lakers]

Oh??

And? Where in my first post did I say adding those 6 teams effected the early 90's?

[1987_Lakers]

Because Chicago already beat LAL in 1991. Bird not injuring his back and playing at a high level makes Boston more of a threat, but they would have still been very beatable.

Bird put up 24/10/8 on 55% TS% in 1990, putting up 24/9/9 on 54% against the Knicks, and they still lost; this despite Lewis, McHale, putting up 20, 22 PPG, and 16 PPG, respectively.

If Larry is still putting 25/10/7 in 1991 and 1992, Boston still loses to a team like Chicago.

Wait? Didn't you make a thread pointing out EXACTLY what I just said???


One thing that I've noticed a lot of people often do is analyze the game from a context that fits their narrative, and often times using metrics and measurements that align with the current state of the game.

It's important to apply these standards across all eras while considering the context that fits appropriately, and applying such contexts equally.

For example, we saw a recent post about what the championship Bulls teams would do in the 80s. Some posters were quick to say they would win few or no titles at all. I understand that logic, but it is predicated on the notion of the stacked (super)teams that existed in the 80s (Pistons, Celtics, Sixers, Lakers).

What posters failed to realize is that expansion diluted talent across all teams. If you're going to match up those teams, who immediately dealt with diluted talent, then you must add an additional star/super-star/sixth man/role player to the Bulls' roster as well.

Having said all that, I do believe the 90s had weaker talent, but not because the talent didn't exist, but because injuries or unfortunate circumstances occurred that limited longevity, peak play, or a prime "decline" (if you will).

For example: Bird was not the same player after '88. He had woeful injuries and was never the same player, though he played at an all-star level (24/9/7/2 on 48%). So what do those later years, particularly from 1990-92, look like without such injuries? Maybe 25/10/7 on 50%? It's safe to say if Bird doesn't succumb to such injuries, then his career probably goes 'til 1994, or even 1995.

That gives him four years where he's putting up elite numbers, on a competitive team, to be able to win another championship.

Bird as an injured player was still able to produce at a high level, so what's stopping him on full strength? What solidifies this argument even more is what happened to his co-star, Reggie Lewis. Lewis died tragically, but was an all-star level SG, a solid defender, and together with Bird, could have been an interesting force in the Eastern Conference.

Another example is Drazen Petrovic. His untimely death was tragic, and the Nets had something promising going. The following season after Drazen's death, Jersey won 45 games. What does the future of Jersey look like with Drazen-Coleman-Anderson with Drazen coming into his peak years?

The league black-balled a player like Mahmoud Abdul-Rauf after his controversy concerning standing for the national anthem. After all, he was Steph before Steph.

Guys like Kevin Johnson, Charles Barkley, Larry Johnson, and Penny Hardaway saw their careers greatly impacted due to injury. Each of these guys never recovered from those injuries, the best being Barkley, who simply wasn't the same player after the 1995 season.

The Bulls of course were no foreigners to this. Pippen was not the same player after the 1996 season. He was injured in the playoffs and he never quite hit those peak years. By the ECF and finals in 1998, his back was shot.

Even Magic Johnson is a prime example of this. Magic led his team to the finals in '91, putting up 19/13/7 on 48% that year. Magic retired at 31. There's no reason to think that Magic couldn't go another 4-5 years, especially seeing that he returned to the league in 1996, four years after his first retirement.

Patrick Ewing had an awful wrist injury during the 1997-98 season. Brad Daugherty retired at the age of 30 in 1996. But Daugherty's last game was at the age of 28.

Shawn Kemp had unfortunate struggles with cocaine. Vin Baker had an alcohol addiction. And Grant Hill was done after the 2000 season (though they don't count since their demise precedes the Bulls championship years).

There are more names that I'm forgetting, but yes, the 90s had weaker talent. Do all these guys being healthy necessarily change the eventual outcome of the NBA finals? Probably not. But the claim still does have some merit.

You basically made a thread admitting the 90's were weak.

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?497124-Why-the-90s-was-a-Weaker-Era

[HoopsNY]

MJ's dominance is particularly glaring in the second three peat. The NBA was notably a weaker league by 1998, but as a whole, you can't deny what he was able to accomplish with that team despite the number of injuries (Harper, Kukoc, Rodman) and headaches with Rodman.

The '96 season stands out. Pippen's games played shows up as 77, but he got injured a little past the midway point, after a 40 point game in mid February. Pippen's back issues and tendinitis in his knees kicked in, but that didn't stop Chicago.

They played 26 games with him being pedestrian where he put up 14/6/6/1/0.5 on 39%, yet still had a 26-5 record (69 win pace).

In 1998, Pippen missed 38 games, Chicago still went 26-12 (56 win pace).

Now I get it, the regular season doesn't mean as much; but the fact that Chicago still won the title despite Pippen being a shell of himself and dealing with horrid injuries is a testimony more to MJ's dominance and less to the supposed "expansion diluted talent and that's why Chicago won" argument.

[1987_Lakers]

This guy said it best in your thread btw, I agree with him 100%. It merits what I've been mostly saying this entire thread.


I made a thread about this a few years ago, but I think its been purged.

The narrative is essentially this....

- In the late 80s there were 23 NBA teams and ~2% of NBA players at the time were born and/or raised outside the USA (ie. they came to the USA to play basketball).
- By 1996 there were 29 teams and ~5% of NBA players at the time were born and/or raised outside the USA.
- Now there are 30 teams and ~25% of NBA players were born and/or raised outside the USA.

^I forget the exact percentages, but at the time I went back and did the research.

So, from '89 to '96, the NBA expanded by 26% (from 23 teams to 29 teams), but didn't expand the talent pool accordingly. Therefore, in the late 90s around a quarter of players in the league wouldn't have made the NBA 8 years earlier.

Over the course of the next 20 years international players have filled the talent gap. So now those players who wouldn't have made the NBA pre-expansion are not making the NBA again, because international players are taking their roster spots.

In relation specifically to 97-99, some of the leagues top players (like DRob, Shaq, Barkley and others) missed huge slabs of games through injury, further diluting the competition.

The result, Jordan & Pippen and Malone & Stockton dominate a league full of 1-star teams, G-Leaguers and injury riddled former Dream Teamers.

[RogueBorg]

who's to say the Celtics aren't a force in the early 90's if Bird never hurts his back? .

What hurt the Celtics in the 90's was not having Len Bias and Reggie Lewis. Bird was already 34 by 1990. Bias and Lewis would have been a nice duo throughout the decade.

[HoopsNY]

Wait? Didn't you make a thread pointing out EXACTLY what I just said???



You basically made a thread admitting the 90's were weak.

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?497124-Why-the-90s-was-a-Weaker-Era

Yes, but I never cited expansion as a reason. And I never claimed that if Bird is healthy, that they would have contended with Chicago. I actually reiterated my earlier point here...


What posters failed to realize is that expansion diluted talent across all teams. If you're going to match up those teams, who immediately dealt with diluted talent, then you must add an additional star/super-star/sixth man/role player to the Bulls' roster as well.

My point was that these players could have continued to play at a high level, not that their presence would have changed an inevitable outcome. The entire post was to discuss talent across the league, which more so affected the late 90s as opposed to the early 90s....I mean, I said it right here...


Having said all that, I do believe the 90s had weaker talent, but not because the talent didn't exist, but because injuries or unfortunate circumstances occurred that limited longevity, peak play, or a prime "decline" (if you will).

I hope that clarifies it.

[HoopsNY]

I mean, I ended the post by saying....


There are more names that I'm forgetting, but yes, the 90s had weaker talent. Do all these guys being healthy necessarily change the eventual outcome of the NBA finals? Probably not. But the claim still does have some merit.

[HoopsNY]

This guy said it best in your thread btw, I agree with him 100%. It merits what I've been mostly saying this entire thread.


Quote Originally Posted by AussieSteve View Post
I made a thread about this a few years ago, but I think its been purged.

The narrative is essentially this....

- In the late 80s there were 23 NBA teams and ~2% of NBA players at the time were born and/or raised outside the USA (ie. they came to the USA to play basketball).
- By 1996 there were 29 teams and ~5% of NBA players at the time were born and/or raised outside the USA.
- Now there are 30 teams and ~25% of NBA players were born and/or raised outside the USA.

^I forget the exact percentages, but at the time I went back and did the research.

So, from '89 to '96, the NBA expanded by 26% (from 23 teams to 29 teams), but didn't expand the talent pool accordingly. Therefore, in the late 90s around a quarter of players in the league wouldn't have made the NBA 8 years earlier.

Over the course of the next 20 years international players have filled the talent gap. So now those players who wouldn't have made the NBA pre-expansion are not making the NBA again, because international players are taking their roster spots.

In relation specifically to 97-99, some of the leagues top players (like DRob, Shaq, Barkley and others) missed huge slabs of games through injury, further diluting the competition.

The result, Jordan & Pippen and Malone & Stockton dominate a league full of 1-star teams, G-Leaguers and injury riddled former Dream Teamers.

Right, because "the result" was that Chicago was healthy while everyone else wasn't....smh.

[1987_Lakers]

"But the claim still does have some merit." - HoopsNY

Agreed.

[HoopsNY]

"But the claim still does have some merit." - HoopsNY

Agreed.

lol, when I said "the claim", I was referring to the claim of the 90s lacking talent. You're reading into my post what isn't there.

[theman93]

And? Where in my first post did I say adding those 6 teams effected the early 90's?

Ok, so scrap the expansion argument of adding 6 teams that watered down the 90's?

[1987_Lakers]

Ok, so scrap the expansion argument of adding 6 teams that watered down the 90's?

mid-late 90's. Which is still the 90's, what don't you understand?

[1987_Lakers]

I think we could lock this up now that HoopsNY admitted the 90's were weak.

Goodbye yall.

[theman93]

mid-late 90's. Which is still the 90's, what don't you understand?

Ok then you dodged the question: How were the great teams in 96-98 weaker than the great teams of 91-93?

[HoopsNY]

I think we could lock this up now that HoopsNY admitted the 90's were weak.

Goodbye yall.

Pretty sad how you reached and couldn't even admit that you're misquoting, or at least misunderstanding me. Did you read on in the thread? I even clarified my position...


Would definitely like to hear more from you regarding this.

Good point(s). I do want to make it clear that while I do believe that these injury problems negatively impacted talent, I don't necessarily believe it changes the outcomes of the NBA finals in the 90s.

I think Chicago still wins regardless of teams being healthy, or their stars being alive and still playing (in the case of guys like Drazen, Lewis, Magic, and Bird).

But I do think Chicago's win totals fall somewhat. We probably don't see 72 wins, or 69. But mid-60s consistently is probable. And I still think they win six titles.

And at least quote me right. I believe the talent was weaker for reasons a, b, c.

[1987_Lakers]

Pretty sad how you reached and couldn't even admit that you're misquoting, or at least misunderstanding me. Did you read on in the thread? I even clarified my position...



And at least quote me right. I believe the talent was weaker for reasons a, b, c.

The title of your thread was literally "Why the 90s was a Weaker Era". :oldlol:

And in your last sentence in that thread..." but yes, the 90s had weaker talent."

[HoopsNY]

The title of your thread was literally "Why the 90s was a Weaker Era". :oldlol:

And in your last sentence in that thread..." but yes, the 90s had weaker talent."

And? What does that have to do with expansion? And where did I claim that a healthy (fill in the blank) results in Chicago not winning as many titles? You're reaching now. Not to mention we completely digressed from the original discussion between you and 97 Bulls.

I have a strong feeling you'll still run with the expansion argument even after all this, lol.

[1987_Lakers]

Whether if it was expansion that made that era weaker, which I believe was a reason in the later part of the 90's

Or whether if it was a lack of talent, like you believe it was. (And I do to some degree compared to the late 80's)

At the end of the day, we both came to the conclusion that the 90's were weak. So we agree on that. :cheers:

[HoopsNY]

Whether if it was expansion that made that era weaker, which I believe was a reason in the later part of the 90's

Or whether if it was a lack of talent, like you believe it was. (And I do to some degree compared to the late 80's)

At the end of the day, we both came to the conclusion at the 90's were weak. So we agree on that. :cheers:

The underlying reasons are very different. In the end, the expansion argument is flawed if you're being consistent (which you aren't but are at the same time since you acknowledged that it was a fair point).

And you likely believe Chicago was so successful because of "weaker talent". Reality is, those injuries would have only resulted in Chicago having a slightly worse record, not that it would have impacted their ability in winning titles.

Kemp not sniffing coke wouldn't have made Cleveland a contender for a title.

LJ being healthy wouldn't have made Charlotte a contender or the Knicks.

Drazen or Lewis living doesn't make NJ or Boston threats to Chicago.

Penny being healthy doesn't make Orlando a threat to Chicago.

Bird being healthier doesn't make Boston a threat.

Magic was healthy and still lost lol.

You see where this is going?

[theman93]

1987_Lakers is all over the place :lol

First it's the 90's were watered down because of expansion teams.

Then it was just the mid-late 90's that were watered down because of expansion teams.

Then, "what really effected the early 90's wasn't expansion, it was Magic & Bird being injured/retiring."

And now he won't tell us what made the late 90's teams so much weaker than the early 90's teams. :lol

[1987_Lakers]

1987_Lakers is all over the place :lol

First it's the 90's were watered down because of expansion teams.

Then it was just the mid-late 90's that were watered down because of expansion teams.

Then, "what really effected the early 90's wasn't expansion, it was Magic & Bird being injured/retiring."

And now he won't tell us what made the late 90's teams so much weaker than the early 90's teams. :lol

Only problem is, I never said it effected the early 90's, that is something you made up. I was basically stating how many teams were added in specific years. And I answered your last sentence (Magic & Bird premature demise was a reason why we didn't see elite teams in the early 90's as well). Don't go fake news on me.

I know you're upset that your boy HoopsNY himself thinks the 90's were weak, but don't take out your anger on me.

[theman93]

Only problem is, I never said it effected the early 90's, that is something you made up. I was basically stating how many teams were added in specific years. And I answered your last sentence (Magic & Bird premature demise). Don't go fake news on me.

I know you're upset that your boy HoopsNY himself thinks the 90's were weak, but don't take out your anger on me.

I'm gonna ask you a 3rd time, try not to dodge it this time:

What about the great late 90's teams was so much weaker than the great early 90's teams?

And yes, you've said repeatedly in other threads that the 90's were watered down.

[TheGoatest]

Better than Jordan's case over 8 rings, 8/8 in the finals John Havlicek, that's for sure. :oldlol:

[RogueBorg]

Better than Jordan's case over 8 rings, 8/8 in the finals John Havlicek, that's for sure. :oldlol:

Nah, zero MVP's and a 20.8 ppg knocks him down :oldlol:

Cool story bro

[TheGoatest]

Nah, zero MVP's and a 20.8 ppg knocks him down :oldlol:

Cool story bro

13 all-NBA 1st teams, 7500+ career playoff points, 10K rebounds and 10K assists and soon possession of the all-time scoring records knocks everyone else down.

But I'm glad that you're at least admitting that there's more to GOATness than ring totals. :applause:

[3ba11]

13 all-NBA 1st teams, 7500+ career playoff points, 10K rebounds and 10K assists and soon possession of the all-time scoring records knocks everyone else down.

But I'm glad that you're at least admitting that there's more to GOATness than ring totals. :applause:


6 rings as the best player is unmatched

All 6 occurred while defeating maximum defensive attention (carrying scoring load)

6/6 is the highest team ceiling ever

Goat production rate > Goat longevity totals.. per game measures degree of domination > length of domination.. who cares about dominating less for longer (longevity)

[TheGoatest]

Along with John Havlicek destroying their own argument, we have another candidate for GOAT by Jordan extremists/alts: George Mikan. :roll:
They simply CANNOT find the formula that makes Jordan the GOAT that another player destroys. The closest they can get is the most scoring titles. Which only counts in a GOAT scorer discussion. Not so much GOAT player though. :oldlol:

[3ba11]

The caae for Kareem is that scorers/possession closers win more than passers/possession initiators

Scorers like Kareem, MJ, Kobe, Curry, KD and Bird have the best Finals records BY FAR - nearly undefeated - while passera like Magic, Lebron, CP3, Westbrook, Nash, etc have losing Finals record

Ball movement (jumpshooting) and possession closers win more than ball-dominance

[Lebron23]

Better peak

Played in a better era

Won more championships as the best player

This

[WhiteKyrie]

I don’t even like LeBron, and he’s a better basketball player than Kareem.

I also think he was the more dominant high school player ever. Best and most developed basketball player of all time by that age. He’s just the perfect basketball player besides Michael Jordan. His size combination, speed, strength, guard like skills in a small forward to power forward level frame. He can score and he can facilitate and run an offense.

Kareem was too reliant on having all-time great wing players to win his rings and he wasn’t much of a leader, because of how weird, aloof, and the negative asshole he was to develop team chemistry. He was very similar to Wilt in those regards, just not as charismatic.

Magic and Big O are the reason he has his rings, IMO.

[dankok8]

Lebron and Kareem both have GOAT arguments.

Lots of misconceptions and lack of knowledge about Kareem in this thread though. :facepalm

[SouBeachTalents]

God damn, RogueBorg making literally some of the dumbest arguments in the history of the forum in this thread :lol

[John8204]

Magic and Big O are the reason he has his rings, IMO.

His stats are also inflated because of the ABA...he was only competing against half of the best players in the sport for his most productive seasons. I'm not going to say the guy is a bum or even that he's not top five but he had issues and for me he's behind Wilt.

[WhiteKyrie]

His stats are also inflated because of the ABA...he was only competing against half of the best players in the sport for his most productive seasons. I'm not going to say the guy is a bum or even that he's not top five but he had issues and for me he's behind Wilt.

Agreed. Not to mention he had an MVP season where he didn’t even make the playoffs, how is that an MVP?

[dankok8]

His stats are also inflated because of the ABA...he was only competing against half of the best players in the sport for his most productive seasons. I'm not going to say the guy is a bum or even that he's not top five but he had issues and for me he's behind Wilt.

The only reason I'm responding to this drivel is because there are people who actually believe this.

Other than Erving there was no other superstar in the ABA. There are lots of guys who went from ABA superstars to mere all-stars after the merger like Gilmore, Issel, McGinnis, Counts etc. and a bunch of young guys who started in the ABA (Moses, Gervin, Thompson) but those guys didn't enter their prime until after the merger. The existence of the ABA had minor impact on the NBA except right prior to the merger. The ABA was a fun league with a multi-colored ball, high pace, and no defense. More flash than substance while the NBA was a bit "boring" but the effectiveness of the best NBA players was easily above those of the best ABA players. Even Dr J in his prime would have no chance of taking MVP's from Kareem. Prime Kareem >> Prime Dr J ... The Doctor never put up very impressive numbers in the NBA. He was definitely good among the top 20-30 players the NBA has ever seen but he was nowhere near a GOAT-level peak like Kareem was.

Kareem faced a ridiculous amount of competition at the C position which are the guys that he was matched up with. Early decade, it was Reed, Wilt, Thurmond, Cowens, Hayes, Unseld, Lanier then mid to late decade still Cowens, Unseld and Lanier but also McAdoo, Walton, Moses, Sikma, Gilmore... Let's stop with the BS narratives. Apart from maybe the 90's, the 70's were the strongest era for centers in league history.


Agreed. Not to mention he had an MVP season where he didn’t even make the playoffs, how is that an MVP?

Because he was 2nd in scoring (27.7 ppg) on a whopping +6.3 rTS. He was 1st in rebounding (one of the best seasons in terms of defensive rebounds ever), 1st in blocks and even had 5.0 apg as a center. Kareem in 1975-76 had a ridiculously great season but his team sucked balls. And still his team missed the playoffs with the 4th best record and 3rd best SRS in the conference because of stupid seedings.

[warriorfan]

The only reason I'm responding to this drivel is because there are people who actually believe this.

Other than Erving there was no other superstar in the ABA. There are lots of guys who went from ABA superstars to mere all-stars after the merger like Gilmore, Issel, McGinnis, Counts etc. and a bunch of young guys who started in the ABA (Moses, Gervin, Thompson) but those guys didn't enter their prime until after the merger. The existence of the ABA had minor impact on the NBA except right prior to the merger. The ABA was a fun league with a multi-colored ball, high pace, and no defense. More flash than substance while the NBA was a bit "boring" but the effectiveness of the best NBA players was easily above those of the best ABA players. Even Dr J in his prime would have no chance of taking MVP's from Kareem. Prime Kareem >> Prime Dr J ... The Doctor never put up very impressive numbers in the NBA. He was definitely good among the top 20-30 players the NBA has ever seen but he was nowhere near a GOAT-level peak like Kareem was.

Kareem faced a ridiculous amount of competition at the C position which are the guys that he was matched up with. Early decade, it was Reed, Wilt, Thurmond, Cowens, Hayes, Unseld, Lanier then mid to late decade still Cowens, Unseld and Lanier but also McAdoo, Walton, Moses, Sikma, Gilmore... Let's stop with the BS narratives. Apart from maybe the 90's, the 70's were the strongest era for centers in league history.



Because he was 2nd in scoring (27.7 ppg) on a whopping +6.3 rTS. He was 1st in rebounding (one of the best seasons in terms of defensive rebounds ever), 1st in blocks and even had 5.0 apg as a center. Kareem in 1975-76 had a ridiculously great season but his team sucked balls. And still his team missed the playoffs with the 4th best record and 3rd best SRS in the conference because of stupid seedings.

The first year of the ABA/NBA merger the Denver Nuggets had the best defense in the entire league.

Your narrative isn’t accurate.

[dankok8]

The first year of the ABA/NBA merger the Denver Nuggets had the best defense in the entire league.

Your narrative isn’t accurate.

Yes it is accurate that ABA was a no defense league. Here are the league averages:

1976 NBA: 98.3 DRtg, 105.5 pace
1976 ABA: 104.1 DRtg, 106.9 pace

The worst defense in the NBA was equivalent to the best defense in the ABA. That's how huge the gap was.

[John8204]

Spencer Haywood - ABA MVP (1970) - 4 time All-star (1972-1975)
Rick Barry - ABA Champion (1969) - 6 time All-Star, 3 time All-NBA, NBA Champion
George McGinnis - 2 time ABA champion - 3 time NBA All-Star, All-NBA
Julius Erving 2 time ABA Champion, - 1 time NBA Champion, 2 time ABA MVP 1 time NBA MVP
George Gervin - 3 time ABA All-Star, 9 time NBA All-Star, 4 time NBA scoring champion, 5 All-NBA first team
Connie Hawkins - ABA Champion, All-NBA first team
Artis Gilmore - ABA Champion, 6 time NBA all-star
Moses Malone - ABA All-Star, 3 time NBA MVP, NBA Champion, 12 time NBA All-Star 4 times All-NBA first team
Billy Cunningham - NBA Champion, ABA MVP
Dan Issell - ABA Champion, NBA All-Star
Bobby Jones - ABA All-Star, NBA Champion
Maurice Lucas - ABA All-Star, All-NBA

[warriorfan]

Yes it is accurate that ABA was a no defense league. Here are the league averages:

1976 NBA: 98.3 DRtg, 105.5 pace
1976 ABA: 104.1 DRtg, 106.9 pace

The worst defense in the NBA was equivalent to the best defense in the ABA. That's how huge the gap was.

year before merger nuggets had the 4th rated defense in the aba, next year they were number 1 in the nba.

care to explain?

[dankok8]

Spencer Haywood - ABA MVP (1970) - 4 time All-star (1972-1975)
Rick Barry - ABA Champion (1969) - 6 time All-Star, 3 time All-NBA, NBA Champion
George McGinnis - 2 time ABA champion - 3 time NBA All-Star, All-NBA
Julius Erving 2 time ABA Champion, - 1 time NBA Champion, 2 time ABA MVP 1 time NBA MVP
George Gervin - 3 time ABA All-Star, 9 time NBA All-Star, 4 time NBA scoring champion, 5 All-NBA first team
Connie Hawkins - ABA Champion, All-NBA first team
Artis Gilmore - ABA Champion, 6 time NBA all-star
Moses Malone - ABA All-Star, 3 time NBA MVP, NBA Champion, 12 time NBA All-Star 4 times All-NBA first team
Billy Cunningham - NBA Champion, ABA MVP
Dan Issell - ABA Champion, NBA All-Star
Bobby Jones - ABA All-Star, NBA Champion
Maurice Lucas - ABA All-Star, All-NBA

You just about dug your own grave with that argument.

Guys like Gervin, Moses, Jones and Lucas were very young in the ABA. They entered their primes in the NBA.

Cunningham spent only two seasons in the ABA, the second of which he got injured and was never the same player.

How let's talk about guys who were in their primes in both leagues...

Spencer Haywood was ABA MVP as a rookie. In the NBA maybe a top 20 player at his best.

Connie Hawkins was ABA MVP as a rookie. In the NBA maybe a top 20 player at his best.

George McGinnis was ABA MVP/top 5 player averaging 30/14/6. Came to the NBA and put up 23/13/5 on worse efficiency. Again maybe a top 20 player at his best.

Artis Gilmore was ABA MVP and probably best player after Erving at the time of the merger. He came to the NBA and became merely a top 20 player.

Dan Issel was 1x All-ABA 1st team and 4x All-ABA 2nd team. Came to the NBA and made 1 all-star game. Maybe a top 20 player for a year.

Hell even Dr J...

Julius Erving was 2x ABA MVP and best player in that league. Although he had by far the best NBA career even his play was a far cry from his ABA dominance. Stats dropped across the board.

I've got a few more guys to throw in there...

Jimmy Jones was 6x ABA all-star and 4th all-time in ABA Win Shares. Comes to the NBA at age 29 and becomes a role player.

Zelmo Beaty was at best a top 20 player in the NBA. Goes to the ABA and finishes 2nd and 3rd in MVP voting.

TL DR

A lot of ABA MVP's coming to the NBA and becoming mere top 20 players and in most cases for 1-2 seasons.


year before merger nuggets had the 4th rated defense in the aba, next year they were number 1 in the nba.

care to explain?

Can you explain the much bigger league-wide trend that the NBA was 6 points better in DRtg compared to the ABA?

[John8204]

You do understand that by saying that 10 players are "top twenty" in the NBA that's half the competition Kareem didn't face the point of the argument.

you do get that right but just being insulting and weird about it.

[Lebron23]

LeBron have more finals MVP than Kareem.

/End Thread.

[dankok8]

You do understand that by saying that 10 players are "top twenty" in the NBA that's half the competition Kareem didn't face the point of the argument.

you do get that right but just being insulting and weird about it.

These guys weren't all top 20 in the same season.

Like I said in an earlier post. The existence of the ABA did hurt the NBA but only in the mid 70's from 1974 to 1976. The weak 70's argument falls flat on its face because what's the argument for the early 70's or post-merger 70's being weak. There isn't one...

[John8204]

These guys weren't all top 20 in the same season.

Like I said in an earlier post. The existence of the ABA did hurt the NBA but only in the mid 70's from 1974 to 1976. The weak 70's argument falls flat on its face because what's the argument for the early 70's or post-merger 70's being weak. There isn't one...

It really doesn't because while you say oh this guy isn't top twenty and this guy isn't top ten and they were so young. If you actually look at the greatest players from that era...half of them played in the ABA

https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/a/abdulka01.html
Kareem went from 30PPG to 25PPG to 20PPG
Kareem went from 15 Rebounds to 10 rebounds
Kareem APG went from 5 to 3 to 2

[Shooter]

7,631

/thread

[Lakers Legend#32]

There is none.

Kareem could not win till Magic came to LA.