Kareem's Peak?

[oolalaa]

Except that Chamberlain played nearly every minute of every game his ENTIRE career.

And how about his 62-63 season, then. He played on a horrible 31-49 team, that had a -2.1 differential, and that lost 35 games by single digits. In fact, they were only involved in eight games of 20+ margins, and went 4-4 in those. And yet, Chamberlain played 47.6 mpg, scored 44.8 ppg, shot a then record .528 from the field, grabbed a league-leading 24.3 rpg, even handed out 3.4 apg,. Hell, his WIN SHARES were by FAR, the best in the league (if you can accept that advanced stat...Chamberlain was directly responsible for 70% of his team's wins.) And his PER was an all-time record 31.8 mark.

Are you telling me that Paul Arizin was the difference between 49 and 31 wins? 33 year old Arizin couldn't have been worth 18 wins, surely? So what accounts for the rest of the difference?

According to defensive win shares (Which I think is a reasonably accurate and pretty underrated stat if certain things are taken into account), Wilt's 62/63 season was his 2nd worst defensive year. I don't know about you, but, to me, defensive commitment is a very good indication of how commited you are to a team and it's success. My guess is that Wilt wasn't mentally all there throughout the season. Like he floated through it. Perhaps the exploits of the previous year (50 ppg and a heartbreaking game 7 loss against Boston) took something out of him. When you're not completely focused, that rubs off on your teammates, and you lose close games. It's just a fact. That the Warriors lost 35 games by single digits was almost certainly not a coincidence.


And excusing Wilt from his stat padding by saying he "played nearly every minute of every game his ENTIRE career." is . As far as I'm concerned, any blowout that Wilt played heavy minutes in is the very DEFINITION of stat padding. Considering that he averaged over 45mpg during his career, I'm guessing that was A LOT.

[oolalaa]

Geez, I hope the moderators delete the completely unnecessary photo above. What a childish post.

There are mods?

[KG215]

Why are you fixating on scoring? Is greatness defined solely by the amount of points you score??? (HOW and WHEN you score your points is far more important, anyway).

Because he's a Wilt fanboy. It's probably the same reason he seems to think a player's best statistical season is their peak.

[Owl]

BTW, how about Kareem's LONE ring in the '71 season?

His 66-16 Bucks whipped the 41-41 Warriors in the first round. Then, in the WCF's, they battle a 48-34 Laker team that was without BOTH West and Baylor. Then, in the Finals, they dispose of a 42-40 Bullets team.

Has there ever been an easier road to a title than what Kareem's '71 Bucks had?

No one was stopping that Milwaukee team. The playoffs can be a lottery with matchups, injuries etc. But that Bucks team with the points differential and SRS they had might be the greatest team ever, they were the most dominant regular season team ever that year and they followed it up with with a 12-2 postseason in which their tightest victory came by a margin of 8. So maybe it was an easy run, and New York would have made a more interesting finals, but that team was taking no prisoners. And Jabbar had to go through Thurmond, Chamberlain and Unseld.

As to peaks most players won't develop significantly after 26. Players physical peaks would come earlier obviously. But there certainly could be a case that the great players are an exception. The game's greatest players (with recent preps to pros exceptions) have tended to be remarkably skilled and productive right out of the gate. With a ceiling on how much more skilled they can get, their peaks may be closer to their athletic peaks than for other players. Certainly their play in their early twenties is much closer to their peak level than it is for non-legends.

Another explanation may be that great players tend to be drafted early and so are playing on bad teams early in their career. They are as such allowed/required to put up such spectacular statistical totals that are less feasible in a more balanced, talented team.

[millwad]

BTW, how about Kareem's LONE ring in the '71 season?

His 66-16 Bucks whipped the 41-41 Warriors in the first round. Then, in the WCF's, they battle a 48-34 Laker team that was without BOTH West and Baylor. Then, in the Finals, they dispose of a 42-40 Bullets team.

Has there ever been an easier road to a title than what Kareem's '71 Bucks had?

Yeah, easily.

Wilt in '67..

First he faced a 39 win team in the first round, then he faced a Boston team with less talent than his own team and in the final he faced a 44 win team in the playoffs.

Can't recall any other team who had the luxury of facing a 39 win team and 44 win team while also having the benifit to only have to play 3 series to win it all..

[ShaqAttack3234]

Stats vary based on eras, teammates, system, team success ect.

I'm convinced it is the 1976-1977 season. I don't feel like retyping anything so here's a post I made about this season a while ago as oolalaa linked earlier.

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/sho...d.php?t=231270

Most of my arguments are made in that thread.

His regular season stats fall a bit short of his Milwaukee days, but so what? If that's all you need then you don't need a discussion, just check basketball-reference. Even Kareem says he was pretty much guarded 1 on 1 his first 4-5 years which alone skews the numbers.

Kareem and others talk about what he added to his game and at 29 years old(30 towards the end of the season/playoffs), he was still at typical prime age. I doubt he had really lost much physically and I think he had gotten stronger. Early in his career, it seemed that Kareem's thin frame could be exploited by stronger opponents.

Even by the '79-'80 season, he seemed pretty damn close to his best, it's the first season where we have a lot of games to go by, but he didn't seem to have lost much physically from the games I've seen, and his skill set was very complete while he was still leading the league in blocks. The rebounding decline was because of little more than the Lakers significant improvement at the power forward position and as a result, on the boards. Look at '79 when they got outrebounded by a terrible margin of 3.3 rpg, and '80 when they outrebounded opponents by a solid margin of 2.2 rpg.

But it just doesn't make any sense to me to call '71 or '72 Kareem's peak. He had no major injuries and certainly didn't lose any skills, in fact, it's a documented fact that he added skills, that along with experience and maturity makes it logical to conclude that Kareem and his peers were right, that he peaked in '77.

Also, pre-'74 Kareem's numbers fell significantly in the playoffs, while his numbers rose significantly in the playoffs from '74-'80. This is usually a difference between players early in their careers and later. The extra skills and knowledge make much more of a difference in the postseason.

Kareem's 3 best playoff runs were '77, '74 and '80. I don't think that's a coincidence.

Don't get me wrong, Kareem was phenomenal from the start, along with Duncan and perhaps Wilt, Bird and Russell, he was the closest to his prime/peak form at the start of his career.

I don't think it was a night and day difference between '71 and '72 Kareem and '77 Kareem, but it's still clear to me. Let meput it this way, I don't see anything that '71 and '72 Kareem could do that '77 Kareem couldn't, but I do see some things '77 Kareem was doing that he wasn't in '71 and '72 along with added maturity physically and mentally.

The edges I'll give early 70's Kareem are that I believe he ran the floor harder and was probably a better defensive anchor.

But I don't really think Kareem started declining until '82, and even then, it wasn't that clear other than an uncharacteristic midseason slump and his rebounding taking a more noticeable hit.

How about '80 and '88? Kareem was at home sleeping on his sofa when MAGIC carried that Laker team to a title in the clinching game six win on the road, and with a 42-15-7 masterpiece.

Great game, but it's ONE game. How about the entire regular season and playoff run up to that point including the first 5 games of the finals when Kareem was head and shoulders above Magic? And I firmly believe that Kareem's own game 5 was better than Magic's game 6.

Lets not diminish Kareem's importance, he was the 1st option on that team the first 7 seasons they played together until '87, and clearly the Lakers best and most valuable player the first 4 seasons until '84 when it became debatable with Magic adding an outside shot, taking over full playmaking duties with Nixon gone, and Kareem losing a bit more.

Geez, I hope the moderators delete the completely unnecessary photo above. What a childish post.

Yeah, I don't see the point of posting that disgusting nonsense on a basketball forum, especially since this is a good topic.

27. That's the magic number. When players scratch the ceiling of their talents. It's usually their absolute best season, or, if not, the 1st year of their prime. We've seen it over and over and over again. It's when they put it ALL together - their entire repertoire. Go look up the 27 year old season (On Basketball Reference) of Jordan, Russell, Magic, Bird, Wilt, Shaq, West, Kobe, Lebron, Moses, Baylor, Dirk, Garnett, Wade and Ewing (To name just a few). IT'S UNCANNY.

Saying that Kareem peaked in his 70/71 season is almost exactly the same as saying that Wilt peaked in 60/61, or that Hakeem peaked in 85/86, or that Shaq peaked in 93/94. Anyone remotely intelligent knows that Wilt (Wasn't commited defensively, wasn't a good facilitator, lack of competitive league depth), Hakeem (Limited offensive moves, defensively not quite there, terrible facilitator) and Shaq (Inconsistent defensive effort, mediocre facilitator, shut down by Rik Smits in the playoffs) didn't peak in their sophmore campaigns. It's just a laughbale notion.


Honestly, I don't exactly know when Kareem peaked. I am no Kareem Abdul-Jabbar aficionado. It could have been '76, '77, or even '80. I need to look into it in some more detail. I know Shaqattack has said that he reckons 76/77 might have been Kareem at his all round best (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/sho....php?t=231270), and I'm inclined to agree. He makes some compelling argumemts; His expanded offensive repertoire, the increase in defensive attention he was receiving, routinely coming through in crunch time, the mediocrity of his cast etc.

From the mountains of evidence and examples we've had over the years, it's HIGHLY unlikely that it occured in just his 2nd or 3rd season. I mentioned the league quality in the early 70s. It just wasn't as deep. Depth (i.e the standard of the worst players) is what defines league quality, not necessarily the 'crem dala crem'.

And what about Oscar? Oscar is the 2nd greatest point guard of all time. He was a floor general. He could run a team with the best of them. How can we quantify the effect he had on Kareem's ppg and FG% totals? We can't, but It certainly wasn't negligible. I would guess at 3-4% on his FG%, and 2-3 points on his ppg total.

Excellent post.It is remarkable how often players peak at 27-28 years old. Although I will add in the Shaq example that he topped his '94 season statistically in '00 in every major category except FG%, and probably had a better statistical season in '01 as well, which doesn't even tell the entire story because he was now playing in the triangle, which Phil anticipated would lower his numbers.

He was raw in '94 and clearly not as close to his best, though as the numbers suggest. He had started to improve his passing and show some good footwork and a jump hook, though all of those things would improve significantly while also really making that turnaround one-handed jumper a bigger part of his arsenal.

Some differences we can see between Shaq's 29/13/4/3 '01 season and 29/13/2/3 '94 season that show the improved skills and knowledge are the fact that he relied on a lot more on dunks in '94, he was more like a 7'1" Dwight Howard. Since he averaged about 29 ppg, this is a good comparison. He had 4.6 dunks per game in '94 for 9.4 ppg and 32% of his points, and in '01, just under 3 dunks per game for 5.9 ppg and just 20.6% of his points.

This is because he had to fit his game into a more difficult offense, and also because he now had a much more diverse arsenal which allowed him to do this, which also made all the difference in the world in the playoffs.

Shaq had a pretty disappointing playoff series vs Indiana in '94 at 21 ppg, 13 rpg on 51 FG% in 3 games, while in '01, he not only averaged over 30/15 on 56%, but could have put up even better numbers had his 15-1 Lakers not been blowing out teams so often. Not to mention, this included facing two top 5 defensive teams in the conference finals, respectively in San Antonio and Philly who also happened to have probably the 3 best defensive big men and defensive players overall in Dikembe Mutombo, Tim Duncan and David Robinson, while the other 2 teams(Portland and Sacramento)also had quality centers and big men and legit 7 footers.

This is night and day compared to the '94 playoffs.

Because of Shaq's raw skill set(he was easier to stop if you prevented him from getting position...and he wasn't quite as strong either....he wasn't as poised, comfortable or patient backing his man down and using countermoves), I not only don't include '94 as part of Shaq's prime('98-'02 or '03), but don't include it in his "extended prime" or "near prime" years either('95-'03).

These are the type of things that players improve over time. Kareem was closer to his prime or peak form as a rookie and particularly a second year player than Shaq, Hakeem or Magic, but I still think he improved over time.

[dunksby]

How about '80 and '88? Kareem was at home sleeping on his sofa when MAGIC carried that Laker team to a title in the clinching game six win on the road, and with a 42-15-7 masterpiece.

As for '88, as bad as Kareem played, I would have won a ring playing center on that team.

Dude how many times are you gonna bring that tired argument of yours up?
Kareem's 80 finals average: 33.4 ppg, 13.6 rpg, 4.6 bpg, 3.2 apg on 54.9% FG
Kareem's 80 playoffs average: 32 ppg, 12 rpg, 4 bpg, 3 apg 57.2% 80% FT
Besides the fact that you disrespect Kareem every chance you get you continue to spew BS about him and try to misinform others under the guise of your wall of texts.

So, overall, and IMHO, Kareem's career, as great as it was, I consider it somewhat of a disappointment.

[oolalaa]

Also, pre-'74 Kareem's numbers fell significantly in the playoffs, while his numbers rose significantly in the playoffs from '74-'80. This is usually a difference between players early in their careers and later. The extra skills and knowledge make much more of a difference in the postseason.

Kareem's 3 best playoff runs were '77, '74 and '80. I don't think that's a coincidence.


Some differences we can see between Shaq's 29/13/4/3 '01 season and 29/13/2/3 '94 season that show the improved skills and knowledge are the fact that he relied on a lot more on dunks in '94, he was more like a 7'1" Dwight Howard. Since he averaged about 29 ppg, this is a good comparison. He had 4.6 dunks per game in '94 for 9.4 ppg and 32% of his points, and in '01, just under 3 dunks per game for 5.9 ppg and just 20.6% of his points.

This is because he had to fit his game into a more difficult offense, and also because he now had a much more diverse arsenal which allowed him to do this, which also made all the difference in the world in the playoffs.

Shaq had a pretty disappointing playoff series vs Indiana in '94 at 21 ppg, 13 rpg on 51 FG% in 3 games, while in '01, he not only averaged over 30/15 on 56%, but could have put up even better numbers had his 15-1 Lakers not been blowing out teams so often.

Yes, if your arsenal of offensive moves is lacking, or if your moves aren't refined or polished, this often gets exposed in the post season. Also, for perimiter players, if your jumper is inconsistent then good luck scoring with efficiency. Durant in '10, and Lebron in '07 & '08 are good recent examples of that.

Don't get me wrong, Kareem was phenomenal from the start, along with Duncan and perhaps Wilt, Bird and Russell, he was the closest to his prime/peak form at the start of his career.

I'm certainly willing to concede (To jlauber) that Kareem was one of the most NBA ready players to ever come out of college (Perhaps THE most NBA ready), and that his first 2/3 years were closer to his peak than the vast majority. But players don't peak in their 2nd/3rd/4th seasons. They just don't. Numbers lie.

I will just say, though, that I think Russell's entire game was SIGNIFICANTLY better in the early/mid 60s than it was in his first 3 years. In '57/'58/'59, he was essentially a defensive anchor/shot blocker/rebounder. I'm not entirely sure, but he either had zero offensive moves, or the moves that he did have were incredibly 'unpolished'. I think his post season scoring/efficiency bares this out.

He just wasn't the focus on offense. The Celtic's offense revolved around Cousy's fast break playmaking until around 1961. Russell then took to facilitating in the mid post. He became more and more adept as the years past at spreading the floor, picking out open shooters, and finding backdoor cutters. He peaked in '65 with 5.3 apg in the regular season and 6.3 in the post season.

His defense, however good it was right off the bat, also considerably improved. I always found it curious when Russell claimed that 63/64 was his best ever season. His raw regular season numbers were no better than other years, and he had a truly shocking shooting post season (13.1ppg on .356%). But, when you look at his defensive win shares for the season (16.1 By far the highest in history), you can see he may have had a point. For what it's worth, I think defensive win shares are a reasonably accurate and pretty underrated stat if certain things are taken into account, and Russell's 3 highest defensive win share seasons were '63, '64 & '65.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Yes, if your arsenal of offensive moves is lacking, or if your moves aren't refined or polished, this often gets exposed in the post season. Also, for perimiter players, if your jumper is inconsistent then good luck scoring with efficiency. Durant in '10, and Lebron in '07 & '08 are good recent examples of that.

I've said the exact same thing and cited '07 and '08 Lebron as well as '10 Durant as examples of players getting "exposed" in the playoffs.

'07 was a down year for Lebron anyway as far as I was concerned, I was disappointed after '06 when he showed a much improved jumper and then his jumper looked as bad as it had since it's rookie season in '07 while his free throw shooting also became an issue dipping below 70% and he wasn't having the same big games that years. Others were also disappointed, but forgot after game 5 vs Detroit, I specifically remember people speculating about Lebron being fatigued like Elton Brand after playing for Team USA.

In '07, his mid-range shot was non-existent at a horrendous 34% from 16-23 feet on 2 pointers, a poor 32% on 3s and a mediocre 70% from the line. His 3P% was the same in '08, FT% went up slightly to 71% and his 16-23 foot % went up significantly to a still mediocre 37%.

Look what happened in both playoffs, the elite defenses(San Antonio and Boston) exposed that by backing off him and he was eliminated back to back years with 35-36 FG% and 5-6 TO series.

Not surprisingly, he took his game to another level in '09 when the biggest difference was his improved jumper, he's been 1 step above where he ever was before that since, and he arguably played the best ball of his career in the '09 playoffs.

Durant is another good example for a different reason. He averages 30 in the regular season on great % of 48/37/90, but also had a pretty ridiculous ratio of 10.2 FTA on just 19.9 FGA. Now we knew that a guy who played off the ball a lot and was largely a jump shooter was not going to get that many calls in the playoffs. To put into perspective how ridiculous that FTA/FGA ratio was, peak Shaq in 2000, a guy who was exclusively a post player, probably the most physical and physically overpowering player of all-time, one of the most athletic big men and to top it off, a player that teams intentionally fouled got a similar amount of FTA(10.4) on more FGA(21.1).

And as it turned out, Durant dropped to 25 ppg on 35% in the 1st round vs LA, and amazingly, like Lebron in '08 vs Boston, he had a chance to win the series, although this has a lot to do with Kobe not being himself until prior to game 6 vs OKC when he got his knee drained.

And arguably the biggest example I've seen of a player's offensive game being exposed in the playoffs is David Robinson. He was overwhelming in the regular season since he was the fastest 7 footer and the best center I've seen run the floor, an ideal target for lob passes, too quick for other centers when he faced up, and he added a solid mid-range jumper to complement his drives. But he always lacked a go to move and never looked comfortable with his back to the basket. The lack of a strong low post game always made me think he wasn't near the offensive player his regular season numbers suggested.

As a result, his offense fell off greatly in the playoffs. The Spurs were used to Robinson averaging 25+ in the regular season, but as great of an all around player as he was, I just don't think that was ideal for his game or mentality.

The best example occurred right when the '94 Shaq example occurred. Robinson's numbers were right there, in fact, he just edged out Shaq for the scoring title on the last game of the season(although instead of Shaq's 29 on 60%, Robinson was more like 50%), but vs Utah, he struggled mightily falling all the way down to an even 20/10 on 41% with Karl Malone guarding him a lot and shutting him down. The next season, there was the classic series vs Hakeem, and in '96, almost the same thing happened vs Utah when he fell to 19.3 ppg on 47.5%.

Karl Malone is actually another example. Not that he wasn't a great scorer and didn't have skills, but his regular season numbers were imo, boosted noticeably by the easy baskets courtesy of Stockton and the system. As a result, Malone only had 2 playoff runs in his entire career consisting of at least 2 series where he shot 50%, or roughly the TS% equivalent of 50 FG%, which I'd say is 55%. This from a guy who was usually an extremely efficient scorer.

I'm certainly willing to concede (To jlauber) that Kareem was one of the most NBA ready players to ever come out of college (Perhaps THE most NBA ready), and that his first 2/3 years were closer to his peak than the vast majority. But players don't peak in their 2nd/3rd/4th seasons. They just don't. Numbers lie.

I almost completely agree, except I'll add that there are some rare occasions, though it usually has something to do with the player struggling with injuries later in their career.

There have been some rare players who never really fulfill the promise of their rookie seasons even without any major injuries, but the 27-28 club is remarkably consistent.

Of course there are other players who peak a little later, Hakeem(depending on which of the 3 years you think is his best, he peaked between 30-32), Karl Malone(a remarkable 34), Nash(33).

So there are exceptions to every rule, but 27-28 is so common that I pretty much expect it within maybe a year in either direction.

I will just say, though, that I think Russell's entire game was SIGNIFICANTLY better in the early/mid 60s than it was in his first 3 years. In '57/'58/'59, he was essentially a defensive anchor/shot blocker/rebounder. I'm not entirely sure, but he either had zero offensive moves, or the moves that he did have were incredibly 'unpolished'. I think his post season scoring/efficiency bares this out.

He just wasn't the focus on offense. The Celtic's offense revolved around Cousy's fast break playmaking until around 1961. Russell then took to facilitating in the mid post. He became more and more adept as the years past at spreading the floor, picking out open shooters, and finding backdoor cutters. He peaked in '65 with 5.3 apg in the regular season and 6.3 in the post season.

His defense, however good it was right off the bat, also considerably improved. I always found it curious when Russell claimed that 63/64 was his best ever season. His raw regular season numbers were no better than other years, and he had a truly shocking shooting post season (13.1ppg on .356%). But, when you look at his defensive win shares for the season (16.1 By far the highest in history), you can see he may have had a point. For what it's worth, I think defensive win shares are a reasonably accurate and pretty underrated stat if certain things are taken into account, and Russell's 3 highest defensive win share seasons were '63, '64 & '65.

I agree with most of this, I was referring mostly to impact, though, I had in mind Red Holzman's chapter about Russell in one of his books when he was talking about how much Russell's shot blocking changed the game right off the bat, it was the final step in me coming to appreciate Russell much more over the years, particularly focusing on his play in his own era.

Honestly, I can't see ANY use for defensive win shares to be honest. I've looked up the so called formulas, and I truly believe they are based on nothing. Especially in the 60's before any defensive stats were even kept. They're an estimate, but one where they don't have any data to make a decent estimate to begin with.

I do know that Russell's mid 60's Celtics were their best defensive teams, and as important as Russell was from the start, I'll agree that their success was owed even more to Russell by the 60's than the 50's.

I'm not sure how much Russell's passing improved, but I do know that it became a huge part of Boston's half court offense, in addition to his outlet passing.

As far as moves? Well, to be honest, I don't think he was ever a very skilled scorer. I've seen 1, maybe 2 10 foot jumpers in game footage, and don't really remember any others in highlights. I've seen him take a few hook shots in game footage as well, though they didn't seem that accurate.

I think his best attributes as a scorer were his phenomenal ability to run the floor, his rebounding and his athletic advantage, as well as me seeing him score a decent amount of times in the limited game footage on screen/rolls with Cousy. That will account for a solid amount of points in that era when the game was so fast-paced.

With that being said, he must have taken quite a few different shots than that, otherwise his FG% would be significantly higher. My guess is that he took a decent amount of hook shots, and occasional short jumpers, though I don't believe he was that proficient at either.

But his scoring numbers when he tried to score, were more than respectable for his era.

I had believed '62 to be his peak because of the additional scoring he did for that team in addition to the defense and rebounding being there as always, the Celtics 60-20 record(0-4 without Russell) and the phenomenal playoff series vs Wilt and the Warriors, and of course the Lakers, both 7 game series.

But Russell himself called '64 his best season and there is significant evidence to back this up as well, imo.

[jlauber]

Are you telling me that Paul Arizin was the difference between 49 and 31 wins? 33 year old Arizin couldn't have been worth 18 wins, surely? So what accounts for the rest of the difference?

According to defensive win shares (Which I think is a reasonably accurate and pretty underrated stat if certain things are taken into account), Wilt's 62/63 season was his 2nd worst defensive year. I don't know about you, but, to me, defensive commitment is a very good indication of how commited you are to a team and it's success. My guess is that Wilt wasn't mentally all there throughout the season. Like he floated through it. Perhaps the exploits of the previous year (50 ppg and a heartbreaking game 7 loss against Boston) took something out of him. When you're not completely focused, that rubs off on your teammates, and you lose close games. It's just a fact. That the Warriors lost 35 games by single digits was almost certainly not a coincidence.


And excusing Wilt from his stat padding by saying he "played nearly every minute of every game his ENTIRE career." is . As far as I'm concerned, any blowout that Wilt played heavy minutes in is the very DEFINITION of stat padding. Considering that he averaged over 45mpg during his career, I'm guessing that was A LOT.

It was more than just Arizin. Tom Gola, who was Wilt's other "HOF teammate" was traded early on, as well.

And keep this mind, too. That '63 team, with ONLY Chamberlain doing ANYTHING, lost those 35 games by single digits. Hell, they went 1-8 against the Celtics and their NINE HOFers, but six of them were close losses, and the blew them out in their lone win. ALL of the games were reasonably close going into the 4th quarters.

Then, think about this. Before the start of the '64 season, Chamberlain's new coach, Alex Hannum, conducted a pre-season scrimmage, sans Chamberlain, and against draft pics and scrubs, and guess which team came out on top?

Then, think about this. Wilt then took that same cast of misfits to a 48-32 record, and a trip to the Finals, with arguably one of the greatest post-season runs in NBA history. He averaged 34.7 ppg, 25.2 rpg, and shot .543 in a post-season NBA that averaged 105.8 ppg and shot .420.

In any case, keep that 48-32 record in mind.

Finally, think about this. The very next season, Chamberlain became very ill. He missed the early part of the season (and the Warriors went 1-6.) He came back, and played reasonably well, (in fact the NBA had expanded the lane, and Chamberlain was STILL averaging 39 ppg at mid-season), but he was nowhere near 100%. It was so bad that the Warrior team doctors diagnosed him with heart problems, and team management became frantic to unload him. Ultimately he was traded to the bottom-feeding Sixers, who had gone 34-46 the year before.

Two things. One, the Warriors would finish 17-63 (even 10-27 with Wilt, and 7-36 without), and would draft Rick Barry. They moved part-time rookie Nate Thurmond to the center position where he would become a HOFer.

So, they basically replaced Wilt with TWO HOFers...and guess what, they went 35-45. THEN, they added players like Jeff Mullins, Clyde Lee, and Fred Hetzel, and the result...a 44-37 record, and a trip to the Finals, where Chamberlain and his Sixers wiped them out in six games.

In any case, Chamberlain, and essentially by HIMSELF, carried a Warrior team to a 48-32 record and a trip to the Finals. The Warriors replaced him with TWO HOFers, and a slew of quality players, and the best they could do was go 44-37.

Secondly, Chamberlain then took that 34-46 Sixer team on his back, and they finished the 64-65 season at a modest 40-40 (injuries.) Then, with again a brilliant post-season run, Chamberlain took that bottom-feeding team thru the loaded 48-32 Royals, and then to a game seven, one point loss against a 62-18 Celtic team at it's PEAK in the "dynasty run." And, in that series, Chamberlain averaged 30.1 ppg, 31.4 rpg, and shot .555 from the field.

And, then, over the course of the next three seasons, the Sixers would put up the best record in the league, and win a dominating world title in '67 with a 68-13 team that just BURIED the eight-time defending, and 60-21, Celtics in the ECF's.

[jlauber]

No one was stopping that Milwaukee team. The playoffs can be a lottery with matchups, injuries etc. But that Bucks team with the points differential and SRS they had might be the greatest team ever, they were the most dominant regular season team ever that year and they followed it up with with a 12-2 postseason in which their tightest victory came by a margin of 8. So maybe it was an easy run, and New York would have made a more interesting finals, but that team was taking no prisoners. And Jabbar had to go through Thurmond, Chamberlain and Unseld.

As to peaks most players won't develop significantly after 26. Players physical peaks would come earlier obviously. But there certainly could be a case that the great players are an exception. The game's greatest players (with recent preps to pros exceptions) have tended to be remarkably skilled and productive right out of the gate. With a ceiling on how much more skilled they can get, their peaks may be closer to their athletic peaks than for other players. Certainly their play in their early twenties is much closer to their peak level than it is for non-legends.

Another explanation may be that great players tend to be drafted early and so are playing on bad teams early in their career. They are as such allowed/required to put up such spectacular statistical totals that are less feasible in a more balanced, talented team.

I personally rank that '71 Bucks team as #4 all-time, behind the '72 Lakers, who pounded a very similar Milwaukee team, 8-3, in their H2H's, the '67 Sixers, and the '96 Bulls.

The '71 Bucks had a scoring differential of +12.2 ppg, and an all-time record shooting differential of .085 (outshooting their opps, .509 to .424.) Then they romped in the post-season, 12-2 and with a post-season record point differential of +14.5 ppg.

Still, the only team that MIGHT have beaten them, were the '71 Lakers, who, unfortunately, were without BOTH West and Baylor.

And, I concur 100% on the rest of your observations.

[jlauber]

Real quickly..while I don't agree their stanzes on Kareem's peak, I do respect the opinions of both Oolalaa and ShaqAttack.

Excellent discussions.

[KG215]

Dude how many times are you gonna bring that tired argument of yours up?
Kareem's 80 finals average: 33.4 ppg, 13.6 rpg, 4.6 bpg, 3.2 apg on 54.9% FG
Kareem's 80 playoffs average: 32 ppg, 12 rpg, 4 bpg, 3 apg 57.2% 80% FT
Besides the fact that you disrespect Kareem every chance you get you continue to spew BS about him and try to misinform others under the guise of your wall of texts.

He also likes to bring up Magic getting robbed of a deserving Finals MVP in 1988 after Worthy stole it from him after his game 7 triple double. You know, kinda like how Magic "stole" the 1980s Finals MVP from Kareem after his 42-15-7 game 6. Then he downplays it even more by saying something like "Kareem was at home sleeping on the couch" making it seem like he hadn't done anything to get the Lakers to that point in the first place.

[Horatio33]

Then, think about this. Before the start of the '64 season, Chamberlain's new coach, Alex Hannum, conducted a pre-season scrimmage, sans Chamberlain, and against draft pics and scrubs, and guess which team came out on top?

You forgot to mention (I got this from John Taylor's The Rivalry) that Hannum thought the scrub's had atrophied as all they did was feed the ball to Wilt.

[BlackVVaves]

Kareem averaged 13.1 ppg, 4.1 rpg, and shot .414 in the Finals in '88. In game seven, he played 29 worthless minutes, scored four points on 2-7 shooting, had three rebounds, three turnovers, and committed five fouls. Meanwhile Laimbeer and Salley combined for 28 points, on 11-18 shooting, with 19 rebounds. Has there ever been a WORSE game seven by an all-time great?

Can't dispute facts. It's actually that reason that pushes my whims as I create my personal Top 10 All Time list. I typically place Magic at #3 and Kareem at #4, for despite Kareem's prestigious career, I truly believe Magic was more important to his championship Lakers, and truly the entire NBA, than Kareem was for the majority of the Lakers' titles.