RealGM

So was Kareem Abdul-Jabbar a defensive anchor, or was he just a good defender? Why or why not?

This is not even a question, of course. The only times he ever failed to anchor a defense was in his late years with the Lakers when he was at an age where most big men are too shriveled up to even play basketball anymore.

Let's start with this, because this is how bast and I are approaching it elsewhere.

What, in your mind, constitutes a defensive anchor?

tsherkin wrote:Let's start with this, because this is how bast and I are approaching it elsewhere.

What, in your mind, constitutes a defensive anchor?

I'm gonna jump on this question just because I'm unable to sleep at this hour and it's actually a discussion of topic that has always itched the back of my mind (unless the question was intended for me originally, I dunno I'm dazed at my battle with insomnia right now). From what I'm assuming based on years of reading posts on this board, defensive anchor is the cut off line between being a good help defender/shot blocker and not being a good help defender/shot blocker. When someone says a player is capable of anchoring a defense, it already assumes that they are a good help defender/shot blocker. The syntax of being a defensive anchor is a lot more in depth than that but if I were to paraphrase it, that's how I would define it. When I say Kareem failed to anchor the Lakers' defense in his latter years of his career, it's because he was imo incapable of being a good help defender anymore due to his age.

Kareem was capable of being a defensive anchor, provided he had a guy to look up to, who would force Kareem to play defense. Oscar and Magic did that so Kareem played up to his potential. obviously when Magic arrived that potential was past his prime and he wasn't a great defensive anchor anymore, but with Oscar Kareem anchored some really nice defenses.

but whenever Kareem was supposed to be the leader of his team, his will to win and defensive intensity just wasn't good enough. he focused too much on offense and was often late in transition defense, on rotations etc. 75-79 is inexcusable for Kareem. he was in his prime, his teams were mostly average, and didn't seem to make impact when he changed teams or missed games.

I guess I could call Kareem a "defensive anchor" in '73 and '74 but other than that it's hard to make a case for him based on factual results. even his own peers: Unseld, Hayes, Cowens, Gilmore, DeBusschere, Lakers Wilt, Walton had clearly better results. you could make a case for Dr J and Bobby Jones as well. overall, Kareem's defense was too inconsistent, too often called out, to call him a great defensive anchor. he's like Shaq in that regard, as shocking as it may sound. numbers don't lie.

Good post, I'm not a numbers guy at all and I was born the same year Kareem retired, I'll admit my opinion on this matter is not as credible as yours and you have the actual facts (numbers) to back up your claim, but then again it may all go back to the definition of what constitutes a defensive anchor. The one wrench that really sends my thought process down into many forks here is Tyson Chandler, though I guess it's all based on your opinion of if you think he is a defensive anchor or not, which I personally do (though I'm a bit fearful the numbers don't support me here). It's hard for me to imagine that Kareem in his prime was a worse defender than Chandler, so would it be possible that a player can be a better defender than another is a defensive anchor? And if that's the case, is a defensive anchor measured by his personality the way Chandler infused his intensity into the Mavericks, or is it in ability?

Right now I'm really not arguing but openly pondering upon the subject, I hope that we could shed more light on this.

tsherkin wrote:Let's start with this, because this is how bast and I are approaching it elsewhere.

What, in your mind, constitutes a defensive anchor?

A big that substantially improves your team defense, primarily through help defense.

I think I would add elite relative to the league at rebounding

bastillon wrote:but whenever Kareem was supposed to be the leader of his team, his will to win and defensive intensity just wasn't good enough. he focused too much on offense and was often late in transition defense, on rotations etc. 75-79 is inexcusable for Kareem. he was in his prime, his teams were mostly average, and didn't seem to make impact when he changed teams or missed games.

This is just so wrong. I have certain issues with KAJ's defense as well, but your post was not fair at all.

I think I've seen you use ppg in games missed vs. games he played in as a reason why KAJ wasn't making impact, when that is about as incomplete of a measure you can use to base such strong opinions on.

Now how about we look at a) how the team peformed with/without him and b) the efficiency of opponents against the Bucks compared to when he played and when he didn't. The difference is massive.


In the 17 games Kareem missed in 1974:

Bucks were 3-14 without him, 35-30 with him. This is a team that had been together and making finals runs before hand. Granted they lost Oscar (though Oscar by '74 wasn't really that special), they also traded away Lucius Allen (someone Kareem loved playing with) for Jim Price (after the Bucks had started 1-9) which was a move criticized heavily around the league.

Bucks opponents shot 46.9% in games he missed and only 43.7% when he played. How big is this difference? The mark of 43.7% shooting by opponents would be the best in the league (just below Celtics who were at 43.8% opp FG%). While the 46.9% would be fifth worst in the league in terms of opp FG%. It should also be noted that Bucks attempted to focus on defense because of the problems they were having offensively without KAJ: http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=g- ... 47,4503292. So it seems the team had made a move to increase their effort defensively in that time, maybe slow down the game. They were ranked 2nd in the league defensively the year before when KAJ played 81 games and usually led the league in terms of opp FG% when KAJ would play even in seasons before that. So seems like when KAJ returned to the lineup in '75, that trend only continued.

In '76 he was traded to an aging team that was worst in the league defensively the year before (18th/18th). And despite them trading away major pieces of their core (including Elmore Smith...who led the league in blocks), and the roster aging a year further, they improved to 13th. And then a year later Kareem led them to the best record in the league as they were now above league average defensively (10th out of 22). The team fell apart due to injuries in the playoffs however.

In '78 and '79, you have to understand the makeup of the team. They had no power forward, usually Dantley or Wilkes would play it. Their backcourt was just TERRIBLE defensively (you can look up articles). Dantley especially would be getting benched in playoff games for his defense (and due to the fact he would never defensive rebound, instead would run up to cherry pick). They ran into a big mismatch in the Sonics (known at the time for having a big frontline) without a PF. And Gus Williams ended up destroying the Laker guards to the tune of 31 ppg in the '79 playoff series with recaps mentioning how Lakers backcourt was getting "lit up like it was the 4th of July". And despite all these shortcomings (poor perimeter defenders, no PF in a league/era where that position had finally become defined), the teams were STILL above average defensively.

When Kareem missed games in '78, they were 8-13 without him (7 of the 8 wins coming against non playoff teams btw, 4 of them against the two worst teams in each conference) and 37-24 with him. Looking at the way the team played in the second half of the season (28-13), with KAJ healthy and adjusted into the lineup, it's actually quite likely they end up with best record in the league again that season (they were on pace wins-wise to end up with the worst record in the conference when he missed games). Regarding '78 missed games, I don't have the missed box scores or I would look at how opponents shot with/without him in the lineup.

People speak to Magic's addition in '80, but the Lakers also filled major holes by fixing their perimeter defense (Cooper..commentators mention in many of the '80 Lakers games how big his addition was) and their PF sport (Chones/Haywood...commentators again in many games I've watched mention how big this was).

So where in all of this do you see KAJ not having a big impact when he missed games or changed teams? on his teams overall as well as defensively? On top of that you're saying he didn't separate himself from Gilmore defensively, when Gilmore's teams save for one year were literally at the bottom of the league defensively? Dr. J had more or as much defensive impact? lol.

Just going by watching games and looking at how often he alters shots, blocks shots and limits his own mans offense I believe he was.

I also want to add that help defense in the 70s cant be measured like today. In the golden era of Cs Kareem would have to worry much more about Lanier, Walton, Reed, Wilt, Mc Adoo, Hayes than most bigs playing today or in the 80s. When almost every team has a HoF bigman Kareems help def isnt as vital nor as measureable.

Just as I wouldnt say that todays SGs are very bad defenders based on the ppg and FG% (rules changes) of current SGs.

Choker wrote:Good post, I'm not a numbers guy at all and I was born the same year Kareem retired, I'll admit my opinion on this matter is not as credible as yours and you have the actual facts (numbers) to back up your claim, but then again it may all go back to the definition of what constitutes a defensive anchor. The one wrench that really sends my thought process down into many forks here is Tyson Chandler, though I guess it's all based on your opinion of if you think he is a defensive anchor or not, which I personally do (though I'm a bit fearful the numbers don't support me here). It's hard for me to imagine that Kareem in his prime was a worse defender than Chandler, so would it be possible that a player can be a better defender than another is a defensive anchor? And if that's the case, is a defensive anchor measured by his personality the way Chandler infused his intensity into the Mavericks, or is it in ability?

Right now I'm really not arguing but openly pondering upon the subject, I hope that we could shed more light on this.

I understand your concern as I'm not sure about these numbers 100% either. but either way I've recently come to a conclusion that defense is mostly about intensity rather than skill. while offensively you'll be good enough using just your talent and dominate, there are no sacred cows on defense. if you want to be elite defender in the league, EFFORT is the most important factor.

so if you look at some of those guys, there's no wonder why so many are just playing on one end - that way they can focus on making impact as opposed to playing at 50% of their potential because of their focus on producing offensive numbers. if you look at guys who were giving it 100% on both ends of the floor, they would often come out as totally EXHAUSTED, guys like Hakeem, Michael Jordan, Scottie Pippen. that's because defense is primarily about demanding new effort from your body. bottom line, if you're not working your ass as if you were a MLE defensive specialist, you're not gonna make a significant defensive impact. Kobe admittedly has potential to be a lockdown defender, but he rarely used that talent because he was resting on defense (guarding Bowens of the world) to produce better offensive numbers. meanwhile there was a guy like Raja Bell who played better defense (made bigger defensive impact) despite being significantly less talented defensively than Bryant... its all about effort.

this is why I am totally cool with the idea that Tyson Chandler MAY HAVE been better defender than some of the all timers who had to share responsibilities on both ends of the court. he is a defense-first role player who gives his 100% and has no star attitude. there are however accounts of Kareem not getting back on defense so that would speak volumes about his effort. all those little things like transition defense or sacrificing your body to put yourself in the position to draw charge...those things are the epitome of defense. effort is the basis of all defensive impact.

I'm totally open to new ideas here, as I find this subject to be extremely educating and finally I feel like I'm finally learning new stuff, that I thought I had known before (but I didn't).

Bucks were 3-14 without him, 35-30 with him. This is a team that had been together and making finals runs before hand. Granted they lost Oscar (though Oscar by '74 wasn't really that special), they also traded away Lucius Allen (someone Kareem loved playing with) for Jim Price (after the Bucks had started 1-9) which was a move criticized heavily around the league.

first things first, I have deep respect for your posts fatal and I loved your contributions to the RPOY threads in particular. I know Kareem was your favorite player so me getting on his defense is probably annoying but I'm hoping for a legit discussion here. forgive my tone here, I'm kind of arrogant at times.

what you're saying here is not important to the subject we're discussing (Kareem's defense), but I'd like to contest the notion of Oscar not being special. this is one of the greatest downfalls in history as Bucks from 71-74 were very much comparable to the best Michael Jordan teams of the 90s and from one year to another they regressed by 7.5 SRS. see, you're mentioning things that should be having a minimal impact on your team. Lucius Allen was not the reason why they were one of the all-time elite teams, know what I'm saying ? there is a lot to be said on this subject but I don't wanna disrupt the continuity of this thread, but as both topics are fascinating, I'm hoping we can discuss this in the "Milwaukee Bucks in the 70s and how good is Oscar Robertson thread".

here, let's just focus on Kareem's defense and not his OVERALL impact.

Bucks opponents shot 46.9% in games he missed and only 43.7% when he played. How big is this difference? The mark of 43.7% shooting by opponents would be the best in the league (just below Celtics who were at 43.8% opp FG%). While the 46.9% would be fifth worst in the league in terms of opp FG%. It should also be noted that Bucks attempted to focus on defense because of the problems they were having offensively without KAJ: http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=g- ... 47,4503292. So it seems the team had made a move to increase their effort defensively in that time, maybe slow down the game. They were ranked 2nd in the league defensively the year before when KAJ played 81 games and usually led the league in terms of opp FG% when KAJ would play even in seasons before that. So seems like when KAJ returned to the lineup in '75, that trend only continued.

you're bringing up two excellent points:
a) PPG allowed does not mean DRtg
b) Bucks improved their defense OUTSIDE of Kareem, as they were giving a better effort knowing they won't have their star to produce offense for them

my answer is that:
a) while PPG allowed has some faults, opp FG% is even worse...and if you actually look at team DRtg/team DWS, you'll find out Bucks were below average defensive team FOR THE SEASON. now if we looked simply at FG% Bucks would've been at least top5 defensive team. I mean they were playing 60 games with Kareem after all, so that'd mean they were playing top1 defense for 3/4 of the season...and yet end up below average ? that 1/4th wouldn't make them that much worse. although we have to take your numbers into account, we can't take them as a basis of theory because they just don't add up.

do you have the full numbers ? at least total FGA would be excellent because that way we could estimate the difference in pace.

b) if Kareem was a true defensive anchor, do you really think his teammates trying harder would make up for his absence ? I'm sure you know the story of Olajuwon as you're his big fan. Rockets didn't come ANYWHERE CLOSE to their level of defense when Dream was out. simply enough, I don't think you can make up for the loss of a defensive anchor so easily.

it speaks volumes to Kareem's leadership too. a question that immediately comes up is why couldn't Kareem get his teammates to play harder when he was on the court ? if other guys are playing BETTER defense when some guy isn't playing, then that's like he would've been having a negative impact on his teammates.

you're right about a) and we should be definitely looking into that stuff, but b) is not an excuse AT ALL.

In '76 he was traded to an aging team that was worst in the league defensively the year before (18th/18th). And despite them trading away major pieces of their core (including Elmore Smith...who led the league in blocks), and the roster aging a year further, they improved to 13th. And then a year later Kareem led them to the best record in the league as they were now above league average defensively (10th out of 22). The team fell apart due to injuries in the playoffs however.

75 Bucks (w/ KAJ) 19.4 DWS
76 Bucks (Elmore Smith) 19.0 DWS

75 Lakers (Elmore Smith) 14.7 DWS
76 Lakers (KAJ) 19.1 DWS

I'm not sure how I should interpret these results.

In '78 and '79, you have to understand the makeup of the team. They had no power forward, usually Dantley or Wilkes would play it. Their backcourt was just TERRIBLE defensively (you can look up articles). Dantley especially would be getting benched in playoff games for his defense (and due to the fact he would never defensive rebound, instead would run up to cherry pick). They ran into a big mismatch in the Sonics (known at the time for having a big frontline) without a PF. And Gus Williams ended up destroying the Laker guards to the tune of 31 ppg in the '79 playoff series with recaps mentioning how Lakers backcourt was getting "lit up like it was the 4th of July". And despite all these shortcomings (poor perimeter defenders, no PF in a league/era where that position had finally become defined), the teams were STILL above average defensively.

When Kareem missed games in '78, they were 8-13 without him (7 of the 8 wins coming against non playoff teams btw, 4 of them against the two worst teams in each conference) and 37-24 with him. Looking at the way the team played in the second half of the season (28-13), with KAJ healthy and adjusted into the lineup, it's actually quite likely they end up with best record in the league again that season (they were on pace wins-wise to end up with the worst record in the conference when he missed games). Regarding '78 missed games, I don't have the missed box scores or I would look at how opponents shot with/without him in the lineup.

well, if Kareem's supporting cast was so poor, then why did they allow LESS points (1.2) without him ? even if there would be an improvement in DRtg, it would still be marginal. that means I can't really excuse Kareem for that period because he was simply underachieving on defense. his absence should be felt ENORMOUSLY on a bad defensive team. it wasn't.

So where in all of this do you see KAJ not having a big impact when he missed games or changed teams? on his teams overall as well as defensively? On top of that you're saying he didn't separate himself from Gilmore defensively, when Gilmore's teams save for one year were literally at the bottom of the league defensively? Dr. J had more or as much defensive impact? lol.

obviously, I was refering to their prime defensive years which came in 72-77. their impact in the NBA was limited later on (but then again - so was Kareem's). check out Gilmore and Dr J on defense in the ABA - anually top defenses.

fatal, if you wanna discuss this topic seriously, then you've gotta respond to the arguments made here:
viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1137562

Warspite wrote:Just going by watching games and looking at how often he alters shots, blocks shots and limits his own mans offense I believe he was.

I also want to add that help defense in the 70s cant be measured like today. In the golden era of Cs Kareem would have to worry much more about Lanier, Walton, Reed, Wilt, Mc Adoo, Hayes than most bigs playing today or in the 80s. When almost every team has a HoF bigman Kareems help def isnt as vital nor as measureable.

Just as I wouldnt say that todays SGs are very bad defenders based on the ppg and FG% (rules changes) of current SGs.

regardless of the dynamics in the 70s, defensive anchor had to:
1. anchor great defenses
2. make big impact on their defense

meanwhile in Kareem's case he 1) rarely anchored great D (twice, basically) 2) his team allowed less points without him.

bastillon wrote:

Warspite wrote:Just going by watching games and looking at how often he alters shots, blocks shots and limits his own mans offense I believe he was.

I also want to add that help defense in the 70s cant be measured like today. In the golden era of Cs Kareem would have to worry much more about Lanier, Walton, Reed, Wilt, Mc Adoo, Hayes than most bigs playing today or in the 80s. When almost every team has a HoF bigman Kareems help def isnt as vital nor as measureable.

Just as I wouldnt say that todays SGs are very bad defenders based on the ppg and FG% (rules changes) of current SGs.

regardless of the dynamics in the 70s, defensive anchor had to:
1. anchor great defenses
2. make big impact on their defense

meanwhile in Kareem's case he 1) rarely anchored great D (twice, basically) 2) his team allowed less points without him.

By that criteria who is? (honest question because I dont know)

Again I dont think KAJ in his prime is on par with Deke or Thurmond in a alltime setting, However compared to his peers? If you come to the conclusion that there werent no elite guys then maybe your critieria is somewhat off.
2 guys are walking in the woods and they come across a bear and it charges. Guy #1 starts running. #2 asks"Why are you running you cant out run him" Guy #1 says "I dont have to outrun the bear. I just have to outrun you."

tclg wrote:I think I would add elite relative to the league at rebounding

If one was aware of what was said at the time, then one would know that rebounding was always identified as a weakness. Jerry West said of Kareem (then Alcindor) his last year in college:

“His one weakness is rebounding. For a guy his size he doesn’t do enough. But with competition that will improve.”

But this continued to be cited as a weakness once he entered the pros.

@Warspite:
I guess I could call Kareem a "defensive anchor" in '73 and '74 but other than that it's hard to make a case for him based on factual results. even his own peers: Unseld, Hayes, Cowens, Gilmore, DeBusschere, Lakers Wilt, Walton had clearly better results. you could make a case for Dr J and Bobby Jones as well. overall, Kareem's defense was too inconsistent, too often called out, to call him a great defensive anchor. he's like Shaq in that regard, as shocking as it may sound. numbers don't lie.

bastillon wrote:@Warspite:
I guess I could call Kareem a "defensive anchor" in '73 and '74 but other than that it's hard to make a case for him based on factual results. even his own peers: Unseld, Hayes, Cowens, Gilmore, DeBusschere, Lakers Wilt, Walton had clearly better results. you could make a case for Dr J and Bobby Jones as well. overall, Kareem's defense was too inconsistent, too often called out, to call him a great defensive anchor. he's like Shaq in that regard, as shocking as it may sound. numbers don't lie.

Here's what was said during the 1975-76 season:

Despite the super trade that netted them center Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, perhaps the single most dominating offensive force in pro basketball, the Los Angeles Lakers are not going to win the NBA’s Pacific Division title this season.

That distinction is going instead to the Golden State Warriors, a team with as much overall balance as the Great Wallendas.

There is always the chance that the Lakers, some of whom are still learning each other’s moves, will come on strong in the playoffs. A talented big man like Abdul-Jabbar can sometimes turn a short series around with a string of super individual performances.

And Kermit Washington, a fine rebounding forward who has been out since the beginning of the year with a broken ankle, should have played in enough regular-season games by March to have his timing back.

But the fact is the Lakers are not a first-rate ball club yet in several key areas. These include defense, floor leadership, forwards who do not rebound well, plus the team’s inability to win on the road.

This is not the team that Coach Sharman hoped it would be. Sharman had expected to capitalize on the same fast-break offense and pressing defense that he used when he had Wilt Chamberlain in the pivot and Jerry West in the back-court. That was a team that played with finesse, but also had forwards who could muscle rivals on the boards.

The current Lakers do not fit that mold. They stop after the word finesse. They lack leadership in the backcourt and their forwards, whether they start or come in off the bench, are to one-dimensional. Their offense, although explosive at times and capable of scoring a lot of points, often experiences long dry spells.

Part of the problem is Abdul-Jabbar, who sometimes plays well within his ability and who often does not get back quickly enough on defense. Boston’s Dave Cowens, for example, often appears to outplay Kareem simply on the basis of physically wanting the game more than his opponent.

Anyone who spends as many minutes on court as the Lakers’ center is forced to pace himself over an 82-game schedule. That’s understood. Otherwise he would have nothing left for the playoffs. But he should be careful to rest on offense, not defense.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkYosA1V ... re=related
0:25

Lucius Allen, member of Milwaukee Bucks 1971-74
"Oscar, being the person that he was, kept Kareem in his place, just like he kept the rest of us in our places. If Kareem missed on a defensive assignment, then his eyes would get about THIS BIG and he let Kareem know - Hey, Big Fella, fall in line"

in case you had any doubt whose team that was.

Enjoying the responses to this thread quite a bit. Good stuff folks.

ThaRegul8r wrote:

Anyone who spends as many minutes on court as the Lakers’ center is forced to pace himself over an 82-game schedule. That’s understood. Otherwise he would have nothing left for the playoffs. But he should be careful to rest on offense, not defense.[/i]

Interesting. This gets into what analysis says more and more about Wilt: He simply had more capability to affect the game on defense than on offense, and focusing in the wrong direction was a serious detriment to his impact.

I'll be honest though, I never saw Kareem the same way. I felt his offensive touch made him a superior scorer, but that he didn't have the combination of agility, strength, and energy to truly be on the defensive GOAT shortlist, and so saw him as correctly an offensive-first player.

btw, this doesn't mean I'm firmly against Kareem being a defensive anchor. He's undeniably very good on that front as well.