"Greatest" is a subjective word. A reasonable person would use an accumulation of a players achievements during his whole career. Just because Russell didn't score 30 points per game, he's not "great?" And what about Hakeem? He only won two rings (unfairly judged?) to Kareem's six NBA Titles and three NCAA Titles? See, it's the accumulation of a players total achievements. Not just rings alone. Not just stats alone. The fact is, a lot of people come on this BBS and claim that stats alone are the determining factor ("the best"), yet they use an excuse that that particular player didn't have HOFers around them. Well, which is it? They use stats alone to quantify a players "greatness" but then later add "not having better players around them" as a reason that they don't have rings. That's being hypocritical; a double-standard. Step back a second and look at Russell's total career accomplishments. And please just don't look at just stats. That's the simpletons' view. So, yes. Russell's total achievements trump Hakeem's. Sorry, but it's the truth. Remember, TEAM is just as important as individual accomplishments (stats). And the concept of "TEAM" was something that Russell was a master at. That' can't be overlooked.
What? Russell knew how to pass, erase his teammates mistakes, and solidified the inside in rebounds and put backs. He made his teammates better. He knew how to play within the TEAM system. That was a strength that can't be overlooked. Again, someone bases their claim on scoring stats alone.
That was not a marginal difference, it is a huge one. If they had kept the stats for blocks when Russell was playing (he is one of the main reasons they keep that stat now) Hakeem probably wouldn't have the record. The fact remains that Boston won championships even when they were sorely outmatched (see the 68-69 series with the Lakers) because they had people who could get the job done. After the 68-69 season, Russell left the game and the Celtics left the playoffs. I suggest that you look at the beginning of Hakeem's career to see how far ahead Russell was. Russell won his first championship in his rookie year where Hakeem, despite putting up impressive individual numbers, didn't get his rings until much later in his career. Personally, I point to Russell as the best player to ever grace the NBA. He played amazing defense, was the consummate team player, had acceptable offensive skills, and most importantly, he made his teammates better, something that Hakeem didn't start learning until about 1990.
There is no way Russell could have guarded Hakeem to quick to many moves, but Hakeem could have easily sutdown Russell's basic offensive game. The only highlights I have seen of Russell is him blocking 5'10" white guys going for pathetic layups that I could probaly block. The game was different back then, not to the standards it was when Hakeem was in his prime, sure Russell was a great defensive player but he would be no better than Ben Wallace is today.
You are smoking something strong to make that claim. Russell played against Wilt "The Stilt" and Kareem Abdul Jabbar in their prime. In one game in the 68-69 finals, Wilt had 4 points for the game. Russell was and still remains the most exceptional defensive player to have played in the NBA, period.
I consider individual greatness as the level of achievement combined with the level of hardship one went through. Mike is great not only because he won 6 six rings, but also because he's got no other go to players to share his load. The same goes for Hakeem and Duncan. These are the players that win you rings while carrying the team on both, both ends of the floor night in and night out. Russel isn't that kind of player. Had Russel been in their shoes the results are predictable. Not only his offensive efficieny would drop, due to more shots more misses, but also his DEFENSE level would drop due to more offensive load. The end result is a higher scoring Ben Wallace we are talking about here. Russel is an astounding defensive player that happened to be on probably the most loaded team in the history of NBA. He raised the bar one inch to put that team over the hump while Mike, Hakeem and Duncan raised the bar one foot to put their team over the hump due to the relative lack of talent of their teammates. They are all giants, on different levels.
And here we have one of those that states that Jordan did NOT have talent around him. Next week it will be the other way around. Sigh...
Is there anyone else who doesn't see a point in comparing Russell and Hakeem? Russell played on a fantastic team in an era without free agency. He was a defensive beast, but played against midgets. He had no offense, and concentrated almost entirely on defense. Hakeem was a one man wrecking crue on both sides of the ball. He was also the only great player his team had most years. I'm also curious to know how many people arguing this ever saw Russell play. I haven't, except in my dad's Celtics videos .
Oh yeah lets not forget that Hakeem probably found out what a rim was just what 3 years earlier (maybe less) when he was playing for the NCAA. As time progressed the AVG nba player has gotton more athletic and quicker had hakeem been playing back in the era of russell and wilt he would have been a total wall on defense. And to say that it took Dream 10 years to win is silly with the talent he had to go with, it was a surprised they made the playoffs. (after the fall of sampson that is) Yeah your opinion is a majority i will agree just for the fact that many kids see russell and notice the one number, 11 and the various like 40+ rebounds games and all. At the same time people tend to remember pat ewing and david robinson 100 times more than hakeem when Dream wiped the floor with their a$$ so many times. Case in point: all the hoopla over ewings jersey ceremony compared to the bottom line coverage given to hakeems
this i especially love. andymoon born in 1970 and StudidMoniker born in 1980 telling us how russell put it down back in the 60's. he shut teams down for whole games. he would block 5 to start the game just because the team needed it. yeah, ok. a) as if he was just God and did what he pleased and b) as if hakeem never shut anyone down and c) as if you actually saw him do this. oh and you know you're slipping when you have to start pointing to intangibles of people you never saw play. he was a team player, he did whatever the team needed. nothing anyone can disprove. sure, ignore stats like 15 ppg and 43% shooting and say it was b/c he was a team player and not offensively incompetent. again, what "could be dominant scorer" just settled for 15? no one. people score what they can score. if you're a badass, you get the ball. if you're not, you score 15 on 43% shooting. and andymoon, how did he face kareem in his prime if kareem i believe came in in 69-70 and you just said russell left after 68-69? and finally, DavidS, pretend for a second you're arguing with distinct individuals on the jordan/talent on the bulls topic. you're indignity on the subject is hilarious b/c you act like we all argue both sides when in reality it's just all the people on each side chiming in at different times.
Put Russell on the 93-94/94-95 Rockets, then put Hakeem on the Celtics for those eleven years. Now ask yourself, would the Rockets have won those two championships with Russell? Then ask yourself, would Hakeem plus 3 to 5 hall-of-famers have dominated basketball for 11 years? I think the latter is much more likely. In my opinion, Wilt is probably the best ever. It's too tough to make an argument to say Hakeem was better than Kareem. So, I'll just say Dream was on just about the same level. But the Russell argument has always been my favorite. I just don't even think it's a contest. You have a guy who could dominate a game offensively and defensively in Hakeem. Probably the most, skilled, and versatile offensive big man of all time, as well as a top three defensive player of all time. Russell, on the other hand, was the best defensive player of all time, and not even on the radar for one of the best offensive players. He needed other players to carry one whole side of the ball. Bottom line, for Russell to be on a successful team he was always going to need a lot more help than Hakeem.
So are you saying I would have had to be alive in 1945 to have an opinion on what the Nazis did? There is plenty of tape of Russell and when I had the time, I studied the history of the NBA. I looked up interviews with teammates and competitors, watched as much video as I could find, and formed my opinion based on what I saw. I never said he shut down teams for whole games, but he did shut down opposing centers for whole games INCLUDING WILT FREAKING CHAMBERLAIN, someone who made Shaq look like Lulu the dancing hippo. Have you read anything about Russell? His teammates and opponents all speak about his teamwork and ability to bring his guys together when circumstances were trying to tear them apart. BTW, he AVERAGED 15 per game. Eddie averaged 9 per game his rookie year, yet had a couple of high output nights that year including a 25 pointer. Yao only averaged 13 this year, but did have that 30 point game against Dallas. When offensive guys were out of the lineup for the Celtics, Russell had the ability to score. You are acting like Russell was as offensively inept as Rodman or something. You are right on this one. He still faced Wilt Chamberlain 4 times per year (not counting playoffs) when Wilt was with the 76ers and had that fabulous 7 game series against the Lakers where he shut down Wilt to 4 points in the second game. Bill Russell played against the best offensive player ever to step onto the floor and was able to shut him down. I have the ultimate respect for Dream and I am a huge Rockets fan, but I still believe that Russell brought more to the floor for more of his career than Dream did. No amount of homerism will allow me to overlook the rings that Russell has for all 10 fingers along with the one for his ... you know.
There is NOT a huge difference. Hakeem was like an inch taller than Russell. What do you think the difference in average heighth was between their two eras? Yet he STILL dominated defensively, at the same time he was dominating OFFENSIVELY. Imagine how many blocks Hakeem would have had if he only had to score 15 points a game. Kenny Smith, Vernon Maxwell, Robert Horry, Otis Thorpe. What were you saying again about being 'sorely outmatched'? The sad part is that's the BEST Hakeem ever had to work with. What was 'outmatched' for Russell? What, he only had 2 other Hall-of-Famers to play with? Poor guy. How far ahead he was at what? Certainly not offense. The Bulls won 38 games in Jordan's rookie year. Akeem went to the Finals in his second year and took 2 games from the best team ever. You're exaggerating here. You never answered my question above about getting your pick of one guy to take one shot for you. You can't have 'acceptable' offensive skills and be the best ever. You just can't. You have to be great on both ends. Russell was not. "Made his teammates better" is a cliche that I'm about tired of hearing.
Russell played against "midgets." Ok, ok, Wilt was a midget. Kareem was a midget. And how did he play them? Soft? Nah. I think he played those guys pretty good. And if you were not of the caliber of those players and had to score against Russell, well, then I feel sorry for that player. Oh, and I love the way you say, "He had no offense." Now we know where your mind is in determining what makes a player great." No offense? Zero?
Not necessarily. You are forgetting the person that makes up that player. One of the things that used to drive me nuts back in the late 80's was when Akeem would just shoot all the time. During that time he didn't trust his teammates. But It think it was deeper than that. It was an inability of Hakeem "knowing how" to get his teammates involved. He had no passing skills. He just went one-on-one all the time. That's just the way he was... It was in Akeem's nature to just shoot/attack/rebound. Just go at it. Not much cerebral skills involved. I always used to think of him as the "meat and potatoes" of offensive ability (until 95). Not much substance, but an active force. And because he was our only "star" player, our offense tended to have that same tone/style. A basic, "give it to Akeem offense." Yawnn... It was that style of play that permeated throughout the Rockets of the 80's and 90's. The only difference was that we got players that could hit the 3 on a consistent basis. But the same style of play was used. Now, using that single-star offense is a good way to win only one championship, or none at all. That's why we brought in Drexler. Too bad we didn't get Drexler in the 80's. We might have one 3 or 4 rings. But to say that you can just drop Akeem on Celtics and Russell on the Rockets and claim that Akeem would have won 11 rings is to overlook the knowledge a player had and their willingness to play as a TEAM. That means less shots for that "one-on-one" player. Would Akeem do that? Could he learn the Celtic passing plays? Would he be willing to pass to a cutting Cousey? It was this team oriented style of play the Celtics used that gave them the longevity to win year after year. But the players have to be willing to play that way. And they have to have knowledge in how to play that way.
By the way, contrary to andymoon. I think that Russell was the best champion the NBA has seen. Not the best player, nor center. Best Champion. Winner. I do not think the same thing for Bob Cousy (or Heinsohn, Sharman, and Loscutoff). Why? Because most people know who was "the man" on that Celtics team. It was Russell. Regardless if people criticizes Russell's 15 ppg. He did it to better his team. Not because he didn't have the ablity to score more. As Celtics player Don Nelson told the Boston Herald, "There are two types of superstars. One makes himself look good at the expense of the other guys on the floor. But there's another type who makes the players around him look better than they are, and that's the type Russell was." Was Hakeem a better "Champion" than Russell? No. Was Hakeem a better offensive player that Russell. Yes.
Yes, but some of these narrow points influenced others, unless it's refuted. You would use these same style of arguments back in 2002. You are a lot more balanced (objective) today.
Just to clarify, I said I thought it was <b>more likely</b> that the Celtics could win 11 championships with Hakeem than the Rockets winning a single championship with Russell. I didn't say it would definitely happen. You've proved the point that Russell was a better team player than Hakeem; although, I never really argued against that in the first place.
That is not contrary to me, I agree with you completely. Without Russell, the Celtics do not win most of those championships. Before Russell, no rings, during Russell, 11 in 13 years. Immediately after he left the team, no championships until the Bird era.
