Jordan and Kareem: Playoff Defeats as Alpha

[dankok8]

The opponent records in the OP are misleading when taken at face value and undersell Kareem's competition.

The 1977 Blazers were a great team. Many observers have called them the greatest passing team ever (along with the 1986 Celtics) and one of the best defensive teams ever. Most lists have them in the top 15 of all time. They went just 47-35 that year but Bill Walton played just 65 games.

With Walton they went 44-21 (56-win pace)
Without Walton they went 5-12 (24-win pace)

The team Kareem faced was quite a juggernaut and the Lakers also had one starter out for the series in PF Kermit Washington and another hobbled in SG Lucious Allen.

The following season they cemented their all-time great status. With Walton in the line-up the Blazers went an unprecedented 48-10 (68-win pace). Of course he suffered basically career-ending injuries from then on and was never the same. Blazers went 10-14 (34-win pace) to finish the season and crashed out of the playoffs.

In 1978-1979 playing without Walton, they went a respectable 47-35.



As for the 1978 and 1979 Sonics, no superstars but an insanely physical cohesive squad on both ends with a monster backcourt. I always like to refer to the late 1970's Sonics as the Bad Boys of that decade. Gus = Isiah, DJ = Dumars, and Sikma = Laimbeer and they had tons of depth and strong defense. Meanwhile the Lakers were a horrific rebounding team with no perimeter defense.

The 3-headed dragon at guard for Seattle - Gus Williams, Dennis Johnson, and back-up "downtown" Freddie Brown were the best backcourt in the league and they obliterated Norm Nixon and whatever scrubs LA could muster. Tom Lagarde, Lonnie Shelton, and Paul Silas didn't have the scoring flair of Wilkes and Dantley but they killed it on defense and on the boards. The C position where Kareem dominated Sikma is literally the only match-up LA didn't lose.

[G.O.A.T]

In 1978-1979 playing without Walton, they went a respectable 47-35.

They added Mychal Thompson though if I remember. And Ronnie Brewer, both high draft picks.

As for the 1978 and 1979 Sonics, no superstars but an insanely physical cohesive squad on both ends with a monster backcourt. I always like to refer to the late 1970's Sonics as the Bad Boys of that decade. Gus = Isiah, DJ = Dumars, and Sikma = Laimbeer and they had tons of depth and strong defense. Meanwhile the Lakers were a horrific rebounding team with no perimeter defense.

It's a stretch, but there are a lot of similarities, especially the three man back court and the depth up front. Pistons team had more veteran guys though, I'd say they were more talented man for man too, battle tested and they faced much stiffer competition.

The 3-headed dragon at guard for Seattle - Gus Williams, Dennis Johnson, and back-up "downtown" Freddie Brown were the best backcourt in the league and they obliterated Norm Nixon and whatever scrubs LA could muster. Tom Lagarde, Lonnie Shelton, and Paul Silas didn't have the scoring flair of Wilkes and Dantley but they killed it on defense and on the boards. The C position where Kareem dominated Sikma is literally the only match-up LA didn't lose.

I'm not one to sell the Sonics short, but let's not exaggerate how good they were as Kareem backers often seem to do.

The Lakers were favored in the '78 and '79 series according to Sports Illustrated. This could reflect the flow of money moving towards them, but the teams were very close in terms of W/L record each year and they split each regular season series 2-2. Additionally the Sonics played the best they had ever played during the 1980 season and the Lakers, having swapped Robish/Boone/Wilkes/Hudson for Chones/Magic/Cooper in the rotation made short work of them.

I don't think rookie Magic Johnson, aging Jim Chones and essentially rookie Michael Cooper are a significant talent up grade over an all-NBA and all-ABA combo past their primes in Hudson/Boone and a future scoring champion in Dantley.

To me the difference between the '79 and '80 Lakers was chemistry, which Magic brought naturally, they fir together better and made a huge jump.

The '78 and '79 Lakers teams had more talent man for man than anyone in the league. The were not the best team, but they were good enough to beat anyone.

Saying that every team Kareem played against was better than their record and every team Kareem played on was worse than the record is not a valid point in my opinion.

As usual I'll try to makes this clear, I'm not blaming Kareem for them losing, but I'm giving him credit for "almost winning" because he played so great. There is a quote out there about the '77 series vs. the Blazers where Kareem says, "The Blazers had a great series, Walton had a great series, I had a great series, but the Lakers had a poor series" that's not exact, but it's true to the spirit of the comment. While all of the things Kareem said are true, if I were his teammate I'd be pissed. The fact that Kareem's teammates never connected with him and vice versa has a lot to do with his lack of team success in the 70's post Oscar and pre-Magic. One more time, not blaming Kareem, but writing him a list of excuses either.

[LAZERUSS]

It's not only the surrounding rosters, but the COMPETITION, as well. For instance, in Wilt's 13 post-seasons, he only played one that did not either win the title, or lose to the eventual champions.

His '61 team lost three straight close games to the Nats, in a series in which Chamberlain averaged a 37-23...all while his teammates collectively shot .332 from the field. His three "HOF" teammates were simply awful. Guy Rodgers shot .368 from the field (which amazingly, was not his worst post-season). Paul Arizin shot .325. And without question, the worst "HOF" player in post-season history, Tom Gola (who has as much buisness being in an NBA HOF as I do), shot...get this.. .206.

Wilt's TEAM's lost TEN times to the eventual champions. SEVEN of them to the greatest dynasty in major professional team sports' history. Then his TEAMs lost twice to the Knicks, who featured FOUR and then SIX HOFers in those two losses. And his injury-riddled '71 Lakers (no West nor Baylor) lost to the 66-16 Bucks (arguably a top-4 team all-time.) Included were FIVE GAME SEVEN's, FOUR of which were decided by margins of 2, 1, 4, and 2 points.

And, his '67 Sixers blew away the 8-time defending champion Celtics, 4-1 (they were four points away from a sweep in game four.) And then in '72, his Lakers stopped what many had figured would be the next great dynasty, the Bucks, 4-2 (and they went 4-1 in the last five games,...as well as 4-1 against them in the regular season.) They also crushed the Knicks and their FIVE HOFers in the Finals that season, 4-1.

Chamberlain, with putrid rosters in the first half of his career, nearly won two rings single-handedly. And with his rosters generally either puking all over the floor, or just decimated with injuries, he nearly won THREE more rings. And he also took what had been a 31-49 roster to a 48-32 record and a trip to the Finals, where his team, outgunned 8-3 in HOFers, lost 4-1, but the last two losses were in the waning seconds. And again, in his last season, his injury-plagued team lost 4-1, but all four losses came in the last minute (and by margins of 4, 4, 5, and 9 points.)

The REALITY was, Chamberlain was an eyelash away from winning 4-5 more rings, and with even slightly more help, as much as SEVEN more. And Wilt was the best player on the floor in SEVEN of his eight post-season series against the Celtics. He also outplayed Kareem in their '71 matchup. And in '72, by virtually all accounts, he outplayed him again. He was certainly better than FMVP Reed in the '70 Finals (on one leg he battled a much healthier Reed to a draw in the first four games...and over the course of the last three, he outscored Reed by a collective 88-11 margin; outrebounded him by a 71-3 margin; and outshot him from the floor by a .710 to .400 margin.) Even in his last Finals, while Reed won the FMVP, Chamberlain basically outplayed him.

[magnax1]

^Speaking of pointless.

I'll look for the ones I have on Bird and Magic and Wilt and Shaq

I feel like Magic's will look pretty bad.
Kareem's is pretty damn bad looking too honestly. Jordan had a 17 win difference vs Kareem's winning three more.

[G.O.A.T]

I feel like Magic's will look pretty bad.
Kareem's is pretty damn bad looking too honestly. Jordan had a 17 win difference vs Kareem's winning three more.

Magic's is very up and down.

One thing to keep in mind about Kareem's 1970's team is all the untimely injuries they had. Also of note is that a couple of Kareem's "worst" losses are in 3 game series where a fluke is a lot more likely.

[magnax1]

Magic's is very up and down.

One thing to keep in mind about Kareem's 1970's team is all the untimely injuries they had. Also of note is that a couple of Kareem's "worst" losses are in 3 game series where a fluke is a lot more likely.

Magic's probably shouldn't have been anything but up. Rarely was he without the most talented team in the league or best (at least one of the) second option.
There were a lot of untimely injuries for kareem, undoubtedly, but his play against Thurmond cost him a shot at another championship too. It's surprising how well he did against Wilt in 72 in comparison.

[LAZERUSS]

Magic's probably shouldn't have been anything but up. Rarely was he without the most talented team in the league or best (at least one of the) second option.
There were a lot of untimely injuries for kareem, undoubtedly, but his play against Thurmond cost him a shot at another championship too. It's surprising how well he did against Wilt in 72 in comparison.

Kareem did average 33.7 ppg against Wilt in the '72 WCF's, BUT, it came on a .457 FG% (in a season in which he averaged 34.8 ppg on a .574 FG%.) AND, in the last FOUR games of that series, KAJ shot .414 (three of them Laker wins.)

Kareem was a better player than Chamberlain in '72, but by virtually all accounts, Wilt outplayed KAJ in that series. Time Magazine went to far as to claim that he "DECISIVELY" outplayed a Kareem who was 11 years younger.

[LAZERUSS]

BTW, a 34 year old Wilt, only a year removed from major knee surgery, statistically outplayed a PEAK Kareem (Alcindor) in the '71 WCF's. In fact, if you break down the games, it was probably by a 3-1-1 margin.

[LAZERUSS]

The opponent records in the OP taken are misleading when taken at face value and undersell Kareem's competition.

The 1977 Blazers were a great team. Many observers have called them the greatest passing team ever (along with the 1986 Celtics) and one of the best defensive teams ever. Most lists have them in the top 15 of all time. They went just 47-35 that year but Bill Walton played just 65 games.

With Walton they went 44-21 (56-win pace)
Without Walton they went 5-12 (24-win pace)

The team Kareem faced was quite a juggernaut and the Lakers also had one starter out for the series in PF Kermit Washington and another hobbled in SG Lucious Allen.

The following season they cemented their all-time great status. With Walton in the line-up the Blazers went an unprecedented 48-10 (68-win pace). Of course he suffered basically career-ending injuries from then on and was never the same. Blazers went 10-14 (34-win pace) to finish the season and crashed out of the playoffs.

In 1978-1979 playing without Walton, they went a respectable 47-35.



As for the 1978 and 1979 Sonics, no superstars but an insanely physical cohesive squad on both ends with a monster backcourt. I always like to refer to the late 1970's Sonics as the Bad Boys of that decade. Gus = Isiah, DJ = Dumars, and Sikma = Laimbeer and they had tons of depth and strong defense. Meanwhile the Lakers were a horrific rebounding team with no perimeter defense.

The 3-headed dragon at guard for Seattle - Gus Williams, Dennis Johnson, and back-up "downtown" Freddie Brown were the best backcourt in the league and they obliterated Norm Nixon and whatever scrubs LA could muster. Tom Lagarde, Lonnie Shelton, and Paul Silas didn't have the scoring flair of Wilkes and Dantley but they killed it on defense and on the boards. The C position where Kareem dominated Sikma is literally the only match-up LA didn't lose.

Kareem had no chance against Walton's Blazers in the '77 WCF's. The Blazers best player in that series was PF Maurice Lucas (the best PF in the league), who simply had no competition. Lucas was the Blazers leading scorer in that series, and according to KAJ, himself, he outrebounded the Laker starting PF, 50-12 in that series.

Not only that, but KAJ didn't have his starting PG in the first two games of that series, either. It was truly laughable at watching the footage in game two, when the Laker guards couldn't even get the ball past half court.

In any case, and for those that may not have seen it, KAJ just annihilated Walton in game two (and in a series in which he was CLEARLY the better player.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=coHMK...os=YqP06ya0k4w

Walton had no chance one-on-one, and even doubling KAJ did no good. They finally resorted to swarming him, and even then KAJ was able to score.

Had those two swapped rosters in that post-season, and it would have been KAJ going to the Finals.

[magnax1]

Kareem did average 33.7 ppg against Wilt in the '72 WCF's, BUT, it came on a .457 FG% (in a season in which he averaged 34.8 ppg on a .574 FG%.) AND, in the last FOUR games of that series, KAJ shot .414 (three of them Laker wins.)

Kareem was a better player than Chamberlain in '72, but by virtually all accounts, Wilt outplayed KAJ in that series. Time Magazine went to far as to claim that he "DECISIVELY" outplayed a Kareem who was 11 years younger.

Are you jlauber.....?

[SamuraiSWISH]

So young, raw Jordan sans any legit, trust worthy help pre 1990 was basically only getting beat by 60+ win, in many cases ... all-time GOAT level basketball teams? Interesting. Basically whenver Mike had good enough help, he was winning championships. As underdogs, or favorites.

[Angel Face]

Good thread. To those who say Jordan can't win w/o Pippen, look at the teams young Jordan and the Bulls has to go through in the playoffs. East was stacked as fck during that era.

[GimmeThat]

I did not know they had losers bracket.

[Roundball_Rock]

Good thread. To those who say Jordan can't win w/o Pippen, look at the teams young Jordan and the Bulls has to go through in the playoffs. East was stacked as fck during that era.

What people say about MJ without Pippen is backed up by the OP: MJ was going in with lousy seeds (admittedly with lousy help) and hence facing great teams in the first round. Even as late as 1989 the Bulls were 13-12 to start the year; Pippen became a permanent starter and they promptly went on a 9-2 roll. Pippen averaged 10/4/2 in 25 mpg as a reserve; as a starter he jumped to 16/7/4 in 35 mpg and the Bulls results jumped concomitantly. The Bulls went 43-30 with Pip; 4-5 without him. That is the difference between 48 wins and 36 wins over 82 games in terms of pace. While MJ always was the best player, Pippen becoming a permanent starter was the watershed moment for Chicago (just as Magic joining the Lakers took them to a higher level even though KAJ was the best player).

Chicago before Pippen starting in 1985-1989

38-44, 1-3 in the playoffs
30-52, 0-3
40-42, 0-3
50-32, 2-2 (Pippen started Game 5--had a big game--and then started in the ECSF)
13-11

Chicago after Pippen starting

32-24, ECF
55-27, ECF
61-21, champions
67-15, champions
57-25, champions
55-27, ECSF
47-35, ECSF
72-10, champions
69-13, champions
38-9, champions

[Asukal]

Gaylauber trying to hijack the thread again with his "btw Wilt did this bullshit.....".