People who rank Bill Russell ahead of Olajuwon....

It's not stupid, though is hyperbole. Would Russell have benefited from being brought up today and dominated like he did in the past? I don't freaking know. But what those you are downplaying Russell's greatness, if comapred to today's players, are doing is looking at some obvious issues:

- Russell's size; he clocks in more Tracy McGrady than anything else. Maybe the real question is if he was brought up today would he be an awesome SF/PF combo? Who knows. As SamFisher points out, he wasn't exactly a great % shooter, but then he didn't have to concentrate on that

- Competition; this is not arguable. he played against much lesser players, RELATIVELY, than do NBA'ers today.

- His team; again, some of the made up "dream" team scenarios others have used in this thread as a comparison to Russell's teams might be hyperbole, but not that far off. Russell played with a whole cast of HOFers. His competition, including Wilt, did not. Did Russell win with multiple other players? Sure. Were those multiple other players all great? Yes. Kobe Bryant won with completely different squads, too. But in both cases he only did so when playing with other dominant players

How Tyson Chandler has progressed in today's NBA has as little bearing from a comparison standpoint as how Russell might have progressed in today's NBA, according to you, but then you are making that comparison??

Disagree. For one, it's not crazy. The simple statement is player A is better than player B. It's difficult to compare and impossible to prove given their different eras, but a comparison you can certainly make. I believe Olajuwon was a better player than Russell, individually. One on on, with both playing center, Olajuwon would win most of the times.

I agree that the comparisons, from an INDIVIDUAL skill and talent perspective, get harder and harder to make the farther back you go, but one can still compare. I believe at their primes Olajuwon was a better player than Russell and Duncan. I believe Kareem is the best center of all time. Not the most versatile, but the most unstoppable offensively and as competent defensively as any center on the list. That's just my opinion, if comparing all in their primes against equal competition.

Hakeem got the better of the matchup eary on, Shaq later on. This isn't too surprising. We're not talking about two obvious incomparable players. Hakeem and Shaq seem fairly close to each other in all-time great rankings. Some rank Hakeem slightly ahead. Some rank Shaq slightly ahead.

Russell did not dominate Wilt. In fact the opposite appears to be true. It's nice and all that you view domination through the looking glass of team success. But that's down the list of things to compare when comparing two individual players. I'm happy to put weight on it, but not so much. Otherwise, Robert Horry is a sure fire Hall of Famer and comparable to Charles Barkley.

You are seriously underrating Hakeem. He wasn't consistently the same type of player, but he WAS certainly consistently awesome early in his career.

For one, Dominique is one of the best ever. You forget to easily how truly amazing Nique was, and not just as a dunker. He wasn't MJ, but nobody is arguing he was. NAd this woudl be clear if MJ won 0 championships.

Championships matter... but when comparing individuals in this team sport, they come way down the list. Because time and again we've seen what happens to great players when they're not surrounded with other great talent. They fail to win.

Yes, it's easy to point to the 69 upset of the Lakers by the Celtics... but even though old farts like to call it the greatest upset of all time, that's also hyperbole. I wasn't alive, so granted my perspective is different, but I think the Nuggets over the Sonics is a bigger upset frankly. The Celtics were still full of dominant HOF talent. Wilt was finally surrounded with great talent of his own, but it's not like it was a complete mismatch from a talent perspective. Moreover, as OFTEN was the case back then, these series played out incredibly close. Of the Celtics 4 wins, they won one game by 1 point (after Elgin Baylor turned the ball over by stepping out of bounds with 7 seconds left) and game seven by 2 points. The Lakers won game 1 by 2 points. Russell had knocked off Wilt's teams in Game 7's previously by incredibly close scores.

I do credit Russell as having a better basketball resume, and mind, than Wilt. What turned that series around, apparently, was Russell finally deciding to double team Jerry West. It should be noted, mind you, that West was somewhat injured that series. It should also be noted that Wilt injured himself in the 4th quarter of game 7. The Lakers closed the gap with Wilt out and then the coach refused to put him back in.

You're stuck on this idea of using championships as the key determinant in comparing individual talent in a highly team dependent sport. It makes no sense. If the thread was comparing Russell's Celtics to Hakeem's Rockets or Wilt's Lakers, everybody knows who'd come out on top. But that is not what is being compared.

Your argument, to me, implies that if you switched Russell and Wilt that now the Celtics would have not won but one or two championships and Russell would have still won a ridiculous amount with whatever team he stuck with. Or that if switch Russel and Hakeem, the Celtics of old would have maybe won a couple of championships, but Russell would have catapulted the Rockets to more than 2. And both of those statements are ludicrous to me. All else being equal, you replace Russell with Wilt or Hakeem, and those Celtics teams still dominate for years. Do they win 11 championships? Maybe not. Championships DO count, and Russell's pride/will to win and basketball mind count for something, of course. He had a desire to win that I think was greater than Wilt's and arguably greater than Olajwon's early in is career. But on the whole, the championship story is a function of the teamates and coaches they played with as much as anything.

I'm sure you'll find this a crazy statement to make, but I believe this to be true of MJ as well. Put MJ on the Hawks and Nique on the Bulls and I truly believe the championship story is different. This is a function of the Bulls having the best team and by far the best coach. I don't discount MJ's greatness. I find it hard to believe the Bulls win 6 titles with Nique, and could certainly envision a scenario where an MJ led Hawks squad wins a few titles.

But hey, it's all made up... we'll never know.

Yeah, if you're measuring championships. This thread is about measuring players talents.

 

Check out those playoff runs for Hakeem. Wow. Talk about elevating your game.


<script type="text/javascript" src="http://widgets.sports-reference.com/wg.fcgi?css=1&site=bbr&url=%2Fplayers%2Fo%2Folajuha01.html&div=div_playoffs_per_game"></script>

 

Wilt played with plenty of HOFers too.

You also have to consider K.C. Jones is the worst HOFer of all-time, and despite having 5 hall of famers on the team before Russell got there, Boston had never won a title.

 

May have gone a little far with the Wilt comment, but he wasn't surrounded nearly as often or as much by HOfers. Russell played on a team with 8 HOFers, including himself, once.

Valid point about the pre-Russell years. Clearly the guy was a transcendent talent. But he also came in alongside Tommy Heisohn who got big minutes, too, and KC Jones, Sam Jones, etc.

Aside from Cousy, the HOF talent in the pre Russell years is more of the obscure type from a name recognition standpoint.

 

I will deny it because it is flat out not true.

And by the way, this thought seems to be taking root in a number of posters here and it pisses me off. The rebuttal to this scurrilous suggestion:

His first 12 years were all double-doubles. All 12 years (+1 more) he averaged over 20 ppg, including 9 years at 23 ppg or greater.

He shot .500 or better 13 straight years (+ 1 more).

He didn't fall below 9 rebounds per game until he was 37 years old. (That's 15 straight years of 9+.)

15 straight years of 2 blocks or more per game, including a run of 12 years with an average over 2.5.

14 straight years with an average of 1.5 or greater steals per game.

11 All-NBA teams, including 6 selections as first team.

10 top 10 finishes in MVP voting. He is 16th in NBA history in MVP shares.

Compared to all other NBA players ever, Dream is 9th in field goals made, 9th in offensive rebounds, 6th in defensive rebounds, 9th in steals, first in blocks, 11th in points, and 15th in PER. He also ranks in a number of other categories.

Those numbers scream high performance consistently delivered over many years, including a few with a sucky team.

Some of the folks on here who want to suggest Olajuwon was inconsistent point to assists. It is true that in 1992 his assists per game went up from an average of around 2 per game to over 3 per game for the next 6 years. That's hardly a solid data point to hang an inconsistent label on, particularly considering his other numbers and awards.

The only way you can argue Dream was not consistent is to say he did not play as well at ages 37, 38, and 39 as he did at ages 27, 28, and 29. Technically true, but it would also be disingenuous.

 

rep this man please!

 

Interesting perspective. I guess the Don Nelson Milwaukee Bucks won many championships of the Midwest Division in the 1980's. Ok, that's going a bit too far.

 

Bill Russell, in my opinion, is best compared to Dikembe Mutombo. A beast at defense and rebounding, a great team player, but nowhere close to Hakeem's offensive talent.

I don't think competition should be a factor. You play relative to your own era. I've said this many times. You can't compare the wealth of John Rockerfeller to that of Bill Gates. And you can't compare the genius of Aristotle to that of Einstein. You can't say Einstein was smarter than Aristotle because the latter had a lot less competition.

 

2 of those HOF teammates never made an all-star team. And that is with far fewer players to chose from.

And Wilt had HOFers at every stop.

 

I could almost agree with everyone, except Tim Duncan. Tim Duncan does not measure up to Wilt in almost any sense of the word, except defensively. Even that at certain points in their careers, I'd favor Wilt. You don't think Wilt could win 3-5 titles with the same Spurs team in a weaker era of dominant basketball teams and lesser centers.

Again, outside of certain aspects of defense and free throw shooting, I do not see how Duncan bests Wilt.

 

Wilt was a far better player than Duncan.