Retro POY '77-78 (Voting Complete)

[Sedale Threatt]

It's one thing if Kareem himself is acknowledging a shortcoming. But in general I am extremetly leery of media criticism after buying into the myth that Walton outplayed Kareem in 77, and then finding out that, in fact, the opposite happened.

Nobody's perfect, and he probably deserved his fair share for being moody. But in general, I have come to believe that the media either had an axe to grind, or took his greatness for granted, or better yet, both. He'd been dominating on average teams for a good while at this point, and as is so often the case in basketball, he took an inordinant share of the blame as the superstar. Makes zero sense, but it still happens to this day.

I wasn't watching basketball at this point, but I look at his numbers -- complete domination pretty much across the board, in every concievable category -- and I wonder what more he needed to do in order to earn credit as the undisputed best player in basketball. It looks pretty clear-cut to me.

So,

1. Kareem. The best. Period.
2. Walton. Great player, but not as great as Kareem.
3. Gervin. Big drop-off at this point, so I'll go with the scoring machine.
4. Thompson. And another.
5. Hayes. Even if he was one of the worst human beings to ever walk the face of the Earth -- hyperbole much, Bob Ryan? -- he was still a damn good player.

[Doctor MJ]

It's one thing if Kareem himself is acknowledging a shortcoming. But in general I am extremetly leery of media criticism after buying into the myth that Walton outplayed Kareem in 77, and then finding out that, in fact, the opposite happened.

I'll be interested to see more comparison between the two in the next thread. Statements that Kareem got shut down by Walton are obviously laughable. It is clear though to me that the two just played in different ways and so a straight stat comparison is not very meaningful.

[Sedale Threatt]

I'll be interested too. I didn't see any of this stuff live, as it happened, so I'm obviously not coming from a position of expertise.

But I chafe when I read statements about Kareem not getting the most out of his teammates, or his numbers not translating into impact. How did he/they not, when we saw instances before and after where he/they did? What was he doing that was so different at UCLA and with the Bucks, then again in the 80s, that validates these statements?

This year is a great example for the bad rap he sometimes gets. Using PER as an admittedly flawed guide, the only player who was above-average was Dantley, whose game just happened to be almost completely incompatible with his.

Otherwise, Nixon was a rookie, Wilkes and Washington were just a hair above average, and Lou Hudson was the same guy Jerry West said they should take out behind the Forum and shoot like a crippled horse. Plus, injuries were a huge problem with around 230-40 games missed among their top eight guys in minutes played.

That is not a good basketball team, so what more should Kareem have done? He didn't lead the team in steals and assists, so I guess we can start there.

[penbeast0]

There is no question Kareem was the best player in basketball from the time Wilt retired (and possibly the 2 years before that) through the 70s -- his numbers are unparalleled and he was a defensive force as well. Whether that is the same as the most valuable player is something else -- it's pretty clear for this year that Walton's team was better than Kareem's team and I don't see a lot more talent there.

C Walton v. Kareem -- Kareem is the greater player for numbers and career -- easily

PF Maurice Lucas v. Jamaal Wilkes – Lakers signed Jamaal Wilkes and his return from injury and replacing Don Ford in the lineup coincided with their win streak. (made Ford expendable and Lakers traded him to CLE for pick they used for James Worthy!). Very different players with roughly equal impact. Lucas was the second star on Portland’s championship the previous year, Wilkes the second star at PF on the GS title; Wilkes went on to have some 20ppg seasons for them before they got Worthy.

SF Bob Gross v. Adrian Dantley – It may not be fair to say Gross was the Bruce Bowen of those Portland teams, he was average offensively and not that good defensively, but he got a ton of publicity of the “super glue guy” type. Dantley was, of course, ten times the talent but didn’t fit well into the Laker offense and got blamed for a lot of their shortcomings even though those shortcomings both preceded him and continued after he left.

SG Johnny Davis v. Lou Hudson – Davis was one of those shooting guards with a PG body types, quick and could score, not great defensively. Lou Hudson was one of the great outside shooting wings of all time. Though he was 33, still played 82 games scoring just under 18pp/36 at a .497 clip.

PG Lionel Hollins v. Norm Nixon – Hollins was an excellent defensive guard, not a great shooter or distributing point, sort of an Eric Snow type. When he left Portland, he was 27 and was a 3rd guard in Philly for a couple of years. Another player like Gross whose rep was greatly enhanced by the magic 77 season. Nixon was a fiery playmaker who was super quick and a decent shooter. He got more assists (and less turnovers) than Magic when Magic came in and after being traded to the Clips for a top 3 DC (Byron Scott), led the league in assists.

So, of the starters in LA, they had more talent at the 1, 2, and 3 . . . pretty easily . . . and Wilkes was pretty much at the level of Maurice Lucas although they were very different players. Hard to say Kareem was playing with a bunch of scrubs.

BENCH – Portland (C Tom Owens, PF Lloyd Neal, SF Corky Calhoun, G-F Larry Steele, G Dave Twardzik) – Owens was a pretty good but undersized center who played well every time Walton went down, Neal/Calhoun/Steele were defensive minded role players, Twardzik was an unathletic, undersized guard who shot extremely well think John Paxson. A bunch of good role players, no breakout types.

LA (F Don Ford, F Tom Abernathy, G Charlie Scott) Scott was the most talented bench player on either team, still only 29 but didn’t go off with all the shooters on the Lakers. Ford was the former starter and also better offense, Abernathy was bench player. They also played a bunch of guys with big names for short stretches – veterans Kermit Washington (25 g) and Dave Robisch (55) as Kareem’s backups plus talented youngsters James Edwards, Kenny Carr, and Earl Tatum though only Carr really became a quality starter. Again, no consistency here either with talent but not team play.

Is Kareem to blame for the fact that his teams never jelled? I don’t think so. But, when you are talking about the GOAT and comparing him with players whose teams always played well around them (Russell, Magic, etc.), it’s fair to give him little credit for leadership.

[shawngoat23]

I admit I didn't spend this much time with it:

1. George Gervin
2. Bill Walton
3. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
4. Julius Erving
5. David Thompson

[Doctor MJ]

I'll be interested too. I didn't see any of this stuff live, as it happened, so I'm obviously not coming from a position of expertise.

But I chafe when I read statements about Kareem not getting the most out of his teammates, or his numbers not translating into impact. How did he/they not, when we saw instances before and after where he/they did? What was he doing that was so different at UCLA and with the Bucks, then again in the 80s, that validates these statements?

This year is a great example for the bad rap he sometimes gets. Using PER as an admittedly flawed guide, the only player who was above-average was Dantley, whose game just happened to be almost completely incompatible with his.

Otherwise, Nixon was a rookie, Wilkes and Washington were just a hair above average, and Lou Hudson was the same guy Jerry West said they should take out behind the Forum and shoot like a crippled horse. Plus, injuries were a huge problem with around 230-40 games missed among their top eight guys in minutes played.

That is not a good basketball team, so what more should Kareem have done? He didn't lead the team in steals and assists, so I guess we can start there.

I think a distinction needs to be drawn between what's alleged about Kareem & Dantley (and to be clear Dantley's inclusion is not about what you said in your post about him):

Dantley is accused of making it impossible for a team unit to thrive.

Kareem is accused of not having a huge intangible impact on making the team unit thrive.

I don't think anyone would say that the way Kareem played kept his team's from winning. I don't know how you could argue that when the man won so much at all levels. However, in addition to the impact of Magic Johnson, we should remember that UCLA had a ton of talent, and they went on to win the title the year after Kareem graduated with remarkable ease. He was not doing this alone.

With Walton, even the people who are very clear they favor Kareem over Walton seem compelled to indicate that he had impact far beyond what his stats indicate. How much of an impact can that be?
Well, I think it's pretty clear I'm a bit of a point guard homer, and what that really means is believing that the impact of a coach on the floor can be astounding. All accounts say that's what Walton was, plus the man was very clearly someone who inspired his teammates both directly and indirectly. Blazer Mania in Portland had a lot to do with Walton's personality, and that in term fueled the team even more.

So I think the Kareem vs Walton debate is legit. I personally don't feel like I know enough to be that confident in my answer.

[ThaRegul8r]

Is Kareem to blame for the fact that his teams never jelled? I don’t think so. But, when you are talking about the GOAT and comparing him with players whose teams always played well around them (Russell, Magic, etc.), it’s fair to give him little credit for leadership.

Lenny Wilkens said, “You must have someone on your team who demands the respect of the players and has earned that respect by what he does on the court. The coach can only do so much; then its up to the players. Kareem was one of the greatest players ever, but he was not that guy. He won a title with Milwaukee in 1971, when an aging Oscar Robertson came in to join him, and he didn’t win again until Magic arrived in 1980. Kareem is a thoughtful, quiet man. He is not the kind of vocal leader who can inspire a team, despite his greatness on the court.”

[drza]

I find the Kareem, Walton and Dantley discussions fascinating. As someone that missed this generation of players, I'm loving the non-box score information that is present among those that were watching. And in these discussions, I hear echoes of things I've thought or encountered among the current generation of players.

*Kareem: In the 70s Kareem discussions I hear echoes of things I've heard/thought about LeBron (Cleveland), KG (Minny) and Shaq (Orlando, early LA) where one player has put up dominant numbers that haven't translated to championships. Shaq fits the best in some ways, as both were centers that put up big numbers but only seemed capable of getting over the hump when playing next to dominant wings. KG and 70s Kareem had the great individual numbers and I thought that perhaps 70s Kareem suffered from the same lack of supporting cast, but from Penbeast's arguments it doesn't sound like the Lakers lacked in talent, only in making it fit. To that end, 70s Kareem is sounding more like LeBron from the last couple of years. I think history will look at the Cavs teams from the last couple of years as being perhaps better than they were given credit for, somewhat similar to how Penbeast has done with the 78 Lakers. And I already have seen pundits lined up to come to the same conclusions about LeBron that Penbeast did with Kareem, that he was supremely talented but maybe didn't have the intangibles/leadership of a GOAT.

Walton: The Walton arguments almost scream of the intangibles arguments that we saw for Suns Nash and Celtics KG. The idea of the value in the charismatic player/coach that "plays the right way" and forces the team to be greater than the sum of its parts. I could really wish that there were +/- stats available for Walton, as it just doesn't seem like the box score numbers are enough.

Dantley: Dantley's style of play is reminiscent of Barkley, but the criticisms that I hear about him seem to fit more with what I've heard about Iverson. Now, stylistically Iverson is much more inefficient than Dantley and stat-heads would argue that that's why Iverson wasn't as good as people thought, but the other major train of thought on Iverson was that he was just too ball-dominant and his style of play/personality such that you just couldn't build a championship team around him. That seems to be what I hear in these Dantley discussions as well.

Anyway, not sure this post is entirely relevant to the '78 thread I just wanted to put it out there how much I'm enjoying this and point out how I'm trying to tie what I'm learning about basketball history to what I've learned in the present with my own eyes.

[Sedale Threatt]

Good points here. As I just stated in the other thread, the surliness/moodiness/lack of leadership is about the only possible criticism I'll buy.

I do have to smirk when I read Lenny Wilkins saying, "You have to have a player who has earned that respect by what he's done on the court." Goodness, who did more on the court than Kareem? But yes, I do agree that he probably left a lot to be desired as a leader.

But I guess all that makes me think is, OK, so Kareem wasn't perfect. He couldn't do everything. I guess you'll just have to settle for high-volume, high-efficiency scoring, dominant rebounding, dominant shot blocking/defense and outstanding playmaking.

It's the same thing with Shaq -- which was a great parallel, by the way. I used to get frustrated with Shaq, especially when we were getting pummelled pre-threepeat.

But at no point did I ever minimize what he was doing on the court, which many seemed to do with Kareem in the 70s. My thinking was more, find a way to make this isht work, because there's no way this guy can't be the cornerstone of a championship team. Get rid of whoever, bring in whoever, whatever. There's no way this guy can't make this happen.

Same thing with Kareem. So he couldn't make chicken salad out of chicken isht. But he proved time after time after time again, if you put him on a good team, he could bring you home. And I don't care how anybody spins it -- more often than not, be it because of injuries or lack of talent or incompatability or whatever, those Lakers were not good teams.

I'm not going to hold that against Kareem.

[ElGee]

This is really one of the best discussions I've seen on realgm, and I don't think that the guys who lived through this period can post enough about it.

Here's my limited take on it (from old games, old articles, "Breaks of the Game"):

Kareem received way too much flack during the 70s. Some of that was probably his personality. Some of that was probably being a Muslim. But I also think there's merit in some of the criticism. In other words, he wasn't some otherworldly figure playing on horrendous teams.

Take 77 against the Blazers. Anyone can (should) watch the games on youtube, and it's evident that the Blazers backcourt does kill LA's. Their speed is a difference-maker and it is relentless. But Walton is also part of that attack. His outlet passing is ridiculous, and like Russell before him, he's the one blocking/changing shots and grabbing rebounds and starting those breaks on a lot of occasions. That's something that would show up today in on/off ORtg and we could never see in an old box score.

There are obviously other differences in their games as well, but here is an example of where Walton does something in the team system, which isn't statistical, that Kareem couldn't do. He played with plenty of up-tempo guards -- Norm Nixon looked like the road runner in some of those 1980 games -- and he just wasn't the type of player who would drive that kind of attack the way Walton could (Walton also had high-post passing on him). It's arguable Walton's defense was better as well, which enhances that element of the game.

I might have a few more insights (if they aren't already covered) in the 77 thread about Kareem and Walton's series, but for now let's leave it at that.

Overall, Kareem strikes me as an angry person during this period -- he was admittedly disgruntled with the game, and there were Islamic issues outside of the sport at the time as well. So, he probably could have been - and I think he admits this - more connected to his teammates and the game than he was. Having the ability, like Nash or Magic or Walton, to spark team cohesion is always a good thing. So while I wouldn't say he was robotic in putting up his numbers, there are a few areas he did fall short in.

(Note: 70-76 is like a black hole for me, so I'm pretty much referring to 77-79).

[Doctor MJ]

It's the same thing with Shaq -- which was a great parallel, by the way. I used to get frustrated with Shaq, especially when we were getting pummelled pre-threepeat.

But at no point did I ever minimize what he was doing on the court, which many seemed to do with Kareem in the 70s. My thinking was more, find a way to make this isht work, because there's no way this guy can't be the cornerstone of a championship team. Get rid of whoever, bring in whoever, whatever. There's no way this guy can't make this happen.

Re: Shaq/Kareem. I don't think Kareem's negative intangibles were anything close to Shaq's. Shaq likes to insult other people, including his teammates, and probably worst of all: He's lazy. That wasn't Kareem.

So if I don't knock Shaq, I shouldn't knock Kareem right? Well but I do knock Shaq when he fell short of the top. I don't want to make it all about rings, but if you win that ring playing great in the playoffs, it's a get out of jail free card. However, before Shaq was 3-peating, he was getting swept all the time, and had an incredible tendency to miss a ton of time in the regular season, and not make his team overperform in the playoffs - thus making you wonder if the team would have been alright without him. So yes, if Kareem's off-court impactwas a major disadvantage relative to another star's, that should not be tossed aside lightly.

[Optimism Prime]

Re: Shaq/Kareem. I don't think Kareem's negative intangibles were anything close to Shaq's. Shaq likes to insult other people, including his teammates, and probably worst of all: He's lazy. That wasn't Kareem.

Semi-OT, but totally agree about Shaq. He was great, but how otherworldly awesome would he have been if he cared? If he took care of himself like Malone/Robinson? I look at those Youtube clips of Young Shaq, and... I'm just baffled. He had all the potential in the world to be in the running for GOAT, but just didn't want it badly enough.

It's strange to say about one of the most dominant players ever, one of the best players of my lifetime, but I'm incredibly disappointed with the career arc of Shaq-that-was, and I'll always resent him for keeping us from seeing Shaq-that-could-have-been.

[fatal9]

He played with plenty of up-tempo guards -- Norm Nixon looked like the road runner in some of those 1980 games -- and he just wasn't the type of player who would drive that kind of attack the way Walton could (Walton also had high-post passing on him). It's arguable Walton's defense was better as well, which enhances that element of the game.

Norm Nixon was a rookie in '78 and got benched during the playoffs in favor of Charlie Scott ("love-hate" relationship with coach Jerry West). His production from '79 to '80 wasn't much different (actually superior in '79), he was thriving with Kareem in just his second season. The difference was that in '80 with Magic back there, Lakers finally had a backcourt that could matchup with DJ/Gus Williams/Downtown Freddy Brown, and the addition of Jim Chones in '80 finally gave Kareem a legit PF (at 6'11) who could rebound with him and defend PFs, add in another guy like Cooper who provided perimeter defense off the bench which Lakers didn't have before, and it was quite a different team. Look into the series recaps of the Sonics vs. Lakers from '78, '79, aside from the Sonics being a deeper, more talented team, the Lakers got killed on the boards even though Kareem would lead everyone in the series in rebounding, because after him, there was no one. Lakers were extremely undersized, Dantley/Wilkes who were 6'5 and 6'6 made up the rest of the starting front court. I've never been a fan of Dantley, thought he was too much of a ball stopper, most of his great seasons came on 20-30 win teams, got traded from almost every team he played for due to chemistry reasons, even going into the late 80s the Pistons opted to trade him for a lesser talented scorer in Aguirre (and again, this was young Dantley on the Lakers, not "the" Dantley he would be in the 80s, he wasn't even an all-star at this point). But, I will say that from all the games I've seen, Kareem and Dantley did work offensively, Kareem would find him with outlet passes or find him cutting from the high post, but defensively Dantley was a liability, couldn't provide any interior D, wasn't interested in defensive rebounding and ran up the court the moment the ball would got released.

Kareem was an excellent passer in the halfcourt (has been one since the moment he stepped into the NBA) and a great outlet one too, one of the best ever at the center position actually. He constantly led the league centers in assist per game, his average in '79 (5.4 apg) is second highest for any center post-merger (higher than Walton, Shaq, Robinson etc). I'm not sure where this idea of him not being able to contribute to team chemistry is coming from, because offensively, he could fit in seamlessly. The '78 and '79 teams were ranked 3rd and 6th offensively (just as good as Walton's Blazers), that's not where the problem was with those teams. It was lack of perimeter defense and lack of rebounding outside of Kareem (which killed them against big front courts like Seattle...Webster/Sikma/Silas).

Here is a game from the 1978 season, it's just the first five minutes of the game but you can take a look at Kareem's excellent passing:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYKvPshzymk

[Sedale Threatt]

Re: Shaq/Kareem. I don't think Kareem's negative intangibles were anything close to Shaq's. Shaq likes to insult other people, including his teammates, and probably worst of all: He's lazy. That wasn't Kareem.

So if I don't knock Shaq, I shouldn't knock Kareem right? Well but I do knock Shaq when he fell short of the top. I don't want to make it all about rings, but if you win that ring playing great in the playoffs, it's a get out of jail free card. However, before Shaq was 3-peating, he was getting swept all the time, and had an incredible tendency to miss a ton of time in the regular season, and not make his team overperform in the playoffs - thus making you wonder if the team would have been alright without him. So yes, if Kareem's off-court impactwas a major disadvantage relative to another star's, that should not be tossed aside lightly.

I wasn't praising the comparison because they matched personally, but because of circumstances. I.E., the best player on the team getting blamed for the team losing when in fact there were far greater problems elsewhere.

I've learned a lot about what went on with Shaq during his time in L.A. that has made me think less of him. But even now, as was the case then, I never, ever, ever considered, for even a single second, that the team would have been fine, let alone better off, without him.

The guy wasn't perfect. But there was never a doubt in my mind that he was a championship-caliber cornerstone. And that was eventually proven to be true.

It's the same thing with Kareem. Except, he had already proven he was a championship-caliber cornerstone before he ever put on a Laker uniform. Once he got to L.A. he was out there crushing it, every single year, like he'd always done.

This notion of getting a team to overperform at a level greater than the sum of their parts would suggest...it can't be ignored, because it's happened before.

The thing is, how can we even measure it? It's such a rare and elusive quality that I hesitate to enter it into the discussion, especially in the case of marking one as great as Kareem down for not having it.

Rick Barry, for example, is widely regarded as one of the biggest jerkoffs in basketball history, the kind of guy you'd just as soon punch as follow. Yet a team he led enjoyed perhaps the biggest overachievement in history.

Charles Barkley had perhaps the best quote ever on the subject: "Michael got to make Scottie Pippen better. Magic got to make Kareem and James Worthy better. I got to make Shelton Jones better." Simplistic, sure, but there's a lot of wisdom in that statement.

As such, I'm simply not going to hold it against Kareem that he wasn't able to execute such a mythical feat. He was too great. He reached such a level of performance and production that basically everybody else on the roster would have to be All-Stars before I'd significantly blame him for his team's failures.

To a degree, sure. ElGee raises a great point -- Kareem was an angry man, and instead of lashing out he seemed to have a tendency to go inwards and brood. (My dad was just like this, and believe me, it's not fun to be around).

But that's still not enough reason to be the scapegoat like he so often was. Especially considering his team had so many obvious shortcomings -- injuries, incompatibility, lack of talent, etc.

[ElGee]

He played with plenty of up-tempo guards -- Norm Nixon looked like the road runner in some of those 1980 games -- and he just wasn't the type of player who would drive that kind of attack the way Walton could (Walton also had high-post passing on him). It's arguable Walton's defense was better as well, which enhances that element of the game.

Norm Nixon was a rookie in '78 and got benched during the playoffs in favor of Charlie Scott ("love-hate" relationship with coach Jerry West). His production from '79 to '80 wasn't much different (actually superior in '79), he was thriving with Kareem in just his second season. The difference was that in '80 with Magic back there, Lakers finally had a backcourt that could matchup with DJ/Gus Williams/Downtown Freddy Brown, and the addition of Jim Chones in '80 finally gave Kareem a legit PF (at 6'11) who could rebound with him and defend PFs, add in another guy like Cooper who provided perimeter defense off the bench which Lakers didn't have before, and it was quite a different team. Look into the series recaps of the Sonics vs. Lakers from '78, '79, aside from the Sonics being a deeper, more talented team, the Lakers got killed on the boards even though Kareem would lead everyone in the series in rebounding, because after him, there was no one. Lakers were extremely undersized, Dantley/Wilkes who were 6'5 and 6'6 made up the rest of the starting front court. I've never been a fan of Dantley, thought he was too much of a ball stopper, most of his great seasons came on 20-30 win teams, got traded from almost every team he played for due to chemistry reasons, even going into the late 80s the Pistons opted to trade him for a lesser talented scorer in Aguirre (and again, this was young Dantley on the Lakers, not "the" Dantley he would be in the 80s, he wasn't even an all-star at this point). But, I will say that from all the games I've seen, Kareem and Dantley did work offensively, Kareem would find him with outlet passes or find him cutting from the high post, but defensively Dantley was a liability, couldn't provide any interior D, wasn't interested in defensive rebounding and ran up the court the moment the ball would got released.

Kareem was an excellent passer in the halfcourt (has been one since the moment he stepped into the NBA) and a great outlet one too, one of the best ever at the center position actually. He constantly led the league centers in assist per game, his average in '79 (5.4 apg) is second highest for any center post-merger (higher than Walton, Shaq, Robinson etc). I'm not sure where this idea of him not being able to contribute to team chemistry is coming from, because offensively, he could fit in seamlessly. The '78 and '79 teams were ranked 3rd and 6th offensively (just as good as Walton's Blazers), that's not where the problem was with those teams. It was lack of perimeter defense and lack of rebounding outside of Kareem (which killed them against big front courts like Seattle...Webster/Sikma/Silas).

Here is a game from the 1978 season, it's just the first five minutes of the game but you can take a look at Kareem's excellent passing:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYKvPshzymk

Hmm - not sure if you're disputing what I'm saying, but I certainly agree with your categorizations. Thanks for the input - reinforces everything I've seen/read. There's some discussion of this in the previous RPOY threads which I gather you haven't read.

My only point was there are areas of the game where Walton trumps Kareem, despite Jabbar's statistical dominance. That was one of them. Kareem and Walton had very different games. Obviously I"m not buying the "Kareem should have won more" narrative. That said, I don't think he had some perfect, all-around, all-fitting skill set. But it was pretty freaking good (post-scoring, post-passing, defense).

[Doctor MJ]

I've learned a lot about what went on with Shaq during his time in L.A. that has made me think less of him. But even now, as was the case then, I never, ever, ever considered, for even a single second, that the team would have been fine, let alone better off, without him.

The guy wasn't perfect. But there was never a doubt in my mind that he was a championship-caliber cornerstone. And that was eventually proven to be true.

I want to be clear, it's not that I think the Lakers 3-peat without Shaq. He did have some years of major impact.

Consider though Shaq's change of teams from Orlando to LA. He comes to LA, and the team's record stays about the same, the SRS gets worse. Shaq missed a bunch of time, but when they got to the playoffs didn't upset anybody. The next year the team improves (yay!), but Shaq's still injured for a big chunk of the time so that's not the reason - and again with a healthy Shaq in the playoffs they exit mildly when they face a team with a better record. This is just not a guy at that time having a night-and-day impact on his team.

Now to be clear, it's possible for a non-headcase to have similar problems with a new or poorly contructed team, so maybe it's just a coincidence that Shaq had those struggles. I'm not alll that inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt though considering what I know of his attitude. He was still as star player at those time, but while the stats may say he was the best player in the game then, I don't think he was.

[Sedale Threatt]

I do. Since we're about three decades past that, I'll leave it at that.

[penbeast0]

I don't think Kareem has been accused of being a team cancer or a jerk, a la Shaq (or even what I have heard said about Elvin Hayes here); he's accused of being withdrawn, self-absorbed, and not leading his teammates.

To be fair, if you have a great scoring, not terribly physical star, I don't think the great GM surrounds him with undersized scorers . . . the 70s Lakers are like the 50s/early 60s Celtics with scoring and outside shooting everywhere and their PF and SF being arguably more suited for SF and SG . . . the difference is that this plays to Russell's strengths, not to Kareem's. Of course, Russell still dominated both then and with a very different team in the late 60s which is why he's a GOAT candidate despite not having the scoring stats.

Kareem would be better suited to the Portland team and, not knowing how well they would fit in advance, I would have argued that Walton would be better suited to the LA team.

[Optimism Prime]

1. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
2. Bill Walton
3. George Gervin
4. David Thompson
5. Bob McAdoo

[ElGee]

My 1978 POY Ballot:

1. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
2. George Gervin
3. Julius Erving
4. David Thompson
5. Walter Davis

This year was an exercise in RPOY criteria. Walton, per the standard I established early on, doesn't play when it matters and is out of this mix. Kareem, despite missing 20 games, has no one else comparable to be slotted behind. I've only used games missed when I feel players are on comparable levels, and Gervin would only take my No. 1 if he actually played defense as well.

Speaking of Ice, I've been fairly critical of him, but the 1978 footage I watched finally impressed me. His shot was so money inside that 18-foot comfort zone it was kind of unfair (as a 6-8 guard). Then I saw that his relative TS% was +7.9%, his pace-adjusted scoring was second to Westphal and his assists and rebounding numbers were up too. San Antonio had the second best offense in the league, Gervin exploded in the playoffs, and the articles I read spoke well of his big postseason performances. Guy almost dropped a 5-0 in G2 of the ECF (46 points). Really comfortable with him at No. 2.

Then it got tricky for me. I like the Erving I saw on tape a little more this year, his shooting percentages are back up again, and (coincidentally?) Philly's offense is in strong form again. I'll take Erving's defense and rebounding any day over David Thompson's. Not a great year from Julius but the competition is thin.

Thompson takes the 4th spot. Did make all-nba first team. Then again, so did Truck Robinson. His numbers are a bit inflated - here are the per/75 stats from 1978 for the wings:

Code: Select all

         pts/75   reb/75  ast/75   Rel TS%
Gervin   25.8     4.8     3.5      +7.9%
Davis    24.4     6.1     3.4     + 6.2%
Thompson 23.9     4.3     4.0      +6.3%
Erving   20.9     6.6     3.9      +4.0%


Still, he's an explosive player and definitely a key weapon in a good Denver offense. I'll give Walter Davis the fifth spot over Westphal, trusting the tiebreaker employed by True about his defensive contributions compared to Paul's. Haven't seen much of Davis, but the combination of articles, stats, others words and the few chunks of games I have seen him make him the guy here.

Guys like Hayes, Dandridge, Lanier (injury), McAdoo and Gilmore (look at his turnovers!) all had too many black marks for me. What a wild year.