freethedevil wrote:i was talking releative to 71 but sure
So you picked a season in which Kareem had the lowest assist average in his whole prime? Why?
the goal of passing is creation, and no you're wrong, bird has a much high peasser rating than giannis, iow "he was much more effecient". You're not balancing stats and eyetest, literally all you said was "kareem's a better passer" and now you're completely ignoring a collosal gap in volume by any measure AS well as a gap in effiency by any measure. You cannot argue kareem is a better passer than giannis without ignoting any and all statistical evidence because any of all of it tells us giannis is much better at creating via passing.
But the gap isn't collosal and I never said that Kareem created more looks. Creating is not always related to passing ability and that's my point.
I think results matter.. For your eyetest ro prove limo wrong then i'd expect a extensive breakdown of tape and film. Given rick barry is essential for your claim that we must ignore any holistic or granular data in regards to kareem, the burden's on your to provide proof.
Sorry but I don't have the time to make extensive breakdown of tape to prove such a clear point. You can watch any random Barry game and find a few elite passes that led to high percentage shots. This is not in line with Giannis, who is good at finding open teammates but struggles with more advanced reads.
Your point about Kawhi vs Rubio alone makes it clear that you don't understand what is the difference in passing and creating.
Except no, you are ignoring all and every **** stat that exists to say that kareem is even comparable let alone better than giannis at passing. Kareem>Giannis at passing is only consistent with "stats are worth nothing" because there is literally nothing that supports kareem as a comparable passer. I also dont know what you're watching when you say kareem passes better. Giannis's passes are much higher velocity and giannis finds much tighter windows. Even in his "horrible" performance against the heat in game 1, he hit two pinpoint missles for what should have been two layup assists. Kareem is better at hooking it near the rim. Giannis passes better everywhere else, transition, layup passes, kickouts, skip or bounce inside, and his passes are way way faster. I watched all of kareem's laker playoffs, I've never seen kareem hit a pass as fast as Giannis did twice against the heat and his passing is waaaay less versatile and he passes way less. Kareem's passing is much more like davis than it is like giannis.
No, we clearly disagree with that. Kareem didn't struggle with velocity at all (he's much better outler passer for example) and I don't view Giannis passes as tight at all. He's decent from mechanical perspective, but he lacks vision to find these quick windows and punish defense for that - this is where Kareem is inarguably better.
given how little his passing was used, i dont think it does much more than add some value around the margins.
Just because he didn't have high assist numbers doesn't mean that his passing wasn't used.
West peaked in 1968. well idk really know much about west, but ben rated 1966 higher. And Ben actually breaks down tape. Off course 68 was when the princeton offense was established and they went goaty offensively
I love Ben's work and I've been close to him recently, but he's not the only man who breaks down the tape. He didn't see as much tape from 1968 season as me.
Hakeem peaked in 1994. i mentioned expansion
Expansion didn't make Hakeem better passer or decision maker.
all the players you listed except for the exception i already noted are younger than 30. One or two of them peaked at 29 depending on if I go by you or ben's account of west. Not a great track record for oldies. Furthermore that wasn't the main reason i think kareem is better. The main reason i think kareem is better in 1972 is because his team dropped off without him to a significantly higher extent than late kareem. EVEN, when the lakers were mess due to two trades in 1978. And he had that impact on MUCH better teams. He was a better cieling raiser and a better floor rasier. The holistic evidence clearly favors 1971 and 1972 kareem both as a floor and cileing raiser, and i dont know why i should assume that the offensive improvment was worth the defensive loss when it didn't transalte to better results induvdually or team wise.
We don't know how bad his team was in 1977 without him (1978 is much different) because he played all games but I've seen almost all Kareem playoffs games from that season and believe me, Lakers absolutely sucked without him. Milwaukee played at higher level but they were much better team without him as well.
Besides, we don't know anything about 1972 Bucks without Kareem - he played all games in that season.
he got to the rim more, protected the rim better, and wasn't burned on drives as much. Seems like a significant drop off to me. Ofc you claimed kareem was better defensively than someone who impacts defenses on a similar level to kg and duncan while leading -8 postseason and rs teams, so I don't know what to make of your opinons on defenisve impact.
Be honest - how many 1971 and 1972 Kareem games have you seen? I've seen 7 and I'm sure you haven't seen at least half of them.
Kareem got to the rim at similar level and he still protected the paint at all-time level in 1977. He was a bit slower laterally, but he was also smarter with his positioning.
Giannis isn't close to KG and Duncan defensively.