Is lack of multiple 70's titles a knock on KAJ?
Moderators: Doctor MJ, trex_8063, penbeast0, PaulieWal, Clyde Frazier
Is lack of multiple 70's titles a knock on KAJ?
- mopper8
- Retired Mod
- Posts: 42,618
- And1: 4,870
- Joined: Jul 18, 2004
- Location: Petting elephants with the coolest dude alive
Is lack of multiple 70's titles a knock on KAJ?
If you look at the "Immortal 6" or whatever you call them, I believe that's considered to be Jordan, Kareem, Wilt, Russell, BIrd & Magic, in no particular order.
You have Wilt and Russell's primes overlapping extensively, and Russell wins 9 titles in 11 years, one of the two years he doesn't win it, Wilt does.
In the 80's, Magic and Bird combine for 8 of 10 titles.
In the 90's, against nobody else in the immortal 6, Jordan grabs 6 titles, and could've plausibly won 8 in a row if he had not retired. Sandwiched in between his titles you have a pair lead by Hakeem, a top-15 guy. Post-MJ, 3 top-15 ish guys, Shaq/Duncan/Kobe, have basically shared the last 12 titles, with Garnett, another guy in that range, sneaking one in.
In the past 30 years, outside of those titles, you have 3 great ensemble efforts by Detroit in between, and Moses and Wade both grabbing one title each.
Then, look at the 70's, where KAJ arguably had the easiest path to titles. Talent was spread thin with the ABA in existence; Artis Gilmore, e.g., spent the first half the decade there. So did Dr. J. When Kareem wasn't winning one of his 5 MVPs in the decade, they went to Willis Reed, Dave Cowens, Bob McAdoo, Moses Malone, guys who really aren't in the same category of greatness ( you could argue Malone and Reed). Bill Walton nabbed an MVP and a title in an incredibly short prime. Other title teams' big names were guys like Rick Barry and Jamal Wilkes, or Gus Williams & Jack Sikma and Dennis Johnson, etc.
Looking at the career arcs of the other top guys, and looking at the competition and KAJ's 5 MVPs, is 1 title too few for the 70's? Is that a knock on KAJ's legacy? Are there mitigating circumstances?
And, if he'd won a 2-3 more in the 70's, would he be the GOAT?
You have Wilt and Russell's primes overlapping extensively, and Russell wins 9 titles in 11 years, one of the two years he doesn't win it, Wilt does.
In the 80's, Magic and Bird combine for 8 of 10 titles.
In the 90's, against nobody else in the immortal 6, Jordan grabs 6 titles, and could've plausibly won 8 in a row if he had not retired. Sandwiched in between his titles you have a pair lead by Hakeem, a top-15 guy. Post-MJ, 3 top-15 ish guys, Shaq/Duncan/Kobe, have basically shared the last 12 titles, with Garnett, another guy in that range, sneaking one in.
In the past 30 years, outside of those titles, you have 3 great ensemble efforts by Detroit in between, and Moses and Wade both grabbing one title each.
Then, look at the 70's, where KAJ arguably had the easiest path to titles. Talent was spread thin with the ABA in existence; Artis Gilmore, e.g., spent the first half the decade there. So did Dr. J. When Kareem wasn't winning one of his 5 MVPs in the decade, they went to Willis Reed, Dave Cowens, Bob McAdoo, Moses Malone, guys who really aren't in the same category of greatness ( you could argue Malone and Reed). Bill Walton nabbed an MVP and a title in an incredibly short prime. Other title teams' big names were guys like Rick Barry and Jamal Wilkes, or Gus Williams & Jack Sikma and Dennis Johnson, etc.
Looking at the career arcs of the other top guys, and looking at the competition and KAJ's 5 MVPs, is 1 title too few for the 70's? Is that a knock on KAJ's legacy? Are there mitigating circumstances?
And, if he'd won a 2-3 more in the 70's, would he be the GOAT?
Re: Is lack of 70's dominance a knock on KAJ?
-
- RealGM
- Posts: 60,467
- And1: 5,349
- Joined: Jul 12, 2006
- Location: HCA (Homecourt Advantage)
Re: Is lack of 70's dominance a knock on KAJ?
I think the fact that a lot of the best players were in the ABA as well during the time also hurts in this case. Also few times in the middle of his prime he didn't make the playoffs. Other times you had single star teams like the Warriors in 75 to win it all and then you had a 44 win Bullets team win it all and then a Seattle team with no superstar win it all.
Not only that, but he demanded a trade to a top marquee franchise as well.
Not only that, but he demanded a trade to a top marquee franchise as well.

"Talent wins games, but teamwork and intelligence wins championships."
- Michael Jordan
Re: Is lack of 70's dominance a knock on KAJ?
-
- RealGM
- Posts: 51,103
- And1: 45,568
- Joined: Feb 06, 2007
- Location: Clearing space in the trophy case.
Re: Is lack of 70's dominance a knock on KAJ?
The title should be lack of championships, because he dominated from an individual standpoint about as thoroughly possible.
The Bucks probably should have won at least another championship, probably in 74 when they lost to Boston at home in Game 7. Kareem was great with 26 and 13, but Dave Cowens was just a bit better with 28 and 14, and that's fair to critisize.
But more often than not, the question that comes to mind is, what more could he have done? He was a complete beast in every single year, but more often than not he was saddled with aging or average teams, sometimes both.
The 77 series against Portland pretty much sums it up for me. He pretty soundly outplays Bill Walton, averaging 35/17 despite getting doubled throughout, but the Lakers get swept because they're a vastly inferior team, riddled with injuries. Not only does Kareem get blamed, the widely-accepted myth is that Walton soundly outplays him. Which is complete and total crap, on both levels.
So while I think you can, and should, fairly critique anybody, my conclusion is always the same: what more could he have done?
The Bucks probably should have won at least another championship, probably in 74 when they lost to Boston at home in Game 7. Kareem was great with 26 and 13, but Dave Cowens was just a bit better with 28 and 14, and that's fair to critisize.
But more often than not, the question that comes to mind is, what more could he have done? He was a complete beast in every single year, but more often than not he was saddled with aging or average teams, sometimes both.
The 77 series against Portland pretty much sums it up for me. He pretty soundly outplays Bill Walton, averaging 35/17 despite getting doubled throughout, but the Lakers get swept because they're a vastly inferior team, riddled with injuries. Not only does Kareem get blamed, the widely-accepted myth is that Walton soundly outplays him. Which is complete and total crap, on both levels.
So while I think you can, and should, fairly critique anybody, my conclusion is always the same: what more could he have done?
Re: Is lack of 70's dominance a knock on KAJ?
- mopper8
- Retired Mod
- Posts: 42,618
- And1: 4,870
- Joined: Jul 18, 2004
- Location: Petting elephants with the coolest dude alive
Re: Is lack of 70's dominance a knock on KAJ?
Sedale Threatt wrote:The title should be lack of championships, because he dominated from an individual standpoint about as thoroughly possible.
The Bucks probably should have won at least another championship, probably in 74 when they lost to Boston at home in Game 7. Kareem was great with 26 and 13, but Dave Cowens was just a bit better with 28 and 14, and that's fair to critisize.
But more often than not, the question that comes to mind is, what more could he have done? He was a complete beast in every single year, but more often than not he was saddled with aging or average teams, sometimes both.
The 77 series against Portland pretty much sums it up for me. He pretty soundly outplays Bill Walton, averaging 35/17 despite getting doubled throughout, but the Lakers get swept because they're a vastly inferior team, riddled with injuries. Not only does Kareem get blamed, the widely-accepted myth is that Walton soundly outplays him. Which is complete and total crap, on both levels.
So while I think you can, and should, fairly critique anybody, my conclusion is always the same: what more could he have done?
I edited the title. Just to be clear, I personally would choose KAJ #1 in all-time draft, but that's based more on reading people on here talk about players than anything else. I'm getting into some NBA history books right now, so maybe I'll have more fleshed-out thoughts on this in a few months, but for now I was just curious what people with more knowledge on the topic would think.
I read someone say that KAJ "always" got owned by more physical players, and cited Moses in specific. I figured that was mistaking 1 Finals performance in a season when an aging KAJ only averaged 8 rpg for "always", but I'm curious: is that true? Did he have trouble with bulkier/more physical C's?
DragicTime85 wrote:[Ric Bucher] has a tiny wiener and I can prove it.
Re: Is lack of multiple 70's titles a knock on KAJ?
-
- RealGM
- Posts: 51,103
- And1: 45,568
- Joined: Feb 06, 2007
- Location: Clearing space in the trophy case.
Re: Is lack of multiple 70's titles a knock on KAJ?
You know, I'm honestly not the guy to ask those specific details. Most of what I know about Kareem is through research and reading. I didn't catch him in person until the very back end of his career. I know he had his struggles with Wilt -- to which I'd respond, who didn't? -- and that Moses kicked his ass on the boards in 82. But I also know that Kareem almost always gave much more than he got.
I think more than any actual limitations in his game, his two biggest problems in the 70s were that he played on a lot of subpar teams, and that he was extremely surly and standoffish with the media, who had a major hand in shaping his image as a malingerer.
Jerry West talked about this at length, saying there were two reporters in particular -- I can't remember their names, but one was with the Times, the paper of record -- who should have been fired for gross unprofessionalism.
Kareem does deserve a lot of criticism for that. He just went out of his way to be an ****. But at the same time, the media pushed so many lazy conclusions -- i.e. that Walton outplayed Kareem, only because the Lakers were swept, when in fact it was pretty obvious who the better player was -- that you can understand where the bitterness came from.
As he said when the media finally started coming back around in 1980 -- not coincidentally after Magic showed up, and the Lakers started winning again, but he was doing pretty much the same thing he'd always done -- "I view that with total cynicism."
I think more than any actual limitations in his game, his two biggest problems in the 70s were that he played on a lot of subpar teams, and that he was extremely surly and standoffish with the media, who had a major hand in shaping his image as a malingerer.
Jerry West talked about this at length, saying there were two reporters in particular -- I can't remember their names, but one was with the Times, the paper of record -- who should have been fired for gross unprofessionalism.
Kareem does deserve a lot of criticism for that. He just went out of his way to be an ****. But at the same time, the media pushed so many lazy conclusions -- i.e. that Walton outplayed Kareem, only because the Lakers were swept, when in fact it was pretty obvious who the better player was -- that you can understand where the bitterness came from.
As he said when the media finally started coming back around in 1980 -- not coincidentally after Magic showed up, and the Lakers started winning again, but he was doing pretty much the same thing he'd always done -- "I view that with total cynicism."
Re: Is lack of multiple 70's titles a knock on KAJ?
-
- Senior Mod - Clippers
- Posts: 8,264
- And1: 1,795
- Joined: Apr 11, 2001
Re: Is lack of multiple 70's titles a knock on KAJ?
There's something else to consider too. When you say "Magic and Bird combvined to win 8 championships in the 1980s"...keep in mind that Kareem was the most important and instrumental player in the 1980 title run, was probably 50-50 in 1982 and has a pretty strong case in 1985 as well. Those 1980s Laker championships don't all belong to Magic—not by a long shot. (And Kareem got shafted out of a championship by Richie Powers in 1974 as well. Richie Powers is a real blot on the NBA community; the more I learn about him, the worse it looks.)
Kareem didn't get owned by physical players. That's just not true. Look at Wilt vs. Kareem.
Regular season statistics:
Kareem vs. Wilt: 31.8 ppg, 15.8 rpg
Wilt vs. Kareem: 16.3 ppg, 17.6 rpg
Postseason statistics:
Kareem vs. Wilt: 29.7 ppg, 17.9 rpg
Wilt vs. Kareem: 15.9 ppg, 19.1 rpg
Regular season overall:
Wilt: 16.7 ppg, 18.7 rpg
Kareem: 31.5 ppg, 15.8 rpg
I'm not seeing Kareem getting owned...and Wilt was a physical guy. As for the Moses vs. Kareem thing—let's put that in proper perspective. Moses did, indeed, walk all over Kareem in 1983. When Kareem was 35. When Kareem had played close to 40000 regular season minutes. That's about as much as Ewing played in his entire career, as much Hakeem had played after the 1999 season. Is it fair to look at how Shaq bulldozed Hakeem in the 1999 playoffs and draw conclusions about how Hakeem played as a younger player? The problem is that Kareem hadn't slipped as much as Hakeem—and that's more of a plus than a minus. Hell, after playing 40000 minutes, Kareem was still a genuinely great player. But, no, he wasn't nearly as good with physical play at that point in his career. Still, that's ignoring the previous 13 years. Kareem handled Wilt well, and Bob Lanier well. He played Artis Gilmore and Walt Bellamy and Nate Thurmond fine. When asked about playing against great centers, Bob Lanier (who was about as physical as you can get) said this:
which sounds like Kareem dealt with it pretty damn well.
And, yeah, the Lakers of the mid-1970s were horrible. Jerry West become a great GM, but the director of player operations for the Lakers should have taken out behind the barn and shot for his incompetence. The mid-70s Lakers needed perimeter D and a second low post defensive player. They kept getting guards and SFs that couldn't play D. They had scoring and no D, and chose to add...more scoring. Lou Hudson (who was shot by the time he got to L.A.). Cazzie Russell. Donnie Freeman. Earl Tatum. Bo Lamar. These guys joined Gail Goodrich, who was in the 30s and couldn't guard anyone any more, and Lucius Allen, whose injuries had caused his play to decline dramatically. The Lakers had always suffered from this. In the 1960s, the Lakers had West and Baylor...and, other than Rudy LaRusso (an okay PF), they had nothing in the frontcourt. What did they do? They developed Archie Clark and Gail Goodrich.
What Kareem suffered from was unrealistic expectations. He played so well for so long that people just...expected it. So when Kareem started to rebound less after 1981, people talked about how he was no longer a physical player. They forgot the 12 previous seasons; the rebounding title, the five years in the top 3 in rebounding, the four other year in the top 5. They forgot the 1981 playoffs, where he played Moses physically enough to where Cap grabbed almost 17 boards a game in the playoffs. And because he didn't speak up and defend himself, the reputation that Walton had outplayed Kareem began. That Kareem was never a good rebounder. That he couldn't handle physical players. Even though almost every bit of evidence and testimony from current players (besides Wilt, who had an ax to grind) attested to his greatness, funny ideas cropped up. The bottom line is: no. Kareem was a great player against everybody.
Kareem didn't get owned by physical players. That's just not true. Look at Wilt vs. Kareem.
Regular season statistics:
Kareem vs. Wilt: 31.8 ppg, 15.8 rpg
Wilt vs. Kareem: 16.3 ppg, 17.6 rpg
Postseason statistics:
Kareem vs. Wilt: 29.7 ppg, 17.9 rpg
Wilt vs. Kareem: 15.9 ppg, 19.1 rpg
Regular season overall:
Wilt: 16.7 ppg, 18.7 rpg
Kareem: 31.5 ppg, 15.8 rpg
I'm not seeing Kareem getting owned...and Wilt was a physical guy. As for the Moses vs. Kareem thing—let's put that in proper perspective. Moses did, indeed, walk all over Kareem in 1983. When Kareem was 35. When Kareem had played close to 40000 regular season minutes. That's about as much as Ewing played in his entire career, as much Hakeem had played after the 1999 season. Is it fair to look at how Shaq bulldozed Hakeem in the 1999 playoffs and draw conclusions about how Hakeem played as a younger player? The problem is that Kareem hadn't slipped as much as Hakeem—and that's more of a plus than a minus. Hell, after playing 40000 minutes, Kareem was still a genuinely great player. But, no, he wasn't nearly as good with physical play at that point in his career. Still, that's ignoring the previous 13 years. Kareem handled Wilt well, and Bob Lanier well. He played Artis Gilmore and Walt Bellamy and Nate Thurmond fine. When asked about playing against great centers, Bob Lanier (who was about as physical as you can get) said this:
In my day, every night you were respecting somebody because those guys were awfully tough. If it wasn't Willis Reed, it was Wilt Chamberlain. If it wasn't Wilt, it was Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Artis Gilmore or Bill Walton. If you didn't respect them, they would whip your butt. They'd embarrass you. Guys then had an immense amount of pride and toughness. It was a very physical game.
which sounds like Kareem dealt with it pretty damn well.
And, yeah, the Lakers of the mid-1970s were horrible. Jerry West become a great GM, but the director of player operations for the Lakers should have taken out behind the barn and shot for his incompetence. The mid-70s Lakers needed perimeter D and a second low post defensive player. They kept getting guards and SFs that couldn't play D. They had scoring and no D, and chose to add...more scoring. Lou Hudson (who was shot by the time he got to L.A.). Cazzie Russell. Donnie Freeman. Earl Tatum. Bo Lamar. These guys joined Gail Goodrich, who was in the 30s and couldn't guard anyone any more, and Lucius Allen, whose injuries had caused his play to decline dramatically. The Lakers had always suffered from this. In the 1960s, the Lakers had West and Baylor...and, other than Rudy LaRusso (an okay PF), they had nothing in the frontcourt. What did they do? They developed Archie Clark and Gail Goodrich.
What Kareem suffered from was unrealistic expectations. He played so well for so long that people just...expected it. So when Kareem started to rebound less after 1981, people talked about how he was no longer a physical player. They forgot the 12 previous seasons; the rebounding title, the five years in the top 3 in rebounding, the four other year in the top 5. They forgot the 1981 playoffs, where he played Moses physically enough to where Cap grabbed almost 17 boards a game in the playoffs. And because he didn't speak up and defend himself, the reputation that Walton had outplayed Kareem began. That Kareem was never a good rebounder. That he couldn't handle physical players. Even though almost every bit of evidence and testimony from current players (besides Wilt, who had an ax to grind) attested to his greatness, funny ideas cropped up. The bottom line is: no. Kareem was a great player against everybody.

Re: Is lack of multiple 70's titles a knock on KAJ?
-
- Senior Mod
- Posts: 53,648
- And1: 22,599
- Joined: Mar 10, 2005
- Location: Cali
-
Re: Is lack of multiple 70's titles a knock on KAJ?
Certainly, if Kareem had done more with the same talent around him, it would raise my opinion of him - so I do blame him for the lack of success to a certain extent.
I also think that there's a certain type of impact a playmaker has which contributes well even if a team isn't well built, and Kareem didn't show that ability, whereas Wilt did.
With that said, Wilt didn't show that ability while being a volume scorer. He got moved away from volume scoring because Hannum thought playing that way was causing problems, and when comparing Kareem the volume scorer with Wilt the volume scorer, Kareem's advantages are pretty clear: Far more efficient in both college and the pros, and more titles in both college and the pros. Hard for me to knock Kareem too much.
I think it should also be noted, that the 70s were a weird time just generally. People on RealGM have recently made damning statements about Erving because of the unimpressive teams that won while Erving was in his prime. In the Retro POY project, we're in the middle of a two year period where there's clearly about 4 top guys before you even get to Erving who were better than any one on the champs or finalists. This doesn't jibe with what we've seen in any other era. You can theorize that this means the stars of this era were particularly weak, but since I don't see an individual statistical trend to back this up, that may not be the case.
Kareem is clearly argued to have a horribly constructed team. Erving very clearly had one of the worst fit/talent ratios ever - he and McGinnis were the same type of player, and Erving had much better success in the early 80s with significantly less talent around him. Maybe, either by luck, or by lack of skill, team building in the 70s was just really stupid compared to other decades?
I also think that there's a certain type of impact a playmaker has which contributes well even if a team isn't well built, and Kareem didn't show that ability, whereas Wilt did.
With that said, Wilt didn't show that ability while being a volume scorer. He got moved away from volume scoring because Hannum thought playing that way was causing problems, and when comparing Kareem the volume scorer with Wilt the volume scorer, Kareem's advantages are pretty clear: Far more efficient in both college and the pros, and more titles in both college and the pros. Hard for me to knock Kareem too much.
I think it should also be noted, that the 70s were a weird time just generally. People on RealGM have recently made damning statements about Erving because of the unimpressive teams that won while Erving was in his prime. In the Retro POY project, we're in the middle of a two year period where there's clearly about 4 top guys before you even get to Erving who were better than any one on the champs or finalists. This doesn't jibe with what we've seen in any other era. You can theorize that this means the stars of this era were particularly weak, but since I don't see an individual statistical trend to back this up, that may not be the case.
Kareem is clearly argued to have a horribly constructed team. Erving very clearly had one of the worst fit/talent ratios ever - he and McGinnis were the same type of player, and Erving had much better success in the early 80s with significantly less talent around him. Maybe, either by luck, or by lack of skill, team building in the 70s was just really stupid compared to other decades?
Getting ready for the RealGM 100 on the PC Board
Come join the WNBA Board if you're a fan!
Come join the WNBA Board if you're a fan!
Re: Is lack of multiple 70's titles a knock on KAJ?
- mopper8
- Retired Mod
- Posts: 42,618
- And1: 4,870
- Joined: Jul 18, 2004
- Location: Petting elephants with the coolest dude alive
Re: Is lack of multiple 70's titles a knock on KAJ?
Just wanted to re-iterate that I'm not trying to concern-troll KAJ's legacy here, I just want to know more b/c his 70's run seems so anomalous compared to the rest of the immortal 6. The thoughtfulness of the responses is much appreciated.
Re: Is lack of multiple 70's titles a knock on KAJ?
-
- General Manager
- Posts: 8,261
- And1: 54
- Joined: Apr 25, 2005
Re: Is lack of multiple 70's titles a knock on KAJ?
Even though championships are a team accomplishment, I do think the relative lack of success for most of the 70's should be held against KAJ at least slightly when you consider that the decade featured some of the weakest championship teams in history. So Barry and scrubs could win one but Kareem -- a much more dominant player -- and scrubs couldn't? Hayes' Bullets could but not KAJ? DJ's Sonics?
Re: Is lack of multiple 70's titles a knock on KAJ?
-
- Senior Mod - Clippers
- Posts: 8,264
- And1: 1,795
- Joined: Apr 11, 2001
Re: Is lack of multiple 70's titles a knock on KAJ?
Kareem's teams from 1975 to 1978 were just...bad. Nobody was going to win anything on those teams. I can't hold those teams against Kareem...it's like holding the 1985-89 Bulls against MJ. Not fair.
--The 1975 Bucks lost Kareem for 17 games and their starting backcourt, along with Curtis Perry. The Bucks were 4-13 without Kareem; having Kareem miss 17 games cost them about 5 wins. Lucius Allen, Curtis Perry and Oscar being gone probably cost about 15 more. That's 20 wins, and the team dropped 23 from 1974 to 1975.
--The 1976 and 1977 Lakers had no D other than Kareem. Gail Goodrich was still a good scorer, but simply couldn't guard most players any more. Lucuis Allen had returned, but was about 80% as effective as he had been, making him a pretty average player. Cornell Warner (who came over with Kareem) was a Samaki Walker level player. And that was it. In 1976. In 1977, the team had Kermit Washington for 1200 minutes. The 1977 Lakers were, possibly, the worst 50 win team of all time.
What we're really talking about is why Kareem didn't win more titles from 1970 to 1974. But look at the teams that won and the cicrumstances.
1970: New York Knicks, with Walt Frazier and Willis Reed. 60 win team.
1971: Milwaukee Bucks with Kareem.
1972: Los Angeles Lakers with Wilt and West. League record 69 wins.
1973: New York Knicks again. 57 wins team.
1974: Boston Celtics with Havlciek, Cowens, Jo Jo White. In the middle of a four year run where they averaged 60 wins and won titles.
Knicks, Lakers, Celtics, Bucks...that's a lot of great teams in a smaller league. I'm not buying the idea that the 70s—at least from 1970 to 1974—were weak at all. Those are great, great teams.
And the fact is that the Bucks should have won the title in 1974. Richie Powers was the head referee in 4 of the seven games. Kareem—who, as I and others have noted, was not exactly a complainer—pointedly said that Powers let Cowens get away with anything. The Bucks were 0-4 in the games Powers officiated. Richie Powers went on to miss the Silas time out in 1976, get suspended on multiple occasions in 1978, and get bounced out of the league as a ref in 1979—at the age of 48. He was a drinker that had several suicide attempts in subsequent years. Today, he'd most likely be diagnosed as bipolar, and be shown to have some other mental health issues. His story is a sad one, and as a human being, my heart goes out to him.
As a referee, however, I think he stole game 6 from the Suns, and I think he stole the 1974 series from the Bucks—both time for the Boston Celtics. More on that later.
In the playoffs, Kareem was extraordinary in 1970 and 1974, played very well in 1971, and was hled in check in 1972 and 1973. In 1972, Wilt played great D on Kareem. In 1973, Kareem ahd a bad elbow and got upset by Nate Thurmond's Warriors. I hold those against Kareem...to an extent. He was injured one year, and went against two of the great defensive centers of all time. He shot poorly in those series, but still averaged about 27 and 17.5 in those “bad” years. And, of course, when he played well in 1970, 1971, and 1974, he went up against Reed, Unseld, Wilt, Thurmond, Cowens, and Clifford Ray. His postseason numbers in 1970, 1971, and 1974 are 31.0 ppg, 15.5 rpg, 3.9 apg. And just so we understand, when Kareem was on “bad” teams from 1975-1979, they went to the playoffs more than half the time, and Kareem was a monster in the postseason—31-15-4 on 59% shooting.
I ding Kareem a little for the 1975-9 teams...but, like I said, it's like complaining about MJ on the 1985-89 Bulls. Those teams weren't going to win titles either. MJ was the difference between them being 20-30 win teams, and what they usually were--40-50 win teams. Jordan was worth 20 wins a year. That's an MVP level player. Kareem was the same.
In terms of titles, it kind of comes down to 1974. If Kareem's Bucks had won the title that year, I don't think we'd be having this conversation. Getting two titles form the Wilt/West Laker,s the Holtzman Knicks, and the Cowens/Havlicek Celtics would seal the deal.
So we're back to Richie Powers. I think the Bucks would have won the title without a shady referee. Cowens was the 1973 MVP, and Kareem beat him down as thoroughly as, for instance, Hakeem worked Drob over in their series. But when push came to shove, the Celtics won Game 7. Dave Cowens played 47 minutes, and had four fouls at the beginning of the second half. He picked up only one foul the rest of the way. The head referee in that game, as he had been in the other three Milwaukee losses, was Richie Powers.
I ding Kareem to some degree for not winning more. But the fact remains that he won six rings, and half or more of those were as the team leader. Everyone wants more—they wanted and expected more of Kareem at the time, too. I think some of the criticism is warranted...but most is unfair and/or wrong.
--The 1975 Bucks lost Kareem for 17 games and their starting backcourt, along with Curtis Perry. The Bucks were 4-13 without Kareem; having Kareem miss 17 games cost them about 5 wins. Lucius Allen, Curtis Perry and Oscar being gone probably cost about 15 more. That's 20 wins, and the team dropped 23 from 1974 to 1975.
--The 1976 and 1977 Lakers had no D other than Kareem. Gail Goodrich was still a good scorer, but simply couldn't guard most players any more. Lucuis Allen had returned, but was about 80% as effective as he had been, making him a pretty average player. Cornell Warner (who came over with Kareem) was a Samaki Walker level player. And that was it. In 1976. In 1977, the team had Kermit Washington for 1200 minutes. The 1977 Lakers were, possibly, the worst 50 win team of all time.
What we're really talking about is why Kareem didn't win more titles from 1970 to 1974. But look at the teams that won and the cicrumstances.
1970: New York Knicks, with Walt Frazier and Willis Reed. 60 win team.
1971: Milwaukee Bucks with Kareem.
1972: Los Angeles Lakers with Wilt and West. League record 69 wins.
1973: New York Knicks again. 57 wins team.
1974: Boston Celtics with Havlciek, Cowens, Jo Jo White. In the middle of a four year run where they averaged 60 wins and won titles.
Knicks, Lakers, Celtics, Bucks...that's a lot of great teams in a smaller league. I'm not buying the idea that the 70s—at least from 1970 to 1974—were weak at all. Those are great, great teams.
And the fact is that the Bucks should have won the title in 1974. Richie Powers was the head referee in 4 of the seven games. Kareem—who, as I and others have noted, was not exactly a complainer—pointedly said that Powers let Cowens get away with anything. The Bucks were 0-4 in the games Powers officiated. Richie Powers went on to miss the Silas time out in 1976, get suspended on multiple occasions in 1978, and get bounced out of the league as a ref in 1979—at the age of 48. He was a drinker that had several suicide attempts in subsequent years. Today, he'd most likely be diagnosed as bipolar, and be shown to have some other mental health issues. His story is a sad one, and as a human being, my heart goes out to him.
As a referee, however, I think he stole game 6 from the Suns, and I think he stole the 1974 series from the Bucks—both time for the Boston Celtics. More on that later.
In the playoffs, Kareem was extraordinary in 1970 and 1974, played very well in 1971, and was hled in check in 1972 and 1973. In 1972, Wilt played great D on Kareem. In 1973, Kareem ahd a bad elbow and got upset by Nate Thurmond's Warriors. I hold those against Kareem...to an extent. He was injured one year, and went against two of the great defensive centers of all time. He shot poorly in those series, but still averaged about 27 and 17.5 in those “bad” years. And, of course, when he played well in 1970, 1971, and 1974, he went up against Reed, Unseld, Wilt, Thurmond, Cowens, and Clifford Ray. His postseason numbers in 1970, 1971, and 1974 are 31.0 ppg, 15.5 rpg, 3.9 apg. And just so we understand, when Kareem was on “bad” teams from 1975-1979, they went to the playoffs more than half the time, and Kareem was a monster in the postseason—31-15-4 on 59% shooting.
I ding Kareem a little for the 1975-9 teams...but, like I said, it's like complaining about MJ on the 1985-89 Bulls. Those teams weren't going to win titles either. MJ was the difference between them being 20-30 win teams, and what they usually were--40-50 win teams. Jordan was worth 20 wins a year. That's an MVP level player. Kareem was the same.
In terms of titles, it kind of comes down to 1974. If Kareem's Bucks had won the title that year, I don't think we'd be having this conversation. Getting two titles form the Wilt/West Laker,s the Holtzman Knicks, and the Cowens/Havlicek Celtics would seal the deal.
So we're back to Richie Powers. I think the Bucks would have won the title without a shady referee. Cowens was the 1973 MVP, and Kareem beat him down as thoroughly as, for instance, Hakeem worked Drob over in their series. But when push came to shove, the Celtics won Game 7. Dave Cowens played 47 minutes, and had four fouls at the beginning of the second half. He picked up only one foul the rest of the way. The head referee in that game, as he had been in the other three Milwaukee losses, was Richie Powers.
I ding Kareem to some degree for not winning more. But the fact remains that he won six rings, and half or more of those were as the team leader. Everyone wants more—they wanted and expected more of Kareem at the time, too. I think some of the criticism is warranted...but most is unfair and/or wrong.

Re: Is lack of multiple 70's titles a knock on KAJ?
- fatal9
- Bench Warmer
- Posts: 1,341
- And1: 548
- Joined: Sep 13, 2009
Re: Is lack of multiple 70's titles a knock on KAJ?
TrueLAfan wrote:In the playoffs, Kareem was extraordinary in 1970 and 1974, played very well in 1971, and was hled in check in 1972 and 1973. In 1972, Wilt played great D on Kareem. In 1973, Kareem ahd a bad elbow and got upset by Nate Thurmond's Warriors. I hold those against Kareem...to an extent. He was injured one year, and went against two of the great defensive centers of all time. He shot poorly in those series, but still averaged about 27 and 17.5 in those “bad” years.
He also had severe tendinitis during the end of the '72 season and into the playoffs. Went from averaging 40.2 ppg on 51% vs. Wilt in the 5 regular season games (including a 50 pointer) to just 34/18/5 on 46% in the playoffs (against Wilt in his defensive prime mind you). Oscar was also injured in the series, didn't even play the elimination game outside of the first 5 minutes (this is his #2 btw, like stripping Jordan of Pippen, or Bird of McHale).
You can see here that his left knee is wrapped up in the series, where as if you go back to the famous January meeting (the one that ended the 33 win streak) or any of the pictures from throughout the season, his knee is bare.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=seEEUwdWapQ&#t=8m31s (note the left knee and how little lift Kareem is getting on his skyhook, he was getting more lift at 40).
The only year I hold against Kareem was 1973. His coach wasn't happy with him, he had become very disinterested midway through the season (his friends were murdered in a house in DC or something). But the '74 run is incredible, even more so when you consider that he averaged 32/16/5 on just a 98.8 pace factor (that's right there with early 90s league average). From '73-'79, he played with 1 all-star, and that was Dandridge in '75. What did Danadridge do that year when Kareem was out? Led the team to a 3-14 record. The "weak" year in the 70s to me were '75 and '76, and Kareem unfortunately didn't make playoffs in those years. It was a time when ABA was picking up talent and the great early 70s teams were declining, but then the merger happened in summer of '76. They didn't make the playoffs in '75 because his team collapsed in the games he sat out (3-14...on pace for what? 20 wins?) and in '76 because he got traded to the worst team in the conference which traded several of their key pieces away (and they actually SHOULD have made the playoffs that year, they had a top 4 record, but the NBA standing rules were stupid at the time. They actually changed the rule the following year because it was that bad).
You look at the three main years were he had a decent enough cast to compete for a ring, 1972, 1974 and 1977. In '72, Oscar was injured in the playoffs, didn't even play more than 5 minutes in the elimination game and was gimpy all throughout (shot sub 40% vs. Lakers, was struggling to give Bucks decent minutes at that point...again this is his second best player). In '74 Lucius Allen got injured and he took a terrible cast to one game from a ring against a vastly more talented team (Celtics). Oscar was on his last legs, not even an all-star and shot 2/13 when the Celtics played the "front Kareem" strategy after realizing his cast was not capable of beating them...but he was. In '77 again, the team got dismantled by injuries come playoff time, Lucius Allen was injured, same with Kermit Washington and their backcourt got DESTROYED by the Blazers. The games are up on youtube for people to watch (game 2 and 4). Just seems to me after '71, each year he had a crappy team, and when he did have a cast to compete, his second or third best players were injured (how did the Bulls do without Grant in '95? Or Lakers without Worthy in '83? Losing key players matters and Kareem often lost his second best guy in these runs).
Re: Is lack of multiple 70's titles a knock on KAJ?
-
- RealGM
- Posts: 13,542
- And1: 1,232
- Joined: Dec 13, 2003
- Location: Surprise AZ
- Contact:
-
Re: Is lack of multiple 70's titles a knock on KAJ?
Another factor in the 70s is the ABA. An NBA team like the Warriors can go from worst to 1st alot easier because there best player went to the ABA for 3 yrs and then came back to the NBA after a few yrs of tanking. Imagine Cleveland tanking the next 3 yrs and adding 3 lottery picks and clearing tons of cap space and then LBJ coming back to Cleveland and playing for a min contract. Now imagine a player like Kobe who has to deal with a ageing team that cant rebuild or add young talent or sign big FAs.
Your team might be a contender at the start of the yr but if 3 or 4 ABA players come to the NBA it changes the entire balance fo power. imagine DrJ, Gervin and Gilmore deciding to go to the Hawks and play with Pistol Pete. What you see in FA of 2010 always had the possibility of happening every yr the ABA existed.
Of course had DrJ not gone to the ABA and played for the Bucks (drafted DrJ) with KAJ I think the question about titles in the NBA is pretty moot.
Your team might be a contender at the start of the yr but if 3 or 4 ABA players come to the NBA it changes the entire balance fo power. imagine DrJ, Gervin and Gilmore deciding to go to the Hawks and play with Pistol Pete. What you see in FA of 2010 always had the possibility of happening every yr the ABA existed.
Of course had DrJ not gone to the ABA and played for the Bucks (drafted DrJ) with KAJ I think the question about titles in the NBA is pretty moot.
HomoSapien wrote:Warspite, the greatest poster in the history of realgm.
Re: Is lack of multiple 70's titles a knock on KAJ?
- Laimbeer
- RealGM
- Posts: 43,084
- And1: 15,160
- Joined: Aug 12, 2009
- Location: Cabin Creek
-
Re: Is lack of multiple 70's titles a knock on KAJ?
It's a huge knock. The 70s were an awful period. Barry and Walton won with a bunch of D leaguers, so I don't buy the bad teammate argument. A player of his stature has to win more than one in that decade before hopping on Magic's back.
Comments to rationalize bad contracts -
1) It's less than the MLE
2) He can be traded later
3) It's only __% of the cap
4) The cap is going up
5) It's only __ years
6) He's a good mentor/locker room guy
1) It's less than the MLE
2) He can be traded later
3) It's only __% of the cap
4) The cap is going up
5) It's only __ years
6) He's a good mentor/locker room guy
Re: Is lack of multiple 70's titles a knock on KAJ?
-
- Head Coach
- Posts: 6,448
- And1: 3,037
- Joined: Jan 12, 2006
-
Re: Is lack of multiple 70's titles a knock on KAJ?
fatal9 wrote:TrueLAfan wrote:In the playoffs, Kareem was extraordinary in 1970 and 1974, played very well in 1971, and was hled in check in 1972 and 1973. In 1972, Wilt played great D on Kareem. In 1973, Kareem ahd a bad elbow and got upset by Nate Thurmond's Warriors. I hold those against Kareem...to an extent. He was injured one year, and went against two of the great defensive centers of all time. He shot poorly in those series, but still averaged about 27 and 17.5 in those “bad” years.
He also had severe tendinitis during the end of the '72 season and into the playoffs. Went from averaging 40.2 ppg on 51% vs. Wilt in the 5 regular season games (including a 50 pointer) to just 34/18/5 on 46% in the playoffs (against Wilt in his defensive prime mind you). Oscar was also injured in the series, didn't even play the elimination game outside of the first 5 minutes (this is his #2 btw, like stripping Jordan of Pippen, or Bird of McHale).
I was going to wait until we got to the '71-72 season in the RPoY Project, but since you mentioned it, this was specifically brought up at the time as a factor going into the Bucks/Lakers series:
The Los Angeles Lakers, who left their National Basketball Association title hopes on the operating table last season, may benefit from key injuries this year as they open their Western Conference final playoff series against the Milwaukee Bucks here today.
Last year, the Lakers went into the playoffs without All-Pro guard Jerry West, sidelined after knee surgery, and the Bucks polished them off in five games en route to the NBA championship. But this year Milwaukee is hurting.
Veteran guard Oscar Robertson has been bothered by pulled and inflamed abdominal muscles since early February. He returned to nearly fulltime action in the Bucks 4-1 victory over the Golden State Warriors in the first playoff round, but said afterward he was below par.
“I couldn’t go out and run and couldn’t start or drive,” he said. “I could just position and maneuver.”
The two top reserve guards, Jon McGlocklin and Wally Jones, are both ailing. McGlocklin missed the Golden State series with strained back muscles and may miss the first week—four games—of the Laker series. Jones sat out Thursday night’s game with pulled ligaments in his left foot, and it isn’t known how much he’ll play Sunday.
Robertson’s importance to the Bucks was evident in the Milwaukee-Los Angeles season series. The teams split their first two games, and Robertson was injured late in the third game. The Lakers rallied to win and then swept the last two games, with Robertson playing at half speed in the fourth contest and not at all in the fifth.
Besides his skills as a passer and scorer, the 6-foot-5 guard, with his strong defense and rebounding, is Milwaukee’s best hope of shutting off the Los Angeles fast break that has carried the Lakers to the most successful regular season in NBA history.
Re: Is lack of multiple 70's titles a knock on KAJ?
- pancakes3
- General Manager
- Posts: 9,585
- And1: 3,014
- Joined: Jul 27, 2003
- Location: Virginia
- Contact:
Re: Is lack of multiple 70's titles a knock on KAJ?
"to just 34/18/5 on 46% " was this tongue in cheek?
Bullets -> Wizards
Re: Is lack of multiple 70's titles a knock on KAJ?
- Manuel Calavera
- Starter
- Posts: 2,152
- And1: 308
- Joined: Oct 09, 2009
-
Re: Is lack of multiple 70's titles a knock on KAJ?
The 46% is the real sticking point, Kareem was taking a ton of shots and Wilt was forcing misses.
Re: Is lack of multiple 70's titles a knock on KAJ?
-
- Head Coach
- Posts: 6,448
- And1: 3,037
- Joined: Jan 12, 2006
-
Re: Is lack of multiple 70's titles a knock on KAJ?
Manuel Calavera wrote:The 46% is the real sticking point, Kareem was taking a ton of shots and Wilt was forcing misses.
I'll wait 'til we get to the '71-72 season.
I remember your posts from the RPOY project, you consistently brought it. Please continue to do so, sir. This board needs guys like you to counteract ... worthless posters
Retirement isn’t the end of the road, but just a turn in the road. – Unknown
Re: Is lack of multiple 70's titles a knock on KAJ?
-
- Senior Mod - NBA Player Comparisons
- Posts: 30,469
- And1: 9,979
- Joined: Aug 14, 2004
- Location: South Florida
-
Re: Is lack of multiple 70's titles a knock on KAJ?
I have a problem with the idea that Kareem was surrounded by scrubs in Los Angeles. Despite their stats being depressed by playing with such a high scoring player, he had real talent there.
In 76, he had 5 time All-Star Gail Goodrich and Lucius Allen who was a very good player, backed up by 5 time ABA All-Star Donnie Freeman; he had Cazzie Russell who was another guy with 20ppg potential backed by defensive specialist Corky Calhoun. The only real weak spot was PF where Kermit Washington's knees gave out forcing them to play journeyman Cornell Warner and rookie Don Ford. They were under .500.
In 77, Kermit played a bit more, splitting time with Ford and they swapped Goodrich's offense for perennial All-defensive teamer Don Chaney plus they still had Allen and Russell. They won 54 games but barely squeaked through the first round before being swept in the second.
In 78, they replaced Allen, Russell, and Chaney with Norm Nixon (who went on the lead the league in assists after leaving LA), Jamaal Wilkes who had been the second star on GS's championship team, Lou Hudson (multiple All-Star), and 6th man Adrian Dantley plus more depth from the likes of Charlie Scott and James Edwards who later played on the Bad Boys. They also added Kenny Carr, a very solid PF off the bench though they were still playing Ford as a starter. That's serious depth of talent around a GOAT center but Kareem missed 20 games early, they ended with a mediocre record and lost in the 1st round of the playoffs.
In 79, they again had Nixon, Hudson, Wilkes,and Ford with Dantley, Carr, Ron Boone, and solid veteran Jim Price off the bench. Great team? No, they were again mediocre and lost 4-1 in the second round. Since they couldn't blame Kareem -- too valuable -- a lot of fingers pointed at Adrian Dantley despite (bcause?) his averaging 17ppg with good efficiency as a 6th man -- the real heart of the "Dantley is a cancer" claims that nearly kept him out of the HOF.
In 1980, Magic joined the team and his infectious personality finally brought Kareem into the team (my take on it) and they started winning. My problem with Kareem is that these were his best years, his prime when he dominated the league the way Wilt had in the 60s or MJ in the 90s . . . and his teams consistently underperformed -- even more than Wilt's Philly teams in teh 60s (who really only underperformed when facing the Celtics in the playoffs where Russell and his team had Wilt's number.
Kareem was beaten out by a lot of different teams, both earlier with Milwaukee, then in LA before Magic. And, if he was truly the GOAT, with this level of talent I expected more. It's not "just" the lack of titles, it 's the consistent team underperformance.
In 76, he had 5 time All-Star Gail Goodrich and Lucius Allen who was a very good player, backed up by 5 time ABA All-Star Donnie Freeman; he had Cazzie Russell who was another guy with 20ppg potential backed by defensive specialist Corky Calhoun. The only real weak spot was PF where Kermit Washington's knees gave out forcing them to play journeyman Cornell Warner and rookie Don Ford. They were under .500.
In 77, Kermit played a bit more, splitting time with Ford and they swapped Goodrich's offense for perennial All-defensive teamer Don Chaney plus they still had Allen and Russell. They won 54 games but barely squeaked through the first round before being swept in the second.
In 78, they replaced Allen, Russell, and Chaney with Norm Nixon (who went on the lead the league in assists after leaving LA), Jamaal Wilkes who had been the second star on GS's championship team, Lou Hudson (multiple All-Star), and 6th man Adrian Dantley plus more depth from the likes of Charlie Scott and James Edwards who later played on the Bad Boys. They also added Kenny Carr, a very solid PF off the bench though they were still playing Ford as a starter. That's serious depth of talent around a GOAT center but Kareem missed 20 games early, they ended with a mediocre record and lost in the 1st round of the playoffs.
In 79, they again had Nixon, Hudson, Wilkes,and Ford with Dantley, Carr, Ron Boone, and solid veteran Jim Price off the bench. Great team? No, they were again mediocre and lost 4-1 in the second round. Since they couldn't blame Kareem -- too valuable -- a lot of fingers pointed at Adrian Dantley despite (bcause?) his averaging 17ppg with good efficiency as a 6th man -- the real heart of the "Dantley is a cancer" claims that nearly kept him out of the HOF.
In 1980, Magic joined the team and his infectious personality finally brought Kareem into the team (my take on it) and they started winning. My problem with Kareem is that these were his best years, his prime when he dominated the league the way Wilt had in the 60s or MJ in the 90s . . . and his teams consistently underperformed -- even more than Wilt's Philly teams in teh 60s (who really only underperformed when facing the Celtics in the playoffs where Russell and his team had Wilt's number.
Kareem was beaten out by a lot of different teams, both earlier with Milwaukee, then in LA before Magic. And, if he was truly the GOAT, with this level of talent I expected more. It's not "just" the lack of titles, it 's the consistent team underperformance.
Re: Is lack of multiple 70's titles a knock on KAJ?
-
- RealGM
- Posts: 13,542
- And1: 1,232
- Joined: Dec 13, 2003
- Location: Surprise AZ
- Contact:
-
Re: Is lack of multiple 70's titles a knock on KAJ?
Be still my beating heart......
Penbeast said something nice about Adrian Dantley.
Penbeast said something nice about Adrian Dantley.
HomoSapien wrote:Warspite, the greatest poster in the history of realgm.
Re: Is lack of multiple 70's titles a knock on KAJ?
- Mean_Streets
- Rookie
- Posts: 1,067
- And1: 640
- Joined: Feb 15, 2009
Re: Is lack of multiple 70's titles a knock on KAJ?
penbeast0 wrote:In 77, Kermit played a bit more, splitting time with Ford and they swapped Goodrich's offense for perennial All-defensive teamer Don Chaney plus they still had Allen and Russell. They won 54 games but barely squeaked through the first round before being swept in the second.
If I'm not mistaken I believe both Kermit Washington & Allen were injured during the series vs the Blazers.