For a change of pace: Hakeem's block record

15 ppg on 43% for a center is poor.

[QUOTE"Better?" Again, I'm talking about ranking them in total greatness. You are ranking them in offensive ability. And, to make your case better you try to discredit the 11 rings. Achievements are achievements.

You might as well just say, Hakeem was a "better" offensive player. But that's it. But for greatness and legacy, you'll have to re-write history for that.

Sorry.[/QUOTE]

I don't have to re-write history. I just have to know how to think on my own instead of believing what "writers" tell me.

I am talking about them in total greatness as well. Compare the players and their TOTAL game. What did they bring to the table? They were both great defenders. If you want to argue that Russell was a better defender than Dream, thats fine, but it would not be by much. Dream kills him offensively. You go ahead and pick the guy that can dominate one end of the court. I'll take the guy that can dominate both ends.

I am not discrediting his 11 rings. I am simply pointing out that his teams were stacked, and had more talent on them than any other team in the league. Is this not true? You are discrediting the contributions of his teammates. It would be different if all of those players were with the Celtics and never won squat until Russell came, but that was not the case. Sharman and Heinhson came during the same season, and the other HOF players came after.

And the Bulls had Pippen, Rodman and Jordan. The Jazz had Stockton & Malome. The talent on the Rockets (old, broke down talent by the way) was not more than the talent of all the other teams in the league, so that is a poor comparison to make.

Oh, you mean the championship where West (who was still named Finals MVP) messed up his hamstring in game 6 (in a series the celtics won 4-3). You mean the championship where Russell wasn't the man anymore? The one where it was Wilt's first season in LA? This is the write-up of that title.

"The Lakers, however, had no one but themselves to blame. They had made only 28 of 47 free-throw attempts. Always a poor shooter from the line, Chamberlain was only 4-for-13. But the fault didn't belong entirely to Chamberlain. He had hit seven of eight shots from the field and had pulled down 27 rebounds. Russell, who had played five more minutes, had 21 boards."

Okay, so we are at what....1 title out of 10 in which the Celtics didn't have arguably more talent than anyone else?

 

Not those days. Most of the time, Russell was in the top 5 in fg% in the league and finished number 2 a couple of times. They scored a lot back then but it wasn't at a high percentage.

 

Geez, David, give some people on this bbs credit. Yes, it's borderline cliche now to quote the phrase "Hakeem was not 7 feet tall". We know. Height-wise, they were similar in stature, but Hakeem outweighed Russell by about 30-40 lbs though. Which makes it all-the-more amazing the guy could move like he did. Also explains why Wilt could average around 30 pts and 25 rebs on Russell.

It also tells you something about the league. Also makes me wonder how many 20 foot jumpers Russell was hoisting for his FG% to suck that bad. On a similar vein, check out the great Bob Cousy's FG%. One of the most pathetic shooters ever to be labeled a legend. I don't think we started seeing respectable FG% numbers out of big men till around the early 60's.... or that's what I remember anyway. Before that, they were all just "really gosh darn good defensive players".

 

You know what's funny. Is that its easy to quantify "more talent" after the fact they won the rings...You know the "legendary" thing? Like, today, if someone *dare* says that Mobley or Tony Parker will be a HOFer one of these days, people say, "No way! That's wrong. That's blasphemy! Those guys suck, blah, blah, blah"...but then 20 years down the line (after the Rockets win 5 titles...I'm dreaming) the people and fans give Mobley or Parker (with the Spurs) their due. I can just hear it now..."The only reason that Yao Ming won those 5 titles was because the Rockets had THREE HOFers, Mobley, Griffin and Francis!!!!"

So, to get back on topic, I think the "more talent" leans a little towards Russell side.

Yep.
That's what I thought. We're using two different measurements. My position is TOTAL CAREER accomplishments.

Hakeem will go down as "One of the best centers to never be able to prove it with better players around him"....whew......

 

Yeah, I was wondering about that. From game film he seemed to like the mid-range jumper and baby-hook, augmented by his lay-ups and dunks.

It safe to say that he was not a dunker only (like Cato and Bo Outlaw). Else his fg % would be up there like theirs. Russell actually shot, the mid-jumper.

The "dunk" was actually not preached in the early days.

 

I don't think I've seen a single fact in this whole thread. I mean, I've seen facts about Bill Russell in his era and facts about Hakeem in his era, but none of those facts can be subjectively compared, so they really don't mean anything. This is why the Hakeem/Russell argument is one of my favorites.

<b>Might</b> make a case for Wilt over Russell? Take a look again at TheFreak's post comparing their head to head matchups. Now there's some <b>facts</b> for ya! And, if that doesn't settle it, then my next question will be "...and how are you related to Mr. Russell?"

 

And those career accomplishments came with a ton of help, and in a completely different era.

 

That's the problem with era-hopping. Let the past stand on it's own merits.

I.e., discrediting past accomplishments to further someone else accomplishments.

It's biased.

 

1. Forgive the hyperbole, oh literal one. You mention some tall guys. Yippeee. The average heighth was significantly lower.

2. I did not say that offense is the only important part of basketball (though I do concede, I think it's more important, generally). However, Hakeem was a monster on both sides of the ball. He dominated offensively and defensively. Russell was an incredible player on the defensie end. He was actually sub-par offensively. You have to deduct points for that, sorry.

Players aren't just lists of positives. There are negatives as well. Hakeem was much better rounded than Russell; I find it incredible that anyone would argue otherwise.

 

I'll trust DoD since he's actually seen Bill Russell play basketball.

 

no, clearly you are biased and have an infantile mind only capable of understanding "rockets good, others bad" and need DavidS to show you the way to impartiality.

i swear it's like David is typing with the national media in the background trying really hard to impress them saying "see i didn't side with houston, i'm being impartial by agreeing with you guys, do i get a prize." it's ok to believe something or someone from houston is better DavidS, sometimes it's just plain ol' logic, not homerism.

hakeem played the whole court extremely well, russell played defense extremely well, hakeem wins. it's not tough to figure out.

 

It is a fact im my mind.

Not at all. Head to head matchups were heavily slanted in Russell's favor, especially during the (nearly) decade that Wilt was with Philly and could only manage one title to Bill's 8.

 

So, you mean it's your opinion?

I don't want to call you a liar. But how could the matchups be "heavily slanted in Russell's favor for almost a decade," when Wilt's points per game in the head-to-head matchups literally doubled Russell's? That almost seems like an impossibility.

 

Kid, you are looking at one stat. Russell got the most important stat that there was (the W), despite having to play against the most dominant offensive player ever to step onto the floor. Yes, the team had a lot to do with it, but that is simply another area that Russell had a leg up on Wilt, he knew how to sacrifice to make the team better.

The matchup is heavily slanted in Russell's favor because the Celtics took the Sixers out most years on their way to winning championships. Wilt's Sixers won a single championship in the 60s while Russell and the Celtics won the other 9.

 

Just like the John Stockton/Ron Harper matchup is heavily slanted in Harper's favor, and the Jason Kidd/Derek Fisher matchup is heavily slanted towards Fisher.

 

When you only look at one stat, yes that would seem to be the case. When you look at ALL the stats, they do not support that. The people discounting Russell seem to be doing it because he was deficient in one statistical category. Everyone they put up against him is also deficient in (at least) one statistical category compared to Russell. W-L record and titles count as a statistical category for me in addition to assists, rebounds, points, and blocks. When you look at everything overall, Russell stands out naturally.

 

As well as winning two college championships and being named player of the year in college while averaging 20 and 20.

 

Yet you said the matchup was HEAVILY SLANTED towards Russell because of ONE statistical category, when Wilt was better in EVERY OTHER category. When you look at ALL the stats (like you just asked that we do), the matchup was heavily slanted towards Chamberlain.

 

So by your logic, when Wilt completely obliterated the Russell-led Celtics by scoring 34 pts and snatching 55 rebs in a losing effort you'd say, "....well, Russell's team won...he's the better player."

And how exactly was Russell sacrificing himself by letting Chamberlain walk over him in those head-to-head matchups...unless of course he was just playing the part of the sacrificial lamb to Wilt's dominance.