The league has expanded as the population of the country/world has expanded. There is more talent to choose from now than back when there were only 8 teams in the NBA. You can't say "if we only had 8 teams today", that makes no sense. There are millions more people in the country today. Basketball is exponentially more popular now than it was then. The fact is that winning a championship in an 8-team league is not that big of a deal compared to the way it is now. That's like winning your division. Winning 10 division titles would be impressive, yes, but it's just not on the same level as winning that many championships. Is this still a Rocket site, by the way?
You know guys, as much as we hate the media and disagree with how we rank Hakeem or any of our other favorite players, they are on the inside and we are on the outside. So we dont have to agree with them, but when someone with 20 plus years experience covering the NBA or a former player makes a statement, whether we like it or not, they are more qualified to make that judgement than any of us.
Involved in what way? Have you played in the NBA or been on the "inside" covering a team for a major media outlet?
The WNBA expanded from 8 teams to 16 in a ONLY few years. Over that span, did the world population double? Did the popularity of basketball double? There is no correlation there... Since this is a rockets site, you would want everybody to think that Kenny Smith is one if the best point guards to ever play the game? (I'll kill anybody who feels this way btw) We are all huge rockets fans but we have to take a step back and think objectively sometimes...
Codell, The media usually is trying to answer the question Who do you think is the greatest? So they look at championships, dominance, stats... But ask these same experts this question How would Hakeem play against Russell? They would see them more evenly matched and would be more divided on who would be the best. My opinion. I know greatness must include acomplishments but my point is I believe Hakeem in his prime was a better basketball center than Russell. If I had the choice of starting a team today with either of the 2 I would pick Hakeem. If I could chose any center to start a franchise today I would pick in this order: Shaq Wilt Hakeem Russell Moses Malone Kareem Willis Reed Robinson Nate Thurmond Ewing That's my top ten in order of greatness.
But see, thats the point of the discussion here. Its two different eras, two different styles of play. Players were different back then. You cant compare how Russell would do against Olajuwon or how Shaq would do against Wilt. If Hakeem is considered even with Russell, then wouldnt Russell's 11 championships have to be the tie breaker? They all played different styles. Statistically, some of Karl Malone's stats are better than Hakeem's. But he never won jack. Dennis Rodman was a much better rebounder than Hakeem. Would anyone want him over Hakeem? Hell no. Stats dont make a player great. I think how you make your team better does. So in the end, the only way to compare is by championships. Now, Wilt only had one ring I think, not sure, but I think you have to put him ahead of Hakeem because he was just so physically dominating. The same way Shaq is now, which unforunately, is why Shaq might be rated ahead of Hakeem in the future.
You can't say that, you know Hakeem will probably edge out Russell if they both play at their primes. How about turning the tables around....If Hakeem was playing back in the old days with his god given talents and changed the way the game was played...And russell is growing up nowadays, developing his skills as a basketball player....since he was born later, he'll get a huge advantage because he can see players like Hakeem, Shaq, Wilt, Rodman, Kareem play before him. Do you think he'll develop into the same player he was in the old era? or BETTER? Maybe, he'll lift weights more to get stronger like shaq. Maybe he'll run faster, jump higher, shoot better, etc...you just never know...
Chen, The WNBA comparison is TheFreak's whole point. That league started with a 4-peat team. Does that mean that Cynthia Cooper should never be knocked off the sacred group of elite guards. to further TheFreak's point, by comparison to other sports, the NFL had 13 teams in 1950, and obviously baseball was very deep. The NBA was truly a fledgling league not started by popular demand, but because owners of stadiums/arenas were trying to develop more entertainment venues. There wasn't enough call for it, and that's why teams were folding throughout the 50s and only 8 owners were still in it by the late 50s. There was a lot of weirdness in drafting rules that were really different. The point is that it was easier for Red Auerbach to collect a juggernaut in that fledgling environment. To exemplify this, the drafts rights to Russell were traded, in part, for a frigging Ice Capades show. <blockquote><hr>To get Bill Russell required a bit of doing, however. Rochester was drafting first, St. Louis second, and the whole world knew about Russell's exploits at the 1956 Olympics in Sydney, Australia, and the University of San Francisco, where his team won 55 straight. Rochester was strong up- front and looked to draft Sihugo Green. Owner Walter Brown gave team manager Les Harrison additional incentive to avoid Russell. If he passed by Russell, he would arrange for Rochester to get the touring Ice Capades two weeks later. Recalls Auerbach: "Walter got him the Ice Capades, and Harrison said, 'I give you my word that we'll stay away from Russell.' " But all this maneuvering would have been fruitless if St. Louis had gone and picked Russell second. Auerbach called former boss Ben Kerner to see if the latter would make another unwise deal. Auerbach offered all-star Macauley. Kerner badly needed stars to keep his franchise afloat. But he wanted more and asked for guard Cliff Hagan, too. Auerbach agreed. <hr></blockquote> Heinsohn came from the same draft, because he played for Holy Cross and each team had a "Terretorial Choice" pick the could claim. KC Jones was Russell's SF teammates, stud defender, and he was the logical 2nd round choice, which was really just the 11th pick taken. Further, the defending champion still had the 8th pick in the draft, so they landed Sam Jones in 1957, and John Havlicek with the 9th pick in 1962. It was easier to amass titles then, because the NBA didn't have much history and enough owners who really tried to compete. Once Red got the owner to <b>trade Bill Russell for the Ice Capades and get Heinsohn as a Terrotorial Pick</b> it was very easy to maintain the title with 8th picks each yr.
Codell, Championships is a measure of greatness-- I admit probably the most used. But there are alot of factors in winning championships. It should not be the ultimate criteria. Does Shaq ever win a championship without Kobie. We won't know, but it is just one of a hundred factors in who ends up winning each year. I put championships behind stats, skills and dominance over oposition as a measure of greatness because greatness is an individual accomplishment and championships are organizational accomplishments. Championships take putting players together, coaches together, and avoiding injuries, getting good calls, having key matchups with the competition of your time etc. Karl Malone is one of the top 3 PF of all time- no championships The way to compare era's is to look at the size, speed, skill, stats, dominance, passing, dribbling - use all the basketball criteria (including championships) and then decide this player is the better one. Russell has 11 trophies but Shaq would still be able to back him in and dunk on him. The trophies prove he won in his era. They are a great accomplishment but they don't make him the all time best center to play the position.
But if you put stats ahead of championships, then youd have to say Malone is better than Olajuwon. In reality, I dont think Malone is in Hakeem's class. But his numbers are better. The best way to say it is, some times the little things you do to lead your team to the champship arent recorded statistically. The intangibles. Thats why some players win championships and others dont. Championships have to mean the most. Also, Russell guarded Wilt effectively, and that was a big mismatch size wise. Who knows how Shaq would do against Russell. He struggled against Charles Jones! lol
Codell, and so you'd agree that Single-handedly winning a championship would mean even more!! And embarrassing the league for a second championship when you actually had another star, solidifies it. Who knows how many championships Hakeem would win with Sampson and guards who didn't do cocaine, and had Cartwright no gave him the elblow.
I see your point, but did Cynthia Cooper Revolutionize woman's basketball like Wilt or Russell did? She was pretty damn good but she didn't do anything legendary.
Time will tell. I would say she is one of the greats in women's basketball. If the league was formed earlier that would have shown even more.
Exactly. Thats why Russell is always put ahead of Hakeem. Championships. Id say this, Hakeem dominated his whole career. But those two years really stand out where we won the championships. If he had THAT kind of domination (i.e. what he did to Robinson and the way Jordan dominated over a period of 6 solid years), he would gain ground on the big 3. I also think if Hakeem and not be so oft injured a few seasons and squeezed out another championship or two, in my eyes, he would be the all time best center. Drug suspensions, injuries, etc. happen and a player has to deal with it. You cant say one player is better than the other because of "what if this didnt happened" type statements. Ralph is a good example. What if he didnt take that hard fall in Boston and his knees held up? He would have retired with Hakeem/Barkley like numbers if he maintained the pace he was on. But because of what happened, we dont say he was an all time great and defend that by saying "who knows" and what not.
ChenZhen, I agree with you point about "changing the game." Absolutely no debating Russell changed the game. But, George Mikan changed the game, too, in the early 50s. He one 6 titles and they extend the dimensions of the lane to combat him from scoring so easily the post. There is a reason no one puts Mikan in the elite group over Jabbar, and it has little to do with Mikan changing the game. Jabbar had the games first, most incredible, unstoppable shot. That's why they put him in the elite. But without Magic (and McAdoo, mind you) and later Worthy, it is clear that Jabbar never wins more than the one with Oscar Robertson. Now, once a league matures and gets more and more history, it becomes more and more difficult to "change the game." Hakeem came as close as you could come from the center position. He certainly played center like no one played it before, with unprecedented speed, finesse, power and incredible moves.
When you say <i>Singlehandedly</i>, you mean that if you put anybody on the floor with Hakeem, we would have won it this year, doesn't matter who it was? Don't undermine what our supporting cast did, he didn't do it by himself...Everybody stepped up their game drastically during that championship year after the choke city incident.
I agree..it maybe be harder to change the game nowadays when we look back, BUT back then, they are probably thinking the same thing, the game will ALWAYS evolve.
I think heres the whole Hakeem dilemma. The big three are ranked ahead of him for different reasons. Heres how I see it. Jabbar has the edge of Hakeem due to longevity, statistics and championships. Wilt has the edge on Hakeem purely based on his physical domination of the game over his time period. Russell has the edge passed purely on his championships. I think this is where its the most debatable.
