There was a recent thread about all-time teams, and my buddy the Ming Dynasty asked me where Hakeem was on my list, since I chose Russell, then Wilt. Got me thinking about those arguments in the mid 90's about his place in history. I thought then and now that Hakeem still can't crack the big three. Russell-11 titles in 13 seasons, greatest team defender in the history of the game, neck and neck with Wilt as the greatest rebounder, at about four inches shorter. Wilt-Two titles, 30ppg, 23rpg, led the league in assists one season. Jabbar-Six titles, all time leading scorer, most unstoppable shot ever. I place Hakeem fourth in that group, even accounting for the different eras. Though his peak seasons from 93-94 to 95-96 were at least equal to Jabbar's prime, IMO. Any other opinions?
If you look at numbers alone, then you're ignoring eras and teammates. Sorry, but if you claim to account for eras, you'll need to elaborate. Olajuwon dominated the greatest era of centers the league has ever seen. It seems pretty logical that he would do even better in Wilt/Russell's era. Also, look at the caliber of teammates Olajuwon had in comparison to KAJ. Which player do you think had an overwhelming advantage in terms of supporting cast? IMO, the best way to compare them is to look at individual skill sets. Out of those 4 centers, Olajuwon isn't the best offensively nor is he the best defensively. However, if you look at each player's complete game, Olajuwon comes out on top.
Disagree completely. He doesn't compare to either as a rebounder. Wilt was better on offense and also led the league in assists in an era where the stat was much more conservative. The word from most of his peers is that he could do anything and everything. He wasn't just an earlier version of Shaq, knocking people around. He had serious skills. As for Russell, superior rebounder and defender. And 11 for 13 speaks for itself. I can't imagine Hakeem duplicating that, even in that era.
Sorry, I screwed up the format a bit, to say the least. Part of my reply is in the main box, part is below. My bad.
Russell was a better defender based on what? As for rebounding, after adjusting for league averages (a ton of missed shots back then) and setting Russell's minutes/g to a more realistic level, he'd have been grabbing somewhere in the range of 11-14 per game. Like Wilt. Like Hakeem.
There were like 8 teams in the league back when Russell was winning all of those championships. I am biased, but in his prime, I have never seen a more dominant player at his position than Hakeem
The Celtics won all those championships because they were the best team & no one was even close to them. I dare say the Celtics would have won the same number of championships with Cato at center. That doesn't mean that Russell was a stiff. He's still one of the top 4 centers in NBA history.
Hakeem is the better offensive player. He had an infinite number of moves that Wilt couldn't come close to. Wilt never had a move that was nicknamed like "skyhook" or "dreamshake." In the era of better athletes during Hakeems tenure, he was the better athletic defender as well. Hakeem had the full package
Based on the testimony of everyone who ever played or coached against him. He revolutionized the game with his shot blocking, by all accounts. He intimidated everyone on the court. He is universally regarded by his peers as the greatest defender. He won two titles at USF, 11 in the pros. Considering he averaged only 15ppg, that's pretty damn good. Without his defense, the Celtics' famed fast break would've been a lot less effective, even with Bob Cousy.
Just looking at numbers is ignoring the fact that there were many more possessions per game than in todays game. Couple that with almost a complete lack of defense played will give you the numbers you saw back then. Even with the lack of 'D' Russell still had a horrible shooting percentage for a center...someone showed his rpg earlier in the thread 11-14? That sounds about right...Bringing all that together...About 11 pts and 14 rebs per game? That's not going to win you many championships unless you surround him with a lot of great scorers...which of course, Boston did. Apparently he was an incredible defender and probably lead the league all time in blocks. But to be the greatest all time because you were a great defender really dismisses the importance of a player needing to be complete to be great. Still, nobody can deny that Bill Russell was a champion and perfect for the celtics...but put him on the Bobcats and you'll probably see a different legacy. Heck, put him on the 93-94 Rockets in place of Hakeem...do we still win that series without a dominate offensive player/great defender? Or would just a GREAT defender have been enough?
They were the best team because Russell was there. Because Russell was the perfect fit. I hope you're kidding about Cato. If they'd had Wilt, they wouldn't have come close to 11, IMO, and in the opinion of some Celtics from that era. Maybe 4 or 5 at most.
How many people played or coached against Bill Russell and Hakeem Olajuwon? Russell may very well have been the best defensive player of his generation. He may have been in a pioneer as a rim protector. But you can't claim he's the best defender of all time simply based on hearsay.
No, but Wilt averaged 30ppg lifetime. He had a finger roll and a baseline fadeaway, and could run the court in his earlier days, plus he was hands down the strongest player in the game. However you score, it counts. Hakeem was more varied in his approach, but he didn't really become unstoppable until 6,7 years in. Wilt was from day one, and only slowed down when he was surrounded by better talent.
You're really discrediting Wilt here. If Wilt and Russell swapped places, the Celtics most likely wouldn't even need to play defense because they would have easily blown out the opposition by halftime.
