Man, this project moves fast. I haven't been able to post in this thread until now, and we're already 8 or 9 pages in. I'm enjoying the Kareem talk in this thread, but like Macgill (I think it was Macgill) I'd like to see a bit more effort put into fleshing out his impact. There have been several posts in this thread asking what he was looking for in exploring Kareem's strengths and weaknesses.
I can only speak for me, but as I pointed out in the #1 thread, it was really the Retro Player of the Year project that made me really start to look harder at Kareem's impact. Particularly, it was the 1977 and 1978 threads that piqued my attention, especially as they were the preamble to a decade of Wilt vs Russell threads that really cemented home the concept that box scores really, really don't capture everything. There is some good info in the box scores for offense, but even that is incomplete. And the gap in defensive box scores are borderline laughable. As such, even though Kareem (or Wilt) might have blown away Walton (or Russell) in the box score stats, the arguments started looking more and more convincing to me that Walton (or Russell) were really the ones making a much bigger impact on the fortunes of their teams. And, importantly, it didn't seem like a case where one should start with the box score stats and round one way or the other...instead, it seemed that the "lesser" (said another way, more defensive and other impact) players in the comparisons were actually just fundamentally having a larger impact almost independent of the story the box scores tell us.
So. In the #1 thread I encouraged folks to go back and read the 1977 and 1978 threads from the RPoY project. Here, I'll start posting some of the posts that really caught my eye and made me start re-thinking. The somewhat ironic thing is that in the RPoY project, it seems very clear to me that the vast majority of those presenting information came into the project higher on Kareem than on Walton. The tone of most of the posts is "Walton did all these amazing things...but we all know Kareem's the best so I should vote for him." But it's the information in the posts that I think are worth considering, here. Some of it is based on observation/anecdote. And some of it is more quantitative, with analysis and commentary. In this post, I'll put some of the more qualitative posts, then follow up with the quantitative stuff. Hopefully this does a better job of getting across what I'm talking about when wanting to look further into Kareem. I'm not questioning his scoring ability or the fact that he was obviously an outstanding player. I'm looking more for if his impact is Karl Malone or Michael Jordan.
One last note pre-quotes: some of the people I'll be quoting here are posting in these threads. If you are, feel free to disagree with my interpretation of what you wrote before and/or modify it since I'm quoting things 4 years old. My purpose here is to spark discussion, not put words into anyone's mouth.
TrueLAfan wrote:This, for me, is a fun year to look at. I was old enough to be paying attention to basketball and to know (kind of) what was going on terms of intangibles and value beyond statistics. There were a lot of injuries to major players; at least 3 or 4 players that played less than 65 games would have gotten more support and higher ranking if they had played more. And the championship teams had weird years. So my initial thoughts, before I vote, are: (snip)
Bill Walton. The obvious question. He missed so much of the season…how much do you take that into account? Well, you have to give it some weight. This is not a guy missing 15 games, or a guy that plays 2500 minutes. Bill Walton played less than 2000 minutes. He missed almost all of the playoffs. But when he played…wow. When Walton went down in February, the Blazers were 50 and 10. They had a reasonable shot to match or surpass the (then) league record of 69 wins. They went 8 and 14 the rest of the way without Walton.
Here’s how great Bill Walton was in 1978. I think that an MVP level player is worth 15-20 wins to his team. Walton was worth that much in 1978 even though he only played 58 games. Without Walton, I think the Blazers would have been lucky to be .500. Maybe they would made it to that level; maybe they wouldn’t. It’s a good spot for the over under. And that means that Bill Walton was worth 20 wins over a replacement level player. So he’s up near the very top.
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. Well, Kareem missed games this year. The Lakers were 8-12 in the games he missed, and 37-25 when he played. And it took Kareem a while to get untracked. The Lakers were 19-24, and Kareem was “only” averaging 24.5 points and 11.6 rebounds. He got it into grear in the last 39 games to the tune of 26.6 points and 13.7 rebounds a game. The Lakers weren’t a .500 team without Kareem; they were more like a .400 or .350 team. Even thought he only played 62 games, Kareem was responsible for around 15-20 wins. So he’s in the mix. (snip)
2. Walton. Again, I kind of can’t believe I’ve got him over Kareem. But the bottom line is that I think Bill Walton got more wins for his team than any of the other players
My spin: I think it's clear from TLAF's tone and his other posts in the thread, that he considered Kareem to be the better player. But in his view of the season, he felt that Walton in 1978 was having a bigger impact.
fatal9 wrote:1. Walton
2. Kareem
3. Gervin
4. Thompson
5. Hayes
Putting Walton over Kareem is tough because he just isn't a better player. Both were extremely valuable to their teams which is shown by their team record with and without them. I just think this year, Walton was more important to his team. If you ever catch a Blazers game from '77 and '78, you will notice several things that don't show up on the stat sheet for Walton, 1) no other player to me (aside from Russell who has very limited footage available) contested more shots than Walton. Key word is contested, not blocking. Walton would jump out at perimeter players 15 feet out if he thought he could change their shot. His activity on defense during the '77 finals is unbelievable. 2) He was the coach on the floor, not Ramsay. Most of the time when the team is running up the floor, Walton is the one reading the situation, throwing up signals to call the plays. And on defense, you can see him positioning his teammates to where they should be. That type of leadership is invaluable. 3) The entire "team" philosophy of those Blazer teams started and ended with Walton. They were a talented sure (Maurice Lucas still led them to 45 wins and playoffs the following season without Walton), but it was Walton's presence which brought the ball movement that got everybody involved (striking guards on cuts, directing ball to Lucas when he had good position etc).
My spin: Another person who clearly believes Kareem to be the better player, but felt that in 1978 Walton was having more impact on his team results. Interestingly, the underlined gives some examples of "tangible intangibles" that Walton could have been using to have that massive impact. Note point (1) is a textbook example of the kind of horizontal defense that Russell was known for; 2) being a "coach on the floor" was a literal thing for Russell; and 3) The Team before Me mantra is one of the tenets of the Russell vs. Wilt debate.
ThaRegul8r wrote:penbeast0 wrote: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.”
I almost didn't include this, because a) there's more than one way to be a leader, b) it's not clear if something like this even plays into on-court impact, and if so to what extent, and c) it's not like Lenny Wilkens is the authority on all things winning. But this quote does speak to those that suggest that Oscar and later Magic had bigger roles in making those teams champions than what the box scores imply due to their leadership. I'll let folks make of this what they will, or nothing at all.
fatal9 wrote:penbeast0 wrote:Kareem's numbers throughout the 70s were astronomical. My problem with Kareem is that those numbers and the talent around him routinely translated into less of a TEAM than you would expect.
Again, if he doesn't have his second or third best players injured in three deep playoff runs ('72, '74, '77), we would not be having this conversation.
Kareem's impact on win-loss speaks for itself. In the 70s, he missed time significantly only twice ('75 and '78), and the perfromance of his teams with/without him is night and day. Played with just one all-star from the '73-'79 stretch. They went from NBA finalists to worst team in the league without him in just one off season when he was injured (record without him in '75: 3-14, with him: 35-30), and were at the bottom of the conference again in '78 without him. Look at this comparatively with other legends. Lakers were 52-25 in all the games Magic missed from '80-'85. Celtics still a .500+ team without Bird (in '89). Bulls still a 55 win team without Jordan (that's with Pippen missing 10 games too). You have a guy who is on teams that can't keep themselves from being bottom feeders year in year out without him, while other players you recognize as "winners" are on teams that have no problem winning 45-50+ without them. See the problem here? The perception of "winning" exclusively depends on supporting casts.
And again, if he does get any sort of a team around him, his key players become injured during the deep playoff runs. No one wins when that happens. How did the Celtics manage when their team was injured in '87 and '88? How did Lakers manage without Worthy in '83? Sixers without Cunningham in '68? Bulls without Grant in '95? When your second or third best players get knocked out of a series (or in Grant's case, leave), you're not going to win, especially when your teams aren't that strong to begin with.
To say essentially that Kareem couldn't get his stats in the framework of a team is pretty ridiculous. Makes me question if you've ever seen him play. Could do anything you wanted him to in order to win, anchored historically great defenses in his Bucks days, led centers in assists year after year (and it's not liked he was passing to boost assist stats like Wilt was), is in the argument for greatest scorer to ever play...certainly the most unstoppable with the ball, an excellent rebounder during all of the 70s. He was the most successful college player of all time. Had a 35/17/5 season on a 60+ win team (probably best statistical season ever posted on a 60+ win team). Turned an expansion team into a contender over night. Won a championship with them in just his second year, and came one game from doing it again couple of years later. Was traded to a team at the bottom of the conference (who on top of that traded away key players the very same off season), and turned them into a respectable playoff team. Led the league in scoring the same year he won a championship (MJ and Shaq are the only others to do this right?). Has 4 rings (2 of them while being dominant statistically) as the best player despite his prime being wasted on poor teams.
That post was from the 1977 thread, and was almost entirely pro-Kareem. I included it in its entirety because I'm trying to paint a complete picture here, not argue against Kareem. I'm certainly open to being convinced that Kareem really was having Walton-level (or Russell-level) impact in his peak seasons. I just want more analysis of this type to help me cement that.
I'll actually end this post here, and start another with some of the more quantitative arguments about the 1977-78 Kareem/Walton debates.
