-
Kareem's Peak?
Instead of continuing the topic in a non-related thread, I will carry it over to a new one.
Just when was Kareem at his PEAK?
Originally Posted by oolalaa
I wish basketball reference gave the mpg in
their box scores too. Quite a few of his 25-30 point games
against the expansion teams were lobsided blowouts. I don't
think it's a stretch to conclude that he sat out a few 4th
quarters, and that his mpg was below his average for the
season. CONTEXT.
But anyway, this is a little beside the point. The ABA sapped
the NBA of talent. That's undeniable. No Gilmore or Mel Daniels
or Zelmo Beaty or Dan Issel or even a Gerald Govan (Tenacious
rebounder and great post defender) or a Julius Keye (Supposedly
one of the best shot blockers of the early 70s) to contend
with.
Actually the ABA took some of the NBA's better forwards.
Players like Barry and Cunningham. IMHO, only Gilmore would
have been among best centers in the NBA at the time. Beaty was
a very good offensive player (he probably scored as much
against a prime Chamberlain as any center in the league), but
he was nearing the end of his career. And IMHO, Mel Daniels was
a good, but not great center.
The center position was the NBA's true strength. Players like
McAdoo (who, IMHO, is the 4th greatest scoring center in NBA
history, behind Wilt, Kareem, and Shaq), Lanier, Cowens, Hayes,
Bellamy, Reed, Thurmond, Kareem , and Chamberlain. And the next
tier players, like Walk, Lacey, and Ray, were decent.
Considering there were "only" 17 teams, those guys were being
challenged nearly every night.
Back to Kareem.
How about his 71-72 season? Granted he shot-jacked against
Chamberlain (he was taking 30+ FGAs against Wilt in nearly
every game), but he averaged 40 ppg on .500 shooting in the
regular season (here again, Wilt's Lakers went 4-1 against
Kareem's Bucks, and in Kareem's biggest scoring games, his
teams were wiped out by LA.) And without taking the time to
look up the actual numbers, I suspect that he was around 44 ppg
against Cowens.
The fact was, Kareem was just blistering the NBA in 70-71 and
71-72. I stand by MY take that he reached his PEAK by that
time. Is that unusual? Not really. McAdoo peaked in three
years. MJ had his career high ppg in his 4rd season, and his
4th and 5th seasons were his best. Chamberlain, himself, was
difficult to access. He was clearly the best player in the game
for the decade of the 60's (sorry Russell.) But he was scoring
40 ppg on Russell, and 53 ppg on Bellamy, in only his third
season. However, even in his 11th season, and before shredding
his knee, he was scoring 32 ppg on .579 shooting.
Take a look at the best rebounders in NBA history. Most all of
them hit their peak rebounding seasons, early on. And, while
most all of them develop offensive skills, those gains in
skills are off-set by losses in physical abilities.
And the reality is/was, that many of the truly great players
reach their statistical peaks early on, as well. Here again, MJ
scoring 37 ppg in his third season. McAdoo with a 35 ppg season
in his third year. Chamberlain with his 50 ppg season in his
third year. And Kareem with 32 and 35 ppg seasons in his 2nd
and 3rd seasons.
I would also contend that ages 22-25 (and even 21 in some
cases) are quite often a players absolute peak. Those three
years combine peak athleticism with a gaining of skills. Moses
was running away with the rebound title (by FIVE per game) at
age 23. Barry, at age 22 was averaging 36 ppg. Barkley was
winning a rebound title at age 23, and had his career ppg at
age 24. Tiny Archibald was scoring 34 ppg and handing out 11
apg at age 24. Oscar, at age 23, had a triple double season.
Kobe wasn't at his peak at age 24, but he was already at 30
ppg.
True, some players hit their absolute peak later in their
careers. Shaq's peak was around 2000, at age 27, BUT, take a
look at his numbers in his 2000 season, and compare them with a
more athletic Shaq at age 21. In 2000 Shaq averaged 40.0 mpg,
29.7 ppg, 13.6 rpg, 3.0 bpg, and shot .574 from the field. Now
compare that with a young Shaq, in his second season, and at
age 21. 39.8 mpg, 29.3 ppg, 13.2 rpg, 2.9 bpg, and a .599 FG%.
Virtually no difference at all.
How about Hakeem? In his rookie season, at age 22, he would
shoot a career in FG%, at .538. In his second season, in 85-86,
he played 36.3 mpg, averaged 23.5 ppg, 11.5 rpg, 3.4 bpg, and
shot .526. At his supposed peak in '94, and at age 31, he
averaged 41 mpg, 27.3 ppg, 11.9 rpg, 3.7 bpg, and shot .528.
Give the second year Hakeem another 5 mpg, and his offensive
numbers are nearly identical (take a look at their respective
Per/36 numbers.)
Continued...
-
Re: Kareem's Peak?
Continuing...
IMHO, Kareem was already a top-5 NBA center, by his sophomore
season at UCLA. By his rookie season, he was probably top-3.
And by his second season, he was already the best in the game.
Of course, that also coincided with a declining Chamberlain,
who was nearing his mid-30's, and playing on a surgically
repaired knee.
In any case, and as I have argued, the game came so quickly and
easily for Kareem, that IMHO, he became complacent. Geez, in
his SECOND season, he led the NBA, and by a considerable
margin, in scoring, shot a sensational FG%, won the league MVP
playing on a 66-16 team that ran away with the best record in
the league. Then, in the playoffs, they annihilated everyone,
en route to a 12-2 post-season run, culminated by a sweeping
win in the Finals.
Now, there was a minor blip in that run, though. In the WCF's,
a 34 year old Chamberlain battled the 24 year Kareem to a
statistical draw, and in fact, the media at the time declared
Wilt the "winner" in that series. This, in arguably Wilt's
WORST season, and only a year removed from major knee surgery.
In any case, I suspect that Kareem felt he could dominate
anytime he wanted to, and even the "experts" were tabbing
Kareem and his young Bucks' teammates (except for Oscar), to
put together a Dynasty that would rival Russell's Celtics.
It never happened. The Lakers, who FINALLY acquired a BRILLIANT
head coach, who then convinced a shell of what he once was,
Baylor, to hang it up. He then convinced Wilt and his aged
roster that they could RUN. And with Chamberlain anchoring the
defense, dominating the glass, and fueling the break with
pinpoint outlets, they did indeed just destroy the NBA that
season. Virtually NO ONE predicted that the Lakers would run
the NBA to death that season.
Still, Kareem was scoring at will, and while his Bucks dipped
slightly to a 63-19 record, and were even beaten 4-1 in the
regular season series with LA, most experts were expecting them
to romp to another title. However, in the opening round of the
playoffs, Kareem suddenly ran into a massive stumbling block.
Nate Thurmond not only held Kareem to a horrid .405 FG% in that
series, he OUTSCORED and OUTSHOT him. Still, the Bucks had a
huge edge in talent, and easily won the series.
And after Kareem and his Bucks dominated Wilt and his Lakers in
the first game of the '72 WCF's, all was normal again. It was
only a matter of time, and Kareem would again be holding the
trophy. Except...it didn't happen. The Lakers edged the Bucks
in game two. Then, from game's three thru six, the Lakers, and
especially Chamberlain, asserted themselves. Wilt held Kareem
to an awful .414 FG% over the course of the last four games of
that series, and LA began dominating Milwaukee. In game five
they annihilated the Bucks, 115-90, in a game in which Kareem
was just playing like a deer caught in headlights. Wilt was
knocking the skyhook all over the gym, and he had intimidated
Kareem to the point that even his makes were pure luck. And in
the clinching game six, Chamberlain engineered a 4th quarter 10
point comeback, in which he completely shut Kareem down, and
even RAN him ragged, while pounding him mercilessly. At the end
of the series, it was UNIVERSALLY accepted that an OLD Wilt had
outplayed the 10 year younger Kareem, and in Kareem's finest
statistical season. Time Magazine went so far as to claim that
Wilt had DECISIVELY outplayed Kareem.
-
Re: Kareem's Peak?
I'd say it was either 74 or 77. While he had some awesome statistical seasons before 74, his skillset seemed to fill out that year from the little I've seen of him. That was also the first year he really picked it up in the playoffs instead of having a dropoff in the playoffs. Really though, every year from 74-80 he seemed pretty much the same to me. His most impressive playoff run aws definitely 77, but just going off the regular season, there isn't much separating them from my point of view.
-
Re: Kareem's Peak?
Continuing...
The Bucks were still a great team, and with Kareem having
another great season in 72-73 (albeit, a decline from '72.)
Milwaukee and LA tied in the West with 60-22 records, and it
was a foregone conclusion that the two would meet in the WCF's.
However, the 47-35 Warriors, behind the brilliant defense of
Thurmond, SHOCKED the Bucks. Kareem couldn't hit the Grand
Canyon from the ledge, and Golden St. came back to stun the
Bucks in six games. As a sidenote, Thurmond and his Warriors
were blown out against Wilt and HIS 60-22 Lakers in the WCF's.
Chamberlain just crushed Thurmond, and LA romped to a 4-1
series win.
With Wilt "retiring" before the start of the 73-74 season, the
door was now flung wide open for Kareem and his Bucks to
finally fulfill the predictions of a Dynasty. Kareem's play was
still elite, but it was mysteriously declining. Still, the
Bucks would put up the best record in the NBA, at 59-23, and
with Wilt gone, they wiped out the Lakers in the first round.
They would reach the Finals, go up against the 56-26 Celtics
and the pesky 6-9 red-head, Dave Cowens. Boston had more
talent, to be sure, but with Kareem easily outplaying Cowens
for much of the series, it more than off-set that talent
differential. With the series tied, 3-3, and going back tio
Milwaukee, the Bucks were solid favorites to finally win their
second ring.
And with Cowens picking up his fifth personal foul late in the
third quarter, it was now looking like a lock. Except they
forgot to tell Cowens. He not only continued to play, he played
like a madman. He started hitting shots from all over the
floor, and hounded Kareem into repeated misses and turnovers.
The Celtics pulled away, and routed Milwaukee on their home
floor.
How important was OSCAR to those great Buck teams? He retired
following that season, and the Bucks immediately plummetted to
a 38-44 record. Granted, Kareem foolishly busted his hand, and
missed 17 games (with the Bucks going 3-14 in his absence.)
But, even with Kareem, the Bucks were only an ordinary 35-30.
As a sidenote, the 48-34 Warriors, with Rick Barry, and rookie
Keith (Jamaal) Wilkes, and a cast of "no names" won the NBA
title. More on that later.
-
Re: Kareem's Peak?
Continuing...
Kareem was disgruntled with management, and even Milwaukee,
too. And his play had been on a downward slide since his
dominating regular season of '72. The Bucks finally grew tired
of the distractions, and shipped Kareem off for several players
to LA. BTW, they would go 38-44 the very next season, as well.
Now, here is where it gets interesting. Kareem was traded to a
Laker team with an average, at best, roster. They had players
like Cazzie Russell and Gail Goodrich, but both were nearing
the ends of their careers. Here was the perfect opportunity for
Kareem to show the world just how dominant he could be. With a
Laker team that had gone 30-52 the year before, it was expected
that Kareem would be filling up the box-scores.
I have long maintained that Kareem was somewhat of a "stats-
padder" in his 71-72 season. He played 44.2 mpg on a Bucks'
team that had gone 63-19, and had a +11.1 ppg differential. And
he put up career high scoring numbers of 34.8 ppg and on a
sensational .574 FG%. Why was he playing so much on a team that
just waltzed to 63 wins, with may blowouts along the way?
Which brings us back to his 75-76 season with a poor Laker
roster. Instead of playing 44 mpg, he could "only" go for 41.2
mpg. And instead of putting up monster games and on eye-popping
efficiencies, he DECLINED to 27.7 ppg on one of his WORST
seasons ever in FG% at .529. True, he won a rebounding title,
but in one of the weakest seasons ever in that category. In any
case, where were Kareem's plethora of 40 ppg games? If there
was ever an opportunity to challenge Wilt's scoring records,
Kareem's 75-76 season was it. BTW, Bob McAdoo completed his
third straight season of running away with the scoring title,
with a 31.1 ppg average (and 34.5 ppg just the year before.)
Here was a 3rd and 4th year McAdoo torching the NBA, while
Kareem was well behind him in scoring. Why?
The Lakers started rebuilding, and would have the best record
in the league in 76-77, at 53-29. Some here have claimed that
THIS was a PEAK Kareem. I would argue that he was nowhere near
a PEAK Kareem. He did shoot a career high .579 (but in a league
that was now up .465 shooting (unlike his '71 season when he
shot .577 in a league that shot .449.) His scoring had now
dropped to 26.2 ppg, and even his rebounding was beginning to
slide, as well, (13.3 rpg.)
He did explode in the post-season that year, albeit against a
46-36 Warrior team with an old Cliff Ray, and a rookie Robert
Parish splitting time at center. He just murdered the Warriors
in that seven game series. And in the clinching game seven win,
he hung a 36 point, 26 rebound game on GS. Which now set up the
widely anticipated matchup with Bill Walton and his 49-33
Blazers.
In game one Walton battled Kareem to a draw, and the Blazers
won easily. In game two, Kareem just wiped the floor with
Walton, outscoring him 40-14, BUT, Walton's teammates badly
outplayed his, and the Blazers went up 2-0. From that point on,
Walton took over the series, and his Blazers swept Kareem's
Lakers.
-
Re: Kareem's Peak?
Continuing...
All of which was interesting. For those that claim that a 76-77
Kareem was at his PEAK, the fact was, he was no longer the
clear-cut best center in the league. Players like Lanier and
Gilmore even outscored him in their H2H's that season, and
players like Walton and Cowens were narrowing the gap. While
the rest of the NBA centers were elevating their level of play,
Kareem was resting on his past. True, he could still shell a
Walton when he was motivated, but the problem was, Kareem was
no longer the hungry Abdul-Jabbar who just terrorized the NBA
in his second and third seasons.And while his skills had
improved, his athleticism, particularly his quickness, was
declining. He was seldom doing the quick catch-and-shoot "sky-
hook, and instead, was methodically putting the ball on the
floor in attempt to get better position.
The Lakers went all out during the 77-78 season. They had BY
FAR, the most LOADED roster in the NBA. Lou Hudson, Norm Nixon,
Charlie Scott, Don Chaney, Kermit Washington, and then they
added Adrian Dantley, who was averaging 27 ppg when they
acquired him. Oh, and they had 4th year pro Jamaal Wilkes, too.
The more seasoned Wilkes, who had teamed with Rick Barry to win
a title in 74-75.
The stage was set for a Laker rampage. Alas, it never occurred.
With Kareem continuing his decline (now down to 25.8 ppg on
.550 shooting, and only 12.9 rpg), and with chemistry issues,
the Lakers struggled to a 45-37 record. True, Kareem again
busted his hand (again in a stupid moment), and the Lakers
could go only go 8-13 without him. But here again, with all of
that talent, they only went 37-24 WITH Kareem.
Even worse, they were whipped by a 47-35 Sonics team in the
first round, and in the clinching game three loss, Marvin
Webster (who?) battled Kareem to a draw. This, from a Seattle
team which had ONE borderline HOF player. Incidently, a 44-38
Bullets team would go on to win the NBA title.
Ok, with basically the same roster, but now with a year
together, the 78-79 Lakers were poised to dominate the NBA.
Kareem had a good season, scoring 23.8 ppg on .577 shooting,
with 12.8 rpg, but he was now a far cry from the Kareem that
could score 40+ on anyone.
Not only that, but a young Moses had taken the NBA by storm,
and he just shelled the NBA in that 78-79 season. From that
point on, it was now MOSES who was the best center in the NBA.
Once again, the 78-79 Lakers badly under-achieved, and they
finished a disappointing 47-35. And once again, they were
crushed in the 2nd round of the playoffs, 4-1, by a 52-30
Sonics team that had nowhere near the talent that LA had.
That was Kareem's PRIME. His first TEN years in the league. And
CLEARLY, his PEAK had come early in his career.
Of course, he would then be the beneficiary of the arrival of
MAGIC, and the rest was history.
-
Re: Kareem's Peak?
One area which is often overlooked in Kareem's career, was his DEFENSE early in his career.
His 70-71 thru 73-74 Bucks were the league's #1 FG% Against team in the league, and some by HUGE margins. And they were 1-3 in PPG allowed, too.
He was probably at his peak, defensively, early in his career, as well.
-
Saw a basketball once
Re: Kareem's Peak?
Sorry, I only read the first couple of those long posts, but it seems to me that you put almost all of your stock into a player's peak based on their statistical peak without considering the other things that make them better all-around players. Just because a player has his best statistical seasons at age 22, 23, 24, doesn't mean they were better then than they were at 27-30 years old. It's not just about putting up your best statistical seasons to define your peak in my opinion.
-
Re: Kareem's Peak?
Originally Posted by ThunderStruk022
Sorry, I only read the first couple of those long posts, but it seems to me that you put almost all of your stock into a player's peak based on their statistical peak without considering the other things that make them better all-around players. Just because a player has his best statistical seasons at age 22, 23, 24, doesn't mean they were better then than they were at 27-30 years old. It's not just about putting up your best statistical seasons to define your peak in my opinion.
There are examples both ways. But, the overwhelming evidence suggests that the truly great players were already at an elite level from almost day one in their NBA careers. Many hit statistical peaks very early, and then slowly decline. Injuries, coaching, and the league adapting to them all contribute, but in my research, the best players are generally hitting their statistical peaks early on.
AND, I have long maintained that players do not slowly get better, reach a peak, and then slowly decline. They almost always have peaks and valleys. Kareem is a great example of that. In his first ten seasons, he was absolutely a monster in seasons two and three. He had a slight decline in four and five. And I consider his 6th season as a major drop. In what should have been his peak scoring season, he declined badly, and even his shooting was near a career low.
Some here have claimed that he reached his pinnacle in his 76-77 season. However, they must be basing on it his 11 game playoff series. His numbers during the regular season were nowhere near as dominant as they were in seasons' two and three.
Of course, there are those that do hold a few playoff games as some kind of career indicator, which is folley IMHO. In a short playoff series, there are the same matchups, with the same strategies. And, of course, injuries and even slumps play a major factor in a short series.
That is not to say that Kareem was a "short series" star in his career. He had a TON of great playoff performances. He crushed that '77 Warrior tandem of an old Ray and a rookie Parish in a seven game series. He was on his way to a FMVP in '80 when he sprained his ankle in a heroic game five, and missed the clinching game six. And I was never more proud of Kareem than his '85 Finals. He was written off as washed up after a game one blowout. Then, a re-energized Kareem just took over the rest of that series, and dominated the Celtic front line at perhaps their peak.
But, for all of his post-season brilliance, he was also involved in a his share of "flop jobs", as well. Whether it be in a BIG game, or a series, or even a complete post-season, he had his share of failures.
In the '70 ECF's, he completely outplayed Reed until the clinching game five loss, when Reed whipped him handily and his Knicks annihilated Kareem's Bucks.
In the '71 WCF's, Kareem, by most accounts was outplayed by a Chamberlain in the worst season of Wilt's career. In fact, in their entire 10 game H2H's that season, Wilt held a slight statistical advantage. Even more damning for Kareem, was the fact, that as Chamberlain exited the floor in the last minute of the game five loss to the Bucks, he received a standing ovation...and the game was played in MILWAUKEE.
I have already documented Kareem's post-season play in his 71-72 season. Keep in mind that this was Kareem's greatest statistical season, too. And yet, he was outscored and outshot by Thurmond. And then he was universally acclaimed to have been outplayed by Wilt in the WCF's.
And the very next season, Thurmond again held Kareem to just awful shooting, and the 47-35 Warriors shocked the 60-22 Bucks.
In the 73-74 Finals, Kareem played exceptionally well in the first six games, but the series was still tied, 3-3. The Bucks had homecourt, though, for game seven, and were favored to win it all. However, the 6-9 red-head Dave Cowens outplayed Kareem, and particularly in the 4th quarter, and the Celtics walloped the Bucks on their home floor.
Oscar retired before the start of the 74-75 season, and the Bucks never recovered. Yes, Kareem broke his hand unnecessarily, and missed 17 games, but even with him, they only went 35-30. Clearly, the Dynasty that had been proclaimed after year two never materialized. The Bucks dealt Kareem to the Lakers, and even without him, they duplicated their 38-44 record the very next year.
I have always maintained that Kareem was primed to just obliterate the NBA in the 75-76 season. A six year Kareem, on a team that had gone 30-52 the year before, was an ideal setting to explode. If there was ever a season in which someone could have remotely challenged Wilt's scoring records, it was in '76. Keep in mind, too, that McAdoo had averaged 34.5 ppg in '75 (and would average 31.1 ppg in '76, too.)
Instead, a lethargic Kareem went thru the motions, "only" played 41 mpg, "only" scored 27.7 ppg, and had one of the worst shooting seasons of his career, at .529. Why didn't Kareem just crush the league that season? Once again, McAdoo blew him away in the scoring race, too.
Kareem's 76-77 season was outstanding. He took an average roster, to a league best 53-29 record. Still, his numbers were nowhere near as dominant as a '71 or '72 Kareem. And while he blew away the Warriors in a close even game series, and outplayed Walton in game two of the WCF's, Walton was more clutch in the other games, and the 49-33 Blazers swept Kareem's Lakers.
And I have already documented Kareem's '78 and '79 seasons. Playing with LOADED rosters, and in a weak NBA, his teams were unexplicably early round cannon-fodder.
Of course, that all changed with the arrival of MAGIC, and the rest was history. Kareem was still among the best players in the NBA for most of the decade of the 80's. Hell, a 38-39 year old Kareem just murdered a 22-23 Hakeem in their ten straight H2H's in '85 and '86. 33 ppg on an eye-popping .630 shooting. THREE games of 40+, and a multitude of .700+ shooting performances. He also waxed Ewing in a game in which he outscored him by a 40-9 margin, and outshot him, 15-22 to 3-17.
Still, by the late 70's, it was now MOSES who was the best center in the league. And in their 80's H2H's, and especially in the post-season, Moses just abused Kareem.
So, overall, and IMHO, Kareem's career, as great as it was, I consider it somewhat of a disappointment.
-
I rule the local playground
Re: Kareem's Peak?
-
I rule the local playground
Re: Kareem's Peak?
Originally Posted by jlauber
In the '71 WCF's, Kareem, by most accounts was outplayed by a Chamberlain in the worst season of Wilt's career. In fact, in their entire 10 game H2H's that season, Wilt held a slight statistical advantage. Even more damning for Kareem, was the fact, that as Chamberlain exited the floor in the last minute of the game five loss to the Bucks, he received a standing ovation...and the game was played in MILWAUKEE.
Out of curiosity. If your goal is to prove that Kareem peak in 71, why did you go off on a tangent about how "Wilt owned Kareem" that year?
-
Local High School Star
Re: Kareem's Peak?
As other have said, the best estimate for Kareem's absolute peak is probably 76-77.
Kareem was a great player coming in as a rookie, but there's simply no way he peaked in his second year. Kareem has even come out and basically said that the only reason he put up his best stats in his first few years is that no one payed attention to him on defense like they did in the late 70s.
-
NBA Legend and Hall of Famer
Re: Kareem's Peak?
I've never really seen footage of Kareem vs Wilt as it has never been of much interest but I know that quote of Wilt saying Kareem was the first player that he ever felt he needed a double to guard, so was he even playing Kareem straight up in these series? Were the Lakers doubling Kareem regularly or was Wilt playing him straight up?
-
Re: Kareem's Peak?
It's either 1976-77 or 1970-71. People mostly say it was 76-77 so I guess I'll go with that.
-
Re: Kareem's Peak?
Originally Posted by Poochymama
Out of curiosity. If your goal is to prove that Kareem peak in 71, why did you go off on a tangent about how "Wilt owned Kareem" that year?
Wilt did not "own" Kareem that season, (only a pre-injury Wilt could have made that claim.) He did face him in 10 total H2H's (five in the regular season, and five in the playoffs), and Kareem outscored Wilt, per game, 26 ppg to 22.8 ppg, while Chamberlain outrebounded Kareem, per game, 17.6 to 15.6 rpg, and outshot Kareem, .481 to .454 (including holding Kareem to .438 shooting the five regular season H2H's.)
However, if you factor in BOTH his regular season domination (and keep in mind that Kareem only played 40 mpg that season), as well as his overall post-season play, it was probably his all-around greatest season. Remember, he put up a 27.8 ppg, .486 series on Thurmond; a 25 ppg .489 series on Wilt; and then 27-19 .605 four game series sweep on Unseld. ALL in the HOF.
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
|