1971 Kareem vs 1994 Hakeem

[G35]

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.

I think Oscar is as good as any the league has seen, arguably a top 10 player. But here are Cincinatti's SRS for Oscar's time there:

-3.04
1.28
1.24
4.43
2.04
1.03
-.23
-.64
-.83
-2.55

Without Oscar those Bucks were a 4.25. Now I do believe in chemistry and I don't think that you can plug and play with players on all time great teams. You can't just stick any PG on that team and recreate what that Bucks team did in 1971. But those Bucks teams were putting up SRS' that would be the best in today's NBA. This is when Oscar was at the end of his career. I would compare Oscar to the Shaq/Wade union in Miami where Shaq was a key player but everyone saw that Wade was clearly the better player. Shaq was productive but after 2006 he had a noticeable decline.

Oscar had a similar arc where he was productive but he was feeding off a young GOAT player at the time. You know how everyone says that Magic kept Kareem relevant, that's what Kareem did for Oscar. It seems like no one wants to give Kareem credit and it's always someone else setting him up or doing for him. But those two PG's Magic and Oscar never won any titles without Kareem. Those Bucks teams would still have been championship favorites without Oscar and had an up and coming PG to relieve some of the pressure. Kareem was not winning with all star teams around him.....

[MisterWestside]

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).

Of course, these numbers do not represent universal ability. They apply only to a player's impact on those particular rosters, and also rest on the assumptions that the player is always being put in the best position to succeed, and that his team is properly building around/implementing his skillset (a team that doesn't properly build around your skills doesn't imply that your skillset is flawed). And that's just about RAPM, which is a more informative stat than SIO (used here for Oscar and Kareem) since RAPM uses lineup data, unlike the approximated on/off stat of SIO.

Let't at least state these important disclaimers before touting the numbers as gospel.

[FuShengTHEGreat]

Slight edge to Olajuwon to me due to him shouldering more of a load at both ends of the floor than Kareem did in '71. In 93-94 he became the only player in NBA history to lead a playoff team in ALL 5 major statistical categories(pts, rebs, blks, stls AND asts) on the way to a title. And the only player that more than doubled up what his 2nd best scoring option averaged throughout the playoffs.

The assist part is remarkable to me because despite playing Center (typically/traditionally a Center needs guards to constantly feed him in the low post for scoring opportunities), he was generating most of the scoring opportunities for his teamates and not the other way around.

Kenny Smith was a mediocre PG in terms of playmaking and breaking down defences. And defensively he got flat out abused by KJ in the playoffs. MadMax was all over the place throughout that run.

I just don't think Kareem could've won a title with such an unbalanced team. Hakeem's mobility defensively was just something you'd never see of any other Center outside of Russell & DRob, and that possibly saved the Rockets from losses (gm6 Finals) and prevented sure baskets. That's the edge I give him.

[FuShengTHEGreat]

So the numbers prove Oscar was a better point guard than Flynn Robinson or Jon McGlocklin, who were the guards on the 70 team?

Kareem was by far the best player in the league in 1971.

In 1994, David Robinson got 24 MVP votes versus Hakeem's 66 votes, plus the best player in basketball was doing other things.

Yeah the same guy who didn't even have a better 92-93 season than Hakeem before he cowered out to the baseball diamond. I'm not sure why Hakeem at his peak would be overrawed by a guy that when he came back, got ousted by a team who's leading scorer/best player was a Center shooting a subpar %44 FG for the series.

Utah and Phoenix who were overall MUCH more talented than the 93/94 Houston Rockets at nearly every position outside of Hakeem and still lost those series, yet no one wants to give him credit for leading Houston to those series wins it seems.

[lorak]

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).

Of course, these numbers do not represent universal ability. They apply only to a player's impact on those particular rosters, and also rest on the assumptions that the player is always being put in the best position to succeed, and that his team is properly building around/implementing his skillset (a team that doesn't properly build around your skills doesn't imply that your skillset is flawed). And that's just about RAPM, which is a more informative stat than SIO (used here for Oscar and Kareem) since RAPM uses lineup data, unlike the approximated on/off stat of SIO.

Let't at least state these important disclaimers before touting the numbers as gospel.

Strawman.
Mabye instead, If you disagree with my evaluation of KAJ's and Oscar's impact, tell how (and WHY!) you see it.


ps
I din't use SIO (based on MOV), but something different and more accurate (based on SRS).

pps
In Oscar's and KAJ's cases it's not just one or two seasons, there are multiple years and all of them tell the same story.

[MisterWestside]

Strawman.
Mabye instead, If you disagree with my evaluation of KAJ's and Oscar's impact, tell how (and WHY!) you see it.

I didn't disagree with your evaluation of impact on those particular teams (although those numbers aren't set in stone, either). I take issue with your conclusion on who the better player was based on your evaluation.

For the record, for the entirety of their careers, I pick Kareem in a push. But it's based on several other factors besides what you did (a purely numbers-based approach that only accounts for impact), such as the player's overall skill and how I can use that skill. I will readily acknowledge that is isn't a clear-cut, objective process, so it's subject to change. I still also have to do more study on players from the '70s.

ps
I din't use SIO (based on MOV), but something different and more accurate (based on SRS).

Okay, I caught your paragraph where you used SRS and not MOV. Apologies.

That's still lower on the impact metrics chain than RAPM, though.

pps
In Oscar's and KAJ's cases it's not just one or two seasons, there are multiple years and all of them tell the same story.

See my first response.

[lorak]

Strawman.
Mabye instead, If you disagree with my evaluation of KAJ's and Oscar's impact, tell how (and WHY!) you see it.

I didn't disagree with your evaluation of impact on those particular teams (although those numbers aren't set in stone, either).

Sure, they aren't, but no one is claiming they are! it's rather how you see it, not how people who use it.

I take issue with your conclusion on who the better player was based on your evaluation.

So please, tell me how your eveluation looks in this case.

See my first response.

??
Could you elaborate? Because the biggest issue with +/- family approach is noise. That's why it's so important if results from one season are consitent with resuls from another. And the more years tell the same story, the more we can be confident in results. Why you disagree with that?

[MisterWestside]

Why you disagree with that?

I didn't. I'm even giving you the assumption that those numbers are true without error.

They don't say who the better player is. If you want to figure that out, you have to do a lot more work and be willing to think more abstractly instead of solely using impact numbers. Don't treat this like baseball, because even baseball's stats aren't global measurements of ability.

[lorak]

So again - who according to you was better player in 71+72 and why?

[MisterWestside]

I give Kareem the slight edge for his ability to get buckets for your team in the paint and on the boards, and also help your team defensively (at that age). Him and Oscar were on the same overall level, IMO.

[lorak]

That's all?! And you are the one who have talked about "a lot more work and be willing to think more abstractly"...

[SideshowBob]

snip

Hmm. Out of curiosity, would you then have his 60s years even higher than 7.5-8? Who else would you consider being on the same level (I know you've talked about having Oscar's peak above Magic's). I ask because I've spent far less time on him than on his contemporaries so it's always interesting to hear thoughts.

[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.

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

David Robinson led the league in scoring in 94.
Was he a better scorer or better offensive player then Hakeem?

The playoffs matter much more to me then the regular-season does especially when we are comparing two long playoff runs.

The fact is in the playoffs Hakeem performed at a much higher level then Kareem did.
I will always take the better playoff performer over the better regular-season performer.

[MisterWestside]

That's all?! And you are the one who have talked about "a lot more work and be willing to think more abstractly"...

Like I said above, it's 1) something I want to do more work on, and 2) subject to change, because skillsets and application of skillsets (especially as it relates to roster construction) is not something that you can fully capture ( or even mostly capture) in the numbers. You're not comparing Oscar to a scrub on the bench.

I have both players at around a 7-8 in global goodness.

[Johnlac1]

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.

David Robinson led the league in scoring in 94.
Was he a better scorer or better offensive player then Hakeem?

The playoffs matter much more to me then the regular-season does especially when we are comparing two long playoff runs.

The fact is in the playoffs Hakeem performed at a much higher level then Kareem did.
I will always take the better playoff performer over the better regular-season performer.

Really, I seem to remember KAJ playing extremely well in many playoffs. So I checked his playoff stats. And I was right. His only really subpar playoff performance in his prime was when he was held in check by Nate Thurmond during the '73 playoffs. Other than that, he had quite a few outstanding playoffs. He even had some good ones when he was in his late thirties and past his prime.

[RayBan-Sematra]

His only really subpar playoff performance in his prime was when he was held in check by Nate Thurmond during the '73 playoffs.

He struggled in 72 & 78 also.
That isn't the point though.

All I was trying to say is that 94 Hakeem performed much better offensively in the playoffs then 71 Kareem did.

[JordansBulls]

David Robinson led the league in scoring in 94.
Was he a better scorer or better offensive player then Hakeem?

Yes. But we are talking about Kareem and Hakeem here.

[lorak]

snip

Hmm. Out of curiosity, would you then have his 60s years even higher than 7.5-8?

Yes, probably, because that was end of his prime, so during his peak he was probably even better. But I'm not so sure about it as about 71+72, because his 60s seasons are more difficult to evaluate for me.

Who else would you consider being on the same level (I know you've talked about having Oscar's peak above Magic's).

Jordan, maybe Hakeem, maybe Magic after all (he's difficult to judge for me, so I often change opinion about him), maybe Bird, maybe LJ, maybe Shaq. (and definitely Walton if we are talking only about peaks.)