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

[Owly]

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.

Yeah because I value accuracy and making big statements that not subject to greater nuance is tricky. But if something seems wildly off I can point it out.

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?

Well that becomes a matter of definition. Are we talking name recognition, performance standard etc The standards set by those terms are woolly enough for a range of opinions to be viable.

None of which contradicts my statement. Make a league bigger and more guys get productive and look like stars. The 50th ranked tennis player (or whatever) wins more points playing in a pool of the top 100 than the top 50.

2) Jabbar, Dandridge drafted in '69

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

You read the posts, right?
"in the era of clear genuine first picks (no territorial draft) the 70s number one picks are a mixed bag and after Lanier,"
"best player changed name to a Muslim name, regarded as taciturn, private, surly or whatever"
Kareem is acknowledged to be great and the best player in the league. I'm saying there aren't guys at that great level coming in after him. And you're saying "What about Kareem and players coming in at the same time?".

Whereas you said "at the start of the 70s the league added Jabbar". Did Kareem hold out until midseason ... or was Kareem in fact added to the league in the 1960s? If you had said "around" the start of the 70s that would have fine to note the addition of Jabbar (if repeating back to me what I already knew). If you meant "around" the start of the 70s you could clear that up. But Kareem wasn't added at the start of the 1970s.

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?

Not only at all. I think he's a great player. But the aforementioned players peaked curiously late in their career. And you're saying look at the great production he had in the 70s ...

Fine. Was Jabbar then not a superstar ...

Yeah I'm out here. I don't know what would lead you to think I believe that but it's either a wild level failure to comprehend or intentionally projecting strawmen. I could go further but at this point its clear that it's not worth it.

[HeartBreakKid]

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.

They're connected though. Their infrastructure is directly tied to the ability to create people with drawing power. The NBA lacked the creativity back then to appeal to wider audiences. They were a rather conservative org and I think struggled with trying to get younger audiences in their product.

The ABA did a lot of things to add flare that the NBA would adopt after the merger. (pretty much everything except the USA colored ball)

[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.

umsure if this is ironic or not lol

Fair to question the post given the author, but no.

Where’d I lie?

[kcktiny]

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.

The league was very strong talent-wise then. Those players could thrive in any 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.

Agreed. Great era of basketball.

I think you're thinking of superstar in basketball terms.

Yes. This is a basketball discussion group.

Kareem's hype was that he was going to be the greatest player ever

Arguably he is.

but that did not translate into commercial success

Why do you say this? How are you defining 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.

This graph:

https://runrepeat.com/nba-attendance-statistics

Shows NBA league attendance. In the mid-60s the league (9 teams) was averaging not even 3,000,000 fans/year. But by the early-to-mid 70s (17-18 teams) attendance was up to 7,000,000-8,000,000.

So - again - how are you defining commercial success?

Kareem was not a commercial star in the same sense that Chamberlain was.

Again you are making this statement as if it were factual. What evidence do you have that this is true?

I don't think you actually understood my point

Does your point have any facts behind it?

and are somehow talking about Kareem with in the context of a basketball bubble and not an entertainment bubble

Again this is a basketball discussion group.

Fine. How was Chamberlain more of a commercial/entertainment success than Kareem?

This is like comparing Stone Cold Steve Austin to Shawn Michaels, Connor McGregor to Volkinaski, Mike Tyson to Vladimir Klitscho.

Sorry. Other than Tyson I have no idea who these other people are.

The general public did not care about Kareem Abdul-Jabar. If they did he would have drew more.

Who is "they"? And is this how you are defining commercial/entertainment success? By how much their teams drew in attendance?

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.

The above mentioned graph shows NBA league attendance. What drawing power are you referring to?

I don't think you actually understand the difference between being great at basketball and drawing power.

Julius Erving did both.

So I'm going to just stop right here.

Well that was easy.

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 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?

Honestly yes those thoughts had crossed my mind.

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.

Here - perhaps you can educate yourself:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NBA_on_television_in_the_1960s

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NBA_on_television_in_the_1970s

I was alive during both decades, and a big NBA fan. Were you?

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).

False. It is very much debatable. You simply do not understand.

Well a claim being made is that the popularity was a result of infrastructure

This is in fact the case.

You think Kyrie Irving is fun to watch? Magic Johnson? You think people tuned in to watch them play on a regular basis?

Well in the early 70s we had Nate Archibald. Tiny. Nate the Skate. He had all the moves Kyrie has but was faster. Everyone back then wanted to see him play. He was maybe 5-11 and 160 lb, and lead the league in scoring and assists in one season (1972-73).

Yet we only got to see him play when the NBA all-star game was televised. If the infrastructure was in place at the time he alone could have been the face of the league. Personable, exciting, and dynamite on the floor.

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.

Again you say this as if it were factual. How did the NBA - or anyone for that fact - market Chamberlain more than Jabbar?

Wilt Chamberlain joining the NBA helped catapult them into another tier of commercialism.

Where's your evidence?

Dr.J wasn't even in the NBA for most of the 70s

The ABA was hemorrhaging cash on an annual basis. They were on the verge of collapse when the NBA agreed to bring on 4 teams and some of their remaining players via a special draft.

The NBA could have waited another 1-2 seasons for the ABA to fold and then just gotten their former players via a draft.

But it's been written that the key reason for the merger at the time it happened from the NBA's point of view was to get Dr. J. into the league.

[jkvonny]

Washington Bullets (Wizards) were primed to be a dynasty during the '70s.Were a juggernaut that decade, but did come away with an NBA title (1978, down year for them too 44-38 record). Lost 3 NBA Finals. Upset by the Golden State Warriors in 1975 NBA Finals. Lost to the Milwaukee Bucks (171) and Seattle SuperSonics (OKC Thunder) in 1979.
So Washington was 1-3 in NBA Finals during the 1970s.
The Bullets (WizaRDS)...Yes....THE Bullets MADE 4 NBA Finals. Lol.
Washington was a juggernaut many moons ago, kids.
I believe Washington made the most NBA Finals during the '70s compared to all of the other teams in the league.
Washington was the more stable, consistent and dominate team during the entire '70s. But won just ONE Nba title to show for, while losing 3 of them.
The '70s were the best decade for that franchise.

NY Knicks were primed to be a dynasty, too. but declined after they got old. They did have a mini dynasty during teh early '70s. Won 2 NBA Finals (over the Lakers twice). 1970 and 1973. There ones and only NBA titles so far.
Knicks got old and declined during the mid-late '70s.

Portland Trailbalzers were very young and primed to be a dynasty for the late '70s and '80s. Won an NBA title in 1977. A surprise, cinderella team. Expansion team just a few years old, first winning season and playoffs ever. Went all the way. Upset beat the 76ers after being down 0-2. Were favored to repeat and looked like it. Then injuries stalled them out especially when Walton went down. Lost to Seattle in the playoffs. The team and momentum was hurt and they faded away a little by the early '80s.

Seattle had similar fate to Portland. Young, up and coming, won 1979 NBA Finals. Followed by injuries. Kinda faded away by the early '80s.

Lakers got old and declined during the mid '70s. But started to rebound later in that decade.
Same for Boston, they got older and declined during the late '70s.

Milwaukee Bucks were like Washington. Very consistent and good during the '70s. Won 1971 NBA Finals (over Bullets) in just their 3rd year in existence. Had a chance to win another one in 1974 (lost game 7 to Celtics ) Lost game 7 at home. But, being a small market team back then was harder than it is now. Trouble retaining players. Kareem wanted out and went to the LA Lakers later on. Milwaukee was in the West back then before realignment.

GS Warriors came out of nowhere and upset Washington in the 1975 NBA Finals.

Then you had the ABA merger (absorbed 4 teams: Denver Nuggets, Indiana Pacers, SA Spurs, NY/NJ Nets(Brooklyn) ) and expansion teams come in during those times throughout the decade. New Orleans Jazz (Utah), Buffalo Braves (LA Clippers), Portland TBlazers, Cleveland Cavs.
Including rollover expansion teams from the late '60s: Chicago Bulls (mid '60s), San Diego Rockets (Houston), Phoenix Suns, Milwaukee Bucks, Seattle SuperSonics (OKC Thunder).
Later on (1980) Dallas Mavericks.

Lots of parity during the '70s.

1970 NBA Finals NY Knicks beat the Lakers. 4-3
1971 NBA Finals Milwaukee Bucks beat the Baltimore Bullets (Washington Wizards) 4-0
1972 NBA Finals LA Lakers beat the NY Knicks 4-1
1973 NBA Finals NY Knicks beat the Lakers 4-1
1974 NBA Finals Boston Celtics beat the Milwaukee Bucks 4-3
1975 NBA Finals GS Warriors beat Washington Bullets (Wizards) 4-0
1976 NBA Finals Boston Celtics beat the Phoenix Suns 4-2
1977 NBA Finals Portland TBlazers beat the Philly 76ers 4-2
1978 NBA Finals Washington Bullets ( Wizards ) beat the Seattle SuperSonics (OKC Thunder) 4-3
1979 NBA Finals Seattle SuperSonics (OKC Thunder) beat the Washington Bullets (Wizards) 4-1

[cam24thomas]

Thanks!
I've always enjoyed reading your posts as well BTW.

Thanks your the best around!

Washington Bullets (Wizards) were primed to be a dynasty during the '70s.Were a juggernaut that decade, but did come away with an NBA title (1978, down year for them too 44-38 record). Lost 3 NBA Finals. Upset by the Golden State Warriors in 1975 NBA Finals. Lost to the Milwaukee Bucks (171) and Seattle SuperSonics (OKC Thunder) in 1979.
So Washington was 1-3 in NBA Finals during the 1970s.
The Bullets (WizaRDS)...Yes....THE Bullets MADE 4 NBA Finals. Lol.
Washington was a juggernaut many moons ago, kids.
I believe Washington made the most NBA Finals during the '70s compared to all of the other teams in the league.
Washington was the more stable, consistent and dominate team during the entire '70s. But won just ONE Nba title to show for, while losing 3 of them.
The '70s were the best decade for that franchise.

NY Knicks were primed to be a dynasty, too. but declined after they got old. They did have a mini dynasty during teh early '70s. Won 2 NBA Finals (over the Lakers twice). 1970 and 1973. There ones and only NBA titles so far.
Knicks got old and declined during the mid-late '70s.

Portland Trailbalzers were very young and primed to be a dynasty for the late '70s and '80s. Won an NBA title in 1977. A surprise, cinderella team. Expansion team just a few years old, first winning season and playoffs ever. Went all the way. Upset beat the 76ers after being down 0-2. Were favored to repeat and looked like it. Then injuries stalled them out especially when Walton went down. Lost to Seattle in the playoffs. The team and momentum was hurt and they faded away a little by the early '80s.

Seattle had similar fate to Portland. Young, up and coming, won 1979 NBA Finals. Followed by injuries. Kinda faded away by the early '80s.

Lakers got old and declined during the mid '70s. But started to rebound later in that decade.
Same for Boston, they got older and declined during the late '70s.

Milwaukee Bucks were like Washington. Very consistent and good during the '70s. Won 1971 NBA Finals (over Bullets) in just their 3rd year in existence. Had a chance to win another one in 1974 (lost game 7 to Celtics ) Lost game 7 at home. But, being a small market team back then was harder than it is now. Trouble retaining players. Kareem wanted out and went to the LA Lakers later on. Milwaukee was in the West back then before realignment.

GS Warriors came out of nowhere and upset Washington in the 1975 NBA Finals.

Then you had the ABA merger (absorbed 4 teams: Denver Nuggets, Indiana Pacers, SA Spurs, NY/NJ Nets(Brooklyn) ) and expansion teams come in during those times throughout the decade. New Orleans Jazz (Utah), Buffalo Braves (LA Clippers), Portland TBlazers, Cleveland Cavs.
Including rollover expansion teams from the late '60s: Chicago Bulls (mid '60s), San Diego Rockets (Houston), Phoenix Suns, Milwaukee Bucks, Seattle SuperSonics (OKC Thunder).
Later on (1980) Dallas Mavericks.

Lots of parity during the '70s.

1970 NBA Finals NY Knicks beat the Lakers. 4-3
1971 NBA Finals Milwaukee Bucks beat the Baltimore Bullets (Washington Wizards) 4-0
1972 NBA Finals LA Lakers beat the NY Knicks 4-1
1973 NBA Finals NY Knicks beat the Lakers 4-1
1974 NBA Finals Boston Celtics beat the Milwaukee Bucks 4-3
1975 NBA Finals GS Warriors beat Washington Bullets (Wizards) 4-0
1976 NBA Finals Boston Celtics beat the Phoenix Suns 4-2
1977 NBA Finals Portland TBlazers beat the Philly 76ers 4-2
1978 NBA Finals Washington Bullets ( Wizards ) beat the Seattle SuperSonics (OKC Thunder) 4-3
1979 NBA Finals Seattle SuperSonics (OKC Thunder) beat the Washington Bullets (Wizards) 4-1

GOAT post and educational value EXCELLENT.

[jkvonny]

Washington Bullets (Wizards) were primed to be a dynasty during the '70s.Were a juggernaut that decade, but did come away with an NBA title (1978, down year for them too 44-38 record). Lost 3 NBA Finals. Upset by the Golden State Warriors in 1975 NBA Finals. Lost to the Milwaukee Bucks (171) and Seattle SuperSonics (OKC Thunder) in 1979.
So Washington was 1-3 in NBA Finals during the 1970s.
The Bullets (WizaRDS)...Yes....THE Bullets MADE 4 NBA Finals. Lol.
Washington was a juggernaut many moons ago, kids.
I believe Washington made the most NBA Finals during the '70s compared to all of the other teams in the league.
Washington was the more stable, consistent and dominate team during the entire '70s. But won just ONE Nba title to show for, while losing 3 of them.
The '70s were the best decade for that franchise.

NY Knicks were primed to be a dynasty, too. but declined after they got old. They did have a mini dynasty during teh early '70s. Won 2 NBA Finals (over the Lakers twice). 1970 and 1973. There ones and only NBA titles so far.
Knicks got old and declined during the mid-late '70s.

Portland Trailbalzers were very young and primed to be a dynasty for the late '70s and '80s. Won an NBA title in 1977. A surprise, cinderella team. Expansion team just a few years old, first winning season and playoffs ever. Went all the way. Upset beat the 76ers after being down 0-2. Were favored to repeat and looked like it. Then injuries stalled them out especially when Walton went down. Lost to Seattle in the playoffs. The team and momentum was hurt and they faded away a little by the early '80s.

Seattle had similar fate to Portland. Young, up and coming, won 1979 NBA Finals. Followed by injuries. Kinda faded away by the early '80s.

Lakers got old and declined during the mid '70s. But started to rebound later in that decade.
Same for Boston, they got older and declined during the late '70s.

Milwaukee Bucks were like Washington. Very consistent and good during the '70s. Won 1971 NBA Finals (over Bullets) in just their 3rd year in existence. Had a chance to win another one in 1974 (lost game 7 to Celtics ) Lost game 7 at home. But, being a small market team back then was harder than it is now. Trouble retaining players. Kareem wanted out and went to the LA Lakers later on. Milwaukee was in the West back then before realignment.

GS Warriors came out of nowhere and upset Washington in the 1975 NBA Finals.

Then you had the ABA merger (absorbed 4 teams: Denver Nuggets, Indiana Pacers, SA Spurs, NY/NJ Nets(Brooklyn) ) and expansion teams come in during those times throughout the decade. New Orleans Jazz (Utah), Buffalo Braves (LA Clippers), Portland TBlazers, Cleveland Cavs.
Including rollover expansion teams from the late '60s: Chicago Bulls (mid '60s), San Diego Rockets (Houston), Phoenix Suns, Milwaukee Bucks, Seattle SuperSonics (OKC Thunder).
Later on (1980) Dallas Mavericks.

Lots of parity during the '70s.

1970 NBA Finals NY Knicks beat the Lakers. 4-3
1971 NBA Finals Milwaukee Bucks beat the Baltimore Bullets (Washington Wizards) 4-0
1972 NBA Finals LA Lakers beat the NY Knicks 4-1
1973 NBA Finals NY Knicks beat the Lakers 4-1
1974 NBA Finals Boston Celtics beat the Milwaukee Bucks 4-3
1975 NBA Finals GS Warriors beat Washington Bullets (Wizards) 4-0
1976 NBA Finals Boston Celtics beat the Phoenix Suns 4-2
1977 NBA Finals Portland TBlazers beat the Philly 76ers 4-2
1978 NBA Finals Washington Bullets ( Wizards ) beat the Seattle SuperSonics (OKC Thunder) 4-3
1979 NBA Finals Seattle SuperSonics (OKC Thunder) beat the Washington Bullets (Wizards) 4-1

GOAT post and educational value EXCELLENT.

Thanks!
I've always enjoyed reading your posts as well BTW.

[kcktiny]

The Bullets (WizaRDS)...Yes....THE Bullets MADE 4 NBA Finals. Lol.

For the years we can measure team defensive efficiency in the 70s, 1973-74 to 1978-79 (6 seasons), the Capital/Washington Bullets were the best defensive team in the league at 96.5 pts/100poss allowed. Hayes and Unseld made for a formidable frontcourt on defense.