Peaks Project #4

[trex_8063]

Everything Frieza said is true. 2004 Garnett was not his best year defensively and that Kareem was better than Garnett offensively, dramatically so in the playoffs. Garnett has an rebounding edge over KAJ but that is about it.

Then I'll recommend to read the posts of drza, for instance. I find it really presumptuous, to be absolutely honest, to provide no reasoning whatsoever while trying to discredit some people's stance - argued in great detail with lots of compelling evidence and points - as absurd. Nothing against you (I actually like you as a poster) or GoldenFrieza but this is exactly the kind of "discussion" which helps nobody and destroys the discussion culture. Bad enough that we get to see this in other threads but I really hoped this project would be different.

If someone firmly believes that Garnett has no case over Kareem then why not answering the posts who advocate KG in detail? If what you believe is that obvious it shouldn't be much of task, should it?

I will try to go into more detailed posts later. I posted because I thought that nothing Frieza said was outlandish. I don't think it's a huge stretch to say that 2004 Kevin Garnett wasn't head and shoulders better defensively than Milwakee Kareem. The stats we have that compare the both of them show that Kareem was a better rim protecter while Garnett was a more versatile defender and could guard the perimeter better.

Offensively Garnett does not have the efficiency that Kareem does and in the playoffs Garnett's numbers go south while Kareem's go north. I understand that 10 games shouldn't overwrite 82 but when those 10~ games are the most important in the season and you are comparing two players and one of their numbers goes up and the others goes down. Then it starts to become a serious factor.

I don't think it's unreasonable to have KG ahead of Kareem for peak. I don't agree with it; but I don't think it's an outlandish stance.

Even if this wasn't KG's peak defensive year, I think he's still a better defender in '04 than ever Kareem was. Hassell and Sprewell were pretty good perimeter defenders, but he otherwise didn't have any notable help defensively (one or two players in the line-up were defensive zeroes, imo).....and yet the Wolves DRtg was -3.2 to league avg (ranked 6th of 29). I think that's in no small part due to what Garnett was doing all over the defensive half-court. That was certainly my impression at the time, and it's backed up by multiple factors:
*All-Defensive 1st Team, fwiw
**PI DRAPM of +4.3 (tied with Theo Ratliff for 4th-best in the league) **Edit: fwiw, I don't use Doc's scaled RAPM (where he's apparently 3rd, per drza)
***Defensive on/off of -6.1 (not sure of league rank, but that's a massive defensive on/off)

His versatility means he can be plugged into multiple defensive roles, too (Kareem's only role of defensive value was as a rim-protector, which he was indeed very good at).

Additionally, Garnett's a better passer/playmaker, a better rebounder, and I must admit (as per drza's post) has a greater degree of portability as far as having high impact in multiple settings/alongside varied casts.

The only clear edge Kareem has is as a scorer (and yes, his advantage there is massive). Is it enough to say he was better at his peak than Garnett? idk, my answer is yes. But I do understand the other side of that question.

EDIT: In the grand scheme of things, as far as all-time rankings (not just peaks, but overall), the other thing Kareem has over Garnett is that he had multiple years which might be defined as his peak ('71, '72, '74, '77), whereas '04 is (at least slightly so) an outlier for Garnett. He just didn't quite approach that level again before or after.

[urnoggin]

1st ballot: 1967 Wilt Chamberlain
Became a vastly improved all-around player in this season with his passing, rebounding, and defense. Ironically, he made a much larger impact on his team by averaging 24 PPG as opposed to his 62’ year where he scored 50 PPG but did not have the offensive impact that he had in 67. Also had an amazing playoffs where he completely outplayed Russell (the GOAT defender). He didn’t score a lot in the finals but in was by no means a bad series as he did what he needed to help his team succeed (stepped up his playmaking and defense).

2nd ballot: 1994 Hakeem Olajuwon
Won DPOY, MVP, and Finals MVP while still being in his peak defensively. Had an amazing playoff run where he lead his team of role players to a championship based on his ability to anchor both the defense and the offense. Faced a tough defensive team in the Knicks in the playoffs where he outplayed Ewing for most of the series and squeezed out the victory in 7. Already had amazing post skills at this time which allowed his team to play 4 out, 1 in when he posted up.

3rd ballot: 1977 Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
77’ Kareem is his peak imo because he was still extremely raw as a player in 71’ and his production in 80’ dropped off a bit (especially his rebounding). Although he lost to the Blazers in the second round, his playoffs were very good and he shouldn’t be blamed for the loss (similar to 09’ Lebron). Also, he had a poor supporting cast around him and his team did better than they should have especially considering that they didn’t even make the playoffs the next year. He didn’t have Oscar (like in 71’) or a rookie Magic (like in 80’) and he was forced to shoulder a large majority of the offensive output of his team.

[thizznation]

I don't think it's unreasonable to have KG ahead of Kareem for peak. I don't agree with it; but I don't think it's an outlandish stance.

I have the same feelings.

In my opinion I wouldn't necessarily consider KG more portable than Kareem. A player who is going to score 38 points per 100 possessions on .646 TS% while giving you elite rim protection is pretty darn portable. Although I do admit I am high on Kareem.

I think Kareems combination of rim protection and offense is the best thing on the board right now. You were able to count on Kareem for big offensive production in big games vs tough opponents. Moreso than Wilt I feel.

I'm changing Wilt from 67 to 64 because I now believe 67 Wilt was on the better team but 64 was more in line of his personal prime.

I'm going to start voting for Dr J 1976 as well.

1. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar 1977
2. Wilt Chamberlain 1964
3. Julius Erving 1976

I will give a more detailed explanation on Erving 1976 soon. I had a shockwave crash in my browser and I lost my previous post!

[Quotatious]

3. Julius Erving 1976

I will give a more detailed explanation on Erving 1976 soon. I had a shockwave crash in my browser and I lost my previous post!

Wow, man, that's even much higher than I intended to start supporting '76 Doc. You can count on me to reinforce his case around #10 if he doesn't start gaining traction before that (I guess he won't).

Nice to see that you changed '80 KAJ to '77. Perhaps my posts had something to do with that?

[thizznation]

3. Julius Erving 1976

I will give a more detailed explanation on Erving 1976 soon. I had a shockwave crash in my browser and I lost my previous post!

Wow, man, that's even much higher than I intended to start supporting '76 Doc. You can count on me to reinforce his case around #10 if he doesn't start gaining traction before that (I guess he won't).

Nice to see that you changed '80 KAJ to '77. Perhaps my posts had something to do with that?

It did, it did. I have noticed that I need to have less tunnel vision when it comes to championship years when evaluating the career. Winning matters but it doesn't necessarily mean that the individual player is better because of it. I know this is a simple concept but I realize I still can let winning bias slip into the back of my mind.

I know I'm not going to get people lined up out the door to support the 1976 Doc pick, lol. I honestly feel like he had an incredible peak with that sort of impact though. When I look at Dr.J's 1976 stats I see parallels to a lesser version of LeBron. I feel that although he wasn't on the LeBron level of athleticism he was very close and could impact the game in virtually all ways, similar to what LeBron was able to do.

I would say Dr J compared to LeBron gives you less scoring and playmaking but better rebounding and defense.

It also struck me as interesting that we see a peak in careers from Dr. J, LeBron, and Wade all at age 24-25ish. (I realize most have '09 Wade as his peak but I'm just saying he did have a noticable peak in '06 at age 24 as well. Insert similar disclaimer here for LeBron).

[Samurai]

Wow, man, that's even much higher than I intended to start supporting '76 Doc. You can count on me to reinforce his case around #10 if he doesn't start gaining traction before that (I guess he won't).

Nice to see that you changed '80 KAJ to '77. Perhaps my posts had something to do with that?

Erving will undoubtedly get some criticism because it was the ABA, but he really did everything that year. First in ppg, 8th in 2-point FG%, 6th in 3-point FG% (for real!), 5th in rpg, 7th in assists/game, 7th in blocks/game, 3rd in steals/game, 1st in PER, 1st in Offensive WS, 1st in Defensive WS, 1st in VORP, even 10th in FT%. MVP and First Team All-Defense. Off the top of my head, I can't think of anyone else who finished top ten in that many categories.

[drza]

Kareem's defense, particularly as it relates to his overall 1977 impact

OK, I've spent the last hour or so searching old threads for posts about Kareem's defense, specifically around '77, and the results were mixed. All agree he was the most talented big man of his era, and that he put up some great boxscore stats (especially blocks). There was a push that he wasn't as high of an impact defender as his box score numbers might expect because his opponents' ppg didn't change much when he was forced to miss time, and his teams' defense didn't change so much when he switched squads. On the other hand, there were others that argued that he was having a big impact, and that the teams just changed how they played without him.

I'll post some of my general impressions here, then below that I'll re-post some of the posts that I've found that seem interesting:

*Kareem was absurdly long, played near the rim, and had good timing which he could parlay into blocking shots at a high rate (led the league in blocked shots in 1977, one of several times he did so in the 70s).

*Kareem was not the greatest rebounder for his size, on the whole (In 1977 regular season he had a Rebound percentage of 18.4%, which according to DocMJ in the RPoY thread when compared to Walton's 21%: "Walton's % this year was 37th best all time, Kareem's 210th best". He did crash the boards at closer to Walton's rate (21%) in the playoffs, but that was only 10 games so it's hard to gauge how real it is. Quote below from Jerry West about Kareem's rebounding:

If one was aware of what was said at the time, then one would know that rebounding was always identified as a weakness. Jerry West said of Kareem (then Alcindor) his last year in college:

“His one weakness is rebounding. For a guy his size he doesn’t do enough. But with competition that will improve.”

But this continued to be cited as a weakness once he entered the pros.

*Kareem seems like the very definition of a "vertical defender". He's long, tall, and does most of his defending vertically in the paint.

*Some felt that Kareem didn't always give maximum effort on defense in those years. Perhaps because his team wasn't so great and he wasn't motivated, or perhaps because his energy would be best used on offense. Here's a quote from tharegulator with an article from that time that speaks to this:

Spoiler:

@Warspite:
I guess I could call Kareem a "defensive anchor" in '73 and '74 but other than that it's hard to make a case for him based on factual results. even his own peers: Unseld, Hayes, Cowens, Gilmore, DeBusschere, Lakers Wilt, Walton had clearly better results. you could make a case for Dr J and Bobby Jones as well. overall, Kareem's defense was too inconsistent, too often called out, to call him a great defensive anchor. he's like Shaq in that regard, as shocking as it may sound. numbers don't lie.

Here's what was said during the 1975-76 season:

Despite the super trade that netted them center Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, perhaps the single most dominating offensive force in pro basketball, the Los Angeles Lakers are not going to win the NBA’s Pacific Division title this season.

That distinction is going instead to the Golden State Warriors, a team with as much overall balance as the Great Wallendas.

There is always the chance that the Lakers, some of whom are still learning each other’s moves, will come on strong in the playoffs. A talented big man like Abdul-Jabbar can sometimes turn a short series around with a string of super individual performances.

And Kermit Washington, a fine rebounding forward who has been out since the beginning of the year with a broken ankle, should have played in enough regular-season games by March to have his timing back.

But the fact is the Lakers are not a first-rate ball club yet in several key areas. These include defense, floor leadership, forwards who do not rebound well, plus the team’s inability to win on the road.

This is not the team that Coach Sharman hoped it would be. Sharman had expected to capitalize on the same fast-break offense and pressing defense that he used when he had Wilt Chamberlain in the pivot and Jerry West in the back-court. That was a team that played with finesse, but also had forwards who could muscle rivals on the boards.

The current Lakers do not fit that mold. They stop after the word finesse. They lack leadership in the backcourt and their forwards, whether they start or come in off the bench, are to one-dimensional. Their offense, although explosive at times and capable of scoring a lot of points, often experiences long dry spells.

Part of the problem is Abdul-Jabbar, who sometimes plays well within his ability and who often does not get back quickly enough on defense. Boston’s Dave Cowens, for example, often appears to outplay Kareem simply on the basis of physically wanting the game more than his opponent.

Anyone who spends as many minutes on court as the Lakers’ center is forced to pace himself over an 82-game schedule. That’s understood. Otherwise he would have nothing left for the playoffs. But he should be careful to rest on offense, not defense.

*Some vigorously defended Kareem in general, and on defense. Fatal9 gave a great numerical breakdown of Kareem's 1974 absence, and how it seemed to have a big negative impact on Milwaukee's defense that year (though some of the numbers he reported were somewhat disputed, as apparently they didn't fully match with basketball-reference and it wasn't resolved in thread):

Spoiler:

Bucks opponents shot 46.9% in games he missed and only 43.7% when he played. How big is this difference? The mark of 43.7% shooting by opponents would be the best in the league (just below Celtics who were at 43.8% opp FG%). While the 46.9% would be fifth worst in the league in terms of opp FG%. It should also be noted that Bucks attempted to focus on defense because of the problems they were having offensively without KAJ: http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=g-" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... 47,4503292. So it seems the team had made a move to increase their effort defensively in that time, maybe slow down the game. They were ranked 2nd in the league defensively the year before when KAJ played 81 games and usually led the league in terms of opp FG% when KAJ would play even in seasons before that. So seems like when KAJ returned to the lineup in '75, that trend only continued.

you're bringing up two excellent points:
a) PPG allowed does not mean DRtg
b) Bucks improved their defense OUTSIDE of Kareem, as they were giving a better effort knowing they won't have their star to produce offense for them

my answer is that:
a) while PPG allowed has some faults, opp FG% is even worse...and if you actually look at team DRtg/team DWS, you'll find out Bucks were below average defensive team FOR THE SEASON. now if we looked simply at FG% Bucks would've been at least top5 defensive team. I mean they were playing 60 games with Kareem after all, so that'd mean they were playing top1 defense for 3/4 of the season...and yet end up below average ? that 1/4th wouldn't make them that much worse. although we have to take your numbers into account, we can't take them as a basis of theory because they just don't add up.

do you have the full numbers ? at least total FGA would be excellent because that way we could estimate the difference in pace.

b) if Kareem was a true defensive anchor, do you really think his teammates trying harder would make up for his absence ? I'm sure you know the story of Olajuwon as you're his big fan. Rockets didn't come ANYWHERE CLOSE to their level of defense when Dream was out. simply enough, I don't think you can make up for the loss of a defensive anchor so easily.

it speaks volumes to Kareem's leadership too. a question that immediately comes up is why couldn't Kareem get his teammates to play harder when he was on the court ? if other guys are playing BETTER defense when some guy isn't playing, then that's like he would've been having a negative impact on his teammates.

you're right about a) and we should be definitely looking into that stuff, but b) is not an excuse AT ALL.

Here are the full numbers for factors affecting defense...

Opponent FG% without KAJ - 46.5% (would be ranked 14th out of 18)
Opponent FG% with KAJ - 43.8% (tied with best in the league with the Bullets who were the #1 rated defense that year)

(note slightly different from previous numbers, I had double counted one game by mistake)

Opponent FT attempts without KAJ - 23.35 FTA
Opponent FT attempts with KAJ - 23.27 FTA

I did not have FTA numbers for one game, but had them for the rest of the 16 games (though I did have FTM for that game which was 11 so assumed 15 FTs were shot in that game). But almost no change in FTA numbers.

However this is affected by pace so...

FT/FGA ratio without KAJ - .216 (would be ranked 12th out 18)
FT/FGA ratio with KAJ - .192 (would be ranked 3rd out 18)

So huge difference in their ability to play defense without fouling as well.

Overall scoring efficiency of teams against them?

Opponent TS% without KAJ - 51.2% (would be ranked 15th out of 18)
Opponent TS% with KAJ - 48.2% (would be ranked 1st in the league)

Massive difference in TS% of opponents.

Turnovers forced without KAJ - 18/game (ranked last)
Turnovers forced with KAJ - 16.8/game (ranked last)

I did not have TO numbers for two games (weren't legible on the boxscore), so did not include those two (so this is the without average from 15 games, not 17). But the TO numbers did not seem to change much without him (also keep in mind almost all of the games were at the start of the season, and I'm assuming everyone was told to play more aggressively on defense). But overall, Bucks were the worst team in the league at forcing turnovers, and that primarily falls on the guards and forwards.

An now. The reason there is no change in ppg allowed with and without KAJ? Because Bucks played a lot slower with him out, which I'm guessing was the strategy because the coach pointed out how they were struggling offensively without him. Bucks opponents took 86.9 FGA/23.4 FTA when he was out and 94.1 FGA/23.3 FTA when he was in (turnovers/game basically the same).

All in all you are looking at a top 5 defensive team (or better) with KAJ (which would require the Bucks to go from 97.8 to 97.3) and a bottom 5 one without him. If someone wants to do the d-rating/pace calculations for me so we can get a specific number, feel free and I'll send you the numbers. But clearly there is a big difference in the defense with/without KAJ.

I think a lot of people jumped the gun with the whole ppg in/out when that literally tells us nothing. I've see you particularly draw way too many assumptions without getting an idea of the full picture. You are making a similar assumption with the games he missed in '78 though I don't have full boxscores for any of them, where again the team fell off drastically without him and the only time they were winning games was against bottom-feeders. I don't know how people turned something that should be seen as a positive for KAJ (ie. his undeniable impact on his teams when he was out) into a negative...weird.

*Others, particularly Bastillon, countered that Kareem wasn't a self-starter. That he was immensely talented, but (as tharegulator's article corroborated) he tended to coast, more often on defense. He argued that it was the great PGs that Kareem played with, Oscar and Magic, that were able to bring him to full potential:

Spoiler:

Kareem was capable of being a defensive anchor, provided he had a guy to look up to, who would force Kareem to play defense. Oscar and Magic did that so Kareem played up to his potential. obviously when Magic arrived that potential was past his prime and he wasn't a great defensive anchor anymore, but with Oscar Kareem anchored some really nice defenses.

but whenever Kareem was supposed to be the leader of his team, his will to win and defensive intensity just wasn't good enough. he focused too much on offense and was often late in transition defense, on rotations etc. 75-79 is inexcusable for Kareem. he was in his prime, his teams were mostly average, and didn't seem to make impact when he changed teams or missed games.

I guess I could call Kareem a "defensive anchor" in '73 and '74 but other than that it's hard to make a case for him based on factual results. even his own peers: Unseld, Hayes, Cowens, Gilmore, DeBusschere, Lakers Wilt, Walton had clearly better results. you could make a case for Dr J and Bobby Jones as well. overall, Kareem's defense was too inconsistent, too often called out, to call him a great defensive anchor. he's like Shaq in that regard, as shocking as it may sound. numbers don't lie.

Followed up with:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkYosA1VNDw&feature=related" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
0:25

Lucius Allen, member of Milwaukee Bucks 1971-74
"Oscar, being the person that he was, kept Kareem in his place, just like he kept the rest of us in our places. If Kareem missed on a defensive assignment, then his eyes would get about THIS BIG and he let Kareem know - Hey, Big Fella, fall in line"

in case you had any doubt whose team that was.

*Dipper13 posted a quote from Nate Thurmond who said that Kareem had too many subpar defensive seasons, but from the tone of the quote it's not hard to tell that Thurmond is mad at Kareem here so I guess take it with a grain of salt:

Spoiler:

"For years now, I've said nothing but good things about Kareem, not one negative thing, and he's never said anything nice about me. I just don't think he's this great defensive center he's supposed to be. It's just unreal, look at all the guys dunking over him. I look back over my career and recall only a few times anyone dunked over me. I still remember the time Elgin Baylor did. I still lose sleep over it to this day. I particularly resent what Kareem said the other day in a newspaper article. He said the centers of today in the NBA are much better athletes than when I played. Well I disagree with him 100%. I don't think he knows what the hell he's talking about. I played against him for four years. Does he not consider himself a good athlete? I'm not here to discredit Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, I believe he's a great talent that has had too many subpar years defensively. I just want to set the record straight. There were some damn good centers when I played. What about Bill Russell? Does Kareem consider him a good athlete? What about Nate Thurmond? Or Willis Reed? Or Walt Bellamy?"

-1979

*I also re-urge everyone to go back and re-read that 1977 thread in the Retro Player of the Year project. It was a great discussion, focused almost entirely on Kareem 77 vs Walton 77. I posted a couple of threads ago ElGee's WOWY data that indicated that Walton seemed to be having a bigger impact on his team's ability to win than Kareem did (based upon the numbers with and without those players). I'll re-post here, and maybe it resonates more in the context of the other posts that I've shared here:

Spoiler:

77-78: Walton's impact versus Kareem's impact.

Sort of a crude on/off type of measure, but when players miss large chunks of time like Walton and Kareem (in 78) it gives us a fairly interesting interesting picture of their value. Obviously there are potential confounds like other injuries, strategy changes, schedule, etc. This is raw data so pace isn't adjusted for either. Nonetheless, thought this data was pretty darn interesting from this period:

Portland 1977:

Code: Select all

             Record    PPG      Opp PPG      Diff     Opp SRS    %Road Games
With Walton   43-21    113.4    105.1       +8.3
W/O Walton    6-12     105.7    110.0       -4.3       0.26      61%
Total Difference                            +12.6


Los Angeles 78:

Code: Select all

             Record    PPG      Opp PPG      Diff     Opp SRS    %Road Games
With Kareem   37-24    111.9    107.8       +4.1
W/O Kareem    8-13     105.6    107.2       -1.6       0.03      48%
Total Difference                            +5.7


Walton's game on 12/30 and Kareem's season opener counted as "missed" games because they both played only a few minutes. Of course, there's more Walton data, as he went on to miss a comparable chunk of time in 1978 as well.

Portland 1978:

Code: Select all

             Record    PPG      Opp PPG      Diff     Opp SRS    %Road Games
With Walton   48-10    110.4    100.4       +10.0
W/O Walton    10-14     101.0    104.3       -3.3      -0.07     58%
Total Difference                            +13.3


Now, one major difference between 77 and 78 in Portland was Lloyd Neal's play off the bench. Praised by commentators and writers, he actually led the 78 team in pts/36, posted a nice .179 WS/48 line, and had 31 points filling in for Walton in the first game he missed (a 111-106 win at Detroit). And still the profound difference is still there without Walton.

If we combine the two seasons and pro-rate the records to 82-games:

Code: Select all

             Record    PPG      Opp PPG      Diff     Opp SRS   %Road Games
With Walton   61-21    112.0    102.9       +9.1
W/O Walton    31-51    103.0    106.7       -3.7       0.07     60%
Total Difference                            +12.6
         
With Kareem   52-30    111.9    107.8       +4.1
W/O Kareem    31-51    105.6    107.2       -1.6       0.03     48%
Total Difference                            +5.7



*Here was another great post in that RPoY 77 thread from DocMJ, who watched and scout/summaried Game 4 of the 1977 Portland/Lakers match-up in the Finals. His account backs a lot of what has been said above: Kareem was immensely talented, breathtakingly so on offense, he didn't move a lot on defense, he seemed to want to conserve energy, and his sphere of influence on defense was primarily limited to on-ball or rim defense, while if his man didn't have the ball he was kind of out of the play:

Spoiler:

I watched game 4. Had time to watch and analyze one game, this seemed the reasonable one to do.

Game 4

Blazers are getting a lot of steals, but not without consequence. They're full court pressing and trapping, and the result is that there's lots of space down court for Kareem. Kareem's points are often coming from easy passes, and single coverage from Walton with lots of space in the court partly due to how the guards are defending. When they do get a real double team on Kareem, he's passing the ball. It's reasonable to ask if this would have been an entirely different series with smarter guards - but I think it's wrong to look at Kareem's numbers in a vacuum.

Despite the fact that Walton seems to be playing Kareem so tight when Kareem has the ball, he doesn't hesitate to leave Kareem to effect the rest of the play when Kareem doesn't have the ball.
I will say though Walton's man defense is really tough, and it doesn't seem to phase Kareem much at all as long as he’s got that space to work with. Stunning skill from Kareem.

Kareem's defense on Walton is clearly much more successful, but Walton doesn't spend a lot of time trying to score when Kareem's on him. Instead, he immediately starts looking for someone to pass it to, and once the ball is passed, Kareem seems largely out of the play. Part of that is due to Walton being able to draw Kareem out, which leaves Kareem in poor position to challenge shots. Walton's passes seem strategically smart, and often quite sharp, but he is committing a good amount of turnovers in the process.

Portland's also getting easy baskets off defensive rebounds. Walton's looking to pass the ball forward before he touches the ground.

People've said Kareem's exhausted, and that's believable. He's just not running around very much. If the Lakers to get a fast break opportunity, Kareem totally disappears from the play, evidently hoping they can make a basket, and he can save himself a lap.

Tendency to fast break is part of why Walton looks more active than Kareem. On the other hand, this is part of a trade off, no? If you're going to run a possession where the big man gets the ball in the post, and then twists and turns for his shot, you can't run. By not playing Walton as a volume scorer, you get to take advantage of running much more.

General statistical observations:

The Lakers had the ball stolen a lot in this series. Other than that (rebounding, etc) they did fine.

Interestingly, in general, Portland's statistical advantage comes from making shots, and making opponent's miss them, not from causing turnovers specifically. I'd say they shot making is primarily a product of the push to run out before the defense can get set, and the push to pass the ball to a guy who can do something with the ball, and the Laker series appears to bear this out.

With that said, the next year, Portland’s pace is significantly slower, why?

Defensively, the Lakers series was not normal for the Blazers. Every other opponent in the series, they really did a number on their ability to make shots, not the Lakers. The Lakers did about as well in this series shooting the ball as they had done against Golden State which was not what you'd expect from the regular season. Again this plays into my thought that Portland up'ed their gambling in the Laker series, which decreased they're effectiveness at actually stopping shooting.

Concluding thoughts: Most of my direct memories are from older Kareem, so I love it when those that saw him more in his younger days weigh in. But the picture, especially regarding his defense, seems complex. He clearly was a great shot-blocker. He wasn't often a great rebounder, but he still did it at a pretty high level for a lot of years. He wasn't a high motor defender, but he did get a lot of steals at the center position. He may have coasted on defense at times, but when motivated he could step up to some extent. But what about in 1977? There was more support for his defensive impact in Milwaukee, but the injury absence in LA in 78 didn't tell the same story, and that seems like it'd be more like '77 than his Milwaukee days were. Kareem could fill the boxes like nobodies business, and he swept the accolades. But it sounds, to me, like in that 1977 season his boxscore stats may have been over-stating his impact a bit. That Kareem 1977 was putting up LeBron 09-like boxscores...but that it was WALTON 1977 that was actually having LeBron 09-like impact...

[RSCD3_]

Kareem's defense, particularly as it relates to his overall 1977 impact

OK, I've spent the last hour or so searching old threads for posts about Kareem's defense, specifically around '77, and the results were mixed. All agree he was the most talented big man of his era, and that he put up some great boxscore stats (especially blocks). There was a push that he wasn't as high of an impact defender as his box score numbers might expect because his opponents' ppg didn't change much when he was forced to miss time, and his teams' defense didn't change so much when he switched squads. On the other hand, there were others that argued that he was having a big impact, and that the teams just changed how they played without him.

I'll post some of my general impressions here, then below that I'll re-post some of the posts that I've found that seem interesting:

*Kareem was absurdly long, played near the rim, and had good timing which he could parlay into blocking shots at a high rate (led the league in blocked shots in 1977, one of several times he did so in the 70s).

*Kareem was not the greatest rebounder for his size, on the whole (In 1977 regular season he had a Rebound percentage of 18.4%, which according to DocMJ in the RPoY thread when compared to Walton's 21%: "Walton's % this year was 37th best all time, Kareem's 210th best". He did crash the boards at closer to Walton's rate (21%) in the playoffs, but that was only 10 games so it's hard to gauge how real it is. Quote below from Jerry West about Kareem's rebounding:

If one was aware of what was said at the time, then one would know that rebounding was always identified as a weakness. Jerry West said of Kareem (then Alcindor) his last year in college:

“His one weakness is rebounding. For a guy his size he doesn’t do enough. But with competition that will improve.”

But this continued to be cited as a weakness once he entered the pros.

*Kareem seems like the very definition of a "vertical defender". He's long, tall, and does most of his defending vertically in the paint.

*Some felt that Kareem didn't always give maximum effort on defense in those years. Perhaps because his team wasn't so great and he wasn't motivated, or perhaps because his energy would be best used on offense. Here's a quote from tharegulator with an article from that time that speaks to this:

Spoiler:

@Warspite:
I guess I could call Kareem a "defensive anchor" in '73 and '74 but other than that it's hard to make a case for him based on factual results. even his own peers: Unseld, Hayes, Cowens, Gilmore, DeBusschere, Lakers Wilt, Walton had clearly better results. you could make a case for Dr J and Bobby Jones as well. overall, Kareem's defense was too inconsistent, too often called out, to call him a great defensive anchor. he's like Shaq in that regard, as shocking as it may sound. numbers don't lie.

Here's what was said during the 1975-76 season:

Despite the super trade that netted them center Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, perhaps the single most dominating offensive force in pro basketball, the Los Angeles Lakers are not going to win the NBA’s Pacific Division title this season.

That distinction is going instead to the Golden State Warriors, a team with as much overall balance as the Great Wallendas.

There is always the chance that the Lakers, some of whom are still learning each other’s moves, will come on strong in the playoffs. A talented big man like Abdul-Jabbar can sometimes turn a short series around with a string of super individual performances.

And Kermit Washington, a fine rebounding forward who has been out since the beginning of the year with a broken ankle, should have played in enough regular-season games by March to have his timing back.

But the fact is the Lakers are not a first-rate ball club yet in several key areas. These include defense, floor leadership, forwards who do not rebound well, plus the team’s inability to win on the road.

This is not the team that Coach Sharman hoped it would be. Sharman had expected to capitalize on the same fast-break offense and pressing defense that he used when he had Wilt Chamberlain in the pivot and Jerry West in the back-court. That was a team that played with finesse, but also had forwards who could muscle rivals on the boards.

The current Lakers do not fit that mold. They stop after the word finesse. They lack leadership in the backcourt and their forwards, whether they start or come in off the bench, are to one-dimensional. Their offense, although explosive at times and capable of scoring a lot of points, often experiences long dry spells.

Part of the problem is Abdul-Jabbar, who sometimes plays well within his ability and who often does not get back quickly enough on defense. Boston’s Dave Cowens, for example, often appears to outplay Kareem simply on the basis of physically wanting the game more than his opponent.

Anyone who spends as many minutes on court as the Lakers’ center is forced to pace himself over an 82-game schedule. That’s understood. Otherwise he would have nothing left for the playoffs. But he should be careful to rest on offense, not defense.

*Some vigorously defended Kareem in general, and on defense. Fatal9 gave a great numerical breakdown of Kareem's 1974 absence, and how it seemed to have a big negative impact on Milwaukee's defense that year (though some of the numbers he reported were somewhat disputed, as apparently they didn't fully match with basketball-reference and it wasn't resolved in thread):

Spoiler:

you're bringing up two excellent points:
a) PPG allowed does not mean DRtg
b) Bucks improved their defense OUTSIDE of Kareem, as they were giving a better effort knowing they won't have their star to produce offense for them

my answer is that:
a) while PPG allowed has some faults, opp FG% is even worse...and if you actually look at team DRtg/team DWS, you'll find out Bucks were below average defensive team FOR THE SEASON. now if we looked simply at FG% Bucks would've been at least top5 defensive team. I mean they were playing 60 games with Kareem after all, so that'd mean they were playing top1 defense for 3/4 of the season...and yet end up below average ? that 1/4th wouldn't make them that much worse. although we have to take your numbers into account, we can't take them as a basis of theory because they just don't add up.

do you have the full numbers ? at least total FGA would be excellent because that way we could estimate the difference in pace.

b) if Kareem was a true defensive anchor, do you really think his teammates trying harder would make up for his absence ? I'm sure you know the story of Olajuwon as you're his big fan. Rockets didn't come ANYWHERE CLOSE to their level of defense when Dream was out. simply enough, I don't think you can make up for the loss of a defensive anchor so easily.

it speaks volumes to Kareem's leadership too. a question that immediately comes up is why couldn't Kareem get his teammates to play harder when he was on the court ? if other guys are playing BETTER defense when some guy isn't playing, then that's like he would've been having a negative impact on his teammates.

you're right about a) and we should be definitely looking into that stuff, but b) is not an excuse AT ALL.

Here are the full numbers for factors affecting defense...

Opponent FG% without KAJ - 46.5% (would be ranked 14th out of 18)
Opponent FG% with KAJ - 43.8% (tied with best in the league with the Bullets who were the #1 rated defense that year)

(note slightly different from previous numbers, I had double counted one game by mistake)

Opponent FT attempts without KAJ - 23.35 FTA
Opponent FT attempts with KAJ - 23.27 FTA

I did not have FTA numbers for one game, but had them for the rest of the 16 games (though I did have FTM for that game which was 11 so assumed 15 FTs were shot in that game). But almost no change in FTA numbers.

However this is affected by pace so...

FT/FGA ratio without KAJ - .216 (would be ranked 12th out 18)
FT/FGA ratio with KAJ - .192 (would be ranked 3rd out 18)

So huge difference in their ability to play defense without fouling as well.

Overall scoring efficiency of teams against them?

Opponent TS% without KAJ - 51.2% (would be ranked 15th out of 18)
Opponent TS% with KAJ - 48.2% (would be ranked 1st in the league)

Massive difference in TS% of opponents.

Turnovers forced without KAJ - 18/game (ranked last)
Turnovers forced with KAJ - 16.8/game (ranked last)

I did not have TO numbers for two games (weren't legible on the boxscore), so did not include those two (so this is the without average from 15 games, not 17). But the TO numbers did not seem to change much without him (also keep in mind almost all of the games were at the start of the season, and I'm assuming everyone was told to play more aggressively on defense). But overall, Bucks were the worst team in the league at forcing turnovers, and that primarily falls on the guards and forwards.

An now. The reason there is no change in ppg allowed with and without KAJ? Because Bucks played a lot slower with him out, which I'm guessing was the strategy because the coach pointed out how they were struggling offensively without him. Bucks opponents took 86.9 FGA/23.4 FTA when he was out and 94.1 FGA/23.3 FTA when he was in (turnovers/game basically the same).

All in all you are looking at a top 5 defensive team (or better) with KAJ (which would require the Bucks to go from 97.8 to 97.3) and a bottom 5 one without him. If someone wants to do the d-rating/pace calculations for me so we can get a specific number, feel free and I'll send you the numbers. But clearly there is a big difference in the defense with/without KAJ.

I think a lot of people jumped the gun with the whole ppg in/out when that literally tells us nothing. I've see you particularly draw way too many assumptions without getting an idea of the full picture. You are making a similar assumption with the games he missed in '78 though I don't have full boxscores for any of them, where again the team fell off drastically without him and the only time they were winning games was against bottom-feeders. I don't know how people turned something that should be seen as a positive for KAJ (ie. his undeniable impact on his teams when he was out) into a negative...weird.

*Others, particularly Bastillon, countered that Kareem wasn't a self-starter. That he was immensely talented, but (as tharegulator's article corroborated) he tended to coast, more often on defense. He argued that it was the great PGs that Kareem played with, Oscar and Magic, that were able to bring him to full potential:

Spoiler:

Kareem was capable of being a defensive anchor, provided he had a guy to look up to, who would force Kareem to play defense. Oscar and Magic did that so Kareem played up to his potential. obviously when Magic arrived that potential was past his prime and he wasn't a great defensive anchor anymore, but with Oscar Kareem anchored some really nice defenses.

but whenever Kareem was supposed to be the leader of his team, his will to win and defensive intensity just wasn't good enough. he focused too much on offense and was often late in transition defense, on rotations etc. 75-79 is inexcusable for Kareem. he was in his prime, his teams were mostly average, and didn't seem to make impact when he changed teams or missed games.

I guess I could call Kareem a "defensive anchor" in '73 and '74 but other than that it's hard to make a case for him based on factual results. even his own peers: Unseld, Hayes, Cowens, Gilmore, DeBusschere, Lakers Wilt, Walton had clearly better results. you could make a case for Dr J and Bobby Jones as well. overall, Kareem's defense was too inconsistent, too often called out, to call him a great defensive anchor. he's like Shaq in that regard, as shocking as it may sound. numbers don't lie.

Followed up with:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkYosA1VNDw&feature=related" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
0:25

Lucius Allen, member of Milwaukee Bucks 1971-74
"Oscar, being the person that he was, kept Kareem in his place, just like he kept the rest of us in our places. If Kareem missed on a defensive assignment, then his eyes would get about THIS BIG and he let Kareem know - Hey, Big Fella, fall in line"

in case you had any doubt whose team that was.

*Dipper13 posted a quote from Nate Thurmond who said that Kareem had too many subpar defensive seasons, but from the tone of the quote it's not hard to tell that Thurmond is mad at Kareem here so I guess take it with a grain of salt:

Spoiler:

"For years now, I've said nothing but good things about Kareem, not one negative thing, and he's never said anything nice about me. I just don't think he's this great defensive center he's supposed to be. It's just unreal, look at all the guys dunking over him. I look back over my career and recall only a few times anyone dunked over me. I still remember the time Elgin Baylor did. I still lose sleep over it to this day. I particularly resent what Kareem said the other day in a newspaper article. He said the centers of today in the NBA are much better athletes than when I played. Well I disagree with him 100%. I don't think he knows what the hell he's talking about. I played against him for four years. Does he not consider himself a good athlete? I'm not here to discredit Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, I believe he's a great talent that has had too many subpar years defensively. I just want to set the record straight. There were some damn good centers when I played. What about Bill Russell? Does Kareem consider him a good athlete? What about Nate Thurmond? Or Willis Reed? Or Walt Bellamy?"

-1979

*I also re-urge everyone to go back and re-read that 1977 thread in the Retro Player of the Year project. It was a great discussion, focused almost entirely on Kareem 77 vs Walton 77. I posted a couple of threads ago ElGee's WOWY data that indicated that Walton seemed to be having a bigger impact on his team's ability to win than Kareem did (based upon the numbers with and without those players). I'll re-post here, and maybe it resonates more in the context of the other posts that I've shared here:

Spoiler:

77-78: Walton's impact versus Kareem's impact.

Sort of a crude on/off type of measure, but when players miss large chunks of time like Walton and Kareem (in 78) it gives us a fairly interesting interesting picture of their value. Obviously there are potential confounds like other injuries, strategy changes, schedule, etc. This is raw data so pace isn't adjusted for either. Nonetheless, thought this data was pretty darn interesting from this period:

Portland 1977:

Code: Select all

             Record    PPG      Opp PPG      Diff     Opp SRS    %Road Games
With Walton   43-21    113.4    105.1       +8.3
W/O Walton    6-12     105.7    110.0       -4.3       0.26      61%
Total Difference                            +12.6


Los Angeles 78:

Code: Select all

             Record    PPG      Opp PPG      Diff     Opp SRS    %Road Games
With Kareem   37-24    111.9    107.8       +4.1
W/O Kareem    8-13     105.6    107.2       -1.6       0.03      48%
Total Difference                            +5.7


Walton's game on 12/30 and Kareem's season opener counted as "missed" games because they both played only a few minutes. Of course, there's more Walton data, as he went on to miss a comparable chunk of time in 1978 as well.

Portland 1978:

Code: Select all

             Record    PPG      Opp PPG      Diff     Opp SRS    %Road Games
With Walton   48-10    110.4    100.4       +10.0
W/O Walton    10-14     101.0    104.3       -3.3      -0.07     58%
Total Difference                            +13.3


Now, one major difference between 77 and 78 in Portland was Lloyd Neal's play off the bench. Praised by commentators and writers, he actually led the 78 team in pts/36, posted a nice .179 WS/48 line, and had 31 points filling in for Walton in the first game he missed (a 111-106 win at Detroit). And still the profound difference is still there without Walton.

If we combine the two seasons and pro-rate the records to 82-games:

Code: Select all

             Record    PPG      Opp PPG      Diff     Opp SRS   %Road Games
With Walton   61-21    112.0    102.9       +9.1
W/O Walton    31-51    103.0    106.7       -3.7       0.07     60%
Total Difference                            +12.6
         
With Kareem   52-30    111.9    107.8       +4.1
W/O Kareem    31-51    105.6    107.2       -1.6       0.03     48%
Total Difference                            +5.7



*Here was another great post in that RPoY 77 thread from DocMJ, who watched and scout/summaried Game 4 of the 1977 Portland/Lakers match-up in the Finals. His account backs a lot of what has been said above: Kareem was immensely talented, breathtakingly so on offense, he didn't move a lot on defense, he seemed to want to conserve energy, and his sphere of influence on defense was primarily limited to on-ball or rim defense, while if his man didn't have the ball he was kind of out of the play:

Spoiler:

I watched game 4. Had time to watch and analyze one game, this seemed the reasonable one to do.

Game 4

Blazers are getting a lot of steals, but not without consequence. They're full court pressing and trapping, and the result is that there's lots of space down court for Kareem. Kareem's points are often coming from easy passes, and single coverage from Walton with lots of space in the court partly due to how the guards are defending. When they do get a real double team on Kareem, he's passing the ball. It's reasonable to ask if this would have been an entirely different series with smarter guards - but I think it's wrong to look at Kareem's numbers in a vacuum.

Despite the fact that Walton seems to be playing Kareem so tight when Kareem has the ball, he doesn't hesitate to leave Kareem to effect the rest of the play when Kareem doesn't have the ball.
I will say though Walton's man defense is really tough, and it doesn't seem to phase Kareem much at all as long as he’s got that space to work with. Stunning skill from Kareem.

Kareem's defense on Walton is clearly much more successful, but Walton doesn't spend a lot of time trying to score when Kareem's on him. Instead, he immediately starts looking for someone to pass it to, and once the ball is passed, Kareem seems largely out of the play. Part of that is due to Walton being able to draw Kareem out, which leaves Kareem in poor position to challenge shots. Walton's passes seem strategically smart, and often quite sharp, but he is committing a good amount of turnovers in the process.

Portland's also getting easy baskets off defensive rebounds. Walton's looking to pass the ball forward before he touches the ground.

People've said Kareem's exhausted, and that's believable. He's just not running around very much. If the Lakers to get a fast break opportunity, Kareem totally disappears from the play, evidently hoping they can make a basket, and he can save himself a lap.

Tendency to fast break is part of why Walton looks more active than Kareem. On the other hand, this is part of a trade off, no? If you're going to run a possession where the big man gets the ball in the post, and then twists and turns for his shot, you can't run. By not playing Walton as a volume scorer, you get to take advantage of running much more.

General statistical observations:

The Lakers had the ball stolen a lot in this series. Other than that (rebounding, etc) they did fine.

Interestingly, in general, Portland's statistical advantage comes from making shots, and making opponent's miss them, not from causing turnovers specifically. I'd say they shot making is primarily a product of the push to run out before the defense can get set, and the push to pass the ball to a guy who can do something with the ball, and the Laker series appears to bear this out.

With that said, the next year, Portland’s pace is significantly slower, why?

Defensively, the Lakers series was not normal for the Blazers. Every other opponent in the series, they really did a number on their ability to make shots, not the Lakers. The Lakers did about as well in this series shooting the ball as they had done against Golden State which was not what you'd expect from the regular season. Again this plays into my thought that Portland up'ed their gambling in the Laker series, which decreased they're effectiveness at actually stopping shooting.

Concluding thoughts: Most of my direct memories are from older Kareem, so I love it when those that saw him more in his younger days weigh in. But the picture, especially regarding his defense, seems complex. He clearly was a great shot-blocker. He wasn't often a great rebounder, but he still did it at a pretty high level for a lot of years. He wasn't a high motor defender, but he did get a lot of steals at the center position. He may have coasted on defense at times, but when motivated he could step up to some extent. But what about in 1977? There was more support for his defensive impact in Milwaukee, but the injury absence in LA in 78 didn't tell the same story, and that seems like it'd be more like '77 than his Milwaukee days were. Kareem could fill the boxes like nobodies business, and he swept the accolades. But it sounds, to me, like in that 1977 season his boxscore stats may have been over-stating his impact a bit. That Kareem 1977 was putting up LeBron 09-like boxscores...but that it was WALTON 1977 that was actually having LeBron 09-like impact...

If your high in Walton that much I wonder what does Walton do better than Robinson because I can think of anything off te top of my head


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[GoldenFrieza21]

Re: Garnett's defense in '04

This will be a short post, because I'm actually eating dinner with the family now and I slid out of the room to write this. I saw the question arise about KG's defensive level in 2004. Someone pointed out that this wasn't necessarily his defensive peak. We could discuss that further, but I can see that point. However, it was still a monster defensive season. And the quickest way to illustrate that is with DRAPM. That's right...

Warning: RAPM incoming!

In 2004, KG finished 3rd in PI defensive RAPM behind only peak Ben Wallace and peak Tim Duncan. Using Doc MJ's scaled RAPM spreadsheet (to allow for easier comparing across seasons), KG's scaled DRAPM of +5.69 would have been:

Among the top-5 DRAPM scores for every player on the list. Duncan. Big Ben. Mutombo. Whoever. From 1998 - 2012, no player had 5 defensive seasons better than KG's 2004 season. So it was a strong year.

But this might make it clearer: KG's +5.69 scaled DRAPM score from 2004 would have led the entire NBA in 2006, 2007, and 2012. It also would have led everyone except KG himself in 2008 and 2011. It'd have been third in 2009 and 2010, like it was in 2004.

In other words...Garnett's 2004 defensive RAPM score would be the best, 2nd best, or 3rd best score for every NBA season from 2004 until (at least) 2012. KG in 2004 was a defensive monster, and the only reason he didn't lead the NBA is that it WAS the peak season for 2 other Mount Rushmore defensive players of his generation.

Was Kareem 1977 playing defense at that level? I'll leave that for someone else to flesh out. I see he led the league in blocks and was a strong rebounder, but I'd love to see someone really break down his defense from that year. But unless he was playing at the level of of the GOAT defenders, then more than likely Garnett has a reasonable defensive advantage over him in that season.

My 2 cents.

You have established Garnett had very good RAPM numbers in 2004. I fail to see how that is pertinent to the argument we are having since we do not have RAPM numbers for Kareem.

It is intellectually dishonest to prop someone up in one criteria when there is no available data for someone else in the same criteria.

I hate RAPM with a burning passion but I am not going to get into that. I simply believe in being consistent and judging people by the same criteria. We do not have RAPM for Kareem, hence it is not fair to use it in this case (I think we should never EVER use it period because of the disaster that was the top 100 project but I digress on that).

[MyUniBroDavis]

Re: Garnett's defense in '04

This will be a short post, because I'm actually eating dinner with the family now and I slid out of the room to write this. I saw the question arise about KG's defensive level in 2004. Someone pointed out that this wasn't necessarily his defensive peak. We could discuss that further, but I can see that point. However, it was still a monster defensive season. And the quickest way to illustrate that is with DRAPM. That's right...

Warning: RAPM incoming!

In 2004, KG finished 3rd in PI defensive RAPM behind only peak Ben Wallace and peak Tim Duncan. Using Doc MJ's scaled RAPM spreadsheet (to allow for easier comparing across seasons), KG's scaled DRAPM of +5.69 would have been:

Among the top-5 DRAPM scores for every player on the list. Duncan. Big Ben. Mutombo. Whoever. From 1998 - 2012, no player had 5 defensive seasons better than KG's 2004 season. So it was a strong year.

But this might make it clearer: KG's +5.69 scaled DRAPM score from 2004 would have led the entire NBA in 2006, 2007, and 2012. It also would have led everyone except KG himself in 2008 and 2011. It'd have been third in 2009 and 2010, like it was in 2004.

In other words...Garnett's 2004 defensive RAPM score would be the best, 2nd best, or 3rd best score for every NBA season from 2004 until (at least) 2012. KG in 2004 was a defensive monster, and the only reason he didn't lead the NBA is that it WAS the peak season for 2 other Mount Rushmore defensive players of his generation.

Was Kareem 1977 playing defense at that level? I'll leave that for someone else to flesh out. I see he led the league in blocks and was a strong rebounder, but I'd love to see someone really break down his defense from that year. But unless he was playing at the level of of the GOAT defenders, then more than likely Garnett has a reasonable defensive advantage over him in that season.

My 2 cents.

You have established Garnett had very good RAPM numbers in 2004. I fail to see how that is pertinent to the argument we are having since we do not have RAPM numbers for Kareem.

It is intellectually dishonest to prop someone up in one criteria when there is no available data for someone else in the same criteria.

I hate RAPM with a burning passion but I am not going to get into that. I simply believe in being consistent and judging people by the same criteria. We do not have RAPM for Kareem, hence it is not fair to use it in this case (I think we should never EVER use it period because of the disaster that was the top 100 project but I digress on that).

Its more to show how high of a defensive impact Garnett had. In a ballpark estimate, it was top 3 for 04-12, as a defender. Personally, I doubt Kareem in 77 had that same defensive impact.

[MyUniBroDavis]

67 Wilt

As I said before, He obviously was a very good defender (albeit when he left the defense from this year and post wilt was only a marginal decline, despite their continuity rating being spurs like that year in terms of rating)
Offensively, there is no other way to put it, he was a monster. A net rating of around 6+ offensively alone is incredible, especially for a Center.

As for those who say his level of play declined that year in the playoffs, I disagree.

In terms of overall, 70s Fan already said that he was pretty good in the first round.
Against the Cincinatti Royals...
28.0 ppg, 26.8 rpg, 11 apg, 61% FG
looking at this, imo, It seems to me like his play might have been slightly better in the playoffs, albeit not by an outlandish amount.
Against Russell.
21.6 ppg, 32.0 rpg, 10.0 apg, 6+ bpg (unconfirmed), 56% FG
So over the course of these 2 series, he averaged around 24.5, 29, 10.5, and 58%FG
Personally,I think he marginally improved his play.
In the regular season against Russell
20.3/26.7/6.6
so imo, an improvement in points, a big improvement in assists
(same source/hoopsnation stated that he shot around 55ish% against Russell in the regular season)
So so far, it seems like a decent playoff performance. NOt a huge elevation alike Jordan or 09 Lebron, but not a Decline
And then he met Thurmond.
17.7/28.5/6.8 on 56.0 %FG/49.7 %TS
compared to
20.8/25.0/8.5 In the Regular season

So Thurmond was a defensive beast. I would argue that he elevated his play relative to who he played against.
Thurmond against Kareem.


Basically, in Kareem's STATISTICAL peak season, this is how he did against some of his competition
Wilt 40.2 ppg, 15.2 rpg, 5 apg, 51 FG%
Cowens 44.8 ppg, 18 rpg, 4-5 apg, 57.1 FG%
Thurmond 22.8 ppg, 18.4 rpg, 5.4 apg, 40.5 %FG, 47.8 min
Wilt in he playoffs 33.7 ppg, 17.5 rpg, 4.8 apg on 45.7 FG%, 84 FT%

Granted, Thurmond had a matchup advantage, but still (He said he took more pride in limitting Kareem than Wilt, and Studied him much more)

he held wilt to 28ish as well (some guy on insidehoops think this was 33, btu he literally picked out every career high wilt ahd against Nate lol)

So overall, considering circumstance, I definately wouldnt say he was worse in the playoffs.

77 Kareem

We dont have Rapm, but according to box plus, he was around a +10.8
(despite his superior stats, in the last few years in milwakee his offense was actually much worse than with the lakers according to this)
It went to +14 in the playoffs.

Granted, box plus isnt a really reliable stat at all, but it does provide some sort of an estimate.

For comparison, Duncan was around +11.6 in teh playoffs.

Not the most reliable metric, but definately a factor. (Jordans box plus, imo, is far too low)

Obviously he was a matchup nightmare (I recall a few seasons after he was able to play really well against Hakeem, granted, once again, the matchup between Hakeem adn Kareem and Thurmond and Kareem have totally different dynamics, and I hear some people have evindence that Kareem isnt very good against strong, hustle Centers)

obviously, a monsterous 34.6 and 18 in the playoffs.
According to rebound rate, 21% plus, which I hear is comparable to Wilts averages. (I think his best single season or playoff stretch was around 23% ish)
Per 48 this number is just shy of 40, meaning it was Wilt-esque statistical dominance, only in the playoffs. (and his impact was, well, more visible I guess)
60% fg%
just a monster in every sense of the word
Honestly, Give Kareem the stamina, and I take his STAT line over Wilts, (40-20+(this number is pace wise, I actually hear that his rebound percentage was higher than Wilts)-4.1 assists on 60%fg imo is better than 50-26, on 50%fg 2.4 assists)
Edit: I can confirm that it is estimated to be higher.

94 Hakeem.

According to a post, he was the first to
A) Double his 2nd scoring options ppg
B) Lead his team in all 5 major categories (ppg,rpg,bpg,apg,apg).

I probably will post more on that later, but thats basicaly the all hail moment there.

[Joao Saraiva]

Here go my votes:
1st Kareem 1977
I didn't see a ton from that season. As a matter of fact, I saw some youtube clips and a couple of full games (thanks Quotatious).

In the regular season Kareem has fantastic stats: 26.2 PPG 16.3 RPG 3.9 APG 1.2 SPG 3.2 BPG 27.8 PER 60.8 ts% 28.3 WS/48. However, for Kareem, that's hardly his best regular season.

But when ranking players (even career wise) I usually put a lot of weight on their playoff performance, and I put a bit more emphasis on their offense than theirdefense.

Kareem in the playoffs:
34.6 PPG 17.7 RPG 4.1 APG 1.7 SPG 3.5 BPG 32.4 PER 64.6 ts% 33.2 WS/48

How insane is this stat line? He was scoring fantastic volume, on godly efficiency, rebounding at elite numbers, involving his teammates and defending really well. From the clips I've seen I feel like his blocks are more of a man to man defense product than from rim protection (more, I didn't say he didn't get them from rim protection too). I don't see Hakeem's impact on D from Kareem, but I honestly feel like his offensive impact is absolutely stunning. He was just unstoppable.

If not for his regular season I'd probably be wondering if this season deserved to be the #1 peak of all time. It's definitely up there for the best playoff run ever.

2. Hakeem Olajuwon 1994
RS: 27.3 PPG 11.9 RPG 3.6 APG 1.6 SPG 3.7 BPG 3.4 TOPG 25.3 PER 56.5ts% 21 WS/48.
58 wins for Houston in the regular season. Onyle behind the Sonics who had a great team. Hakeem won MVP and DPOY and it was well deserved. Great impact on both sides of the court, leading a team with no 2nd star (despite having a good cast) to that great record. He was scoring, blocking, rebounding, assisting, stealing and living up to his legendary reputation, both on offense and specially on D.

Playoffs: 28.9 PPG 11.0 RPG 4.3 APG 1.7 SPG 4.0 BPG 3.6 TOPG 27.7 PER 56.8 ts% 20.8 WS/48.
Jordan had Pippen. LeBron had Bosh/Wade. Shaq had Kobe Bryant. Hakeem had Kenny Smith, Maxwell, Otis, Horry and Sam Cassel. It's a great cast don't get me wrong, but he won without a 2nd great player like those guys had. And despite being great on offense, the most interesting thing to look at is his D. Karl Malone in the WCF scored 26 PPG but at 50.5ts%. Barkley scored 23.4 PPG at 53.2ts% in the 2nd round vs Houston, and Ewing scored 18.9 at 39%ts in the NBA finals! Those numbers will indeed show the kind of impact Hakeem had on D.

Also he won MVP, DPOY and finals MVP in the same season. That's a very restrict club: only Hakeem has done that.

3. Magic Johnson 1987
RS: 23.9 PPG 12.2 APG 6.3 RPG 1.7 SPG 0.5 BPG 3.8 TOPG 27 PER 60.2ts% 26.3 WS/48.
In the regular season the Lakers won 65 games. It wasn't only Magic, they had a great team. Still Magic was the best player on that team, and the greats that played with him profited from his great leadership and amazing passing skills. He was scoring good volume, on great efficiency, and his playmaking was at the level that few ever reached (maybe Stockton?). He won the MVP award this season.

Playoffs: 21.8 PPG 12.2 APG 7.7 RPG 1.7 SPG 0.4 BPG 2.8 TOPG 26.2 PER 60.7ts% 26.5 WS/48.
Lakers just destroyed their oponents in the West. So Magic scored less points than he could have. But let's see his finals performances:
26.2 PPG 13 APG 8 RPG 2.3 SPG 0.3 BPG on 59%ts. He had 2 TOPG. So his assist/TO ratio is not comparable to any other player I've ever seen playing in the finals. He outscored Bird, with more efficiency, he had a ton more assists, and was only 2 RPG behind him and turned the ball much less. He even had more steals than Bird! What a great display to end a great season. Magic ended up winning the finals MVP, obviously.

[trex_8063]

1st ballot: Wilt Chamberlain (‘64)
Per 100 possessions: 33.3 pts, 20.2 reb @ +5.22% rTS; and at 5.0 apg (4.6 ast/100 poss) he’s obviously getting teammates involved relatively well; and playing decent defense, too, if I recall some anecdotal stuff I’d read previously (team DRtg was -6.0 to league avg, 2nd only to Russell’s Celtics). Led a fairly mediocre supporting cast to .600 win%, +4.41 SRS, past a fairly loaded Hawks team in the WDF, and took one game off a Celtics team featuring a peak(ish) Bill Russell.

‘67 is impressive, too; but honestly if you’re a superstar and your supporting cast is Chet Walker, Hal Greer, and Billy Cunningham (plus role players like Luke Jackson, Wali Jones, Larry Costello, and Dave Gambee), anything less than a title is underachieving.

In a nut-shell, I kind of like ‘64 better for the bigger volume and achieving without a lot of help.
‘64 Wilt was an elite level volume scorer, elite level rebounder, elite (or near-elite) level passing big man, a good (probably very good) defender, and was doing that for 46+ mpg.


2nd ballot: Kareem Abdul-Jabbar ‘77
I’m sticking with Kareem for my next ballot after Wilt, though I’m switching to ‘77 for his peak. I’ve been swayed, looking at what was a dominant rs followed by an even more dominant post-season.
And watching that game 6 from the Golden State series, it’s clear he was drawing as much attention as ‘00 Shaq. The Warriors collapsed on him nearly every time he received the ball. I saw a couple instances where he had flashes of double and triple teams BEFORE he ever got the ball. Earl Tatum (among others) got lots of open 18-footers because the defense was completely sagged in on Kareem…...and he still scored something like 43 pts in that game. Remarkable what he did in the playoffs against that kind of attention.

And looking at what he did in that season with that supporting cast is quite impressive, too. The 2nd-best player on the team is probably Kermit Washington (who would miss a third of the rs and all of the playoffs with injury). 3rd-best player is probably a post-prime Cazzie Russell. 4th best is Lucius Allen (who missed 4 playoff games, and was playing injured in the some of the ps when he did play). 5th-8th best players are a mish-mash of Don Chaney, rookie Earl Tatum, Don Ford, and Tom Abernathy…….and Kareem somehow led this team to 53 wins, +2.64 SRS (5th of 22 teams), +2.5 ORtg/DRtg gap, past a totally decent Warriors team (which had Rick Barry, Jamaal Wilkes, Phil Smith, rookie Robert Parish, 2nd-year Gus Williams coming off the bench, etc) in the first round, before getting swept in the eventual champion Trailblazers in the 2nd round.

And ‘77 doesn’t absorb the same “water-down league” criticisms that some of Kareem’s other potential peak year seasons do. This was post-merger; all the Doctor J’s, Gilmores, Thompsons, Gervins, Issels, etc had joined the league…..and Kareem was still a clear stand-out.


3rd ballot: Tim Duncan ‘03
I’m going to start with drza’s quote regarding his offense:

Offense:
Duncan: I think that, while less flashy, Duncan's post game was as effective as Dream's. I also think that he was a better passer than either Robinson or Olajuwon. I think that this makes him as good of a low post hub option on offense as Olajuwon was. However, I don't think that either Duncan or Olajuwon are as good of big men offensive hub options as Shaq or Kareem. Thus, I don't know that you could scale up an offense built primarily around Duncan (or Olajuwon's) low-post offense to a best-in-the-league level the way that you could one built around Shaq or Kareem. However, what both Duncan and Olajuwon demonstrated with their post-game was the ability to lead/anchor an offense that was good enough to win with the right combination of strong defense and shooters. Duncan was good in the iso, but not brilliant like Hakeem could be. He also shared shooting range with Hakeem out to about 15 feet, which was a nice counter to the post games.

Duncan epitomizes the “quiet 30” or similar. Because nothing he does is ever flashy or particularly pleasing aesthetically, because he never makes much of an emotional show about anything…….it’s easy to overlook how well he plays in just about each and every game. You rarely see him do something “amazing”, and yet when the end of the game rolls around you see he went for 25 and 15 with 3 ast and 3 blk. And he does that night after night.

In ‘03:
26.9 PER, .248 WS/48, +7.4 BPM in 39.3 mpg.
He scaled that up to 28.4 PER, .279 WS/48, +11.6 BPM in 42.5 mpg in the playoffs. He went for a remarkable 24.7 ppg @ 57.7% TS, 15.4 rpg, 5.3 apg, 3.3 bpg on his way to a title, rolling over the Shaq/Kobe Lakers, and the #1 SRS Dallas Mavericks along the way.
He had the league’s leading PI RAPM at a monstrous +8.3 that year, too.

[Quotatious]

It did, it did. I have noticed that I need to have less tunnel vision when it comes to championship years when evaluating the career. Winning matters but it doesn't necessarily mean that the individual player is better because of it. I know this is a simple concept but I realize I still can let winning bias slip into the back of my mind.

I have that problem, too. I mean - I can choose a year like '93 Hakeem, when he didn't win a title, if I know that he went on to win two titles in the next two seasons, so I'd rather just take the superior individual/statistical version of Olajuwon. Same with '09 LeBron - James won two titles a few years later when he finally had a really good supporting cast.

But, when a guy didn't manage to win a title (or at least make the finals) as the unquestioned "alpha dog" in his prime (like for example D-Rob), then I start having doubts.

I know I'm not going to get people lined up out the door to support the 1976 Doc pick, lol. I honestly feel like he had an incredible peak with that sort of impact though. When I look at Dr.J's 1976 stats I see parallels to a lesser version of LeBron. I feel that although he wasn't on the LeBron level of athleticism he was very close and could impact the game in virtually all ways, similar to what LeBron was able to do.

I would say Dr J compared to LeBron gives you less scoring and playmaking but better rebounding and defense.

I agree. I think '76 Doc was a bit lesser version of peak MJ and LBJ. GOAT level athlete (I have all three of them in my top 5 athletes ever, along with Wilt and Shaq), supremely gifted two-way player with amazing motor and stamina.

I'm not sure if Doc was better defensively (honestly I'd take LeBron as an overall defender because of his clearly superior 1 on 1 D, where Doc was just average), but he does have a clear edge in terms of steals and blocks, he was an incredibly disruptive help defender/ball hawk (and a GOAT level non-bigman shotblocker).

As far as rebounding - that's true, Doc was better than LeBron (and better than Jordan) in this regard. Not only that, but he was just as good as Bird, when Larry played SF (based on TRB%).

Plus, one more thing that might get overlooked about the '76 version of Erving - he shot 33% on more than one attempt from beyond the arc (don't forget they had that in the ABA several years before the NBA introduced it), and also shot over 80% from the foul line.

His playoff run was GOAT level, just like '09 LBJ's and '77 KAJ's (especially his finals performance against Denver, which was easily comparable to 91-93 Jordan and 00-02 Shaq, GOAT caliber).

[Quotatious]

I have a question for those of you who already have Duncan as one of their top 3 ballots- I expect '03 to be almost consensus choice for his peak, but do you guys take the fact that he was an 80% free throw shooter in '02, into account? I think many people could overlook that, but he shot 79.9% in the regular season, and 82.2% in the playoffs (not to mention that he also set his career-high in free throw attempts, both in the RS and PS).

I think it could matter.

To be honest, I feel like the fact that I have '93 as Olajuwon's peak and '03 as Duncan's peak, is wrong, because to be consistent, I should either choose '93 and '02 (their best statistical seasons) OR '94 and '03 (their second best statistical year, and the year when they led their to titles and had fantastic playoff runs, individually).

Any thoughts on that?

[urnoggin]

I have a question for those of you who already have Duncan as one of their top 3 ballots- I expect '03 to be almost consensus choice for his peak, but do you guys take the fact that he was an 80% free throw shooter in '02, into account? I think many people could overlook that, but he shot 79.9% in the regular season, and 82.2% in the playoffs (not to mention that he also set his career-high in free throw attempts, both in the RS and PS).

I think it could matter.

To be honest, I feel like the fact that I have '93 as Olajuwon's peak and '03 as Duncan's peak, is wrong, because to be consistent, I should either choose '93 and '02 (their best statistical seasons) OR '94 and '03 (their second best statistical year, and the year when they led their to titles and had fantastic playoff runs, individually).

Any thoughts on that?

Personally, I prefer 94' Hakeem and 03' Duncan because of, like you said, their legendary playoff runs. Hakeem season stands out to me because he led a cast of no stars to a championship and he played amazing defense (especially on Ewing in the Finals). Duncan also upped his production in the PS in 03', averaging more points, rebounds, assists and blocks while also being more efficient. He also had 2 signature games in the Finals(G1- 32/20/6/7, G6- 21/20/10/8) which was the proverbial "cherry on top" that cements this season as one that should be considered all-time great.

As far as free throw shooting, yes 80% is significantly better than 71%, but it's just another category that he was superior in 2002 (along with points, rebounds, etc.). But like I said, it's his 03' playoff run that makes that season better imo

[eminence]

Way short on time today, hope to get back to explain more. Votes for now.

1st: Wilt Chamberlain 63-64 Wilts supporters sold me on 64 over 67, the difference in scoring volume did it for me.

2nd: Tim Duncan 02-03

3rd: Hakeem 92-93

[The-Power]

[...]

Funny you mention 2002 because I already made a case for 2007. From an unanimous peak to possibly three seasons worth of consideration (even though 2003 should win in a landslide). Regarding 2002, however, I wouldn't call this season more dominant. I can see your point with re-evaluating a player's performance after he has proven to be capable of leading his team to a title, making some kind of hindsight reasoning.

But when two seasons are this close I think the sample size in the playoffs matters - and one can make an argument that his 24 games in 2003 are, on average, even superior to his 9 games in 2002 on average. In the RS he was a more consistent FT-shooter but shot slightly worse from the field making the difference in TS% more or less negligible when we're talking about the player as a whole. Overall, the RS-comparison is awfully close and in this case, I, personally, would use the playoff-run - just because has proven to be able to sustain his great production for four series - as the tie-breaker. But depending on your personal criteria and how you rate the differences in the RS and PS (in my book they are both extremely close, but maybe you see a bigger gap) I can't fault you for choosing 2002 although I wouldn't say that your voting is necessarily inconsistent if you decide to go with another year.

[drza]

If your high in Walton that much I wonder what does Walton do better than Robinson because I can think of anything off te top of my head s

I've never really tried to compare Walton and Robinson before. Off the top of my head, I'd think a lot of the differences were stylistic. Both were dominant defensive players in their era, but Robinson's seemed to be based on his amazing athleticism (length/quickness/explosiveness) whereas Walton's seemed to be based a lot on his motor/energy. Both styles seemed to be devastatingly effective, so not so much to contrast.

On offense, it seems like Robinson was a more natural finisher/scorer, able to produce volume scoring on levels that Walton never could. Walton, on the other hand, was a much better offensive hub. You could run an offense through him...he could set up in the high-post, receive the pass, then make the decision on who is in best position to score and make the pass to set that up. He also was the key to their fast-break offense with his dominant rebounding and outlet passing.

Traditionally, Robinson's scoring would be considered more important than Walton's ability to pass. And I would think that the (primarily scoring efficiency/volume-based) composite box score stats like PER or win shares would rate Robinson way higher. But when you take it back a step, away from just points vs assists, and look at the concept of a "finisher" vs an "initiator" on offense...and how those roles tend to turn out in +/- studies (generally initiators tend to score much better in offensive +/- studies than finishers), and the fact that Walton's skillset seemed completely transferable to the postseason while Robinson's scoring may not have, a strong argument can be made that Walton's offensive skillset is more valuable to a team trying to win than Robinson's.

[MyUniBroDavis]

1st ballot: Wilt Chamberlain (‘64)
Per 100 possessions: 33.3 pts, 20.2 reb @ +5.22% rTS; and at 5.0 apg (4.6 ast/100 poss) he’s obviously getting teammates involved relatively well; and playing decent defense, too, if I recall some anecdotal stuff I’d read previously (team DRtg was -6.0 to league avg, 2nd only to Russell’s Celtics). Led a fairly mediocre supporting cast to .600 win%, +4.41 SRS, past a fairly loaded Hawks team in the WDF, and took one game off a Celtics team featuring a peak(ish) Bill Russell.

‘67 is impressive, too; but honestly if you’re a superstar and your supporting cast is Chet Walker, Hal Greer, and Billy Cunningham (plus role players like Luke Jackson, Wali Jones, Larry Costello, and Dave Gambee), anything less than a title is underachieving.

In a nut-shell, I kind of like ‘64 better for the bigger volume and achieving without a lot of help.
‘64 Wilt was an elite level volume scorer, elite level rebounder, elite (or near-elite) level passing big man, a good (probably very good) defender, and was doing that for 46+ mpg.


2nd ballot: Kareem Abdul-Jabbar ‘77
I’m sticking with Kareem for my next ballot after Wilt, though I’m switching to ‘77 for his peak. I’ve been swayed, looking at what was a dominant rs followed by an even more dominant post-season.
And watching that game 6 from the Golden State series, it’s clear he was drawing as much attention as ‘00 Shaq. The Warriors collapsed on him nearly every time he received the ball. I saw a couple instances where he had flashes of double and triple teams BEFORE he ever got the ball. Earl Tatum (among others) got lots of open 18-footers because the defense was completely sagged in on Kareem…...and he still scored something like 43 pts in that game. Remarkable what he did in the playoffs against that kind of attention.

And looking at what he did in that season with that supporting cast is quite impressive, too. The 2nd-best player on the team is probably Kermit Washington (who would miss a third of the rs and all of the playoffs with injury). 3rd-best player is probably a post-prime Cazzie Russell. 4th best is Lucius Allen (who missed 4 playoff games, and was playing injured in the some of the ps when he did play). 5th-8th best players are a mish-mash of Don Chaney, rookie Earl Tatum, Don Ford, and Tom Abernathy…….and Kareem somehow led this team to 53 wins, +2.64 SRS (5th of 22 teams), +2.5 ORtg/DRtg gap, past a totally decent Warriors team (which had Rick Barry, Jamaal Wilkes, Phil Smith, rookie Robert Parish, 2nd-year Gus Williams coming off the bench, etc) in the first round, before getting swept in the eventual champion Trailblazers in the 2nd round.

And ‘77 doesn’t absorb the same “water-down league” criticisms that some of Kareem’s other potential peak year seasons do. This was post-merger; all the Doctor J’s, Gilmores, Thompsons, Gervins, Issels, etc had joined the league…..and Kareem was still a clear stand-out.


3rd ballot: Tim Duncan ‘03
I’m going to start with drza’s quote regarding his offense:

Offense:
Duncan: I think that, while less flashy, Duncan's post game was as effective as Dream's. I also think that he was a better passer than either Robinson or Olajuwon. I think that this makes him as good of a low post hub option on offense as Olajuwon was. However, I don't think that either Duncan or Olajuwon are as good of big men offensive hub options as Shaq or Kareem. Thus, I don't know that you could scale up an offense built primarily around Duncan (or Olajuwon's) low-post offense to a best-in-the-league level the way that you could one built around Shaq or Kareem. However, what both Duncan and Olajuwon demonstrated with their post-game was the ability to lead/anchor an offense that was good enough to win with the right combination of strong defense and shooters. Duncan was good in the iso, but not brilliant like Hakeem could be. He also shared shooting range with Hakeem out to about 15 feet, which was a nice counter to the post games.

Duncan epitomizes the “quiet 30” or similar. Because nothing he does is ever flashy or particularly pleasing aesthetically, because he never makes much of an emotional show about anything…….it’s easy to overlook how well he plays in just about each and every game. You rarely see him do something “amazing”, and yet when the end of the game rolls around you see he went for 25 and 15 with 3 ast and 3 blk. And he does that night after night.

In ‘03:
26.9 PER, .248 WS/48, +7.4 BPM in 39.3 mpg.
He scaled that up to 28.4 PER, .279 WS/48, +11.6 BPM in 42.5 mpg in the playoffs. He went for a remarkable 24.7 ppg @ 57.7% TS, 15.4 rpg, 5.3 apg, 3.3 bpg on his way to a title, rolling over the Shaq/Kobe Lakers, and the #1 SRS Dallas Mavericks along the way.
He had the league’s leading PI RAPM at a monstrous +8.3 that year, too.

Just wondering, In your honest opinion, whats the difference between Wilts supporting cast in 64 and in 65?
I mean, when I look at it quickly, it certainly doesent seem like 41 win decrease type of cast difference.