Retro POY '76-77 (Voting Complete)

[fatal9]

Kareem's game logs for the playoffs:

Pts / Reb / Ast / Blks (FGM/FGA)

vs. Warriors:

Game 1: 27/16/7/3 (10/? FG)
Game 2: 40/19/3/9 (18/32 FG)
Game 3: 28/14/7/4 (12/20)
Game 4: 41/18/3/0 (15/?)
Game 5: 45/18/3/3 (16/28)
Game 6: 43/20/3/3 (17/25) Highlights: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTMEtNM44n8
Game 7: 36/26/4/1 (14/26) Highlights: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mloG22I2YtU

Series average: 37.6 ppg, 18.7 rpg, 4.3 apg, 3.3 bpg, 60.7 FG%.

vs. Blazers:

Game 1: 30/10/5/0 (11/19 FG)
Game 2: 40/17/1/3 (17/23 FG) Full game: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2oTCUmEFiM
Game 3: 21/20/8/8 (5/12 FG) - foul trouble
Game 4: 30/17/2/4 (12/20) Full game: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCTQzI9uf5g

Walton vs. Kareem head to head stats in the playoff series:

KAJ - 30.3 ppg, 16 rpg, 3.8 apg, 3.8 bpg, 60.8 FG%
Walton - 19.3 ppg, 14.8 rpg, 5.8 apg, 2.3 bpg, 51 FG%.

Game 2 and Game 4 from the '77 series are availiable on footage. It's quite clear who the better player was. The difference in the series was the Laker backcourt getting absolutely destroyed. I'm not exaggerating when I say this, but watching them is actually comical because they could not be trusted to even bring the ball up. In game 2, at the end of the third quarter, they turned it over three consecutive possessions before even making it to the half court line (iirc, Kareem went to get rest with Lakers up 8-10 pts, came back and when he came back Lakers were actually trailing). I really wish they kept turnover stats that year. Lucius Allen was also injured during the series. Kermit Washington also didn't play for the Lakers. I voted for Walton in '78, but simply can't put him over Kareem this year. This was Kareem's absolute peak for me. His offensive/scoring skills were above those he had earlier in his Bucks days, he was stronger and had added an unstoppable turnaround jumper that year.

[penbeast0]

Kareem's numbers throughout the 70s were astronomical. My problem with Kareem is that those numbers and the talent around him routinely translated into less of a TEAM than you would expect.

[JordansBulls]

despite the lakers having a better record the blazers SRS is waaaaaay better

probably got their win count suppressed due to Walton's injury

Yeah this is a case that really proves default use of HCA in player ranking to be very flawed.

When team A has much better SRS than team B, team A is better. Team B just got lucky, and to use that good luck as a reason trash a player is crazy. When you factor in that the Lakers had injury issues in the playoffs, it's downright crazy to think of it as a team underachievement at all.

Not saying Kareem should be guaranteed the top spot (I think Walton's got a great case), but as a guy whose handle was inspired by Dr. J, I don't know how you put him ahead of Kareem here.

Disagree here. This is another case like 1995 with how Shaq performed, but also how Hakeem upset two teams that were favorite.

Sure Kareem had the numbers, but they had the best record in the league and didn't even win a game in the series. Whereas Dr J had the 2nd best record but still managed to win 2 games and Dr J's numbers in the finals were awesome as well.

30 PPG / 7 RPG / 5 APG / ~ 3 SPG on 54% FG

[Sedale Threatt]

despite the lakers having a better record the blazers SRS is waaaaaay better

probably got their win count suppressed due to Walton's injury

Yeah this is a case that really proves default use of HCA in player ranking to be very flawed.

Exactly. Rote application does not account for significant injuries to the Lakers (or the Blazers, for that matter), or the fact that multiple measures indicate that the Blazers underperformed in the RS.

Looking at SRS and Pythagorian wins, Portland was the best team in the league. L.A. was around fourth or fifth -- and that was before they got smashed by injuries.

[Sedale Threatt]

Kareem's numbers throughout the 70s were astronomical. My problem with Kareem is that those numbers and the talent around him routinely translated into less of a TEAM than you would expect.

So, what would you say he wasn't doing as compared to UCLA, Milwaukee or in the 80s, when his numbers routinely did translate into success? What was he doing wrong? What was he lacking? How does he pretty much carry the Lakers past G.S. almost by himself, then put up comparable numbers in the next series and his team gets swept? What does this tell you?

[Sedale Threatt]

Kareem's game logs for the playoffs...

Great post. I've read somebody say, I want to say Jerry West, that the Golden State series was as dominant a performance by a single player as they've ever seen. I've watched one of those games before and it was comical -- two or three Warriors players around him pretty much every trip down, and he's still knocking it down.

[Doctor MJ]

despite the lakers having a better record the blazers SRS is waaaaaay better

probably got their win count suppressed due to Walton's injury

Yeah this is a case that really proves default use of HCA in player ranking to be very flawed.

When team A has much better SRS than team B, team A is better. Team B just got lucky, and to use that good luck as a reason trash a player is crazy. When you factor in that the Lakers had injury issues in the playoffs, it's downright crazy to think of it as a team underachievement at all.

Not saying Kareem should be guaranteed the top spot (I think Walton's got a great case), but as a guy whose handle was inspired by Dr. J, I don't know how you put him ahead of Kareem here.

Disagree here. This is another case like 1995 with how Shaq performed, but also how Hakeem upset two teams that were favorite.

Sure Kareem had the numbers, but they had the best record in the league and didn't even win a game in the series. Whereas Dr J had the 2nd best record but still managed to win 2 games and Dr J's numbers in the finals were awesome as well.

30 PPG / 7 RPG / 5 APG / ~ 3 SPG on 54% FG

JB you're not really listening to me. I'll say it one more time:

The HCA argument makes sense generally. It runs into clear problems though when it's unreasonable to think of the team with HCA as the better team. When a team has a slightly better record, a far worse SRS, and injuries it's simply unreasonable to by default chalk up losing a series to underperformance of the healthy players.

[JordansBulls]

JB you're not really listening to me. I'll say it one more time:

The HCA argument makes sense generally. It runs into clear problems though when it's unreasonable to think of the team with HCA as the better team. When a team has a slightly better record, a far worse SRS, and injuries it's simply unreasonable to by default chalk up losing a series to underperformance of the healthy players.

Hey Doc MJ,
I understand what you are saying because Dr J also that same year lost with the HCA. I am just saying that he performed well as well against the Blazers like Kareem did, however Dr J still managed to win a few games in the process against them.

[Optimism Prime]

JB you're not really listening to me. I'll say it one more time:

The HCA argument makes sense generally. It runs into clear problems though when it's unreasonable to think of the team with HCA as the better team. When a team has a slightly better record, a far worse SRS, and injuries it's simply unreasonable to by default chalk up losing a series to underperformance of the healthy players.

Hey Doc MJ,
I understand what you are saying because Dr J also that same year lost with the HCA. I am just saying that he performed well as well against the Blazers like Kareem did, however Dr J still managed to win a few games in the process against them.

Wait, so Dr. J and Kareem were the only ones on the floor against the whole Blazers squad? No wonder KAJ got swept!

I think you mean:

"I understand what you are saying because the 76ers also that same year lost with the HCA. I am just saying that they performed well as well against the Blazers like the Lakers did, however the 76ers still managed to win a few games in the process against them."

Big difference there. As multiple posters have stated now, the Lakers guards couldn't even get the ball across half court on multiple possessions.

Please, enlighten us with your bountiful wisdom: WHAT COULD KAREEM HAVE DONE TO PREVENT THE SHODDY PLAY OF HIS GUARDS?

[fatal9]

Is Dr. J's cast really being compared with what Kareem was working with? The '77 Sixers team was recognized as one of the most talented teams to ever play at the time. The entire storyline of the '77 finals was the teamwork of the Blazers vs. the loaded talent on the Sixers.

Dr. J (all-star)
Collins (all-star)
McGinnis (all-star)
Lloyd Free
Dawkins
Bibby
Mix (if sixth man of the year award existed, he might have won it)

vs.

Kareem (only all-star)
Allen (injured in playoffs)
Washington (didn't even play in the playoffs)
Earl Tatum (a 9/4/2 rookie)
Cazzie Russell (retired the following season)
Don Ford (scrub who was forced to play 30+ mpg because of the injuries)

[Doctor MJ]

So there's a point I want to bring up, and I'll say up front that the arguments made about Kareem are good:

Here is the SRS's for Portland and LA this year and ''77-78:

'77 Blazers 5.39
'77 Lakers 2.65

'78 Blazers 5.92
'78 Lakers 2.59

Notice there's not a tremendous amount of change between the two seasons. So it's hard for me to look at these two seasons are terribly separate things. Whatever your general conclusions (pro-Kareem, pro-Walton, pro-tossup) I think you can make a good case if it doesn't vary a ton between the two seasons.

There is a trend though of people who look at the Blazers' great record in '78, and give big "value" points to Walton for that season but not this season, and I think they're falling pray to illusions to some degree.

Now, a reasonable question to ask is: Doc, aren't you relying a bit too much on SRS when the goal for teams is not to max out SRS but to win games? Well, it's not that I totally ignore W-L records in favor of SRS. However, when a team has easily the best SRS in the entire league, and then wins the title by beating 3 teams with superior records in pretty decisive manners, I don't think it's a coincidence. For the same reason Kareem shouldn't be knocked for being on a team that was "upset", the '77 Blazers absolutely should not be looked at as a mediocre team that happened to win the title. This wasn't the '78 Bullets here.

Both of these Blazer teams were quite strong, and it seems to me you should either buy that Walton had a tremendous team-making impact in both cases, or in neither.

[JordansBulls]

JB you're not really listening to me. I'll say it one more time:

The HCA argument makes sense generally. It runs into clear problems though when it's unreasonable to think of the team with HCA as the better team. When a team has a slightly better record, a far worse SRS, and injuries it's simply unreasonable to by default chalk up losing a series to underperformance of the healthy players.

Hey Doc MJ,
I understand what you are saying because Dr J also that same year lost with the HCA. I am just saying that he performed well as well against the Blazers like Kareem did, however Dr J still managed to win a few games in the process against them.

Wait, so Dr. J and Kareem were the only ones on the floor against the whole Blazers squad? No wonder KAJ got swept!

I think you mean:

"I understand what you are saying because the 76ers also that same year lost with the HCA. I am just saying that they performed well as well against the Blazers like the Lakers did, however the 76ers still managed to win a few games in the process against them."

Big difference there. As multiple posters have stated now, the Lakers guards couldn't even get the ball across half court on multiple possessions.

Please, enlighten us with your bountiful wisdom: WHAT COULD KAREEM HAVE DONE TO PREVENT THE SHODDY PLAY OF HIS GUARDS?

How is it any different from the Houston vs Orlando series in 1995? Most picked Hakeem over Shaq that year even though Shaq played better than Hakeem in that series. Yet Shaq got swept as well in that series.

[toodles23]

Fatal, good post. Where did you find the game logs for Kareem?

I can't vote, but I would definitely put Kareem at #1 this year, and this is coming from a Blazers fan who loves Walton. This was probably when Kareem peaked as a player, it's too bad the team sucked.

[Doctor MJ]

Is Dr. J's cast really being compared with what Kareem was working with? The '77 Sixers team was recognized as one of the most talented teams to ever play at the time. The entire storyline of the '77 finals was the teamwork of the Blazers vs. the loaded talent on the Sixers.

Dr. J (all-star)
Collins (all-star)
McGinnis (all-star)
Lloyd Free
Dawkins
Bibby
Mix (if sixth man of the year award existed, he might have won it)

vs.

Kareem (only all-star)
Allen (injured in playoffs)
Washington (didn't even play in the playoffs)
Earl Tatum (a 9/4/2 rookie)
Cazzie Russell (retired the following season)
Don Ford (scrub who was forced to play 30+ mpg because of the injuries)

The one thing I'll say - while making totally clear that I rank Kareem higher - is that the '77 76ers are exhibit A for why talent if often less important than fit. Other than Moses, McGinnis was easily the most talented teammate Erving ever had, but they weren't a good fit together - and frankly I don't understand why anyone ever thought they would be.

Of course, you still have to wonder if the 76ers don't when back-to-back championships if McGinnis didn't completely fall of a cliff both of the playoffs he played with Erving.

[fatal9]

Kareem's numbers throughout the 70s were astronomical. My problem with Kareem is that those numbers and the talent around him routinely translated into less of a TEAM than you would expect.

Again, if he doesn't have his second or third best players injured in three deep playoff runs ('72, '74, '77), we would not be having this conversation.

Kareem's impact on win-loss speaks for itself. In the 70s, he missed time significantly only twice ('75 and '78), and the perfromance of his teams with/without him is night and day. Played with just one all-star from the '73-'79 stretch. They went from NBA finalists to worst team in the league without him in just one off season when he was injured (record without him in '75: 3-14, with him: 35-30), and were at the bottom of the conference again in '78 without him. Look at this comparatively with other legends. Lakers were 52-25 in all the games Magic missed from '80-'85. Celtics still a .500+ team without Bird (in '89). Bulls still a 55 win team without Jordan (that's with Pippen missing 10 games too). You have a guy who is on teams that can't keep themselves from being bottom feeders year in year out without him, while other players you recognize as "winners" are on teams that have no problem winning 45-50+ without them. See the problem here? The perception of "winning" exclusively depends on supporting casts.

And again, if he does get any sort of a team around him, his key players become injured during the deep playoff runs. No one wins when that happens. How did the Celtics manage when their team was injured in '87 and '88? How did Lakers manage without Worthy in '83? Sixers without Cunningham in '68? Bulls without Grant in '95? When your second or third best players get knocked out of a series (or in Grant's case, leave), you're not going to win, especially when your teams aren't that strong to begin with.

To say essentially that Kareem couldn't get his stats in the framework of a team is pretty ridiculous. Makes me question if you've ever seen him play. Could do anything you wanted him to in order to win, anchored historically great defenses in his Bucks days, led centers in assists year after year (and it's not liked he was passing to boost assist stats like Wilt was), is in the argument for greatest scorer to ever play...certainly the most unstoppable with the ball, an excellent rebounder during all of the 70s. He was the most successful college player of all time. Had a 35/17/5 season on a 60+ win team (probably best statistical season ever posted on a 60+ win team). Turned an expansion team into a contender over night. Won a championship with them in just his second year, and came one game from doing it again couple of years later. Was traded to a team at the bottom of the conference (who on top of that traded away key players the very same off season), and turned them into a respectable playoff team. Led the league in scoring the same year he won a championship (MJ and Shaq are the only others to do this right?). Has 4 rings (2 of them while being dominant statistically) as the best player despite his prime being wasted on poor teams.

[ThaRegul8r]

Fatal, good post. Where did you find the game logs for Kareem?

They're available in the papers at the time.

[Dr Positivity]

I love these Finals. The superstar led 76ers vs the Walton and co. Blazers - Truly a matchup of pure talent vs fit and chemistry. And the Blazermania crowd that year is a classic. Love the shot of the mobbing when they win the title.

I came into this thread thinking Walton would be the my #1 quite easily, but damn, Kareem's playoff numbers are pretty crazy. I'm still probably voting for Walton just because he had IMO a great mental impact on his teammates and the energy the personality in his game brought. Kareem OTOH was sulkier, introverted, and harder to get behind. So I like Walton here. He's not the scorer Kareem is but beats him everywhere else. Portland ran their 2nd overall ORTG through him in the high post, even without the gaudy scoring numbers he clearly had a huge impact. And I think Walton is the better defender. His work in the 77 finals is astonishing, it feels like no matter what shot Philly settles on, Walton is there to defend it. I forget what game it is, I believe Game 3 or 4, but in one of them Portland jumps out to a big lead in the 1st quarter, it's the single most dominant defensive quarter I've seen someone play. It's one of the few times I've seen a individual defense equivalent of an offensive player going for 20 in a quarter and hitting that unstoppable zone. At one point the announcers go "Philly has to find a way to stop Walton from dominating them on defense!" as if he's dropping bomb after bomb on them

[Sedale Threatt]

Hey Doc MJ, I understand what you are saying because Dr J also that same year lost with the HCA. I am just saying that he performed well as well against the Blazers like Kareem did, however Dr J still managed to win a few games in the process against them.

Goodness, he even clarified his point and you still missed it. Which was, HCA as a rote measure is pointless when it fails to accomodate for mitigating factors such as injuries.

For example, how well do you think the Sixers would have done had, say, George McGinnis and Caldwell Jones gone down with injury before the series started? Hell, even at full strength they still blew a 2-0 lead, which is pretty historic considering teams are 28-3 in the Finals when they take the first two games.

So which is worse? Getting swept, despite dominating individually, and your team being crippled by injuries, or playing great but losing with 10-1 odds?

[Sedale Threatt]

To say essentially that Kareem couldn't get his stats in the framework of a team is pretty ridiculous.

Yes. Kareem had a body of work of 25-plus seasons with which to assess his game. He won in high school while dominating individually. He won in college while dominating individually. He won with Milwaukee while dominating individually, then again with the Lakers in the 80s.

There's basically one portion of his career where we didn't get both, a portion that just happened to coincide with his teams usually being injury-plagued, mediocre or both. Yet, there's somehow a question as to what impact he was having. Is it really that big a mystery?

[Sedale Threatt]

IKareem OTOH was sulkier, introverted, and harder to get behind.

This is about the only criticism that I buy. No question he wasn't a great person to be around, especially at that stage of his life. But don't you think the decimation to L.A.'s frontcourt was much more hurtful?