Why is there such a case for undersize? From NBA.com Bill Russell stands at 6-10, 220. http://www.nba.com/history/players/russell_bio.html Dwight Howard stands at 6-11, 265 http://www.nba.com/playerfile/dwight_howard/ Al Jefferson stands at 6-10, 265 http://www.nba.com/playerfile/al_jefferson/ Amare stands at 6-10, 245 http://www.nba.com/playerfile/amare_stoudemire/ Chris Bosh stands at 6-10, 230 http://www.nba.com/playerfile/amare_stoudemire/ I'm using NBA.com as the standard here as height of player will fluctuate with shoe and without shoe. He is not that small compare to the best post players in the game now. So I really wonder why its an issue. Size doesn't seem to make any difference for Barkley and Rodman, on an era filled with 7 footers. Which consist of Dream, Robinson, Ewing, Mutombo, Alonzo etc.
Barkley and Rodman were power forwards who primarily guarded other teams' power forwards. Russell was a center who would've had to guard those centers you listed.
I don't know if he's overrated or underrated. But I'll say this: no way Bill Russell puts the supporting cast of the 94 Rockets on his back and wins a championship.
And No way is Hakeem Olajuwon, Hakeem Olajuwon if it weren't for Russell, Moses, Wilt, Kareem, etc.....
Rick Barry took an even worse supporting cast, and won a championship. http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/GSW/1975.html Is Barry greater than Dream and Russell now? I don't think so, and I don't think anyone thinks so. Your argument is not especially convincing. Heck Duncan led a comparably poor or worse 2003 Spurs team (very old Robinson, rookie Ginobili) to a championship as well and I wouldn't put Duncan above the Dream either.
I didnt understand the context, then I did. Then I didnt again.. I guess dominance at its finest is up to interpretation, and if you want to credit the team or the individual. A dynasty to me would be more dominant than a single season great year of dominance. Overall, Russell's very good 11 > Wilt's great single season. But that's me. Its still to Wilt's credit though, in the individual greatness comparsion. Wilt's '67 Sixers team was an all time best. Then Wilt had ANOTHER all time ass kicking team in the '72 Lakers with the ridiculous 33 game winning streak. Wilt's 2 best teams would beat any of Russell's best Celtics teams.
Well I think Wilt Chamberlain who lost most of his Championships to Russell would disagree. Considering alot people see him as the GOAT and yet Russells teams spanked him regularly I think that shows maybe he is underhyped perhaps?
This is in reference to some that says his rebound numbers is inflated due to the rest of the players being smaller.
Ummm...Shaq better than Hakeem? Shaq 'dominated' in arguably the weakest era EVER for Centers... ...while Hakeem dominated what may been the strongest...
Barkley and Rodman put up their rebound stats against 7 footers and big, physical PFs like Malone and Oakley and Thorpe and Duncan. Imagine if, instead of big, physical 7 foot guys, they were instead competing against a bunch of 6'5", slower guys? They would have put up even more outstanding numbers.
Who was playing center in the early 2000s? Michael Olowakandi? Hakeem, Robinson, and Ewing were done. Zo was out. Deke was around, and his 11 points, 11 rebounds averages in 01/02 got him 3rd team all NBA (3 PFs made the 2nd team roster). Ben Wallace, all 6'7" of him, got 2nd team in 02/03 and 03/04 for averages of 7 / 15 and 9 / 12. Yao's emergence after that at least gave the league a 2nd true center to compete with Shaq. But the early 2000s was probably the worst for the center position, even with Shaq, in the last 40+ seasons. There's really no debating that, if you look at the rosters.
If Russell played on mediocre teams all his career, he would have been compared to Mutombo rather than with Wilt, Kareem, Hakeem and Shaq, which BTW was no insult. Deke is a great defensive player and a greater person.
Overrated? Well, if he is considered in the top 5 centers of all time, then absolutely. Why? Because his offense sucked. How bad did it suck? It sucked so bad that he shot a similar % to Chuck Hayes despite gettting what - two to three times as many offensive rebounds? Note that his FT% is similar to Chuck's as well. Unless you can say that he had at least a good offensive game, don't consider him a top 5 center. 1. Hakeem - great offense, incredible defense. 2. Chamberlain - incredible offense, good defense. 3a. Shaq - great offense, good defense 3b. Kareem - great defense, great offense (stats are padded due to length of career somewhat) 6-10 somewhere: Russelll - incredible defense, bad offense Russell is better than Yao Ming, Ewing, etc etc - but most people wouldn't even know his name if he didn't play on the Celtics.
Shaq was putting up 20-30 and 10-15 rebs on Hakeem, Robinson, and Ewing his first years in the league. He destroyed the Knicks and Spurs most of the times they met. Hakeem probably fared the best against him in the 90's, but Shaq probably still put up 20-25 points and 10-15 rebs on him during those years. Shaq, at worst, was on an equal level with those guys in terms of dominance. Why are we talking about 2000's for the guy? He entered the league pretty much near the beginning of the 90's and was an elite center of the era.
I don't think Shaq was ever considered the best center in the NBA until the late 1990's, at different points Robinson and Olajuwon were considered better. It was only starting around 1998 or so that Shaq started truly dominating the league, where his MDE reputation was born (Wilt Chamberlain is the real MDE but that's something unrelated) and that's when his competition was weakest. Shaq in the early-mid 90's was the 2nd or third best center in the NBA, Shaq in the late 90's-early 2000's was a ridiculous dominant force. His greatness stems from this latter phase but it was done against some sad competition.
