ElGee wrote:I'm not going to asterisks the early 70s. I just think it's important to keep in mind the competition was watered-down. I'm not saying those aren't years close to his peak seasons -- he has some awesome early 70s years -- I'm just saying if he were doing that same stuff against different competition, then we could talk about that as peak impact.
By the same token, I'd probably counter that Boston's road to the title during the early part of its dynasty was less impressive in its own way -- smaller league, shorter playoffs. As I pointed out in the previous vote, Jordan and Russell closed their careers in identical fashion with 27 victories in their last 29 playoff series. For Bill, that resulted in 11 championships, for Jordan, only six.
I'm not even sure I can agree the early 70s was all that watered down. A quick roll call of the centers in 1971, when Kareem and Milwaukee had their best success, reveals a pretty respectable cast of characters -- Reed, Cowens, Unseld, Bellamy, Lanier, Chamberlain, Thurmond, Hayes, Silas, and, of course, the great Tom Boerwinkle.
All at various stages of their careers, of course. But I don't look at that group and think, what a cakewalk. Just the opposite.
ElGee wrote:The offensive point is a subtle point -- I expound in the 77 RPOY thread. Let's put it this way:
Wilt Chamberlain wasn't some mystical offensive player when he scored the ball a lot. In a team setting, what you threaten with is important, and Wilt needed to gather a lot, or just went up if he had good position, or shot that little fade (and probably turned it over a lot). So even though he had the passing *skills* then, I wouldn't say he was having GOAT offensive impact.
KAJ is like a lite version of that concept. The dude is a fantastic passer, but it's all a little mechanical. I never felt he got teammates the types of shots the all-time great offensive players got them, and I think some of that was his approach. The approach worked well in scoring (pts/efficiency), but the overall package suffered juuuuust a little because of it. Just enough that I don't see any point in history where I go "hey, that high volume high efficiency scorer who is also a good passer is having GOAT-level offensive impact."
It's nit-picking in the sense that slightly better offense, or better defense, would be what it takes for Cap to pass the few sacred peak guys ahead of him IMO.
I think I get where you're coming from, but it seems like a lot of this is a critique of Kareem's actual playing style, which wasn't always the prettiest, than his actual impact.
I mean, if GOAT-level offensive impact is the standard, how does third-best offense in history sound? That's where the 71 Bucks ranked, according to that link you just posted, and I'm sure you can agree that there was a lot more going on there than just still-great-but-obviously-past-his-prime Oscar Robertson.
Granted, there's not nearly the consistency there compared to what Russell's Celtics did defensively. But despite the obviously fantastic supporting cast with the Showtime Lakers, I have to give him a good amount of credit for the fact those teams also had several entries on that list. Having a high-efficiency, high-volume low-post threat doesn't exactly suck.
I guess the thing I always come back to with Kareem is, we have multiple seasons that prove, beyond any shadow of a doubt -- 1971, 1980, 1985, as just a few -- that he had an absolutely massive impact. He was about as consistent as it gets from an individual standpoint. So why would his impact fluctuate? The only reason I can think of are those intangible shortcomings.
But from the standpoint of pure ability, I don't see how that could be the case.
