RealGM Top 100 List #2

[Doctor MJ]

Quick check in

Great stuff in both sides about Kareem. Glad to see RPOY stuff revisited.

I feel like though people are struggling with putting themselves in the moment when trying to understand the Celtics' run.

The bottom line is that nothing is inevitable. You win 11 titles one at a time and every time opponents are adapting to to you. Which is why it never happens...we'll obviously almost never. But nothing close to it happened earlier in basketball history like this, nor really in other major team sports

When people point out the issues with Wilt's supporting casts decades after the fact they should think about what super teams have often looked like in later eras. bottom line is it's just tough to really make use of all the talent you have in your roster and people tended to expect more then than was feasible just as they do now

11 titles was a shock to people at the time in a way that people viewing the history miss. The Celtics weren't supposed to keep winning once Wilt arrived. Then they weren't supposed to keep winning when Cousy retired. Then they were dead once Wilt went back to Philly. Then theywere really dead once Wilt won one. Then they were dead dead dead once Wilt joined the Lakers.

If you analyze that time period without seeing the Celtics continued success as mind-blowing then you just not really seeing how it was. You need to stop looking at it as a historical incident and instead try to grok how something like that could actually come to be.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[Baller2014]

Sure, Oscar helped, nobody denies this. But I was responding to the idea put forward that Kareem needed Oscar to "lead him" to a title. The evidence is the other way around. As I pointed out, it looks to me like the Bucks would have won the 71 title anyway, and Oscar rode Kareem's coat tails to victory. Oscar being there made that win more decisive, and helped the Bucks get into historic territory (rather than "just" winning the title), but the Bucks would have been the best team in the NBA without Oscar in 1971, and as Oscar fell off over his 4 years there they continued to be awesome without him (or with him in a lesser role).

[ceiling raiser]

Sure, Oscar helped, nobody denies this. But I was responding to the idea put forward that Kareem needed Oscar to "lead him" to a title. The evidence is the other way around. As I pointed out, it looks to me like the Bucks would have won the 71 title anyway, and Oscar rode Kareem's coat tails to victory. Oscar being there made that win more decisive, and helped the Bucks get into historic territory (rather than "just" winning the title), but the Bucks would have been the best team in the NBA without Oscar in 1971, and as Oscar fell off over his 4 years there they continued to be awesome without him (or with him in a lesser role).

Two quotes from Kareem's autobiography regarding Oscar:

p.209 (Oscar in general)

If my personal life was at a standstill, my professional life was taking the great leap forward. Tired of playing on a losing ball club and willing to go to court to establish his right to become a free agent at the expiration of his contract, Oscar Robertson forced the team owners’ hand and that autumn got himself traded to the Bucks.

I was ecstatic. We had been good but young, quick but lacking in the on-court presence that could command deference not only from our opponents but from ourselves. Last year every game had been a toss-up. Now, even before the Big O walked on the court for our first practice, we all had the feeling that this was our year.

Oscar Robertson is, in my opinion, the best all-around player in the history of basketball. A lot has been made recently of the “triple double,” a player going into double figures for one game in rebounds, assists, and scoring. Broadcasters and commentators talk about it like it was the Holy Grail. In the 1961-62 season Oscar averaged a triple double: Over an eighty-game schedule he could be counted on for double-figure rebounds; he led the league in assists with 899, and he scored over thirty points a game. He is the all-time NBA leader in assists and free throws made, and third in all-time scoring.

I had watched him on television when I was in high school, but his greatness hadn’t been obvious to me. Playing with the perennial also-ran Cincinnati Royals, he was deadly with that compact, ass-out jump shot, but he didn’t impress me that much. It was when I started playing against him that I began to understand how he controlled the game, and when I finally played with him I really started to see what his game was about.

Oscar Robertson was the epitome of the subtle, no-flash ballplayer. He had the game broken down into such fine points that if he got even a half-step on you, you were in big trouble. He kept the game very simple, which was his first secret. All the most effective basketball strategists and players have kept their technique honed to its most lean and essential parts. John Wooden did it in his coaching; Bill Russell did it in his playing, and Oscar was the same way. He didn’t have blazing speed, and he didn’t do a whole lot of pirouettes, all he did was score, rebound, and dish the ball off. He could handle the basketball well with both hands, using the crossover dribble, first the right hand and then the left then back to the right again, to lure his man into going off-balance or leaning in the wrong direction, after which he’d go right by him, and then it was either time for his shot or a pass. If you were going to stop him, you were just going to stop the basics, and you would just have to do it perfectly because he could take advantage of any miscue you might make.

At six feet five inches tall, 210 pounds, Oscar was the first big guard. It wasn’t obvious because he was so smooth and graceful, but he had tremendous brute strength, and if he bumped into you, he’d knock you back on your heels. On defense he was quick and smart and solid, as easily slap the ball away from his man as be the wall that would not crumble before a drive. On offense he had the consistently effective shot and the absolute will to put it in. His whole thing was access to the basket. When he got ready to shoot, if I could give him even a glimpse of space to work with, he would drive past, leading his defender into my shoulder, which would stop the man, and once past me either hit the lay-up or have the court awareness to hit the teammate whose defender had momentarily left him free while trying to stop Oscar.

He was a master of the three-point play, and he was at his best against guys who played him tough. Oscar versus Jerry Sloan was always a great match-up because Jerry played very physical defense. Jerry would get great position, allowing for no movement, no first step to the hoop, and then let his man run into him and be charged with the foul. Oscar loved that because it played right into his hands. Oscar would always let Jerry set, then fake as if he he was going around him. Oscar had the great move so, out of respect, Jerry would react, and as soon as he started, Oscar would bowl Jerry over, go up and hit the jumper, and be on his way to the foul line as the whistle was blowing and the ball was hitting the net. Oscar was so subtle he’d never get called for it. Meanwhile, Oscar was a truck, it was like getting hit by Jim Brown. But Sloan would bounce back up, complain to the refs, and get on with his game. I loved to watch them.

But Oscar was even more valuable as a leader than as a scorer. He was thirty-two years old and had lost maybe a step, but his total mastery enabled him to be just as effective as when he was averaging thirty points a game. By directing and inspiring the rest of us, he enabled the Bucks to play the game the way it was supposed to be played.

We had all the components in place. The Bucks had obtained Lucius Allen in an off-season deal with Seattle-it was good to have my old friend and running mate with me again-and with Lucius, Bobby Dandridge, and Greg Smith, we had three guys who could get up and down the court in a hurry. I was in the middle, and Oscar controlled the ball like he was dishing out compliments. Bobby was deadly from fifteen to twenty feet, and Oscar could spot him the moment he came open. People wouldn’t guard Greg Smith, which let him run free under the backboard where he was a terror. Oscar would find him. Lucius and Jon McGlocklin played off Oscar, and both of them could either put the ball on the floor or seem to be careening down the court and then pull up and shoot, which made our fast break effective. All the guys played D, and with Bob Boozer and McCoy McLemore coming off the bench for some board strength, we were a very powerful squad.

Coming out of three consecutive college championships and an NBA semifinal, I was used to winning and assumed it would continue pretty regularly, so I was not as overwhelmed playing with Oscar as I might have been. Had I known what he added to my game would come only once in my professional lifetime, I might have stopped to savor the pleasure of working with the best. I’d never known anything but the best, though so while I enjoyed playing with oscar, it wasn’t until several years later that I appreciated him fully.

What the Big O did for me that gave a quantum jump to my game was get me the ball. It sounds simple, and it was-for him. Oscar had this incredible court vision and a complete understanding of the dynamics of the game. Not only did he see guys open on the periphery for a jumper, he knew when each of us would fight through a pick or come open behind a screen, and the ball would arrive and be there like you were taking it off a table.

There is an exact moment when a center, working hard in the pivot for a glimmer of an advantage, has the position he needs for a score. You’ve run the length of the court, established your ground, defended it against the hands, forearms, elbows, trunks, and knees of another two-hunted-and-fifty-pound zealot who is slapping and bumping and shoving to move you off your high ground. You need the ball right then. It’s like a moon shot: Fire too soon and you miss the orbit; fire too late and you’re out of range, but let fly when all signals are Go, and you should hit it right on. Oscar had the knack of getting me the ball right at that place and time. Not too high, didn’t want to go up in the air and lose the ground you’ve fought for. Not too low, didn’t want to bend for the ball and create a scrabble down there. Never wanted to put the floor where some little guy could steal in and slap it away. Oscar knew all of this ,and his genius was, whether two men were in his face trying to prevent him from making the pass or in mine trying to prevent me from receiving it, in getting me the ball chest-high so I could turn and hook in one unbroken motion. No way not to score when Oscar was around. No wonder he has 2,500 more assists than anyone in NBA history.

One night he showed me the whole game. We were playing Golden State, and for some reason Oscar shed ten years and brought out the Big O one last time. Getting old in professional sports doesn’t always mean losing your ability all at once, mostly it means only being able to do in unpredictable spurts when you once could call up at will; becoming a miler among sprinters. That night, maybe because he was challenged, maybe because he was angry, maybe simply because he wanted to, Oscar just dominated the floor. He crushed everyone who opposed him on the court; threw hard, precise passes that demanded to be converted; rebounded with a passion, made seventy percent of his shots and scored thirty-seven points before he was lifted. Total mastery. I envy the guys who played with him in his prime. Playing with Oscar was like working with Thomas Edison.

Oscar took the game seriously. All season long if someone screwed up or didn’t seem to want to play, he would chew them out for not doing his job. People who weren’t rebounding, guys who weren’t playing defense, they were in trouble around Oscar. You had to respect him; you were playing with a legend, and he was still doing all of his job; how could you not do yours?

p.222 (71 playoffs)

We beat the Lakers in five and sat around waiting to see who we’d be playing for the 1971 championship. Baltimore was playing New York, and we had a serious rooting interest in the Knicks. They had knocked us out of the playoffs the year before; they were the defending champions, and we wanted to take the crown from the king. I wanted to do it in New York in front of my Mom and Pop and all my friends. I knew we were going to win—we had just lost sixteen games the whole year and only two out of thirty-six at home-and I wanted to see how the New York press was going to explain our blowing the Knicks away.

Unfortunately, the Knicks lost by two points in the seventh game, and we had to play in Baltimore. A bad break; Baltimore is hardly the media center New York is, and our championship series immediately lost about forty percent of its impact.

The Bullets were pretty well spent by the time we got at them. The New York series had been emotional and grueling, and dethroning the champions may have seemed like accomplishment enough for one week. They had a strong team with Gus Johnson, Wesley Unseld, Earl Monroe, Jack Marin, and Kevin Loughery, but the Knicks took a lot of running and pounding and thinking to beat, and when the World Championship round began, they seemed just a little bit drained.

Then, Fred Carter made a drastic mistake.

Fred “Mad Dog” Carter had come off the Bullet bench against the Knicks and made himself into a hero. He’d shot; he’d driven to the hoop; he’d gotten the points when the Bullets had needed them and no one could have expected that he’d deliver. Stardom was new to Fred Carter and, maybe a little filled with himself, he said something in the first game I’m sure he wishes he could take back.

“Give me the ball,” he shouted as he ran down the floor and found who was guarding him, “I’ve got Oscar, I’ll score easy!”

Oscar Robertson was already keyed up. Until that day he had been the Ernie Banks of basketball, the best player never to play for a world championship, but when Carter insulted him he became incensed. He was determined anybody in his path to get to that title. We were all ready, but Oscar had this rage to win.

The whole series, any time he had Fred Carter on him, Oscar took him down on the baseline and misused him. Oscar had been a forward in college, and when he got his man low he’d back him in, back him in; if the guy gave him half a step he’d take it, then bump him and have the man give up another one. It was like Bruce Lee cornering Malek, like something inevitable. The next thing you know Oscar was seven feet from the basket. Then he’d pump, get Carter up in the air, jump into him to draw the foul, hit the two, and make the free throw. He had Carter in foul trouble and talking himself. We swept the series in four games. My second year in the league and here I am playing on the World Champions and named the NBA’s Most valuable Player. I was ecstatic for two days. Then I was home in Milwaukee.

[ThaRegul8r]

As I pointed out, it looks to me like the Bucks would have won the 71 title anyway, and Oscar rode Kareem's coat tails to victory.

I get the feeling this is going to be pointless, but, no, Oscar didn't "ride Kareem's coat tails."



Again, I hate this manner of thinking. I'm looking at my notes right now. Kareem himself would never say Oscar "rode his coat tails." It was mutually beneficial. You're sounding like a guy trying to win an argument to get what he wants instead of someone genuinely interested in learning.

You talk about "evidence," this is straight from the source:

Spoiler:

If my personal life was at a standstill, my professional life was taking the great leap forward. Tired of playing on a losing ball club and willing to go to court to establish his right to become a free agent at the expiration of his contract, Oscar Robertson forced the team owners’ hand and that autumn got himself traded to the Bucks.

I was ecstatic. We had been good but young, quick but lacking in the on-court presence that could command deference not only from our opponents but from ourselves. Last year every game had been a toss-up. Now, even before the Big O walked on the court for our first practice, we all had the feeling that this was our year.

Oscar Robertson is, in my opinion, the best all-around player in the history of basketball. A lot has been made recently of the “triple double,” a player going into double figures for one game in rebounds, assists, and scoring. Broadcasters and commentators talk about it like it was the Holy Grail. In the 1961-62 season Oscar averaged a triple double: Over an eighty-game schedule he could be counted on for double-figure rebounds; he led the league in assists with 899, and he scored over thirty points a game. He is the all-time NBA leader in assists and free throws made, and third in all-time scoring.

I had watched him on television when I was in high school, but his greatness hadn’t been obvious to me. Playing with the perennial also-ran Cincinnati Royals, he was deadly with that compact, ass-out jump shot, but he didn’t impress me that much. It was when I started playing against him that I began to understand how he controlled the game, and when I finally played with him I really started to see what his game was about.

Oscar Robertson was the epitome of the subtle, no-flash ballplayer. He had the game broken down into such fine points that if he got even a half-step on you, you were in big trouble. He kept the game very simple, which was his first secret. All the most effective basketball strategists and players have kept their technique honed to its most lean and essential parts. John Wooden did it in his coaching; Bill Russell did it in his playing, and Oscar was the same way. He didn’t have blazing speed, and he didn’t do a whole lot of pirouettes, all he did was score, rebound, and dish the ball off. He could handle the basketball well with both hands, using the crossover dribble, first the right hand and then the left then back to the right again, to lure his man into going off-balance or leaning in the wrong direction, after which he’d go right by him, and then it was either time for his shot or a pass. If you were going to stop him, you were just going to stop the basics, and you would just have to do it perfectly because he could take advantage of any miscue you might make.

At six feet five inches tall, 210 pounds, Oscar was the first big guard. It wasn’t obvious because he was so smooth and graceful, but he had tremendous brute strength, and if he bumped into you, he’d knock you back on your heels. On defense he was quick and smart and solid, as easily slap the ball away from his man as be the wall that would not crumble before a drive. On offense he had the consistently effective shot and the absolute will to put it in. His whole thing was access to the basket. When he got ready to shoot, if I could give him even a glimpse of space to work with, he would drive past, leading his defender into my shoulder, which would stop the man, and once past me either hit the lay-up or have the court awareness to hit the teammate whose defender had momentarily left him free while trying to stop Oscar.

He was a master of the three-point play, and he was at his best against guys who played him tough. Oscar versus Jerry Sloan was always a great match-up because Jerry played very physical defense. Jerry would get great position, allowing for no movement, no first step to the hoop, and then let his man run into him and be charged with the foul. Oscar loved that because it played right into his hands. Oscar would always let Jerry set, then fake as if he he was going around him. Oscar had the great move so, out of respect, Jerry would react, and as soon as he started, Oscar would bowl Jerry over, go up and hit the jumper, and be on his way to the foul line as the whistle was blowing and the ball was hitting the net. Oscar was so subtle he’d never get called for it. Meanwhile, Oscar was a truck, it was like getting hit by Jim Brown. But Sloan would bounce back up, complain to the refs, and get on with his game. I loved to watch them.

But Oscar was even more valuable as a leader than as a scorer. He was thirty-two years old and had lost maybe a step, but his total mastery enabled him to be just as effective as when he was averaging thirty points a game. By directing and inspiring the rest of us, he enabled the Bucks to play the game the way it was supposed to be played.

We had all the components in place. The Bucks had obtained Lucius Allen in an off-season deal with Seattle-it was good to have my old friend and running mate with me again-and with Lucius, Bobby Dandridge, and Greg Smith, we had three guys who could get up and down the court in a hurry. I was in the middle, and Oscar controlled the ball like he was dishing out compliments. Bobby was deadly from fifteen to twenty feet, and Oscar could spot him the moment he came open. People wouldn’t guard Greg Smith, which let him run free under the backboard where he was a terror. Oscar would find him. Lucius and Jon McGlocklin played off Oscar, and both of them could either put the ball on the floor or seem to be careening down the court and then pull up and shoot, which made our fast break effective. All the guys played D, and with Bob Boozer and McCoy McLemore coming off the bench for some board strength, we were a very powerful squad.

Coming out of three consecutive college championships and an NBA semifinal, I was used to winning and assumed it would continue pretty regularly, so I was not as overwhelmed playing with Oscar as I might have been. Had I known what he added to my game would come only once in my professional lifetime, I might have stopped to savor the pleasure of working with the best. I’d never known anything but the best, though so while I enjoyed playing with Oscar, it wasn’t until several years later that I appreciated him fully.

What the Big O did for me that gave a quantum jump to my game was get me the ball. It sounds simple, and it was-for him. Oscar had this incredible court vision and a complete understanding of the dynamics of the game. Not only did he see guys open on the periphery for a jumper, he knew when each of us would fight through a pick or come open behind a screen, and the ball would arrive and be there like you were taking it off a table.

There is an exact moment when a center, working hard in the pivot for a glimmer of an advantage, has the position he needs for a score. You’ve run the length of the court, established your ground, defended it against the hands, forearms, elbows, trunks, and knees of another two-hunted-and-fifty-pound zealot who is slapping and bumping and shoving to move you off your high ground. You need the ball right then. It’s like a moon shot: Fire too soon and you miss the orbit; fire too late and you’re out of range, but let fly when all signals are Go, and you should hit it right on. Oscar had the knack of getting me the ball right at that place and time. Not too high, didn’t want to go up in the air and lose the ground you’ve fought for. Not too low, didn’t want to bend for the ball and create a scrabble down there. Never wanted to put the floor where some little guy could steal in and slap it away. Oscar knew all of this ,and his genius was, whether two men were in his face trying to prevent him from making the pass or in mine trying to prevent me from receiving it, in getting me the ball chest-high so I could turn and hook in one unbroken motion. No way not to score when Oscar was around. No wonder he has 2,500 more assists than anyone in NBA history.

One night he showed me the whole game. We were playing Golden State, and for some reason Oscar shed ten years and brought out the Big O one last time. Getting old in professional sports doesn’t always mean losing your ability all at once, mostly it means only being able to do in unpredictable spurts when you once could call up at will; becoming a miler among sprinters. That night, maybe because he was challenged, maybe because he was angry, maybe simply because he wanted to, Oscar just dominated the floor. He crushed everyone who opposed him on the court; threw hard, precise passes that demanded to be converted; rebounded with a passion, made seventy percent of his shots and scored thirty-seven points before he was lifted. Total mastery. I envy the guys who played with him in his prime. Playing with Oscar was like working with Thomas Edison.

Oscar took the game seriously. All season long if someone screwed up or didn’t seem to want to play, he would chew them out for not doing his job. People who weren’t rebounding, guys who weren’t playing defense, they were in trouble around Oscar. You had to respect him; you were playing with a legend, and he was still doing all of his job; how could you not do yours?

This isn't my opinion or what I "think," or what it "seems to me." That exists independently of what I think about it. Kareem played with him—which neither of us have—and he would never call him a "coat-tail" rider. If I asked him that, he'd probably think I was an idiot.

You can think what you wish. But Oscar was a valuable contributor to that team's success and ultimate championship, and the fact that he was doesn't make Kareem any worse of a player.

[Baller2014]

I said repeatedly that Oscar was a valuable contributor. But he did not "lead" Kareem to the title, the Bucks would in all probability have won the title anyway (and I explained why in some detail).

[E-Balla]

Sure, Oscar helped, nobody denies this. But I was responding to the idea put forward that Kareem needed Oscar to "lead him" to a title. The evidence is the other way around. As I pointed out, it looks to me like the Bucks would have won the 71 title anyway, and Oscar rode Kareem's coat tails to victory. Oscar being there made that win more decisive, and helped the Bucks get into historic territory (rather than "just" winning the title), but the Bucks would have been the best team in the NBA without Oscar in 1971, and as Oscar fell off over his 4 years there they continued to be awesome without him (or with him in a lesser role).

The Bucks were great and lost in 70, 72, and 73. Whose to say they would've won if they weren't the best by far? No one said Oscar led Kareem to a title on the floor but even by Kareem's accounts Oscar was the leader of the team. That was boldened by Oscar also being the floor general PG and he did his job well making sure everyone around him was used to the peak of their ability. Oscar fell off and the team was great but never champions again so sure they continued to win 60 games a year but they only got 1 ring and it was before Oscar became a shell of his former self.

[ceiling raiser]

I said repeatedly that Oscar was a valuable contributor. But he did not "lead" Kareem to the title, the Bucks would in all probability have won the title anyway (and I explained why in some detail).

Hm...

But Oscar was even more valuable as a leader than as a scorer. He was thirty-two years old and had lost maybe a step, but his total mastery enabled him to be just as effective as when he was averaging thirty points a game. By directing and inspiring the rest of us, he enabled the Bucks to play the game the way it was supposed to be played.

What the Big O did for me that gave a quantum jump to my game was get me the ball. It sounds simple, and it was-for him. Oscar had this incredible court vision and a complete understanding of the dynamics of the game. Not only did he see guys open on the periphery for a jumper, he knew when each of us would fight through a pick or come open behind a screen, and the ball would arrive and be there like you were taking it off a table.

There is an exact moment when a center, working hard in the pivot for a glimmer of an advantage, has the position he needs for a score. You’ve run the length of the court, established your ground, defended it against the hands, forearms, elbows, trunks, and knees of another two-hunted-and-fifty-pound zealot who is slapping and bumping and shoving to move you off your high ground. You need the ball right then. It’s like a moon shot: Fire too soon and you miss the orbit; fire too late and you’re out of range, but let fly when all signals are Go, and you should hit it right on. Oscar had the knack of getting me the ball right at that place and time. Not too high, didn’t want to go up in the air and lose the ground you’ve fought for. Not too low, didn’t want to bend for the ball and create a scrabble down there. Never wanted to put the floor where some little guy could steal in and slap it away. Oscar knew all of this ,and his genius was, whether two men were in his face trying to prevent him from making the pass or in mine trying to prevent me from receiving it, in getting me the ball chest-high so I could turn and hook in one unbroken motion. No way not to score when Oscar was around. No wonder he has 2,500 more assists than anyone in NBA history.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but it doesn't seem to me that KAJ was confident they'd win without Oscar.

[Baller2014]

I don't see why I'm supposed to value some vague superlatives (the sort every player makes about their team mates) over the actual results. The Bucks were a 56 win team before Oscar got there. That would have been the best record in the NBA in 1971, and the team who had eliminated them in 1970 was not in their way (only the Bullets were). Kareem got better in his 2nd year, the natural progression of a rookie, and in the 4 years Oscar was there we know that a) the Bucks played at a 60 win pace in games he missed, and b) Oscar's steady and significant decline in each of the 4 years didn't have a particularly huge impact. The Bucks were still a 60 win team the last 2 years with Oscar despite his decline, and his last year there they still went to 7 games in the NBA finals (and the team they lost to sure wasn't the Bullets).

Of course Oscar helped, he was a valuable player, but the Bucks were a title team in 1971 regardless of Oscar.

[Clyde Frazier]

Vote for #2 - Kareem

Kareem is still the only player I see who rivals Jordan for #1. His overall personal and team accolades are essentially unmatched when you look at his supreme longevity and transcendence across eras. I see bball ref's per 100 possessions data has already been used, and i'll have to go check his out vs. other players.

I'll admit that i've always separated russell from this debate given the era he played in, and probably slightly (and i do stress SLIGHTLY) value his 11 rings lower than say kareem's 5. I suppose I always expected more jaw dropping #s from a guy playing in that era where pace was so fast, but I know he was considered the ultimate "team player".

Now is good of a time as any to do some more research on the subject and see if my opinion can be swayed. There's plenty for me to check out just from these threads, which is awesome.

[ceiling raiser]

I don't see why I'm supposed to value some vague superlatives (the sort every player makes about their team mates) over the actual results. The Bucks were a 56 win team before Oscar got there. That would have been the best record in the NBA in 1971, and the team who had eliminated them in 1970 was not in their way (only the Bullets were). Kareem got better in his 2nd year, the natural progression of a rookie, and in the 4 years Oscar was there we know that a) the Bucks played at a 60 win pace in games he missed, and b) Oscar's steady and significant decline in each of the 4 years didn't have a particularly huge impact. The Bucks were still a 60 win team the last 2 years with Oscar despite his decline, and his last year there they still went to 7 games in the NBA finals (and the team they lost to sure wasn't the Bullets).

Of course Oscar helped, he was a valuable player, but the Bucks were a title team in 1971 regardless of Oscar.

I'd have to strongly disagree with the bolded. I don't want to derail the thread, but if you want something more quantitative, lorak did some great research on Oscar/Kareem and the Bucks:

[
I know some people at the time thought that Oscar was the best player on this team (like Gene Shue said after the 1971 finals), but when I see a guy like KAJ, who came into the league and immediately improved his team by 29 wins and +9.32 SRS, I have ZERO doubt that he had to be the best on that team.

There were also other changes (with Dandridge as the most important one after KAJ), for example rookie coach in 1969 and 6 other rookies on the roster - not all of them played significant minutes, but my point is that team was a mess, a lot of players, completely new organization, so no surprise their record was weak, so whoever joined next year would look like more impcatfull than in reality, under normal conditions.

Or how you comment what Bastillon was talking about KAJ's impact - we know what happened with Bucks after he left or Lakers when he joined them - doesn't seem like +9 SRS impact (even if we adjust for players which replaced him). We also know how Bucks played without him in 1975 and MOV with him was +1.7 and -5.6 without so net +7.3. On the other hand we know exactly how great was Robertson's impact, because he missed a lot of games in 1972: according to Elgee's study MOV with him was +13 (the most among players in Elgee's study, and that includes Walton!) and net +8.2. That's GOAT like impact, because he improved a good team to great one. And it's not some random data as we have seen the same in Cinncinati.

I think we are dealing with scoring bias here, I mean, it's similar story to how some people perceived Nash and Amare - some of them thought Amare was more important Suns player, because he scored more points. All that "first option" crap. But if we look behind that, at impact stats or watch the games to so how these teams played, we will see that point guards were the best players.

The Nash/Amare dynamic was different. Nash was often setting Amare up in prime position. Oscar was dropping the ball to Kareem on the low block. I could have done that.

It's not so simple. Even basic entry pass on NBA level is difficult task, because you can't just throw the ball to the big. You have to do it in right time, in tempo (what's not so easy with defenders long hands trying to deflect the pass), what would allow big man to score as quick as possible, because the more big dribble, the more probable it is he would turn the ball over.

It's just starting point for discussion how much Oscar helped to KAJ, but look:

Code: Select all

FG%   PPG   PPG per36   period
56,2   30,9   26,1   4 years with Oscar
51,6   29,3   24,7   2 years in MIL w/o Oscar
55,8   25,9   24,2   4 years in LAL before Magic
58,6   24,2   24,3   first 4 years with Magic
56,0   18,2   21,6   last 6 years in LAL


(and we also know how bad KAJ played in 1972 playoffs, when Oscar was injured, of course Thurmond also has a lot do to with it)

So KAJ never again was as good scorer (efficiency + volume) as during those 4 years with KAJ. And he no doubt was a player who was better and better over time, so it's not like during his Milwaukee years he was complete offensive players. Sure, he had skyhook or other moves, but wasn't as good as later. For example his shooting touch improved a lot (FT% confirms that).

[
I know some people at the time thought that Oscar was the best player on this team (like Gene Shue said after the 1971 finals), but when I see a guy like KAJ, who came into the league and immediately improved his team by 29 wins and +9.32 SRS, I have ZERO doubt that he had to be the best on that team.

There were also other changes (with Dandridge as the most important one after KAJ), for example rookie coach in 1969 and 6 other rookies on the roster - not all of them played significant minutes, but my point is that team was a mess, a lot of players, completely new organization, so no surprise their record was weak, so whoever joined next year would look like more impcatfull than in reality, under normal conditions.

Or how you comment what Bastillon was talking about KAJ's impact - we know what happened with Bucks after he left or Lakers when he joined them - doesn't seem like +9 SRS impact (even if we adjust for players which replaced him). We also know how Bucks played without him in 1975 and MOV with him was +1.7 and -5.6 without so net +7.3. On the other hand we know exactly how great was Robertson's impact, because he missed a lot of games in 1972: according to Elgee's study MOV with him was +13 (the most among players in Elgee's study, and that includes Walton!) and net +8.2. That's GOAT like impact, because he improved a good team to great one. And it's not some random data as we have seen the same in Cinncinati.

I think we are dealing with scoring bias here, I mean, it's similar story to how some people perceived Nash and Amare - some of them thought Amare was more important Suns player, because he scored more points. All that "first option" crap. But if we look behind that, at impact stats or watch the games to so how these teams played, we will see that point guards were the best players.

But DavidStern come on you're ruining your credibility by saying Oscar was better than Kareem at that point. Offensive numbers, defensive eye test with what little we have, it's one of the clearest cases of 1 and 2 in history.

I watched everything there is with early 70s Bucks, I analyzed the data and Oscar > KAJ in 1971 and 1972 is the only logical conclusion. Later seasons are different story, because injuries and age didn't help Oscar. But in 1971 and 1972 seasons he was definitely no 1 Bucks player. If you guys disagree, then tell why using different things than box score stats ("scoring bias") or opinions/accolades.

If you guys disagree, then tell why using different things than box score stats ("scoring bias") or opinions/accolades.

What is there other than opinions or stats?

I think I can say that generally most people think Jabbar was better than Oscar when they were in Milwaukee.

So I think the onus is on you to make your case that 1971-1972 Oscar was better than 1971-1972 Jabbar.

You can use any argument you wish; I am interested in your point of view.

Ok, I will try to explain how I see it. Basic axiom in my evaluation of players is that box score tells only small part of the story about overall impact (however it has useful information about particular aspects of the game). It obviously underrates players with defensive impact, but also offensive playmakers (assists are probably the worst stat ever). And the more back in time we go, the less information we have (for example lack of TOV, BLK or STL) and we also are dealing with different rules or even with different scorekeepers methods of crediting individual statistics.

So in order to see whole picture I look at how given player changes team performance and I’m doing so by looking at how team played when player joined/left team, when missed games or how his +/- (mostly on/off and RAPM) stats look if they are available. Of course such approach is affected by a lot of noise and that’s why I try to look at other roster changes and if results in one season are consistent with data from other (for example if with/without data tells that superstar A is +5 SRS player in season X, and data from season two years after X says he was +4.5, then it’s very probable he really was ~+5 player during those 3 years).

Now lets look at how Bucks performance was changing during “KAJ’s era”:

Code: Select all

Season   SRS   KAJ MIN   Oscar MIN
1968-69   -5,07   0   0
1969-70   4,25   3534   0
1970-71   11,91   3288   3194
1971-72   10,7   3583   2390
1972-73   7,84   3254   2737
1973-74   7,61   3548   2477
1974-75   0,25   2747   0
1975-76   -1,56   0   0


1. from 1969 to 1970: +9.3 SRS

Really big improvement, but we can’t credit KAJ for all that. Bucks in 1969 were completely new organization, with rookie coach and 6 rookie players (not all of them played significant minutes, thought).
In 1970 they added not only KAJ, but also Dandridge and Crawford, limited minutes of Rodgers (who retired after 1970 season), lost Embry (retired after 1969) and Hetzel, increased minutes of Robinson, Chappell and Abdul-Aziz.

A lot of changes, so it’s difficult to tell what exactly was Alciondor’s impact that year, but considering what was Bucks roster that year (without KAJ it was definitely below average team, but not worse than in 1969) and their SRS it’s very probable KAJ’s impact was around +5.5 SRS (that means he would improve 41 wins team to 57.6 wins) or even +6.

2. from 1970 to 1971: +7.7 SRS

At first glance +7.7 seems like worse than +9.3, but keep in mind that it’s more difficult to make good team great, than bad team good. So in fact +7.7 improvement in 1971 was bigger than +9.3 in 1970.
The biggest change was of course addition of Oscar. Other than that Bucks added Boozer (1800 minutes) and Allen (1200 minutes), while lost Robinson, Abdul-Aziz, Crawford and Chappell.

KAJ definitely improved, but how much it was because of Oscar? IMO a lot. I mean, KAJ wasn’t like typical modern rookies after 1 year of NCAA. He spent 4 years at UCLA and was NBA ready player when he entered the league (similar story to Duncan in 1998). Sure, over time in NBA he improved different aspects of his game, but anyone is able to tell what exactly he improved in the summer of 1970? Because I think he didn’t improve a lot (FT% is one of the main things he did), and his high FG% was in big part result of playing with Oscar - it’s not coincidence that later, when Oscar was limited by injuries and finally retired, KAJ’s FG% was worse and worse until 1977, so when he hit his peak:

Code: Select all

year   FG%   Oscar MIN
1970   51,8   0
1971   57,7   3194
1972   57,4   2390
1973   55,4   2737
1974   53,9   2477
1975   51,3   0
1976   52,9   0


1971 and 1972 are two years, when I think Oscar was still in his prime and was better than KAJ. In 1973 Robertson wasn’t as good anymore (his FG% kind of confirms that as in 1973 he had career low FG% and even worse result in 1974), because of injuries he suffered in 1972 (he missed most of the second half of that season and was injured in the playoffs). So IMO it clearly indicates how much Oscar helped KAJ – without Robertson Jabbar’s FG% was only slightly better than during his rookie year and while injury in 1975 might explain part of it, there’s no injury explanation in 1976. Besides KAJ’s FG% skyrocket in two years, when Oscar was in his prime and then steadily decreased as Oscar was worse and worse and finally was gone.

I credit Oscar for most of Bucks improvement that year (it was ~+9.9 SRS over average team) and that means he was around +7.5 or +8 SRS player that year, while KAJ around +6.5, maybe even +7 (keep in mind that’s basically the same, what people say in Elgee’s project, where 7 posters posted their estimations and on average KAJ was +7 player according to them.

3. from 1971 to 1972: -1.2 SRS

Changes: added Perry (1500 minutes), Block (1500), Jones (1000), lost Boozer (1800 previous year), increased minutes of Allen (to 2300) and decreased McGlocklin (to 2200), Smith (to 700) and of course Oscar, who was injured and played 800 less minutes than previous year.

Robertson’s injury gives us really good information about his impact and it’s consistent with what we have seen in 1971. With him in 1972 Bucks were 11.9 SRS team, without 7.1, so that means he improved average (41 wins) team by about +7.1 SRS. So another year which indicates Oscar was at least +7 SRS player. Jabbar was also close to that value, but IMO slightly worse (Oscar helped KAJ more, than the other way around – for example remember paragraph about KAJ’s FG%). Of course if we want to describe impact in total value then KAJ was better that year (because of Oscar’s injury), but per game value Robertson was still better.

4. 1972 to 1973: -2.9 SRS

No major changes.

First year when KAJ was better than Oscar. After injures in 1972 Robertson never again was as good player as before (and as I said – FG% is one of the indicators of that), but still quite impactfull. Fun facts: KAJ missed 6 games that year and Bucks won them all (and overall were 8-0 without KAJ during Oscar’s time in Milwaukee), while in 9 games Robertson missed they were 7-2 (and 9-3 in 1974).

I think there’s no need to discuss that year in deep or 1974 season, as It was last Oscar’s year and he was shell of his former self. But I will point out one more thing, because maybe some people think I’m underrating KAJ, when I’m saying that he was +6.5 SRS player in 1971.

Jabbar missed 17 games in 1975 and 21 in 1978. If we compare SRS with him ( 4.5 in 1978, 1.4 in 1975) to without (-1.7 in 1978, -4.2 in 1975) and adjust for improvement over average (41 W) team, then his impact was +4.0 in 1975 and +5.5 in 1978 (and when we would do the same for Bucks 1975 with KAJ vs 1976 Bucks, then Jabbar’s impact is +3.3). Just food for though.

Bootom line is:

- Oscar’s high impact is confirmed by how much Bucks improved or how they played when he was injured in 1972 and also by how much he helped Royals (I didn’t talk about it, but I will say just one thing: during his career in Cinny, he missed 54 games and Royals won only 12 of them, so 22.2 WIN%. With him they were 54.4 WIN% team and that includes several games when he was injured or played only 2 minutes because of injury). So there’s no doubt that prime Oscar’s (and his prime was from 1961 to 1972) impact was indeed in +7 to +8 SRS range.

- KAJ’s is a little bit overrated, data (when he joined Bucks, when he left them, when he missed games in 1975 and 1978) didn’t confirm he was +7 or better player. +6 to +6.5 SRS – that’s his value during Bucks years.

Even if you don't agree with his conclusions 100%, I think it's tough to ignore the data on top of the quotes/anecdotes. It seems that Oscar was integral to the 71 Bucks, and their improvement into a contender was largely due to the acquisition of Robertson (who helped Kareem develop into a better player, and helped optimize the talent on the team).

[Baller2014]

Even if you don't agree with his conclusions 100%, I think it's tough to ignore the data on top of the quotes/anecdotes. It seems that Oscar was integral to the 71 Bucks, and their improvement into a contender was largely due to the acquisition of Robertson (who helped Kareem develop into a better player, and helped optimize the talent on the team).

But they were a contender before Oscar even arrived. They were the 2nd best team in the NBA in 1970, and the 1970 Bucks would have had the best record in the NBA in 1971. How were they not already a contender!?

[MisterWestside]

Definitely convinced that a prime Abdul-Jabbar was an easily above-average to borderline elite defender (at times) after watching video. He wasn't Russell, of course - Russell was more athletic, and super quick off the first and second bounce - but saying he wasn't Russell isn't a diss. He was a terrific defender who made up for his lack of "motor" with his smarts and positioning on the floor. When you combine that with his superior offensive talents to Russell, it's a no-brainer for my set of rankings.

Would love to watch more game footage of Russell on defense, but that's hard to come by. The lack of it hurts him in my rankings - the era impact is well-documented, but its use for all-time rankings is maddingly limited. Russell's actual game on film (outside of block highlights) is the great unknown that some posters fail to acknowledge here, especially for translation purposes. You want to see if he could be head-and-shoulders above the modern defensive greats as opposed to just "fitting in" with them.

[sp6r=underrated]

I don't want to rehash the RAPM debate but this warrants a response on two levels. This really isn't about KAJ and Oscar but rather player evaluations.

I watched everything there is with early 70s Bucks, I analyzed the data and Oscar > KAJ in 1971 and 1972 is the only logical conclusion . . . If you guys disagree, then tell why using different things than box score stats ("scoring bias")

First, saying formulate a response without including the box score is just an assertion that the box score has no value and is irrelevant. That is an assertion that has a heavy burden of proof. So far that burden has not been established. Accordingly citing the box score is valid evidence.

The box score heavily supports the view that KAJ was the Bucks best player. Saying formulate a response without including the box score is no different than saying formulate a response but without referencing evidence that contradicts my position.

Second, it is perfectly reasonable to include your impressions of a player after watching them play in your evaluation of their merits. However once you make that part of your analysis you can't say contemporary observations should be excluded. In this case contemporary observations was KAJ was better.

I'm not so much interested in the merits of debating KAJ and Oscar but rather in the parameters of debate.

[E-Balla]

I don't see why I'm supposed to value some vague superlatives (the sort every player makes about their team mates) over the actual results. The Bucks were a 56 win team before Oscar got there. That would have been the best record in the NBA in 1971, and the team who had eliminated them in 1970 was not in their way (only the Bullets were). Kareem got better in his 2nd year, the natural progression of a rookie, and in the 4 years Oscar was there we know that a) the Bucks played at a 60 win pace in games he missed, and b) Oscar's steady and significant decline in each of the 4 years didn't have a particularly huge impact. The Bucks were still a 60 win team the last 2 years with Oscar despite his decline, and his last year there they still went to 7 games in the NBA finals (and the team they lost to sure wasn't the Bullets).

Of course Oscar helped, he was a valuable player, but the Bucks were a title team in 1971 regardless of Oscar.

I'd have to strongly disagree with the bolded. I don't want to derail the thread, but if you want something more quantitative, lorak did some great research on Oscar/Kareem and the Bucks:

[
I know some people at the time thought that Oscar was the best player on this team (like Gene Shue said after the 1971 finals), but when I see a guy like KAJ, who came into the league and immediately improved his team by 29 wins and +9.32 SRS, I have ZERO doubt that he had to be the best on that team.

There were also other changes (with Dandridge as the most important one after KAJ), for example rookie coach in 1969 and 6 other rookies on the roster - not all of them played significant minutes, but my point is that team was a mess, a lot of players, completely new organization, so no surprise their record was weak, so whoever joined next year would look like more impcatfull than in reality, under normal conditions.

Or how you comment what Bastillon was talking about KAJ's impact - we know what happened with Bucks after he left or Lakers when he joined them - doesn't seem like +9 SRS impact (even if we adjust for players which replaced him). We also know how Bucks played without him in 1975 and MOV with him was +1.7 and -5.6 without so net +7.3. On the other hand we know exactly how great was Robertson's impact, because he missed a lot of games in 1972: according to Elgee's study MOV with him was +13 (the most among players in Elgee's study, and that includes Walton!) and net +8.2. That's GOAT like impact, because he improved a good team to great one. And it's not some random data as we have seen the same in Cinncinati.

I think we are dealing with scoring bias here, I mean, it's similar story to how some people perceived Nash and Amare - some of them thought Amare was more important Suns player, because he scored more points. All that "first option" crap. But if we look behind that, at impact stats or watch the games to so how these teams played, we will see that point guards were the best players.

The Nash/Amare dynamic was different. Nash was often setting Amare up in prime position. Oscar was dropping the ball to Kareem on the low block. I could have done that.

It's not so simple. Even basic entry pass on NBA level is difficult task, because you can't just throw the ball to the big. You have to do it in right time, in tempo (what's not so easy with defenders long hands trying to deflect the pass), what would allow big man to score as quick as possible, because the more big dribble, the more probable it is he would turn the ball over.

It's just starting point for discussion how much Oscar helped to KAJ, but look:

Code: Select all

FG%   PPG   PPG per36   period
56,2   30,9   26,1   4 years with Oscar
51,6   29,3   24,7   2 years in MIL w/o Oscar
55,8   25,9   24,2   4 years in LAL before Magic
58,6   24,2   24,3   first 4 years with Magic
56,0   18,2   21,6   last 6 years in LAL


(and we also know how bad KAJ played in 1972 playoffs, when Oscar was injured, of course Thurmond also has a lot do to with it)

So KAJ never again was as good scorer (efficiency + volume) as during those 4 years with KAJ. And he no doubt was a player who was better and better over time, so it's not like during his Milwaukee years he was complete offensive players. Sure, he had skyhook or other moves, but wasn't as good as later. For example his shooting touch improved a lot (FT% confirms that).

[
I know some people at the time thought that Oscar was the best player on this team (like Gene Shue said after the 1971 finals), but when I see a guy like KAJ, who came into the league and immediately improved his team by 29 wins and +9.32 SRS, I have ZERO doubt that he had to be the best on that team.

There were also other changes (with Dandridge as the most important one after KAJ), for example rookie coach in 1969 and 6 other rookies on the roster - not all of them played significant minutes, but my point is that team was a mess, a lot of players, completely new organization, so no surprise their record was weak, so whoever joined next year would look like more impcatfull than in reality, under normal conditions.

Or how you comment what Bastillon was talking about KAJ's impact - we know what happened with Bucks after he left or Lakers when he joined them - doesn't seem like +9 SRS impact (even if we adjust for players which replaced him). We also know how Bucks played without him in 1975 and MOV with him was +1.7 and -5.6 without so net +7.3. On the other hand we know exactly how great was Robertson's impact, because he missed a lot of games in 1972: according to Elgee's study MOV with him was +13 (the most among players in Elgee's study, and that includes Walton!) and net +8.2. That's GOAT like impact, because he improved a good team to great one. And it's not some random data as we have seen the same in Cinncinati.

I think we are dealing with scoring bias here, I mean, it's similar story to how some people perceived Nash and Amare - some of them thought Amare was more important Suns player, because he scored more points. All that "first option" crap. But if we look behind that, at impact stats or watch the games to so how these teams played, we will see that point guards were the best players.

But DavidStern come on you're ruining your credibility by saying Oscar was better than Kareem at that point. Offensive numbers, defensive eye test with what little we have, it's one of the clearest cases of 1 and 2 in history.

I watched everything there is with early 70s Bucks, I analyzed the data and Oscar > KAJ in 1971 and 1972 is the only logical conclusion. Later seasons are different story, because injuries and age didn't help Oscar. But in 1971 and 1972 seasons he was definitely no 1 Bucks player. If you guys disagree, then tell why using different things than box score stats ("scoring bias") or opinions/accolades.

What is there other than opinions or stats?

I think I can say that generally most people think Jabbar was better than Oscar when they were in Milwaukee.

So I think the onus is on you to make your case that 1971-1972 Oscar was better than 1971-1972 Jabbar.

You can use any argument you wish; I am interested in your point of view.

Ok, I will try to explain how I see it. Basic axiom in my evaluation of players is that box score tells only small part of the story about overall impact (however it has useful information about particular aspects of the game). It obviously underrates players with defensive impact, but also offensive playmakers (assists are probably the worst stat ever). And the more back in time we go, the less information we have (for example lack of TOV, BLK or STL) and we also are dealing with different rules or even with different scorekeepers methods of crediting individual statistics.

So in order to see whole picture I look at how given player changes team performance and I’m doing so by looking at how team played when player joined/left team, when missed games or how his +/- (mostly on/off and RAPM) stats look if they are available. Of course such approach is affected by a lot of noise and that’s why I try to look at other roster changes and if results in one season are consistent with data from other (for example if with/without data tells that superstar A is +5 SRS player in season X, and data from season two years after X says he was +4.5, then it’s very probable he really was ~+5 player during those 3 years).

Now lets look at how Bucks performance was changing during “KAJ’s era”:

Code: Select all

Season   SRS   KAJ MIN   Oscar MIN
1968-69   -5,07   0   0
1969-70   4,25   3534   0
1970-71   11,91   3288   3194
1971-72   10,7   3583   2390
1972-73   7,84   3254   2737
1973-74   7,61   3548   2477
1974-75   0,25   2747   0
1975-76   -1,56   0   0


1. from 1969 to 1970: +9.3 SRS

Really big improvement, but we can’t credit KAJ for all that. Bucks in 1969 were completely new organization, with rookie coach and 6 rookie players (not all of them played significant minutes, thought).
In 1970 they added not only KAJ, but also Dandridge and Crawford, limited minutes of Rodgers (who retired after 1970 season), lost Embry (retired after 1969) and Hetzel, increased minutes of Robinson, Chappell and Abdul-Aziz.

A lot of changes, so it’s difficult to tell what exactly was Alciondor’s impact that year, but considering what was Bucks roster that year (without KAJ it was definitely below average team, but not worse than in 1969) and their SRS it’s very probable KAJ’s impact was around +5.5 SRS (that means he would improve 41 wins team to 57.6 wins) or even +6.

2. from 1970 to 1971: +7.7 SRS

At first glance +7.7 seems like worse than +9.3, but keep in mind that it’s more difficult to make good team great, than bad team good. So in fact +7.7 improvement in 1971 was bigger than +9.3 in 1970.
The biggest change was of course addition of Oscar. Other than that Bucks added Boozer (1800 minutes) and Allen (1200 minutes), while lost Robinson, Abdul-Aziz, Crawford and Chappell.

KAJ definitely improved, but how much it was because of Oscar? IMO a lot. I mean, KAJ wasn’t like typical modern rookies after 1 year of NCAA. He spent 4 years at UCLA and was NBA ready player when he entered the league (similar story to Duncan in 1998). Sure, over time in NBA he improved different aspects of his game, but anyone is able to tell what exactly he improved in the summer of 1970? Because I think he didn’t improve a lot (FT% is one of the main things he did), and his high FG% was in big part result of playing with Oscar - it’s not coincidence that later, when Oscar was limited by injuries and finally retired, KAJ’s FG% was worse and worse until 1977, so when he hit his peak:

Code: Select all

year   FG%   Oscar MIN
1970   51,8   0
1971   57,7   3194
1972   57,4   2390
1973   55,4   2737
1974   53,9   2477
1975   51,3   0
1976   52,9   0


1971 and 1972 are two years, when I think Oscar was still in his prime and was better than KAJ. In 1973 Robertson wasn’t as good anymore (his FG% kind of confirms that as in 1973 he had career low FG% and even worse result in 1974), because of injuries he suffered in 1972 (he missed most of the second half of that season and was injured in the playoffs). So IMO it clearly indicates how much Oscar helped KAJ – without Robertson Jabbar’s FG% was only slightly better than during his rookie year and while injury in 1975 might explain part of it, there’s no injury explanation in 1976. Besides KAJ’s FG% skyrocket in two years, when Oscar was in his prime and then steadily decreased as Oscar was worse and worse and finally was gone.

I credit Oscar for most of Bucks improvement that year (it was ~+9.9 SRS over average team) and that means he was around +7.5 or +8 SRS player that year, while KAJ around +6.5, maybe even +7 (keep in mind that’s basically the same, what people say in Elgee’s project, where 7 posters posted their estimations and on average KAJ was +7 player according to them.

3. from 1971 to 1972: -1.2 SRS

Changes: added Perry (1500 minutes), Block (1500), Jones (1000), lost Boozer (1800 previous year), increased minutes of Allen (to 2300) and decreased McGlocklin (to 2200), Smith (to 700) and of course Oscar, who was injured and played 800 less minutes than previous year.

Robertson’s injury gives us really good information about his impact and it’s consistent with what we have seen in 1971. With him in 1972 Bucks were 11.9 SRS team, without 7.1, so that means he improved average (41 wins) team by about +7.1 SRS. So another year which indicates Oscar was at least +7 SRS player. Jabbar was also close to that value, but IMO slightly worse (Oscar helped KAJ more, than the other way around – for example remember paragraph about KAJ’s FG%). Of course if we want to describe impact in total value then KAJ was better that year (because of Oscar’s injury), but per game value Robertson was still better.

4. 1972 to 1973: -2.9 SRS

No major changes.

First year when KAJ was better than Oscar. After injures in 1972 Robertson never again was as good player as before (and as I said – FG% is one of the indicators of that), but still quite impactfull. Fun facts: KAJ missed 6 games that year and Bucks won them all (and overall were 8-0 without KAJ during Oscar’s time in Milwaukee), while in 9 games Robertson missed they were 7-2 (and 9-3 in 1974).

I think there’s no need to discuss that year in deep or 1974 season, as It was last Oscar’s year and he was shell of his former self. But I will point out one more thing, because maybe some people think I’m underrating KAJ, when I’m saying that he was +6.5 SRS player in 1971.

Jabbar missed 17 games in 1975 and 21 in 1978. If we compare SRS with him ( 4.5 in 1978, 1.4 in 1975) to without (-1.7 in 1978, -4.2 in 1975) and adjust for improvement over average (41 W) team, then his impact was +4.0 in 1975 and +5.5 in 1978 (and when we would do the same for Bucks 1975 with KAJ vs 1976 Bucks, then Jabbar’s impact is +3.3). Just food for though.

Bootom line is:

- Oscar’s high impact is confirmed by how much Bucks improved or how they played when he was injured in 1972 and also by how much he helped Royals (I didn’t talk about it, but I will say just one thing: during his career in Cinny, he missed 54 games and Royals won only 12 of them, so 22.2 WIN%. With him they were 54.4 WIN% team and that includes several games when he was injured or played only 2 minutes because of injury). So there’s no doubt that prime Oscar’s (and his prime was from 1961 to 1972) impact was indeed in +7 to +8 SRS range.

- KAJ’s is a little bit overrated, data (when he joined Bucks, when he left them, when he missed games in 1975 and 1978) didn’t confirm he was +7 or better player. +6 to +6.5 SRS – that’s his value during Bucks years.

Even if you don't agree with his conclusions 100%, I think it's tough to ignore the data on top of the quotes/anecdotes. It seems that Oscar was integral to the 71 Bucks, and their improvement into a contender was largely due to the acquisition of Robertson (who helped Kareem develop into a better player, and helped optimize the talent on the team).

Great post. Nice to see the numbers support what I've always assumed from reading about them and watching old games.

I do think Kareem was a little better though but it was extremely close and I do think Kareem's prime is slightly overrated (for example I'll take Duncan's prime over Kareem's). But because of his longevity I probably will be voting KAJ at 3 but maybe not if I can get my hands on his numbers without Magic from 84 on (I have to work tonight but I'll try to get those numbers asap).

[rich316]

My vote for #2: Bill Russell.

This is a change for me. Going into the project, I expected to vote for Kareem at #2. I've been swayed by all of the great information that came up in the #1 thread in favor of Russell - I had no idea what kind of quantifiable defensive impact he had on his teams, which to me is his trump card. I was already aware that he was an early savant of the game of basketball, capable of understanding the game as an individual in ways that were only understood by the coaching culture in the following decades. To me, that kind of mental prowess is worth a great, great deal.

"Mental toughness," "clutchness," and the like are terms thrown around a bit too much in sports talk, but if you had to pick a poster-child for exactly what those words mean, you would have to come up with Russell. The guy was simply indomitable. His fire was never quenched, and the only thing he seemed to care about was winning. At the same time, unlike other well-known examples of NBA competitive-obsessives, he was known as the perfect teammate, always willing to do exactly what the team needed to win, regardless of how it made him look. This might be the most unique and valuable combination of attributes a player can have, and it goes a long way towards why Duncan has slowly pushed himself into the upper echelons of the top-10 discussion.

This is no knock on Kareem - I don't believe that he was "a ninny," to quote Bill Simmons, or that he didn't care about playing defense, or that he didn't care about the game. He was extremely competitive, and I might even argue that his physical talents are the greatest ever. Still, there is a sense that his personality wasn't completely optimal for the objective of winning basketball games. The complaints he makes in his autobiography about racism in the media are almost certainly valid, especially for a black man who joined the Muslim religion with all of the attendant political symbolism that had in his day. His lack of control over where he played was an injustice. By his own admission, all those influences took away some of the joy he felt in the game, and infected his actions on the court. Russell faced the same injustices, perhaps even worse, and he kept his focus and competitive drive at a laser-beam level. Kareem's dominance is well-documented, and I will almost certainly pick him #3. I had to pick MJ #1, but Russell is a very close, very worthy #2.

[ceiling raiser]

Great post. Nice to see the numbers support what I've always assumed from reading about them and watching old games.

I do think Kareem was a little better though but it was extremely close and I do think Kareem's prime is slightly overrated (for example I'll take Duncan's prime over Kareem's). But because of his longevity I probably will be voting KAJ at 3 but maybe not if I can get my hands on his numbers without Magic from 84 on (I have to work tonight but I'll try to get those numbers asap).

Well, not sure how helpful it'll be, but we have gamelogs for Magic and Kareem up on nbastats.net:

http://nbastats.net/01NBA/09playerlogs/AbdulJabbar.xls

http://nbastats.net/01NBA/09playerlogs/Johnson.xls

The two should be relatively complete since we were able to dump much of the LA Times archives, so if you want to go back to 79-80 that might help. Though I guess if you're looking into evaluating longevity, you'd want his post-prime numbers mostly.

[90sAllDecade]

Spoiler:

Good point, fair enough. Let's compare unadjusted raw numbers for both for their entire careers.

Hakeem vs KAJ Raw Stats Unadjusted for Pace Inflation:

Hakeem RS Raw





KAJ RS Raw





Now KAJ is a better scorer, passer., TS%, rebounds are a wash and Hakeem is still a better stealer, shot blocker and overall defender despite a large unadjusted pace disadvantage (as well as competition, rules and career team support). If KAJ's number are all adjusted for pace, his scoring and passing advantage decreases and his rebounding likely goes in Hakeem's favor.

Hakeem Raw PO





KAJ Raw PO





KAJ is a better passer, but even given a huge unadjusted pace disadvantage using raw stats, Hakeem is still a better scorer, rebounder, shot blocker, stealer, overall defender with TS% as a wash as it translates regardless of pace. Hakeem also still has a higher peak, less team support and greater competition.

I personally value playoff career numbers over RS because it's against better winning teams, tougher defenses and they game plan against your for an entire 5-7 game series.

Hakeem was already regarded as the best two way center all time, before this comparison. He should be moved up in the rankings imo and I wanted to bring objective facts and numbers so people understand this isn't hyperbole. The strong evidence is there to challenge these long held media influenced beliefs.

I acknowledge where the comparison is KAJ's or others advantage, I just hope people have open minds about new objective data questioning the status quo perception.

Kareem's 12 best years were 1970-1981 - which has 93 of his 237 playoff games - about 40%
In Hakeem's 12 best years 1986-1997, are 126 of his 145 playoff games - about 85%.

Kareem is penalized because in the 70s when he was at his best there weren't 4 rounds of playoffs -

So, accidentally you keep showing numbers skewed against Jabbar.

Kareem was a better scorer and passer - Hakeem was better defensively and rebounder.
But each was good at the other - Kareem was a good rebounder and defender, while Hakeem was a good scorer and passer.

Fair enough point and balance view.

If you play with the pace adjusted years for primes in the playoffs or RS you still get similar back and forth trends, with KAJ having better shooting and rebounding and Hakeem having better passing as well as all the defensive categories; with scoring going either way or even tying at times.

I hold Kareem in high regard, as I have him #3 all time after Hakeem.

My main point is that they are much closer as players than people realize. The only difference in my opinion, is Kareem got to play with 70's pace and competition, as well as much better team support.

Here is an example of a team comparison between Kareem, Olajuwon and Russell:

Russell:
12 years
Years with 1 All Star Player: x12
Two All Star player: x11
Two All Star player and HOF Coach: x9
HOF Coach x9

*B. Cousy (MVP x1,All NBA 1st team x5, 2nd team x2)
T. Hensohn (ROY, All NBA 2nd team x4)
S. Jones (All NBA 2nd team x2)
B. Sharman (All NBA 1st team x3, 2nd team x2)
J. Havlicek (All NBA 2nd x4)

Kareem:
19 years
Years with 1 All Star Player: x15
Two All Star player: x7
Two All Star player and HOF Coach: x7
HOF Coach: x8

*Oscar Robertson (All NBA 2nd team x1)
Magic Johnson (MVP x2, FMVP x3, All NBA 1st team x7, 2nd team x1)
J. Worthy (FMVP x1, All NBA 3rd x1)


Hakeem:
17 years
Years with 1 All Star Player: x7
Two All Star player: x1
Two All Star player and HOF Coach: x0
HOF Coach x0

*R. Sampson (All NBA 2nd team x1)
C. Drexler (All NBA 3rd team x1)

[trex_8063]

Good point, fair enough. Let's compare unadjusted raw numbers for both for their entire careers.

Spoiler:

Hakeem vs KAJ Raw Stats Unadjusted for Pace Inflation:

Hakeem RS Raw





KAJ RS Raw

Now KAJ is a better scorer, passer., TS%, rebounds are a wash and Hakeem is still a better stealer, shot blocker and overall defender despite a large unadjusted pace disadvantage (as well as competition, rules and career team support). If KAJ's number are all adjusted for pace, his scoring and passing advantage decreases and his rebounding likely goes in Hakeem's favor.

Just in case someone skipped the stat charts and is taking your word for it: rs TS% is FAR from a wash. KAJ's career TS% is significantly higher than Hakeem's (.592 vs .553). Kareem's single season best is far better than Hakeems (.639 vs .577). Kareem's single season WORST is significantly better than Hakeem's (.511 vs .478). Kareem's prime (which I'm loosely calling '70 thru '83) avg was better than Hakeem's (calling Hakeem's '86 thru '97): .592 vs .558.

The gap appears a little larger when one factors in respective league average TS%.......
The league avg TS% in Kareem's career ranged from .498 to .543 (avg across his 20 seasons was .523).
In Hakeem's career it ranged from .511 to .543 (avg of .532 over his 18 seasons).
Hakeem TWICE had a season shooting BELOW the league average (admittedly, both were in the twilight of his career); he surpassed the league average by as much as 4.1% once.
Kareem only ONCE in 20 seasons had a TS% below the league average (in his 20th and final season); he once exceeded the league average by 10.8%. In fact, he had only one year where he failed to surpass the league average TS% by AT LEAST 4.1% (Hakeem's career best mark in relative TS%).

And relative TS% is relevant imo because there can be many things influencing shooting efficiency within a given era (rules, how games are being officiated, existence of a 3-pt shot and how that affects floor spacing, etc). What stage of development the game was in (skill-sets, etc) can also be a relevant factor when comparing TS% in players from different eras (it's probably not a huge consideration in this comparison, as there's only 15 years separating their careers and both played in an era where the game was fairly "developed"; but still, might be a minimal factor).

[E-Balla]

Thanks to fpliii I was able to get the Kareem's numbers without Magic quickly (from 84-86). Kareem was better in every way without Magic.

28 games total (16-12 record - 47-35 full season):

31.8 MPG|21.9 PPG|7.4 REB|3.6 APG|0.5 STL|1.7 BLK. 63.6 TS%, 11.5 TOV% (turnovers only available for 13 games of sample so I calculated the turnover percentage of those games.

PER 36: 24.8/8.4/4.1

These numbers are shocking to say the least. Kareem was insanely efficient while increasing volume without Magic. I gotta go now but I'll evaluate this more tomorrow.

EDIT: I'll also get the Robertson without from 71-72 as soon as possible.

[90sAllDecade]

Good point, fair enough. Let's compare unadjusted raw numbers for both for their entire careers.

Spoiler:

Hakeem vs KAJ Raw Stats Unadjusted for Pace Inflation:

Hakeem RS Raw





KAJ RS Raw

Now KAJ is a better scorer, passer., TS%, rebounds are a wash and Hakeem is still a better stealer, shot blocker and overall defender despite a large unadjusted pace disadvantage (as well as competition, rules and career team support). If KAJ's number are all adjusted for pace, his scoring and passing advantage decreases and his rebounding likely goes in Hakeem's favor.

Just in case someone skipped the stat charts and is taking your word for it: rs TS% is FAR from a wash. KAJ's career TS% is significantly higher than Hakeem's (.592 vs .553). Kareem's single season best is far better than Hakeems (.639 vs .577). Kareem's single season WORST is significantly better than Hakeem's (.511 vs .478). Kareem's prime (which I'm loosely calling '70 thru '83) avg was better than Hakeem's (calling Hakeem's '86 thru '97): .592 vs .558.

The gap appears a little larger when one factors in respective league average TS%.......
The league avg TS% in Kareem's career ranged from .498 to .543 (avg across his 20 seasons was .523).
In Hakeem's career it ranged from .511 to .543 (avg of .532 over his 18 seasons).
Hakeem TWICE had a season shooting BELOW the league average (admittedly, both were in the twilight of his career); he surpassed the league average by as much as 4.1% once.
Kareem only ONCE in 20 seasons had a TS% below the league average (in his 20th and final season); he once exceeded the league average by 10.8%. In fact, he had only one year where he failed to surpass the league average TS% by AT LEAST 4.1% (Hakeem's career best mark in relative TS%).

And relative TS% is relevant imo because there can be many things influencing shooting efficiency within a given era (rules, how games are being officiated, existence of a 3-pt shot and how that affects floor spacing, etc). What stage of development the game was in (skill-sets, etc) can also be a relevant factor when comparing TS% in players from different eras (it's probably not a huge consideration in this comparison, as there's only 15 years separating their careers and both played in an era where the game was fairly "developed"; but still, might be a minimal factor).

It was a wash with regards to playoff TS%, also league averages improve as competition improves and having star teammates like PGs relieves double teams or facilitates to help increase efficiency.

I pretty much reposted my earlier comments on the previous post. It was a typo mistake, but going this far to point out one thing and not reading the other substance the post has is your right.

I'm here to learn and post what I genuinely think is truthful, not spin or try to win a conversation. Other things that were missing was that there is no per100 data before 1974 and people felt it missed some of Kareem's best rookie and early years.

I disagree with people saying his peak was during those early years, but they have that right. So, you're right. But to disregard how Olajuwon is better during many of those years with adjusted pace in defensive categories, is comparable offensively in the playoffs and is better than KAJ's consensus peak of 77' is not conceding the truth imo.

Considering the evidence for competition, rule advantages and team support I think Olajuwon is a better individual overall two way impact and they are neck and neck as players imo. But everyone has right to their own opinion.