NBA historians,what was up with the Lakers from 77-78 & 78-79?

[FuShengTHEGreat]

This post is not meant to point out any single player for them not winning a title during this span. But on paper they look like they had more than enough talent to be serious title contenders. Its not like they were some team with a superstar who had a cast devoid of talent. Nor were there a cast of guys that were in their 30s well in physical decline. Most of the key components had several good/great individual years ahead of them. 3 future HOFers.

During this span they had prime Kareem Abdul Jabbar the best player in the world.

Jamaal Wilkes former ROY, 2x all star in the 80s and future HOFer.

Adrian Dantley also a future HOFer who would become one of the most explosive scorers in the entire 80s decade.

Norm Nixon was a very productive PG.

But instead they were a middling team nowhere near a title. What gives here? I can understand if they made the Finals or even conference Finals and lost, honestly can't think of another team in history with so much talent not in the decline of their careers and nowhere near the top.

[penbeast0]

They had a lot of good individual talent but didn't play as a team. Kareem was very much in a shell after the murder of the Muslims at his house and Nixon, while a skilled point guard, didn't have the personality to get him to come out. Magic's personality may have been more key to the great Lakers teams of the 80s even than his talent.

[Dr Positivity]

Dantley was a ball stopper which is a more questionable fit with Kareem. 78’s record is not really that bad considering they had injury issues and mid season addition to work in, they got into a 10-16 hole due to Kareem injury and no Damtley yet and were pretty good after that. 79 is probably less defendable but it’s not like they went 30-52.

[capfan33]

You are correct, they had a good amount of talent. The problem was the talent fit terribly. This is probably one of the more notable situations where the whole portability/fit thing is actually very relevant.

As you noted, they had 3 great guards. The problem was they only had 3 great guards and no power forward, which in today's game you might be able to get away with depending on the situation, but back then was a no go. They lost in the playoffs because they lacked size and rebounding, as Kareem was essentially forced to play opposing front courts (specifically the Sonics) 2on1. Moreover, Dantley specifically was a highly questionable player impact-wise whose teams seemed to get better when he left them (although that is subject to some debate).

Regardless, Dantley was an isolation specialist who was a mediocre passer, terrible defender, and lacked size. And especially on this Lakers team was completely redundant and unnecessary. To top it all off, he often operated out of the post, which meant he occupied the same areas of the floor as Kareem, adding to the redundancy.

If the Lakers had kept Kermit Washington, a perfectly good PF, in place of Dantley, I would go so far as to say they'd be comfortable favorites in 78; 79 they still probably would've had issues with Seattle but it at least would've been more competitive, even though Washington was a "worse" player.

[70sFan]

Dantley was a ball stopper which is a more questionable fit with Kareem. 78’s record is not really that bad considering they had injury issues and mid season addition to work in, they got into a 10-16 hole due to Kareem injury and no Damtley yet and were pretty good after that. 79 is probably less defendable but it’s not like they went 30-52.

Dantley wasn't a ball-stopper at this point of his career.

[tsherkin]

Dantley was a ball stopper which is a more questionable fit with Kareem. 78’s record is not really that bad considering they had injury issues and mid season addition to work in, they got into a 10-16 hole due to Kareem injury and no Damtley yet and were pretty good after that. 79 is probably less defendable but it’s not like they went 30-52.

Dantley wasn't a ball-stopper at this point of his career.

Yeah, I was gonna say, he did the lion's share of his work with off-ball positioning and then made quick moves. He wasn't mid/late 90s Charles Barkley.

[Doctor MJ]

Dantley was a ball stopper which is a more questionable fit with Kareem. 78’s record is not really that bad considering they had injury issues and mid season addition to work in, they got into a 10-16 hole due to Kareem injury and no Damtley yet and were pretty good after that. 79 is probably less defendable but it’s not like they went 30-52.

Dantley wasn't a ball-stopper at this point of his career.

What's you assessment for why Dantley wasn't able to achieve fit with Kareem 70s?
Do you believe those fit issues were unrelated to Dantley's ongoing fit issues after he left the Lakers?

[70sFan]

Dantley was a ball stopper which is a more questionable fit with Kareem. 78’s record is not really that bad considering they had injury issues and mid season addition to work in, they got into a 10-16 hole due to Kareem injury and no Damtley yet and were pretty good after that. 79 is probably less defendable but it’s not like they went 30-52.

Dantley wasn't a ball-stopper at this point of his career.

What's you assessment for why Dantley wasn't able to achieve fit with Kareem 70s?
Do you believe those fit issues were unrelated to Dantley's ongoing fit issues after he left the Lakers?

There was a fit issue with Kareem, but it's not because of him stopping the ball.

Prime Dantley did the majority of his work without the ball as a low post threat. He occupied the same area of the floor as Kareem and of course wasn't better than Jabbar at that.

I am not sure what you mean by "ongoing fit issues". I don't see any fit issues in Utah and he did a nice transition going to the talented Pistons team (when he actually started to play more "ball stopper" style). The end of his Pistons journey was ugly, but he was already quite old for 1980s standards (especially for a guy who played his style of basketball without any physical advantages over opponents) and dropped off quite dramatically within the next few months.

[FuShengTHEGreat]

You are correct, they had a good amount of talent. The problem was the talent fit terribly. This is probably one of the more notable situations where the whole portability/fit thing is actually very relevant.

As you noted, they had 3 great guards. The problem was they only had 3 great guards and no power forward, which in today's game you might be able to get away with depending on the situation, but back then was a no go. They lost in the playoffs because they lacked size and rebounding, as Kareem was essentially forced to play opposing front courts (specifically the Sonics) 2on1. Moreover, Dantley specifically was a highly questionable player impact-wise whose teams seemed to get better when he left them (although that is subject to some debate).

Regardless, Dantley was an isolation specialist who was a mediocre passer, terrible defender, and lacked size. And especially on this Lakers team was completely redundant and unnecessary. To top it all off, he often operated out of the post, which meant he occupied the same areas of the floor as Kareem, adding to the redundancy.

If the Lakers had kept Kermit Washington, a perfectly good PF, in place of Dantley, I would go so far as to say they'd be comfortable favorites in 78; 79 they still probably would've had issues with Seattle but it at least would've been more competitive, even though Washington was a "worse" player.

Do you feel from top to bottom in retrospect they should be criticized and labelled as underachieving during that span? Or these were the results to be expected of such a squad?

I'm honestly struggling to find a top heavy team in terms of talent that the results were at best lukewarm.

Probably the closest is the 10-11 Heat were top heavy with the best player in the league with guys that had a lot of good years ahead of them that came short of expectations getting upset by the Mavs, but at least they made it to the Finals where it happened.

[capfan33]

You are correct, they had a good amount of talent. The problem was the talent fit terribly. This is probably one of the more notable situations where the whole portability/fit thing is actually very relevant.

As you noted, they had 3 great guards. The problem was they only had 3 great guards and no power forward, which in today's game you might be able to get away with depending on the situation, but back then was a no go. They lost in the playoffs because they lacked size and rebounding, as Kareem was essentially forced to play opposing front courts (specifically the Sonics) 2on1. Moreover, Dantley specifically was a highly questionable player impact-wise whose teams seemed to get better when he left them (although that is subject to some debate).

Regardless, Dantley was an isolation specialist who was a mediocre passer, terrible defender, and lacked size. And especially on this Lakers team was completely redundant and unnecessary. To top it all off, he often operated out of the post, which meant he occupied the same areas of the floor as Kareem, adding to the redundancy.

If the Lakers had kept Kermit Washington, a perfectly good PF, in place of Dantley, I would go so far as to say they'd be comfortable favorites in 78; 79 they still probably would've had issues with Seattle but it at least would've been more competitive, even though Washington was a "worse" player.

Do you feel from top to bottom in retrospect they should be criticized and labelled as underachieving during that span? Or these were the results to be expected of such a squad?

I'm honestly struggling to find a top heavy team in terms of talent that the results were at best lukewarm.

Probably the closest is the 10-11 Heat were top heavy with the best player in the league with guys that had a lot of good years ahead of them that came short of expectations getting upset by the Mavs, but at least they made it to the Finals where it happened.

In 78 I think they still underachieved regardless of roster composition but I don't think a 3 game series should be read into too much. 79 I think they did about as well as you could expect, maybe they should've taken another game off Seattle but that's about it.

[kcktiny]

Over the 2 seasons SG Lou Hudson (ages 33-34) played the 4th most minutes on the team, Don Ford the 6th most minutes. Neither was much on defense. Same for C Dave Robisch who played the 7th most minutes. This not to mention Dantley and Ron Boone (age 32) being subpar defenders. These 5 played close to 2/5 of the Lakers' total minutes those 2 seasons.

The Lakers also were 4th worst in the league in defensive rebounding percentage (66.2%) those 2 seasons - even though Kareem grabbed the 3rd most defensive rebounds (1433) among all players - and 9th worst in most turnovers forced (17.7 opponent TO/100poss).

Despite Jabbar being named to the NBA all-defensive team both years, the Lakers as a team ranked just 12th in the league in defensive efficiency among the 22 teams (they ranked 3rd best in offensive efficiency).

[penbeast0]

Do you feel from top to bottom in retrospect they should be criticized and labelled as underachieving during that span? Or these were the results to be expected of such a squad?

I'm honestly struggling to find a top heavy team in terms of talent that the results were at best lukewarm.

Probably the closest is the 10-11 Heat were top heavy with the best player in the league with guys that had a lot of good years ahead of them that came short of expectations getting upset by the Mavs, but at least they made it to the Finals where it happened.

Isiah and the Knicks. They got a bunch of volume scorers, threw them together, and expected a good team. Instead, they were, well, suck. Even Larry Brown couldn't make that collection of prima donnas play as a team.

[FuShengTHEGreat]

Do you feel from top to bottom in retrospect they should be criticized and labelled as underachieving during that span? Or these were the results to be expected of such a squad?

I'm honestly struggling to find a top heavy team in terms of talent that the results were at best lukewarm.

Probably the closest is the 10-11 Heat were top heavy with the best player in the league with guys that had a lot of good years ahead of them that came short of expectations getting upset by the Mavs, but at least they made it to the Finals where it happened.

Isiah and the Knicks. They got a bunch of volume scorers, threw them together, and expected a good team. Instead, they were, well, suck. Even Larry Brown couldn't make that collection of prima donnas play as a team.

Well to be honest unlike the Lakers i mentioned, I don't think anybody on the 05-06 Knicks was even a top 20 player in the league that season. Most of the names (Penny, Jalen, Antonio) on the squad had seen better years. I remember the narrative being Marbury returning to his hometown and leading them to a title.

Their star player Marbury, i can't find the quotes but i remember Amare being openly critical of him when discussing the difference of having him as the PG compared to Nash in his first season.

[penbeast0]

Jalen Rose (33) and Antonio Davis (38) were a bit past it (Penny only played 4 games) but the rest of their rotation was young and supposedly talented. The stars were supposed to be Marbury and Steve Francis, plus Eddy Curry at least in theory. QRich and Jamal Crawford for extra scoring, David Lee/Malik Rose/Maurice Taylor filling in, rookie Trevor Ariza as well. Unfortunately, Francis played only 24 games, Rose only 26, and Marbury 60 and Marbury complained about Larry Brown not treating them nicely. They'd had similar results with Lenny Wilkens coaching before and continued to be losers with Isiah taking over the coaching. Just a poorly put together roster plus injuries.

[ceiling raiser]

Kareem claims in his book that the trade of Kermit Washington and Don Chaney following the Rudy T punch derailed the season. They didn't get much back, and Kareem was forced to change his role.

[FuShengTHEGreat]

Kareem claims in his book that the trade of Kermit Washington and Don Chaney following the Rudy T punch derailed the season. They didn't get much back, and Kareem was forced to change his role.

How exacrly did his role change? Wasnt he still the Center, it's not like his position on the floor changed? He led them is scoring, rebounding (and the league) in blocks.

[ceiling raiser]

Kareem claims in his book that the trade of Kermit Washington and Don Chaney following the Rudy T punch derailed the season. They didn't get much back, and Kareem was forced to change his role.

How exacrly did his role change? Wasnt he still the Center, it's not like his position on the floor changed? He led them is scoring, rebounding (and the league) in blocks.

Kermit was the enforcer and was boxing out more. It's not like Kareem couldn't handle physical roles, but Kermit took a load off of him.