How many years of Kareem over Current Jokic?

[70sFan]

the craziest impact stuff does seem to come from 70-75 though, even though in an absolute sense he's considered a weaker player

I think Kareem had his highest impact in 1976 and 1977, though we don't have a huge data to prove that.

i mean. the Lakers were a 30 win team before they even acquired Kareem. I know they lost pieces for the trade, but do you think they fell to like sub 20 wins with those losses? Because that's kind of what the lakers would need to be for kareem to be more impactful when he's winning 53 games, let alone when the lakers are sub .500

I think they would be definitely worse, the Lakers lost a lot of valuable pieces that made their depth a little better - Happy Hairston was still a very nice contributor, they had veterans like Zelmo Beaty, Connie Hawkins and of course Elmore Smith was a decent center. Then you have to take into account that Gail Goodrich regressed from 1975 year as well. With Kermit injury, the Lakers didn't have any solid bigman outside of Kareem and it was important to have good bigman rotation back then.

I don't know if they would be sub-20 wins or ~22 wins, but it was a bad team. I also suggest to use WOWY as an approximation, not exact values.

[OhayoKD]

I think Kareem had his highest impact in 1976 and 1977, though we don't have a huge data to prove that.

i mean. the Lakers were a 30 win team before they even acquired Kareem. I know they lost pieces for the trade, but do you think they fell to like sub 20 wins with those losses? Because that's kind of what the lakers would need to be for kareem to be more impactful when he's winning 53 games, let alone when the lakers are sub .500

I think they would be definitely worse, the Lakers lost a lot of valuable pieces that made their depth a little better - Happy Hairston was still a very nice contributor, they had veterans like Zelmo Beaty, Connie Hawkins and of course Elmore Smith was a decent center. Then you have to take into account that Gail Goodrich regressed from 1975 year as well. With Kermit injury, the Lakers didn't have any solid bigman outside of Kareem and it was important to have good bigman rotation back then.

I don't know if they would be sub-20 wins or ~22 wins, but it was a bad team. I also suggest to use WOWY as an approximation, not exact values.

Appreicate the breakdown, but to bring this to ty's assertion

if they're at 20 wins or more, there's not much room here for the gap in impact to match-up with the perceived gap in absolute goodnesss between peak kareem and early kareem, in which case, Ty's assertion that expansion helped Kareem isn't unreasonable.

Sure this is an approximation, but hard to see a .500 season as more impactful here and my understanding is that in an absolute sense Kareem got better both defensively and offensively. Wouldn't this indicate Kareem's impact went up and then went down as the league strengthened? I don't think that you necessarily need to hold it against Kareem in an era-relative frame, but I don't think its implausible Kareem's impact actually peaked when he was, in an absolute sense, a weaker player because of the competition he faced being weaker.

[70sFan]

i mean. the Lakers were a 30 win team before they even acquired Kareem. I know they lost pieces for the trade, but do you think they fell to like sub 20 wins with those losses? Because that's kind of what the lakers would need to be for kareem to be more impactful when he's winning 53 games, let alone when the lakers are sub .500

I think they would be definitely worse, the Lakers lost a lot of valuable pieces that made their depth a little better - Happy Hairston was still a very nice contributor, they had veterans like Zelmo Beaty, Connie Hawkins and of course Elmore Smith was a decent center. Then you have to take into account that Gail Goodrich regressed from 1975 year as well. With Kermit injury, the Lakers didn't have any solid bigman outside of Kareem and it was important to have good bigman rotation back then.

I don't know if they would be sub-20 wins or ~22 wins, but it was a bad team. I also suggest to use WOWY as an approximation, not exact values.

Appreicate the breakdown, but to bring this to ty's assertion

if they're at 20 wins or more, there's not much room here for the gap in impact to match-up with the perceived gap in absolute goodnesss between peak kareem and early kareem, in which case, Ty's assertion that expansion helped Kareem isn't unreasonable.

Sure this is an approximation, but hard to see a .500 season as more impactful here and my understanding is that in an absolute sense Kareem got better both defensively and offensively. Wouldn't this indicate Kareem's impact went up and then went down as the league strengthened? I don't think that you necessarily need to hold it against Kareem in an era-relative frame, but I don't think its implausible Kareem's impact actually peaked when he was, in an absolute sense, a weaker player because of the competition he faced being weaker.

Weaker competition definitely helps, the league was very inbalanced in 1971-73 period and that definitely has the impact on Kareem's WOWY numbers. It's nothing new - it's not surprising that two best RS teams ever (1996 Bulls and 2016 Warriors) played in a very unbalaned league full of horrible teams (either due to expansion or excessive tanking). That's why it's incredibly hard to compare WOWY numbers across eras. It also doesn't diminish their overall success, because teams still had to beat other amazing teams (1972 Lakers, 2016 Cavs) to win it all.

I'd also add that Kareem also showed significant impact in 1978 season which was after the merger and I believe he was slightly worse than in 1974-77 period based on what I have seen from him.

Again, I get that the league had some down moments in the 1970s, but Kareem played for over two decades. Arguing that 20 years of the league is a "weak era" suggests that almost half of the top 50 players played in a weak era. I believe that overall the league was always the strongest in the world and I won't accept the idea that it was strong in the 1960s, then became weak until international integration.

[McBubbles]

You can say exactly the same thing about Kareem...

Was Kareem 290-320 lbs of muscle at his peak? Was he drafted by Hank Stram, HOF NFL Coach, mid career? (Wilt was). Did Kareem set D-1 Track and field/decathlete records in college? Did he bench press 465 lbs in 1985, when he was 59? Did Arnold Schwarzenegger call Kareem "By far the strongest person I've ever met?"

Kareem was nowhere near the athlete and physical specimen was. And, you know it.

I tend to be on your side of thinking when it comes to discussion about league strength,but why should we care about the things you just listed? Ignoring the fact that the incredible vast majority of Wilt's athletic accomplishments are lies that have been debunked, including several alleged D1 records (or his 48 inch vertical ), him being an athletic marvel doesn't really mean anything to me.

If Wilt was as athletic as people thought he was, or rather, if Wilt was as good as converting his athleticism into impact as people thought he was, he'd have been more successful throughout his career, especially considering he played in the most center friendly era in NBA history. But honestly I don't think his BBIQ was high enough to fully take advantage of his abilities.

Bill Russell is allegedly nowhere near as athletically gifted as Wilt or as talented and yet he took a fat dump on Wilt in terms of defensive impact, so much though that he either equaled or bettered Wilt's overall impact because of it.

So even if Kareem wasn't as athletically gifted as Wilt, I'm not sure why you think that's an automatic guarantee that he'd be worse... hell, Shaq **** on Kareem as an athlete, yet he's worse on both sides of the ball lol. David Robinson destroys Kareem as an athlete but is like 3 tiers below him offensively. Russell Westbrook destroys Steve Nash as an athlete and yet is nowhere near as good as him.

The only tangible athletic trait that really matters in determining top level basketball ability is height, or your ability to obtain height, I.E leaping ability, hence why the best perimeter players of all time are either the tallest or can jump the highest ( and even then, intangible athletic traits are still infinitely more important)

When you're already 7fter though explosive athleticism matters even less because you're realistically already as close to the rim as you need to be. Like, Sprinting and Weight Lifting are 99.99% tangible athleticism. Usain Bolt has literally fallen over to begin races and still won them, the skill requirement is ridiculously low and they're so few variables that the only thing that matters is your explosive athleticism. You can have **** technical ability and still be the best at your sport in the world. Basketball is the opposite.

I'm rambling now, but basically not only is Wilt's athleticism overrated but even if it wasn't, explosive athleticism is not synonymous with impact, especially when you're a big man, so I'm not sure why him being more of a marvel than Kareem ensures he'd be better than Kareem, especially considering he was less impactful than an inferior athlete like Russell in his own era.

[70sFan]

You can say exactly the same thing about Kareem...

Was Kareem 290-320 lbs of muscle at his peak? Was he drafted by Hank Stram, HOF NFL Coach, mid career? (Wilt was). Did Kareem set D-1 Track and field/decathlete records in college? Did he bench press 465 lbs in 1985, when he was 59? Did Arnold Schwarzenegger call Kareem "By far the strongest person I've ever met?"

Kareem was nowhere near the athlete and physical specimen was. And, you know it.

I tend to be on your side of thinking when it comes to discussion about league strength,but why should we care about the things you just listed? Ignoring the fact that the incredible vast majority of Wilt's athletic accomplishments are lies that have been debunked, including several alleged D1 records (or his 48 inch vertical ), him being an athletic marvel doesn't really mean anything to me.

If Wilt was as athletic as people thought he was, or rather, if Wilt was as good as converting his athleticism into impact as people thought he was, he'd have been more successful throughout his career, especially considering he played in the most center friendly era in NBA history. But honestly I don't think his BBIQ was high enough to fully take advantage of his abilities.

Bill Russell is allegedly nowhere near as athletically gifted as Wilt or as talented and yet he took a fat dump on Wilt in terms of defensive impact, so much though that he either equaled or bettered Wilt's overall impact because of it.

So even if Kareem wasn't as athletically gifted as Wilt, I'm not sure why you think that's an automatic guarantee that he'd be worse... hell, Shaq **** on Kareem as an athlete, yet he's worse on both sides of the ball lol. David Robinson destroys Kareem as an athlete but is like 3 tiers below him offensively. Russell Westbrook destroys Steve Nash as an athlete and yet is nowhere near as good as him.

The only tangible athletic trait that really matters in determining top level basketball ability is height, or your ability to obtain height, I.E leaping ability, hence why the best perimeter players of all time are either the tallest or can jump the highest ( and even then, intangible athletic traits are still infinitely more important)

When you're already 7fter though explosive athleticism matters even less because you're realistically already as close to the rim as you need to be. Like, Sprinting and Weight Lifting are 99.99% tangible athleticism. Usain Bolt has literally fallen over to begin races and still won them, the skill requirement is ridiculously low and they're so few variables that the only thing that matters is your explosive athleticism. You can have **** technical ability and still be the best at your sport in the world. Basketball is the opposite.

I'm rambling now, but basically not only is Wilt's athleticism overrated but even if it wasn't, explosive athleticism is not synonymous with impact, especially when you're a big man, so I'm not sure why him being more of a marvel than Kareem ensures he'd be better than Kareem, especially considering he was less impactful than an inferior athlete like Russell in his own era.

Russell wasn't inferior athlete than Wilt though...

[McBubbles]

Was Kareem 290-320 lbs of muscle at his peak? Was he drafted by Hank Stram, HOF NFL Coach, mid career? (Wilt was). Did Kareem set D-1 Track and field/decathlete records in college? Did he bench press 465 lbs in 1985, when he was 59? Did Arnold Schwarzenegger call Kareem "By far the strongest person I've ever met?"

Kareem was nowhere near the athlete and physical specimen was. And, you know it.

I tend to be on your side of thinking when it comes to discussion about league strength,but why should we care about the things you just listed? Ignoring the fact that the incredible vast majority of Wilt's athletic accomplishments are lies that have been debunked, including several alleged D1 records (or his 48 inch vertical ), him being an athletic marvel doesn't really mean anything to me.

If Wilt was as athletic as people thought he was, or rather, if Wilt was as good as converting his athleticism into impact as people thought he was, he'd have been more successful throughout his career, especially considering he played in the most center friendly era in NBA history. But honestly I don't think his BBIQ was high enough to fully take advantage of his abilities.

Bill Russell is allegedly nowhere near as athletically gifted as Wilt or as talented and yet he took a fat dump on Wilt in terms of defensive impact, so much though that he either equaled or bettered Wilt's overall impact because of it.

So even if Kareem wasn't as athletically gifted as Wilt, I'm not sure why you think that's an automatic guarantee that he'd be worse... hell, Shaq **** on Kareem as an athlete, yet he's worse on both sides of the ball lol. David Robinson destroys Kareem as an athlete but is like 3 tiers below him offensively. Russell Westbrook destroys Steve Nash as an athlete and yet is nowhere near as good as him.

The only tangible athletic trait that really matters in determining top level basketball ability is height, or your ability to obtain height, I.E leaping ability, hence why the best perimeter players of all time are either the tallest or can jump the highest ( and even then, intangible athletic traits are still infinitely more important)

When you're already 7fter though explosive athleticism matters even less because you're realistically already as close to the rim as you need to be. Like, Sprinting and Weight Lifting are 99.99% tangible athleticism. Usain Bolt has literally fallen over to begin races and still won them, the skill requirement is ridiculously low and they're so few variables that the only thing that matters is your explosive athleticism. You can have **** technical ability and still be the best at your sport in the world. Basketball is the opposite.

I'm rambling now, but basically not only is Wilt's athleticism overrated but even if it wasn't, explosive athleticism is not synonymous with impact, especially when you're a big man, so I'm not sure why him being more of a marvel than Kareem ensures he'd be better than Kareem, especially considering he was less impactful than an inferior athlete like Russell in his own era.

Russell wasn't inferior athlete than Wilt though...

I was meant to say "supposedly" inferior, might go back to edit that. Basically, I'm of the opinion that they're on the same tier athletically, with Wilt being more strength and Russell being more speed and hops. Think Shaq vs Robinson, or MJ vs Lebron. How many times have you heard someone call Wilt the most athletic human being of all time though? How many times has anyone said that of Russell ? Hell, how many times have you heard that Wilt would have zero problems fitting in with the athletes of today (which is true)? How many times have you heard those same people say that Russell couldn't even start today

Wilt is massively, MASSIVELY overrated by a certain segment of fans solely on account of his alleged athleticism relative to everyone else ever. Who needs eye test or impact metrics when you can convince yourself that bicep curling Arny = on the court impact

Now I'm just ranting though, back to my actual point;

How explosively athletic you are isn't important. How good you are at leveraging your athletic talents into impact is important, and Russell was better at leveraging his athletic traits into impact than Wilt was. So saying "Wilt is way more athletic than Kareem, therefore he'd be better than Kareem" makes no sense, because athleticism in and of itself doesn't tell us anything. Roy Hibbert was 7'2 and 280lbs, yet was a worse finisher around the rim than Steve **** Nash. Dwight Howard is one of the most athletic centers in NBA history and a primarily defensive player, didn't stop his impact being dwarfed by inferior athletes like old ass KG, old ass Duncan, Gobert, Draymond, etc.

If Wilt's athleticism automatically equaled impact as some people like to believe then the best evidence of this would him being the GOAT defender, but he's not, not even in 1967 when he had a setting that would enable him to prove this.

Plus, Kareem and Wilt literally played against eachother??? It's not even like this is a hypothetical. Unless I'm mistaken I'm pretty sure Kareem did just fine in their matchups.