And your point? I hope it's not that Russell played against, "midgets" and that's why he was successful? Or, could it be that he just knew how and had the ability to defend anyone, including a 7'2" Wilt? Remember, Russell was 6'9". A little perspective, Hakeem was 6'10" 3/4.
I was not refering to the part about midgets My point was that russel retired before kareem even played a game. you were implying that russel played against kareem
I stand corrected. But again, it misses the point of my rebut. The issue of Russell's impact on the game. I mean, do you think that Russell would have more trouble with Kareem after playing Wilt (prime of career, put aside).
He did, but it was toward the end of Kareem's career, of course. He was one of 3 Rockets to block the Sky Hook.
I'd rather not to beat a dead horse, but the rightuous side within me doesn't allow others to steal fame from a great Rockets player. Russel had players that he could trust and dump the ball to from the start. That's doesn't mean he's more of a team player at heart than Hakeem was. Russel is forced to be a team player on offense because he couldn't score well. Putting Hakeem on that Celtics team would probably turn out well for Hakeem's maturation as a team player than giving him all the load since being a rookie in Houston. To put things in perspective. 15 PPG at 43% is average to slightly above average scoring for a starting guard. Adding the fact that Russel plays near the basket which boosts his scoring average and percentage, also the fact the defense he faced in 60's is less than 80's and 90's, the fact that he plays far less games each year with more energy than Hakeem, with all these factors combined it's safe to say Russel's scoring prowess is around or less than an average starting guard. Throwing in the fact his defensive achievement is helped by his lack of offensive input, I'd say Russel didn't exceed Hakemm on defense by much, but was exceeded by Hakeem on offense by a mile. This whole thing broils down to a point that's confused by the number of rings. For example, Robert Horry is a better fit for the Houston Rockets than Scottie Pippen. He fills the holes of the Rocket's game better than Pippen. Still, he's no better a player than Pippen. The funny part is, Horry was indispensable to the Rockets while Pippen was, even Pippen was better than Horry as a player. This is an example of a great one dimensinal player making a name for himself in a favourable situation and be made looking like he has the same impact as a great all around player. Russel had much more talent than Dream, so he won more rings. Russel fits his team well, doesn't mean his game is better than Hakeem. Russel was better than the other HOFers on that team, doesn't mean he is better than Hakeem. The greatest players are the indisputable man on any team. Put Russel at pf, and let either Hakeem, Kareem, Wilt or Shaq be on the same team, and we know for sure Russel won't be the man.
Also, I lose track of all the facts that have been posted in one one of these biannual Hakeem/Russell debates, but I think it should be noted that of the 11 championships Russell won there were only 8 teams in the entire league during his first season and only twelve by his last. In short, winning a championship back then wasn't as tough of a feat as it is today.
I would never attempt to say that Russell was ever more talented offensively as Hakeem. Other than Wilt, no center has been as offensively talented as the Dream. The vast array of moves and fakes he was able to use effectively was unmatched by any player his size ever. His nose for the basket and ability to get there was incredible and from 93-95, he was quite obviously the best player in the league. That being said, my statements about Russell being a better overall player than Dream still stand. Many of you have shrugged off Russell's 44% FG as somehow inadequate, but quoting from the NBA.com archive on Russell, "Interestingly, although Russell was not considered a skilled offensive player, he was a selective shooter and in his early years ranked regularly among the NBA's top five in field-goal percentage. In 1958-59, for example, his .457 mark was second in the league. " Russell never needed to be a scorer with Cousey and Sharman on the team and we will never know if he could have been a dominant scorer like he was in college. Russell was more than a thousand assists over Dream, despite playing 5 less seasons and playing 20 games less a year. Russell averaged 22 rebounds and upped that every year in the playoffs. There are a number of things that Russell did markedly better than Dream and there was only one thing that Dream did better, score the ball. And when it comes down to it for me, the proof comes in June. Who has more rings? When other people get compared, that is the determining factor. Who was better, Ewing or Dream? Who was better, MJ or Dr. J? It also depends on the specific question being asked. If you ask me who the most unstoppable force we have ever seen at center, it is Wilt. If you ask me what seven footer (NBA term) had the best offensive moves, it would be Dream. If you were to ask who the most powerful guy has been, it would be Shaq. They were all the best at something.
If you mean, doing more with less in terms of "harder". Well, all teams have "less" today. So it all equals out. Talent was more consolidated back in the 50/60's. In fact, dilution of talent is one of the reason you have a bunch of bad to average teams today. A residual of the distribution of talent over 30 teams is that the quality of play goes down as well. Imagine taking the best players of today and putting them on 12 man rosters of just 8 teams. Talk about HARD to win! I'd say that 5 out of those 8 would be very, very good teams. The other 3, would very good. Not a lot bad teams, huh? We're talking a 12 man All-Star team for each of the 8 teams. An average player would be Mobley. And guys like Rick Fox and Eduardo Najera wouldn't even make a team. Teams like the Lakers would have Kobe, Shaq, and Iverson. The Spurs would have Duncan, McGrady and Marbury. The Rockets would have Yao, Francis and Garnett. So, winning back in the old days was harder.
Abdul-Jabbar was the most prolific scoring center. Especially compared to Akeem's early years (as far as offensive skill is concerned). Akeem's greatest strength early was his defensive ability. His athletic ability was unmatched. But he didn't become a great scorer until 1992. Abdul-Jabbar, 1969-70 NBA Rookie of the Year after averaging 28.8 ppg and 14.5 rebounds for the Milwaukee Bucks. Abdul-Jabbar averaged 30 or more points in four of his six years with the Bucks. He received the NBA scoring title twice (1971 with 31.7 ppg, 1972 with 34.8 ppg). You can't overlook that. Hakeem's best years, as you said, were 93-96. He averaged 27 ppg during that span. Career, 21.8 ppg.
That's true. Hakeem or Akeem as he was known there had a greater chance of scoring with a double or triple team than passing onto a team mate. I can't the fault the coaches then in going through the team's bread and butter each possesion. Who else are you going to give the ball to?
Hakeem was far from polished when he entered the NBA in 84. Don't get me wrong but even in his Phi Slamma Jamma days, he was running on pure athleticism and hunger. Kareem on the other hand was how many times All-American, how many Player of the Year awards he received, how many college titles his teams won before he entered the NBA?? Kareem was ready-made to own the NBA when he turned pro. I refuse to be a homer and I will concede that Kareem had the more impressive career than Hakeem. But in terms of creativity in the post, Hakeem has got no equal.
I don't really follow your logic. Just because the talent wasn't more consolidated doesn't mean every team was equal. In addition, I could just say it was easier to stockpile talent back then to become a dominant team. There's just no way you're going to convince me it's tougher to be better than 7 teams than to be better than 25 or 28 other teams. Not to mention the Celtics often only had to win two playoff series to win the championship, as opposed to five today.
True, the Celtics didn't win anything until Russell came along. Yes, he was the missing piece. His team was still stacked though. In his rookie year (title I), the Celtics already had Bob Cousy and they also added Bill Sharman. Last time I checked, that's a hall-of-fame backcourt, something Hakeem never had. http://www.nba.com/history/finals/19561957.html The next year they added Sam Jones. No. But I would rate Hakeem over him because Hakeem could dominate a game offensively, and Russell could not. Hakeem was also a great defender. His "team" was stacked with hall-of-famers. Wow, Sam Jones and Havilcek were also on that 68-69 squad. They are both hall-of-famers as well. Hakeem didn't come onto a team with two hall-of-fame players on it. Russell did (Cousy & Sharman). For those of you jocking Russell and his titles, a simple look at the Celtics history page will open your eyes. There was not one season where he didn't have a stacked squad, even in his last season. I even see titles such as "1959-62: Wilt Arrives, But Celtics Prove That Five Stars Are Better Than One". http://www.nba.com/celtics/celtics_history.html#7 After you look through that and find a time where Russell won something without at least 2 HOF teammates, then show me how he could be relied on as a #1 option, I might believe he ranks ahead of Hakeem. He didn't for about half of his career. He didn't win until he got help, but he was still dominating without it. Guys, just because Russell was the missing piece to the Celtics titles does not make him the greatest center ever, or put him in the argument. You are touting his defensive presence, as if Hakeem was not a beast on defense. You don't think it's easy to be great on defense (if you have that ability) when you don't have to be relied on to score, or carry your team offensively? You don't think it's a little easier to win 11 titles when your team is laced with HOF's every year. Please....anyone find me another team during that era that consistently had 3-4-5 HOF's on it. I don't think you can. Russell, Cousy, Sharman, K.C. Jones, Sam Jones, Havelcik....that's six right off the top of my head. I'm pretty sure there was not another team around with that much talent. Hakeem vs Wilt or Kareem....then we can talk, because both of them could bring it at both ends. To be better than Dream, you have to be able to dominate on both ends of the court, because Hakeem was no sucker offensively or defensively. So if your dominance is one dimensional (offense for Shaq, defense for Russell) then I am not going to rank you higher than Dream who could score just as well as Shaq (and he was much more dominant defensively), and play defense just as well as Russell (and he was much more dominant offesnively).
The comparisons between Dream and Bill Russell are amusing. I love Dream, he's in the top 3 all-time favorite Houston sports palyers, but to compare him to Bill Russell? If we were anywhere other than a ROCKETS BBS, the outcome wouldn't even be close. Russell is considered one of the best centers of all time, battling for the top 3 centers of all time with Wilt and Kareem, while Hakeem makes it into the top 5, at highest. Sure Russell wasn't a great offensive machine. But he was an oustanding defensive player (one of the best of all-time, IMO) and a good, above average offensive player. Anywhere else, the comparison wouldn't be nearly so close.
from Tierre Brown Hey look, you may be right, but the fact is Dream's probably the most underrated athlete who played in Houston period. A lot of DavidS and Andymoon's posts I agree with (probably because they saw Russell play too), but this is the typical era-hopping dilemma here. Wilt pulled down 50 rebounds against Russell once. Could that happen in this era? No. At the same time the speed and size of NBA players is radically different now. The only thing I disagree with is the points about Dream's defense. Yeah he was raw early, and his basketball intelligence was questioned until '95, but it's total BS. I saw Alcindor play in college and his entire NBA career. Dream won more ballgames in the 1st quarter with his shot-altering than anyone I've ever seen. Could Russell do that, sure, but I'm not sure he could have ever done it in the 80's. Dream's steals were amazing, but it's just too easy to see Dream's overall game giving Russell hell at the peak of their careers. The comparison of fg pctg. is way out of whack - it was a hell of a lot easier to score then than today. Yeah Russell was great around the rim, but his shot was never great. He was very smart, very athletic and a great passer playing on a great team. One on one, Dream would dust his butt. Playing on identical great teams... I don't know, because Dream never played on one after he was a sophomore in college. And Russell didn't grow up in Nigeria playing soccer. And anyway despite the 11 rings, I still take Wilt. 7'2" dude who throws in 100 and later announces he's going to lead the league in assists and does it, just shuts me up. I didn't remember Russell's FT% sucks too.
Icehouse, Your whole position is that Russell is no one. And Hakeem is everything. History will do that to you. It causes people to forget. You keep saying, "packed with HOFers" like that's the only reason that Russell was successful. And when you say, "rank higher"...you are talking in only offense skill, right? Why don't you step back and see the big picture. Do titles count for anything? The players passing skill? An incredible 22.5 rpg avarage! An ability to understand the complex Celtic systems? None of that counts? Noooooo, all you can say is the only reason that Russell has those 11 rings is because of his HOFer teammates, not him. See, what you are doing here? You are comparing apples to oranges. You aren't comparing the same things. If you compare Hakeem's offenses skill to Russell's, Hakeem wins out. But we aren't talking about that. We are talking about the total "greatness" of that player. All, I repeat, ALL of their accomplishments from their WHOLE CAREER. All you are doing is picking and choosing pieces of their games and saying, "Hakeem is better on offense, Russell was an *average offensive player. Thus, Hakeem is better." *average = he was better offense player than you think he was. See, what you are doing? Then, you go out of your way to try and discount the 11 rings by saying that Russell didn't deserve the rings because it was all due to his HOFer team. Talk about double-standards, man! I mean, Hakeem never had HOFers on his team, but you automatically give him the 11 rings by implying things like, "If Hakeem had HOFers on his team he would have won 11 rings...etc, etc..." Well, he didn't. Russell did. Look at the whole picture, and what you get, is what you get. You are trying to make up history. If you want to discuss individual skill. That's another story. But when you start ranking them with your own version of "greatness" well that's another story.
And if Russell is not on that team, Celtics lose. Russell was the great equalizer to Wilts dominance. Without Russell, the Celts couldn't have stopped Wilt, or some of the other contending teams. Just like today, Shaq is not just one person. He's so big and dominating that you need a whole team to do so, and an equalizer (Duncan).
Is it our fault that most fans just believe whatever the "media" has to say? It's not our fault that most fans see 11 rings to two, and think Russell is better without considering the other HOF's on the team. It's not our fault that folks don't realize how great Dream was defensively because Houston is not a media darling. It's not our fault that most people make excuses for Russel's poor offensive stats. Don't hate on us simply because we are educated hoops fans (even though biased ). Not true. My whole position is that if a player can bring it on both ends of the court, then he is better in my book. Russell and Shaq don't do this, and their strenghts (offense for Shaq, defense for Russell) don't dominate what Hakeem could do on offense or defense. You might have an argument saying Shaq is a slightly better offensive player than Dream, or Russell was a slightly better defender than Dream, but Dream's dominance on the other end puts him on top in both situations. What did I forget? That Russell couldn't be counted on as a #1 option offensively (ala Dream) and he won a crapload of titles on a team with the most talent in the league, bar none? It wasn't just because of him, or because of any certain other player. It was because the Celtics had the best "team". it's because their team had more talent on it than any other squad in the game at that time. In this sport, superstars win titles. Of course you are going to win more if you have more superstar players. I already said Russell was the missing piece to the titles, but I highly doubt that Russell would have led a team full of non HOF players to a championship. Dream could (because he could dominate offensively). That's why he is better in my book. No I'm not. I'm looking at them both as individual players. I would rather have the player that can dominate at both ends of the court. Russell could not do that, so I would rather have the player who could (Hakeem). Yes, Russell won a lot, but you are discounting the impact of his other HOF teammates. Once again, please show me a Celtic title team that was not stacked. Show me another team that had mote talent on it than the Celtics had at that time. You threw out Russel's rookie year, as if two HOF players were not on that team as well (that was also Sharman's first year with the team). Considering that two superstar players usually led to a title from 1990 and up, I think it's safe to say Hakeem would have won a crapload of rings if he had 4 HOF teammates, in their prime. Yes, it's an assumption. However, if he can win with a squad full of role players, I think he could win with a squad full of HOF'rs. I am not discounting Russel's significance to the title teams. However, you are discounting the efforts of every other HOF player on those squads. You keep throwing out the "11 rings", as if Hakeem ever got to play on a team with that much talent. Rings and stats will all vary depending on your teammates, and the era that you played in. That's why you have to look at the players as individuals. Both players were great defenders. Hakeem was a offensive monster. Russell was average. Advantage Hakeem. What have I made up? Everything that I have mentioned is fact (Russel's great teammates and his poor offensive numbers). Should I consider Will Perdue a better center now since he has 3 rings?
