One of these days, some group of fans, not in Houston, will be bashing Cooper, because some guard will score more points per game than Cooper. The difference is that this guard will not have the talent around her that Cooper had (Swoops and Thomson), and only have 2 championships. Then, they will claim that because the league was young 1996-2000, there wasn't that much competition (which is somehow supposed to mean that Cooper wasn't very good). They will claim that because their guard "lead" her team to the 2 championships single-handily, that they are greater than Cooper; even though this guard only won 2 rings. Lots of speculation. And lots of tearing down Coopers talent and skill for the purpose of raising the other players "greatness." It will happen. Will it be true? Sorry, but Cynthia Cooper was the best women's basket ball player I ever saw. Yes, better than Cheryl Miller (NCAA) and our very own Sheryl Swoops. But people from other cities will try to tear her down, and give excuses of why this player or that player is "better." I say, if you have to argue about it, it's not true. And someone is being biased.
You know what they call basketball players who have no offensive skills? Team players...it really is just a nice way of saying it So, that doesn't really mean too much. And make no mistake, I'm not discounting the importance of team/role players by any means, but that should have little to do with deciding who is the greater basketball player. I could come up with a long list of examples where a team's definite best player was not the team's leader. And in my opinion, while leadership skills are an important aspect, talent and ability will usually win out. It almost sounds like you're saying because Bill Russell had the qualities of a leader, he was a better <b>basketball</b> player than Olajuwon. But that sounds like more of a personality contest to me. We're talking about who was better at playing the game. The ablility to lead is a general quality that has nothing to do with basketball, so the best player and best leader are two different things entirely.
Everytime you bring up rings, I'm going to ask you whether you think Scottie Pippen was a better basketball player than Hakeem Olajuwon, okay? So be prepared. My point was Russell was a bad offensive player and a phenomenal defensive player. Hakeem was a phenomenal offensive player <b>and</b> a phenomenal defensive player. I don't think there's really anything else my argument needs.
You're an idiot...I really didn't want to post in this thread anymore but boneheads like you is what keeps making me respond. Talent and ability will usually win out huh? I've got one word for you: Portland. I guess this is one of those rare cases. "<i>ablility to lead is a general quality that has nothing to do with basketball</i>" - That's just too damn funny... Please read my very last post and respond to that, I'm tired of people making all kinds of excuses, I just now want to get to the bottom of this issue. (Its highlighted in red for blind people like you to see)
What the heck are you talking about? Uhhhhhh, Scotty Brooks! Did you just pull that out of your as*? We were taking about Hakeem and Russell. Stay on track here. Now, if you go back and re-read my post, you will notice that I said, STATS and RINGS!!!!! STATS and RINGS!!!! Put a post-it on your forehead!!! If we were only taking about STATS, then we should put in Barkley, Karl Malone, and Domonique Wilkins for your measure of greatness. Now, remember. You said that rings don't count. Again, you basing STATS alone as the be-all, end-all measure of: Hakeem is greater than Russell! Now, go ahead and give me that woulda, coulda, shoulda...(Bring out that time-machine!) Gary Payton is phenomenal offensive player, and phenomenal defensive player. Should he be considred the same level of greatness as Hakeem? And please dont' say, "Yeah, but Hakeem has rings!" You said they don't count. And please get out of your head that Russell was a "bad offensive player." Scoring 14,522 points (15.1 ppg) in his career and averaged 16.2 ppg in 165 playoff games is not what I consider "bad!" Although, his job with the Celtics system was to shutdown opponents, block shots, and rebound. Russell was a lot better offensive player than you think.
DavidS, I think both you and I are in the minority. I think its great to be a homer and support your team with the same passion that is shown on this board. But when evaluating players outside this city, we have to step back and be objective about things. We have all made the argument that its not fair to speculate on what these 4 great big men would do head to head or what Hakeem would have done vs. teams in the 60s or what Wilt would do in the current ERA. Fact is, that would all be speculation and NOTHING would be a given and thats why you cant say player #1 is better than player #2 because #1 would dominate more so in #2's era. Ive made the point that taking history into consideration, all we have are stats and rings when trying to rate the greatest players and the direct comparison of what those players did versus other players and teams in their OWN era. Using any other method would be pure speculation and therefore, not fair to the great players that would get pushed to the back of the pack. I think thats where Hakeem will always come up short. Using stats and rings as a guideline, what those other 3 centers did versus their OWN era is more impressive, to me anyway, than what Hakeem did in his OWN era. Im sure this can be considered argumentative. But to me, the stats and championships dont lie. I think Hakeem definately belongs in the group with Wilt, Jabbar and Russell. But if you have to rate them in order, 1-4, Hakeem, in my eyes, is 4, with the only real argument being, possibly (long shot) #3. I think thats a nice little sacred circle of 4 with the next tier consisting of players like Malone, Shaq, etc.
Getting frustrated, huh? Way to show your true colors. By the way, it's not stats I'm looking at it, it's ability...there's a difference. You even admitted Hakeem had more ability in one of your posts. Our difference in opinion is you are putting more emphasis on the championships, and I'm putting more empahsis on ability. Jeez, I must be crazy to think that Hakeem is a better basketball player because he had more basketball skills. The way we look at it is just different. Anyway, I enjoyed arguing with you while it lasted, and I'm sorry you felt you had to resort to name calling. And that's nice that you gave a single example of one team, but I said <b>usually</b> ability will win out. If you think one example proves your point you're seriously simplifying things.
Hakeem did have the most well rounded skills, but ability is debateable depending on how you define it. Ability to block shots, score, rebound, etc.? Or ability to lead your team to a championship? Or both? Argueably, Dominique Wilkins had as much god given ability and skill than anyone. But hell never be remembered as one of the best players ever because he never won a ring. Same goes for MJ. His skills are beyond reproach. But if he had never won a ring, would people see him as the all time greatest? Look at Barkley, look at Malone. Great ability there, no rings. Ability, stats and rings matter. Rings matter the most because this is a team game and individual skill and stats mean nothing at the end of the game if you team has lost.
Being a homer has nothing to do with it. I would never admit Hakeem was a better basketball player than Wilt Chamberlain, Wilt was just too dominant on both ends of the floor. Because of Russell's mediocre offensive game, I feel a case can be made that one of the best offensive centers of all time, Hakeem Olajuwon, is a better basketball player. That's all.
DC, It has everything to do with being a homer though. Again, theres nothing wrong with that. We are all biased towards Hakeem because we love him. Russell never had the chance to prove he could be more dominant offensively because of who his teamates were. He didnt have to be. So we cant assume that the man wasnt a great offensive player. If Hakeem played with Jordan and Malone, wouldnt it be fair to see that his offensive numbers would be similar to Russell's? And would that mean because he would only average 16 pts compared to 25 pts that he is not a great offensive player? Of course not. Also, remember, out of the 11 championships, Russell was the regular season MVP for 5 of those. That says alot to me. That means, even with all the talent on his team and despite his mediocre offensive numbers, his peers and those who covered him still felt he was the best player in the league, even over Wilt. That also would say that despite hiw low scoring avg., he must have more than made up for it by being that much more dominant defensively than any of us could possibly fathom. Block shots werent kept as a stat back then. But I always remember an article I saw that was written by a beat write who covered the Celtics in the 60s and he honestly felt that if that stat was kept, Russell would have averaged 5-7 blocks a couple of seasons. Thats very impressive to me especially for a 6'9" guy!
But once again, we're comparing individuals not teams. If Hakeem had never led a team of role players to a championship, and ended his career without a ring, then you would definitely have a point. Hakeem would have never been able to show he could take a team to the championship. But to say he's not as good as Russell, because his team couldn't win 11 championships is unfair. By that rationale, Russell is and will always be the best basketball player of all time and noone can dispute that, because noone is ever going to be on a team that wins eleven championships. Anyways, I guess we just have a different way of looking at.
Yup that's my true colors, I'm a bad bad person...I just get irrated sometimes when people don't read my post and keep on comparing players, which I thought I proved that you couldn't do...I didn't mean to call anyone names, that was uncalled for...immature and stupid in my part. (Please don't take it personally) in any discussions, things get heated sometimes... You still comparing players directly across era's aren't you?
When measuring greatness, it matters what heights a player leads his team to. All Im saying is, Im more impressed with what Russell led his team to than what Hakeem led our team too.
No, I didn't mention anything about Hakeem being a better basketball player because he played in Houston if you read my post carefully. At the same time I can reply by saying Hakeem never had a chance to play on a team with upwards of four hall-of-fame players to help him win eleven championships. It works both ways. And by all accounts, Russell was not a very skilled offensive player. He was such a good rebounder he was able to get a lot of putbacks. Could he have maybe developed a great offensive game if he didn't already have the barrage of scoring power provided by his teammates? Possibly...but I think it's a stretch. Very good points you make in this paragraph. I would really love to have been around to see the games back then, so I would have a better way to compare the two players. Unfortunately all I know is from what I've seen in highlights and what I've read, so it makes it a lot tougher to make the comparisons.
DC, I think you make fair points also. The only other point ill make is, Hakeem did play with two other hall of fames in Barkley and Pippen and that team didnt win. He also played a couple of more seasons with Drexler after the 2nd title and they didnt win. So I think the statement about Russell playing with other hall of famers and only winning because of it is not necessarily a given. Its all arguementative in the end. Id love to see EA Sports come out with a game when you can match up legendary players. Not that that would prove a darn thing. But it would be fun wouldnt it?
No problem, I have to hold myself back too when arguments get to a certain point. Yes, and I'm still comparing players across different eras. And I admit it's nearly impossible to do, just like I think using a player's team success across different eras with different overall team talent levels to compare players is nearly impossible to do. Really, either way you look at it, it's not a definitive statement. It makes it even tougher when trying to determine that player A was better than player B. But it's a lot easier to just group a couple guys together and say they were ALL good and not rank them. In my opinion, the best centers of all time are Wilt, Hakeem, Kareem, and Russell. Ranking them in any order is going to be extremely difficult, based on all the things we have come up with in this nine-page thread. So, I'll just leave it at that. Thanks for the discussion.
I agree with that, it is hard to do because all we are doing is speculating this specualting that. The reason why I posted in this thread heavily is because I just want to open up and understand why so many non rocket fans believed he doesn't belong in the circle and why all rockets fans (including myself) probaby think he does. Its been fun, I've learned a few things from this discussion
