Why is 74-75 through 78-79 viewed as a nadir of the league?

[ceiling raiser]

Arguably 73-74 as well, but these five years don't get much credit from fans. Is it purely because you didn't have guys with big names each year making the Finals?

In particular, 77 was in incredible matchup to me.

What other years do you have top 15 GOAT-less matchups? From 1957 on, only really 1990, 2021. Arguably 1981 and 2010 if you're low on certain guys. But few and far between.

[Doctor MJ]

Arguably 73-74 as well, but these five years don't get much credit from fans. Is it purely because you didn't have guys with big names each year making the Finals?

In particular, 77 was in incredible matchup to me.

What other years do you have top 15 GOAT-less matchups? From 1957 on, only really 1990, 2021. Arguably 1981 and 2010 if you're low on certain guys. But few and far between.

Well, I see this era as one where there was one elite team - the Portland Trail Blazers - and they only played one healthy post-season together. With a healthy Walton, I'd expect Portland to be the clear cut favorites in '77-78 & '78-79 for a 3-peat, which would totally change perception of the era. Instead we get nadir-level champs in those years.

What about the two years before Portland?

First let's considered the 1975 champs Golden State and their next season. Here we have what I think is a pretty clear example of the phenomenon where a team finds their groove part way through a season, wins a title, and then comes back the next year considerably better. Had the Warriors been able to keep this up winning another title and beyond, we'd see them very differently.

As is, with them never having another deep playoff run after the 1975 breakthrough, I'd have to say that the most likely thing is that there wasn't anything really bulletproof about them, and they were fortunate to win the title they did.

Finally we have the Boston Celtics who won a title before the duration you mention in 1974, and then won again in 1976. This is a team with a nice sustained run, but given their inability to have anything that looks dynastic in this time period with no other dynastic prospects makes it hard for me to put them up on that level, even if I do think they were more impressive than the other non-Blazer champs of the epoch.

Re: '77 76ers. I don't think there's any doubt that this was a Super-Team that people were ready to see become a dynasty. Them losing to Portland wasn't so damning, but the fact that they weren't able to break through in subsequent years when the teams that did breakthrough don't seem very impressive makes it hard to see these 76ers as one of the true greats.

[Owly]

First glance and not saying I agree with it but things that could have harmed it's perception (I'm kind of more, though not exclusively, looking "at the time" - this is different from though not independent from its perception now).

- expansion including ABA dilution (though this doesn't line up terribly neatly)
- retirement of pantheon superstars (Russell, Chamberlain, West, Robertson ... Baylor [at least regarded as a peer at the time])
- maybe some net loss of genuine superstar power - in the era of clear genuine first picks (no territorial draft) the 70s number one picks are a mixed bag and after Lanier, little in the way of long terms superstars (health and being not "clean" barriers to two of the best chances)
- absence of dominant, legendary (big market?, historical?) teams, greater parity
- absence of a consistent white top tier superstar: Barry is arguably there for a couple of seasons but not media friendly; Walton is great for a spell but not available (and the counterculture, hippy-ish vibes might harm his breadth of appeal), Maravich scored and had flash but arguably (probably) didn't play winning basketball, generally didn't play on winning teams, had some alcohol issues and "kooky" thoughts (e.g. regarding UFOs); Westphal ... maybe not quite good enough and for whatever reason didn't seem to "pop" as a star.
- blackness of the league?
- possibly increasing perception/awareness of drug culture within the league (not sure how this lines up - not like the early 80s is super clean as best I can tell)
- best player changed name to a Muslim name, regarded as taciturn, private, surly or whatever

[Doctor MJ]

- expansion including ABA dilution (though this doesn't line up terribly neatly)

I think this is the weirdest thing for me from '76-77 onward. Merging the leagues back together results in a concentration of talent, so shouldn't we expect the best teams to be even better than before?

I feel like there were two big things here:

1. The ABA talent was in general not added to NBA teams in a way that I'd call "competent". The NBA allowing Julius Erving to be ripped away from the Nets and added to George McGinnis' Nets speaks to a horrendous lack of vision imho. I'm sure Commissioner Larry O'Brien did what was best for relationship-management between owners when he allowed this to happen, but in doing so, basketball got worse under his watch (until he got saved by the arrival of Bird & Magic a few years later).

2. There's no doubt that there were differences in how the NBA & ABA played that go beyond "one had the 3" or "one took defense more seriously". I think it's hard to really pin that down in a way where a specific more optimal approach would have definitely made things much better, but I do think that that there was some "oil mixing with water" issues that took some time to resolve. (Nowadays ironically we essentially play like an ultra-ABA with everything about the '70s NBA norms swept into the dustbin of history except the color of the ball.)

[Dr Positivity]

One issue is the finalists are also typically not the best. For examples you could argue 73 Knicks, 74 Celtics are a little bit on lower end for champion strength, but one thing they had going for them is 73 Lakers and 74 Bucks are high level finals opponents to help put them over. Whereas the Bullets and Sonics not only feel like weaker champions but they also beat only each other to do it.

Walton injury has a lot to do with it but too many players who'd be good as 2nd/3rd banana stars carrying their own mid teams instead of on Kareem/Erving/healthy Walton/Gervin/etc., ends up making it feel a bit meh. Plus probably some bad luck sex appeal wise, let's say it goes like this

75 - Warriors over Bullets
76 - Celtics over Warriors
77 - Blazers over 76ers
78 - Bullets over Sonics
79 - 76ers over Sonics

I changed relatively little here but it makes a subtle difference. The Celtics still win 76, but the finals feels more legit against a 59 W defending champion instead of one of the most forgotten finalists ever in the Suns, and the Warriors making another finals legitimizes their 75 title more. My biggest leap is 79. When Doug Collins gets injured the Sixers are 28-15 (53 W pace) and then finish the year 19-20 after that. I like that they have the 80s core not the McGinnis core by this year, they have Cunningham as coach, Cheeks, Jones, etc. They were still competitive in playoffs without Collins taking Spurs to 7 who lost in 7 to the Bullets, in thanks to in part to Cheeks coming on really strong by the playoffs. This would have been a good opportunity to have another superstar title in this year and put the Sonics back in their place as the team that loses to the superstars team like they were in 1980 when they have possibly their best team and make conference finals but inevitably lose to Lakers.

[kcktiny]

Why is 74-75 through 78-79 viewed as a nadir of the league? Arguably 73-74 as well, but these five years don't get much credit from fans.

I can only guess that the "fans" that say this were not around in the 70s to actually watch it (or to experience it as little was on national TV back then, especially the earlier 70s), and are only saying this in hindsight.

The 70s was a great era of basketball. There were those of us that simply could not get enough of it. No internet, no national TV contract (even the championship was on what was back then called "tape delay"). Games usually not on TV until the weekends and even then only the better teams were shown. Even local newspapers did not print much about NBA teams outside the home team.

I remember having to go to the library to read the once a week copy of the Sporting News to see all the NBA/ABA box scores for the previous week, as well as for player statistics, and making copies of those pages just to have the boxscores/stats as there was literally no other source for this info (that I knew of).

Finally we have the Boston Celtics who won a title before the duration you mention in 1974, and then won again in 1976. This is a team with a nice sustained run, but given their inability to have anything that looks dynastic in this time period with no other dynastic prospects

absence of a consistent white top tier superstar

Boston was clearly the best team in the league from 1973-74 to 1975-76. They won the most regular season games those 3 seasons, averaged winning 56-57 games/year, and did so with the league's 2nd best defense (only Washington was better defensively).

They were the only team in your 6 year time span to win more than one title, and in 1974-75 lost in the ECFs to Washington. Otherwise they would have gone to 3 straight Finals. Back then we thought of them as being pretty dominant.

Plus I certainly remember Dave Cowens and John Havlicek being considered "stars" back then, as much as Rick Barry and Pete Maravich were. Back then Cowens and Havlicek were considered the ultimate duo on both offense and defense.

And to show you what the public perception was of Cowens, the Sports Illustrated 10/1976 issue for the start of the 1976-77 season (after the merger) featured a cover photo of - not Jabbar or McAdoo or Barry - but Cowens and Dr. J. on it.

First let's considered the 1975 champs Golden State and their next season.

Everyone remembers Barry. In the 1974-75 playoffs he scored 28 pts/g, no one else on the Warriors scored more than 15 pts/g.

But that team was really good defensively, especially in 1975-76. Cowens and Jabbar were named to the all-defensive 1st and 2nd teams, but the Warriors C duo of Clifford Ray and George Johnson were outstanding defensively and were the reason that team was so good defensively.

First glance and not saying I agree with it but things that could have harmed it's perception:
- expansion including ABA dilution (though this doesn't line up terribly neatly)

I too don't buy this. The NBA expanded from 9 to 14 teams from 1965-66 to 1968-69. That's 5 teams over 4 seasons but I don't hear many saying the league was diluted then.

From 1969-70 to 1974-75 it expanded from 14 to 18 teams. That's 4 teams over 6 seasons. Less expansion over a longer time frame.

The NBA had 9 teams in 1953-54 and 9 teams in 1965-66. The country had 160,000,000 people in 1953, 192,000,000 in 1966, 218,000,000 in 1976. It was time for expansion, lots more talent to call upon.

Then the merger brought in a large number of high quality players. Certainly no dilution there.

- retirement of pantheon superstars (Russell, Chamberlain, West, Robertson ... Baylor [at least regarded as a peer at the time])

This is true.

- maybe some net loss of genuine superstar power

But in the span of just 3-4 seasons at the start of the 70s the league added Jabbar, McAdoo, Cowens, Maravich, Tiny Archibald, Bobby Dandridge, Jo Jo White, and others.

And late 60s players that broke out in the early 70s included Frazier, Lou Hudson, Bob Love, Chet Walker, Elvin Hayes, Wes Unseld, Connie Hawkins, Archie Clark, the Van Arsdale brothers, Jack Marin, and Jimmy Walker (amongst others).

The 70s was clearly not hurting for talented players.

1. The ABA talent was in general not added to NBA teams in a way that I'd call "competent". The NBA allowing Julius Erving to be ripped away from the Nets and added to George McGinnis' Nets speaks to a horrendous lack of vision imho.

Did you know that just prior to the 1976-77 season the Nets traded for Tiny Archibald, and for a brief moment they had Tiny and Dr.J.?

Man were we excited - Tiny, the most exciting little man in the league, was all-NBA 1st team the previous 2 seasons - and he was going to play alongside the most overall exciting player in Dr. J.

That didn't last. But I sure remember it thinking wow what a team that would have been.

the Bullets and Sonics not only feel like weaker champions but they also beat only each other to do it

Yeh but if you appreciated defense that Sonics team was unreal to watch. Best defensive team in the league from 1977-78 to 1979-80, and it's not even close.

Dennis Johnson and Gus Williams is one of the most underappreciated backcourts in league history.

[One_and_Done]

It wasn't. The 60s were worse, and the 50s worse still.

[lessthanjake]

It’s a curious thing really, since in theory the nadir should’ve been the ABA years, with the worst years being the last years of the ABA (when it had more talent). So that would overlap with some of this time period you’ve identified, but the rest of the time period should’ve been better, because the ABA talent got put in the NBA.

I think the bottom line for that latter part of this time period is just that it’s seen as a nadir because there was no super great team. Which doesn’t necessarily mean the league is weaker than another time, at least in terms of overall talent levels.

[penbeast0]

It wasn't. The 60s were worse, and the 50s worse still.

Agree that 50s were worse. I have the 60s as better for the reasons listed above, late 60s equal to early 80s though early 60s didn't match up to talent of later 80s.

[One_and_Done]

Yeh, we don't agree.

[70sFan]

Haters can't accept the truth that it's the coolest era of basketball, it's that simple

[HeartBreakKid]

it was a low point in its commercial success. It's not uncommon in sports to confuse low financial/commercial success with lack of sports talent. The reverse is certainly a factor, when a sport is thriving finically, the athletes in that sport are usually considered among the best.

There isn't that much correlation really between how good players are and how popular a product is, but it is how they are perceived none the less.

For the 70s, I think you can just chalk it up as a down period after a superstar retired (Wilt Chamberlain). I would say Chamberlain was the first real superstar in the NBA. If someone did not watch basketball they would still know who Wilt Chamberlain was, which you could not really say for the other players.

I think there was are a few down periods after some of the modern stars take over. After Jordan retired the league became less popular, and would continue to decline especially after the Lakers became a bad team (killing Kobe's momentum, plus the rape case nearly derailed his career). James is not retired yet, but I think post Cavs run where he has been more mortal it seems the NBA got a bit less popular.

There are many other factors, but I think that is just a place to start.

The NBA did not really have a go to guy to push the product. As someone else pointed out also the 70s is when basketball got "too black" which scared advertisers and thus TV deals. Speaking of TV deals, Dr.J could/would have been the guy to push the NBA into the next dimension but wound up in the ABA. The ABA couldn't get a TV deal during a lot of Dr.J's career, so that was a missed chance.

By the time Dr.J came around he couldn't play in New York. He was less springy and some people found him underwhelming visually. In general, the timing for Dr.J wasn't there.


When cable tv came around there was enough TV time to expose audiences to more basketball narratives and stories. In general sports got bigger around this time.



The 70s lacked a superstar to be the face of the NBA. They had poor TV deals. The ABA sucked up some of the exciting talent and that talent didn't benefit in terms of awareness because the ABA had no TV deals. Drugs hit the 70s and were affecting black communities, and thus black players in the NBA (David Thompson often a highly cited example). No dominating team to make a story out of either. The Knicks could have been big but they collapsed early on due to injuries.

[OldSchoolNoBull]

I think it was a combination of things(in addition the stuff that's already been mention - Walton injury, etc).

First off, the first 25 years of the NBA saw limited player movement - it was mostly, team drafts player, player stays on that team forever - trades were made but not nearly as frequently as they would later on(and Wilt was the only big name to get traded mid-career pre-ABA), and there was no free agency, and there were still only nine teams in the league as late as 1966. The ABA era was an earthquake for the NBA. Nine teams were added to the league between 1966 and 1975, the competition between leagues began giving the top-tier players more agency and the frequency of trades increased(Oscar in 1970, Kareem in 1975 just to name two big examples), and then the merger happened, adding four more times to the league and birthing (restricted) free agency for the first time in league history, which begat even more trading because of the compensation system that was in place at the time.

So the landscape of being an owner and/or manager in the NBA was dramatically different in the late 70s than it was for the entire history of the league up to that point, because all of a sudden you're trying to build a winner in a league with thirteen more teams than it had just a decade prior(and thus thirteen more draft picks per year to move around), with free agency a thing, and with way more trading occurring than ever before because of those things. And the result of all of this is that there was just a lot of really, really bad management in the league in those years. Just a few examples:

The 80s Lakers/Celtics owe a lot to other teams' disastrous decisions. In 1976, the first summer of FA, the New Orleans' Jazz signed 35-year-old Gail Goodrich away from the Lakers and decided it would be a good idea to trade multiple unprotected future 1sts as the required compensation. One of those picks ended up being Magic Johnson. In 1980, as (I think?) one of his first moves, Ted Stepien of the Cavs traded their unprotected 1982 1st to the Lakers for not a whole lot, and that ended up being James Worthy. In 1979, Boston signed ML Carr away from the Pistons, and because the Celtics sent McAdoo as compensation, the Pistons - who were terrible at the time - sent their 1981 first to Boston. That's the pick that was later dealt for McHale and Parish(in another terrible trade for Golden State).

Or how about the Moses Malone Saga of 1976, wherein the Blazers took him in the dispersal draft and traded him to the Buffalo Braves(that's the present-day Clippers for those that don't know) before the season started, where he played six games before Buffalo turned around and traded him to the Rockets. He was a really highly touted recruit at that point, and two teams trade him before he has a chance to do anything?

And in the early 80s, Stepien was so bad they named a rule after him and gave the Cavs free draft picks afterwards to help them.

Beyond the big ones like that, there were, for the first time, a number of stars languishing with organizations that could not put a team around them - Maravich with the New Orleans Jazz, Lanier with the Pistons, Gilmore with the Bulls, Tiny Archibald with Kansas City(and briefly the Nets before he blew his achilles out), McAdoo for a couple years in Buffalo. Gervin with the Spurs is a lesser example of this since they at least got close to the Finals. And then there's Kareem's pre-Magic Lakers years where they didn't seem particularly close to winning a title.

Second off, it was the cocaine era. Not much to say about that, but it was a real thing, it hampered a number of careers(see: David Thompson, Spencer Haywood, Bernard King, Micheal Ray Richardson, etc), and it wasn't good for the league.

Third off, by the mid-70s, the league was majority black, and the league appeared to have no idea how to market that to a population that maybe wasn't so friendly to that notion. I mean, the league's marketing was nearly non-existent in these years. And the cocaine, and some notable on-court fights(most famously the Kermit Washington/Rudy T punch in 1977), didn't help.

I will take this as an excuse to sing David Stern's praises. Magic and Bird are given credit for saving the NBA, and Stern deserves as much credit.

Before he even became commissioner, he had a big hand in curbing the cocaine issue, actively working with law enforcement in NBA cities to go after the dealers that were providing drugs to players, and then finally implementing the drug-testing and banning policies by 1983.

Also before he became commissioner, he had a big hand in starting NBA Entertainment, the NBA's production arm that revolutionized the league's marketing in the 80s - remember all those VHS releases in the 80s/90s, the "it's faaaaantastic" commercials, etc?

And Stern was, I believe, behind the Stepien rule that curbed the crazy draft-pick trading that had been occurring in the immediate post-merger era.

Stern didn't fix everything, but I certainly don't think it's a coincidence that the league skyrocketed in popularity when he came into power.

[Owly]

First glance and not saying I agree with it but things that could have harmed it's perception:
- expansion including ABA dilution (though this doesn't line up terribly neatly)

I too don't buy this. The NBA expanded from 9 to 14 teams from 1965-66 to 1968-69. That's 5 teams over 4 seasons but I don't hear many saying the league was diluted then.

From 1969-70 to 1974-75 it expanded from 14 to 18 teams. That's 4 teams over 6 seasons. Less expansion over a longer time frame.

The NBA had 9 teams in 1953-54 and 9 teams in 1965-66. The country had 160,000,000 people in 1953, 192,000,000 in 1966, 218,000,000 in 1976. It was time for expansion, lots more talent to call upon.

Then the merger brought in a large number of high quality players. Certainly no dilution there.

As I say it doesn't fit well with the timeline. At the same time, versus pre-ABA there is a substantial expansion. Probably want to go more into precise demographics (able-bodied males between the ages of 20-40 say). But take your number we go from 9 teams at the end of 66 with a 192000000 population. At the time of the merger, 1976, a real terms major league basketball contraction point, it's 22 and 218000000. That would be a dilution. Whether the talent per head had increased in between or earlier and the league was excessively concentrated before ABA and expansion is debateable and likely a better of taste and opinion (hard to gauge real terms league talent, optimal league size probably a matter of taste etc).

- maybe some net loss of genuine superstar power

But in the span of just 3-4 seasons at the start of the 70s the league added Jabbar, McAdoo, Cowens, Maravich, Tiny Archibald, Bobby Dandridge, Jo Jo White, and others.

And late 60s players that broke out in the early 70s included Frazier, Lou Hudson, Bob Love, Chet Walker, Elvin Hayes, Wes Unseld, Connie Hawkins, Archie Clark, the Van Arsdale brothers, Jack Marin, and Jimmy Walker (amongst others).

So
1) number of people who "look"/produce like superstars will go up when you expand/dilute a league.
2) Jabbar, Dandridge drafted in '69
3) Chet Walker's boom in the 70s like Wilkens or Green probably looks bad, rather than good in that they advance evidence of dilution.
4) I love NBA history but a fair chunk of these names ... not that they "bad" but if one were to say "Our league has star power, it's not diluted, we've got Bob Love firing up 23.5 shots a game" (though it's more problematic for a team later when he's missing more) ... and part because we aren't replacing the aforementioned greats but also the choices ... was Jimmy Walker typically even a league average 2 in the 70s.

[kcktiny]

For the 70s, I think you can just chalk it up as a down period after a superstar retired (Wilt Chamberlain).

Not true.

Jabbar/Alcindor battled Chamberlain for 3 years, 1970-71 to 1972-73. Wilt was the ages of 34-36 but was still a great defensive player. Every time they played it was billed as either the Battle of the Giants or the Battle of the Behemoths. By that 3rd to 4th year of Jabbar - when he had already won a title and 2 MVPs and was the clear superstar of the league - whenever they played against each other the announcers would calmly say how the baton had been passed from the former greatest player to the new greatest player in league history.

I would say Chamberlain was the first real superstar in the NBA. If someone did not watch basketball they would still know who Wilt Chamberlain was, which you could not really say for the other players.

By his 2nd or 3rd season everyone knew who Alcindor/Jabbar was. Every NBA preseason book or magazine back then either had him on the cover or a story about him.

By the time Dr.J came around he couldn't play in New York. He was less springy and some people found him underwhelming visually. In general, the timing for Dr.J wasn't there.

Come again?

His first season in Philadelphia he leads the 76ers in minutes played and scoring and they get to the Finals for the first time in a decade. They sellout every home game - and 4/5 of their road games, unheard of back then. Everybody wanted to see Dr. J. play.

Did you not watch the 1976-77 Finals? Erving averaged 30 pts/g in the Finals and was flying all over the place. Everyone who saw those Finals came away knowing who the most exciting player in the league was.

Talk about revisionist history.

The 70s lacked a superstar to be the face of the NBA.

The league had plenty of superstars in the 70s - Jabbar, McAdoo, Maravich, Barry, the Big "E", Cowens, Frazier, and a host of others.

This is not why the league did not have a TV contract.

the league's marketing was nearly non-existent in these years

In the early 70s the logic of team owners was similar to those of the 60s - their thinking was their teams on TV would reduce their gate receipts, which at that time was their key source of revenue.

Plus there were only 3 major TV stations and a few local UHF/VHF stations. The infrastructure simply wasn't there until cable came along in the early 80s.

NFL football was popular because they only played on sundays and played few games. Back then there simply were not many sporting events on main TV during the week. And that is why monday night football became such a huge deal.

So 1) number of people who "look"/produce like superstars will go up when you expand/dilute a league.

You have a habit of saying what isn't but not what is.

Fine. In the first 4 years of the 70s - 1969-70 to 1972-73 - there were 334 different players that played in the NBA. Who were the superstars, and who were the stars? You have a habit of saying who weren't, how about telling us who were?

2) Jabbar, Dandridge drafted in '69

Correct. And their first NBA season was 1969-70, the first season of the 70s.

3) Chet Walker's boom in the 70s like Wilkens or Green probably looks bad, rather than good in that they advance evidence of dilution.

Walker in the first 3 seasons of the 70s scored 20+ pts/g, and over 6 seasons in the 70s averaged 20+ pts/g. But you are claiming this is only due to him having played in a "diluted" league?

Fine. Was Jabbar then not a superstar based on your definition because he played in a "diluted" league? Because in the early 70s there were a host of commentators calling him the greatest big man the league had ever seen - better than Chamberlain, Russell, and Mikan.

4) I love NBA history but a fair chunk of these names ... not that they "bad" but if one were to say "Our league has star power, it's not diluted, we've got Bob Love firing up 23.5 shots a game"

Bob Love in 1970-71 and 1971-72 was the 3rd highest scoring forward in the league - only Havlicek and Hayes scored more. He was clearly a star player in the league at that time. Are you complaining because he wasn't a great shooter? He shot better than the Big "E" and Hayes was also clearly a star in the league.

was Jimmy Walker typically even a league average 2 in the 70s.

The first 4 seasons of the 70s there were 334 players that played in the NBA. Among those 334 players Walker scored the 15th most points. You call that typical?

[ronnymac2]

The absolute nadir of NBA basketball was actually 1971 and 1972. The only true all-time great team of the mini-era was depleted by injury those years, and you've got the two most overrated "All-Time Great" teams in MIL and LAL winning titles and setting records they had no business winning/setting. The GOAT, Bill Russell, retired, and the ABA had siphoned talent. Truly a terrible time.

After the Knicks restored order and exposed the Lakers in '73, things actually got back on track for the NBA, the only palls being the Knicks' departure from being a contender and Bill Walton's health after '77. All those teams from 1975 through 1979 are underrated and really great teams. They'd actually smash most NBA champions in history regardless of era.

Others above have done well to elucidate on why these years/champions don't get much recognition from fans/analysts. But real fans/analysts know.

[prolific passer]

75-77 was actually some pretty good and exciting basketball. 78 and 79? Not so much and that's sad for a guy like Wes Unseld who the 70s was overall was not a good decade from a success standpoint.

[HeartBreakKid]

For the 70s, I think you can just chalk it up as a down period after a superstar retired (Wilt Chamberlain).

Not true.

Jabbar/Alcindor battled Chamberlain for 3 years, 1970-71 to 1972-73. Wilt was the ages of 34-36 but was still a great defensive player. Every time they played it was billed as either the Battle of the Giants or the Battle of the Behemoths. By that 3rd to 4th year of Jabbar - when he had already won a title and 2 MVPs and was the clear superstar of the league - whenever they played against each other the announcers would calmly say how the baton had been passed from the former greatest player to the new greatest player in league history.

I think you're thinking of superstar in basketball terms. Kareem's hype was that he was going to be the greatest player ever but that did not translate into commercial success. Kareem was a big deal among basketball fans but he was not a player who brought in non-basketball fans into the sport.

Kareem was not a commercial star in the same sense that Chamberlain was. You are conflicting things like MVP, best player, greatness with commercial value which is what my post was alking about.

By his 2nd or 3rd season everyone knew who Alcindor/Jabbar was. Every NBA preseason book or magazine back then either had him on the cover or a story about him.

Everyone knew who he was...? Are you under the impression that everyone read NBA magazines?

I don't think you actually understood my point and are somehow talking about Kareem with in the context of a basketball bubble and not an entertainment bubble. This is like comparing Stone Cold Steve Austin to Shawn Michaels, Connor McGregor to Volkinaski, Mike Tyson to Vladimir Klitscho.

Kareem was the best player so basketball fans knew who he was...duh..? The general public did not care about Kareem Abdul-Jabar. If they did he would have drew more. If you really think Kareem's impact on basketball is the same as Chamberlain in terms of drawing power then I don't think you understand the topic and are confusing it with something else.

By the time Dr.J came around he couldn't play in New York. He was less springy and some people found him underwhelming visually. In general, the timing for Dr.J wasn't there.

Come again?

His first season in Philadelphia he leads the 76ers in minutes played and scoring and they get to the Finals for the first time in a decade. They sellout every home game - and 4/5 of their road games, unheard of back then. Everybody wanted to see Dr. J. play.

Did you not watch the 1976-77 Finals? Erving averaged 30 pts/g in the Finals and was flying all over the place. Everyone who saw those Finals came away knowing who the most exciting player in the league was.

Talk about revisionist history.

Okay, you're DEFINITELY confused. It's almost like you are reading my posts and are saying "this guy doesn't know Kareem and Dr.J are good?". I don't think you actually understand the difference between being great at basketball and drawing power. So I'm going to just stop right here.

I skimmed the paragraph after and you said the 70s did have a ton of big stars and listed McAdoo. So yeah, you're just talking about something totally different.



And you are basically saying what I already said or eluded to...I mean honestly are you really making a post thinking that I do not know who Kareem was or that there was not cable tv back then?

Obviously when there were more channels it was easier to get on TV.....before cable they could not get a TV deal, and no, they very much did try to get TV deals back then. Read the ABA book. The sport was too small to get on one of the few TV spots that were available.

Yes...lack of a player they could market on a mass scale was one of the reasons why they could not take the next step (how is that even debatable..you do not even have to work in marketing to figure that out).

The NBA did not know how to market Kareem at a mass scale (are you actually debating that, but somehow making it seem like I am the one that doesn't know about Kareem's career?). He was nowhere near as marketable as Wilt Chamberlain. Has nothing to do with MVPs or their battles, nor was it ever implied as such. Kareem was hyped like the second coming of Christ as an amateur but as a pro he didn't bring that type of commercial value

. If the ABA had paid Kareem a million dollars like they tried it would have made for great basketball but made for a terrible financial decision.


Wilt Chamberlain joining the NBA helped catapult them into another tier of commercialism. They did not have someone like that in the 70s. Dr.J wasn't even in the NBA for most of the 70s...from what I've read you're basically arguing something that isn't being argued.

[OhayoKD]

For the 70s, I think you can just chalk it up as a down period after a superstar retired (Wilt Chamberlain).

Not true.

Jabbar/Alcindor battled Chamberlain for 3 years, 1970-71 to 1972-73. Wilt was the ages of 34-36 but was still a great defensive player. Every time they played it was billed as either the Battle of the Giants or the Battle of the Behemoths. By that 3rd to 4th year of Jabbar - when he had already won a title and 2 MVPs and was the clear superstar of the league - whenever they played against each other the announcers would calmly say how the baton had been passed from the former greatest player to the new greatest player in league history.

I think you're thinking of superstar in basketball terms. Kareem's hype was that he was going to be the greatest player ever but that did not translate into commercial success. Kareem was a big deal among basketball fans but he was not a player who brought in non-basketball fans into the sport.

Kareem was not a commercial star in the same sense that Chamberlain was. You are conflicting things like MVP, best player, greatness with commercial value which is what my post was alking about.

By his 2nd or 3rd season everyone knew who Alcindor/Jabbar was. Every NBA preseason book or magazine back then either had him on the cover or a story about him.

Everyone knew who he was...? Are you under the impression that everyone read NBA magazines?

I don't think you actually understood my point and are somehow talking about Kareem with in the context of a basketball bubble and not an entertainment bubble. This is like comparing Stone Cold Steve Austin to Shawn Michaels, Connor McGregor to Volkinaski, Mike Tyson to Vladimir Klitscho.

Kareem was the best player so basketball fans knew who he was...duh..? The general public did not care about Kareem Abdul-Jabar. If they did he would have drew more. If you really think Kareem's impact on basketball is the same as Chamberlain in terms of drawing power then I don't think you understand the topic and are confusing it with something else.

By the time Dr.J came around he couldn't play in New York. He was less springy and some people found him underwhelming visually. In general, the timing for Dr.J wasn't there.

Come again?

His first season in Philadelphia he leads the 76ers in minutes played and scoring and they get to the Finals for the first time in a decade. They sellout every home game - and 4/5 of their road games, unheard of back then. Everybody wanted to see Dr. J. play.

Did you not watch the 1976-77 Finals? Erving averaged 30 pts/g in the Finals and was flying all over the place. Everyone who saw those Finals came away knowing who the most exciting player in the league was.

Talk about revisionist history.

Okay, you're DEFINITELY confused. It's almost like you are reading my posts and are saying "this guy doesn't know Kareem and Dr.J are good?". I don't think you actually understand the difference between being great at basketball and drawing power. So I'm going to just stop right here.

I skimmed the paragraph after and you said the 70s did have a ton of big stars and listed McAdoo. So yeah, you're just talking about something totally different.



And you are basically saying what I already said or eluded to...I mean honestly are you really making a post thinking that I do not know who Kareem was or that there was not cable tv back then?

Obviously when there were more channels it was easier to get on TV.....before cable they could not get a TV deal, and no, they very much did try to get TV deals back then. Read the ABA book. The sport was too small to get on one of the few TV spots that were available.

Yes...lack of a player they could market on a mass scale was one of the reasons why they could not take the next step (how is that even debatable..you do not even have to work in marketing to figure that out).

The NBA did not know how to market Kareem at a mass scale (are you actually debating that, but somehow making it seem like I am the one that doesn't know about Kareem's career?). He was nowhere near as marketable as Wilt Chamberlain. Has nothing to do with MVPs or their battles, nor was it ever implied as such. Kareem was hyped like the second coming of Christ as an amateur but as a pro he didn't bring that type of commercial value

. If the ABA had paid Kareem a million dollars like they tried it would have made for great basketball but made for a terrible financial decision.


Wilt Chamberlain joining the NBA helped catapult them into another tier of commercialism. They did not have someone like that in the 70s. Dr.J wasn't even in the NBA for most of the 70s...from what I've read you're basically arguing something that isn't being argued.

Well a claim being made is that the popularity was a result of infrastructure and scheduling, not the actual players. I do not know how that true it is.

[OhayoKD]

The absolute nadir of NBA basketball was actually 1971 and 1972. The only true all-time great team of the mini-era was depleted by injury those years, and you've got the two most overrated "All-Time Great" teams in MIL and LAL winning titles and setting records they had no business winning/setting. The GOAT, Bill Russell, retired, and the ABA had siphoned talent. Truly a terrible time.

After the Knicks restored order and exposed the Lakers in '73, things actually got back on track for the NBA, the only palls being the Knicks' departure from being a contender and Bill Walton's health after '77. All those teams from 1975 through 1979 are underrated and really great teams. They'd actually smash most NBA champions in history regardless of era.

Others above have done well to elucidate on why these years/champions don't get much recognition from fans/analysts. But real fans/analysts know.

umsure if this is ironic or not lol