Kareem's Peak?

[Freedom Kid7]

Jlauber, when you refer to peak do you mean all around dominance (like Shaq during the three peat), or when the skill set and all around play is at it's best? I feel you can give two very different answers depending on what you mean.

Such a word as peak has no meaning when applied to a player like KAJ whose longetivity put him out of those silly boxes.

I agree his longevity is the most impressive thing about his career, but having a good peak is still pretty important.

[Pointguard]

Such a word as peak has no meaning when applied to a player like KAJ whose longetivity put him out of those silly boxes.

Even the ocean and ozone layer have peaks: so longevity doesn't mean a thing. If anything peak is the best tool to break up how a long career reveals itself. The debate here is really around two years which is considerably easier than anybody else in the top ten outside of Hakeem and Bird.

[Punpun]

@Pointguard, When you've got a player such as Kareem, who dominated the league for so long, trying to pinpoint one particular year where Kareem was supposedly at his best in order to prop him or down him loses meaning. It loses meaning because as pointed out, the dude Dominated for such an absurd long time that one year (his peak) won't mean as much as player who had SHORTER career. For such player like Kareem, or Malone or Kobe, you have to change the way you go about examinating them.

[Pointguard]

@Pointguard, When you've got a player such as Kareem, who dominated the league for so long, trying to pinpoint one particular year where Kareem was supposedly at his best in order to prop him or down him loses meaning. It loses meaning because as pointed out, the dude Dominated for such an absurd long time that one year (his peak) won't mean as much as player who had SHORTER career. For such player like Kareem, or Malone or Kobe, you have to change the way you go about examinating them.

I hear you Pun.

I think dominant is a harder word to deal with than peak tho. Dominanat means supreme in all ways. Peak just means your best.

I don't know about Kareem being dominant for a long time - I think he was the best player for like a 7 year period but he was only dominant for a couple of years. I think Shaq was dominant for a longer period but wasn't the best player for as many years as Kareem was. Jordan is the only player to be clearly dominant in all aspects for more than three years (Russell and Chamberlain cancel each other out - One very dominant in one way and the other dominant in another). The top ten GOAT usually has a two year reign for its members and doesn't deviate much for almost all of them.

[ShaqAttack3234]

I honestly believe that Moses surpassed Kareem in the '79 season. He won the MVP award that season, with a 25-18 season (Kareem was at 24-13 BTW.)

Aside from those numbers, Kareem had a massive advantage with 5.4 apg and 3.5 TO compared to Malone's 1.8 apg and 4 TO, while also having a huge advantage with 4 bpg vs Malone's 1.5 bpg, and he shot 58% compared to Malone's 54%.

The difference in passing ability is visible when you watch them. As great as Moses was, he pretty much didn't pass, while Kareem was an excellent passer. This also skews their scoring because Moses forced more shots vs double teams.

Another reason stats are misleading is because Kareem in the '79 season was playing in the high post a lot more and was being used as more of a facilitator, this gave him less opportunities to score yet their scoring numbers were still similar. And finally, Kareem had the better post game and could get his shot whenever he wanted, while more of Malone's points came on offensive rebounds.

And as a follow up to Kareem's massive shot blocking advantage, Malone's Rockets were the 2nd worst defensive team in the league.

Kareem also played much better in the playoffs.

Given these facts, I don't see the argument for Moses in '79.

In Kareem's '80 MVP season, in which he averaged 24.8 ppg, 10.8 rpg, and shot a career high .604, Moses was at 25.8 ppg, 14.5 rpg, and on .502 shooting. But not only that, the two went H2H in two games, and Moses outscored him 60-40 in those two H2H's. From 80-81 on Moses was miles ahead of Kareem. And, in fact, from '79 thru '85 (and really the rest of their careers), Moses was simply the better player H2H. In the '81 playoffs, he brutalized Kareem in the first two games, including a 38 point explosion in game one, in a stunning upset of the Lakers. In fact, Moses' teams went 6-1 against Kareem's teams in the post-season, and in those seven post-season games, Moses was CLEARLY the better player. I have posted their 40 H2H's before, and there is no reason to do it now, but I am sure you are aware that it was pretty much one-sided.

So all you have is head to heads? Those don't tell you who the better player is, they just tell you a bit about how well 2 players and teams match up. Match ups make the fight.

As far as '80, all the arguments from '79 apply and then some with Kareem's 32/12/3/4, 57 FG% playoff run.

Kareem's first five games of the '80 Finals were among the best ever. He gutted out an ankle injury in game five, and scored 40 points in a 108-105 win. Still, he did not play at all in that game six, and Magic just dominated the game in every fashion. Not only did Magic score 42 points (on 14-23 shooting from the field, and 14-14 from the line), but his 15 rebounds were FIVE better than anyone else on the floor in that game. And once again, a 21.5 ppg, 11.2 rpg, 8.7 apg, .573, .875 series.

I'm aware of Magic's game 6, and also that Wilkes stepped up huge with 37/10. But 1 game does not win a series, they had 3 more wins before that.

You and I will never agree on their impact, either. Magic immediately turned the Lakers, who were fielding the most talented teams in a very weak NBA in the late 70's, from a slightly above average team, to the best team in the league in the 80's.

Here's what I don't understand...

Nobody is disputing that Magic didn't improve the Lakers significantly. When you add a great player to a good team, you expect them to improve.

This doesn't make Magic more valuable than Kareem because what do you think would happen if the '80 Lakers took Kareem off the team for the entire season? They'd be worse than the '79 Lakers for sure.

And by the way Kareem retiring after '89 is irrelevant to this.Kareem was obviously far less valuable in his early 40's than his early 30's, plus they had a decade to retool their roster as Kareem slowed down. Magic was also MUCH better in '89 and '90 than he was as a rookie, or from '80-'83 for that matter. While Kareem was much, much worse in '89 than he was in '80, or '80-'83.

Do you understand what I'm saying? And not to diminish the impact Magic made on the'80 Lakers, but they did really improve their 2 biggest weaknesses from '79, which were rebounding/size/power forward and perimeter weakness. Which also helped.

And IMHO, by '82 Magic was the best player on that team (and was almost always the better playoff performer, as well.) You can argue MVOP balloting all you want, but it is a pretty telling statement that Magic outvoted Kareem in their last EIGHT seasons in the league together.

MVP voting in '82 doesn't mean much because neither Kareem or Magic were candidates. Magic finished 8th and Kareem finished 10th, neither had a single first place vote.

Plus, I've seen you argue against MVP voting countless times when it comes to Wilt including '62, '63, '64, '69 and '72. So you can't really use it when it's convenient.

Sorry, but Magic was not better than Kareem yet in '82. Neither were in their primes, but Kareem was closer than Magic.

In '82, Kareem still had most of his scoring ability and was the Lakers one guy who drew double teams and could get his shot in the half court whenever he wanted. This is huge, look at this quote by Bernard King from '82 where he talks about being able to guard every Laker 1 on 1 when Kareem wasn't there.

"Sure, having Kareem out of there made a difference," said Bernard King, who scored 20 of his game-high 33 points in the first half for the Warriors. "With him out we could play real strong man-to-man defense."

And Kareem being the 3rd leading shot blocker and a 7'3" presence in the paint also gave him a huge advantage over Magic defensively, here's Magic talking about how teams could get inside a lot more without Kareem on the floor, from the same article as the Bernard King quote.

"They could do a lot of different things when they didn't have to worry about the big guy in there," said the Lakers' Magic Johnson. "They took advantage of that situation by running hard, getting inside and taking advantage of some mismatches."

Magic at that point didn't have his outside shot, which he'd add in '82, or his post game, which he'd add in '87. This made him too limited of a half court player to be ranked over Kareem in '82.

He was still a remarkable player, top 5 in the league, and I'm fine with you taking Magic over Kareem by '84.

And I have long maintained that had Magic been inclined, he could easily have been a 25-30 ppg scorer. As it was, no other guard in the history of the game ever put up seasons of .561 and .565 from the field (although Oscar's '63 season, in which he finished second in the league at .518, in a league that shot .441, translates to about .570 in the mid-80's.)

Magic could have averaged 25-30 ppg from '87-'90, that's for sure. I mean he got close in '87 at 24 ppg. But I'm not sure about '84-'86, maybe, it's tough to say since Kareem was still the first option and Magic's role wasn't to score as much yet.

But '80-'83? No, Magic couldn't have averaged 25-30 by that point for the reasons I stated before.

I don't doubt that prime Magic could have scored that much, though.

And I don't think it was a coincidence that the Lakers did not miss a beat when Kareem retired, either. They actually improved from a 57-25 record in Kareem's last season, to 63-19 in the next without him. And before someone mentions that they did not win a title after Kareem retired, keep this mind. They won a title DESPITE Kareem in '88. Then, in Kareem's last season, they were 11-0 going into the Finals. They lost Scott before the Finals, though (and his 20 ppg), and then Magic was injured in the second half of game two (the game was tied at the time)...and were promptly swept. And, then in Magic's last season, he took a declining and injured group to a 58-24 record, and a trip to the Finals.

This is irrelevant to the early 80's debate as I mentioned before. Kareem was 42 when he retired.

[Duncan21formvp]

1971 or 1972

[1987_Lakers]

1977 is definitely his peak for me. What he did in that postseason was amazing, only MJ & Shaq can dominate an entire postseason like Kareem dominated in 1977, it's too bad he didn't have any talent around him.

[game3524]

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.

This.

By 27, most players are a finish project and they usually maintain that peak play till they are around age 30.

Since Kareem fell in that age range in 1977, it isn't a shock why most people consider that year the best of his career, even though he put up better stats in 1971.

[Psileas]

This.

By 27, most players are a finish project and they usually maintain that peak play till they are around age 30.

Since Kareem fell in that age range in 1977, it isn't a shock why most people consider that year the best of his career, even though he put up better stats in 1971.

Kareem became 27 in 1974, not 1977.

[magnax1]

Shaqattack, you always bring up passing ability when comparing Moses in Kareem, but I think it's important to point out another difference. That a lot of Moses's points were off put backs and dump offs down low. Kareem was a lot better passer, but Moses was a lot better at scoring without the offense being completely centered around him, which in some ways made it easier for his team mates to get into a scoring flow. I think from 79-81 they were similar on offense, Kareem was a much better defender, and Moses was a much better rebounder. They were pretty clearly 1 and 2 during that period, though I don't think who was better was ever that clear.