RealGM Top 100 List #2

[Notanoob]

TrueLAFan made a thread about adjusting 60s era players rebounding numbers to get the equivalent of rebound rate in the Statistical Analysis thread. viewtopic.php?f=344&t=955514

Russel's TRB% as per flpiii:
1957: 21.92 (1st)
1958: 21.32 (1st)
1959: 19.05 (1st)
1960: 19.01 (2nd, Wilt 1st)
1961: 18.64 (4th, Wilt 2nd)
1962: 18.92 (2nd, Wilt 1st)
1963: 19.93 (2nd, Wilt 1st)
1964: 20.85 (1st, Wilt 2nd)
1965: 20.51 (1st, Wilt 2nd)
1966: 20.57 (1st, Wilt 2nd)
1967: 20.74 (2nd, Wilt 1st)
1968: 19.78 (2nd, Wilt 1st)
1969: 18.59 (4th, Wilt 1st)

That puts him at 'Pretty good but not GOAT' rebounder of all time.

Russell's shotblocking is very obvious in all the game tape I've seen of him. What impresses me about it is how he directs so many of the shots he blocks toward teammates rather than just smacking them away. I don't know if he's the GOAT in terms of blocking the most per minute (Manuuuuute Bol!) but possibly in terms of creating turnovers using blocks.

He's certainly really good at it, and pick up tons of blocks, but I believe that his reputation is a bit inflated by the fact that he was the first guy to have a real horizontal game, and by how much easier it was to pick up blocks when guys have never heard of a floater or are taking set shot 16 feet from the basket.

I'm not sure I'd predict him as having more points in the current era. You could assume that he'd learn a better bread and butter shot than that sweeping hook (much as I love my hook -- grew up imitating Kareem!) and be more efficient but can't say that for sure. You can also look at how his scoring tending to scale up in big pressure games and assume he was capable of more but, again, can't be sure. What you can say is that his offensive game (including passing where his impact in my opinion gets a bit overrated -- I don't see his outlet passing as close to Wes Unseld's for example or his half court passing as equal to Bill Walton's) wasn't that impressive. He wasn't a two way great; like Magic and Bird, he was a one way great, his greatness was predicated on defense and rebounding. The key is how much you think it impacted his team's winning. I think his defensive impact was the greatest overall impact ever for a player in terms of how much it led/could lead to winning titles -- the actual titles are just the icing on the cake.

I don't know that he'd score more, and I do think that his passing is a bit overstated, but I certainly believe that he'd be a low-volume, high efficiency scorer like Tyson Chandler was at least.

[MacGill]

[quote="ardee"]Hey, I'm voting for Russ here. So no disagreements on Russ vs Kareem...

But I think you're discounting the fact that at Kareem's 'absolute peak', he was playing with a supporting cast that makes '05-'07 KG, LeBron and Kobe feel good about themselves.

I'm sure you've seen footage from the '77 WCF... Some of Kareem's guys couldn't even get the ball past half-court. They were really, REALLY bad. To take them to 50 wins and the WCF required superhuman basketball... Which he provided btw, here's his game log from the '77 Playoffs...[quote]

Thanks for the info. This is again, why though, I question why he is a better basketball player than some of the other ATG's. They've all been there...similar circumstances so what gives then? How do you have the best player in the game at that time and surround him with nothing?

I mean, a guy who can perform like that, is there any question that given the right supporting cast, he could've won the title? I think you could put '77 Kareem on any of Russell's title teams, or the '67 Sixers, '00 Lakers, '94 Rockets or '03 Spurs and still win the title.

I agree...but I want to get into KAJ's faults more. Why do we have such little information about his defense? I mean straight up, removing accolades...how is KAJ a better basketball player than Hakeem for instance?

[colts18]

I agree...but I want to get into KAJ's faults more. Why do we have such little information about his defense? I mean straight up, removing accolades...how is KAJ a better basketball player than Hakeem for instance?

Peak. Kareem has 3 of the top 4 WS/48 seasons. Hakeem's highest ranking is #135

http://www.basketball-reference.com/lea ... eason.html


Best 10 WS seasons ranked from 1-10

Code: Select all

Player      1     2     3       4        5    6     7     8        9     10
Kareem    25.4   22.3   21.9   18.4   17.8   17   14.8   14.4   14.3   13.8
Hakeem    15.8   14.3   12.4   11.2   10.9   10.7   10.7   10.2   9.8   9.7


[ardee]

Thanks for the info. This is again, why though, I question why he is a better basketball player than some of the other ATG's. They've all been there...similar circumstances so what gives then? How do you have the best player in the game at that time and surround him with nothing?

Well, if you mean really nothing in the way Kareem had nothing in '77...

Jordan: Until Pippen matured somewhat in '89, basically a 45-50 win guy and second round in the Playoffs.

Russell: The closest he had to nothing was '69, but he still had Hondo, and that alone is a darn sight better than anyone Kareem had, not to mention old Sam, Baily, etc. I have Russell over Kareem so no argument anyway.

Wilt: '62, no shooters, team full of chuckers and no-defense guys, takes his team to within one shot of toppling the greatest dynasty in sports. Again, I have Wilt over Kareem, so leave this aside.

Hakeem: His '94 and '95 casts were a good bit better than anything Kareem played with pre-Magic. From Sampson's fall from grace to the arrival of Tomajovich, he never won more than 45 games consistently, losing in the first round or never making the Playoffs. Things improved considerably in '93, and surprise surprise, Rockets made the second round. So Hakeem's results with a crappy supporting cast are definitely worse than Kareem's.

Duncan: 2002 and 2003 were very weak rosters, but they're still a good bit better than what peak Kareem had. Robinson still gives you at least a good body to help down low. Malik Rose was an ok backup. Parker and Manu were young but they had energy if nothing else. And they still had one of the GOAT coaches to make the team functional despite the lack of talent. Kareem's teams were a PU-PU platter. Honestly, even Duncan never saw anything that bad.

Shaq: At least prime Shaq, I don't think he ever had a team as bad as peak Kareem did. His rookie and sophomore Orlando years maybe, I don't know too much about those teams, but they didn't make the Playoffs and lost in the first round respectively. After that, he always had at least a reliable second option (Penny, Kobe) or an overall good supporting cast (Eddie Jones/NVE/Kobe).

Kobe: '06 and '07, his results were a bit worse than peak Kareem's, though Odom was still at least a useful player. Kareem's '77 team had no one like that, he was doing it all really by himself.

Magic/Bird: Never played on teams remotely that bad.

So really, at least according to my analysis, none of these guys really suffered as bad as Kareem did, and when they did, their results were typically as bad or worse.

[DQuinn1575]

Kareem started play on a 2nd year expansion team, that luckily also drafted Bob Dandridge the same year.
The addition of those 2 to an expansion team made a very competitive team.
The addition next year of Oscar made them champs in 71, and very very good in 72-74.

Unfortunately with getting low draft picks the Bucks were not improving themselves, with the best player they drafted in that time being Mickey Davis. Adding no quality rookies to an expansion team plus two caught up with the Bucks.


He then was traded to the Lakers, who were a 30 win team - the Lakers had to trade 4 quality players to get him, plus Happy Hairston and Zelmo Beaty retired.

The team Kareem joined in LA was awful - none of the 3 forwards with the most playing time ever averaged 10 points a game in a season. - That is pretty awful.

LA got a little better each year from 1976 probably thru 1987 - an incredible building of a team.

But Kareem was twice basically on expansion teams and had no support.

[MisterWestside]

ill played against a freak athlete in Wilt Chamberlain, and often times out played him despite what the stats say. One has to remember that Chamberlain was a stat padder, and on top of that the Celtics would often get gigantic leads, so a lot of Wilt's stats came in "garbage time". Here are some examples in key playoff games from Fatal9.

I just watched a finals series in which LeBron James scored alot of his points in garbage time. You could not argue to me that he didn't play well because he scored his points during those periods. This is team basketball. If you're playing against superior teams - which Russell's Celtics were, regardless of how you rank Russell and Chamberlain - then blowouts can occur. Other players might stink it up offensively for a period, but still get adequate help from other teammates on offense or defense to keep the score close. I'm not punishing Chamberlain for that.

Besides, you don't stop playing defense because you're blowing out the other team. You have to keep playing defense in order to prevent comebacks, unless you prefer to be the team that allowed the opponent to win in a come-from-behind rally. And since the poster you cited wants to suggest that Russell could lock down Chamberlain whenever he wanted to, then why didn't he do it in the other games when the score was close? Can't have this both ways.

[MacGill]

Thanks for the info. This is again, why though, I question why he is a better basketball player than some of the other ATG's. They've all been there...similar circumstances so what gives then? How do you have the best player in the game at that time and surround him with nothing?

Well, if you mean really nothing in the way Kareem had nothing in '77...

Jordan: Until Pippen matured somewhat in '89, basically a 45-50 win guy and second round in the Playoffs.

Russell: The closest he had to nothing was '69, but he still had Hondo, and that alone is a darn sight better than anyone Kareem had, not to mention old Sam, Baily, etc. I have Russell over Kareem so no argument anyway.

Wilt: '62, no shooters, team full of chuckers and no-defense guys, takes his team to within one shot of toppling the greatest dynasty in sports. Again, I have Wilt over Kareem, so leave this aside.

Hakeem: His '94 and '95 casts were a good bit better than anything Kareem played with pre-Magic. From Sampson's fall from grace to the arrival of Tomajovich, he never won more than 45 games consistently, losing in the first round or never making the Playoffs. Things improved considerably in '93, and surprise surprise, Rockets made the second round. So Hakeem's results with a crappy supporting cast are definitely worse than Kareem's.

Duncan: 2002 and 2003 were very weak rosters, but they're still a good bit better than what peak Kareem had. Robinson still gives you at least a good body to help down low. Malik Rose was an ok backup. Parker and Manu were young but they had energy if nothing else. And they still had one of the GOAT coaches to make the team functional despite the lack of talent. Kareem's teams were a PU-PU platter. Honestly, even Duncan never saw anything that bad.

Shaq: At least prime Shaq, I don't think he ever had a team as bad as peak Kareem did. His rookie and sophomore Orlando years maybe, I don't know too much about those teams, but they didn't make the Playoffs and lost in the first round respectively. After that, he always had at least a reliable second option (Penny, Kobe) or an overall good supporting cast (Eddie Jones/NVE/Kobe).

Kobe: '06 and '07, his results were a bit worse than peak Kareem's, though Odom was still at least a useful player. Kareem's '77 team had no one like that, he was doing it all really by himself.

Magic/Bird: Never played on teams remotely that bad.

So really, at least according to my analysis, none of these guys really suffered as bad as Kareem did, and when they did, their results were typically as bad or worse.

Ok, so we all agree then that when an ATG has poor help that the results will vary, usually piss poor, agreed? So then, what other factors am I missing about his basketball ability?

Offensive player - Fantastic
Defensive player - still waiting on this
Longevity - great
Accolades - a ton

Ok, lots of other ATG's with these check marks. Was KAJ a better offensive anchor than Shaq for instance? I don't think so. Maybe, like Hakeem, he came with a bit more of a diverse skill set and was superior in certain situations...but does this mean better? Shaq was more efficient and I am sure you think the same of Wilt (but we'll save this). Was KAJ a better defensive player than Hakeem/Duncan....general consensus is no but I will wait for more information around this. And if we're going to use 'poor teams' to acknowledge why he could only do so much in his peak....than is it fair to say that we use his 'all-time great rosters' to acknowledge why he also played the way he did late into his career? I would assume there is a detraction and lift in both examples. And obviously his own ability allowed him to excel nicely in both but do we take some credit away here and presume without showtime, he may have even retired years earlier? So we get to accolades...usually the backing and confirmation of his great career. Where will we be discussing these other receiptents? Anyone who could dethrone KAJ as best in game must have been incredible, no? I mean look at the regular season needed to have LBJ dethroned by KD? Who were the other superstars (not all-stars) playing in the 70's with him battling him for MVP's year after year? It's not KAJ's fault as one poster mentioned, but how many ATG's couldn't have won 6 MVP's in his exact situation? If we can take KAJ and place him on other great teams and win....why can't we take other great ATG's and place them in the 70's and win multiple mvp's the same way? I'll pause there. I really want to see defensive posts around him and just how great offensively these centers brought it to KAJ.

[90sAllDecade]

Hmm? The Mikan argument has very little to do with team success. The Mikan argument has to do with Value placed on longevity, value placed on possessions without a shot clock, and value placed on athleticism and level of completion. Using Mikan as a reason to discredit team success just wouldn't work, because quite frankly, his longevity just doesn't stack up regardless

Don't get me wrong I'm not advocating Mikan over the others, but he brings up a legitimate argument about ranking criteria.

All those value points also apply to Russell or KAJ versus modern players who peaked post merger with respect to longevity comparisons (KAJ has the best imo), possessions due to pace, average opponent player athleticism and competition level pre ABA merger.

I don't rate Mikan over Russell as I think Russell is a better player. I do think KAJ is better in comparison though as an overall two way player, if you value longevity, he's the greatest ever imo.

However I don't think either faced stronger competition in their peaks or most dominant stats years versus post NBA/ABA merger players with the three point line (wider lane for Russell) and slower pace reducing raw stat numbers and impact of bigs defensively.

But just like rule changes like the shot clock showed Mikan had inflated dominance, so would a three point line, wider lane, pace differences, greater competition and less team support would show Russell (and even KAJ's) inflated numbers dominance during those pre merger years imo.

But if a person ranks players by rings, resume, winshares and PER but says the rules inflated Mikan. Why don't other rule changes, pace and competition/team support factors inflate pre merger dominance?

First let's compare Mikan vs Russell (as I did in the previous thread if others missed it) in which the topic was about being the first to do something.

"I think just because you're the first to do something (innovate) doesn't mean you're the best at doing it.

Others come and perfect it like scientists who learn from earlier scientists or Russell learning from Mikan or Red Auerbach. If Russell hadn't come along, another person with his talent would have been the first to do it as well.
Mikan did much of what Russell did as far as career accomplishments, yet hypocritically he isn't mentioned with those advocates."

Russell has stated that his father became his childhood hero, later followed up by Minneapolis Lakers superstar George "Mr. Basketball" Mikan, whom he met when he was in high school.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Russell

Mikan's statistical dominance, career accolades and team impact rivaled Russell's.

If those guys didn't innovate first, someone else would've later. They are truly all time greats as was their legacy, nothing will take that away from them. But because you're the first to do something doesn't mean you're the best imo.

Statistical Dominance

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Mikan

Team impact: (for six peak years the Mikan has records)

-Had already won 2× NBL championships (1947-1948) No record on team stats I could find yet.

Minniepolis Lakers

48-49
PTS/G: 84.0 (2nd of 12) ▪ Opp PTS/G: 76.7 (1st of 12)
SRS: 6.81 (1st of 12)
Expected W-L: 47-13 (1st of 12)
BAA Champions

49-50
PTS/G: 84.1 (4th of 17) ▪ Opp PTS/G: 75.7 (2nd of 17)
SRS: 8.25 (1st of 17)
Expected W-L: 55-13 (1st of 17)
NBA Championship

50-51
PTS/G: 82.8 (8th of 11) ▪ Opp PTS/G: 77.4 (1st of 11)
SRS: 4.79 (1st of 11)
Expected W-L: 49-19 (1st of 11)

51-52
PTS/G: 85.6 (5th of 10) ▪ Opp PTS/G: 79.5 (1st of 10)
SRS: 5.28 (1st of 10)
Expected W-L: 49-17 (1st of 10)
NBA Championship

52-53
PTS/G: 85.3 (5th of 10) ▪ Opp PTS/G: 79.2 (3rd of 10)
SRS: 5.53 (1st of 10)
Expected W-L: 52-18 (1st of 10)
NBA Championship

53-54
PTS/G: 81.7 (3rd of 9) ▪ Opp PTS/G: 78.6 (4th of 9)
SRS: 2.70 (2nd of 9)
Expected W-L: 45-27 (2nd of 9)
NBA Championship

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/MNL/1949.html

To also show why PER and winshares are poor comparison tools. Keep in mind Mikan is missing the same stat categories as Russell for PER.

Mikan career:

RS: PER 26.7 TS .483 eFG% .404 WS48 .246
PS: PER 28.5 TS .493 eFG% .404 WS48 .254

Russell career:

RS: PER 18.9 TS .471 eFG% .440 WS48 .193
PS: PER 19.4 TS .474 eFG% .430 WS48 .178

Peak Win-Shares
Mikan
OWS 17.6 DWS 3.2 20.9
OWS 15.3 DWS 5.8 21.1
OWS 16.0 DWS 7.4 23.4

Russell
OWS 1.0 DWS 12.6 13.5
OWS 1.3 DWS 16.0 17.3
OWS 2.4 DWS 14.4 16.9

http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... nge01.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... ebi01.html

"This is the reason I view the definition of the greatest as special or the best actual players all time. If you go by impact in thier own era, championships, resume/accolades, winshares or PER it's a flawed analysis imo.

I think Russell is better than Mikan, even though Mikan innovated first and I think modern players like Jordan or Hakeem are better than Russell imo."

[MisterWestside]

Just to support your excellent points here

Interesting read. Rule changes and other things limited Mikan's impact. If this forum existed at that time before the rule changes, and posters guessed what Mikan's impact with the rule changes would be based on his previous impact, they'd have him as the GOAT. Whoops.

Ah, but let it be told that Russell would still have the same impact in a completely disparate era from his. Let's cite (flawed) impact numbers in his day, let's apply S-curves (based on its own set of assumptions) and the like, but then go ahead and overlook the fact that Russell still never played one minute in the era that we're transporting him to.

This is not to say that he wouldn't be a defensive wizard - or a warlock - in the 90s, playing alongside the likes of Jordan. It's to say that figuring out the rankings based on IMPACT! is naive, it requires context, and other methods of thinking should take precedent. We can still have Russell compete in an otherwise manner on the all-time list.

[90sAllDecade]

Now, lets compare KAJ with Olajuwon.

Guys like KAJ, Wilt and Russell's raw stats were amazing. KAJ has to be better right? But if you put their raw stats into context with pace, it tells a completely different story.

KAJ vs Hakeem Raw stats adjusted for pace:

Hakeem RS per100





KAJ RS per100





So although Kareem has a much better TS% and passing in the regular season, he's actually a worse scorer, rebounder, stealer, shot blocker than Hakeem in the RS. Pace inflated his raw numbers and skewed perception.

How about in the playoffs? Where players face better teams with winning records, tougher defenses who gameplan against you for 5-7 game series.

I value playoff career numbers over regular season due to increased difficulty, it separates the wheat from the chaff.

Hakeem PO per100





KAJ PO per100





http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... uha01.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... lka01.html

In the playoffs adjusting for pace, Hakeem is surprisingly still a better scorer, rebounder, shot blocker and stealer. But since he always got better against tougher competition in his prime, Olajuwon & KAJ's TS% and assists are a wash.

When you factor in Hakeem has much less team support, faced tougher competition, was more skilled, had a better peak (which I hold as equal weight to longevity), much better defense RS & PO and was mentally stronger, Hakeem is the better center and two way player.

Now the media never tells fans how to analyze comeptition, teams support or rules. Which I'll do later as well.

[therealbig3]

My reasoning for Kareem here, especially vs Russell, is still the same as what I felt in the #1 thread. I agree, the arguments for Russell have been excellent, and I'm definitely re-thinking my stance on him, but I also don't think I can really give him the nod over Kareem, who was fantastic in his own right, and played A LONG time, enough to have a strong argument for GOAT himself. Because I'm already a little hesitant with regards to Russell, I'm giving the nod to Kareem. As for why Kareem specifically, please refer to ronnymac2's post from the last thread, he kind of summed up everything perfectly.

Vote: Kareem Abdul-Jabbar

[DQuinn1575]

So although Kareem has a much better TS% and passing in the regular season, he's actually a worse scorer, rebounder, stealer, shot blocker than Hakeem in the RS. Pace inflated his raw numbers and skewed perception.

Your analysis is flawed as you are excluding the years of Kareem before 1974 - which were his best as a shot blocker and rebounder as well as high scoring for him -

Also in looking at TS% we need to look at that compared to the league average, as well as the fact that Kareem had higher usage than Hakeem.

You are comparing Hakeem to Kareem, but taking away 4 of Kareem's best years.

[ceiling raiser]

Now, lets compare KAJ with Olajuwon.

Guys like KAJ, Wilt and Russell's raw stats were amazing. KAJ has to be better right? But if you put their raw stats into context with pace, it tells a completely different story.

KAJ vs Hakeem Raw stats adjusted for pace:

Hakeem RS per100





KAJ RS per100





So although Kareem has a much better TS% and passing in the regular season, he's actually a worse scorer, rebounder, stealer, shot blocker than Hakeem in the RS. Pace inflated his raw numbers and skewed perception.

How about in the playoffs? Where players face better teams with winning records, tougher defenses who gameplan against you for 5-7 game series.

I value playoff career numbers over regular season due to increased difficulty, it separates the wheat from the chaff.

Hakeem PO per100





KAJ PO per100





http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... uha01.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... lka01.html

In the playoffs adjusting for pace, Hakeem is surprisingly still a better scorer, rebounder, shot blocker and stealer. But since he always got better against tougher competition in his prime, Olajuwon & KAJ's TS% and assists are a wash.

When you factor in Hakeem has much less team support, faced tougher competition, was more skilled, had a better peak (which I hold as equal weight to longevity), much better defense RS & PO and was mentally stronger, Hakeem is the better center and two way player.

Now the media never tells fans how to analyze comeptition, teams support or rules. Which I'll do later as well.

Since you're comparing career per 100 possessions numbers, I think there are two problems with this post:

1) Kareem played an age 40 and an age 41 season, while Hakeem did not. This deflates some of his per 100 possessions (TRB, BLK mostly) and TS%.
2) The per 100 possessions numbers begin in 73-74, which means we're excluding four prime Kareem seasons. Particularly, this deflates his scoring.

Might be better to compare both guys in their primes, and try and calculate Kareem's per 100 possessions numbers (just multiply a given stat *(48/MP)*(100/pace) ) for the missing seasons.

[E-Balla]

Adding Oscar turned the Bucks from good to all time great. They hlwent from a 4 srs to a 12! Also look at Kareem's career and his best scoring years are with Oscar. Oscar's impact is constantly understated with the Bucks.

And his last two years with Milwaukee Oscar was more like Noscar (shout out to the AD fans). In his second season in Milwaukee they were 50-14 with him and 13-5 without him. That's the difference between 59 and 64 wins so its a little easy to imagine that a better Oscar the previous season was the main catalyst for the 56 to 66 win improvement.

Look at how much Milwaukee fell off as Oscar fell off even though Kareem was improving. They went from 59 wins to 38 wins (35-30 when Kareem played - or 44 wins over 82 games) after Oscar retired.

I'm sorry, but this is a false narrative. You call the Bucks "good" before Oscar arrived. They won 56 games in 1970, good for the 2nd best record and 2nd best SRS. That's not merely "good", that's "if the Knicks didn't exist, the Bucks win the title". They were a legit contender. Then Kareem obviously improved after his rookie year, it would be strange if he didn't, and the with/without record (as you admit) pegs the Oscar-less Bucks over the next 4 years as a 60 win team. Clearly the Bucks were awesome without Oscar. 60 wins is awesome. Sure, Oscar made them better, nobody denied that, but to act like Kareem needed Oscar to make his team great is clearly false. Indeed, the Knicks were worse the following year and got eliminated by the Bullets in the playoffs, meaning the Bucks would likely have won the title without Oscar anyway.

The 1975 season is commonly used as a way to try and prop up Oscar, where fans say "oh look, Oscar left and the Bucks got worse!" Like you say, Kareem was hurt, and the injury obviously didn't just affect him for the games he missed. More to the point, Kareem had demanded a trade right after the finals loss the previous year, because Milwaukee didn't meet his "cultural needs", and I think he had lost interest in helping the Bucks that year, between the injury and his desire to leave. I don't think it's fair to be too harsh on Kareem for this, because he had stayed in Milwaukee for over 5 years, and brought them a title, and it was racist to not allow players to become free agents. Forcing a trade was the only option players had back then.

You say "look at how much the Bucks fell off as Oscar did!" but that's not true at all. Oscar was getting worse (and playing less) every season with the Bucks (in 71 Oscar played 39mpg over 81 games and put up 19-8-6 on 496 FG%, and the next 3 seasons Oscar played 64, 73 and 70 games, and his minutes and stats fell each year until in 74 when he was putting up 13-6-4 on 438. FG%), and yet they were still a 60 win team the last two years with a notably worse Oscar (and won 63 and 66 the two years before that), so the idea the team was experiencing a large decline as Oscar did doesn't stack up at all. Sure, they were better with him, but he was riding Kareem's coat tails, not the other way around. The Bucks would have been a 56-60 win team without Oscar anyway.

In not saying Oscar was the best player in the team but it's obvious they would've never won without him. Again sure they were second in wins in 70 but the difference between that 56 win team and that 66 win team is massive. Again they had a 12 SRS followed by a 10. The two best teams ever in point differential by far at that time. That was the impact of Oscar and it's easy to say that Kareem would've never win without him. I think you're underating those Oscar/Kareem squads and not realizing how much better they were than anyone else and they should've at least won twice as good as they were.

EDIT: Also the Bucks before Oscar and after Oscar aren't comparable. 56 to 66 wins is a major leap even though its only 10 games just like 59 to 64 is a major leap. 60 win teams aren't uncommon (there's one every year) but 65 win teams don't come very often (there's been one of those in the last 5 years).

[sp6r=underrated]

As an aside, if you're going to be making competitions arguments in comparison of Hakeem to KAJ you have to at least acknowledge defenses generally performed significantly better during KAJ's peak years relative to Hakeem. You can still try to explain that difference away by making the argument players got better but you have to at least address it.

[90sAllDecade]

So although Kareem has a much better TS% and passing in the regular season, he's actually a worse scorer, rebounder, stealer, shot blocker than Hakeem in the RS. Pace inflated his raw numbers and skewed perception.

Your analysis is flawed as you are excluding the years of Kareem before 1974 - which were his best as a shot blocker and rebounder as well as high scoring for him -

Also in looking at TS% we need to look at that compared to the league average, as well as the fact that Kareem had higher usage than Hakeem.

You are comparing Hakeem to Kareem, but taking away 4 of Kareem's best years.

There is no per100 data before 1974 and we're talking about a man who had a 20 year career of the greatest longevity.

His peak and very best year is regarded as 77' and Hakeem is better even if you compared KAJ's peak 77' numbers. It's very likely Kareem improved as a player when he hit his peak, he also had Oscar Robertson helping his numbers during that time unlike 77'.

If your comparing best years and comparing both sides of the ball Hakeem wins the peak battle imo.

If adjusted those earlier years numbers for pace they'd go down as well. You also have to look at the fact Kareem achieved that dominance in a league that whose talent was split between the NBA and ABA. The teams in the league double or tripled considering the ABA, that type of expansion is huge compared to post merger competition.

Not only stars like Julius Erving affect the power balance, but also rotation players from the ABA, coaches, the three point line etc. all affect competition level on a team scale.

[HeartBreakKid]

ill played against a freak athlete in Wilt Chamberlain, and often times out played him despite what the stats say. One has to remember that Chamberlain was a stat padder, and on top of that the Celtics would often get gigantic leads, so a lot of Wilt's stats came in "garbage time". Here are some examples in key playoff games from Fatal9.

I just watched a finals series in which LeBron James scored alot of his points in garbage time. You could not argue to me that he didn't play well because he scored his points during those periods. This is team basketball. If you're playing against superior teams - which Russell's Celtics were, regardless of how you rank Russell and Chamberlain - then blowouts can occur. Other players might stink it up offensively for a period, but still get adequate help from other teammates on offense or defense to keep the score close. I'm not punishing Chamberlain for that.

I think you are missing the point, the point isn't that Wilt should not have kept playing, the point is that when the game was at its most competitive focus wise, Wilt would get out played by Bill Russell. It is not like Chamberlain made a lot of come from behind victories against the Celtics.

Also, let's not dive into hyperbole, Chamberlain has had teams that were better than any of Bill Russell's. Wilt has been through many different teams, some not good, some super stacked and he's still only beaten Russell once.

Besides, you don't stop playing defense because you're blowing out the other team. You have to keep playing defense in order to prevent comebacks, unless you prefer to be the team that allowed the opponent to win in a come-from-behind rally.

Not sure where your getting the idea the Celtics didn't blow out Wilt's teams.

And since the poster you cited wants to suggest that Russell could lock down Chamberlain whenever he wanted to, then why didn't he do it in the other games when the score was close? Can't have this both ways.

Because he couldn't, Wilt Chamberlain is an all time great player. The fact that Russell could lock Wilt down at all much less consistently is the impressive feat.

[batmana]

I enjoyed reading all the arguments in this thread. It is so difficult when we are dealing with such greats, especially when one of them has to be left behind, and when you have to give arguments and you come out as basically nitpicking flaws in an otherwise flawless player.

However, I have made up my mind and I will post my vote in my previous post and give the explanation here.

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar is a tremendous player. He has the accolades, the stats, the unreal longevity; he won titles and had a vital role in each one (to say the least). However what bothers me about him is that stretch in the 1970s (which should have been his physical prime) where his teams were bad, sometimes too bad, sometimes missing the playoffs entirely. From all the historical excerpts I've read it comes across that Kareem falls short in being the leader of his team. In the thread for the No. 1 spot it was pointed out how Adrian Dantley made those early Lakers teams so bad, and Kareem's introvert personality was probably part of the reason he let this happen with "his" team. While Kareem was putting insane numbers and winning league MVPs, he sometimes appeared to have less of an impact on his team than you would expect. When I try to compare him to Bill Russell, that holds him back.

Bill Russell was the ultimate leader, he was able to do it for 13 straight years (his entire career). The story about the 1969 Finals is truly a legendary tale about Russell's leadership and impact on the Celtics. I don't punish him for playing in a different era, as I will try to not do with any of his contemporaries. He simply did what he had to and that was defeat the competition - time and time again. So please, don't count this as two votes as I will put it in my original post - my vote goes to Bill Russell.

[trex_8063]

Now, lets compare KAJ with Olajuwon.

Guys like KAJ, Wilt and Russell's raw stats were amazing. KAJ has to be better right? But if you put their raw stats into context with pace, it tells a completely different story.

KAJ vs Hakeem Raw stats adjusted for pace:
(insert stat breakdown)....

Interesting stuff, thanks for posting it.
I do think it's worth noting, however, that the pace-adjusted numbers are not available for what would probably be 3 of Kareem's top 5-6 seasons ('71-'73), including what are arguably/probably his two best seasons ('71 and '72). So we're not exactly comparing apples to apples here.

[sp6r=underrated]

I value playoff career numbers over regular season due to increased difficulty, it separates the wheat from the chaff.

I think this is a mistake. A huge part PS performance can be determined by sample size, match-up, random variance and other factors. It shouldn't be the primary focus of player evaluations even if it commonly is. I have been guilty of this many times.