[Y! Sports] M.Guokas claims Dwight Howard is a better defensive player Russell (HOF)

I don't recall that.

 

Quick google: gets this old article from 1969

It says that West would choose Russell for "one game", which I'm assuming was the NBA Finals. I think it's taken out of context by many since West did say Wilt is the better all-around player.

 

OK. I don't remember critiquing or questioning those comments.

 

Comparing eras is stupid and as pointless as pound-for-pound rankings. But I guess it passes the time and it's fun to argue hypothetically, making it impossible to be wrong

 

Russell has been discussed a few times here, inevitably people bring in quotes from other players, West, Wilt, Petit, etc., and I seem to remember that you never gave them much credence. Maybe I am mistaking you for other posters though, but it does make sense that someone who emphasizes statistical analysis will not believe too much in comments and intangibles.

In another time, he said that Russell was a better rebounder and did more when it mattered than Wilt or anyone else. This is part of the reason why people dismiss comments from past players.





Either way, on the comment itself, because Russell's forte was defense and rebounding, what Matt Goukas is essentially saying by saying that Dwight is the better defender and rebounder is that Dwight is better overall than Russell. Come on now. Better than a five-time MVP? Better than a player that was voted best ever 11 years after he retired over players like West, Wilt, and Robertson?

True. It's best to compare relative greatness. In this way, Goukas' comment is even more ridiculous.

 

Every where he went they won championships and when he left they sucked. 1 or 2 times it could be coincidence, but not 13.

 

They used to say that Phil Jackson won as a coach every where he went. So he must be the greatest of all time. Then when Shaq left the Lakers, all of a sudden, he couldn't win any more.

So maybe he was fortunate enough to be part of great teams every where he went.

I am not saying that Russell was not a great player or Jackson is not a great coach. Obviously you have to be very good to accomplish those things, lucky or not. But is Russell twice as good as Jordan because he has about two times as many championships as Jordan? Or 5 times better than Hakeem? Of course not. That is why the so-called "winning" for measuring greatness is just not valid. Winning is a team thing, not an individual thing. You have to have a good team to win, no matter how great an individual player (or coach) you are.

 

Well you can also say you have to have a great player to win, no matter how good the team is. The only anomaly to this statement is the year the Pistons beat the Lakers in the Finals. It's a mutual relationship between great players and good teams and I'm sure you can agree with that. A good team can get you to a game 6 or game 7, but you need that great player to get you over the hump. Case in point: Last year's Rockets.

 

Russell in his era was much much better than Dwight is now.

If you put them in a 1 vs 1 match with both Dwight and Bill Russell in their prime, Dwight would eat Russell's lunch. He has as much of an offensive game and would just physically abuse Russell.

But in the context of when they played it's not even close. Russell dominates.

 

Here's the quote from Guokas after a reporter called him to see if he wanted to back down. Just wanted everyone to see this so you wouldn't jump to conclusions about what he said:

"Dwight has not accomplished the things Bill Russell did. Dwight has not been a part of 11 championships in 13 years. That's the big difference.What I was talking about when I made the statement is Dwight's sheer ability and skill as compared to Bill Russell's."
In Guokas' opinion, Howard has more overall athleticism than Russell. He's bigger and stronger. He's better-conditioned. He runs faster and jumps higher."

Can you really disagree about Dwight's athleticism being better? The guy's a freak. Probably the biggest difference between big men now and big men back in the day.

 

Thank you.

I cannot count the number of times that people use absolute measures rather than relative measures when comparing players from different eras. I often see people take a "time machine" approach, i.e., you place Dwight Howard in a time machine and warp him back to the '60s. If that's the case, of course he is going to dominate. However, the game of basketball and sports in general were different back then. If you aren't going to compensate for that in some way in the comparison, then using relative measures seems like the next best way.

 

I do not disagree with what you say here. But there is a logical fallacy in the following statement:

"You need great player to win. So if you do not win, you are not a great player." Do you see what's wrong with this statement?

And people do not just stop there. They continue to say, "If A wins more than B, A must be greater than B."

The funny thing is, you can push even farther and see the absurdity: "A wins 5 times more than B. A must be 5 times greater than B."

Fallacy.

 

I never criticized or questioned it either, so your attempt to claim a double standard here doesn't work.

I never said Goukas's statements have convinced me that Howard is better than Russell. I'm just not going to assume he's a fool for saying it.

 

Judging from their head-to-head performance against Yao Ming, Dwight Howard played much poorer defense than Greg Oden. And that's not saying much.

 

This is not accurate... Russell did have an offensive game, but it wasn't needed as much with Boston. In College Russell's FG% was about 50% and had about 20 pts a game which was a lot back in those days; since there was no shot clock, 3 pt shot and the game was not as mature as it is now.

Bill Russell College Stats

Russell was an all around player and he was also a team player and on that team he was needed more for defense and rebounding.

If you look at the stats it would look as if Russell had no offensive game.

Now as far as Dwight goes against Russell, I will put it like this. At that time Wilt was the scoring machine, he would be just as good now as he was back then. BUT!!!! Russell gave him fits... NO ONE Played Wilt and could basically hold Wilt like Russell. Also take in mind that Wilt was 7'0 and Russell was 6'9 and very strong, so with that said there is no way that Howard could dominate Russell.

Russell was Wilt Defensive stopper back then as Dumars was Jordan stopper.

 

Goukas has been an announcer for a long time. I lived in NYC when he was an announcer in the area, and he was horribly ignorant of other players accomplishments, and over praising of the home team players.

This is not surprising to me.

 

Overall, yes. But I'd put Wilt's athleticism against pretty much anybody in the NBA.

 

I don't know whether or not D. Howard is a better defender than Russell was. What I do know is Howard isn't the defensive player that Dream, David Robinson, Mutombo or Tim Duncan were. He's not on Mourning or Ben Wallace's level either. Those are just the players off the top of my head who I did have the pleasure of watching their entire careers.

 

Wilt averaged something like 29 points and 29 rebounds against Russell. The record for most rebounds in a game is 55 - Wilt owns it and he did it against Russell. Russell even said nobody could stop Wilt.

 

Not dis-agreeing at all.....

Wilt was a 1 man wrecking crew.. But there is no way that Howard is anything close to Wilt.