GOAT case for KAJ?

[70sFan]

Kiki was the co #1 on the #2 offense in the league. Kareem was the #2 on the #5 offense.

Kiki wasn't the best player on his team - English was, while Kareem was still the man on his team. Not to mention that Nuggets offensive performance was the result of gimmicky strategy that led them to 38 wins, while Kareem was the best player on a contending team.

Aren't you the one who says that Nash production was inflated due to offensive slanted rosters? 1980s Nuggets is the perfect example of that, they weren't that good on offense but they just ignored defense to score as much points as possible. Kiki might be the worst defender on this horrible defensive team.

You are trying way too hard here.

Lakers reached the Final because they had a stacked roster which clearly underachieved in the regular season, somewhat due to Kareem having a bit of a down year. Not saying it's open and shut or anything, but Kiki has a case for better regular season.

Stacked rosters never gave you any problems in Jordan situation...

Kareem's accolades are certainly a check in his favor and his playoff resume during that stretch helps his case. But he was a guy in his mid to late 30s who mailed in regular seasons. I'm sorry but I'm not going to say he was top 5 when the stats don't support it and the eye test doesn't support it just because he could turn it on and be that top 5 guy in the playoffs.

So in short you ignore contemporary opinions, even though you asked everyone to consider them in a different threads. Please be consistent.

Kareem was seen as clearly top 5 player during that stretch and his age doesn't matter here. He was still one of the best scorers in the league (probably the best halfcourt scorer) and very good rim protector (no, he wasn't average defender). You keep calling him a 2nd option on a stacked team, but the Lakers offense was run through him during these years, not through Magic. Magic didn't catch him until 1985 as a players but he took the lead in 1987.

I know you don't really believe that Kiki, English, or Eaton were better than him. I remember accusing me of stretching when I said that Hakeem was arguably better than Jordan in 1993 and you came up with the playoffs, but now you use completely different criteria and you ignore the playoffs, because Kareem didn't play huge minutes.

[70sFan]

Kareem averaged 32/12/3 on 57% shooting with 4 blocks per game in that postseason run, 1 game should have very little influence on how you view Kareem that year.

Let's do a little thought experiment just to make sure. Let's pretend it was MJ who had been compromised with the bulging disc in 98 Finals, and instead Pippen took over that game scoring 45, getting the key steals, hitting the game winning shot (all this never would've happened because Pip wasn't that guy but stay with me...), and as a result he won FMVP despite MJ winning MVP and holding the team together all year. Are you suggesting that wouldn't have impacted in any way how we look at Jordan and Pippen? Yes, it was only one game, but sometimes one game is worth a heck of a lot more than one game if you know what I mean.

No, it wouldn't imapct my evaluation at all. Especially if Jordan carried Pippen the same way Kareem did with Magic just the game before, when Magic played a very bad game.

[NO-KG-AI]

Probably the best college player ever, GOAT level peak, at or near the top of every major award, near the top in championships, GOAT level longevity. Showed he's flexible and malleable to multiple styles of team makeup. Just easy to see slotting into virtually any team, era, etc.

Just a very easy guy to make a case for. Harder to make a case that he isn't in contention than that he is.

[ShaqAttac]

apparently more "impact' than mj, longetvity, most mvps. seems p ez to me

[dygaction]

The longer the nba history is, the less details/truth people would care. Unfortunately with LeBron overtaking the all time scoring record this week, KAJ's GOAT case would be brought up less and less. Russell and Wilt's cases likely age better as not likely someone else gets 10 rings or breaks Wilt's ppg/rpg records left and right anytime soon. They might form a three-way tie in the future if Jokic does not get a chance to enter.
MJ is so marketable that even if KAJ had three-peated in 70s, the NBA would still need to find a way making MJ GOAT.

[OhayoKD]

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.

The 1970s were the golden age of centers. KAJ played more games vs other Hofers than any player in history. I believe he played more than 50 games a season vs HoF centers multiple times.

Wilt, Reed, Walton, McAdoo, Cowens, Lanier, Moses and Unseld all but 1 MVP winners and all HoFers.

I think this also brings up a point of positional-relative value. Kareem dominated at a time where the vast majority of top players were bigs, MJ dominated as a guard in a period where the vast majority of the top guys were still bigs. For people on this board that generally does not play a role but maybe it should?

You're assuming this is a handicap, but arguably a relative lack of positional comp offers a significant boost, especially if 1 V 1 stuff(defensively and offensively) is a focus of your game. A lack of elite big-men would probably favor Kareem actually as his biggest strength on d was paint-protection and his biggest strength offensively was post-scoring.

I'm positive some people here wouldn't think twice about putting out 5 big line-ups but in reality that's just not going to work. The average big just generated a lot more value in the 90s than an average guard but MJ was right up there with some of the most elite bigs of all-time. Especially for the people putting more value on how a player impacts winning and the situational value a player provides in a certain team situation (otherwise known as heavy use of +- and on/off stats) I'm surprised this isn't a bigger topic.

Okay, careful here. Those stats are tracking value over replacement, so positional weakness would inflate value there if anything. If we went with "absolute value", bigger players probably see their value scale up, while smaller players see their value scale down.

I really don't get why you're so concerned with what others "should" be doing. In this case it's a logical fallacy as well. I clearly say it's about not winning in a weak era, not playing in a weak era in and of itself. You can only beat who is put in front of you but them you do still need to actually beat them.

Well he did actually end up winning more but I guess you're talking "during your prime"? Which, fine, but the people using it to lower kareem are generally not highlighting russell, a player whose gap in terms of winning relative to anyone else dwarfs any other comp.

I wouldn't go so far as to say everyone having MJ over Kareem ignores Russell completely. I'm not sure if you're intending it this way but it sounds like you just can't see anyone who has MJ at #1 as reasonable or something. Like I said before this isn't just an excercise to downgrade Kareem to prop up Jordan. Of course Jordan has more team succes in his prime than Kareem but so does Russell, so does LeBron, Shaq too, Bird and Magic both, pretty much every top 10 player to be honest. I get not caring about when someone wins in their career as long as they win enough overall but it shouldn't be so hard to see why it is at least a factor for quite a few people.

It's also a bit counterintuitive to paint every player with the same brush. If someone does not put Kareem at #1 partly because of his lack of team success in his prime does not mean you now need to put everyone with more team succes in their prime above them for consistency. That's forgetting other factors exist.

I suppose that's fair though my general philosophy is to adjust for help so I just see a decade of Kareem posting better or comprable impact in various contexts before successfully scaling down to rack up better team success.

As for Russell I just haven't seen a counter-case besides breaking era-relativity or presuming you needed to be two-way to be as valuable. Even going by "relative to other greats of the time" thing you proposed, you basically need to ignore magic and bird existing for parity I think

[Dutchball97]

I suppose that's fair though my general philosophy is to adjust for help so I just see a decade of Kareem posting better or comprable impact in various contexts before successfully scaling down to rack up better team success.

As for Russell I just haven't seen a counter-case besides breaking era-relativity or presuming you needed to be two-way to be as valuable. Even going by "relative to other greats of the time" thing you proposed, you basically need to ignore magic and bird existing for parity I think

Adjusting for help is paramount. It's just that with Kareem I'm not 100% convinced there weren't a couple seasons where getting a bit further was completely impossible. I think LeBron is a great example of a guy where a vast majority of play-off losses are to extremely strong teams, while not having a lot of help himself. Sure there are a couple of years like 2009, 2011 and 2015 where I think he could've beaten the team he lost to but even then it's arguable in every case and even that aside he still made it to the WCF in 09 and finals in both 2011 and 2015. Similarly for Kareem there is next to no blame you can put on Kareem for losses to the 72 Lakers or 77 Blazers for example but did he really need to lose to those Celtics teams? 73 against the Warriors definitely looks disappointing for example and in 75 and 76 especially it's hard to argue he only didn't win a title due to coming up against a superteam. I'm also not entirely convinced about the Cowens/Havlicek Celtics losses and the 78 and 79 Sonics defeats. It's not like those are bad teams but are they so good that Kareem shouldn't have been able to advance more often in those situations even with limited help? I'm not trying to make definite statements that Kareem should have definitely gotten further each time but there is enough doubt there to make it worth looking into more.

For Russell it probably depends how you view his prime. Some people have a tendency to view his career as pretty much a horizontal line where he never really had a GOAT-tier peak but was always around the same level from 57 to 69. I think you guessed it by this point but I'm not one of those people. I'm higher on his 62-65 period than most here as I think there are at most a handful of players that ever even arguably reached a higher level than that but I'm less bullish on him in the 50s and from 66~67 on. I also don't think 2-way play is that important but its hard to deny there were years where Russell underperformed offensively by his own standards. In 1964 he had his worst offensive season in his prime and it led to the worst offense the Celtics have had ever. It's also the best defensive team ever but being worse than even tanking teams on offense doesn't particularly help the case. 64 Russell with an average offensive season by his own standards has a very, very real argument for best peak ever.

[Cavsfansince84]

The longer the nba history is, the less details/truth people would care. Unfortunately with LeBron overtaking the all time scoring record this week, KAJ's GOAT case would be brought up less and less. Russell and Wilt's cases likely age better as not likely someone else gets 10 rings or breaks Wilt's ppg/rpg records left and right anytime soon. They might form a three-way tie in the future if Jokic does not get a chance to enter.
MJ is so marketable that even if KAJ had three-peated in 70s, the NBA would still need to find a way making MJ GOAT.

I agree with this part which so many claim to not understand how/why the media was pushing MJ as the goat so early on. Quite simply what is good for the nba is also good for the media that covers it. If the nba is growing and being consumed in larger numbers then the media gains directly from that by having more people consume its coverage of the nba. MJ being extremely marketable both in terms of personality and style/athleticism is a huge part of how and why the media loved him and pushed him as the clear goat rather than just a guy deserving of goat consideration(which is more reasonable).

[Homer38]

Kareem is likely the most underrated legends ever.He deserve to be mentionned way more often as a big candidat as the best player ever with LBJ and MJ

[Djoker]

For those who are saying Kareem didn't win.. In two prime years when he had a healthy star alongside him (Oscar in 1971, Magic in 1980) he roared past the competition to win titles in both years. His problem is he didn't have a good enough supporting cast for more than two years.

[The High Cyde]

For those who are saying Kareem didn't win.. In two prime years when he had a healthy star alongside him (Oscar in 1971, Magic in 1980) he roared past the competition to win titles in both years. His problem is he didn't have a good enough supporting cast for more than two years.

Yup, just goes to show that no matter how great you are, basketball is a team sport.

[OhayoKD]

I suppose that's fair though my general philosophy is to adjust for help so I just see a decade of Kareem posting better or comprable impact in various contexts before successfully scaling down to rack up better team success.

As for Russell I just haven't seen a counter-case besides breaking era-relativity or presuming you needed to be two-way to be as valuable. Even going by "relative to other greats of the time" thing you proposed, you basically need to ignore magic and bird existing for parity I think

Adjusting for help is paramount. It's just that with Kareem I'm not 100% convinced there weren't a couple seasons where getting a bit further was completely impossible.

The concern would be that you are potentially conflating the extent of missed potential with the extent of what an individual is achieving. Let's say for the sake of argument that Kareem's defensive advantage means he's theoretically going to have an edge as consistently "potentially more impactful"(And as I've outlined, it seems looking from a broad and inclusive(if noisier) lens(performance-cast) supports this). If Kareem "falls short" of this potential in some years but still "achieves" a similar amount of lift as Jordan manages in a similar setting, should we counting this as a mark vs Kareem in the comp? This is why I start with estimating help and performance. If player A can replicate the best looking "performance - cast" of player b over a sustained period of time in a variety of contexts(different support-levels, different teams, pre/post expansion) then there being fluctuation(and this is where "could have done more" often comes from) is kind of moot, no?

I would guess you see the 88-90 Bulls as "did as much as they could" situations, but if I replace Jordan with a player who can get to a similarish place in offensive production(there is a creation gap but kareem was still one of the best creators of his era) but also sees defenses become 4 points better with them for not one, not two, not three, but four years in a row, wouldn't you expect some of those(and maybe do some retooling because a center is not an sg) to turn into championships?

This framing also is going to skew towards players with better help because you get a lot of room for error(53 win srs without the best and third best player off 5 consecutive serious title runs is pretty ludicrous). Shouldn't we expect players to hold up better(individually) when the deck is stacked as opposed to when they're overwhelmed? 93 and 96(if we put stock in falco's defensive tracking or the low on/off(+2.2), maybe toss in 1992) serve as reverses of the questions you're asking for certain Kareem years. And then there's the issue of offensive/production tunneling, which can lead us to assume the star's limitations didn't play a factor when should-be romps turn dicey

We can certainly consider the different nuances(team fluctuation, box fluctuation, how stuff shifts as series get longer, resieliency vs strong offenses/defenses, ect), but the base needs to be comparable for the subtle differences there to become deciders. And thus far, "adjusting for cast" doesn't seem to bear that out. Kareem looks like a much more valuable defender and that defensive advantage seems to give a holsitic advantage that's pretty steady. Kareem's "trials" also give us the oppurtunity to seem him speedrun a bunch of different feats and he's seemingly doing this with less or less extra steps(triangle-> srs explosion -> defense increase from 90 to 91). Immediate contention -> GOAT-Team with a co-star you can play 60+ ball without -> 30 win lift on bad team -> stays very good when co-stars diminish -> mantains 20ish win lift post-expansion and post-trade -> consistent wowy(applying the "strict" defintion of that term) advantage throughout(70's corrected ben's stuff). Postseason to postseason there maybe be shifts(Kareem does do the best vs elite defenses though, and i think the blips are pretty rare, and 1977 is an elite elevation example), but the base just looks better broadly and i don't see much reason to be skeptical(center d -> wing d -> guard d is historically supported whether you examine archetype track-records(yes, even applying a "won a dpoy" filter to the guards) or the players at the center of team defenses of varying quality).

I think LeBron is a great example of a guy where a vast majority of play-off losses are to extremely strong teams, while not having a lot of help himself. Sure there are a couple of years like 2009, 2011 and 2015 where I think he could've beaten the team he lost to but even then it's arguable in every case and even that aside he still made it to the WCF in 09 and finals in both 2011 and 2015. Similarly for Kareem there is next to no blame you can put on Kareem for losses to the 72 Lakers or 77 Blazers for example but did he really need to lose to those Celtics teams?

Okay so it seems you are viewing non-titles through a lense of "how much blame must be afforded" as opposed to "how much was achieved". Like, if we take the adjust for cast approach, does 2015, 72, and 2009 look to you as a situation where they fall "short" as opposed to "that's pretty crazy". Unsure if it's a "different stat use" thing or a "different lense" thing, but when I see 2015, comparative conclusion is "literally no one has done anything like that since Bill Russell and that's supposed to be an off-year in a sub-optimal(for impact) context". Your view seems to be, "huh he lost, do i knock him for it or just ignore it". When I see 72 I see, "the man played 63-win ball without a co-star or a srs skyrocketing system, whose done that besides russell or lebron(or hakeem in specific playoffs), and then bettered the 71 full-strength stuff(that includes the postseason) with this seemingly not that valuable partner in crime(63-win to 70 looks closer to rodmany than pippeny)". You seem to see "well he lost, but hey, he played good, so i can't knock him down too much".

Ultimately there's no objective answer to which approach is better, but there is a trade-off when we are assessing non-titles as a spot where blame should or should not be assigned(or assigned to varying degrees): you are reducing the amount of data that is taken into account. Now a certain supporting cast threshold must be met for us to use the stuff directly in a comparison between "GOAT" candidates. A threshold that is typically uncommon. A natural byproduct is you aren't really getting an opportunity to outweigh disappointments as much

73 against the Warriors definitely looks disappointing for example and in 75 and 76 especially it's hard to argue he only didn't win a title due to coming up against a superteam. I'm also not entirely convinced about the Cowens/Havlicek Celtics losses and the 78 and 79 Sonics defeats. It's not like those are bad teams but are they so good that Kareem shouldn't have been able to advance more often in those situations even with limited help? I'm not trying to make definite statements that Kareem should have definitely gotten further each time but there is enough doubt there to make it worth looking into more.

You and 70's should know more about the specific circumstances around the series in questions, so I'll just reiterate that we should try to be as specific as possible looking at the "level of help" and the "level of team performance". My first step would be to see if I can draw a specific comparisons to varying iterations of Jordan here for these various series based on how high or low the year "ranks" for MJ and how comparable the situation was(level of help, level of team performance being the key factors there).

I do think the last sentence is kind of tough to turn into a knock in this comparison because Jordan really only has one notable "overcome the talent" win with the cleveland series in 1988. And, detaching ourselves from the offensive production(keeping in mind this is a comparison with a center with seemingly major defensive influence), what we're talking about is a razor-close triumph over a historical counterpart to the pre-Kawhi raptors(srs, tendency to underperform in the yoffs, meh coach, led by a non-superstar) dealing with a slew of injuries.

Like okay, Kareem lost to not great teams a bunch, but I'd like a specific comparison here to justify using it to elevate or lower kareem or mj relative to each other.

For Russell it probably depends how you view his prime. Some people have a tendency to view his career as pretty much a horizontal line where he never really had a GOAT-tier peak but was always around the same level from 57 to 69. I think you guessed it by this point but I'm not one of those people. I'm higher on his 62-65 period than most here as I think there are at most a handful of players that ever even arguably reached a higher level than that but I'm less bullish on him in the 50s and from 66~67 on.

Well here's you're really just comparing Russell to himself. Like we have one substantial "supporting cast" signal for the part the post-superteam years, and that is 35 wins(if you're willing to sell your soul for a 28 game(2.4/season) "10-year" sample, it's 35-wins throughout but... ) the year after player-coach Bill knocks off two great teams with a near identical roster. We don't really have counter evidence. Instead the other little stuff supports it really(also terrible without in the 5 games in 1969, Russell not being able to use the full extent of his skills due to being in foul trouble spurs a massive comeback almost immediately in the final game DESPITE Wilt going off, the "co-stars" of the dynasty are now role players or retired, ect, ect.). Winning a title, let alone an especially impressive one with meh help beats almost anyone's "peak"(we are talking about a handful of seasons here). If you have this as clearly below 62-65(where the team is an absurd outlier relative to the comp), then, at least with the "adjust for cast" approach, Billy is on his own cloud(at least until we get something that pushes against this).

I also don't think 2-way play is that important but its hard to deny there were years where Russell underperformed offensively by his own standards. In 1964 he had his worst offensive season in his prime and it led to the worst offense the Celtics have had ever. It's also the best defensive team ever but being worse than even tanking teams on offense doesn't particularly help the case. 64 Russell with an average offensive season by his own standards has a very, very real argument for best peak ever.

How much does this actually matter though? The rub is Bill still won, and Bill always won and he seemingly won with a level of help almost no one has won with(1969), with great help(rookie year), with cousy, without cousy, vs great teams and non-great teams. If the end result is triumph whenever you're healthy. Isn't "well did they do it with a good or average or bad offense" really important here? If Bill can actually win with average help as a about to retire player-coach, does it matter if it's happening with offense or defense?

[dygaction]

The longer the nba history is, the less details/truth people would care. Unfortunately with LeBron overtaking the all time scoring record this week, KAJ's GOAT case would be brought up less and less. Russell and Wilt's cases likely age better as not likely someone else gets 10 rings or breaks Wilt's ppg/rpg records left and right anytime soon. They might form a three-way tie in the future if Jokic does not get a chance to enter.
MJ is so marketable that even if KAJ had three-peated in 70s, the NBA would still need to find a way making MJ GOAT.

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=2266468&view=viewpoll

Interesting, current vote with KAJ/Russell/Wilt as 5%/3%/4%. Will take a look in the future polls. My guess would be that KAJ's votes go to LeBron more and he would be less and less talked as GOAT. Russell will be used against MJ, and Wilt's number will always get some votes.

[HMFFL]

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.

Start by comparing Lebrons first 13 seasons to the 13 seasons Magic Johnson played. Jordan's not a compareable player to Lwbron because most things favor Jordan.

Sent from my SM-N975U using RealGM mobile app

[The-Power]

Start by comparing Lebrons first 13 seasons to the 13 seasons Magic Johnson played. Jordan's not a compareable player to Lwbron ...

... because Jordan barely even played 13 seasons? Maybe that's also why Magic is not a comparable player either.

[70sFan]

Again, if you want to chant Dantley GOAT to engage a conversation and come back complaining the board becomes worse and worse, I see there are lots of paradox

Back to the topic, I am waiting for the footage analysis from you.

Like you said, everyone makes mistakes, consider offensive load, KAJ had some stints not looking great... Let's just look at this one:

0:34 KAJ missed a mid-range jumper
0:46 KAJ made a sky hook, Lakers trail behind Blazers, 89:93
1:35 KAJ and the other defender had miscommunications, gave up an open jumper 89:95
2:02 KAJ got fouled but lost the ball on an occasion that could have been a dunk 2+1. He was upset about himself but did make two free throws. 91:95
2:50 KAJ lost running Walton who got an easy layup; 91:97
3:12 KAJ made a bad pass under double team
4:44 KAJ made a bad pass under double team
5:35 KAJ grabbed a defensive rebound off missed free throw
5:53 KAJ missed a shot under the basket
6:55 KAJ lost position and let Walton made a no-contest jumper 93-101
7:16 KAJ lost the ball, TO, led to a fast break 93-103

I think I captured everything KAJ was involved. It looks like a very bad 4th quarter to me. If you have different opinion let's discuss.

Watch on YouTube

;ab_channel=ginoongkamote

Sorry for the late response, but I finally found time to answer.

I actually have full game that I will share, but at the beginning I want to start with what you wrote:

1:35 KAJ and the other defender had miscommunications, gave up an open jumper 89:95

This is not a miscommunication, it's not 2023 where three point line has to be defended at all cost. It's typical off-screen action and centers weren't supposed to go outside here, especially because Ford wasn't in position to switch on Walton. It was Ford's mistake, not Kareem's.

2:50 KAJ lost running Walton who got an easy layup; 91:97

Yeah, Walton tricked Kareem on that one. Kareem's mistake.

3:12 KAJ made a bad pass under double team

True

4:44 KAJ made a bad pass under double team

True, but notice how inept his perimeter players were before the entry pass and how little space Kareem has to operate. He made a bad pass, but he didn't have any opening here.

5:53 KAJ missed a shot under the basket

True, though he was triple teamed so it wasn't an easy shot.

6:55 KAJ lost position and let Walton made a no-contest jumper 93-101

Yeah, though Kareem was tired at this point and he played with 5 fouls. Bad defensive play.

7:16 KAJ lost the ball, TO, led to a fast break 93-103

True

You concluded that it was a horrible 4th quarter for Kareem, but you actually watched only a few minutes of it. To judge the performance, it would be better to watch the full game and I give you the opportunity to do so:

Watch on YouTube

1:40 - Kareem made very tough fadeaway out of double, though he could have passed the ball to open teammate
3:56 - notice how much defensive focus Kareem concentrates on himself, he made a bad pass that was recovered
4:10 - soft foul called on Kareem for boxing out Walton
4:35 - good defense on Walton, forcing him for a tough shot
4:53 - Kareem contested shot in transition a bit too late
5:55 - good help defense, Kareem didn't bite on pump fake and blocked Lucas shot
7:20 - bad awareness after rebound, Kareem turned it over during outlet pass attempt, then he blocked Walton's dunk attempt
7:45 - Kareem misses tough skyhook, he doesn't come back in transition
9:40 - Kareem gets deep position on Walton, fakes him and makes layup but he's called for traveling violation (wrong call)
10:05 - Kareem gets a steal on a passing lane and runs transition by himself, then he missed layup
10:28 - Kareem sets a strong screen on curl action
10:40 - Kareem defends Walton in the post reasonably well
11:00 - Kareem makes skyhook out of double
12:15 - Kareem forced Walton to a tough shot, notice how bad other Lakers players are at protecting the glass
12:30 - Kareem makes another skyhook, notice how Blazers guard him - shutting down the middle and Lakers create no spacing for Jabbar to operate
12:48 - lazy defensive possession, Kareem gave Walton uncontested jumpshot
13:36 - Kareem finally has some space to operate, he makes left handed skyhook
14:00 - decent post defense on Walton, but Bill made a contested hook, Kareem could have been more physical in the post at times though, he relied heavily on his length
16:00 - bad pass from double team, turnover
16:35 - Kareem makes a skyhook
16:50 - Kareem in deep drop coverage
17:45 - Kareem gets offensive rebound and makes and1
18:20 - Kareem contests a buzzer beater well

1st quarter: 6/8 FG, 3 tovs, 2 blocks, 1 steal

Overall, it's not the best quarter I have seen from 1977 Kareem, but notice how bad Lakers perimeter players were at basic things like beating the pressure or creating spacing. At times they couldn't even bring up the ball well with no pressure, which is especially visible in the 2nd quarter. Jabbar had 3 plays that I'd call as defensive mistakes, so it's not one of his best defensive performances yet but he also had 2 blocks and played solid post defense on Walton.

2nd quarter:

Kareem went on the bench, he comes back a few possessions after the start of the quarter.

25:18 - Kareem makes good pass out of triple team which creates open look, then Kareem misses tip
25:30 - Kareem comes back in transition in last moment and contests shot inside well
26:50 - Kareem forces an offensive foul
27:40 - Kareem doesn't bite on a pump fake and defends Walton well in the post
28:05 - Kareem makes a good cut and gets the ball low, but he misses short skyhook

Here is the rest of the game:

https://youtu.be/G7VLlJDVkSA
https://youtu.be/M-9W8UTMyE4
https://youtu.be/clPN3rd7jdo
https://youtu.be/1cekgHwt2cE

I don't have the time to break it down right now, but I will mention that I counted:

9 good contests inside
4 good rotations inside
3 bad rotations inside
2 good P&R coverages
1 good defensive play on perimeter
3 bad defensive plays on perimeter
2 transition stops
3 weak transition defense plays

Along with:

30 points on 62.6 TS%, 4 turnovers, 2 assists and insane inside gravity on offensive end

He also limited Walton to horrible shooting night - 8/22 from the field.

I think it's not a great performance by 1977 Kareem standards, but I definitely wouldn't call it bad. Despite all the flaws he showed on defensive end, he still stopped 13 inside shots and defended Walton very well. He also had some bad turnovers, but it's nothing compared to how many turnovers Lakers guards had.

If that's the game people want to criticize Kareem for, then I guess I was right saying that Kareem played at GOAT level in that season.

[dygaction]

Back to the topic, I am waiting for the footage analysis from you.

Like you said, everyone makes mistakes, consider offensive load, KAJ had some stints not looking great... Let's just look at this one:

0:34 KAJ missed a mid-range jumper
0:46 KAJ made a sky hook, Lakers trail behind Blazers, 89:93
1:35 KAJ and the other defender had miscommunications, gave up an open jumper 89:95
2:02 KAJ got fouled but lost the ball on an occasion that could have been a dunk 2+1. He was upset about himself but did make two free throws. 91:95
2:50 KAJ lost running Walton who got an easy layup; 91:97
3:12 KAJ made a bad pass under double team
4:44 KAJ made a bad pass under double team
5:35 KAJ grabbed a defensive rebound off missed free throw
5:53 KAJ missed a shot under the basket
6:55 KAJ lost position and let Walton made a no-contest jumper 93-101
7:16 KAJ lost the ball, TO, led to a fast break 93-103

I think I captured everything KAJ was involved. It looks like a very bad 4th quarter to me. If you have different opinion let's discuss.

Watch on YouTube

;ab_channel=ginoongkamote

Sorry for the late response, but I finally found time to answer.

I actually have full game that I will share, but at the beginning I want to start with what you wrote:

1:35 KAJ and the other defender had miscommunications, gave up an open jumper 89:95

This is not a miscommunication, it's not 2023 where three point line has to be defended at all cost. It's typical off-screen action and centers weren't supposed to go outside here, especially because Ford wasn't in position to switch on Walton. It was Ford's mistake, not Kareem's.

2:50 KAJ lost running Walton who got an easy layup; 91:97

Yeah, Walton tricked Kareem on that one. Kareem's mistake.

3:12 KAJ made a bad pass under double team

True

4:44 KAJ made a bad pass under double team

True, but notice how inept his perimeter players were before the entry pass and how little space Kareem has to operate. He made a bad pass, but he didn't have any opening here.

5:53 KAJ missed a shot under the basket

True, though he was triple teamed so it wasn't an easy shot.

6:55 KAJ lost position and let Walton made a no-contest jumper 93-101

Yeah, though Kareem was tired at this point and he played with 5 fouls. Bad defensive play.

7:16 KAJ lost the ball, TO, led to a fast break 93-103

True

You concluded that it was a horrible 4th quarter for Kareem, but you actually watched only a few minutes of it. To judge the performance, it would be better to watch the full game and I give you the opportunity to do so:

Watch on YouTube

1:40 - Kareem made very tough fadeaway out of double, though he could have passed the ball to open teammate
3:56 - notice how much defensive focus Kareem concentrates on himself, he made a bad pass that was recovered
4:10 - soft foul called on Kareem for boxing out Walton
4:35 - good defense on Walton, forcing him for a tough shot
4:53 - Kareem contested shot in transition a bit too late
5:55 - good help defense, Kareem didn't bite on pump fake and blocked Lucas shot
7:20 - bad awareness after rebound, Kareem turned it over during outlet pass attempt, then he blocked Walton's dunk attempt
7:45 - Kareem misses tough skyhook, he doesn't come back in transition
9:40 - Kareem gets deep position on Walton, fakes him and makes layup but he's called for traveling violation (wrong call)
10:05 - Kareem gets a steal on a passing lane and runs transition by himself, then he missed layup
10:28 - Kareem sets a strong screen on curl action
10:40 - Kareem defends Walton in the post reasonably well
11:00 - Kareem makes skyhook out of double
12:15 - Kareem forced Walton to a tough shot, notice how bad other Lakers players are at protecting the glass
12:30 - Kareem makes another skyhook, notice how Blazers guard him - shutting down the middle and Lakers create no spacing for Jabbar to operate
12:48 - lazy defensive possession, Kareem gave Walton uncontested jumpshot
13:36 - Kareem finally has some space to operate, he makes left handed skyhook
14:00 - decent post defense on Walton, but Bill made a contested hook, Kareem could have been more physical in the post at times though, he relied heavily on his length
16:00 - bad pass from double team, turnover
16:35 - Kareem makes a skyhook
16:50 - Kareem in deep drop coverage
17:45 - Kareem gets offensive rebound and makes and1
18:20 - Kareem contests a buzzer beater well

1st quarter: 6/8 FG, 3 tovs, 2 blocks, 1 steal

Overall, it's not the best quarter I have seen from 1977 Kareem, but notice how bad Lakers perimeter players were at basic things like beating the pressure or creating spacing. At times they couldn't even bring up the ball well with no pressure, which is especially visible in the 2nd quarter. Jabbar had 3 plays that I'd call as defensive mistakes, so it's not one of his best defensive performances yet but he also had 2 blocks and played solid post defense on Walton.

2nd quarter:

Kareem went on the bench, he comes back a few possessions after the start of the quarter.

25:18 - Kareem makes good pass out of triple team which creates open look, then Kareem misses tip
25:30 - Kareem comes back in transition in last moment and contests shot inside well
26:50 - Kareem forces an offensive foul
27:40 - Kareem doesn't bite on a pump fake and defends Walton well in the post
28:05 - Kareem makes a good cut and gets the ball low, but he misses short skyhook

Here is the rest of the game:

https://youtu.be/G7VLlJDVkSA
https://youtu.be/M-9W8UTMyE4
https://youtu.be/clPN3rd7jdo
https://youtu.be/1cekgHwt2cE

I don't have the time to break it down right now, but I will mention that I counted:

9 good contests inside
4 good rotations inside
3 bad rotations inside
2 good P&R coverages
1 good defensive play on perimeter
3 bad defensive plays on perimeter
2 transition stops
3 weak transition defense plays

Along with:

30 points on 62.6 TS%, 4 turnovers, 2 assists and insane inside gravity on offensive end

He also limited Walton to horrible shooting night - 8/22 from the field.

I think it's not a great performance by 1977 Kareem standards, but I definitely wouldn't call it bad. Despite all the flaws he showed on defensive end, he still stopped 13 inside shots and defended Walton very well. He also had some bad turnovers, but it's nothing compared to how many turnovers Lakers guards had.

If that's the game people want to criticize Kareem for, then I guess I was right saying that Kareem played at GOAT level in that season.

He is one of the GOATs so of course overall still impressive. The clip I gave was a pretty bad 5 min 4-quarter for KAJ, especially when you call him playing at a GOAT level, on an otherwise winnable game.

[Cavsfansince84]

He is one of the GOATs so of course overall still impressive. The clip I gave was a pretty bad 5 min 4-quarter for KAJ, especially when you call him playing at a GOAT level, on an otherwise winnable game.

You're saying all of this sort of like MJ never had bad games much less 5 minute stretches in the playoffs. It's a ridiculously high standard you are using tbh that's to the point of nitpicking imo.

[dygaction]

He is one of the GOATs so of course overall still impressive. The clip I gave was a pretty bad 5 min 4-quarter for KAJ, especially when you call him playing at a GOAT level, on an otherwise winnable game.

You're saying all of this sort of like MJ never had bad games much less 5 minute stretches in the playoffs. It's a ridiculously high standard you are using tbh that's to the point of nitpicking imo.

of course there are... 70s said it was a GOAT level playoff series from KAJ, i said i remembered he had stint of weak performances, 70s asked for some evidence and I posted a clip. Jordan, Kobe, LeBron all had those moments. When you want to talk about GOAT, not a superstar, how can a >5-min continuous clip in a 4th quarter playoff game that resulted in team loss nickpicking? Did you watch it?

[OhayoKD]

If that's the game people want to criticize Kareem for, then I guess I was right saying that Kareem played at GOAT level in that season.

He is one of the GOATs so of course overall still impressive. The clip I gave was a pretty bad 5 min 4-quarter for KAJ, especially when you call him playing at a GOAT level, on an otherwise winnable game.

This Board's consensus #1 peak year featured a stretch where the guy was "pretty bad" for nearly half of the conference finals. What exactly is a 5 minuite stretch supposed to show me?

He is one of the GOATs so of course overall still impressive. The clip I gave was a pretty bad 5 min 4-quarter for KAJ, especially when you call him playing at a GOAT level, on an otherwise winnable game.

You're saying all of this sort of like MJ never had bad games much less 5 minute stretches in the playoffs. It's a ridiculously high standard you are using tbh that's to the point of nitpicking imo.

of course there are... 70s said it was a GOAT level playoff series from KAJ, i said i remembered he had stint of weak performances, 70s asked for some evidence and I posted a clip. Jordan, Kobe, LeBron all had those moments. When you want to talk about GOAT, not a superstar, how can a >5-min continuous clip in a 4th quarter playoff game that resulted in team loss nickpicking? Did you watch it?

And, again, a continuous 7 quarter stretch wasn't sufficient to knock off the PC Board's current #1, why would anyone care about an isolated 5-minute lull?