mastermind
Rest In Power Kobe
You can’t say it highlights the current lack of transcendent stars like the 70s and the say Kareem was the best player of the 70s—one of the greatest NBA players of all time.
NBA Parity Era leading to everybody getting slandered APPRECIATION. (Stan wars officially dead?)
- Thread starter concise
- Start date
mastermind
Rest In Power Kobe
Kareem didn’t win more in the 70s because the Lakers were dysfunctional.
murksiderock
Superstar
You didn't see my second post, I'm struggling to find the word I'm looking for...You can’t say it highlights the current lack of transcendent stars and the day Kareem was the best player of the 70s—one of the greatest NBA players of all time.
mastermind
Rest In Power Kobe
There is no word. You have to accept that it’s just parity. Nothing to do with star power or talent and everything to do with the NBA salary cap working. Just accept that and stop trying to create tiers to validate bad opinions.
I don't think it's a lack of stars that's the problem
It's the lack of superteams.
With the salary cap and the average talent in the league at an all-time high, it's hard to build a superteam. KD has been trying and failing all over the place.
The best teams don't have passengers on the court anymore. Of course, you still need stars, but it's better to have 2 stars and 3 good players (the current winning model) than 3 stars and two one-dimensional role players (the usual winning model).
The average NBA player now is too good, and it's a team game.
Aside from Ant, the new batch of superstars aren't exactly stan-material. Joker doesn't give a shyt about any of this, Giannis is a cornball, Luka turns into a shy teenager behind the mic (I get there's a language gap, but it is what it is), I don't know shyt about SGA other than him singing in that damn commercial, Wemby is still a question mark but he seems to be a perfect fit with the boring-ass Spurs, Ja is suspended and injured more than he plays, etc. They're also mostly on small market teams.
It seems pretty obvious they're praying that Ant can fill the void...and he's living up to the hype.
When he decides to leave Minnesota the stan wars will commence
It seems pretty obvious they're praying that Ant can fill the void...and he's living up to the hype.
When he decides to leave Minnesota the stan wars will commence
murksiderock
Superstar
Kareem played 4 of 10 70s seasons with the Lakers. What about the other 6? That could be true, and so could other things...
He's the rare guy of his historic stature who missed the playoffs back to back in his prime. He did this in '75 and '76, at ages 28 and 29, Y6 and Y7. Of the greatest players of all time, Top 10 level, who did this?
There's an expectation that when you're that stature of player, both historically and of that era, you're not missing the playoffs at that age and stage of your career. It matters when the guys he is compared to historically, you can't say this for...
Also, he was a heavy, heavy favorite in the 1974 NBA Finals, and Bucks lost to Boston, in part due to his up and down play, that G7 is on YouTube and 4thQ in the balance, Kareem is blowing free throws, turning the ball over, getting locked up by a much smaller (but much more physical) Cowens and Celtic defenders. Again, it was G7 of a series Milwaukee was heavy favorites coming in---->shyt wasn't supposed to be no 7 games. Articles expressing the sentiments of the time are around for you to review...
The Lakers were historically great in '72 but it's still Kareem and his team who allowed a team of perennial chokers to finally win a championship, losing in the WCF. The Bucks won 63 games that year and ended the historic 33-game win streak, they weren't simply some outmatched opponent...
So if you're of the nature to contextualize Kareem's career and why he didn't win more in the 70s, add in all the context. There were opportunities to win more titles. I've been saying the following for years on here literally, what I'm never co-signing, is how all the modern superstars are scrutinized to a standard the OGs aren't held to. You can view basketball how you choose, as can anyone else, but for me, superstars of any era are held to the same standards...
Kareem has a lot of questionable shyt in his career, a lot of meat left on the bone. And mf's in real time knew this too, if you felt like researching pieces of his era they are out there, and look at the shift in his All-Time rankings from about 2012 onward, to pre-2012. He's now talked about in a light most heads of his day didn't have him at...
He was the best player of the 70s and he was transcendent but there was another level he didn't reach. And my point is, we are in the 20s where we may have an era with a couple transcendent guys who, like 70s Kareem, can't impact winning on a consistent, dominant basis...
murksiderock
Superstar
My guy you're always trying to force your opinions on everyone else
...I've already said that the parity is good for the NBA. But I think it's revealed a present void of a guy or guys who are available that can dominate winning. When those guys come along they don't win every championship every year, but they are in contention every year...
We haven't yet seen that in this decade and we didn't see it in the 70s. 2020s may be the 70s all over again, and maybe it isn't, we still have a half-decade left...
UpAndComing
Veteran
Julius Erving?
Willis Reed?
George Gervin?
Jerry West?
David Thompson?
Earl the Pearl Monroe?
Ya'll just say anything
mastermind
Rest In Power Kobe
Your reply to this thread is that there are no transcendent stars because you don’t want to accept that the NBA has a lot of parity, not lack of stars.
That could be true, and so could other things...
He's the rare guy of his historic stature who missed the playoffs back to back in his prime. He did this in '75 and '76, at ages 28 and 29, Y6 and Y7. Of the greatest players of all time, Top 10 level, who did this?
There's an expectation that when you're that stature of player, both historically and of that era, you're not missing the playoffs at that age and stage of your career. It matters when the guys he is compared to historically, you can't say this for...
Also, he was a heavy, heavy favorite in the 1974 NBA Finals, and Bucks lost to Boston, in part due to his up and down play, that G7 is on YouTube and 4thQ in the balance, Kareem is blowing free throws, turning the ball over, getting locked up by a much smaller (but much more physical) Cowens and Celtic defenders. Again, it was G7 of a series Milwaukee was heavy favorites coming in---->shyt wasn't supposed to be no 7 games. Articles expressing the sentiments of the time are around for you to review...
The Lakers were historically great in '72 but it's still Kareem and his team who allowed a team of perennial chokers to finally win a championship, losing in the WCF. The Bucks won 63 games that year and ended the historic 33-game win streak, they weren't simply some outmatched opponent...
So if you're of the nature to contextualize Kareem's career and why he didn't win more in the 70s, add in all the context. There were opportunities to win more titles. I've been saying the following for years on here literally, what I'm never co-signing, is how all the modern superstars are scrutinized to a standard the OGs aren't held to. You can view basketball how you choose, as can anyone else, but for me, superstars of any era are held to the same standards...
Kareem has a lot of questionable shyt in his career, a lot of meat left on the bone. And mf's in real time knew this too, if you felt like researching pieces of his era they are out there, and look at the shift in his All-Time rankings from about 2012 onward, to pre-2012. He's now talked about in a light most heads of his day didn't have him at...
He was the best player of the 70s and he was transcendent but there was another level he didn't reach. And my point is, we are in the 20s where we may have an era with a couple transcendent guys who, like 70s Kareem, can't impact winning on a consistent, dominant basis...
And Kareem not performing with the Lakers in the 70s was due to a mess of an organization. Why? Because you have the best player in the NBA by some distance and they weren’t serious contenders.
mastermind
Rest In Power Kobe
1) I didn’t force my opinion. Most people in this thread agree with the opinion. If anything, I’m agreeing with @concise who created this thread.My guy you're always trying to force your opinions on everyone else
2) You have spent this thread looking for a word that doesn’t exist to explain away a league with amazing star power. You are the only one forcing this lol
Last edited:
god shamgod
Veteran
Good , I wanna see a Boston vs Minnesota finals
Nba been having the same group of teams in the finals for 40 years
Nba been having the same group of teams in the finals for 40 years
murksiderock
Superstar
None of those guys you named were Wilt or Russell stature. West is a 60s player really, by the way...
Julius Erving?
Willis Reed?
George Gervin?
Jerry West?
David Thompson?
Earl the Pearl Monroe?
Ya'll just say anything
Dr J was the closest to the level of player you're talking about, but he wasn't quite their stature...
What about Milwaukee, who was serious contenders, who he missed a postseason with and blew a Finals as a favorite?
Did you forget your initial statement? "Kareem didn't win more in the 70s because the Lakers were dysfunctional"...
He played 6 years in the 70s not in LA. The Lakers being dysfunctional are not the primary reason Kareem didn't win more, he didn't even spend half the decade with them. Kareem had opportunities to win 2-3 championships in that era, notwithstanding Lakers dysfunction...
Imyremeshaw
كن التغير الذي تريد أن تراه في العالم
This is a fugazi ass take on 1974 finals, kareem was the leading scorer and rebounder in this series and the bucks lost 4-3 with underwhelming and on his last leg Oscar Robertson
That could be true, and so could other things...
He's the rare guy of his historic stature who missed the playoffs back to back in his prime. He did this in '75 and '76, at ages 28 and 29, Y6 and Y7. Of the greatest players of all time, Top 10 level, who did this?
There's an expectation that when you're that stature of player, both historically and of that era, you're not missing the playoffs at that age and stage of your career. It matters when the guys he is compared to historically, you can't say this for...
Also, he was a heavy, heavy favorite in the 1974 NBA Finals, and Bucks lost to Boston, in part due to his up and down play, that G7 is on YouTube and 4thQ in the balance, Kareem is blowing free throws, turning the ball over, getting locked up by a much smaller (but much more physical) Cowens and Celtic defenders. Again, it was G7 of a series Milwaukee was heavy favorites coming in---->shyt wasn't supposed to be no 7 games. Articles expressing the sentiments of the time are around for you to review...
The Lakers were historically great in '72 but it's still Kareem and his team who allowed a team of perennial chokers to finally win a championship, losing in the WCF. The Bucks won 63 games that year and ended the historic 33-game win streak, they weren't simply some outmatched opponent...
So if you're of the nature to contextualize Kareem's career and why he didn't win more in the 70s, add in all the context. There were opportunities to win more titles. I've been saying the following for years on here literally, what I'm never co-signing, is how all the modern superstars are scrutinized to a standard the OGs aren't held to. You can view basketball how you choose, as can anyone else, but for me, superstars of any era are held to the same standards...
Kareem has a lot of questionable shyt in his career, a lot of meat left on the bone. And mf's in real time knew this too, if you felt like researching pieces of his era they are out there, and look at the shift in his All-Time rankings from about 2012 onward, to pre-2012. He's now talked about in a light most heads of his day didn't have him at...
He was the best player of the 70s and he was transcendent but there was another level he didn't reach. And my point is, we are in the 20s where we may have an era with a couple transcendent guys who, like 70s Kareem, can't impact winning on a consistent, dominant basis...
Kareem won 5 MVPs during the 70s all voted by the players not the media...
Kareem was aloof/stand offish and not media darling like Magic, Bird, or Jordan and the 70s articles and media show that
Don't down play Kareem....
get these nets
Veteran
Don't count the defending champs out yet.
But parity is ultimately good for the league. Everything isn't based on promoting 3-4 superstars, and you don't take as much of a hit when those guys get hurt or retire
But parity is ultimately good for the league. Everything isn't based on promoting 3-4 superstars, and you don't take as much of a hit when those guys get hurt or retire