Why is KAJ blamed for his teams' performance in the 70's?

[Roundball_Rock]

The only "argument" you ever hear about KAJ is that he won "only" 1 ring in the 70's. This is what usually is cited by those who argue KAJ is not the GOAT. Is this a sensible argument, though? For one, it ignores the 80's and conveniently brushes aside 1980, his final prime year when he was MVP. KAJ remained a MVP caliber player through 1986.

It is interesting to see KAJ losing as an argument for him not being the GOAT. That is quite odd because it places a unique burden on KAJ: that he be able to win by himself, and manage to keep his teammates healthy. Why is that unique burden placed on KAJ, especially if he is not your GOAT? People like MJ were routinely losing in the first round when he lacked the team around him. Moreover, to hold his team's performance/health against him one has to assume that others would outproduce what KAJ did and magically "will" his teammates to be healthy.

KAJ's playoff numbers in the 1970's

1970: 35/17/4 57% (lost in the ECF with an expansion team that won 29 games the previous year). KAJ averaged 34 ppg in the ECF.


1971: 27/17/3 52% (won the championship). 27/19/3 on 61% in the Finals.

1972: 29/18/5 44%(lost in the WCF to the 69 win Wilt/West Lakers). KAJ averaged 34 ppg in the WCF. Oscar Robertson and Lucius Allen were playing hurt in the series.

1973: 23/16/3 on 43% (lost in the WCSF).

1974: 32/16/5/2/1 on 56% (lost in 7 games in the Finals). KAJ averaged 33/12/5/2/1 on 52% and had the game winner in Game 6. KAJ had 26/13 on 48% in the game. Oscar Robertson had 6/3 on 15% in Game 7 and 12/3/8 on 43% in the series. The Bucks reached the Finals despite Lucius Allen getting hurt at the end of the season--and taking his 18 ppg with him. Imagine the Bulls with Pippen going down at the end of the season or the early 2000's Lakers without Kobe or the Heat of recent years without Wade. This is KAJ's fault?

In 1975 the Bucks missed the playoffs as they went 3-14 (a 14 win pace) without KAJ, although they had a winning record with him. Somehow this is used against KAJ by his detractors!

In 1976 the Lakers missed the playoffs under different rules where the top teams from each division would make it, not the top teams from the conference as a whole. Under modern playoff rules, the Lakers would have made it. Moreover, this was a Lakers team that did add KAJ but had to give up an all-star, a 16/11 center and the #2 pick and another top 10 pick in that year's draft to get him. In other words, the team was gutted. Imagine, say, MJ being traded to the Bulls with Pippen, Grant leaving Chicago in that trade. How far would that team go?

In 1977 KAJ had arguably the GOAT playoff run. 35/18/4/4/2 on 61%. The team lost in the WCF, though. KAJ averaged 30 ppg in the series. Once again Lucius Allen went down. Portland had a chance to be a dynasty if it were not for Walton's injury next season. They started the following year something like 50-5 before Walton got hurt. So once again KAJ's team lost, but did so to an all-time great team.

1978: 27/14/4/4/1 on 52%. The Lakers lost 2-1 in the first round to the eventual Western champion (Seattle), who would lose in 7 games in the NBA Finals and win the title the following year. The 1978 Lakers were 8-13 without Kareem, a 31 win pace.

1979: 29/13/5/4/1 on 58%. The Lakers lost to the Sonics again, this time in the WCSF. KAJ averaged 29 ppg against them.

In 1980, of course, KAJ again had a playoff run for the ages but because Magic was a 18/7/7 player in 1980 that does not count.

For detail on each of these runs see http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/sho...d.php?t=340692 .

Other than 1972 and 1973, where he could have shot better, how is KAJ to be blamed for this teams losses? He consistently increased his scoring and rebounding in the playoffs, dominated but had bad luck in terms of injuries and his uncompetitive teams did not fare well without him (3-14, 8-13). It isn't as if his teams were capable of battling all year for the #1 seed without him and KAJ was not lifting them up.

There is too much emphasis placed on team success by basketball fans. There are a variety of factors that go into whether a team wins a championship--and one player can only contribute so much. To hold Kareem liable for his teams losing in the 70's judges him be an unfair standard that is not applied to any other player. Jordan was losing in the first round perennially and not even getting past 0.500 when his teams were poor and had 5 losing seasons (KAJ never had a losing season in 20 years--his 1975 and 1978 teams were 35-30 and 37-24 when he played). Wilt routinely put up big numbers and lost. Shaq was swept perennially in the 90's. Hakeem lost in the first round 9 times. Peak Kobe was losing in the first round. The list goes on and on. Winning should be a factor but even then should be invoked when one player had a much higher degree of winning, i.e. comparing Wilt to Russell. KAJ is the greatest winner in basketball history after Russell. 6 NBA rings, 3 NCAA titles in 3 years (KAJ was so dominant the NCAA had to ban dunking to attempt to limit him. KAJ as a freshmen led the freshman squad to victory over the #1 team in the country. Can you name any other player in history who could have done that?), 3 titles in high school. Given his record, it is extremely ironic that "lack of winning" is basically the only argument used against him.

What players would have fared better than KAJ with his 70's teams? It can only be held against him if you believe there are some who would have performed even better than KAJ did and managed to lift their teams to more success. Who are these players and what in their actual record suggests they could do that?

KAJ may not be the GOAT, but to discredit him based on team factors in the 70's is unfair and often agenda-driven because outside of that there is really nothing to use against KAJ in his 20 year record. He arguably was the most dominant player ever at his peak, he had a 11 year prime (who else had such a run at that kind of performance level?), he has the clear GOAT longevity, he had team success and he was a clutch player who was even at the end of his career his team's choice in clutch situations.

[navy]

There is too much emphasis placed on team success by basketball fans. There are a variety of factors that go into whether a team wins a championship--and one player can only contribute so much.

Seeing as you answered your own question and very few people here are qualified to discuss the 70s.....


Mission Accomplished.

[livinglegend]

Members on this forum dont know anything about the 70s.

[TheReal Kendall]

I was born in 85 bro. I'll check the youtube highlights and get back to you.

[Ne 1]

Great post. It's incredible, the Bucks went from 26 wins to 56 wins when Kareem was added (BTW, Oscar wasn't even added yet!). Milwaukee made no other significant additions and in fact lost their 3rd leading scorer.

Milwaukee was on pace for 15-20 wins when Kareem broke his hand, and then when he came back they won at a pace of 55 wins. Lakers, when he broke his hand for a second time in '78, also were a lottery bound team without him.

His value to teams he led in his prime is just absolutely remarkable. Anyone else embody the title of MVP more than him?

[ArbitraryWater]

Jordan/Kareem/LeBron = 3 GOAT's

[ArbitraryWater]

As correction: Hakeem lost in the 1st 8 times... lets not go too far here

BTW, you have Kareem as GOAT right? MJ 3rd behind Russell if i remember correctly?

[Hey Yo]

Jordan/Kareem/LeBron = 3 GOAT's

this

[Asukal]

lol these bran stans.

2/5 is not goat material.

[Roundball_Rock]

Great post. It's incredible, the Bucks went from 26 wins to 56 wins when Kareem was added (BTW, Oscar wasn't even added yet!). Milwaukee made no other significant additions and in fact lost their 3rd leading scorer.

Milwaukee was on pace for 15-20 wins when Kareem broke his hand, and then when he came back they won at a pace of 55 wins. Lakers, when he broke his hand for a second time in '78, also were a lottery bound team without him.

His value to teams he led in his prime is just absolutely remarkable. Anyone else embody the title of MVP more than him?

It is both amusing and odd how him dragging weak teams to respectability is used against him. KAJ played for 20 years and had a winning season every year. In fact, KAJ never had a losing season in the pros, college or high school. Yet he "did not win enough"?

Thanks for the correction. Hakeem lost in the first round 8 times and also missed the playoffs once.

Yes, I have KAJ 1st, Russell 2nd, MJ 3rd, Wilt 4th and Shaq 5th.

[ArbitraryWater]

Inbf G.O.A.T

[stanlove1111]

Members on this forum dont know anything about the 70s.

Replace the 70s with basketball and you have it right..

The ignorance around here is amazing..

[G.O.A.T]

I don't think he gets blamed, (not by people who are not pushing an agenda anyway) as much as he (or rather his results) is/are questioned.

He was clearly the best player of the 1970's, in fact probably more clearly the best player of that decade than anyone else is in any decade. Additionally the competition level was the lowest it's ever been (arguably, but I feel pretty strong) with some of the weakest Championship teams ever emerging as a result of expansion and the ABA competing for talent. Aside from Jabbar, the next best players of the 1970's were Rick Barry, Artis Gilmore, Julius Erving, guys who spent half the decade in the ABA. The best NBA players of the early half were on the tail end of their careers, guys like Wilt, Thurmond, Reed, West and Oscar Robertson. All of this, you would think would lead to several or at least multiple titles for Jabbar and the Bucks than Lakers. Even you must admit, while not blaming Kareem surely, that you at least find it surprising he won just once.


The year he did win, they beat the Lakers when West was hurt and the Bullets when Gus Johnson was hurt. I still think they could have and probably would have won those series, but it is worth noting.

They should have won in 1974, but Dave Cowens played a sensational game seven and even typically brilliant Kareem was not enough. The Milwaukee years in total were a slight disappointment, with sufficient explanation, like Oscar's injuries in '72 and '73, but In '70 and '75 without Oscar, the Bucks were average to borderline contenders. The Lakers acquired Kareem for roughly 50 cents on the dollar, got better, but not great. They missed the playoffs in '76 (40-42 with Kareem healthy) had the best record but were derailed by injuries and swept out by the Blazers in '77 and were boomed by the Sonics in '78 and '79 while Kareem was playing the best ball of his career.

Were the Sonics better than the Lakers?

Probably, but not by much. Baby Dennis Johnson, Gus Williams, John Johnson an aging Paul Silas and a young Jack Sikma (first two years) is this the team that derails the Greatest Player of All-time in his prime when he has guys like Norm Nixon, Jamaal Wilkes and Adrian Dantley on his team?

Dantley and Wilkes were both second fiddle for contenders during their careers, Nixon an all-star.

Again this is not to say that this should be counted against FLA/KAJ but it's a fair question to raise.

Are the supporting cast of Rick Barry's 1975 Warriors better than what Kareem played with?
How about the 1976 Celtics or Suns rosters?

The Bullets made four trips to the finals in the decade led by Wes Unseld, a center nine inches shorter than Kareem whose high-scoring sidekick was a world famous malcontent for three of the four trips.

What made the Blazers so much better than the Lakers when Walton was healthy?

Why was Wilt able to get as many rings in his twilight as Kareem got in his prime?

How come Frazier and Reed won more rings than Kareem and Oscar?

You can give me good answers for all of those and I will continue to emphasize that using these facts to discredit Kareem as an all-time great is unfair. However I don't have the same questions about guys like Russell, Jordan, Magic and Duncan. Even Bird and Shaq and Kobe, who I do not consider to be as great in an all-time context as Jabbar did a better job of winning when the chances were there.

It's not a far to cry to imagine a healthy West giving LA the edge over Milwaukee in 1971 nor would anyone have been stunned in Jabbar walked away in 1986 like he for most of that season thought he would.

Had those things happened, you're looking at a guy with three rings instead of six and I don't think he enters the conversation for greatest ever anymore than someone like Shaq, Wilt or Larry Bird.

[stanlove1111]

Great post. It's incredible, the Bucks went from 26 wins to 56 wins when Kareem was added (BTW, Oscar wasn't even added yet!). Milwaukee made no other significant additions and in fact lost their 3rd leading scorer.

Milwaukee was on pace for 15-20 wins when Kareem broke his hand, and then when he came back they won at a pace of 55 wins. Lakers, when he broke his hand for a second time in '78, also were a lottery bound team without him.

His value to teams he led in his prime is just absolutely remarkable. Anyone else embody the title of MVP more than him?

Clowns on this site who only count titles as proof of greatness would never be wise enough to understand that what Jabbar did as a rookie was much more impressive then what some others had accomplished by winning titles in different situations..

[GimmeThat]

no one gave Michael any rings without Pippen.


didn't watch him play either.