1971 Kareem vs 1994 Hakeem

[tsherkin]

You can make a Hakeem > Kareem argument on the basis of defense. Most won't agree, and it would have to be peak Hakeem, but it's not laughable.

Still, to actually sell it... Kareem was a monster offensively throughout his career. Shaq-like efficiency, big volume, big minutes, he was a boss. It's tough to look at him at the peak of his FTR and with some of his best athleticism and go 'keem here.

[MisterWestside]

Of course I'd read posts in this thread that uses the infallible SIO stat as a defense for someone in a better player comparison.

To the OP, Hakeem has the defensive edge over Kareem, but Kareem was a spry defensive presence in his heyday while being the better offensive player. While Hakeem is one of the game's best players, Kareem's my pick here.

[Johnlac1]

Lol at oscar being the best player on the bucks.

As for this thread Kareem, but it's close

I'm probably the biggest Oscar booster on this forum, but KAJ was the prime player on that team. However, without Oscar it's doubtful the Bucks would have won the title. The previous year they were still in the eastern conference and got whipped by the Knicks in the playoffs. With Oscar running things, they blitzed the league. The Bucks were definitely the best team that year, but they did have a little luck against the Lakers as West missed the whole series with an injury. The Bucks had won the regular season against the Lakers, but with West an upset was possible as the Lakers had a strong team.

[lorak]

But DavidStern come on you're ruining your credibility by saying Oscar was better than Kareem at that point. Offensive numbers, defensive eye test with what little we have, it's one of the clearest cases of 1 and 2 in history.

I watched everything there is with early 70s Bucks, I analyzed the data and Oscar > KAJ in 1971 and 1972 is the only logical conclusion. Later seasons are different story, because injuries and age didn't help Oscar. But in 1971 and 1972 seasons he was definitely no 1 Bucks player. If you guys disagree, then tell why using different things than box score stats ("scoring bias") or opinions/accolades.

[ceiling raiser]

But DavidStern come on you're ruining your credibility by saying Oscar was better than Kareem at that point. Offensive numbers, defensive eye test with what little we have, it's one of the clearest cases of 1 and 2 in history.

I watched everything there is with early 70s Bucks, I analyzed the data and Oscar > KAJ in 1971 and 1972 is the only logical conclusion. In later seasons is a little bit different story, because injuries and age didn't help Oscar. But in 1971 and 1973 seasons he was definitely no 1 Bucks player. If you guys disagree, then tell why using different things than box score stats ("scoring bias") or opinions/accolades.

Interesting stuff. Just wondering, what percent credit would you give KAJ/Oscar/rest for offense and defense (six numbers total)?

[aol4532]

Kareem was way way way better offensively than Hakeem ever was.

At worst, Kareem in 1971 was 3rd-4th best player ever.

He was by far the best player on one of the winningest teams ever.

I love Hakeem, but it's not really close.

Hakeem is a better offensive player than Kareem. Kareem's 71 numbers were pre-merger, so better use his 77 year instead. Even after the merger, he didn't have to face anyone like Zo, Shaq, Mutombo, Robinson, Ewing(basically, his numbers were inflated by both average talent and talent at his position, Hakeem > Kareem, on both sides of the ball.

[DQuinn1575]

If you guys disagree, then tell why using different things than box score stats ("scoring bias") or opinions/accolades.

What is there other than opinions or stats?

I think I can say that generally most people think Jabbar was better than Oscar when they were in Milwaukee.

So I think the onus is on you to make your case that 1971-1972 Oscar was better than 1971-1972 Jabbar.

You can use any argument you wish; I am interested in your point of view.

[DQuinn1575]

[Hakeem is a better offensive player than Kareem. Kareem's 71 numbers were pre-merger, so better use his 77 year instead. Even after the merger, he didn't have to face anyone like Zo, Shaq, Mutombo, Robinson, Ewing(basically, his numbers were inflated by both average talent and talent at his position, Hakeem > Kareem, on both sides of the ball

The thread was 1971, not 1977. People who saw Kareem at the end of his career dont realize how great he was.
I'm the same way with Oscar Robertson.

In 1971 you got Thurmond, Wilt, Reed, Cowens, Unseld, Lanier - they match up pretty well with any group.

The ABA centers he didnt get to face? well the best were Mel Daniels, Zelmo Beaty, and Dan Issel. The big difference between the leagues was at the center position.

In 1994, Hakeem was 33rd in the league in rebounding %; Jabbar was 5th - for years in question- CLEAR EDGE TO JABBAR

Kareem led league in scoring while being 2nd in field goal % that year
The best Hakeem ever shot from the field was 53.8% - Kareem bettered that 15 times
The most Hakeem ever scored 27.8 ppg - Kareem did it multiple time - scoring CLEAR EDGE TO JABBAR

1974 was first year blocks were kept - Kareem was 4th, Hakeem was 3rd in 1994 - Hakeem was 1st team all defense, but Kareem was 2nd- for defense you can give AN EDGE TO HAKEEM

Assists were pretty even, but Kareem was a better dribbler and ball handler. EDGE TO KAREEM

[MisterWestside]

I watched everything there is with early 70s Bucks, I analyzed the data and Oscar > KAJ in 1971 and 1972 is the only logical conclusion. Later seasons are different story, because injuries and age didn't help Oscar. But in 1971 and 1972 seasons he was definitely no 1 Bucks player. If you guys disagree, then tell why using different things than box score stats ("scoring bias") or opinions/accolades.

How much actual game footage of the early '70s Bucks is out there? A couple whole games, if at that? With some random highlight videos? Even with access to PBP, Synergy, and SportsVU analytics to use as aid, it's hard enough to figure things out in today's basketball from watching a full season's worth of games.

And going after people that use box score stats for this conclusion while then using your stat as the be-all end-all (SIO) is just as flawed. Analysts don't even do that with xRAPM, and those stats still don't say who the better player is, per se.

[Johnlac1]

Although he was slowed a bit by age and injuries his last 3-4 years in the league, Robertson was still a great player at least his first two years in Milwaukee. He clearly sublimated his game to win a title. If they had wanted another five ppg out of Oscar in the '70'-71 season, he could have easily done so. The next season he was still a great player when healthy, but he started to be beset by muscle pulls in his thighs and stomach. Pulled muscles severely limited him in the '72 playoff series against the Lakers. He played much of his last season, '74, with a torn groin muscle. The Bucks still took Boston to seven games in the finals before losing.

But KAJ was the main player, make no mistake about that. Without him the Bucks would have finished around .500. His rookie year he took Milwaukee from 27 wins the previous season to 56 his rookie year and the eastern division finals. He needed Oscar to win the title, and that's what happened. But there's no way Oscar would have had the same impact on the Bucks by himself as did KAJ.

His rookie year he was without a doubt the best big man in the league. Russell had retired, Chamberlain was still great but not as formidable. The other great centers, Reed and Thurmond were still formidable but getting old or suffering injuries. It would be another seven years before another big man, Bill Walton, would present a decent challenge to him as best big in the league.

[O_6]

I'm just going to compare their overall primes before getting into just these two seasons. Both guys entered the league at 22 and around the age of 34 both guys were out of their prime imo (although Kareem had a much better post-35 career). These are their RS numbers from their first season (age 22) to their 13th season (34).

Player ------ Pace --- PPG -- Pts/100 --- TS% ---- eFG% --- AST% --- FTr --- ORtg --- OWS --- G
Kareem ---- 107.0 --- 27.8 -- 26.0 ------- .590 ---- .558 ---- 15.9 ---- .330 -- 116 ----- 141.9 -- 1011
Hakeem ---- 97.9 ---- 24.2 -- 24.7 ------- .558 ---- .516 ---- 12.4 ---- .370 -- 109 ----- 61.4 ---- 978

Kareem was just a far superior offensive player to Hakeem if we're talking about their entire primes. The difference between a .590 TS% and .558 TS% is massive. To put that into perspective, LeBron's career TS% is .580 and Melo has a .547 TS% for his career. That .033 difference might not look huge, but it's the difference between LeBron getting love for being amazingly efficient and Carmelo getting hate for being a bit of an inefficient chucker. Kareem has virtually the same edge in efficiency over Hakeem that LeBron has had over Melo, just think about that.

And despite this monster edge in scoring efficiency, Kareem was still scoring at a slightly higher volume than Hakeem even adjusted for pace. And not only was Kareem a far more efficient scorer, he was also the far better passer for most of their careers. It took Hakeem until like 1993 to improve his passing to the levels necessary to be a truly dominant offensive force on a consistent basis, Kareem had that down since he was a rookie. As an offensive anchor over the course of their entire primes, Kareem has a massive edge over Hakeem. Maybe not as massive as the 141.9 to 61.4 Offensive Win Shares comparison indicates, but massive nonetheless.

Hakeem has a clear edge over Kareem in terms of defensive value, he was simply more agile and aggressive on D. But Kareem was no slouch on D, he was a very good if not great defender himself. He didn't impact games on that end at the same level as Hakeem, but he was an awesome rim protector who did make his presence felt. As obvious as this defensive edge is for Hakeem over their primes, I do not believe it is nearly great enough to make up for Kareem's massive edge as an offensive cornerstone. This is why I'd never rank Hakeem over Kareem in an all-time list that takes into account career value, not just peak value. Even if Hakeem's game always rose a level in the playoffs, the difference between them in the RS is too large and Kareem's PS resume is plenty solid.

But from '93-'95, Hakeem's offensive game peaked while his defensive game was still at a legendary level (although it was tailing off slightly in '95). I really think it starts with his passing, he was so much better at it in '94 than he was in the early 90s that it was far easier to run your offense through him in '94. He averaged a 16.4 AST% in the '94 RS and 20.4 AST% in the playoffs, this after averaging a 9.4 AST% in the RS from '85-'92. Once his passing greatly improved and his low post game hit another level in '93, Hakeem became a Championship-caliber offensive cornertstone for the first time in his career.

Don't get it twisted, '94 Hakeem still wasn't as good of an offensive player as peak Kareem but he was close enough imo. I'd rank '93-'95 Hakeem ahead of any 3 year stretch in Kareem's career because of that extra offensive gear Hakeem found these years, and '94 was maybe the peak of Hakeem's offensive and defensive prime overlapping. '71 was probably the best start-to-finish season of Kareem's career but I don't think I'd take this season over Hakeem's '94 because of the extra offensive level Hakeem was able to reach in the playoffs while maintaining a defensive impact that was far superior to what Kareem could provide. I think Kareem's '77 and '80 seasons provide a better argument vs. Hakeem's '94 because Kareem played better in the playoffs those years than in '71, but I'd still take Hakeem because of his D.

I think peak Hakeem has a tiny edge on peak Kareem due to the damn near historic two-way impact he provided in '94, but I still think Kareem has a clear edge in terms of overall career value.

[aol4532]

Can't just use his pre-merger numbers, otherwise, Oscar is better than Magic. Is there a reason why Kareem's minutes dropped by 7 the 1st year of the merger, even though he had no injuries?

[Brooklyn_34]

Hakeem is a better offensive player than Kareem. Kareem's 71 numbers were pre-merger, so better use his 77 year instead. Even after the merger, he didn't have to face anyone like Zo, Shaq, Mutombo, Robinson, Ewing(basically, his numbers were inflated by both average talent and talent at his position, Hakeem > Kareem, on both sides of the ball.

HUH??

[RayBan-Sematra]

Why are people saying Kareem is better offensively?
Look at their playoff stats.

Hakeem : 28.9ppg on 57%TS /// 20.4 AST%
Kareem : 26.6ppg on 55%TS /// 9.0 AST%

Hakeem scored more on better efficiency and the playmaking gap is absolutely gigantic.

Hakeem was more important and valuable to his team. He was the leader and the one running things.
Oscar probably wasn't better then Kareem individually but he was the leader of that Milwaukee team and he was the one running the offense.
Oscar took pressure off Kareem both physically & mentally and he set Kareem up on offense perfectly like Magic did in the 80's which boosted his effectiveness.
I think Kareem benefited significantly more from Oscar's presence then Hakeem did from Drexler's.

[G35]

I'm just going to compare their overall primes before getting into just these two seasons. Both guys entered the league at 22 and around the age of 34 both guys were out of their prime imo (although Kareem had a much better post-35 career). These are their RS numbers from their first season (age 22) to their 13th season (34).

Player ------ Pace --- PPG -- Pts/100 --- TS% ---- eFG% --- AST% --- FTr --- ORtg --- OWS --- G
Kareem ---- 107.0 --- 27.8 -- 26.0 ------- .590 ---- .558 ---- 15.9 ---- .330 -- 116 ----- 141.9 -- 1011
Hakeem ---- 97.9 ---- 24.2 -- 24.7 ------- .558 ---- .516 ---- 12.4 ---- .370 -- 109 ----- 61.4 ---- 978

Kareem was just a far superior offensive player to Hakeem if we're talking about their entire primes. The difference between a .590 TS% and .558 TS% is massive. To put that into perspective, LeBron's career TS% is .580 and Melo has a .547 TS% for his career. That .033 difference might not look huge, but it's the difference between LeBron getting love for being amazingly efficient and Carmelo getting hate for being a bit of an inefficient chucker. Kareem has virtually the same edge in efficiency over Hakeem that LeBron has had over Melo, just think about that.

And despite this monster edge in scoring efficiency, Kareem was still scoring at a slightly higher volume than Hakeem even adjusted for pace. And not only was Kareem a far more efficient scorer, he was also the far better passer for most of their careers. It took Hakeem until like 1993 to improve his passing to the levels necessary to be a truly dominant offensive force on a consistent basis, Kareem had that down since he was a rookie. As an offensive anchor over the course of their entire primes, Kareem has a massive edge over Hakeem. Maybe not as massive as the 141.9 to 61.4 Offensive Win Shares comparison indicates, but massive nonetheless.

Hakeem has a clear edge over Kareem in terms of defensive value, he was simply more agile and aggressive on D. But Kareem was no slouch on D, he was a very good if not great defender himself. He didn't impact games on that end at the same level as Hakeem, but he was an awesome rim protector who did make his presence felt. As obvious as this defensive edge is for Hakeem over their primes, I do not believe it is nearly great enough to make up for Kareem's massive edge as an offensive cornerstone. This is why I'd never rank Hakeem over Kareem in an all-time list that takes into account career value, not just peak value. Even if Hakeem's game always rose a level in the playoffs, the difference between them in the RS is too large and Kareem's PS resume is plenty solid.

But from '93-'95, Hakeem's offensive game peaked while his defensive game was still at a legendary level (although it was tailing off slightly in '95). I really think it starts with his passing, he was so much better at it in '94 than he was in the early 90s that it was far easier to run your offense through him in '94. He averaged a 16.4 AST% in the '94 RS and 20.4 AST% in the playoffs, this after averaging a 9.4 AST% in the RS from '85-'92. Once his passing greatly improved and his low post game hit another level in '93, Hakeem became a Championship-caliber offensive cornertstone for the first time in his career.

Don't get it twisted, '94 Hakeem still wasn't as good of an offensive player as peak Kareem but he was close enough imo. I'd rank '93-'95 Hakeem ahead of any 3 year stretch in Kareem's career because of that extra offensive gear Hakeem found these years, and '94 was maybe the peak of Hakeem's offensive and defensive prime overlapping. '71 was probably the best start-to-finish season of Kareem's career but I don't think I'd take this season over Hakeem's '94 because of the extra offensive level Hakeem was able to reach in the playoffs while maintaining a defensive impact that was far superior to what Kareem could provide. I think Kareem's '77 and '80 seasons provide a better argument vs. Hakeem's '94 because Kareem played better in the playoffs those years than in '71, but I'd still take Hakeem because of his D.

I think peak Hakeem has a tiny edge on peak Kareem due to the damn near historic two-way impact he provided in '94, but I still think Kareem has a clear edge in terms of overall career value.

Great write-up particularly about Kareem's defense. People make it seem as if Kareem was not good on defense at all if he wasn't as good as Russell or Hakeem. He was damn good on defense particularly for all the offensive load he carried.....

[O_6]

I love Hakeem and think at his peak his unique blend of offense and defense is legendary and worthy of the respect that this board gives it.

But I think people go overboard when it comes to Hakeem and just looking at playoff stats...

1971 vs. 1994... Regular season...

Player --- PPG --- TS% --- AST% -- TRB% --- PER --- WS
Kareem -- 29.0 -- .606 -- 12.2% -- 18.9% --- 29.0 -- 22.3
Hakeem -- 27.3 -- .565 -- 16.4% -- 16.2% --- 25.3 -- 14.3

Kareem had a superior regular season. Yes he had a much better team than Hakeem including the great Oscar Robertson, but he was still the best player on the team (disagree with DStern here) and was dominating the league. Hakeem was great and his high degree of difficulty style makes him more fun to watch, but Kareem had a more consistent scoring game in the regular season and not even '94 Hakeem was as consistently dominant offensively as peak Kareem.

But yes, Hakeem had a more individually dominant playoff run than Kareem had. But Kareem still managed to put up 27/17/3 in the playoffs on a .548 TS% while leading his team to an insane 12-2 record in the playoffs that included 11 double digit wins! So even though Kareem's individual performance dipped a little in the '71 playoffs and was less impressive than the one man Dream show in '94, his team was absolutely dominant in the playoffs and he was the main reason why. And in the '71 Finals he put up 27/19/3 on a preposterous .634 TS% in a 4 game sweep.

I said above that I'd take '94 Hakeem over '71 Kareem and I stand by that. But I do think Kareem's offense was superior to even '94 Dream's even if Hakeem had the better playoff run.

And if you just want to look at playoff runs only like a lot of people seem to do when talking about Hakeem, let's not forget Kareem's '77 (35/18/4 on .646 TS%) and '80 (32/12/3 on .611 TS% + Title) playoff runs where he was absurdly dominant. This isn't a guy like David Robinson who never put together a legendary individual playoff run.

[Owly]

Why are people saying Kareem is better offensively?
Look at their playoff stats.

Hakeem : 28.9ppg on 57%TS /// 20.4 AST%
Kareem : 26.6ppg on 55%TS /// 9.0 AST%

Hakeem scored more on better efficiency and the playmaking gap is absolutely gigantic.

Hakeem was more important and valuable to his team. He was the leader and the one running things.
Oscar probably wasn't better then Kareem individually but he was the leader of that Milwaukee team and he was the one running the offense.
Oscar took pressure off Kareem both physically & mentally and he set Kareem up on offense perfectly like Magic did in the 80's which boosted his effectiveness.
I think Kareem benefited significantly more from Oscar's presence then Hakeem did from Drexler's.

Because
1) People don't weigh players exclusively on the playoffs. Many may not weight it substantially at all. Especially if looking at a single season, where a small sample size can be substantially affected by injuries, matchups, coaching, luck and factors other than player ability.
2) Your numbers fail to note than all three of Jabbars center matchups were Hall of Famers, including the two best defensive centers in the league at the time. For comparison Hakeem played Portland (some sort of Dudley, Mark Bryant and maybe Clifford Robinson combo), Phoenix (Oliver Miller and Joe Kleine), Utah (Felton Spencer and some none center(s)) and finally New York (Ewing, Mason). I'll be blunt one of those sets of matchups is not like the others. Other than the finals the only notable defender Olajuwon faced was part-timer Chris Dudley.
3) Because Jabbar's regular season is so much better.

Also

Player value is contextual. Hakeem needed to be surrounded with shooter-defenders. So yes Hakeem was very valuable to a team designed to maximise his value. As to being the one "running the offense" that's the pg's job, isn't a measure of value and fwiw was run by Kenny Smith who was rigidly following Rudy T's instructions.

I've never understood why people just look at the top the roster. Yeah the Big O was more valuable than the second most valuable Rocket. But after the top 3 Milwaukee look a bit thin. The next 4 are okay rotation players but hardly special. Houston had many good defenders (Maxwell, Elie, Horry, Thorpe with Herrera, Cassell and Brooks also being positives at that end) many good shooters (Smith, Brooks, Elie, Bullard, Horry (for position) whilst Maxwell was more willing than able- partially a function of shot selection more than than being unable to make open threes). So the teammate gap isn't as large as it might intially seem. The other reason you might say Olajuwon was more valuable is Milwaukee won so much more, so if each was worth say fifteen wins Houston looks average and Milwaukee still look good, so Olajuwon's value seems better, is more easily summarised (e.g."he's the difference between and average/mediocre team and a contender". But they would have contributed the same amount. So even to the extent Jabbars teammates were better/more valuable, does their betterness account for all of the 7.27 SRS advantage in the regular season, or the 14.5 to 3.130434783 playoff margin of victory advantage (better by 11.36956522).

[lorak]

If you guys disagree, then tell why using different things than box score stats ("scoring bias") or opinions/accolades.

What is there other than opinions or stats?

I think I can say that generally most people think Jabbar was better than Oscar when they were in Milwaukee.

So I think the onus is on you to make your case that 1971-1972 Oscar was better than 1971-1972 Jabbar.

You can use any argument you wish; I am interested in your point of view.

Ok, I will try to explain how I see it. Basic axiom in my evaluation of players is that box score tells only small part of the story about overall impact (however it has useful information about particular aspects of the game). It obviously underrates players with defensive impact, but also offensive playmakers (assists are probably the worst stat ever). And the more back in time we go, the less information we have (for example lack of TOV, BLK or STL) and we also are dealing with different rules or even with different scorekeepers methods of crediting individual statistics.

So in order to see whole picture I look at how given player changes team performance and I’m doing so by looking at how team played when player joined/left team, when missed games or how his +/- (mostly on/off and RAPM) stats look if they are available. Of course such approach is affected by a lot of noise and that’s why I try to look at other roster changes and if results in one season are consistent with data from other (for example if with/without data tells that superstar A is +5 SRS player in season X, and data from season two years after X says he was +4.5, then it’s very probable he really was ~+5 player during those 3 years).

Now lets look at how Bucks performance was changing during “KAJ’s era”:

Code: Select all

Season   SRS   KAJ MIN   Oscar MIN
1968-69   -5,07   0   0
1969-70   4,25   3534   0
1970-71   11,91   3288   3194
1971-72   10,7   3583   2390
1972-73   7,84   3254   2737
1973-74   7,61   3548   2477
1974-75   0,25   2747   0
1975-76   -1,56   0   0


1. from 1969 to 1970: +9.3 SRS

Really big improvement, but we can’t credit KAJ for all that. Bucks in 1969 were completely new organization, with rookie coach and 6 rookie players (not all of them played significant minutes, thought).
In 1970 they added not only KAJ, but also Dandridge and Crawford, limited minutes of Rodgers (who retired after 1970 season), lost Embry (retired after 1969) and Hetzel, increased minutes of Robinson, Chappell and Abdul-Aziz.

A lot of changes, so it’s difficult to tell what exactly was Alciondor’s impact that year, but considering what was Bucks roster that year (without KAJ it was definitely below average team, but not worse than in 1969) and their SRS it’s very probable KAJ’s impact was around +5.5 SRS (that means he would improve 41 wins team to 57.6 wins) or even +6.

2. from 1970 to 1971: +7.7 SRS

At first glance +7.7 seems like worse than +9.3, but keep in mind that it’s more difficult to make good team great, than bad team good. So in fact +7.7 improvement in 1971 was bigger than +9.3 in 1970.
The biggest change was of course addition of Oscar. Other than that Bucks added Boozer (1800 minutes) and Allen (1200 minutes), while lost Robinson, Abdul-Aziz, Crawford and Chappell.

KAJ definitely improved, but how much it was because of Oscar? IMO a lot. I mean, KAJ wasn’t like typical modern rookies after 1 year of NCAA. He spent 4 years at UCLA and was NBA ready player when he entered the league (similar story to Duncan in 1998). Sure, over time in NBA he improved different aspects of his game, but anyone is able to tell what exactly he improved in the summer of 1970? Because I think he didn’t improve a lot (FT% is one of the main things he did), and his high FG% was in big part result of playing with Oscar - it’s not coincidence that later, when Oscar was limited by injuries and finally retired, KAJ’s FG% was worse and worse until 1977, so when he hit his peak:

Code: Select all

year   FG%   Oscar MIN
1970   51,8   0
1971   57,7   3194
1972   57,4   2390
1973   55,4   2737
1974   53,9   2477
1975   51,3   0
1976   52,9   0


1971 and 1972 are two years, when I think Oscar was still in his prime and was better than KAJ. In 1973 Robertson wasn’t as good anymore (his FG% kind of confirms that as in 1973 he had career low FG% and even worse result in 1974), because of injuries he suffered in 1972 (he missed most of the second half of that season and was injured in the playoffs). So IMO it clearly indicates how much Oscar helped KAJ – without Robertson Jabbar’s FG% was only slightly better than during his rookie year and while injury in 1975 might explain part of it, there’s no injury explanation in 1976. Besides KAJ’s FG% skyrocket in two years, when Oscar was in his prime and then steadily decreased as Oscar was worse and worse and finally was gone.

I credit Oscar for most of Bucks improvement that year (it was ~+9.9 SRS over average team) and that means he was around +7.5 or +8 SRS player that year, while KAJ around +6.5, maybe even +7 (keep in mind that’s basically the same, what people say in Elgee’s project, where 7 posters posted their estimations and on average KAJ was +7 player according to them.

3. from 1971 to 1972: -1.2 SRS

Changes: added Perry (1500 minutes), Block (1500), Jones (1000), lost Boozer (1800 previous year), increased minutes of Allen (to 2300) and decreased McGlocklin (to 2200), Smith (to 700) and of course Oscar, who was injured and played 800 less minutes than previous year.

Robertson’s injury gives us really good information about his impact and it’s consistent with what we have seen in 1971. With him in 1972 Bucks were 11.9 SRS team, without 7.1, so that means he improved average (41 wins) team by about +7.1 SRS. So another year which indicates Oscar was at least +7 SRS player. Jabbar was also close to that value, but IMO slightly worse (Oscar helped KAJ more, than the other way around – for example remember paragraph about KAJ’s FG%). Of course if we want to describe impact in total value then KAJ was better that year (because of Oscar’s injury), but per game value Robertson was still better.

4. 1972 to 1973: -2.9 SRS

No major changes.

First year when KAJ was better than Oscar. After injures in 1972 Robertson never again was as good player as before (and as I said – FG% is one of the indicators of that), but still quite impactfull. Fun facts: KAJ missed 6 games that year and Bucks won them all (and overall were 8-0 without KAJ during Oscar’s time in Milwaukee), while in 9 games Robertson missed they were 7-2 (and 9-3 in 1974).

I think there’s no need to discuss that year in deep or 1974 season, as It was last Oscar’s year and he was shell of his former self. But I will point out one more thing, because maybe some people think I’m underrating KAJ, when I’m saying that he was +6.5 SRS player in 1971.

Jabbar missed 17 games in 1975 and 21 in 1978. If we compare SRS with him ( 4.5 in 1978, 1.4 in 1975) to without (-1.7 in 1978, -4.2 in 1975) and adjust for improvement over average (41 W) team, then his impact was +4.0 in 1975 and +5.5 in 1978 (and when we would do the same for Bucks 1975 with KAJ vs 1976 Bucks, then Jabbar’s impact is +3.3). Just food for though.

Bootom line is:

- Oscar’s high impact is confirmed by how much Bucks improved or how they played when he was injured in 1972 and also by how much he helped Royals (I didn’t talk about it, but I will say just one thing: during his career in Cinny, he missed 54 games and Royals won only 12 of them, so 22.2 WIN%. With him they were 54.4 WIN% team and that includes several games when he was injured or played only 2 minutes because of injury). So there’s no doubt that prime Oscar’s (and his prime was from 1961 to 1972) impact was indeed in +7 to +8 SRS range.

- KAJ’s is a little bit overrated, data (when he joined Bucks, when he left them, when he missed games in 1975 and 1978) didn’t confirm he was +7 or better player. +6 to +6.5 SRS – that’s his value during Bucks years.

[JordansBulls]

Why are people saying Kareem is better offensively?
Look at their playoff stats.

Hakeem : 28.9ppg on 57%TS /// 20.4 AST%
Kareem : 26.6ppg on 55%TS /// 9.0 AST%

Hakeem scored more on better efficiency and the playmaking gap is absolutely gigantic.

Hakeem was more important and valuable to his team. He was the leader and the one running things.
Oscar probably wasn't better then Kareem individually but he was the leader of that Milwaukee team and he was the one running the offense.
Oscar took pressure off Kareem both physically & mentally and he set Kareem up on offense perfectly like Magic did in the 80's which boosted his effectiveness.
I think Kareem benefited significantly more from Oscar's presence then Hakeem did from Drexler's.

Because Kareem led the league in scoring while while Hakeem did not.

[DQuinn1575]

[quote="DavidStern"][

1971 and 1972 are two years, when I think Oscar was still in his prime and was better than KAJ.

Robertson’s injury gives us really good information about his impact and it’s consistent with what we have seen in 1971. With him in 1972 Bucks were 11.9 SRS team, without 7.1, so that means he improved average (41 wins) team by about +7.1 SRS. So another year which indicates Oscar was at least +7 SRS player.

Jabbar missed 17 games in 1975 and 21 in 1978. If we compare SRS with him ( 4.5 in 1978, 1.4 in 1975) to without (-1.7 in 1978, -4.2 in 1975) and adjust for improvement over average (41 W) team, then his impact was +4.0 in 1975 and +5.5 in 1978
- quote]

Thanks for the reply
First I'm new on this board so I don't get the math
Oscar 11.9 -7.1 = 7.1 a positive 2.3 added?
KAJ 4.5 - -1.7 = 4.0 a negative 3.9?

Oscar was still a very good player when he went to the Bucks, but not the player he was.
This was when I started watching basketball; if Oscar was still at his peak in 1971 then he is very overrated.

The Royals went from -2 with Oscar to -3 without him the next year. That makes him +1.
After 8 years of scoring 28-31 ppg, Oscar scored 24.7 and 25.3 ppg on .500 teams.
He declined starting in 1969, the last year he made 1st team All-NBA.


If you say he was 7 points better than average in his prime, I won't argue.
If you think he was better than Jabbar in his prime, that is debatable - I see both sides.

If you think he was better than Jabbar in 1971, no.



Kareem was a better player in 1971 than 1970-
partly because of Oscar Robertson, but
he rebounded better (higher average, and pace, team fga, and team missed fg were all down)
he improved his ft%
he got a whole season with the dunk back - he couldn't for two years and it took a little to get used to being able to do that again.
So his scoring got better has he had a better touch, and got more offensive boards.


Dandridge got a lot more minutes in 1971; part of the team's improvement was due to that.

The Bucks with Jabbar did not have a decent point guard before or after Oscar. He suffered as a result. It shows in the stats. Jabbar led the team in assists in 1975, Dandridge was 2nd.