Shaq comments on Top 5 Centers, including Hakeem (2011)

Anyone who says the Celtics has so much more talent and they dominated everybody has no idea what they're talking about.

Those Celtics were not favored to win a lot of the titles towards the end of their run. Everyone thought they were washed up.

 

Let's see how many hall of famers were on those teams.

Bob Cousy
Tom Heinsohn
Arnie Rison
Andy Phillip
Frank Ramsey
Bill Sharman
Sam Jones
KC Jones
John Havlicek
Clyde Lovellette
Bailey Howell

That's 11 hall of famers. Wouldn't that help them become a dominant team? And each of Russell's pro years, he was playing with at least 3 hall of famers. From 1956-1963 he was playing with at least 6 HOF' on each of those teams. Those Celtics rosters were loaded. Anything but the championship title would of been a huge disappointment.

 

Physically, yes it's a fair comparison. I'm not saying Ben was as good as Russell, just that their body type and defensive skill set were similar. Russell was in a different league when it comes to leadership though. I think if Russell were playing today, he would be a smarter/better version of Ben.

I'm not trying to say Russell wasn't great. He was! But put him in any era after his and I don't think he'd stand out nearly as much.

 

How many of those guys were hall of famers because of Russell?

 

This. Havlicek, Cousy, Sharman and Heinsohn would be hall of famers anywhere. Less sure about Sam Jones because while he had a ton of talent, I wonder if he'd have the mental build up if he was on a team with less leadership, there are stories that make you wonder.
Lovellette, Howell - maybe, I doubt it. The other guys, probably not.

 

Well no, Ben was smaller than Russell. I picked Ben as an extreme example. Keep in mind, measurements from the 60s-70s are typically in socks. Wilt would be ~7 ft 2.5 - 7 ft 3 in modern sneakers. Russell was a bit over 6 ft 9.5 in socks. So he'd have a couple inches on Ben Wallace on the court. He was also a smart player, he could pass and he wouldn't be as useless as Ben on that end.

It's hard to predict how Russell would perform if he was born in the current era. It's as clear a case as Wilt's.
But Russell does have a lot going for him.

 

I meant, it's not as clear a case as Wilt's. Wilt was one of the most athletically gifted basketball players ever, if not the most. On the other hand, there were guys comparable to Russell. Some of them were great, some have failed. So it's impossible to make that claim based on physical gifts alone. But he definitely shouldn't be written off based on size.

 

You don't enter the hall of fame because someone else on your team was great. That's not how it works. A player is voted in because of their own individual contributions.

 

i mean% to say free throw % and i bet his true shooting % was crap. of course he had high field goal % all of his shots were dunks and layups vs inferior big men with inferior defensive and offensive skills.

its common knowledge that the early 60s were devoid of big athletic big men.

no he wouldnt. he would be javale mcgee. this is what im talking about with people who want to continue perpetrating fraudulent old school mythological tales of wilt.

JUST STOP IT.

We have film. I have seen it.

He had no real post moves other than dunks and layups vs physically over matched players. he couldnt shoot for *****, and when the nba started getting better players and more importantly black players in the first evolution of the nba the 70s, his numbers started dropping drastically.


CHECK THE FILM AND YOU WILL FIND THE TRUTH.

Wilt was grossly overrated. The man shot underhanded free throws FFS, and his rival was a 6'9, 220lb center who couldnt shoot and had lesser post moves than him yet shot under 50%.

CHECK THE FILM AND YOU WILL FIND THE TRUTH.

 

I'm not trying to right him off. But even if he just an inch or so taller than Ben Wallace, that's still a bit undersized. It's hard for me to make this argument without people taking it as me saying "bill Russell sucks" that's not at all what I'm saying. I just dont think he should be mentioned as a top 5 center. Like you said, it's hard to gauge what he would've been in today's game because of his intangibles. But all I can go off of is what I see. And in all the footage I've seen of the NBA in the 50's and 60's, Bill Russell was a man among boys. Aside from wilt and George Mikan I guess, there was nobody close to him physically. Obviously I didn't get to see him play, but I consider myself a history geek when it comes to basketball, so I have looked into this a lot. I wanna make it clear that I'm not just a kid spouting off about how basketball is better now. I was glued to my TV last night to watch "The Doctor" with butterflies about what all I might get to see. I'm in love with the game of basketball, past and present! So I appreciate and respect the hell out of Bill Russell. But I firmly believe that if he was playing in the big man era against greats like Hakeem or Shaq or Kareem, he would've blended in a whole lot more.

 

Well to be fair, the league was so small... Wilt and Russell used to play each other 9 times a year most of those years (regular season). Russell-Thurmond or Russell-Walt Bellamy was similar. Some teams had questionable centers but overall those schedules were loaded as far as talented big guys.

 

wilt and Russell in their prime would be he best c today in nba

 

Individual contribution is given much more weight if it happens on championship teams, or on championship contenders. And the Celtics were champions year after year mainly because of Russell. That puts them in the spotlight and results in more accolades for their ability.

 

Shaq wasn't even in Hakeems league. I can't speak for Wilt or Russell, bc I never watched them play, but Hakeem and Kareem were head and shoulders above the rest.

 

A little off subject, but has anyone ever seen a highlight of Dr. J shooting a jump shot? Every single highlight I ever see of him is either dunking or layups....

 

Of course he was.

 

Well, they are highlights. He did have a jump shot. He didn't overuse it. In general, he rarely made bad decisions. Good shots, passing, attacking in transition, attacking the paint in halfcourt, drawing defense, posting up, getting offensive boards, more passing. His teammates did the chucking.

 

You seem to forget Shaq's best move was backing his ass up. While I agree the competition was **** back then, Wilt and Russell were athletic freaks with dominant mentalities. Much sharper and more well coordinated than Javale McGee (which is a terrible comparison, btw), much stronger and quicker than David Robinson, more instinctive than Dennis Rodman. Individual moves don't matter much in these cases, it's what you encompass and how you change the game as a big man.

Wilt would be top 3 all time in any Era. Russell is a top 5-8 center, but overrated by the media because he was the first to emphasize defense.

 

Was this quote from an MJ interview?
This is not what he said in his book. As I recall, he said his toughest defensive match was the Pistons? He did not mention the Rockets even though the Rockets had a nice home win streak against the Bulls when the Bulls were at the top of their game. If you were there for those games or at least watched them, then you saw how Michael gave up on driving the middle. It was quite noticeable. So, I always thought it was a little surprising he did not give Hakeem credit in the book.