Top 50 player seasons, PLEASE READ pg 4 if you want to vote

[ardee]

Again, I'm not saying Kareem gets it because he won league and finals mvp. I'm saying it is his best because not only was his advanced stats better but he also had his most success as well. Willis Reed really doesn't compare here because his stats were not anywhere near close to the best in the league. You need to have both, the numbers and the success.

And again the reason you say his numbers were better across the board is that you are looking at raw numbers. Just like looking at Wilt's 1962 season over his 1967 is going to be misleading because of looking at raw numbers.

Let's see what most others believe is Kareem's best season.

Well advanced stats have their flaws too. They are very nice, but they don't tell the whole story. You can't just go by win shares or PER. You have to put them in context. Kareem had great advanced stats in '76-77 too. Something tells me if his '71-72 Bucks' supporting casts were transported to those LA teams Kareem's advanced stats would be even better than what he put up in '71-72. And he'd have 2 rings instead of 1. Look at Jabbar's '74 and '77 playoff runs - better than '71 and way better than '72. What do say about that? How about 1980 too? He also won a title that year. And there is something to be said about taking 20 wins-or less bad teams to 40 and even 53 wins like Kareem did in '76-77. Kareem was great in his young '71-72 years, but he was flat better from '74-80, with '74, '76-77 and '80 being his top years in that stretch. I can understand picking '71 over '76 on the basis there was no playoff run in '76 to measure against, but I have a very hard time putting Jabbar's '71 season over '74, '77 and '80.

Don't bother going there man. There's not any superstar in history who could have taken that team tot he Playoffs. I literally think that in 1976, Kareem did the most with that team than anyone ever could. With the actual definition of MVP, you could say its one of the top two or three Most Valuable seasons ever.

[JordansBulls]

Again, I'm not saying Kareem gets it because he won league and finals mvp. I'm saying it is his best because not only was his advanced stats better but he also had his most success as well. Willis Reed really doesn't compare here because his stats were not anywhere near close to the best in the league. You need to have both, the numbers and the success.

And again the reason you say his numbers were better across the board is that you are looking at raw numbers. Just like looking at Wilt's 1962 season over his 1967 is going to be misleading because of looking at raw numbers.

Let's see what most others believe is Kareem's best season.

Well advanced stats have their flaws too. They are very nice, but they don't tell the whole story. You can't just go by win shares or PER. You have to put them in context. Kareem had great advanced stats in '76-77 too. Something tells me if his '71-72 Bucks' supporting casts were transported to those LA teams Kareem's advanced stats would be even better than what he put up in '71-72. And he'd have 2 rings instead of 1. Look at Jabbar's '74 and '77 playoff runs - better than '71 and way better than '72. What do say about that? How about 1980 too? He also won a title that year. And there is something to be said about taking 20 wins-or less bad teams to 40 and even 53 wins like Kareem did in '76-77. Kareem was great in his young '71-72 years, but he was flat better from '74-80, with '74, '76-77 and '80 being his top years in that stretch. I can understand picking '71 over '76 on the basis there was no playoff run in '76 to measure against, but I have a very hard time putting Jabbar's '71 season over '74, '77 and '80.

Again you are dealing with hypotheticals here instead of what actually happened. You are basically saying switch Kareem's teams and he would have as much success if not more. But isn't what he did in 1971 what you want from your star player with a good supporting cast? Is there any other possible way that he could have done better than he did with his 1971 cast with an ultra dominant season and playoffs and carried his team to the title?

Put it this way, had Duncan lost in 2003 and got swept would that season be considered better than say his 1999 season?

Now I understand what you are saying overall, for instance KG in 2004 was better than 2008. But again in that situation KG in 2008 didnt have the best numbers in the league while KG 2004 did.

In dealing with a scenario like this or in this discussion I believe we are talking about what transpired, not about if this or that happened.

BTW, just to get your input, how would you rank Kareem's top 5 seasons so that I can see where you are coming from?

[ardee]

Again, I'm not saying Kareem gets it because he won league and finals mvp. I'm saying it is his best because not only was his advanced stats better but he also had his most success as well. Willis Reed really doesn't compare here because his stats were not anywhere near close to the best in the league. You need to have both, the numbers and the success.

And again the reason you say his numbers were better across the board is that you are looking at raw numbers. Just like looking at Wilt's 1962 season over his 1967 is going to be misleading because of looking at raw numbers.

Let's see what most others believe is Kareem's best season.

Well advanced stats have their flaws too. They are very nice, but they don't tell the whole story. You can't just go by win shares or PER. You have to put them in context. Kareem had great advanced stats in '76-77 too. Something tells me if his '71-72 Bucks' supporting casts were transported to those LA teams Kareem's advanced stats would be even better than what he put up in '71-72. And he'd have 2 rings instead of 1. Look at Jabbar's '74 and '77 playoff runs - better than '71 and way better than '72. What do say about that? How about 1980 too? He also won a title that year. And there is something to be said about taking 20 wins-or less bad teams to 40 and even 53 wins like Kareem did in '76-77. Kareem was great in his young '71-72 years, but he was flat better from '74-80, with '74, '76-77 and '80 being his top years in that stretch. I can understand picking '71 over '76 on the basis there was no playoff run in '76 to measure against, but I have a very hard time putting Jabbar's '71 season over '74, '77 and '80.

Again you are dealing with hypotheticals here instead of what actually happened. You are basically saying switch Kareem's teams and he would have as much success if not more. But isn't what he did in 1971 what you want from your star player with a good supporting cast? Is there any other possible way that he could have done better than he did with his 1971 cast with an ultra dominant season and playoffs and carried his team to the title?

Put it this way, had Duncan lost in 2003 and got swept would that season be considered better than say his 1999 season?

Now I understand what you are saying overall, for instance KG in 2004 was better than 2008. But again in that situation KG in 2008 didnt have the best numbers in the league while KG 2004 did.

In dealing with a scenario like this or in this discussion I believe we are talking about what transpired, not about if this or that happened.

BTW, just to get your input, how would you rank Kareem's top 5 seasons so that I can see where you are coming from?

Duncan 2003 and Kareem 1976 are completely different. He had David Robinson, Manu Ginobili, Tony Parker, Stephen Jackson and Bruce Bowen. Now I know none of the first three where in their primes, but they were all great role players. A heck of a lot better than Kermit Washington and Mo Lucas, at the very least. Now, the way Kareem was playing, if you put him with those four guys, you're absolutely going to win a championship. It would be a total guarantee.

I would rank Kareem's top 5 seasons as:

1. 1976
2. 1977 (that was arguably the best Playoffs ever. 35-18-4 on 65% TS when your guards can't even bring the ball up the court?!)
3. 1971
4. 1974
5. 1980

(Can't put 1972 here, those regular season stats were crazily inflated by pace, when he faced Wilt in his defensive prime he started having games where he went 16 for 36 and 15 for 37)

[JordansBulls]

So you rank his 1976 season first even though he didn't make the playoffs that season and considering his former team made the playoffs?

Also I don't think his 1972 numbers were inflated. Remember he played 44 mpg that season and in 1977 he played 37 mpg.

[ardee]

So you rank his 1976 season first even though he didn't make the playoffs that season and considering his former team made the playoffs?

Also I don't think his 1972 numbers were inflated. Remember he played 44 mpg that season and in 1977 he played 37 mpg.

Kareem's TEAM did not make the Playoffs. Again, for crying out loud, no player can take a bunch of absolute scrubs, literally a team of Brian Scalbarines, to the postseason. Kareem did as much as humanly possible, and seriously, taking that group to 40 wins shows you just how good of a player he was in those years.

76 and 77 are interchangeable to be honest. His regular season numbers dipped slightly in 77 but he somehow dragged the same group to 53 wins, plus had a devastating Playoffs.

Same reason I believe that 1990 and maybe 1988 were better seasons for Jordan than 1991. Those were his best performances as an individual, and seriously, taking a group like the 88 Bulls to 50 wins is just incredible (aside from winning MVP, scoring title and DPOY in the same year, of course).

[wallyb]

So you rank his 1976 season first even though he didn't make the playoffs that season and considering his former team made the playoffs?

Also I don't think his 1972 numbers were inflated. Remember he played 44 mpg that season and in 1977 he played 37 mpg.

In '76 the team Jabbar joined only won 30 games the year before and they got a lot worse with the loss of what turned out to be 4 valuable players in future all-star Winters, draft picks Bridgeman and Myers and the retirement of long-time double-double PF Happy Hariston. Milwaukee got better everywhere but center. The Bucks were vastly better at SG with Winters and in depth with Myers and Bridgeman plus Elmore Smith turned in a career year taking over for Jabbar. Throw in they had a healthy PG for 81 games as opposed to 51 in '75 and then you factor in the Bucks played in a ridiculously weak division compared to the year before. Milwaukee should've been much more successful in '76 than they were in '75, but they weren't. The same 38-win team as the year before - which actually would've been a 6-7 game dropoff had Jabbar been healthy all of '75. Milwaukee only made the playoffs in '76 because they were in a super weak division. LA, meanwhile, would've been hard pressed to maintain 30 wins in '76 with anyone else but Kareem. With the talent they lost and playing in a tougher division LA was probably closer to 15-win bad instead of 20 in '76 without Jabbar and Kareem leads them to 40 wins and just misses the playoffs. Really need to put things in perspective.

As for Jabbar's top seasons: 1. 1977, 2. 1976, 3. 1980, 4. 1974, 5. 1971.

I give '77 the nod over '76 because of the monster playoffs, but they're pretty interchangeable as Jabbar's 2 peak years. I think '80 was his most complete year even though he no longer had quite the athleticism and agility to dominate as much as he did in his peak or even younger years. I'd also take '74 as his best Buck year - better defender, better passer and more well-rounded scorer than his previous years and he carried a fading team with Oscar on his last legs to 59 wins and game 7 of the finals with a dominant playoff run despite losing a key teammate to injury. Jabbar's '74, '77 and '80 playoff runs were all better than his '71 run, which was still pretty good.

[JordansBulls]

So you rank his 1976 season first even though he didn't make the playoffs that season and considering his former team made the playoffs?

Also I don't think his 1972 numbers were inflated. Remember he played 44 mpg that season and in 1977 he played 37 mpg.

Kareem's TEAM did not make the Playoffs. Again, for crying out loud, no player can take a bunch of absolute scrubs, literally a team of Brian Scalbarines, to the postseason. Kareem did as much as humanly possible, and seriously, taking that group to 40 wins shows you just how good of a player he was in those years.

76 and 77 are interchangeable to be honest. His regular season numbers dipped slightly in 77 but he somehow dragged the same group to 53 wins, plus had a devastating Playoffs.

Same reason I believe that 1990 and maybe 1988 were better seasons for Jordan than 1991. Those were his best performances as an individual, and seriously, taking a group like the 88 Bulls to 50 wins is just incredible (aside from winning MVP, scoring title and DPOY in the same year, of course).

Then my friend the way you evaluate players and the way I do is totally different because in no way shape or form was 1988 Jordan's season better than his 1991 season especially when you consider his playoff run in 1991 and finals.

[ardee]

So you rank his 1976 season first even though he didn't make the playoffs that season and considering his former team made the playoffs?

Also I don't think his 1972 numbers were inflated. Remember he played 44 mpg that season and in 1977 he played 37 mpg.

Kareem's TEAM did not make the Playoffs. Again, for crying out loud, no player can take a bunch of absolute scrubs, literally a team of Brian Scalbarines, to the postseason. Kareem did as much as humanly possible, and seriously, taking that group to 40 wins shows you just how good of a player he was in those years.

76 and 77 are interchangeable to be honest. His regular season numbers dipped slightly in 77 but he somehow dragged the same group to 53 wins, plus had a devastating Playoffs.

Same reason I believe that 1990 and maybe 1988 were better seasons for Jordan than 1991. Those were his best performances as an individual, and seriously, taking a group like the 88 Bulls to 50 wins is just incredible (aside from winning MVP, scoring title and DPOY in the same year, of course).

Then my friend the way you evaluate players and the way I do is totally different because in no way shape or form was 1988 Jordan's season better than his 1991 season especially when you consider his playoff run in 1991 and finals.

If you put '88 Jordan on the '91 Bulls team they'd still win the title and he'd still put up monster numbers. But yeah, I said 'maybe', admittedly there were still a few flaws in his game (long range shooting). 1990 was flawless though.

[JordansBulls]

If you put '88 Jordan on the '91 Bulls team they'd still win the title and he'd still put up monster numbers. But yeah, I said 'maybe', admittedly there were still a few flaws in his game (long range shooting). 1990 was flawless though.

Well I think you need to reword how we are doing this project because IMO it seems how it is worded is that we are picking the top 50 player seasons which is totally different from maybe using the top 50 seasons of a player where there game was the most flawless so to speak. Which is why you may use Kareem 1977 over 1971 or why someone may say MJ 1993 over MJ 1991 or Magic 1989 over Magic 1987, 1988 Bird over 1986 Bird, 2011 Lebron over 2009 Lebron, 2011 Dwight over 2009 Dwight, 1993 Hakeem over 1994 or 1995 Hakeem, 2001 Shaq over 2000 Shaq, etc.

[ardee]

If you put '88 Jordan on the '91 Bulls team they'd still win the title and he'd still put up monster numbers. But yeah, I said 'maybe', admittedly there were still a few flaws in his game (long range shooting). 1990 was flawless though.

Well I think you need to reword how we are doing this project because IMO it seems how it is worded is that we are picking the top 50 player seasons which is totally different from maybe using the top 50 seasons of a player where there game was the most flawless so to speak. Which is why you may use Kareem 1977 over 1971 or why someone may say MJ 1993 over MJ 1991 or Magic 1989 over Magic 1987, etc.

How is it different?

The idea is to rank the seasons in order of HOW GOOD the player was in that season, i.e. how much they contributed. I don't think 1989 Magic contributed more than 1987 Magic. His scoring was down, and he was injured in the playoffs. 1993 Jordan was not better than 1991 Jordan, his efficiency was down like crazy. 1991 is the second best Jordan season, possibly interchangeable with 1990 as no. 1.

Now, perhaps, you will understand the logic of our 1976 over 1971 Kareem pick. He was simply a better player then. His range was greater, passing was better, defense was better. He contributed more to his team as a player.

[JordansBulls]

If you put '88 Jordan on the '91 Bulls team they'd still win the title and he'd still put up monster numbers. But yeah, I said 'maybe', admittedly there were still a few flaws in his game (long range shooting). 1990 was flawless though.

Well I think you need to reword how we are doing this project because IMO it seems how it is worded is that we are picking the top 50 player seasons which is totally different from maybe using the top 50 seasons of a player where there game was the most flawless so to speak. Which is why you may use Kareem 1977 over 1971 or why someone may say MJ 1993 over MJ 1991 or Magic 1989 over Magic 1987, etc.

How is it different?

The idea is to rank the seasons in order of HOW GOOD the player was in that season, i.e. how much they contributed. I don't think 1989 Magic contributed more than 1987 Magic. His scoring was down, and he was injured in the playoffs. 1993 Jordan was not better than 1991 Jordan, his efficiency was down like crazy. 1991 is the second best Jordan season, possibly interchangeable with 1990 as no. 1.

Now, perhaps, you will understand the logic of our 1976 over 1971 Kareem pick. He was simply a better player then. His range was greater, passing was better, defense was better. He contributed more to his team as a player.

But how is that the case? Personally I just feel Kareem as a Buck was better than Kareem as a Laker by a good amount.
Kareem had better efficiency in 1971 than he did in 1976 and he produced more as a player as well. Now if you want to say Kareem 1976 produced more than Kareem 1971 than his next best player that would be true, but strictly comparing Kareem 1971 to Kareem 1976, Kareem 1971 produced more than Kareem 1976 and all the advanced stats back that up.

You are going in circles. First you say you looking at how complete a player they were overall and then you say you are going by how much they produce as an individual. Because MJ 1993 had a little better post game than MJ 1991 overall, and shot the 3 better than he did in 1991. But then again he took nearly 3x as many 3's in 1993 than he did in 1991.

[ardee]

But how is that the case? Personally I just feel Kareem as a Buck was better than Kareem as a Laker by a good amount.
Kareem had better efficiency in 1971 than he did in 1976 and he produced more as a player as well. Now if you want to say Kareem 1976 produced more than Kareem 1971 than his next best player that would be true, but strictly comparing Kareem 1971 to Kareem 1976, Kareem 1971 produced more than Kareem 1976 and all the advanced stats back that up.

You are going in circles. First you say you looking at how complete a player they were overall and then you say you are going by how much they produce as an individual. Because MJ 1993 had a little better post game than MJ 1991 overall, and shot the 3 better than he did in 1991. But then again he took nearly 3x as many 3's in 1993 than he did in 1991.

MJ 1993's FG% was down from 54 to 49.5 and his TS% from 61 to 56. In the Playoffs he shot an uncharacteristic 47.5% from the field. He took more shots but got to the line less, and his defense was weaker. This was a good year, but not in the conversation for his best.

Look, you have your view, myself and the others have ours. We feel that Kareem's game was better in 1976 and 77 and he contributed more (range, defense, etc.). I suppose the different views will show up in the voting when the project commences (hopefully after the second round we can start?)

[wallyb]

Personally I just feel Kareem as a Buck was better than Kareem as a Laker by a good amount.
Kareem had better efficiency in 1971 than he did in 1976 and he produced more as a player as well. Now if you want to say Kareem 1976 produced more than Kareem 1971 than his next best player that would be true, but strictly comparing Kareem 1971 to Kareem 1976, Kareem 1971 produced more than Kareem 1976 and all the advanced stats back that up.

If you think Kareem as a Buck was better than Kareem as a 76-80 prime Laker at all, let alone by a good amount, then you just aren't grasping things. Period. Anyone who coached or played with or against him and even just saw him play in those days would tell you otherwise and Kareem himself has said this - his best years were as a Laker from '76-80. And '76-77 were his aboslute peak. Better defender than in Milwaukee, better rebounder (in '76) more complete on offense with better range, stronger and more intelligent. He was close to that level in '74, but not quite there.

Advanced stats are great but they don't come close to telling the whole story and you're just not getting that. Ardee and I have said over and over Jabbar faced better team defenses with a lot more defensive help on him - all while facing equal quality opposing centers in '76-77 compared to '71-72. He We've also pointed out how he unquestionably had far less help around him in those early Laker years. Those 2 factors together make a huge difference. How you can't see the difference it makes going from having an all-time playmaker with good overall supporting cast to a below-average PG with almost no supporting cast is beyond me. And if you're so reliant on PER and WS/48, how about the playoffs? Jabbar was more dominant in '74, '77 and '80 than he was in '71 and for sure '72. What Jabbar did to make the otherwise horrid '76 LA team relavent and then carry the horrid '77 team to 53 wins and make the WCF with a banged up group of nobodies - turning in as dominant a back to back pair of playoff series as there's ever been in the process - to me is everybit as impressive, if not moreso, as anchoring a dominant championship team with a lot of help.

[JordansBulls]

Well I started a thread on it before and got 2 different answers so far but wasn't much more participitation with him.

In case you want to see, here it is.

viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1165997

Also you are forgetting the level of competition in the early 70's was much better than it was in the middle 70's or late 70's. You had guys who were on one man teams win titles such as Rick Barry. Then you had a team like the Sonics win a title as well.

[Doctor MJ]

Look, I understand what you are saying, however there is absolutely no way carrying a team that you think would be a 20-25 win team to 50 wins is more impressive than actually taking an organization that never won before to a title having the best numbers in the league by far and winning virtually accolade there is that season. A guy is not going to have one of the greatest seasons ever (top 10 or so) getting swept in a series or not even making the playoffs when he has other seasons statistically better and had more success.

^^
This is exactly what I'm talking about. This is the nonstop trolling and bizarre logic I was trying to warn you about

Granger, this is 2 separate threads right now where you're jumping in simply to be negative. Stop it.

Doc

[ardee]

Well I started a thread on it before and got 2 different answers so far but wasn't much more participitation with him.

In case you want to see, here it is.

viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1165997

Also you are forgetting the level of competition in the early 70's was much better than it was in the middle 70's or late 70's. You had guys who were on one man teams win titles such as Rick Barry. Then you had a team like the Sonics win a title as well.

Bee Ess.

1977 onward is an insanely competitive season. The ABA and NBA had finally joined, but as a result every team was loaded. Only four more teams but dozens of extra players. The A-list of the NBA in 1977 was:

1st Team
F: Elvin Hayes F: David Thompson
C: Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
G: Pete Maravich G: Paul Westphal

2nd Team
F: Julius Erving F: George McGinnis
C: Bill Walton
G: George Gervin G: Jo Jo White

In 1971

1st Team
F: Billy Cunningham F: John Havlicek
C: Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
G: Dave Bing G: Jerry West (old)

2nd Team
F: Gus Johnson F: Bob Love
C: Willis Reed
G: Walt Frazier G: Oscar Robertson (old)

So, you tell me, which crop of stars is better? In 77, only three teams won 50 or more games, but seven won less than 40 games. That's out of 22 teams. LA, Philly and Portland were all legitimate contenders.

In 71, 3 out of 17 teams won 50 or more games, and 6 won less than 40. The competitive balance was worse. It's no surprise that the three longest win streaks at the time came in that 70-72 (NY won 18 straight, Milwaukee won 20 and LA 33). They had awful teams to feast on and very few other legit rivals.

[Chris435]

what's happening with this project? is it starting after the playoffs?

[ardee]

what's happening with this project? is it starting after the playoffs?

I would hope we could commence once the conference semi-finals are over. Unless someone (ie. LeBron or maybe Durant) absolutely explodes by then, there's very little chance any of the current seasons will crack the top 10-15.

[bastillon]

G: Oscar Robertson (old)

Oscar '71 was not "old". just because he put up lower per game numbers doesn't mean he couldn't post better stats. Oscar was a 25/8/6 guy the year before he joined Milwaukee. he may have "regressed" to 19/8/6 but Milwaukee improved from 4 to 12 SRS! the guy was playing like a 1st tier all timer. I think Oscar got extremely underrated for 71-74 period, seeing how Milwaukee collapsed without his presence.

[wallyb]

G: Oscar Robertson (old)

Oscar '71 was not "old". just because he put up lower per game numbers doesn't mean he couldn't post better stats. Oscar was a 25/8/6 guy the year before he joined Milwaukee. he may have "regressed" to 19/8/6 but Milwaukee improved from 4 to 12 SRS! the guy was playing like a 1st tier all timer. I think Oscar got extremely underrated for 71-74 period, seeing how Milwaukee collapsed without his presence.

Oscar was still very good in '71-72 - though injured a bit in '72. I wouldn't put that huge leap in SRS all on Oscar - Kareem and Bobby D took a nice leap forward from year 1 to 2 and the Bucks also got a better bench. Oscar dropped a bit in '73 and dropped another notch in '74 when he was solid, but no all-star.

The Bucks collapse in '75 had to do with a lot more than Oscar retiring. Lucius Allen had been a great combo guard alongside Oscar and had his peak year in '74 before getting injured just before the playoffs. He never fully regained his pre-injury form when he came back in '75, plus he was asked to handle the full-time PG duties, which he was not comfortable with. He was traded after 10 games and Jim Price came over from LA. Price was hot early and that got him an undeserved all-star appearance. But he was pretty mediocore after that initial hot stretch and then missed the last 31 games of the season due to injury. Meanwhile filling in for Milwaukee at SG was George Thompson, who was good in the ABA, but a total scrub in his 1 and only NBA year.

So Milwaukee, which had already began declining a bit in '74 even if the record didn't show it, not only dropped at PG with Oscar out, but they essentially had no PG for the last 31 games of the season. They also took a big hit at SG and their bench declined a bit. Throw in the putrid performance in the 17 games Jabbar was out and there's your collapse.