GOAT case for KAJ?

[pipfan]

There are many knowledgeable fans on this board, much more than me, so I would appreciate some help.

I have always had the GOAT tier being MJ/LBJ/KAJ-those were the only 3 I saw with "strong" cases for the best NBA player ever. I can see stretch arguments for Russell and WIlt-but SO hard to compare their eras to post 1979 NBA play

I think MJ and LBJ have clear arguments-based on stats and watching the NBA for 40+ years. The "eye-test" is valid, if not quantifiable.

Recently I have trouble keeping KAJ with MJ/LBJ. I do have him as the greatest player ever (counting HS and college) but for the NBA I have him "slipping" into the Russell/Wilt tier. OF COURSE, being the 3rd best NBA player of all time is incredibly awesome, but he did play a lot of his prime in a water-downed league (ABA sucking talent away)
He also played through the 80's with another top 8 guy in Magic, and lots of other talent
Plus, the Western Conference was historically weak at that time

AGAIN, he's an all time great player, but what is his GOAT argument?
Thanks in advance

[HeartBreakKid]

There are many knowledgeable fans on this board, much more than me, so I would appreciate some help.

I have always had the GOAT tier being MJ/LBJ/KAJ-those were the only 3 I saw with "strong" cases for the best NBA player ever. I can see stretch arguments for Russell and WIlt-but SO hard to compare their eras to post 1979 NBA play

I think MJ and LBJ have clear arguments-based on stats and watching the NBA for 40+ years. The "eye-test" is valid, if not quantifiable.

Recently I have trouble keeping KAJ with MJ/LBJ. I do have him as the greatest player ever (counting HS and college) but for the NBA I have him "slipping" into the Russell/Wilt tier. OF COURSE, being the 3rd best NBA player of all time is incredibly awesome, but he did play a lot of his prime in a water-downed league (ABA sucking talent away)
He also played through the 80's with another top 8 guy in Magic, and lots of other talent
Plus, the Western Conference was historically weak at that time

AGAIN, he's an all time great player, but what is his GOAT argument?
Thanks in advance

7'3 mobile hyper skilled center. He can volume score with incredible efficiency. He can shoot far from the rim for a center. He can anchor a top defense with good mobility and shot blocking ability. He was a deep double digit rebounder and lead the league in rebounding. He was an elite player for an incredibly long time. He's won a lot of championships and MVPs.

What's missing exactly? Saying he played pre 79 isnt much of an argument. Jordan played pre 2002? Jokic played pre 2020?

1979 is an arbitrary year. Some people try to add some objectivity for its selection by saying its when the 3 point line was added which everyone knows makes zero difference in how they played.

[TripleDub]

KAJ has arguably the greatest combination of individual dominance, team success, and longevity. Thats his case.

[70sFan]

He's the best player ever - that's his case.

[dygaction]

He's the best player ever - that's his case.

It is certainly arguable but his case is not strong. The arguments can be cornered by either LeBron or MJ.
KAJ's prime was in 70s void of other great player rivals, and won 4 MVPs before ABA merger, including one MVP without making playoffs, but only won one championship then. The other five rings were together with Magic. That's 6 championships with 2 Finals MVPs, comparable to Kobe's 5 championships with 2 Finals MVPs.

[DraymondGold]

Interesting thread!

If you’re just looking to have a nice overall summary of Kareem’s skills and impact metrics for his career and peak, Thinking Basketball seems like a good place to start.

There’s a well written career summary hear: https://thinkingbasketball.net/2018/04/12/backpicks-goat-1-kareem-abdul-jabbar/

And a video on Kareem’s peak (starting in 1977, so this doesn’t even include 74-76) here:
https://youtu.be/lCQos0zUaFA

Another spot to look would be the previous Greatest Peaks project on this website (either either in the thread Kareem got voted in, or the one immediately before) or perhaps the Previous Greatest Careers project here.

[coastalmarker99]

You can’t be the Goat if out of your 6 titles.

you were only the best player on two of them.

Furthermore.

While Kareem was indeed the best player in the league for the decade of the 70's.

he and his teams, severely under-achieved.

As He couldn't win a title with teams that went 53-29 (best record in the league), 56-26, 59-23, 60-22, and even 63-19.

And this in an era when team's with records of 52-30, 49-33, 48-34, and 44-38 were winning titles (and team's with records of 42-40 and 40-42 making the Finals.)

[HeartBreakKid]

You can’t be the Goat if out of your 6 titles.

you were only the best player on two of them.

Furthermore.

While Kareem was the best player in the league for the decade of the 70's, but IMHO, he lacked motivation, and he and his teams, severely under-achieved.

He couldn't win a title with teams that went 53-29 (best record in the league), 56-26, 59-23, 60-22, and even 63-19.

And this in an era when team's with records of 52-30, 49-33, 48-34, and 44-38 were winning titles (and team's with records of 42-40 and 40-42 making the Finals.)

He was the best player or 1A/1B on 4 title teams. Make it less obvious that you didn't just look at how many FMVPs he was awarded.


Who do you think is the goat? You better not say Wilt Chamberlain after you said the bold part.

[70sFan]

He's the best player ever - that's his case.

It is certainly arguable but his case is not strong. The arguments can be cornered by either LeBron or MJ.
KAJ's prime was in 70s void of other great player rivals, and won 4 MVPs before ABA merger, including one MVP without making playoffs, but only won one championship then. The other five rings were together with Magic. That's 6 championships with 2 Finals MVPs, comparable to Kobe's 5 championships with 2 Finals MVPs.

Who said that the best player ever has to win a lot of titles as the best player on his team?

Kareem might not have 1980 FMVP, but that's better postseason run than anything Kobe has ever done, so I don't care.

[coastalmarker99]

I can’t rank Kareem as the Goat considering the fact that Magic was the alpha dog of of those La Teams.

Before Magic...the Lakers had five miserable years with Kareem ...and were basically either early-round cannon-fodder or were even swept by a team with a worse record, in the weakest era for title teams in NBA history.

Now with Magic...LA immediately won a title. They averaged 59 wins per season in his 12 years...going to nine Finals (a Finals appearance in 75% of the seasons)...and five titles.

After Kareem retired ...the Lakers actually improved the very next season, going from a 57-25 record in Kareem's last year, to a league-leading 63-19 record the next year.

Then, Magic took a washed-up and injury-riddled cast to a 58-24 record and yet another final.

Then after Magic...the Lakers immediately plummetted to records of 43-39 and 39-43.

BTW, in their ten years playing together, Magic held a 3-1 edge in MVPS, a 3-1 edge in Finals MVPs, and outvoted Kareem in the MVP voting in eight of those ten seasons (the last eight BTW.)

So it is very clear as to who had the most impact on the Lakers in those ten years between Magic and Kareem.

[dygaction]

He's the best player ever - that's his case.

It is certainly arguable but his case is not strong. The arguments can be cornered by either LeBron or MJ.
KAJ's prime was in 70s void of other great player rivals, and won 4 MVPs before ABA merger, including one MVP without making playoffs, but only won one championship then. The other five rings were together with Magic. That's 6 championships with 2 Finals MVPs, comparable to Kobe's 5 championships with 2 Finals MVPs.

Who said that the best player ever has to win a lot of titles as the best player on his team?

Kareem might not have 1980 FMVP, but that's better postseason run than anything Kobe has ever done, so I don't care.

I am not that high on Kobe either. Again you are shifting the goal post, in order to say he is the best player ever, just being better than Kobe is not enough. Lacking a true great rivalry in the weak 70s but could not dominate, that's a big problem. 90s is not particularly strong, but when Jordan played, he was the best player and won those championships as the best player.

[HeartBreakKid]

I can’t rank Kareem as the Goat considering the fact that Magic was the alpha dog of of those La Teams.

Before Magic...the Lakers had five miserable years with Kareem ...and were basically either early-round cannon-fodder or were even swept by a team with a worse record, in the weakest era for title teams in NBA history.

Now with Magic...LA immediately won a title. They averaged 59 wins per season in his 12 years...going to nine Finals (a Finals appearance in 75% of the seasons)...and five titles.

After Kareem retired ...the Lakers actually improved the very next season, going from a 57-25 record in Kareem's last year, to a league-leading 63-19 record the next year.

Then, Magic took a washed-up and injury-riddled cast to a 58-24 record and yet another final.

Then after Magic...the Lakers immediately plummetted to records of 43-39 and 39-43.

BTW, in their ten years playing together, Magic held a 3-1 edge in MVPS, a 3-1 edge in Finals MVPs, and outvoted Kareem in the MVP voting in eight of those ten seasons (the last eight BTW.)

So it is very clear as to who had the most impact on the Lakers in those ten years between Magic and Kareem.

After Magic joins they win a title? Yeah...with Kareem as the best player. Why would adding an all-nba player like Magic not help the Lakers win a title?


Kareem retired in 1989. Magic joined them in 1979. Pre Magic Lakers and Post Kareem Lakers are two entirely different teams.


You're really trying to spin that Magic > Kareem because Kareem didn't win without Magic (which isn't even true) when Magic never won without Kareem?

[70sFan]

It is certainly arguable but his case is not strong. The arguments can be cornered by either LeBron or MJ.
KAJ's prime was in 70s void of other great player rivals, and won 4 MVPs before ABA merger, including one MVP without making playoffs, but only won one championship then. The other five rings were together with Magic. That's 6 championships with 2 Finals MVPs, comparable to Kobe's 5 championships with 2 Finals MVPs.

Who said that the best player ever has to win a lot of titles as the best player on his team?

Kareem might not have 1980 FMVP, but that's better postseason run than anything Kobe has ever done, so I don't care.

I am not that high on Kobe either. Again you are shifting the goal post, in order to say he is the best player ever, just being better than Kobe is not enough. Lacking a true great rivalry in the weak 70s but could not dominate, that's a big problem. 90s is not particularly strong, but when Jordan played, he was the best player and won those championships as the best player.

You bring up Kobe the first time, not me.

1970s being weak is your opinion, not a fact. Not to mention that generalizing such a diversed era into one period desceibed as "weak era" is painfully wrong.

Jordan didn't win all those championshpis because he was the best player ever, but because he had a team that gave him the chance. Kareem didn't have such team. It's painful to me that I even have to explain that you shouldn't expect Kareem to win any title from 1975-79 period.

You should accept that not everybody has such a strong winning bias that unable you to call someone who didn't win the title the best... Especially since Kareem absolutely dominated on that front as well when he had a chance.

[coastalmarker99]

Why did Rick Barry win a title basically by himself in 1975.


But Kareem who you consider to be the Goat in his peak years couldn't even lead his team to the playoffs in 1975 and 1976 despite the NBA being incredibly weak.


As the Suns made the finals in 1976 with a record of 42 and 40.


And the Warriors won the title in 1975 with a record of 48 and 34 and only one player averaging over 15 PPG in the postseason besides Barry.


Kareem basically had a golden chance to vulture rings and MVP's in the 1970's when you look at his competition and that the fact that the second best player in the world was playing in another league.


I mean the NBA was so bad in those years that he won the MVP in 1976 despite missing the playoffs.

The fact that he won only one ring despite having all of these advantages is a incredibly bad look on him.


As think about the carnage that Wilt would have caused if he had those Luxury's in the 1960's.

As think about this.

In Kareem's '71 season, he shot .577 against the league. In 5 H2H regular season games against Wilt, he shot .43.8. I

n the playoffs, in five more H2H's, he shot .48.1.

In the '72 WCF's, Kareem, who had shot .574 against the NBA in the regular season, could only shoot .457 against Wilt, and only .41.4 in the last four games of that series.

And, in Wilt's last season, the two met six times in the regular season. In a season in which Kareem shot .55.4, Wilt held him to .450 shooting (while Wilt, himself, shot an eye-popping .737 against Kareem.)

BTW, in their two "clinching" H2h games in the '71 and '72 WCF's, Wilt outshot Kareem by a combined 18-33 to 23-60, or .54.5 to .38.3. just shows you.


That a prime Wilt would have dominated Kareem

[dygaction]

Who said that the best player ever has to win a lot of titles as the best player on his team?

Kareem might not have 1980 FMVP, but that's better postseason run than anything Kobe has ever done, so I don't care.

I am not that high on Kobe either. Again you are shifting the goal post, in order to say he is the best player ever, just being better than Kobe is not enough. Lacking a true great rivalry in the weak 70s but could not dominate, that's a big problem. 90s is not particularly strong, but when Jordan played, he was the best player and won those championships as the best player.

You bring up Kobe the first time, not me.

1970s being weak is your opinion, not a fact. Not to mention that generalizing such a diversed era into one period desceibed as "weak era" is painfully wrong.

Jordan didn't win all those championshpis because he was the best player ever, but because he had a team that gave him the chance. Kareem didn't have such team. It's painful to me that I even have to explain that you shouldn't expect Kareem to win any title from 1975-79 period.

You should accept that not everybody has such a strong winning bias that unable you to call someone who didn't win the title the best... Especially since Kareem absolutely dominated on that front as well when he had a chance.

Certain things can come up during the course, but care to explain why 76 Lakers with league best record should not carry any expectation? 78 first round exit to a team with similar record with really nobody... 03 Duncan and 11 Dirk were not expected to win either, but they pulled out the wins.

It is just like Jokic. Nuggets are not expected to win it all this year or next year, or in the next 50 yrs like the past 50. If Jokic stays in Denver and never win, no matter he gets another 8 MVPs or not, he would not enter GOAT discussion. It is for players been there done that. If you only win games you are expected to win, that's quality player but not in the GOAT conversation.

[70sFan]

I am not that high on Kobe either. Again you are shifting the goal post, in order to say he is the best player ever, just being better than Kobe is not enough. Lacking a true great rivalry in the weak 70s but could not dominate, that's a big problem. 90s is not particularly strong, but when Jordan played, he was the best player and won those championships as the best player.

You bring up Kobe the first time, not me.

1970s being weak is your opinion, not a fact. Not to mention that generalizing such a diversed era into one period desceibed as "weak era" is painfully wrong.

Jordan didn't win all those championshpis because he was the best player ever, but because he had a team that gave him the chance. Kareem didn't have such team. It's painful to me that I even have to explain that you shouldn't expect Kareem to win any title from 1975-79 period.

You should accept that not everybody has such a strong winning bias that unable you to call someone who didn't win the title the best... Especially since Kareem absolutely dominated on that front as well when he had a chance.

Certain things can come up during the course, but care to explain why 76 Lakers with league best record should not carry any expectation? 78 first round exit to a team with similar record with really nobody... 03 Duncan and 11 Dirk were not expected to win either, but they pulled out the wins.

It is just like Jokic. Nuggets are not expected to win it all this year or next year, or in the next 50 yrs like the past 50. If Jokic stays in Denver and never win, no matter he gets another 8 MVPs or not, he would not enter GOAT discussion. It is for players been there done that. If you only win games you are expected to win, that's quality player but not in the GOAT conversation.

1976 Lakers didn't have the league best record. I thinj you meant 1977. If that's the case, then the answer js simple - Lakers had very significant injuries in the playoffs, missing one starter for the whole run and another starter being hobbled and missing games against Portland. Likewise, Portland weren't 100% healthy during the RS, which deflated their RS record. You know, these things are very easy to understand if you bother to watch games.

If you think that 1978 Sonics were "a team with nobody", then maybe you should stop talking anything about the 1970s.

2003 Duncan or 2011 Dirk situations are completely different. They didn't have superteams, but their teams were deep, well constructed, well coached and although these teams relied heavily on their individual brilliance, roleplayers did their job fine. Kareem didn't have anything out of it in 1977 or 1978. He had poorly constructed team dealing with injuries instead.

I would be perfectly fine with someone calling Jokic the GOAT-level player if he reached such level in the playoffs but fails to win it all. The funny thing is that you mention 2011 Dirk as a proof of something, while Kareem played much better basketball in 1977 playoffs than Dirk could ever dream of. Yes, he got swept in WCF, I know it.

May I ask another question? How many 1977 Lakers games have you watched?

[dygaction]

You bring up Kobe the first time, not me.

1970s being weak is your opinion, not a fact. Not to mention that generalizing such a diversed era into one period desceibed as "weak era" is painfully wrong.

Jordan didn't win all those championshpis because he was the best player ever, but because he had a team that gave him the chance. Kareem didn't have such team. It's painful to me that I even have to explain that you shouldn't expect Kareem to win any title from 1975-79 period.

You should accept that not everybody has such a strong winning bias that unable you to call someone who didn't win the title the best... Especially since Kareem absolutely dominated on that front as well when he had a chance.

Certain things can come up during the course, but care to explain why 76 Lakers with league best record should not carry any expectation? 78 first round exit to a team with similar record with really nobody... 03 Duncan and 11 Dirk were not expected to win either, but they pulled out the wins.

It is just like Jokic. Nuggets are not expected to win it all this year or next year, or in the next 50 yrs like the past 50. If Jokic stays in Denver and never win, no matter he gets another 8 MVPs or not, he would not enter GOAT discussion. It is for players been there done that. If you only win games you are expected to win, that's quality player but not in the GOAT conversation.

1976 Lakers didn't have the league best record. I thinj you meant 1977. If that's the case, then the answer js simple - Lakers had very significant injuries in the playoffs, missing one starter for the whole run and another starter being hobbled and missing games against Portland. Likewise, Portland weren't 100% healthy during the RS, which deflated their RS record. You know, these things are very easy to understand if you bother to watch games.

If you think that 1978 Sonics were "a team with nobody", then maybe you should stop talking anything about the 1970s.

2003 Duncan or 2011 Dirk situations are completely different. They didn't have superteams, but their teams were deep, well constructed, well coached and although these teams relied heavily on their individual brilliance, roleplayers did their job fine. Kareem didn't have anything out of it in 1977 or 1978. He had poorly constructed team dealing with injuries instead.

I would be perfectly fine with someone calling Jokic the GOAT-level player if he reached such level in the playoffs but fails to win it all. The funny thing is that you mention 2011 Dirk as a proof of something, while Kareem played much better basketball in 1977 playoffs than Dirk could ever dream of. Yes, he got swept in WCF, I know it.

May I ask another question? How many 1977 Lakers games have you watched?

See, you resort back to talk condescending instead of trying to understand... I said specifically if you read "Certain things can come up during the course, but care to explain why 76 (7) Lakers with league best record should not carry any expectation?" In English, expectations are there before things happen. Injury happened and that's unfortunate but they carried expectations... Jokic's team last year was not expected to make the playoffs, but he carried it in. That's what great players do. Any team with healthy KAJ in the 70s should carry expectation, otherwise what's so great abt him?

As Dirk to KAJ highlighted comparison from you, one, Dirk is not my GOAT, and two, lol.

[Dutchball97]

Kareem missing time in 1975 might just be the thing hurting his legacy the most. The entire team was ravaged outside of Bob Dandridge having a decent season but with Kareem playing the Bucks were 35-30. Nothing ground breaking but at that pace they would've been the 3rd seed in the west and definitely in the mix with the Warriors and Bulls to make the finals. It's not Kareem's fault the team went 3-14 without him to miss the play-offs.

1976 is even tougher in terms of teammates. The 30-win 1975 Lakers had 4 players who were contributing on a significant level. Out of those 4 Happy Hairston retired right before Kareem showed up and Elmore Smith was sent to the Bucks. So half the core of an already putrid team was now gone. The other 2 were Gail Goodrich, a 5x time all-star (including 4 straight from 72-75), who was now 32 and had already been slowly declining since 1972, and Lucius Allen, who had been playing with Kareem on the Bucks untill 1974 but he never reached the same level he did back then again. So the only teammates of any note Kareem had that season were two guards (6'1 and 6'2) who used to be pretty good but were now around league average. Goodrich was the clear 2nd best player on the team but it should be telling the champion Celtics had 5 players with more WS than him.

However, while the Bucks would've been right up there in the west if Kareem hadn't missed time, there is no such excuse for the 76 Lakers. Yes the team was terrible as shown above but for the GOAT is it too much to ask to at least drag a team like that to the play-offs? Especially at the absolute peak of the ABA with Julius Erving being the best player in basketball that year but also guys like Gilmore, Gervin, Bobby Jones, Moses and a bunch of other key contributors and even All-Stars in the coming years in the NBA. I don't think it's a terrible performance as he did improve a 30-win team (that got worse outside of Kareem in the off-season) to 40 wins. With a bit of luck that could've been just enough to make the post-season like the Bulls did in 87 and this whole thing would look better already but as it stands it's one of those knocks that's hard to overlook even with all the mitigating context just like 2011 for LeBron or 2003 for Shaq/Kobe.

If you take a purely analytical approach you probably won't be as hung up on these things and in the grand scheme it doesn't impact the standing of a player too much but I always say that for the GOAT debate especially sometimes it's these marginal differences that set players apart. Someone can have the highest APM, WOWY, BPM and whatever other stat you can find for their era but it's hard to shake the feeling that I just don't think there wouldn't have been anyone that could've done more, even ever so slightly, than Kareem did there.

[70sFan]

Certain things can come up during the course, but care to explain why 76 Lakers with league best record should not carry any expectation? 78 first round exit to a team with similar record with really nobody... 03 Duncan and 11 Dirk were not expected to win either, but they pulled out the wins.

It is just like Jokic. Nuggets are not expected to win it all this year or next year, or in the next 50 yrs like the past 50. If Jokic stays in Denver and never win, no matter he gets another 8 MVPs or not, he would not enter GOAT discussion. It is for players been there done that. If you only win games you are expected to win, that's quality player but not in the GOAT conversation.

1976 Lakers didn't have the league best record. I thinj you meant 1977. If that's the case, then the answer js simple - Lakers had very significant injuries in the playoffs, missing one starter for the whole run and another starter being hobbled and missing games against Portland. Likewise, Portland weren't 100% healthy during the RS, which deflated their RS record. You know, these things are very easy to understand if you bother to watch games.

If you think that 1978 Sonics were "a team with nobody", then maybe you should stop talking anything about the 1970s.

2003 Duncan or 2011 Dirk situations are completely different. They didn't have superteams, but their teams were deep, well constructed, well coached and although these teams relied heavily on their individual brilliance, roleplayers did their job fine. Kareem didn't have anything out of it in 1977 or 1978. He had poorly constructed team dealing with injuries instead.

I would be perfectly fine with someone calling Jokic the GOAT-level player if he reached such level in the playoffs but fails to win it all. The funny thing is that you mention 2011 Dirk as a proof of something, while Kareem played much better basketball in 1977 playoffs than Dirk could ever dream of. Yes, he got swept in WCF, I know it.

May I ask another question? How many 1977 Lakers games have you watched?

See, you resort back to talk condescending instead of trying to understand... I said specifically if you read "Certain things can come up during the course, but care to explain why 76 (7) Lakers with league best record should not carry any expectation?" In English, expectations are there before things happen. Injury happened and that's unfortunate but they carried expectations... Jokic's team last year was not expected to make the playoffs, but he carried it in. That's what great players do. Any team with healthy KAJ in the 70s should carry expectation, otherwise what's so great abt him?

As Dirk to KAJ highlighted comparison from you, one, Dirk is not my GOAT, and two, lol.

You should have expectations regarding Kareem play, not team results.

I am legitimately asking - how many 1977 Lakers games have you watched? You may think it's personal attack, but it's not. I really don't understand how someone can watch 1977 Lakers playoff games and conclude that Kareem didn't play on GOAT level or should have done more. If you watched these games, I am hoping that you will give me some answers.

[70sFan]

Kareem missing time in 1975 might just be the thing hurting his legacy the most. The entire team was ravaged outside of Bob Dandridge having a decent season but with Kareem playing the Bucks were 35-30. Nothing ground breaking but at that pace they would've been the 3rd seed in the west and definitely in the mix with the Warriors and Bulls to make the finals. It's not Kareem's fault the team went 3-14 without him to miss the play-offs.

1976 is even tougher in terms of teammates. The 30-win 1975 Lakers had 4 players who were contributing on a significant level. Out of those 4 Happy Hairston retired right before Kareem showed up and Elmore Smith was sent to the Bucks. So half the core of an already putrid team was now gone. The other 2 were Gail Goodrich, a 5x time all-star (including 4 straight from 72-75), who was now 32 and had already been slowly declining since 1972, and Lucius Allen, who had been playing with Kareem on the Bucks untill 1974 but he never reached the same level he did back then again. So the only teammates of any note Kareem had that season were two guards (6'1 and 6'2) who used to be pretty good but were now around league average. Goodrich was the clear 2nd best player on the team but it should be telling the champion Celtics had 5 players with more WS than him.

However, while the Bucks would've been right up there in the west if Kareem hadn't missed time, there is no such excuse for the 76 Lakers. Yes the team was terrible as shown above but for the GOAT is it too much to ask to at least drag a team like that to the play-offs? Especially at the absolute peak of the ABA with Julius Erving being the best player in basketball that year but also guys like Gilmore, Gervin, Bobby Jones, Moses and a bunch of other key contributors and even All-Stars in the coming years in the NBA. I don't think it's a terrible performance as he did improve a 30-win team (that got worse outside of Kareem in the off-season) to 40 wins. With a bit of luck that could've been just enough to make the post-season like the Bulls did in 87 and this whole thing would look better already but as it stands it's one of those knocks that's hard to overlook even with all the mitigating context just like 2011 for LeBron or 2003 for Shaq/Kobe.

If you take a purely analytical approach you probably won't be as hung up on these things and in the grand scheme it doesn't impact the standing of a player too much but I always say that for the GOAT debate especially sometimes it's these marginal differences that set players apart. Someone can have the highest APM, WOWY, BPM and whatever other stat you can find for their era but it's hard to shake the feeling that I just don't think there wouldn't have been anyone that could've done more, even ever so slightly, than Kareem did there.

I think the key thing is bad timing here. Jordan didn't have a single season with more wins until 1988 but he made the playoffs in all of these years, so people don't focus on that.

I mean, 1987 Bulls and 1976 Lakers finished with identical record and one is seen as huge carry job, while the other is often bring up as a failure.