RealGM Top 100 List #2

[ThaRegul8r]

Not only this, but the two players who gave Kareem the most trouble (even by his own admission) were Nate Thurmond and Wilt Chamberlain, two players who were considered to be vastly inferior defenders to Bill Russell (which is saying something, because they are still great defenders).

Kareem averaged 28.8/14.5 on nearly 52 FG% his rookie season, which is also when he won MVP (he was the best player in the league).

When he played against Thurmond his stats were this (basketball reference doesnt have proper splits as this was a long time ago I presume)

Game 1 - 16 points, 7 FGs (loss by 14)
Game 2 - 28 points, 10 FG (win by 6)
Game 3 - 21 points, 7 FG (loss by 17)
Game 4 - 13 points, 5 FG (win by 14)
Game 5 - 23 points, 9 FG (win by 16)
Game 6 - 26 points, 9 FG (win by 7)

So as you can see Thurmond did strifle him, a lot of info is missing here, but it's pretty clear that an athletic defensive anchor from the 60s could hamper Kareem's game. Now to be fair, Thurmond is arguably a better man to man defender than Bill (some would argue), and this was Kareem's rookie season (though he was like 22, and MVP).



But we can go to arguably his best season in 72, and see that 30 year old Thurmond seems to slow down Kareem.

Kareem averaged 34.8 on 57 FG%, 60 TS% (efficiency doesn't really matter as the stats don't show what Kareem shot in these games, but it's clear to see based on these stats, that Kareem was pretty much unstoppable offensively).

vs 30 year old Thurmond (who was slowing down from injuries)

Game 1 - 17 points (loss by 7)
game 2 - 30 points (loss by 2)
game 3 - 21 points (win by 11)
game 4 - 34 points (win by 23)

Then the playoffs from that year, where the Bucks and Warriors played

Kareem averaged 22.8 points that series, where he was presumably guarded by Thurmond. (who had 25.5/17.8)

Defensively, Thurmond was acknowledged by his peers as second only to Russell defensively. Man-to-man, he was better. Because I've been working on 1971-72, I think I'm going to make a statement that Thurmond vs. Kareem 1971-72 was possibly the greatest sustained man-to-man defensive performance ever, regular to postseason, considering the caliber of the opponent, the year he was having (the most efficient season ever at that volume), and what he was doing to everyone else—35.3 points on 57.9 percent shooting and 60.7 percent true shooting in the regular season against everyone but Thurmond, and 35.1 points on 56.8 percent shooting and 59.6 percent true shooting in the regular + postseason against everyone but Thurmond. And comparing Thurmond vs. Kareem against Wilt vs. Kareem since Kareem's a common opponent for both of them regular and postseason, Thurmond is clearly a better man defender. I've talked about it before, but I'm going to have to make a thread about it so that Thurmond gets his proper credit. He's the greatest man-to-man defender at the 5 ever to play the game, and no other center in any era ever did what he did to another offensive center of that level (considering the consensus to this board seems to have Kareem and Shaq at the top as it is, Shaq's the only other center a comparable defensive job could be done on—Ewing << Kareem offensively, so Hakeem against Ewing in 1993-94 is not comparable).

[drza]

Quotes from the Kareem vs Walton debates of 1977 and 1978, continued

Here is where it starts getting a bit more interesting to me. In my last post I gave quoted some posts that anecdotally described why some thought that Walton may have been having more impact than Kareem, even if Kareem was the better player. However, the anecdotes weren't enough to sway me even then (again, I voted Kareem over Walton for both 1977 and 1978).

However, one of the pro-Kareem arguments in those debates was something that I have also been seeing a lot of in this project so far: that Walton (or Russell) may have been a better defender and a better rebounder, but that Kareem was still excellent in those things as well. And that when you factored in Kareem's dominant offense, that overall this should translate to him having a bigger impact. That was enough to sway me at the time. But this was also the start of when ElGee and others started trying to make some impact-based stat estimates based on the available information at the time. So, without further ado...

77-78: Walton's impact versus Kareem's impact.

Sort of a crude on/off type of measure, but when players miss large chunks of time like Walton and Kareem (in 78) it gives us a fairly interesting interesting picture of their value. Obviously there are potential confounds like other injuries, strategy changes, schedule, etc. This is raw data so pace isn't adjusted for either. Nonetheless, thought this data was pretty darn interesting from this period:

Portland 1977:

Code: Select all

             Record    PPG      Opp PPG      Diff     Opp SRS    %Road Games
With Walton   43-21    113.4    105.1       +8.3
W/O Walton    6-12     105.7    110.0       -4.3       0.26      61%
Total Difference                            +12.6


Los Angeles 78:

Code: Select all

             Record    PPG      Opp PPG      Diff     Opp SRS    %Road Games
With Kareem   37-24    111.9    107.8       +4.1
W/O Kareem    8-13     105.6    107.2       -1.6       0.03      48%
Total Difference                            +5.7


Walton's game on 12/30 and Kareem's season opener counted as "missed" games because they both played only a few minutes. Of course, there's more Walton data, as he went on to miss a comparable chunk of time in 1978 as well.

Portland 1978:

Code: Select all

             Record    PPG      Opp PPG      Diff     Opp SRS    %Road Games
With Walton   48-10    110.4    100.4       +10.0
W/O Walton    10-14     101.0    104.3       -3.3      -0.07     58%
Total Difference                            +13.3


Now, one major difference between 77 and 78 in Portland was Lloyd Neal's play off the bench. Praised by commentators and writers, he actually led the 78 team in pts/36, posted a nice .179 WS/48 line, and had 31 points filling in for Walton in the first game he missed (a 111-106 win at Detroit). And still the profound difference is still there without Walton.

If we combine the two seasons and pro-rate the records to 82-games:

Code: Select all

             Record    PPG      Opp PPG      Diff     Opp SRS   %Road Games
With Walton   61-21    112.0    102.9       +9.1
W/O Walton    31-51    103.0    106.7       -3.7       0.07     60%
Total Difference                            +12.6
         
With Kareem   52-30    111.9    107.8       +4.1
W/O Kareem    31-51    105.6    107.2       -1.6       0.03     48%
Total Difference                            +5.7



My spin: Any time someone can put numbers to something, it helps me to envision it and to do more to quantify. This is a key in this type of project, especially at this level. Everyone up for consideration is ridiculous, so qualitative discussions can only go so far in delineating. Most of the pro-Kareem case depends on quantification as well...his box score numbers, his number of years played, his numbers of accolades. Those are well established. Fatal had even spoken in some of the posts that I quoted before about how Kareem's teams fell apart without him. But this post by ElGee was the first time I saw someone actually put some reasonable numbers on what Kareem's teams looked like with and without him when he missed 20 games. And while these numbers show Kareem's impact to be significant (taking a 30 win team and making them a 50+ win team is huge), that impact seems to be dwarfed by Walton's (who took a similar 30-win team and pushed it to a 60+ win champion.

Now I know this is a snapshot of data, and needs to be put into context. I'm not saying it's an argument ender. But I need someone to explain it to me. In one of Fatal's posts he suggests that Kareem was rusty when he came back and his play (and the team's results) got better later in the year. And maybe that helps explain this difference. But again, I'd like to see some conversation about this that really digs into it.

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.

Following up on the ElGee post, DocMJ makes an SRS argument that argues for looking at the 1976-77 thru 1977-78 time period as one entity when trying to tease out Walton's impact vs. Kareem's. I agree with that.

I watched game 4. Had time to watch and analyze one game, this seemed the reasonable one to do.

Game 4

Blazers are getting a lot of steals, but not without consequence. They're full court pressing and trapping, and the result is that there's lots of space down court for Kareem. Kareem's points are often coming from easy passes, and single coverage from Walton with lots of space in the court partly due to how the guards are defending. When they do get a real double team on Kareem, he's passing the ball. It's reasonable to ask if this would have been an entirely different series with smarter guards - but I think it's wrong to look at Kareem's numbers in a vacuum.

Despite the fact that Walton seems to be playing Kareem so tight when Kareem has the ball, he doesn't hesitate to leave Kareem to effect the rest of the play when Kareem doesn't have the ball.
I will say though Walton's man defense is really tough, and it doesn't seem to phase Kareem much at all as long as he’s got that space to work with. Stunning skill from Kareem.

Kareem's defense on Walton is clearly much more successful, but Walton doesn't spend a lot of time trying to score when Kareem's on him. Instead, he immediately starts looking for someone to pass it to, and once the ball is passed, Kareem seems largely out of the play. Part of that is due to Walton being able to draw Kareem out, which leaves Kareem in poor position to challenge shots. Walton's passes seem strategically smart, and often quite sharp, but he is committing a good amount of turnovers in the process.

Portland's also getting easy baskets off defensive rebounds. Walton's looking to pass the ball forward before he touches the ground.

People've said Kareem's exhausted, and that's believable. He's just not running around very much. If the Lakers to get a fast break opportunity, Kareem totally disappears from the play, evidently hoping they can make a basket, and he can save himself a lap.

Tendency to fast break is part of why Walton looks more active than Kareem. On the other hand, this is part of a trade off, no? If you're going to run a possession where the big man gets the ball in the post, and then twists and turns for his shot, you can't run. By not playing Walton as a volume scorer, you get to take advantage of running much more.

This was interesting to me, because it covers both why Kareem was awesome (his scoring skill was stunning, even in the face of excellent defense) but it begins to note some reasons why the scoring focal-point big man isn't the only (or even necessarily the optimal) offense that a team can run. It has echoes in the style of play that correlated most with Wilt's championships. It obviously can be related to the approach of Russell's Celtics. And it even plays to some of the more recent stats-based arguments I've seen about why (with only a few examples) it really isn't optimal to have your big man as the focal point of the offense. This idea is further explored here:

Walton and Jabbar clearly have different offensive skill-sets. It's possible that Walton's defense/outlet passing does just help the Blazers that much when he's on the court. But it's also possible, that despite his lower TS% and fewer post moves, he was playing at a more "optimal" approach offensively; he had a perfect balance of when to shoot, when to cut, when and where to screen, where to pass, spacing, angles and boxing out. And of course, he was a ridiculous half-court passer and "coached" on the floor.

Obviously, in a one-on-one game, we'd all take Kareem. When he puts his pivot foot down and goes to work, he can spin, hit the jumper over his left shoulder, finger roll, drop step, and of course...dribble...dribble...swing...Sky Hook.

But Walton's bringing something very different to the table, and I'm not sure it isn't better at the end of the day. Or at least, better if we include his defense.

I assume we'll revisit this with Wilt v Russell but I thought it was worth injecting here.

This is a crucial point for me. I've talked before about the identical twin scenario - I don't want to mistakenly conclude one identical twin is better than the other because of his situation. If Walton is giving more lift to his team than Kareem, but Kareem has all Walton's skills and then some, then Kareem's my clear choice.

It's awful hard for me to watch the two of them though and just think Walton's an inferior version of Kareem though. I can't claim certainty that indeed Kareem wouldn't have done as well in Portland, but it does seem clear that Portland's using a strategy that really benefits from Walton's crisp passing mentality and overall all-over-the-placeness of him (I've never seen a big man throw himself around like Walton did - no wonder he got hurt) when he doesn't have the ball, and that it's not clear how they'd make use of a volume scoring big man.

As it stands, Walton's going to be my #1 this year. Giving it until tomorrow to rattle around in my brain though.

Conclusion. There's more in the threads (really, you should go back and read those) but I think/hope I've made my point. That point being: I KNOW that Kareem at his peak was one of the best players in history. I know his box score stat achievements. I know that he's the longevity GOAT. But what I'm trying to get at is, was Kareem at his best having as much impact on his team's fortunes as Jordan at his best? As Russell at his best? As Magic at his best? As (insert potential top-10-of-all-time-name-here) at his best?

Because a legitimate set of arguments can and has been made that Kareem at what should have been his peak wasn't having as much impact as Bill Walton at his peak. Walton's game had a lot of similarities to Bill Russell's, who also has some reasonable statistical data to suggest his impact was off the rails. And we've got varying levels of impact stats (be they team rating based, in-and-out, or +/-) that shows Magic's impact to be nuts. That shows Jordan's impact to be nuts (A poster named Dipper 13 claims to have measured Jordan's on/off +/- over 126 games, mostly playoffs, between 1989 and 1992 to be something stupid like +45 ). Etc. etc.

So if Walton's impact WAS actually larger than Kareem's, and (key to this thread) if Kareem's competitors for this slot had impacts that look more like Walton's thank Kareem's...then frankly, I'd rather have 12 - 13 years of those others than 20 of Kareem. But again...that's the big "If" that I'm hoping folks can help me with here.

[MisterWestside]

Sill not reading what I want from this discussion regarding Abdul-Jabbar's defense.

Will take notes with the game tape once time permits.

[colts18]

Sill not reading what I want from this discussion regarding Abdul-Jabbar's defense.

Kareem made 11 all-NBA defensive teams (4th most in NBA history)

[drza]

Sill not reading what I want from this discussion regarding Abdul-Jabbar's defense.

Will take notes with the game tape once time permits.

The impression that I have of Kareem's defense is that he is more classically the "vertical" style than the "horizontal" style defender. He was more of a challenge at the rim type than a move around and lower the opponents' percentages within the entire arc type defender. DocMJ alluded to an example from Game 4 of that 1977 match-up, where Walton wouldn't hesitate to leave Kareem and help stifle everything surrounding him (with a large radius) while if Walton came out of the paint, it essentially pulled Kareem out of the play.

Kareem's area of influence seems smaller. Of course, if that area is the rim then that small area can still be very valuable (the argument for vertical defense). But that it's just different than the more mobile model of Russell, Walton, Hakeem, Robinson, Duncan, Garnett, etc.

Would those that have more experience viewing young Kareem agree with that assessment? Or do you have a different take.

[Owly]

Also, let's not dive into hyperbole, Chamberlain has had teams that were better than any of Bill Russell's. Wilt has been through many different teams, some not good, some super stacked and he's still only beaten Russell once.

In the time Russell was playing? Plural? Teams that were fully available in the playoffs?

Take away the centers, only '67 76ers were comparable.

In the first half of the regular season with Costello you have a genuine 7 man rotation (Chamberlain, Jackson, Walker, Greer, Costello, Cunningham, Jones). That's comparable with Boston's best supporting casts.

'68 you've already lost Costello (attempted comeback not withstanding) and then in the playoffs lose Cunningham and have more or less everyone with nagging injuries

“Billy Cunningham was out, having broken his wrist in 3 places after colliding with Knicks rookie Phil Jackson in the first round of playoffs. Luke Jackson, who had torn a hamstring muscle in that same series, had reinjured it against the Celtics. Wally Jones had an injured knee. Chamberlain had bruised his right big toe, the one he used to turn in the pivot. And he was also suffering from shin splints, as he did at the end of almost every season, the result of the cumulative pounding that his immense body gave his lower legs over the course of some one hundred games. On top of that, he was playing with his right knee wrapped after pulling his calf muscle in the opening tip-off of game three.”

A more disasterous victory could not be imagined. Billy Cunningham broke his right wrist crashing into Phil Jackson on the first play in overtime. He was gone for the year. Luke Jackson partially tore a hamstring and limed through the rest of the playoffs. All-our vaunted depth was gone, not to mention our complete package of speed plus power. We were suddenly a very mortal, very vulnerable team
...
We won Game 3 121-114, but Wilt tore a calf muscle and was limping badly
...
We were severely hampered by the loss of Luke Jackson and Bully Cunningham in the series. They represented a lot of our diversified firepower, and their absence put much more pressure on the remaining shooters, Hal, Wali, and me. But Wilt and Wali were limping, and I had a nagging groin pull. With a diminished bench, gimpy starters, and our general exhaustion, it was as if the 3-1 lead was not really ours
...
[speaking about G7] [Wilt's] torn calf muscle and pulled thigh tendon hampered any lateral movement
...
All our injuries had finally caught up with us, and the Celtics' great veteran team had risen to the occasion ... I wasn't involved in any fix during the series; I just couldn't shoot straight and was hampered by the groin pull. Beyond the national tragedies and distractions, I had experienced a mysterious shortness of breath on and off the court that I attributed to stress. But it recurred from time to time in Chicago with the Bulls. I never did get a reliable diagnosis until I retired and moved to California. Five years later I found out tI had a form of asthma.

But the victory came at a high cost: in the first overtime, Cunningham, their budding star, collided with Jackson, all bony arms and elbows. Cunningham broke his right (nonshooting) hand in three places and was out for the season. That was 18.9 points and the best sixth man in basketball (a starter on any other club) gone from the lineup. To add to the 76ers' woes, Luke Jackson had pulled a hamstring muscle, Hal Greer had burstitis in his knees, and, to quote Kiseda, "Wilt Chamberlain was showing his ages with sore toes and elbows and knees
...
[Hannum predicting a 76er win, in less than 7] was a bold statement, considering the 76ers were without Cunningham (broken right hand), Jackson was hobbled by a thigh pull, Greer's creaky joints ached and Wilt and Greer were not youngsters [though nor as Cherry notes were Boston]
...
Game,3 the very next night, was in Philadelphia. Wilt was being treated for numerous ailments, including a strained hamstring behind his knee, a partial tear of his right calf, and a bum toe - all of which had him limping noticeably throughout the game.

That is literally all of the core rotation guys mentioned. Johnny Green (a solid sneaky acquisition) was probably healthy, albeit not playing that much (10.5mpg in the RS, 18.3 in PO).

Or are we talking '69, which, centers aside, wasn't as good as the '69 Celtics, nevermind "better than any of Bill Russell's".

Okay, at the top West versus Havlicek? Certainly West.
but then ...

Baylor versus Howell?
Johnny Egan versus Sam Jones?
Mel Counts versus Tom "Satch" Sanders?
Keith Erickson versus Don Nelson?
Tom Hawkins, Freddie Crawford and Bill HeWitt versus Larry Siegfried, Em Bryant and Don Chaney?
It's Boston each time (Sanders-Counts to be fair possibly depends on what the team needs; Baylor has the bigger reputation, but Howell is better at that point, albeit he played poorly in the finals).

'66? Cunningham wasn't Cunningham yet, Walker too was years from his peak (most productive in the early 70s), no Costello etc. Nothing close to Boston's best teams.

Seriously, when?


Anyway I'm Jabbar here. Like Jordan he was the clear consensus player of his era. Incredible longevity (enough to make me wonder sometimes about him at number 1). Leader in MVPs, 2nd in MVP Shares, leader in win shares. Played some very tough competition at the position and was clearly the best (and fwiw possibly wasn't ever outplayed in the playoffs in his first decade, though some will/did argue Wilt, or later centers like Walton/Cowens somewhat dubiously imo, the strongest claim is probably Thurmond). Played on great teams (inc two 10+ SRS teams albeit in expansion/ABA era, teams that were great on both ends). Played on slower (though not super slow) teams when he was young and athletic and made it work, played on faster (though not super fast, by pace stats) teams from ages 32-37 and remained one of the league's top players. He's got a nice career arrival bump indicative of his early impact (Dandridge at the same time very slightly blurs the picture but still) with/without over an extended period (i.e. adaptation known to be necessary and attempted) in Milwaukee suggests very high value. Despite injuries in his final season and netting the Bucks a substantial trade haul, the moving on of all their former bigs (not including the traded players for getting KA-J Hairston and Beaty retired, and Hawkins was traded and Stan Love had been traded the season before) the SRS is moving in the right directions to show Jabbar (and his absence) making an impact.

Longevity, accolades/awards, metrics, career value added, playing both ends, whatever, he's got it.

[90sAllDecade]

I'll repeat what I wrote before. Supporter of Hakeem or Shaq or other recent bigs are engaging in pace adjustment. I actually think that is important. Pace isn't perfect but it is important to take into account the number of possession in a game.

However, you can't look at that factor in isolation. Here is league wide drtg.

74: 97.7
75: 97.7
76: 98.3
77: 99.5
78: 100.9

91: 107.9
92: 108.2
93: 108
94: 106.3
95: 108.3

One player played in a defensive era while the other played in an offensive. This is something that needs to be addressed. Especially if you're in the camp hammering in on pace.

Good point, let's look at that. First let's look at the definition and criteria of the Drtg stat itself:

DRtg

Defensive Rating (available since the 1973-74 season in the NBA); for players and teams it is points allowed per 100 posessions.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/about/glossary.html

During the ABA merger there was an influx of offensive talent in the NBA and after 1980 the three point line literally increase the points per 100 possessions by allowing 3pts per shot at times versus 2.

This and other rule changes opened up the game for guards & perimeter players. As the NBA has historically done. Which increased Ortg and decreasing Drtg. It was harder for wing players to score like in modern times before these rules versus bigs, due to having no incentive to shoot outside because of a lack of a three point line. Perimeter players were funneled inside the lane to take higher percentage shots since everything was two points regardless.

Dominant offensive bigs could still dominate regardless of the three point line (like Wilt, Mikan, KAJ etc.) as they never shot there yet.

Now it did eventually open up floor spacing, which both Hakeem and Kareem benefited. But if you do a full team comparison (which I will later), there is no comparison for the star guard play help Kareem got versus Hakeem throughout their careers.

You still need talented guards to open up the game with their shot, facilitating or otherwise, even if that means being an offensive anchor like Magic or a HOF PG like Oscar. Having a HOF coaching system for a period like KAJ with Pat Riley helps open up the game too. The few years with Rudy T was good, but not on the GOAT top 4 coaching level Riley was.

All time great centers could score with or without floor spacing, but from a team standpoint that and star guard play has an impact.

You can see how over time, 3pt attempts & 3pt% increased and turnover rates have reduced over time, increasing Ortg while decreasing Drtg. This is predominantly guard play imo.

(Zoom if needed)

http://www.basketball-reference.com/lea ... stats.html

You can even see the points in time where major changes and rules affect play, like the ABA merger, 3pt line, no hand checking etc. Also as these rules opened up offenses, defensive strategy eventually evolved to counter that side of the ball as well, increased hand checking (haven't pinned this timeline down yet though), teams slowed down the pace etc.

History of NBA rules:

1979-80
• Three-point line established 22 feet in the corners extending to 23 feet, nine inches at the top of the key.

http://www.nba.com/analysis/rules_history.html

[Dr Positivity]

I voted Kareem and updated my page 1 post

[The Infamous1]

When Kareem got oscar, He was past his prime. Still a good player no longer an MVP level superstar type. When magic was entering his prime( mid to late 80's) Kareem was WAY past his. Peak/Prime Jabbar never played with a Prime Magic or Oscar and the teams he had during his peak in the mid to late 70's were nothing special.

[MisterWestside]

The impression that I have of Kareem's defense is that he is more classically the "vertical" style than the "horizontal" style defender. He was more of a challenge at the rim type than a move around and lower the opponents' percentages within the entire arc type defender. DocMJ alluded to an example from Game 4 of that 1977 match-up, where Walton wouldn't hesitate to leave Kareem and help stifle everything surrounding him (with a large radius) while if Walton came out of the paint, it essentially pulled Kareem out of the play.

That's more like it. Thank you. Let's get more examples and footage.

Kareem made 11 all-NBA defensive teams (4th most in NBA history)

Also useful to see what coaches thought about his defense. More examples about his skills on tape would be more beneficial, though.

[Owly]

Quotes from the Kareem vs Walton debates of 1977 and 1978, continued
....

Interesting stuff here. Initial responses from first skim read.

Contextual value (to me) isn't necessarily a fair measure of (typical?) contribution. There's synergy issues, morale issues, replacement level issues etc

With a center as an offensive hub, a style centered round that, a and team of gifted cutters, solid shooters, high IQ players, non-shot creators (Steele, Twardzik, Gross coming to mind from what I've heard though I haven't seen them much) are players who are valuable - in concert with a playmaking center. And whilst that is a positive for Walton, synergy, complementary players, fit etc is a two way street, so whilst Walton is the more important, valuable part he is also to a degree dependent on the right pieces.

Another possible debate (throwing this out there), if Kareem's less roaming D (by that point), more individual (though a good passer) offense might have a lower upside (and I'm not absolutely sold on this being applicable to Jabbar) one might also argue that self sufficient shot creation and safer, less team contingent D (often, you can't really roam as a big unless confident in rotations) is safer and more consistent in its value.

And particularly if you are used to playing with a unique player and accomodating (happily) that style then you'll find it hard to adjust (for me Rodman in Detroit is an example of this) when that player comes out, the pieces no longer fit coherently.

Then there's the matter of not just the backup, but the backup's backup. Though in this case with Tom Owens and Neal capable of playing C (and both playing well at least boxscore wise) it's particularly curious.

[ThaRegul8r]

When Kareem got oscar, He was past his prime. Still a good player no longer an MVP level superstar type. When magic was entering his prime( mid to late 80's) Kareem was WAY past his. Peak/Prime Jabbar never played with a Prime Magic or Oscar and the teams he had during his peak in the mid to late 70's were nothing special.

Oscar was actually top five in the MVP voting his first year in Milwaukee.

Though by the standards on internet forums, had Kareem played with a prime Magic/Oscar, that would somehow make him a worse player.

[PCProductions]

My vote for #2 player of all time: Bill Russell

Reasoning: The greatest defense force of all time. Most successful athlete in American pro sports history. Unimpeachable career with success that is likely never to be duplicated.

I'm going to avoid stating what made him so great because I couldn't possibly add to what was already said in the debate for the #1 thread. In fact, I was prepared to vote for Jabbar as my #2 until I was almost convinced of having Russell as my #1 from the strength of the arguments by posters like drza, Doc, fpliii, etc.

I wish we had more video footage of his career, but from what I've seen, his game absolutely would translate quite well into today's game, so I do not buy for a second that he was fortunate to play in his era and what have you.

[E-Balla]

Sill not reading what I want from this discussion regarding Abdul-Jabbar's defense.

Kareem made 11 all-NBA defensive teams (4th most in NBA history)

This has always been my assumption on how fans felt:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2A194yTWoQ[/youtube]

IMO he's still a great defender. Didn't deserve all those all defense teams though and probably not most of them.

EDIT: also for now I'm voting Russell. I know B said the game is about buckets but he shut down buckets like no other.

[MisterWestside]

Can't post in-depth at the moment, but watched some game clips from the Bucks 1971 Finals vs. the Bullets. Key takeaways:

-The outside shooting of both teams (up to 20-25 feet) blows the outside shooting of 50s-60s players out of the water. Not even close.

-The Bullets shot alot of those jumpers, and rarely challenged young Alcindor in the paint or on isos; almost out of respect for his interior defense. He was beat on one blow-by to the rim from the left elbow, but also warded off other drives. He also went underneath PnRs instead of trapping, and conceded long twos. The Bullets knocked down some of them, but can't fault the Bucks for this strategy. This isn't the 3-point era. Overall, Alcindor's positioning and mobility was sound.

Will watch more later.

[fatal9]

Kareem was definitely not in the company of the most elite defensive players like Russell, Hakeem, D-Rob, Walton and so on. For one thing, his defensive motor simply wasn’t on par with these players, and he didn’t cover distance like they could either. But before dismissing him as a clod, keep in mind that he was more capable of covering distance than a Wilt or Shaq, he was very mobile for his height, in his younger years, his defensive agility looks exceptional even (eg. see flashes of it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pv9LhEH3YCw). He put up excellent rebounding numbers, though again, not quite in the elite company of the big men who put up 20+TRB% seasons, but he maintained a decade long average (all of the 70s) above 18%. To put it into perspective, 90s Robinson was at 17.5%, ’94-’02 Shaq was at 17.9% (18.2% in playoffs), ’85-’95 Hakeem was at 18%, ’98-’07 Duncan is at 18.3% (but Duncan has been best at maintaining his rebounding into his 30s, though some would argue he’s also been put in the best position to be able to do so). He’s statistically comparable as a rebounder to every other player in his role, so I’d just say to not let 80s Kareem who was a feeble rebounder cloud our vision of 70s Kareem.

Kareem’s best asset was his length, which is shown by his block numbers, even well into the 80s I feel his length and ability to change shots around the rim made him a good defensive player. In fact, watching the 85 run some time ago, Kareem led the team in +/- in the playoffs (Magic was 2nd, Worthy 3rd), and I think the biggest difference was the lack of shot blocking when he was out of the game (though his value as an amazing half court offensive player was also critical for those teams in the playoffs). At worst, he’s a solid rebounder, with a passable but not great horizontal game, with great shot blocking and interior defense around the rim. I’m sure you can find use for a player of these qualities to be very very impactful in a defensive system.

Now there are some subjective weaknesses that one could see in KAJ’s defensive ability, he’s not quite as physical as other big men, may have trouble with "power" players, his motor can sometimes appear to be inconsistent (but this is relative to the Waltons and the Hakeems), but there's nothing glaring that I see which would make Kareem's defense worse than the second tier defensive big men. I think people need to understand the situation he was in a little bit better, especially the make up of the teams. After he got traded from the Bucks to the Lakers, the Lakers before he arrived were the worst defensive team in the league, and possessed notoriously bad defenders. His late 70s Laker teams had acquired a bit more offensive talent, but again, their perimeter defense was very very weak, and they got lit up by opposing backcourts in the playoffs. They also had no legitimate PF in the late 70s, arguably the second most important defensive position (and this was a time when the modern PF position had fully emerged, this weakness was a killer when Lakers ran into Seattle's big frontlines). Anyways, I don't really see much of a reason why Kareem should not be considered in the second tier of defensive bigs for his career, but for some reason on this board, I see criticism about KAJ's defense pop up more than other players. He only seems weaker when compared to the very best. For example, I think Shaq's defense over the years is more questionable and less consistent than Kareem's is.

Also, some draw comfort from with/without stats, and I posted some for Kareem’s missed games in 1974. Here were the results (from a post I made few years ago):

Opponent FG% without KAJ - 46.5% (would be ranked 14th out of 18)
Opponent FG% with KAJ - 43.8% (tied with best in the league with the Bullets who were the #1 defense that year)
Big difference in FG% allowed.

Opponent FT attempts without KAJ - 23.35 FTA
Opponent FT attempts with KAJ - 23.27 FTA

Almost no change in FTA numbers.

However this is affected by pace so...

FT/FGA ratio without KAJ - .216 (would be ranked 12th out 18)
FT/FGA ratio with KAJ - .192 (would be ranked 3rd out 18)

So huge difference in their ability to play defense without fouling as well.

Overall scoring efficiency of teams against them?

Opponent TS% without KAJ - 51.2% (would be ranked 15th out of 18)
Opponent TS% with KAJ - 48.2% (would be ranked 1st in the league)

Massive difference in TS% of opponents.

Turnovers forced without KAJ - 18/game (ranked last)
Turnovers forced with KAJ - 16.8/game (ranked last)

I did not have TO numbers for two games (weren't legible on the boxscore), so did not include those two (so this is the without average from 15 games, not 17). But the TO numbers did not seem to change much without him. But overall, Bucks were the worst team in the league at forcing turnovers, and that primarily falls on the guards and forwards.

"But ppg with/without is same!" The reason there is no change in ppg allowed with and without KAJ is because Bucks played a lot slower with him out for some reason. Bucks opponents took 86.9 FGA/23.4 FTA when he was out and 94.1 FGA/23.3 FTA when he was in (turnovers/game basically the same).

I mean when you isolate the stats, it appears KAJ seems to be making a big difference but in that thread a poster tried to estimate d-rating with/without and the difference was like -1 or something (but IDK...that seems wrong to me).

[Baller2014]

Adding Oscar turned the Bucks from good to all time great. They hlwent from a 4 srs to a 12! Also look at Kareem's career and his best scoring years are with Oscar. Oscar's impact is constantly understated with the Bucks.

And his last two years with Milwaukee Oscar was more like Noscar (shout out to the AD fans). In his second season in Milwaukee they were 50-14 with him and 13-5 without him. That's the difference between 59 and 64 wins so its a little easy to imagine that a better Oscar the previous season was the main catalyst for the 56 to 66 win improvement.

Look at how much Milwaukee fell off as Oscar fell off even though Kareem was improving. They went from 59 wins to 38 wins (35-30 when Kareem played - or 44 wins over 82 games) after Oscar retired.

I'm sorry, but this is a false narrative. You call the Bucks "good" before Oscar arrived. They won 56 games in 1970, good for the 2nd best record and 2nd best SRS. That's not merely "good", that's "if the Knicks didn't exist, the Bucks win the title". They were a legit contender. Then Kareem obviously improved after his rookie year, it would be strange if he didn't, and the with/without record (as you admit) pegs the Oscar-less Bucks over the next 4 years as a 60 win team. Clearly the Bucks were awesome without Oscar. 60 wins is awesome. Sure, Oscar made them better, nobody denied that, but to act like Kareem needed Oscar to make his team great is clearly false. Indeed, the Knicks were worse the following year and got eliminated by the Bullets in the playoffs, meaning the Bucks would likely have won the title without Oscar anyway.

The 1975 season is commonly used as a way to try and prop up Oscar, where fans say "oh look, Oscar left and the Bucks got worse!" Like you say, Kareem was hurt, and the injury obviously didn't just affect him for the games he missed. More to the point, Kareem had demanded a trade right after the finals loss the previous year, because Milwaukee didn't meet his "cultural needs", and I think he had lost interest in helping the Bucks that year, between the injury and his desire to leave. I don't think it's fair to be too harsh on Kareem for this, because he had stayed in Milwaukee for over 5 years, and brought them a title, and it was racist to not allow players to become free agents. Forcing a trade was the only option players had back then.

You say "look at how much the Bucks fell off as Oscar did!" but that's not true at all. Oscar was getting worse (and playing less) every season with the Bucks (in 71 Oscar played 39mpg over 81 games and put up 19-8-6 on 496 FG%, and the next 3 seasons Oscar played 64, 73 and 70 games, and his minutes and stats fell each year until in 74 when he was putting up 13-6-4 on 438. FG%), and yet they were still a 60 win team the last two years with a notably worse Oscar (and won 63 and 66 the two years before that), so the idea the team was experiencing a large decline as Oscar did doesn't stack up at all. Sure, they were better with him, but he was riding Kareem's coat tails, not the other way around. The Bucks would have been a 56-60 win team without Oscar anyway.

In not saying Oscar was the best player in the team but it's obvious they would've never won without him. Again sure they were second in wins in 70 but the difference between that 56 win team and that 66 win team is massive. Again they had a 12 SRS followed by a 10. The two best teams ever in point differential by far at that time. That was the impact of Oscar and it's easy to say that Kareem would've never win without him. I think you're underating those Oscar/Kareem squads and not realizing how much better they were than anyone else and they should've at least won twice as good as they were.

EDIT: Also the Bucks before Oscar and after Oscar aren't comparable. 56 to 66 wins is a major leap even though its only 10 games just like 59 to 64 is a major leap. 60 win teams aren't uncommon (there's one every year) but 65 win teams don't come very often (there's been one of those in the last 5 years).

Except Oscar wasn't the only variably the next season... Kareem also got better. He was a rookie, it would have been strange if he hadn't improved, and all he stats tell us he did too. He then kept the team at a 60 win pace without Oscar, and even as Oscar declined further the team was still basically shrugging their shoulders, winning 60 games, and narrowly losing 7 game finals series.

The Bucks almost certainly would have won in 1971 without Oscar. They would have been a 60 win team (even 56 wins would have been good for the top seed) without him, and the team who had knocked them out the previous year had dropped off a little, and was eliminated by the Bullets in the playoffs. It's absurd to think the Bucks team who won 56 games the previous year, and had improved as Kareem had improved, would be unable to beat the Unseld Bullets.

[ThaRegul8r]

I'm sorry, but this is a false narrative. You call the Bucks "good" before Oscar arrived. They won 56 games in 1970, good for the 2nd best record and 2nd best SRS. That's not merely "good", that's "if the Knicks didn't exist, the Bucks win the title". They were a legit contender. Then Kareem obviously improved after his rookie year, it would be strange if he didn't, and the with/without record (as you admit) pegs the Oscar-less Bucks over the next 4 years as a 60 win team. Clearly the Bucks were awesome without Oscar. 60 wins is awesome. Sure, Oscar made them better, nobody denied that, but to act like Kareem needed Oscar to make his team great is clearly false. Indeed, the Knicks were worse the following year and got eliminated by the Bullets in the playoffs, meaning the Bucks would likely have won the title without Oscar anyway.

The 1975 season is commonly used as a way to try and prop up Oscar, where fans say "oh look, Oscar left and the Bucks got worse!" Like you say, Kareem was hurt, and the injury obviously didn't just affect him for the games he missed. More to the point, Kareem had demanded a trade right after the finals loss the previous year, because Milwaukee didn't meet his "cultural needs", and I think he had lost interest in helping the Bucks that year, between the injury and his desire to leave. I don't think it's fair to be too harsh on Kareem for this, because he had stayed in Milwaukee for over 5 years, and brought them a title, and it was racist to not allow players to become free agents. Forcing a trade was the only option players had back then.

You say "look at how much the Bucks fell off as Oscar did!" but that's not true at all. Oscar was getting worse (and playing less) every season with the Bucks (in 71 Oscar played 39mpg over 81 games and put up 19-8-6 on 496 FG%, and the next 3 seasons Oscar played 64, 73 and 70 games, and his minutes and stats fell each year until in 74 when he was putting up 13-6-4 on 438. FG%), and yet they were still a 60 win team the last two years with a notably worse Oscar (and won 63 and 66 the two years before that), so the idea the team was experiencing a large decline as Oscar did doesn't stack up at all. Sure, they were better with him, but he was riding Kareem's coat tails, not the other way around. The Bucks would have been a 56-60 win team without Oscar anyway.

In not saying Oscar was the best player in the team but it's obvious they would've never won without him. Again sure they were second in wins in 70 but the difference between that 56 win team and that 66 win team is massive. Again they had a 12 SRS followed by a 10. The two best teams ever in point differential by far at that time. That was the impact of Oscar and it's easy to say that Kareem would've never win without him. I think you're underating those Oscar/Kareem squads and not realizing how much better they were than anyone else and they should've at least won twice as good as they were.

EDIT: Also the Bucks before Oscar and after Oscar aren't comparable. 56 to 66 wins is a major leap even though its only 10 games just like 59 to 64 is a major leap. 60 win teams aren't uncommon (there's one every year) but 65 win teams don't come very often (there's been one of those in the last 5 years).

Except Oscar wasn't the only variably the next season... Kareem also got better. He was a rookie, it would have been strange if he hadn't improved, and all he stats tell us he did too. He then kept the team at a 60 win pace without Oscar, and even as Oscar declined further the team was still basically shrugging their shoulders, winning 60 games, and narrowly losing 7 game finals series.

The Bucks almost certainly would have won in 1971 without Oscar. They would have been a 60 win team (even 56 wins would have been good for the top seed) without him, and the team who had knocked them out the previous year had dropped off a little, and was eliminated by the Bullets in the playoffs. It's absurd to think the Bucks team who won 56 games the previous year, and had improved as Kareem had improved, would be unable to beat the Unseld Bullets.

I really hate this mindset that has arisen since the 90's in which basketball fans view the game as a competition between teammates rather than the opposing team. Oscar was important to the team. Kareem himself has never denied this, and since I'm working on Kareem now, during the '70-71 season, Kareem said:

Alcindor himself is not unwilling to acknowledge that he received help in winning the MVP award. He talks about the acquisition of Oscar Robertson:

“Having Oscar with us this year has helped me a lot. I don’t have to worry about our getting the ball downcourt any more, I don’t have to worry about the ball not being there when I get open and people don’t expect me to do everything for the team. I just have the utmost confidence in his ability.”

No, that doesn't take anything away from Kareem. But as you're only eager to get Kareem voted in and thus are focusing your arguments to that end, you see Oscar as an obstacle to be overcome in order for your guy to get in where you want him. "It was all Oscar!" and "Oscar wasn't important and they didn't need him at all to win!" are BOTH false dichotomies and its annoying that people can't do better than that.

[Mutnt]

My vote for the #2 spot goes to: Kareem Abdul Jabbar

Read everything on here and I'm siding with Kareem. I'll add my reasoning sometime tomorrow when I'll have the time, you can consider this a placehodler till then.

[E-Balla]

over 82 games) after Oscar retired.
I'm sorry, but this is a false narrative. You call the Bucks "good" before Oscar arrived. They won 56 games in 1970, good for the 2nd best record and 2nd best SRS. That's not merely "good", that's "if the Knicks didn't exist, the Bucks win the title". They were a legit contender. Then Kareem obviously improved after his rookie year, it would be strange if he didn't, and the with/without record (as you admit) pegs the Oscar-less Bucks over the next 4 years as a 60 win team. Clearly the Bucks were awesome without Oscar. 60 wins is awesome. Sure, Oscar made them better, nobody denied that, but to act like Kareem needed Oscar to make his team great is clearly false. Indeed, the Knicks were worse the following year and got eliminated by the Bullets in the playoffs, meaning the Bucks would likely have won the title without Oscar anyway.

The 1975 season is commonly used as a way to try and prop up Oscar, where fans say "oh look, Oscar left and the Bucks got worse!" Like you say, Kareem was hurt, and the injury obviously didn't just affect him for the games he missed. More to the point, Kareem had demanded a trade right after the finals loss the previous year, because Milwaukee didn't meet his "cultural needs", and I think he had lost interest in helping the Bucks that year, between the injury and his desire to leave. I don't think it's fair to be too harsh on Kareem for this, because he had stayed in Milwaukee for over 5 years, and brought them a title, and it was racist to not allow players to become free agents. Forcing a trade was the only option players had back then.

You say "look at how much the Bucks fell off as Oscar did!" but that's not true at all. Oscar was getting worse (and playing less) every season with the Bucks (in 71 Oscar played 39mpg over 81 games and put up 19-8-6 on 496 FG%, and the next 3 seasons Oscar played 64, 73 and 70 games, and his minutes and stats fell each year until in 74 when he was putting up 13-6-4 on 438. FG%), and yet they were still a 60 win team the last two years with a notably worse Oscar (and won 63 and 66 the two years before that), so the idea the team was experiencing a large decline as Oscar did doesn't stack up at all. Sure, they were better with him, but he was riding Kareem's coat tails, not the other way around. The Bucks would have been a 56-60 win team without Oscar anyway.

In not saying Oscar was the best player in the team but it's obvious they would've never won without him. Again sure they were second in wins in 70 but the difference between that 56 win team and that 66 win team is massive. Again they had a 12 SRS followed by a 10. The two best teams ever in point differential by far at that time. That was the impact of Oscar and it's easy to say that Kareem would've never win without him. I think you're underating those Oscar/Kareem squads and not realizing how much better they were than anyone else and they should've at least won twice as good as they were.

EDIT: Also the Bucks before Oscar and after Oscar aren't comparable. 56 to 66 wins is a major leap even though its only 10 games just like 59 to 64 is a major leap. 60 win teams aren't uncommon (there's one every year) but 65 win teams don't come very often (there's been one of those in the last 5 years).

Except Oscar wasn't the only variably the next season... Kareem also got better. He was a rookie, it would have been strange if he hadn't improved, and all he stats tell us he did too. He then kept the team at a 60 win pace without Oscar, and even as Oscar declined further the team was still basically shrugging their shoulders, winning 60 games, and narrowly losing 7 game finals series.

The Bucks almost certainly would have won in 1971 without Oscar. They would have been a 60 win team (even 56 wins would have been good for the top seed) without him, and the team who had knocked them out the previous year had dropped off a little, and was eliminated by the Bullets in the playoffs. It's absurd to think the Bucks team who won 56 games the previous year, and had improved as Kareem had improved, would be unable to beat the Unseld Bullets.

Kareem improved but he was help tremendously by Oscar and if you look at his scoring with an without Oscar. His first 2 years with Oscar are his only 2 scoring titles and he shot 60.5 TS those years while scoring 28.4 per 36. Those two seasons are way better than any of his other seasons scoring wise and I believe he wouldn't have produced that well without Oscar. The same could be said for the rest of the team too.