NBA: How many all time greats have missed the playoffs in their prime?

[Katherine Robinson]

I agree to a degree, but I have always said that players should be evaluated individually with no team accomplishments factored in. It's difficult to do, but there are obvious cases that could be eliminated. Kareem, just based on the numbers he put up, his dominance on offense, and his diverse skill set would have been at the top of the list regardless, Magic would be the same.

Statistics are not completely individual in this case because Magic Johnson's entrance coincided with a surge in Kareem's stats which had appeared to leveled off by the time he joined the Lakers. Their greatness, even when considering statistic, are the product of synergy. Great players become greater when they have strong cohesion with other players on their team. So you cannot rank one over another in earnest when they were the reasons for their peak greatness. I would concede that on glance Kareem is more impressive.

On an off-topic, this is why I always find the argument of replacing Kobe Bryant with Tracy McGrady comical, you can't ignore it when players have synergy and assume another will produce the same Synergy because they have a better at ude. Abstract factors do exist and often are the x-factor in success.

[ambchang]

Statistics are not completely individual in this case because Magic Johnson's entrance coincided with a surge in Kareem's stats which had appeared to leveled off by the time he joined the Lakers. Their greatness, even when considering statistic, are the product of synergy. Great players become greater when they have strong cohesion with other players on their team. So you cannot rank one over another in earnest when they were the reasons for their peak greatness. I would concede that on glance Kareem is more impressive.

On an off-topic, this is why I always find the argument of replacing Kobe Bryant with Tracy McGrady comical, you can't ignore it when players have synergy and assume another will produce the same Synergy because they have a better at ude. Abstract factors do exist and often are the x-factor in success.

Oh of course synergies exists, but I would disagree that KAJ' production was falling off too greatly prior to Magic's arrival. I would argue that his role changed with Pat Riley installing a new offensive system instead. Sure Magic was responsible for running that system, but KAJ was still putting up MVP type numbers prior to Magic joining, he was just winning a lot less with Nixon running the point instead of Magic.

A big man requires a great guard, it really is no secret. Russell had Cousy, Wilt had West, KAJ had Oscar/Magic, Shaq had Penny/Kobe/Wade, Hakeem had Drexler/3 pt shooters, Duncan had Manu/Parker (mostly). And synergies are usually achieved that way, but it is not a long shot to have T-Mac or Carter sub in for Kobe and they would achieve similar success. In fact, I would imagine a beta mentality personality from TMac/Vince would actually fit the Lakers better in place of Kobe's one man coup. They have similar skill sets, and TMac has shown that he can turn up his defensive intensity as needed. TMac was also the better passer, equal scorer, and only slightly lesser defender in the early 00s.

[Katherine Robinson]

Oh of course synergies exists, but I would disagree that KAJ' production was falling off too greatly prior to Magic's arrival. I would argue that his role changed with Pat Riley installing a new offensive system instead. Sure Magic was responsible for running that system, but KAJ was still putting up MVP type numbers prior to Magic joining, he was just winning a lot less with Nixon running the point instead of Magic.

A big man requires a great guard, it really is no secret. Russell had Cousy, Wilt had West, KAJ had Oscar/Magic, Shaq had Penny/Kobe/Wade, Hakeem had Drexler/3 pt shooters, Duncan had Manu/Parker (mostly). And synergies are usually achieved that way, but it is not a long shot to have T-Mac or Carter sub in for Kobe and they would achieve similar success. In fact, I would imagine a beta mentality personality from TMac/Vince would actually fit the Lakers better in place of Kobe's one man coup. They have similar skill sets, and TMac has shown that he can turn up his defensive intensity as needed. TMac was also the better passer, equal scorer, and only slightly lesser defender in the early 00s.

With Magic Johnson, the offensive play book for the Lakers had changed once more to give Kareem less ball possession - in essence. Although I would not be surprised if his possession went up due to the Showtime era Lakers having a very dynamic way of playing, it changed from team to team depending on the pace of the opponent. What I argue, though, was that Kareem had been static or in decline right before Magic Johnson's join and his stats began to climb again (albeit slightly) with greater efficiency with Johnson. To say Magic Johnson allowed Kareem to play better than he would have otherwise would be correct and this is why I believe the two players are interchangeable in ranking because they contributed equally but differently to create one of the greatest championship dynasties.

We can only assume T-Mac or Carter would have helped the Lakers achieve a 3-peat with Shaq. It is important to understand that when Kobe Bryant played with Shaq instead of for himself, they were always in sync. Kobe Bryant's talent might be replaceable, but is the player replaceable? I would say no because it's rare for this kind of cohesion between elite talents to manifest and it is more complex than filling a role or the boxscore.

[ambchang]

With Magic Johnson, the offensive play book for the Lakers had changed once more to give Kareem less ball possession - in essence. Although I would not be surprised if his possession went up due to the Showtime era Lakers having a very dynamic way of playing, it changed from team to team depending on the pace of the opponent. What I argue, though, was that Kareem had been static or in decline right before Magic Johnson's join and his stats began to climb again (albeit slightly) with greater efficiency with Johnson. To say Magic Johnson allowed Kareem to play better than he would have otherwise would be correct and this is why I believe the two players are interchangeable in ranking because they contributed equally but differently to create one of the greatest championship dynasties.

Kareem's stats went up for a year in 1981, and then went back down to his pre-Magic levels afterwards. I personally think it has to do with Paul Weshead's style than anything else in that year. That said, I agree that Magic most certainly had a positive impact on KAJ, especially prolonging his career. But given that KAJ was an established star, I think his impact on Magic was greater than Magic's impact on him, especially in the early 80s.
s

We can only assume T-Mac or Carter would have helped the Lakers achieve a 3-peat with Shaq. It is important to understand that when Kobe Bryant played with Shaq instead of for himself, they were always in sync. Kobe Bryant's talent might be replaceable, but is the player replaceable? I would say no because it's rare for this kind of cohesion between elite talents to manifest and it is more complex than filling a role or the boxscore.

Of course we can only assume, my argument is that T-Mac or Carter (moreso T-Mac) has a very similar, or even superior skill set during the early 00s to Kobe. I argue that ultimately, talents are comparatively easy to match, while egos were the tougher part. Kobe and Shaq's ego wouldn't coexist, but I would imagine a T-Mac would take a backseat role much more willingly.

[AchillesHeel]

Who was the best center that went up against Shaq during their 3-peat years?

Timmy

[spurraider21]

Timmy

who was the spurs starting center from 01-04?

[AchillesHeel]

who was the spurs starting center from 01-04?

You mean who was our starting center from 90-03. That would be D-Rob.

[JamStone]

I guess the answer would depend on what you consider "all time greats." Is it any HOFer or future HOFer? Is it a guy you'd consider to be top 25 all time? Top 20 all time? Top 10 all time? What is your definition of "all time great."

Regardless, some notable names who have missed the playoffs in what would be considered their prime (some have already been mentioned) would include Kareem, Wilt, Hakeem, Oscar Robertson, John Havlicek, and Charles Barkley. In more recent history, guys like Kobe, KG, and AI have missed the playoffs. But again, you might not count some of them depending on what your definition of all time great is.


As far as Michael Jordan's prime, I think that's also an interesting topic. I think a lot of basketball fans have been programmed to think that an NBA player's prime is generally around 27-32 or roughly around there. But if a guy is 24 and already putting up 35/5/5 type numbers, I find it hard to argue that he isn't already in his prime at that young age since he's already dominating the league. There are some great players who just start the primes of their careers earlier than most. They get it quicker. Or they are just so talented, their primes start earlier and and they dominate from jump street or soon thereafter. LeBron was 22 years old and put up 27/6/6 and 25/8/8 in the playoffs and led his team to the NBA Finals. He may have gotten better since, but youngblood had already begun his "prime" in my opinion. There are guys like Michael or LeBron or Shaq or Magic or Tim Duncan who basically are in their "prime" the moment they started their NBA careers, or within a few years after entering the league. And there are guys out there like Karl Malone whose prime last well into their mid to late 30s, defying what everyone views as an NBA player's prime. So was Michael in his prime when his team got into the playoffs with a losing record? I think there's an argument for each side.

[Deuce Bigalow]

There was a player of the decade? Who was it, who chose it?



The 86-87 Bulls missed the playoffs?

Biggest sports media source - http://espn.go.com/nba/dailydime/_/p...ng-decade-best

Biggest fan vote - http://www.nba.com/alldecade/vote13/

86-87 Bulls had a losing record. Western conference is too deep for a losing team to get in the playoffs.

[ambchang]

Biggest sports media source - http://espn.go.com/nba/dailydime/_/p...ng-decade-best

Biggest fan vote - http://www.nba.com/alldecade/vote13/

86-87 Bulls had a losing record. Western conference is too deep for a losing team to get in the playoffs.

. Espn catering to the biggest market.
. Biggest market choosing their own guy.
. Fan voting is accurate so Yao Ming > Shaq and AC Green > Karl Malone.
. Changing goal posts.

[AaronY]

It really was quite a stretch run Kobe led that 2004-05 team on,...with him healthy and in the lineup they won 2 of their last 20: http://www.basketball-reference.com/.../gamelog/2005/

[AaronY]

Lol, Lakers sitting at 32-30 probably about the eighth seed..Kobe: "Don't worry guys, I got this!"..willing em to victory etc..Final record 34-48, 12th seed..GOAT!!..

[ambchang]

I guess the answer would depend on what you consider "all time greats." Is it any HOFer or future HOFer? Is it a guy you'd consider to be top 25 all time? Top 20 all time? Top 10 all time? What is your definition of "all time great."

Regardless, some notable names who have missed the playoffs in what would be considered their prime (some have already been mentioned) would include Kareem, Wilt, Hakeem, Oscar Robertson, John Havlicek, and Charles Barkley. In more recent history, guys like Kobe, KG, and AI have missed the playoffs. But again, you might not count some of them depending on what your definition of all time great is.

Wilt, Havlicek and Kareem both missed the playoffs with a different format (6 of 9 teams for Wilt, and playoffs by divisions), which increased the variability a lot for teams. Rather than playing well, teams get jilted by being in the wrong division.

Hakeem missed the playoffs the year he missed 12 games (was on track to make it, the Rockets finished 2 for 11 in the games Hakeem didn't start).

In the modern era, I'd say Barkley, Kobe, KG and AI makes the cut.

As far as Michael Jordan's prime, I think that's also an interesting topic. I think a lot of basketball fans have been programmed to think that an NBA player's prime is generally around 27-32 or roughly around there. But if a guy is 24 and already putting up 35/5/5 type numbers, I find it hard to argue that he isn't already in his prime at that young age since he's already dominating the league. There are some great players who just start the primes of their careers earlier than most. They get it quicker. Or they are just so talented, their primes start earlier and and they dominate from jump street or soon thereafter. LeBron was 22 years old and put up 27/6/6 and 25/8/8 in the playoffs and led his team to the NBA Finals. He may have gotten better since, but youngblood had already begun his "prime" in my opinion. There are guys like Michael or LeBron or Shaq or Magic or Tim Duncan who basically are in their "prime" the moment they started their NBA careers, or within a few years after entering the league. And there are guys out there like Karl Malone whose prime last well into their mid to late 30s, defying what everyone views as an NBA player's prime. So was Michael in his prime when his team got into the playoffs with a losing record? I think there's an argument for each side.

I'd say Jordan's prime was from 87 onwards. He was on a mission after that leg injury.

[Michael Jordan.]

Lol, Lakers sitting at 32-30 probably about the eighth seed..Kobe: "Don't worry guys, I got this!"..willing em to victory etc..Final record 34-48, 12th seed..GOAT!!..

That year, the Lakers lost more games without Odom than Kobe

[Medvedenko]

Hey MJ, it's nice that your trolling has gone 360 to a point that Kobe in your eyes takes no credit for his "team's" success (had too much help, etc) and all the blame for his "team's" failures (shooting %). Still, nice job overall and keeping the flame burning bright. Once he retires, Kobe will be considered a Top 10 of all time, regardless of your youtube and box score sheet analysis.

[Joseph Kony]

Hey MJ, it's nice that your trolling has gone 360 to a point that Kobe in your eyes takes no credit for his "team's" success (had too much help, etc) and all the blame for his "team's" failures (shooting %). Still, nice job overall and keeping the flame burning bright. Once he retires, Kobe will be considered a Top 10 of all time, regardless of your youtube and box score sheet analysis.

considering the top 10 will look like this when kobe retires:

Jordan
Bird
LeBron
Magic
Kareem
Chamberlain
Russel
Shaq
Duncan
Olajuwon

(not in order)


I don't see any way Kobe ends up top 10 of all-time. only Lakerfan deludes themselves into thinking he's top 10

[Medvedenko]

considering the top 10 will look like this when kobe retires:

Jordan
Bird
LeBron
Magic
Kareem
Chamberlain
Russel
Shaq
Duncan
Olajuwon

(not in order)



I don't see any way Kobe ends up top 10 of all-time. only Lakerfan deludes themselves into thinking he's top 10

He's ahead of Hakeem and Bird already.

[Katherine Robinson]

He's ahead of Hakeem and Bird already.

In points and team accolades.

[Michael Jordan.]

He's ahead of Hakeem and Bird already.

[Medvedenko]

Wow, you got me again. Keep up the good work brother.

[spurraider21]

So Larry Bird was the more efficient scorer, better passer, actually made his team better, and DIDN'T go driving McHale/Parish out of town or demanding teammates or himself to be traded. But yeah Kobe has surpassed him. although to be fair pretty much every player considered an all time great was a more efficient scorer

[Joseph Kony]

He's ahead of Hakeem and Bird already.

keep dreaming. The rapist will never be able to touch Bird

[ambchang]

Hakeem dragged Kenny Smith, Vernon Maxwell (Ron Artest before Ron Artest), Otis Thorpe, Horry (before he was good), Cassell (rookie) not only to the playoffs, but to an NBA le.
Kobe dragged Odom (6th man of the year in 11, and put up similar numbers in 05), Butler (2-time all star), Chucky Atkins, and Chris Mihm to the lottery as the 11th seed.

I am not even going to go into the Bird comparisons.

[JamStone]

Wilt, Havlicek and Kareem both missed the playoffs with a different format (6 of 9 teams for Wilt, and playoffs by divisions), which increased the variability a lot for teams. Rather than playing well, teams get jilted by being in the wrong division.

Lakers in 1976 had a record of 40-42 with Kareem playing 82 games. Celtics in 1970 had a record of 34-48 with Hondo playing 81 games. Wilt's Warriors went 31-49 with Wilt playing all 80 games. Your argument holds very little water since those teams still had losing records even with those three players in their "primes" playing the whole season.

Hakeem missed the playoffs the year he missed 12 games (was on track to make it, the Rockets finished 2 for 11 in the games Hakeem didn't start).

Would that same asterisk argument apply to Kobe and the Lakers in 2005? He missed 16 games. And while they still had a poor record with him in the line-up, before his injury, the Lakers were 19-15 to start the season. After he returned, the Lakers continued to play poorly, but I rarely hear or read an argument that notes Kobe's missed games and for that matter the number of games Odom missed as well as the second best player on the Lakers at the time. I'm not saying you should or should not take that into consideration, but it's rarely if ever mentioned when the criticism of Kobe missing the playoffs in 2005 is brought up.

I'd say Jordan's prime was from 87 onwards. He was on a mission after that leg injury.

1986-87 was post leg injury as well and Jordan played all 82 games. The Bulls went 40-42 that season with Jordan being on that mission. Just saying.

[ambchang]

Lakers in 1976 had a record of 40-42 with Kareem playing 82 games. Celtics in 1970 had a record of 34-48 with Hondo playing 81 games. Wilt's Warriors went 31-49 with Wilt playing all 80 games. Your argument holds very little water since those teams still had losing records even with those three players in their "primes" playing the whole season.

The league was in the early days for Wilt, the game was less developed, there was way less talent back then. It's just a different league, and to hold those players to the same standard of today would be unfair. Similar to how saying 11- le Russell or 50.4ppg Wilt would have similar achievements in today's game.

Would that same asterisk argument apply to Kobe and the Lakers in 2005? He missed 16 games. And while they still had a poor record with him in the line-up, before his injury, the Lakers were 19-15 to start the season. After he returned, the Lakers continued to play poorly, but I rarely hear or read an argument that notes Kobe's missed games and for that matter the number of games Odom missed as well as the second best player on the Lakers at the time. I'm not saying you should or should not take that into consideration, but it's rarely if ever mentioned when the criticism of Kobe missing the playoffs in 2005 is brought up.

The Lakers were 6-10 with Kobe missing the games, and would not have made it with Kobe playing all the games that year anyways even if they went 16-0 in those games, so it's a moot point. As was pointed out in another thread, missing Odom was actually a bigger factor that year with the Lakers going 2-15 in those 17 missed games. Mathematically, if they went 17-0, they would have tied Memphis for the 8th and lost the tie breaker anyways, but we are not here to compare Kobe to Odom.

1986-87 was post leg injury as well and Jordan played all 82 games. The Bulls went 40-42 that season with Jordan being on that mission. Just saying.

Sorry, unclear on my part. 87 means 86-87 season, and my definition of Jordan's prime would include that year as well. I would say his absolute prime ended after the first 3-peat, though, but he was still heads and shoulders better than everybody else.