if you really question russell's greatness, remember he won two national championships at university of san fransico, no powerhouse, he did have k.c. jones. but if you want to see how playing with russell made you a hall of famer, go look at k.c. jone's numbers. I believe the celtics didn't win a championship till he got there.
You can only judge athletes in relation to their era. of course if you took hakeem out of 1990 and plucked him into 1960, he probably be the best athlete in the world. and that being said, as much as I love hakeem, I doubt he would still win as much as russell.
If you had to draft one player now between Russel and Hakeem whom would you take? IMHO, you take Hakeem HANDS down. Russel's offensive skills were lacking, the game is played at both ends....if Hakeem was on those Celtic teams he would have won as many titles if not more, but if Russel were on the Rockets during our run, we would still be waiting on a title. DD
I don't think Russell is the GOAT. No I don't question the quality of the league when the guy who averaged 50 and scored 100 is the GOAT and the real MDE. Should I question the league when 6'6" Kobe Bryant can score 62 in 3 quarters or 81 in a game? Is Kobe Bryant a big kid? In the 21st century NBA Ben Wallace is a great difference maker on the strength of his defense and rebounding alone, best player on a championship winning team. Russell was much better than him in everything that makes Ben Wallace great today AND he could be an effective player on offense when he had to. Ben Wallace is proof that Russell's game could work in today's NBA... I think there is a great discrepancy on defense... Hakeem was a great defensive player but it's not as if he was winning all the DPOY awards or getting on all the All Defensive First Teams. Russell was without a doubt the best defensive player in the league and the guy most people consider the best defensive player of all time, Hakeem was the best in the league one or two times and amongst the best maybe six or seven times. Hakeem's offense at it's peak made a big enough difference to consider him better than Russell but his offensive peak was only a few years, for most of his career his offense was closer to Patrick Ewing than Wilt Chamberlain. His game came together for only a few years; Russell, Wilt, Kareem, and even Shaq's games reached their peak much earlier in their careers and they held for a longer period of time.
But Russell is the only one of the Big 5 to shoot under 50% from the field, and his FT% was not a strength either, much closer to Shaq and Wilt's than to Kareem or Hakeem's. That said the 11 NBA championships, not to mention 2 NCAAs/55 straint college wins (for the University of San Francisco, not to be confused with UCLA), plus a gold medal he captained, speaks loadly. He certainly has a case for the best basketball player ever, though to me there are stronger ones. Just look at Kareem, in the ball park for Russell's "winner" credentials--6 pro championships, won all 3 college championships he was eligible for with a 88-2 total record, and 71 strait high school wins, and Kareem far more overwhelming statistical accomplishments than Russell. But this discounts Shaq has already been in about 40% more games, and many more games deep into the playoffs (conference finals and NBA finals). Hakeem in his peak might very well have gotten the best of Shaq in his peak. He did outplay a young Shaq who was also statistically dominant even if he had a long way to go as a well rounded player. Once Shaq had a better understanding of the game, passing and a few moves Shaq might have got him in foul trouble too. Either way it is a tough call. Hakeem in fact has a argument in his peak he could have gotten the best of Shaq and Russell. I don't think he is peak he gets the best of Kareem or Wilt, these guys even more than Shaq were just offensively unstoppable. In the end Hakeem is defintely top 5, but weighing statistical domination (Wilt is the best by a mile, followed by a solid #2 in Kareem, Shaq and Hakeem fighting for the next spots, than Russell), team success (Russell leads solidly, than Kareem as a solid #2, than Shaq as a solid #3, and Hakeem and Wilt tied for last among the big 5 considering pro and college team accomplishments), and individual awards (Kareem, Russell, Wilt, Shaq, Hakeem), I see no reasonable argument Hakeem could be higher than 4, and is probably at #5. He is also a top 10 player at any position IMO. Hakeem was great, maybe the best of all time in his peak, but his resume is not there to call him the best ever center. Those resumes belong to Wilt, Kareem and Russell depending on how you weigh factors. I also think you have to put Shaq a tad ahead of Hakeem based on total resume even if you think Hakeem might have been to take him at their absolute peaks.
I would take Russell… Obviously, you would build a team differently around both players; Hakeem would require more specialized players, while there is no type of player that won’t fit around Russell. Building around a basketball genius, defense and rebounding beast plus a great passer and decent scorer proved to be effective. Even now with Ben Wallace who is not even close to being the player that Russell was... The Celtics could not have won if Hakeem played the way he played on the Rocket's championship runs they needed everything but scoring from their big man and they didn’t need a player who would slow down their fast break. If you take away the scoring of some of those players you take away their purpose in the game and in the process their confidence which will make the team play worse. The Rockets could not have won if Russell played the way he played in the Celtic's championships runs, the team required a post presence, and Russell could not provide that, but like I said, if you build the team around Russell’s strength you will win championships. Of course you can say the same of Hakeem but obviously one player was more successful than the other was, especially considering the fact that Russell’s first championship team was 100% different from his last. If that doesn’t illustrate how easy it was to build a championship team around him then nothing will. Also, even though the Celtics had the players and the championships the difference between 11 championships and two or three was somewhere around 11 points. So whatever balance and chemistry they achieved was very fragile, it was a perfect mix of players and roles, you can't just say that you could replace Russell with Hakeem or anybody because it would change everything.
Using notoriously inept DPOY voting (see Ben Wallace winning this year) against Hakeem is not credible. He only won it twice, but he could have won it any year from 89-95. Several years he did not win it were a complete travesty (89-91 in particular, with 91 being arguable since he only played 56 games). Realistically, he should have at least 4-5. All defensive team nods are also a crappy barometer (Example: Hakeem didn't even make the team in 1995 - at the absolute peak of his career.) I think Ben Wallace proves the opposite - He's proof that Russel would be a star, but Ben Wallace's impact is limited, IMO and Russel's would be too. The game has simply caught up to players like Russell from where it was in the 60's, and it's simply much harder to drag a team through 29 challengers and 6 weeks of playoffs than it was in the old days.
the problem with Shaq is he never had any opposing center that made him work on the defensive end. He saved all his energy for offense. Well he did in 95, but we know how that turned out.
Well, most people won't call Hakeem the best defensive player of his time, actually no one else really distinguished themselves defensively either, but the point is that Russell did. Ben Wallace was usually the lone All Star on teams that won at least 50 games five straight years, advanced to at least the Eastern Conference Finals four straight years, two straight finals appearances, and won one championship. How is that a limited impact? And again, he's no where near as good as Russell. Russell dragged his team through an entire decade.
Look at the defense they played back then in those chamberlain highlights. Use your feet, hold your hands up, hope that the guy misses. The defensive players in hakeem's era are light years ahead of anybody in Russell's day in almost every possible category. Size, strength, speed, aggressiveness - you name it. Perhaps the 60's guys had better footwork, but taht's about it. Yet nobody ever speaks of Wallace dragging his team everywhere, because he didn't. It's simply not possible, given level of compettion, for a defensive specialist to drag his team to anything. Wallace was excellent, but his impact was limited to the end of the floor where you can do everything right and still give up a basket.
Russell had lead University of San Francisco to two strait NCAAs and a remarkable record. It was a time where the NBA didn't allow underclassmen to play, he clearly was ready for the NBA well before he was allowed to play and far more polished than Hakeem was at UH. So no, I don't think teams would have taken Hakeem over Russell--at least not from what they new about them prior to entering the NBA. Or Hakeem over Kareem (coming off 3 NCAA winning teams and NCAA tourney MVPs) or Hakeem over Wilt, for that matter. Hakeem was far less polished and accomplished than these other players prior to the draft and he was closer to Russell's size/length than Wilt or Kareem's.
Dream WAS the best defensive player of his time. And Russell, a great player, to be sure, was surrounded by one of the greatest collections of players in NBA history during his Celtic career. With all due respect, to say he, "dragged his team through an entire decade." is just nuts, IMO.
I'm having a hard time figuring out how someone can say Shaq is slightly ahead of Hakeem when Shaq has a glaring deficiency in his game that prevents him from being ON THE COURT toward the end of games, especially big close games. I can understand people wanting to put Kareem, Wilt, and Russell ahead of him (despite Russell not being a complete package) but putting Shaq ahead of him just boggles the mind.
Wilt, Kareem and Russell would all have also personally benefited from current training and nuitrition methods, they would be bigger, stronger and faster to face the likes of Shaq and Hakeem who personally benefited from this. That is why you have to compare players to others in their era to best determine greatness. In 30 years the Tiger Woods of today would not score with the other pros, just like Jack Nicholas in his prime couldn't score with the Tiger of today. That is why you have to primarily base their greatness from their performance versus who they played, particularly their feats and victories--to even out training, conditioning, equipment, etc, across eras. Likewise is Asafa Powell, the current 100 meter world record holder, a greater sprinter than Carl Lewis, I think not.
Wilt had the exact same deficiency that Shaq has, in fact his career FT% was worse than Shaq's. The thing is, they were able to score more with their crappt FT shooting than most guys can shooting at far better percentages.
That argument doesn't work... because no matter how hard they hit the weight rooms they wouldn't be heads and shoulders above the competition (especially athletically) like they were in the 60s and 70s. Sprinting hasn't evolved anywhere close to what basketball has seen past the 80s.
Their stats are close in the peak seasons. Shaq probably had a longer peak, and Shaq certainly has double the rings. The fact Shaq has some weaknesses or in their primes Hakeem might have had the upper hand, doesn't take away from their record of what they did. Also, just looking at "weaknesses" does not put things into perspective, you have to look at total net impact. Besides, Wilt couldn't shoot FTs any better than Shaq, it was the weakness for Wilt, but Wilt still has some mind boggling stats and strengths. If Wilt and Shaq were so good they got their teams big leads before the end of games it makes their personal FT shooting much less important. Think of it this way. Duncan has no weakness, but in his prime he was not the player Hakeem or Shaq or Wilt was. The latter players have other strengths that more than made up for Duncan's arguably more well rounded game. Again, total impact that properly weighs their strengths and weaknesses is more important than well roundedness (not having deficiencies or weaknesses)
he's a difference maker yes. but he's not a hakeem level difference maker b/c he makes you play 4 on 5 on offense. if he was the best player on detroit (arguable) then it was very much a first among equals type thing. and no, i'm not saying russell is only as good as big ben so don't go there. is that why he shot 43% from the field and 57% from the line? was that part of his grand "team play" scheme to win more titles or something? winning is huge and he was a winner, but it's completely unfair to give him hakeem status (or say hakeem doesn't even compare) when hakeem easily beats him on offense and is his equal on defense. hakeem is first all time in blocks and seventh all time in steals? exactly how big could the discrepancy be? how much better can you be than hakeem was. if russell has to be first, then it's by a hair, it certainly isn't by a large margin. SF made some good points on voting and i'll make some more later. this is such crap and always pisses me off when people say it about hakeem. as if he really only dominated for 4 years. hakeem had 12 20/10 seasons (and had barkley not come in 1997 would've most likely grabbed 10+ rebounds instead of 9.2 and made it 13). you know how many kareem had? 12. wilt? 12. shaq? 13 (missed out this year). russell? of course, zero. only saw the good side of 15 ppg 6 times. hakeem even had a 19/9.5/2.5 season in his 15th year. in his second season he was the best player on a team that took down the showtime lakers (who were the defending champs and would then win the next 2 titles) and took the best boston team of the 80's to 6 games. you're telling me hakeem didn't start peaking pretty soon? 23.5/11.5/3.4 in the regular season, 27/12/3.5 in the playoffs seems like a peak to me. what? hakeem swatting everything and stealing the ball and shutting down the lane just like russell wouldn't have been useful? hitting more of his shots wouldn't have been better? slowing down the fastbreak? have you ever seen hakeem get down the floor? maybe drob has him beat on this but hakeem never slouched on running. watching game 7 against the knicks on espn classic, hakeem had a great sequence. blocked ewing on a turnaround, ball went a little back so ewing grabbed it back, ewing puts the ball on the floor, hakeem immediately steals it from him, another rocket gets it, hakeem flies down the court and gets great position on the break. they didn't pass it to him, but the point is hakeem just got through kicking another top 50 players ass on defense and then still flew down the court for a fastbreak when he could've just rested. he wouldn't slow down the break. you make it sound as if hakeem would've just ballhogged the ball from other HOFers and missed all sorts of shots and wouldn't have shut down the lane. i don't see anyway he couldn't do everything russell did (short of maybe being as good at passing) while bringing even more to the offensive end. we know russell couldn't win like hakeem did so there's no point arguing it. and to say Hakeem wasn't the best defensive player of his era (just noticed that post) is a huge slap to Hakeem's game. was anyone else racking up the blocks and steals and intimidations like hakeem? maybe drob for a few years but that's it.
Training and nutrition are really irrelevant to this. I'm assessing their relative strengths compared to their era. The fact is, the early 60's, particularly in the frontcourt, the athletes were effectively inferior to today. I don't think it's training and nutrition (though that plays a role) more than it is the sheer mathematical weight. There are simply exponentially more people playing basketball in the world these days, for exponentially higher stakes - as a consequence the talent pool is several mutliples deeper. Accordingly, a Wilt Chamberlain with an extra half-inch and 20 lbs of muscle has a much harder time scoring over Yao Ming (or Mark Eaton, or Hakeem) than the smaller, weaker Wilt does against Bob Petit. Anyway, these things operate on a curve. As I pointed out in another thread, there was a big leap in the physical size and ability of athlete in the post-war, post era merger, starting with Mikan. There was another big leap in the 60's, with Russell and Chamberlain well ahead of that curve. Since the 70's or so, while athletes may have become heavier and stronger, they really haven't gotten that much taller or more athletic in an appreciable way. There was nobody who was physically as far out in front of the pack except maybe Shaq - but even then there haven't been too many shaq-esque players in the pipeline. Accordingly I don't think future athletes are going to be as far out in front of their brethren as today's athelets are from 1960's athletes.
