HeartBreakKid wrote:Mikan being "only 2 years removed" from Russell's is thrice the amount of time between Russell's and Kareem's.
Other than that, the whole "What does that say about how dominant a big man could be in that era" also apply to Kareem, considering that he had amazing stats, and most of the centers he competed against were scrubs or undersized?
I also don't understand why Mikan keeps being mentioned. The strawman of "if you rank Russell high you have to rank Mikan high" makes no sense, because we are not allowed to rank Mikan at all. If Mikan was eligible, then that hypothetical statement would be more relevant, but I see people continuously prop it up.
Mikan played in the nba and based on the way I read the op he is eligible for ranking
GC Pantalones wrote:Sure he was the best player on those championship teams but was he the leader over Oscar? Magic? Individually he's over these two but I definetly trust him less to be able to bring a team a championship.
I just want to focus on this. One of the most annoying things I see is when people post about how they're picking a guy because he had "killer instinct" or "leadership" or "the edge". Most of this stuff is virtually impossible for us as fans to really determine. What I do know about Oscar and Kareem is that Kareem turned the Bucks into a 56 win team as a rookie with no Oscar at all. I also know, and stats confirm, that Kareem got better in his 2nd and 3rd seasons. In the 40 games that (past his prime) Oscar missed in his 4 year tenure with the Bucks, they were 30-10 (a 60 win pace). I also know Oscar's stats steadily dropped on the Bucks and his role was more limited. To me, it looks like Kareem was the guy doing all the heavy lifting, and that a past his prime Oscar rode his coat tails to victory. The years the Bucks lost, they tended to lose to incredibly stacked teams. In Kareem's rookie year they lost to a Knicks team who was even stronger than they'd been the previous year (when they posted 54 wins and the best SRS in the NBA). Kareem put up 35-17-5 that playoffs, on insane FG%. He wasn't to blame for their loss, nor was he the other years in Milwaukee. The other teams were just better.
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.
My vote goes to either Kareem or Wilt... Right now I didnt decide between the tho, but tomorrow I try to figure my vote.
Heej wrote: These no calls on LeBron are crazy. A lot of stars got foul calls to protect them. falcolombardi wrote: Come playoffs 18 lebron beats any version of jordan AEnigma wrote: Jordan is not as smart a help defender as Kidd
GC Pantalones wrote: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.
The questions he raises are legitimate about questioning ranking players based on championships, team impact in era, accolades, WS and PER etc.
It's the truth imo and shouldn't be ignored because it disagrees with long held, media influenced paradigms (like ranking players on rings etc.).
Every new Top 100 project should challenge old beliefs with fresh perspectives and arguments, it's what makes things interesting imo. People should create new lists based on new arguments and evidence ideally.
Well, feel free to vote for him, it will not count.
If you wanted George Mikan eligible, then you should have spoke up during the the developmental process. I certainly wanted pre shot clock era basketball to be eligible, but people here don't seem interested in broadening their horizons to that extent.
Fair enough, although not voting for him, just using his example to point out the flaws in ranking based on rings, resume/accolades, WS and PER.
Personally I rank based on who the best actual player is and prefer watching players, team support/competition/rule analysis and statistical analysis while understanding the proper context of those stats.
Hmm? The Mikan argument has very little to do with team success. The Mikan argument has to do with Value placed on longevity, value placed on possessions without a shot clock, and value placed on athleticism and level of completion. Using Mikan as a reason to discredit team success just wouldn't work, because quite frankly, his longevity just doesn't stack up regardless
Baller2014 wrote:2 days seems plenty. As long as the plurality votes get more. On that note, of all 5 candidates you named, only Kareem is going to be viable for the #2 spot, so in the interests of ensuring the winner has a majority I'd recommend voting for Kareem. I hope Russell voters who have someone else first (like Oscar) will do the same thing, because whoever wins it will be a shame if they win on a plurality.
I would certainly hope not, at this spot or any other. I can't speak for everyone, but I'm far more interested in the conversation than the actual results. Whether there is a plurality or majority makes no difference.
If there's going to be strategic or agenda-based voting, I'm not sure how interested I'd be in continuing to participate in the project.
I co-sign this. If people are going to be allowed to try and form voting cabals in the interest of manipulating the list to their liking then I'm way less interested in participating as well.
ThunderBolt wrote:I’m going to let some of you in on a little secret I learned on realgm. If you don’t like a thread, not only do you not have to comment but you don’t even have to open it and read it. You’re welcome.
KAJ is really the only other candidate for me as well. And I'll admit some of the posts in this thread are quite compelling for his case here.
But I'm not bothered even one little bit that Russell isn't a great offensive player. I still think he's better in that regard than he's given credit for and I think he's being punished for the modern emphasis on efficiency that simply wasn't nearly the priority in his era and certainly wasn't the priority for his specific team.
I'm not going to go into any more depth here since the case has already been made for Bill.
ThunderBolt wrote:I’m going to let some of you in on a little secret I learned on realgm. If you don’t like a thread, not only do you not have to comment but you don’t even have to open it and read it. You’re welcome.
After reading all these great arguments, it really is an incredibly tough decision, but I'm going with Bill Russell as my #2, therefore sticking to my top 3 as it was before the project has started. Kareem's longevity is by far the best, but his level of play isn't that far ahead (if at all) of the other three GOAT centers like Hakeem, Shaq and Wilt - Russell kind of goes in a different category, because of how different his role was, due to his skillset, compared to the other four greatest centers - I'll just say that Russell's career was individually (team-wise it was as well, but that's not what is important for me when I evaluate individual players) basically flawless - other than his really mediocre scoring ability, he was as complete of a player as you could ask for, while KAJ had a few playoff series when he clearly could've played better. He's not an almost perfect player like Jordan is, thus I can't just assume that he's like a "lesser version" of Mike in terms of his level of play on both ends of the court, and deserves to be #2 because of that. Russell's physical and mental superiority and his defensive impact (which was something very special and like i've said before, I'm not going to use the argument that it wouldn't 100% translate to today's game, because as someone rightly pointed out in the thread about the #1 GOAT, you can't choose when you're born and what opposition you play against - you can just beat them - well, that's exactly what Russell did, a lot...) clearly makes him look like the GOAT defender, and even though I think there may a few more guys with better offense/defense ratio (that is, much better offensively than Russ, and still great defensively - ironically, Kareem seems like one), there's also another important thing for me - how well a player took advantage of his possibilities? That's where Russell clearly pulls ahead, compared to Kareem (Jordan and Magic seem like the only guys who would have an argument against Bill in this regard).
Anyway, I could see the top 3 going basically in any order - I think #4 is where the project will really get incredibly interesting, because it doesn't seem like there's any kind of consensus about it, as opposed to the top 3. I feel like we're going to have some heated debates there - I'm going to argue Hakeem as #4 (as I basically view him as a worse offensively, better defensively, and better in the playoffs, with worse longevity, version of Kareem), ardee is going to argue that it should be Wilt, MacGill for Shaq, Magic will also definitely have a lot of backers (he was #4 on the list back in 2011, #4 on the recent PC Board straw poll, GB straw poll than I ran...), although personally, I have him much lower, at #8, so it'll definitely be a GREAT debate. In my mind though, Johnson seems like a clear favorite to receive the most votes.
Honestly, I think that whoever loses this comparison here, should automatically get voted as #3, as it seems that there's no other option for #3 - almost everyone has either Russell or Abdul-Jabbar as their #3.
Had him and Kareem virtually tied for #2 at the start of this (maybe Kareem a little ahead), but I've been convinced to switch their positions.
Everything I could say has been said yet, so... not a lot of text this time, lol.
90sAllDecade wrote:I'll focus on your other points later, but only looking at the video, If you notice Bill jumps and lays the ball up from about a foot in from the free throw line. In comparison Ibaka, who isn't as tall or athletic as David Robinson or Javale McGee imo, dunks from the free throw line itself. (listening to the commentary, Serge also had an MRI on a bad ankle two days earlier)
Granted, it's a dunk contest vs a game, but I think you can get the idea that some athletic modern centers can do similar things to that Russell highlight video.
It's not only a dunk contest vs a game (you don't get tired in a dunk contest, so stronger hops), you also have to consider the conditions Russell was playing in. Bad floor, unconfortable shoes, etc.
Despite this, Russell landed below the backboard just fine. Shorter jump? Yes, but he laid the ball straight up, and could have tried to dunk it if he pleased. And remember the other factors. Despite the miss, this seems a better comparison:
I'd say Russell still runs the court quicker, though.
This place is a cesspool of mindless ineptitude, mental decrepitude, and intellectual lassitude. I refuse to be sucked any deeper into this whirlpool of groupthink sewage. My opinions have been expressed. I'm going to go take a shower.
Baller2014 wrote:2 days seems plenty. As long as the plurality votes get more. On that note, of all 5 candidates you named, only Kareem is going to be viable for the #2 spot, so in the interests of ensuring the winner has a majority I'd recommend voting for Kareem. I hope Russell voters who have someone else first (like Oscar) will do the same thing, because whoever wins it will be a shame if they win on a plurality.
I would certainly hope not, at this spot or any other. I can't speak for everyone, but I'm far more interested in the conversation than the actual results. Whether there is a plurality or majority makes no difference.
If there's going to be strategic or agenda-based voting, I'm not sure how interested I'd be in continuing to participate in the project.
I co-sign this. If people are going to be allowed to try and form voting cabals in the interest of manipulating the list to their liking then I'm way less interested in participating as well.
Make it three (at least)- if you're going to manipulate the vote then I am out.
This is going to be Russell again for me, and I'll be voting Wilt in thread 3. But fwiw, I'll do a breakdown of why I think Russell has the edge over Kareem here.
For starters, I have Kareem at 4: so he is really close. Ridiculously good player, kicked ass for 20 solid years, great peak, very successful, all that. So it's going to sound like I'm splitting hairs, but bare with me, because at this level it's all really close.
Russell IMO is the definition of a 'global impact' player. He has his fingers in everything. This is due to the 'QB of the defense' role he plays, like KG. He does for defenders what a guy like Nash or Magic does for offensive players. By understanding that Russell can rotate over and help, or protect the rim behind them, his presence changes a lot of things for defenders and makes things much easier, the same way a skip pass from Magic to a big leads to an easy layup.
This impact obviously reaches the opponent as well. When a guy can move like that, and cover that much floor-space so quickly, it's psychologically a burden on the opponent, who's going to know that it's almost impossible to take a shot without Russell challenging it somehow. When Russell is on the floor, he is having an effect on all nine other players (obviously it's good for his teammates and bad for the opponents).
Now, Kareem, as good as he was, I think is more of an individual impact player. The main strength of his game is to score, and score efficiently as hell. I think this contrast first became apparent to me when I was watching whatever is available of the 1977 WCF, Lakers vs. Blazers. Kareem was obviously the better player than Walton but at the same time Walton seemed to be involved in dictating how the game was played more. It's no fault of Kareem, he's so darned good at what he does, he should just continue doing it the same way.
Kareem is extremely likely to win you a game by just scoring 45 on 60% shooting, hitting multiple skyhooks and being unstoppable. But Russell can win you a game by completely changing the way the opposition offense is forced to operate. It's a different way but given the results it led to for Russ, I don't think anyone can argue with how good the way he impacted a game was.
I think the 1969 Playoffs is the best example of how great Russell was.
The degree of difficulty for what he did that year was ridiculous. The Celtics that year are probably similar to the 2010-12 Celtics. Just really old, tired and broken down. Sam Jones was fading, and fast. Satch Sanders, Bob Cousy, Bill Sharman, they were all gone. He was left with the corpse of Jones, Hondo, and then a few guys like Larry Siegfried and Baily Howell.
Hondo was good, no doubt, but he's kinda overrated. He wasn't really a skilled creator, and relied a lot on spotting up. Jones was at times a primary creator for the Cs but he just wasn't enough of a threat anymore to handle that at all times. This shows in the Cs ORtg, which was 10th out of 14th in the regular season.
Come the Playoffs, Russ just turned everything upside down. At 35, to have that other level to go to... It's just out of this world. That team should've lost in the first round honestly, but it was Russ completely dominating the paint against the Sixers, and making Reed his son against the Knicks that got them to the Finals.
And then, like I spoke about in the earlier thread, the almost mythological clash in the Finals where Russ faced his three greatest rivals united.. To come out on top like that is insane.
Now just imagine, '69 was probably his 10th or 11th best season. I honestly think the impact he had during '61-'65 can't be quantified, props to ElGee and fplii for trying though.
During his prime, Hondo wasn't even at this AS level he was at in '69. That team really had very few ideas on offense, a lot of the times it was all on Jones. Russell just broke the rules about how good defense could be and turned the game upside down. The NBA was simply not ready for him.
I think he should've gone no. 1 for his ridiculous impact, so I'm going to vote for him here. As great as Kareem (and Wilt) are, I don't see these kind of achievements. This utter domination to the extent that pretty much any odds can be overcome. They're great, unbelievably so, but I personally think Jordan and Russell should always be no. 1 and 2 in some order.
fpliii wrote:I would certainly hope not, at this spot or any other. I can't speak for everyone, but I'm far more interested in the conversation than the actual results. Whether there is a plurality or majority makes no difference.
If there's going to be strategic or agenda-based voting, I'm not sure how interested I'd be in continuing to participate in the project.
I co-sign this. If people are going to be allowed to try and form voting cabals in the interest of manipulating the list to their liking then I'm way less interested in participating as well.
Make it three (at least)- if you're going to manipulate the vote then I am out.
Yea it sets a bad precedent for the project, if you're encouraging people to alter their vote, rather than to vote honestly for who they belive should hold the position.
Guys, Baller has made two rule comments . . . both of which were discussed in the rules thread and explained in the OP thread for each vote here. But since they are coming up again, let me repeat them here:
(1) No one wins on a plurality. If after two days, there is no majority vote winner, I cut to the two top vote getters and hold a run off thread open for 1 day to decide which of those 2 should be the selection so you don't need to gameplay your votes. Vote for your best player; if he isn't a popular choice, you will still have a chance as long as you check in once a day.
(2) Because most posters wanted Mikan included this time (he's the only player that I think is a favorite for the list whose main accomplishments are pre-shot clock NBA), I opened it up to the entire history of the NBA. I cut it at the start of the NBA rather than including BAA, NBL, and other pre-NBA leagues fairly arbitrarily for ease of explanation so we wouldn't have a lot of confusion about what years are included. NBA/ABA in, all else not.
Thanks
“Most people use statistics like a drunk man uses a lamppost; more for support than illumination,” Andrew Lang.
Baller2014 wrote:2 days seems plenty. As long as the plurality votes get more. On that note, of all 5 candidates you named, only Kareem is going to be viable for the #2 spot, so in the interests of ensuring the winner has a majority I'd recommend voting for Kareem. I hope Russell voters who have someone else first (like Oscar) will do the same thing, because whoever wins it will be a shame if they win on a plurality.
I would certainly hope not, at this spot or any other. I can't speak for everyone, but I'm far more interested in the conversation than the actual results. Whether there is a plurality or majority makes no difference.
If there's going to be strategic or agenda-based voting, I'm not sure how interested I'd be in continuing to participate in the project.
I co-sign this. If people are going to be allowed to try and form voting cabals in the interest of manipulating the list to their liking then I'm way less interested in participating as well.
Not sure why this poster keeps pushing for the voting system to go a specific way here......maybe we are all characters in the series Boss?
Look as pointed out already....there is no universal list of placement here as each poster values different aspects of the game and individual player. The whole premise is great discussion and information, opinion and retrospect to be shared. If you want to influence...do it in your counter arguments and allow poster's to be swayed in that manner. There is no right or wrong here ultimately....as all can see about my open opinion of KAJ and next I will be in the Magic/Shaq section of the ride
If we were looking to unionize the votes we would just send the requests to Doc and let him organize as he sees fit.
ElGee wrote:realbig3's points have been making me think of something that I don't think I've seen brought up a lot.
Let's say you think Russell's peak defensive impact is worth 7 points. Even 8. And you look around the landscape today and don't see anybody over 4 or 5 on defense alone. (Personally, this is in line with my evaluations.) Consider that this is per game. And Russell's teams played a lot of possessions. Like, 20-25% more than we see today. Which means, on a per-possession basis, Russell would really be closer to a +6 today.
Well in Russell's time a guy by the name of Wilt averaged 28 and 28 against Russell's teams while he averaged 34 and 24 vs the rest of the league. Put it this way do you think Peak Shaq would get those numbers against say Joakim Noah? So even if Russell was the best defender ever, let's not make it out where it was much greater than anyone else because there is no way anyone would get those numbers vs a Noah nowadays even if Peak Shaq or Wilt were in the league.
"Talent wins games, but teamwork and intelligence wins championships." - Michael Jordan
KAJ is the GOAT because of his combination of peak performance and GOAT longevity against the greatest competition any player has ever faced. Also the different teammates, pecking orders, systems, coaches, and mini-eras he dominated or contributed to his team's success.
So Mr. Alcindor comes in wrecking the league. GOAT rookie, on par with prime Jerry West himself coming off an epic Finals MVP win. He murders the 1970 league MVP peak Willis Reed in the playoffs, but the Knicks are a machine with Debusschere and Frazier and beat MIL.
71, he gets prime Oscar and they win a title together. One of the most impressive 2-year stretches in history was the 1971-1972 Bucks. Expansion era I know, but they did what they were supposed to do. 60+ wins, ridiculous SRS, only losing in '72 to another GOAT team candidate.
A Wilt Chamberlain whose efforts are mainly focused on defense does a good job slowing 3rd-year KAJ in 1972 in the playoffs. That said, he didn't outplay KAJ. His offensive responsibility was far greater than WIlt's especially since Oscar Robertson was hurt in that series. KAJ was forced to shoulder an insane amount of offense, taking like 33 shots per game. You're percentages will fall when you need to shoot that much against an elite defender. KAJ still outscored Wilt 202-67 on the series. He had 37 points, 25 rebounds, and 8 assists in the closeout game 6 and shot 16-36 from the field. Wilt is hailed as a hero for slowing KAJ down, but they weren't in equal circumstances. KAJ could not have done more to help his team win save morph into a player who would be the guaranteed GOAT by all.
Nate Thurmond, the GOAT low post man defender, slowed KAJ in 1973 (Oscar is really in decline now). This is the last time Jabbar is really neutralized in any sense.
1974 is basically LBJ in 2009. He was clearly a champion. Probably his best year ever defensively and averaged 32 PPG and 5 APG in the playoffs on 55 percent shooting. MIL had the best SRS in the league and went 7 vs. Boston. KAJ torched an amazing defensive frontcourt of Dave Cowens and Paul Silas.
He moves to LA, and for the next 5 seasons, he essentially either has poor talent around him or incredibly mismatched talent (CoughDantleyCough). I'll quote TrueLAfan from the '79 RPOY thread here:
TrueLAfan wrote:This is another strange year, and, again, I think I'm going to be going against the grain in some of these choices. But I was watching, and I've got my reasons...although I'm curious to hear what others have to say that isn't necessarily statistically related.
1. Kareem. Suffered from voter fatigue, and a misapprehension about his team. The Lakers were a good team. On paper. This is exactly what Adrian Dantley did for the Lakers in 1978 and 1979.
--Kept Jamaal Wilkes from playing at his natural position of SF. --Held onto the ball too long, and didn't pass out (especially to perimeter players). --Often set up in the low post, forcing Kareem to change his game. --Absolutely, positively, did not play D. Uh-uh.
All of this meant that the Lakers were...troubled, shall we say. Kareem was his usual self in many ways; 24 points and 13 boards a game (from now on, Kareem is going to be a great rebounder). He averaged over 5 assists a game and a hair under 4 blocks. I blame Dantley for 80% of the team's underperforming; he was a team wrecker. (The lousy bench, poor D other than Kareem, and lack of quality at SG...that hurt too.) The Lakers had zero chemistry (and they'd had plenty in, say, 1977). Jerry West (the coach at the time) had this to say. “This team has averaged 48 wins over the past three seasons, and I'll tell you what. I don't care if he's at the top of his game, past it or underneath it—without Kareem we don't beat anybody. This team just doesn't complement him at all.” (They still made it to the conference semis in two of those years, losing to eventual champs both times.)
Big laffs for me...Sports Illustrated referring to Don Ford as a “defensive” player. Don Ford couldn't guard my grandmother, and she can't go left.
TrueLAfan wrote:Again, a chunk of the problem with the Lakers rebounding this year can be traced to … Adrian Dantley. By playing at SF, he pushed Wilkes to PF. Right there, that took away Kareem’s advantages in rebounding. At a Reb % of 17.6, Kareem grabbed about 100-125 more rebounds that an “average” C with a Reb Rate of 16.0. But with Wilkes at PF combined with Don Ford—one of the worst starters I’ve ever seen—the Lakers got 1219 rebounds out of their starting SF and PF positions … a combined Reb % of 21.3. That’s bad. You should get about 23 to 23.5% of rebounds from those positions. That meant the Lakers gave back Kareem’s extra rebounds. And most of the rest of the team—Lou Hudson (who I loved, but was shot by 1979), Ron Boone, Norm Nixon—were really bad rebounders. When West points out that the Lakers didn’t compliment Kareem well, he’s right. Kareem's scoring took a hit because his usage dropped so much...14% to be exact. That's more than his socring drop, even adjusted per minute. Why did Kareem's usage drop? Because the team had added a player who took as many shots per mintue as Cap, held the ball too long, and caused a disruption to the offense that was much more obvious when you were watching than it is in the box scores (although when you know about it, the statistical evidence is there too.) Put it this way...who do you think should be leading the team in usage? The five time MVP with the best halfcourt move in the history of basketball, or the second year player who forced a starter to play out of position? Guess which player led the Lakers in usage?
I should add this...maybe Kareem should have said something publically. I have the feeling, based on what West said at the time and since, that it was brought up to and known by coaching and management. The problems with the team (and Dantley, in particualr) were not a mystery. But should Kareem have put his foot down? Would that have helped the situation? Would it have helped the team? It’s hard to say. It was a different time, and players operated differently with the media in terms of asserting power and having their reputations established. I have the feeling that if Elvin Hayes had had a microphone in his face as often as, say, Allen Iverson has/had, he’d have a very different legacy. But, all in all, I can’t fault Kareem for this. I think he’s naturally taciturn, and I think West didn’t want to play up the mistake in picking up Dantley. But, for me, that doesn’t affect Kareem’s value. And I think it should be noted that when Dantley got his wish and went to a team that allowed him free rein on offense, he never got his team to as many wins as the Lakers did in a season of disruption where there was great parity in the league.
Nevermind that the man obliterated one of the GOAT defensive frontcourts in Bill Walton/Mo Lucas in the '77 WCF with literally **** players around him, while Coach Ramsay's Blazers were a Spurs-like machine.
We get to 1980, where his GOAT-esque season and playoffs is overshadowed by arguably the GOAT performance on the last game of the season by his teammate, Earvin Johnson. KAJ would have been REG SEA MVP and Finals MVP if the voters weren't idiots. KAJ was definitely the lead dog on that team.
1981...outrebounds Moses Malone in a 3-game series. Outplays Moses Malone. He's still arguably the best player in the league.
1982...This is, in my opinion, his most impressive year so far. His team is oozing with talent, so the man tempers his scoring to allow LA to have five (5!) players average 16.7 PPG in the playoffs. That's insane balance. KAJ protects the basket as LA plays an amazing trap D and runs over the league over the last half the season and through the playoffs.
1983...One of the best. Moses Malone dominates him on the glass in the NBA Finals, but KAJ's offensive output is amazing. Moses can't guard KAJ, but KAJ can guard Moses on his initial drives and postups. Moses' offensive rebounding hurts LA though.
1985...man wins Finals MVP 14 years after he won his first. That's a record. Does it against Bird/Parish/McHale. The man would have had at least 5 Finals MVPs if Oscar wasn't hurt in 1972, Richie Powers wasn't a douchebag in 1974, and voters weren't incompetent in 1980. Just my opinion.
The man continued to compete at a high level against some of the best frontcourt players ever. Was still contributing to title teams in his later years. Always a devastating scorer. Could hit free throws. Really no weakness.
Competition: The man faced Wilt Chamberlain, Nate Thurmond, Willis Reed, Dave Cowens (with Paul Silas), Bill Walton (with Mo Lucas), Wes Unseld (with Elvin Hayes), Artis Gilmore, Bob Lanier, Moses Malone, Robert Parish (with Bird/McHale/Walton), Akeem Olajuwon (with Ralph Sampson), Patrick Ewing, Bill Laimbeer (with Mahorn/Rodman), and Jack Sikma.
The only truly all-time great centers he never faced were George Mikan, Bill Russell, Shaq, David Robinson, Dwight Howard and Alonzo Mourning. He faced everybody else, pretty much all in their primes. Worst thing you could say was Kareem was outrebounded by peak Moses Malone in 1983 and stifled by GOAT man defender Nate Thurmond in 1973.
He whipped everybody else's ass. Kicked ass for 20 years. Contributed to winning teams no matter what. He was on great teams. He was on terrible teams. Nobody did more for his team in my opinion.
I'm seeing some questionable concerns about KAJ though. One is the lack of competition and playing in a weak era in the 70s. First off, questioning the 1970s as weak competition and using that to downplay a player is a weak argument (nevermind the fact that's it's false anyway).
His competition was staggering every year. He played in the Golden Era of the center position. The position was never deeper with All-NBA talent than in the 1970's. KAJ won those MVPs when matching up against these players for the majority of the time:
1970: Willis Reed, Wes Unseld, Elvin Hayes, 1971: Wilt Chamberlain, Willis Reed, Wes Unseld, Nate Thurmond, Elvin Hayes 1972: Wilt Chamberlain, Nate Thurmond, Dave Cowens, Wes Unseld, Elvin Hayes, Jerry Lucas (replacing an injured Reed at C for the Knicks), Bob Lanier 1973: Wilt Chamberlain, Nate Thurmond, Willis Reed/Jerry Lucas tandem at C, Bob Lanier, Wes Unseld, Elvin Hayes 1974: Dave Cowens, Bob Lanier, Bob McAdoo, Nate Thurmond, Wes Unseld, Elvin Hayes 1975: Dave Cowens, Bob McAdoo, Wes Unseld/Elvin Hayes, Bob Lanier 1976: Bob McAdoo, Bob Lanier, Dave Cowens, Wes Unseld/Elvin Hayes, 1977: Bill Walton, Artis Gilmore, Bob Lanier, Wes Unseld/Elvin Hayes, Bob McAdoo 1978: Bill Walton, Wes Unseld/Elvin Hayes, Moses Malone, Artis Gilmore, Bob Lanier, Dave Cowens, Bob McAdoo 1979: Moses Malone, Artis Gilmore, Wes Unseld/Elvin Hayes, Robert Parish, Bob Lanier, Jack Sikma 1980: Moses Malone, Wes Unseld/Elvin Hayes, Robert Parish, Jack Sikma
I left off down years or injury-plagued years of centers where they maybe played 40 games. This is incredible competition in an era where the offensive pivot and man-to-man defense in the post was a featured strategy.
You've got the best centers ever here. Peak Walton, prime Moses, NBA-prime Gilmore, McAdoo's godly peak, prime defensive force Wilt, the super frontcourt of Hayes/Unseld, GOAT man post defender in Thurmond. Lanier nearly every damn year. Cowens with Silas beside him. Peak Willis Reed. This doesn't even get into solid centers like Elmore Smith.
You've got variety. KAJ saw everybody. Faced frontcourt-led championship-caliber squads. Contenders: Wilt's Lakers, Reed's Knicks, Unseld/Hayes Bullets, Walton's Blazers. Cowen's Celtics. These were legit title contenders.
I don't want to downplay Bill Russell's competition, and I don't need to. But this is how I see it. Russell's competition until Wilt arrived wouldn't have made an ALL-NBA team at C in the 1970s. Best frontcourt player there was was Bob Pettit, and he was more of a PF (really the first prototype PF, like Karl Malone really). He wasn't a center.
You've got prime Wilt. Bellamy comes in in 1962. Thurmond becomes a starter in 1965. Prime Willis Reed after Bellamy thankfully was traded from NYK so Reed could flourish at C. Hayes and Unseld one year. Luke Jackson, Zelmo Beaty, and Wayne Embry were solid, though in my opinion a clear level below the great Cs of the 1970s. In my opinion, Lanier alone was better than Bellamy ever was. Not by much, but pretty clearly.
Russell faced Wilt, Thurmond, and Reed when they were on legit contenders, no doubt.
I would say Kareem faced greater competition consistently, and from the get-go. He was pushed into facing all-timers in the playoffs early in his career. Young guy facing Wilt and Thurmond and Reed in the playoffs. What great pivots was Russell's battling in his third year in the league? I honestly don't see any.
I'm not saying Russell's competition was weak in general. It just wasn't as good as KAJ's.
Now, as to KAJ being unable to control games without scoring. Watching Kareem, he basically combines the best attributes of Duncan's passing with the best attributes of Shaq's passing. He demands attention like Shaq and is creative with his passing (no-looks, over his head, stuff like that)...but Shaq only really makes passes from the low-post. Kareem, like Tim Duncan, is a legit passing threat from 15-17 feet and in because of his greater range. Duncan and KAJ are passing threats in more places. KAJ combines Duncan's threat as a passer in multiple spots with Shaq's attention-drawing and creativity. The guy routinely averaged 4 and 5 assists per game in the 1970s. He averaged over 3 for the majority of the 80s. All this despite playing with great ball-handlers like Magic, Big O, Norm Nixon, etc.
He's portable as well. He co-existed with James Worthy, who was primarily a slasher and mid-post guy, because of his range and basketball IQ. He has proven he can play with pretty much any player.
Pay no mind to the battles you've won It'll take a lot more than rage and muscle Open your heart and hands, my son Or you'll never make it over the river
ElGee wrote:realbig3's points have been making me think of something that I don't think I've seen brought up a lot.
Let's say you think Russell's peak defensive impact is worth 7 points. Even 8. And you look around the landscape today and don't see anybody over 4 or 5 on defense alone. (Personally, this is in line with my evaluations.) Consider that this is per game. And Russell's teams played a lot of possessions. Like, 20-25% more than we see today. Which means, on a per-possession basis, Russell would really be closer to a +6 today.
Well in Russell's time a guy by the name of Wilt averaged 28 and 28 against Russell's teams while he averaged 34 and 24 vs the rest of the league. Put it this way do you think Peak Shaq would get those numbers against say Joakim Noah? So even if Russell was the best defender ever, let's not make it out where it was much greater than anyone else because there is no way anyone would get those numbers vs a Noah nowadays even if Peak Shaq or Wilt were in the league.
No, but Shaq or even Dwight could get the pace/era adjusted equivalent against Noah (probably with a few less rebounds because Shaq wasn't the rebounder Wilt was and because lower fg% and less long shots/rebounds gave an advantage to the interior rebounders of the 60s). And, even when guarding Wilt, Russell still tended to play help defense more than most Wilt defenders, counting on his quickness to get back or interfere with a pass.
Doesn't mean he would do it, but I wouldn't be surprised if Dwight v. Noah ended up having similar pace/era adjusted per minute results.
“Most people use statistics like a drunk man uses a lamppost; more for support than illumination,” Andrew Lang.
Oh and also...since they started tracking defensive rebound rate in 1974, KAJ was top-10 in the category from 1974-1979. He was top-2 in blocks per game from 1974-1980. Averaged 3.5 blocks and 1.2 steals per game from 1974-1980.
The defensive ratings of his teams went like this:
1970: 6th out of 14 1971: 1st out of 17 1972: 1st out of 17 1973: 2nd out of 17 1974: 2nd out of 17 1975: 8th out of 18 1976: 13th out of 18 1977: 10th out of 22 1978: 11th out of 22 1979: 10th out of 22 1980: 9th out of 22
As you can see, any time KAJ simply has some stability and a good defensive forward next to him, he can lead a great defense in a league full of all-time great defensive centers. Obviously KAJ isn't Russell or Hakeem or KG or Robinson defensively, but he's still a great defensive player in his prime.
Just to add to the point about his competition...put 2009 Dwight, 2009 Yao, DPOY Marc Gasol, healthy Brook Lopez, 2014 Al Jefferson, DPOY Noah, and 2014 DeMarcus Cousins all in the league at the same time...that's basically the competition KAJ faced in the 1970s PER YEAR in terms of depth, and I still don't think that hits the high-end of his competition most years.
Pay no mind to the battles you've won It'll take a lot more than rage and muscle Open your heart and hands, my son Or you'll never make it over the river
As I've let beast no I'm traveling and will be for a while. Modern tech is awesome enough I can still post like this, but no fresh tomes from me right now.
Y'all saw my Arguments for Russ last thread, they stand. Congrats to Jordan on his win though. Truly a singular player. Doesn't bother me in the slightest to see him in the top spot again. Similarly if Kareem takes this one, how can you really mind? From HS to college to his epic career in the NBA, he never failed to astonish.
Finally congrats to us all for a great start to the flagship project of the season living up to its prior incarnations and then some. Tons if great posts from a wide variety of posters, and some returns from heavyweights we don't get to see very often any more. It's the best!
