Question about Hakeem's impending retirement...

I think if this goes on for a few more days without one side convincing the other, that probably means that Hakeem does belong in that circle...there's a side to me that says, why not? But is it just a coincidence that only rockets fans believe that he belongs in there? (with some even say he's hand down the greatest ever..I just can't stand bias fans who doesn't think outside of the box)

 

Ya know we both think alike. I consider myself to be a die hard rocket fan. I attend their games in good times and bad. But Ive learned not be as big of a homer as I used to be. I dont fault anyone for ranking Hakeem as #1 or in the top 3. But, as you say, "outside the box" few would agree. Me personally, I tend to lean towards the unbiased opinion.

 

Damn, I can't believe this is still going on. Did anyone ever answer my question about why Russell's mediocre offensive game seems to be completely ignored when comparing him with Dream or other NBA centers? How could Russell "carry his team" if he was never anything more than a third option on offense? Think about that. It's just laughable to say someone who had such a small part in the offense "carried the team." I just went and checked Celtics stats from the time period they were winning all the championships, and he was never even the second highest scorer on the Celtics. In fact in some seasons he was their fourth or fifth scorer. Not only that, but he shot 44% from the field...that's pathetic for a center.

Now if someone can explain to me why I should completely ignore Russell's offensive shortcomings I would appreciate it. If you can't answer, I will take it as an admission of defeat. I don't mean to be standoffish, but it seems like everyone's been side-stepping my question. To this point it's been:

You: Russell's better than Hakeem
Me: I disagree, Russell was a sucky offensive player. Just look at the stats.
You: .................. Russell won more championships

I call that a lazy argument.

Fact is, Russell NEVER had to bare the entire weight of the scoring load like Hakeem while still remaining an absolutely dominant defensive player. Hakeem could carry a team on both ends of the floor...Russell could not. As I said before, offense is half of the game, is it not? In my opinion it's more than half, but so we'll all agree, I'll just say half.

This just seems like such a silly argument, and the only thing that keeps it going is the pro-Russell people saying "HE" won more chamiponships. When you say "HE," do you mean the Boston Celtics team that won several championships in a row with minimal help from Russell on the offensive end?

In arguments like this, the whole legendary and mythical aura of <b>The Past</b> seems to take over, and noone really compares player's abilities. It's not fair.

 

Quick way to resolve that. If Russell wasnt on that team to defend Wilt, do the Celtics still win? People that played with him call him one of the greatest if not the greatest. Thats proof enough for me. Someone that played with him and against him would know more about it than any of us. Plus, Russell was surrounded by great offensive players, so he didnt HAVE to score alot. Its a fair argument to make that they wouldnt win 11 in a row without him. He was one of the leaders on that team if not the leader.

 

i understand what he's saying but i don't see why the average sportwriter is any more objective than me. it's very obvious, dckid pointed it out earlier, that the legend of the big 3 will never allow another player to enter from a national standpoint. it seems almost taboo, you can't break them up.

 

Still didn't really answer my question. It's a shame Russell didn't have a chance to prove he was a good offensive player (although I think his sorry 44% FG% gives some insight that he just didn't have it on the offensive end), but the fact is, he never showed it...Hakeem did (and boy did he ever).

And what do you mean people that played with him say he's the best? Unless there are still players in the league who have been in it since it's inception, I don't think that means anything. Shaq said Hakeem is the greatest at one time, but that doesn't mean anything either.

 

that doesn't really have anything to do with dc's post. obviously he's integral to them winning championships but he's not the "put everyone on his shoulders and carry them" guy that he's made out to be.

not having to be the main offensive threat is not an excuse that can cover up the fact that he just couldn't be. he wasn't superbly gifted in that department. no way in hell could they win 11 in a row without him but same could be said about cousy, havlichek, etc.

 

It's because the sportswriters say so. Don't you know anything?

 

That being said, Russell shouldnt be held in a lower class because he never had to prove he would win with just role players. We dont know how he would have done if he was counted on to be the main scorer or had to lead a team of scrubs.

Also, could we have won our championships without Horry, Max or Kenny? Highly debatable just like the Russell argument.

BTW, im not saying Horry, Max or Kenny compare to Hondo and co., just saying that we dont know how any player would do if surrounded by different personnel.

Personally, I feel Hakeem is responsible for our championships, but there is no way to tell what would have happened without Horry or even Kenny. Their shots turned playoff elimination into victory.

 

you're right and i don't put russell in a lower class than hakeem. i don't think he had the type of game that could have led hakeem's rockets out of the first round. on the same note theres no way for me to know if dream's ability would have meshed with what boston did. really all i want is for dream to be put on level ground with these other guys and there's no evidence that he shouldn't be.

 

Once again, with Russell we don't know...with Hakeem we do.

Very true. Just like saying the Lakers don't win 3 straight without Horry. But, Hakeem managing to lead a team of role players to a league championship is more impressive to me than Russell co-leading a team of hall-of-famers to a championship...even if it was eleven.

 

Russell was the ultimate team player! From last I remembered, basketball is a TEAM GAME, isn't it? Stats doesn't mean squat if your team keeps on loosing. To get the quote from Don Nelson, "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."

Olajuwon is probably the most complete basketball player ever skillwise. That doesn't automatically means he's a winner, does it???? Again, since its a TEAM GAME, winning is the ultimate goal yeah? Being a winner requires different set of skills than shooting or rebounding. Individual stats (skills) and winning are be two totally different things. <b><font size=3>Leadership skills cannot be recorded with stats, only through victories.</font></b>

 

This is becoming futile. You're calling it debatable that the Rockets could win a championship without one of their journeyman starters. Maxwell and Smith were both OUT OF THE NBA almost immediately after leaving Houston. Horry has never averaged more than 9 points a game since leaving the Rockets. Thorpe has played for 7 TEAMS in 7 YEARS since his departure. Hakeem without a doubt worked with the absolute BARE MINIMUM necessary to win a championship. I would not hesitate to call the '94 team the least talented champion in the history of the league. They won because of one man, and one man only. Let's not delude ourselves.

 

So does that mean that its better to have a center, whose supposedly not as good as Hakeem, surrounded by hall of famers or Hakeem surrounded by all role players? Russell's teams won 11 titles and Hakeems 2. Whose to say the way Hakeems team was structured was better than the way Russell's was structured?

We had a team of hall of famers with Hakeem, Barkley and Pippen and we didnt make it to the finals.

Just like we dont know how Russell would perform having to lead a team of role players, we also dont know how Hakeem would peform surrounded by a team of hall of famers where he would have a diminished role (like Russell).

 

So you are saying that if Smith or Horry or Maxwell wasnt here, that its a GIVEN that someone else would have been there to make those shots? Absolutely not true.

Horry is one of the all time clutch players in the playoffs. He was absolutely VITALE to our championship teams. Kenny's shot saved us in game #1 against Orlando. Horry's clutch performance against S.A. saved us from another defeat.

Hakeem didnt know singlehandedly win two championships. We won as a team with a future hall of famer as an anchor.

You are basically saying that if Hakeem had Pete Chilcutt, Johnny Newman, Sindey Lowe instead of Horry, Maxwell and Smith that he would still win two rings??????????? Come on.
Role players matter on a championship team.

 

There have been teams that have one championships with one superstar. Hakeem is not the first or last.

I agree its more impressive without an all star sidekick. We had a good team with good chemistry though. We really didnt kick it into high gear until Horry came alone and definately have done so since he left.

Horry was very underrated when it comes to how much he mean to our teams. In every playoff game in 1994 and 1995, most of them came down to the last few mins and without Horry's D on the great 4s that we faced, who knows how we would have done.

 

Un-biased and out of the box thinking is not what we are dealing with here.

That would apply better if they had played against each other and then it would be strictly a homer thing.

What we are looking at is great players who didn't play against each other. How would Hakeem do against Russell? How would Shaq fare against Chamberlain?

These are questions that can only be answered by opinion. Even though sports writers opinions may have greater weight or more people in Houston may see Hakeem as the best because they closely observed his greatness it still comes down to finding criteria for your opinion.

My opinion remains that Hakeem was more athletic, a better scorer and as good defensively as Bill Russell. This is my opinion not based upon my fan-fealings, but my observation as I saw them play.

I do not think for a second that Clyde Drexler was as good and Jordan because he did not have the shot, the defensive shut down ability or the strength that Jordan had. Plus Jordan had a fire that I haven't seen in many atheletes.

Hakeem and Russell were both so great unless they played one another we can only give our opinion of how that match up would have turned out.

 

Great statement. Although, if we saw wilt, russell, jabbar play up close in personal like we did Hakeem, we might have different opinions all togther. Maybe because we didnt see Russell play up close in personal and on an every day basis, we dont realize how great he really was? Just like you said for Hakeem.

I just know that when you hear former players talk or whoever, and im talking about outside of Boston and Houston, a good majority have Russell ranked ahead of Hakeem. Im not saying its right. Just reality.

 

damn, Codell,

By your logic, Jordan doesn't win the 3rd championship without Paxson making that shot, or Steve Kerr in 1997. good grief man. Those shots are supposed to be made.

The reverse logic is even great teams without role players to make those shots can be upset. Peja choked a shot to eliminate the Laker's last year. Laker's choked a 7'er in 1962? to eliminate the Celtics in game 7.

You can't make those statements without recalling all the last second shots made or missed to eliminate teams.

Point is: Hakeem came as close to single-handedly winning a ring as any. And with a second star Hakeem destroyed the Spurs and skunked the Magic. He would have won more championship had Sampson, Lloyd, Wiggins, and Lucas been there like Cousy, Sharman, Havlicek, Heinsohn, Sam Jones, and KC Jones where there for Russell.

btw: I'm fine putting Russell and Hakeem together in the circle. I just want that choker Jabbar out of the circle.