Astral

My point was that good complimentary players with many titles should not be judged by their titles as much as primary players are. Robert Horry is a good complimentary player (clutch) with many titles. I'm not comparing their production or dominance, I'm comparing their impact on NBA championship teams.

You think it's an insult? How about this, KAJ was not nearly as clutch as Robert Horry was. Comparing KAJ to Robert Horry in terms of "clutchness" is an insult to Robert Horry.
Point is, everything is relative. I think Steve Nash sucks. But in terms of passing, comparing KAJ to Nash is an insult to Nash.

Quote:

I have yet to read or hear on this thread where someone is solely basing Kareem's status on playing on championship teams. That's something you're manufacturing on your own. Even if that was the case, it's safe to assume people would do that in the context of, "In addition to being one of the most dominant individual players in NBA history -- primarily as hands-down the best player in the game for roughly 10 years -- Kareem Abdul-Jabbar was a key player in the Los Angeles Lakers winning five titles in the 1980s."

Where in the bloody hell (ha ha your font is red) did I ever say I'm basing Kareem's status on NBA Championships? I never said that. YOU "manufactured" that idea. If you actually go back, you'd see that I put KAJ as #5 on GOAT list.
What that means is that despite my belief that he wasn't as important to LAL Showtime teams as Magic was, I still think that his accomplishments and career are better than Magic's.

STOP MAKING UP STUFF AND READ.

Quote:

If you're trying to make a point, you need to do it in a fashion that is clear and easy to grasp. Basically everything I have read from you comes off as if you're diminishing Kareem's overall play, stature and impact but yet practically ignoring he dominated the sport in a manner only a couple of players can contest.

No, I did not. I've been defending myself from you and 2 other players who seem to think that because they wont read and comprehend someone's opinion.

It's my OPINION. You can disagree all you want. Telling me how long KAJ played, his trophies or his endurance has absolutely nothing to do with what I said. Nada. Zip. I know them and appreciate them.

You're treating me as if I'm an uninformed hater. I already proved that I don't hate him about 4 posts below:
I'm not uninformed. Making such an assumption on lack of information makes YOU uninformed. So far in this thread, I haven't said anything factually wrong, such as "KAJ sucked during 1970s" or "he was not important to his teams" or "his endurance and longevity is nothing special". I have ignored his career before Magic and Showtime because I am concentrating on his impact on NBA Championship teams - that is where 5/6 of his titles came from.

__________________
"You need chaos in your soul to give birth to a dancing star."
-Friedrich Nietzsche

Astral

By the way, my opinion has a strong basis. For example, in the next thread, the author states that after talling up the numbers, Magic Johnson appears as #3 greatest of all time.
What possible OTHER way can you explain that Magic's 10 (12) year old career overshadows the 20 year old career of Kareem Abdul-Jabbar?
Most of you are saying that Magic got the reigns of the LAL in either 85 or 87. Do you truly believe that if that was true, Magic leapfrogged KAJ in GOAT voting in five years?

__________________
"You need chaos in your soul to give birth to a dancing star."
-Friedrich Nietzsche

Najee

It's relevant because for at least two of the Lakers' five titles in the 1980s Kareem Abdul-Jabbar was the best player on the team and for at least his first four seasons in the league Magic Johnson was the second-best player on the team.

That's why your Scottie Pippen/Robert Parish analogies are so poor -- those two were never remotely the best player on their teams, much less the best player in the NBA for any period.

You're comparing Kareem Abdul-Jabbar with the likes of Pippen and Parish, saying that The Captain is getting consideration as one of the top players in NBA history more because he played for the 1980s Lakers than being one of the most dominating players in NBA history for a very long time. You even threw in Robert Horry's name as a way of throwing off on Abdul-Jabbar.

AND IT'S WRONG, SON. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar was the primary player for the 1980 and 1982 championship teams. He was the most pivotal player for the 1985 championship team. By my count, that's THREE of the FIVE 1980s titles where The Captain was the primary reason those Lakers teams won.

Kareem didn't play a Pippen-level or Parish-level role (complementary players who were never close to being the top player on their team) on those three Lakers teams. Moreover, for whatever reason you're also forgetting that Kareem was the main reason the Milwaukee Bucks won the 1971 title and was one game short of winning the 1974 championship.

So that's THREE championship teams where Kareem was the best player on his team overall and a fourth team where he was the difference-maker in winning the title. And you want to compare that in any fashion with Pippen, Parish and Horry?!?!

Najee

The reason why you're coming with these out-of-pocket statements is because you never saw Kareem Abdul-Jabbar play in the 1970s and early 1980s. Looking at your profile, you were born in the mid-1980s so really have no idea how good Kareem was; your opinion is based on third-person accounts.

Everything you have said points to evaluating Kareem's career solely with the 1980s Lakers, and more specifically the mid-1980s Lakers. If that was as good as Kareem ever was (a slightly better version of Scottie Pippen), then that would be one thing. But that's not the reason why people consider him arguably the best player in NBA history -- it's a combination of playing at that level at an older age plus playing at a Michael Jordan- and Wilt Chamberlain-level during the 1970s.

Najee

Except that doesn't apply to Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, which is why people are dumbfounded by your poor analogies. Abdul-Jabbar was the best player in the NBA in 1979-80 and for the first half of the 1980s he was the Los Angeles Lakers' best player. He didn't become a complementary player until the 1987 and 1988 titles.

Like I said, maybe if you actually SAW Kareem Abdul-Jabbar play you can see how ridiculous this notion was; The Captain is considered to be one of the biggest clutch players in the history of the game.

* Robert Horry is a role player who morphs into a slightly better version of himself in the playoffs and basically has had a Forrest Gump-type career on teams featuring some of the greatest players in NBA history (Hakeem Olajuwon, Shaquille O'Neal and Kobe Bryant and Tim Duncan).

* Kareem Abdul-Jabbar was arguably the most dominant player in NBA history, who was the main reason the Milwaukee Bucks went from an expansion team to winning the 1971 title and nearly winning the 1974 title. The Captain was the best player for the 1980s Lakers' first two titles and was the Finals MVP for the 1985 run.

The teams on which Horry played very likely would have won titles without him, because outside of his Johnny-on-the-spot moments he was a marginal contributor. Horry didn't even start for the Lakers and Spurs and he was a role player on those Rockets teams.

Without Kareem, three of the 1980s Lakers' teams likely would not have titles and the 1971 Bucks definitely would not have won a championship. The 1974 Bucks definitely would not have fallen one game short of winning the title without Abdul-Jabbar.

It's painfully obvious you have no clue what you're talking about.

With supporters like you, I'm sure Kareem doesn't need critics. Anyone who is going to compare Abdul-Jabbar's role on the 1980s Lakers to Scottie Pippen's role on the 1990s Bulls, Robert Parish's role on the 1980s Celtics and *ROBERT HORRY* surely doesn't sound like an endorsement.

If you want to go with a more accurate comparison for the first half of the Showtime Lakers era, why don't you use the Shaquille O'Neal/Kobe Bryant three-peat, where each was arguably considered the top player in the league and shared equal co-billing? Magic didn't become the best player on the team until 1983-84 and it wasn't until circa 1985-86 where Magic clearly was better than Kareem.

Kareem was not a complementary piece on the Lakers' first two titles (and for that matter, on the 1985 team); he was the Pippen- and Parish-level complementary player on the 1987 and 1988 titlists, when he was at a very advanced age. The closest Kareem came to an Horry-level player was on the 1989 team that lost to Detroit in the Finals.

Najee

It's an unofficial poll based on opinion and speculation, not a scientific fact that cannot be disputed. The closest thing to a fact in such a poll is that Magic Johnson and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar would be on most people's short list as arguably the best player in NBA history. Where people would rank each player is subjective and open to that person's interpretation of the statement.

A lot of ways:

1.) Judging by the ages of the typical person on this site, a lot of people answering the poll never saw Kareem play in the 1970s. If they did see him play (live or via footage) it was in the 1980s.

2.) By the time the Lakers/Celtics rivalry brought in the casual fan in the mid-1980s, Kareem was in his upper 30s and while still very good he was not the dominating player he once was.

3.) A much more favorable media perception of Magic (namely the "Magic and Larry Bird saved the NBA" rhetoric) than of Kareem (who was never open with the public and villainized during his 1970s days), which seems to exist to this day.

4.) Magic's entire NBA career unfolded in front of national TV; Kareem's greatest NBA years happened in casual fan obscurity and his career may have started when some voters' parents weren't born.

IMO, of the seven players who legitimately can make a claim for the being the best player in NBA history (Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Larry Bird, Wilt Chamberlain, Michael Jordan, Magic Johnson, Oscar Robertson, Bill Russell), Kareem is the one I've heard over the years who generally gets mixed responses. I feel that is based on the media perception of The Captain.

kflo

kareem was the best player on 2 championship teams ('71 & '80). argubaly the best on 1 more ('82), and finals mvp of 1 more ('85), and 2 more as a supporting player (he averaged 22 ppg in the '87 finals). so, at minimum he still has to get a fair amount of championship credit. surpassed only by jordan, russell, and arguably duncan, shaq, magic and bird.

and that was the primary reason for my initial reply - i noted that it was dominance as well as longevity, because this statement to me implied it was only the longevity.

Najee

I agree. Reading Astral's statements, (s)he implies (if not outright states) that Kareem Abdul-Jabbar's ranking of an all-time great is more of a function of:

1.) he played on those Lakers' championship teams.

2.) he played a long time in the NBA.

A lot of his or her statements seem to overlook or negate Kareem's dominance in the 1970s and continued All-Star-caliber play until the 1986-87 season (when he was 40!). Thus, the comparisions to the likes of Robert Parish (namely, an above-average to exceptional player who played a long time on winning teams and thus a hall-of-famer).

Astral