Russell vs Hakeem- Who do you rank higher all-time?

[ReaLiez]

I hate giving credit to Russell since I never saw him play and his stats are not THAT amazing considering the tier he is mentioned in. He won ALOT, he's a pioneer, he was a Wilt killer and he changed Basketball so for that I respect him but I small part of me dies when I have him rated higher than Shaq Duncan Magic Hakeem etc

That being said I doubt Russell ever goes below top 5 in any all time list including mine - Hakeem's place is around 7-11

[mischievous]

Its easy to go with Russell cuz of ringzzz..but i'm not sure its that easy. When you think about it, Hakeem is a little worse on D than russell but a lot better on offense so i think its clear who the "better player" was, but that isn't always the case for all time rankings.

Idk honestly, they occupy my 8 and 9 spots but who goes where can vary by the day.

[RayAP19]

How is this close? Bill Russell was pretty much GameShark on defense. He broke the league SINGLE-HANDEDLY with his defense. Hell, he pretty much invented defense-- before Russell, teams were just content to run as much as possible and score tons of points.

And just in case you thought Russell was only a product of a weaker era, the basketball gods also dropped Wilt Chamberlain, the most physically-ahead-of-his-time player ever, in the 60s along with Russell. Chamberlain couldn't do a thing against Russell; not like he did to the rest of the league, anyway. He doesn't even average 30 points a game against Russell, and this was with Wilt being defended in single coverage.

Think about that: Bill Russell defended Wilt Chamberlain better, by himself, than most double-teams from other opponents.

Bill Russell is defensively superior to a double-team.

I don't think it's close at all.

[Doctor MJ]

Who do you have ranked higher on your all-time list?

Russ. Arguments can definitely be made about Hakeem's peak over Russell's, but Hakeem had a lot to learn when he came to the NBA.

[90sAllDecade]

Hakeem.

Russell was truly great and a GOAT level player, but Hakeem is the better player who translates better in any era.

Russell's genuine dominance was inflated by weaker competition, much greater team support, pace and rules imo.

Hakeem could do things skill wise Russell never could individually and his served as both a GOAT level offensive and defensive anchor at the center position.

Whatever your opinion, both these guys are NBA royalty though regardless.

[RayAP19]

Hakeem wasn't a GOAT-tier offensive anchor. He was rightfully considered a black hole and a ball-stopper offensively before the mid-90s. He's probably overrated to Hell because of his gaudy scoring numbers, versatility, and the deification of his post moves/footwork.

[Shot Clock]

As to why, based on subjective measures of actual events. Russell won 11 titles as his teams most important player, 5 MVPs voted by the players

Have to take into account that it was a tiny league. 8 of those titles required him to literally win 2 series for the title. It's would be like winning the semi finals today. He also joined a team that in his first year had the MVP, another All NBA first teamer and the Rookie of the year on it. And neither were him. In Hakeems rookie year that's the equivalent of being drafted to a team with Larry Bird and Jordan and another first teamer. (not saying his teammates were that level but those guys won the award that year) Boston had a lot of talent.

To your second point, I'm not supposing that the era alone lead to Russell's lack of development in terms of scoring. I'm simply saying that he didn't develop as a scorer because he didn't need to.

I'd argue that Russell was a very good offensive player overall throughout his career, a very effective scorer in college and even in his early pro career, an efficient offensive player.

No he was just not efficient. His efficiency was really the lowest of any top big that I can think of. And when the lane widened his offense suffered.

Consider Patrick Ewing who was the last player I remember compared primarily to Russell. He came to the NBA with a very limited offensive game. He averaged below 15 PPG as a senior in college, only shooting from inside 10 feet with few exceptions. Conparitvley, for their respective eras, Russell was a far superior offensive player to Ewing until age 23 or 24. Ewing needed to score for the Knicks to win, Russell did not for the Celtics.

Ewing averaged .620 FG% in College (setting a career record at Georgetown), Russell was .516. For a big he was never a good offensive option.

Ewing went from 20 PPG on 47% shooting as rookie to 29 PPG on 55% shooting three years later. Why couldn't Russell, by all accounts a more athletically superior man relative to his peers and possessing a greater basketball IQ and will to win, produce similar results?

Totally hypothetical situation based on a weak foundation since Russell has never show Ewing efficiency levels and regardless of scoring by the Celts (even though their scoring was high they weren't a great offensive team on an ORTG basis) you never want your center scoring inefficiently. There's just no excuse for him not to improve that even if he wasn't looked to be the offensive centerpiece

[Shot Clock]

And just in case you thought Russell was only a product of a weaker era, the basketball gods also dropped Wilt Chamberlain, the most physically-ahead-of-his-time player ever, in the 60s along with Russell. Chamberlain couldn't do a thing against Russell; not like he did to the rest of the league, anyway. He doesn't even average 30 points a game against Russell, and this was with Wilt being defended in single coverage.

I don't think it's close at all.

http://www.nba.com/encyclopedia/ryan_rivalries.html

Chamberlain averaged exactly 28.7 points and 28.7 rebounds a game during those 142 games, the point totals brought down a bit by his late-in-career transformation from relentless scoring machine to more well-rounded player. In the early years Wilt scored 50 or more points seven times against Russell, including a high of 62 on January 14, 1962. By the time we could start referring to these men as "aging warriors," the numbers were a bit more back to earth. Wilt's high game in their final year was 35, and three times he scored in single figures.

Imagine how quickly you would dismiss an argument like that if someone claimed Shaq "couldn't do a thing vs Hakeem" and yet Shaq lit him up for 50 on 7 occasions. 62 in one meeting.

[magicmerl]

It is very hard to place historical greats pre merger because the league was a very different place with different rules and a different (lower) level of competition. That said, all players can do is play to the conditions they find themselves in and Russell basically maximised his success.

Russell is like the Captain America of the NBA. All he does is win.

[JoeMalburg]

Have to take into account that it was a tiny league. 8 of those titles required him to literally win 2 series for the title.

Give me a list of title teams since 1970 that had more than 2 series that were ever in doubt. It's like six teams long.

It's would be like winning the semi finals today. He also joined a team that in his first year had the MVP, another All NBA first teamer and the Rookie of the year on it. And neither were him.

This is much more a product of an eight team league than his titles...right?

In Hakeems rookie year that's the equivalent of being drafted to a team with Larry Bird and Jordan and another first teamer. (not saying his teammates were that level but those guys won the award that year) Boston had a lot of talent.

For future reference, I am way too old and way too knowledgeable to even entertain that comparison. Cousy was a top five player, Sharman a great talent, Heinsohn a great scorer and rebounder from the offensive forward position, but that was also a team that won two playoff series in six years with that core (sans Heinsohn, plus All-NBA regular Ed MaCauley) and was the only NBA franchise that had never reached a Final prior to 1957 and Russell.

No he was just not efficient. His efficiency was really the lowest of any top big that I can think of. And when the lane widened his offense suffered.

He was above league average every year early in his career and top ten multiple times in FG%. He was more efficient than Mikan, who dominated the league on offense. You're measuring him by a standard that didn't exist in his day, and by that standard, you are correct. If Russell is to be measured by non-existent standards in his era, he will or at least, potentially could struggle. Luckily for him, he never faced such opposition in reality.

Ewing averaged .620 FG% in College (setting a career record at Georgetown), Russell was .516. For a big he was never a good offensive option.

Relative to era means, they are almost identically above average and Russell is a considerably higher volume scorer in terms of percentage of teams points scored. Looking at their numbers in terms of FG% is like looking at their raw BPG numbers. Russell will double or triple Ewing, because of era, not ability.

Totally hypothetical situation based on a weak foundation since Russell has never show Ewing efficiency levels

Already wrong. I showed that he did show greater efficiency than Ewing while it could be reasonably considered important to both.

and regardless of scoring by the Celts (even though their scoring was high they weren't a great offensive team on an ORTG basis) you never want your center scoring inefficiently. There's just no excuse for him not to improve that even if he wasn't looked to be the offensive centerpiece

No excuse? How about, "we won the title" That's a pretty good excuse isn't it?

It's a really weak argument when you consider what the Celtics had to gain from a more active or efficient Russell in terms of scoring.Could it have made a difference in 1958 when he was hurt or 1967 when Wilt and a more talented healthy supporting cast peaked and destroyed the Celtics? No, obviously. Where does any argument that Russell should have tried to improve his scoring exist?

It doesn't, unless you don't subscribe to simple logic.

[mtron929]

I don't like the fact that Russell is grandfathered in on everyone's top 3 list no matter what happens in the future of the NBA. Inevitably, Hakeem's GOAT ranking will continue to slide in the next 50-100 years as more GOAT level players (akin to Jordan, Lebron) emerges in the future. However, Russell will still be seen as one of the top players because no one (to no fault of their own) will be able to top him as the ultimate winner.

In this sense, Russell is overrated and will become more overrated as time passes by.

[JoeMalburg]

I don't like the fact that Russell is grandfathered in on everyone's top 3 list no matter what happens in the future of the NBA. Inevitably, Hakeem's GOAT ranking will continue to slide in the next 50-100 years as more GOAT level players (akin to Jordan, Lebron) emerges in the future. However, Russell will still be seen as one of the top players because no one (to no fault of their own) will be able to top him as the ultimate winner.

In this sense, Russell is overrated and will become more overrated as time passes by.

Russell is ranked by his accomplishments. Most have Jordan's six titles above Russell's eleven despite both having 5 MVP's.

It's about making the most out of what you have regardless of era or extenuating circumstances. Russell trumps Hakeem in that regard and objectively, it isn't even close. That's why Russell stays top 2-6 and Hakeem will fade over time. People will do what Hakeem did, no one will do what Russell did, and few will do the modern (to them) equivalent.

[JeepCSC]

Russell is ranked by his accomplishments. Most have Jordan's six titles above Russell's eleven despite both having 5 MVP's.

It's about making the most out of what you have regardless of era or extenuating circumstances. Russell trumps Hakeem in that regard and objectively, it isn't even close. That's why Russell stays top 2-6 and Hakeem will fade over time. People will do what Hakeem did, no one will do what Russell did, and few will do the modern (to them) equivalent.

This is probably close to right. Russell's resume looks best on paper and so history will remember it kinder than Hakeem's.

[mtron929]

I don't like the fact that Russell is grandfathered in on everyone's top 3 list no matter what happens in the future of the NBA. Inevitably, Hakeem's GOAT ranking will continue to slide in the next 50-100 years as more GOAT level players (akin to Jordan, Lebron) emerges in the future. However, Russell will still be seen as one of the top players because no one (to no fault of their own) will be able to top him as the ultimate winner.

In this sense, Russell is overrated and will become more overrated as time passes by.

Russell is ranked by his accomplishments. Most have Jordan's six titles above Russell's eleven despite both having 5 MVP's.

It's about making the most out of what you have regardless of era or extenuating circumstances. Russell trumps Hakeem in that regard and objectively, it isn't even close. That's why Russell stays top 2-6 and Hakeem will fade over time. People will do what Hakeem did, no one will do what Russell did, and few will do the modern (to them) equivalent.

Except his accomplishments are (a) team accomplishments and (b) came when he was part of one of the most stacked teams of all time with inferior competition throughout the league. Yes, it's about making the most out of what you have but as objective evaluators, we can still devalue/discount these situations. Finally, you are making my point. No one will do what Russell did because Russell happened to be in the right place at the right time. And I don't see this as a plus. I would rank Russell somewhere below Lebron/Shaq and above guys like Dirk/KG. And my rankings of Russell would keep on changing (i.e. become lower) as more players like Lebron emerge.

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

When it comes to GOAT rankings, I"m less interested in how 'good' the player was and more focused on what they actually accomplished. No question in a hypothetical all-time draft I would take Hakeem over Bill a hundred times out of a hundred. However, in terms of what they actually accomplished over their careers, Bill runs circles around Hakeem. 11x champion vs 2x champion, 5x MVP vs 1x MVP. I have Bill at #3 on my top 100 list, and Hakeem at #10.

I take the opposite position. I care how good the players were at their peaks and care less about what they accomplished and I adjust for the level of the competition. The changes in how the referees call the game does create some problems when comparing players from different eras and assessing the level of competition is somewhat subjective.

But if winning Euro League championships is not an equal accomplishment to winning NBA championships then you should ask yourself whether winning 1960s championships is an equal accomplishment to winning championships in the 1980s or 2000s.

[Shot Clock]

Give me a list of title teams since 1970 that had more than 2 series that were ever in doubt. It's like six teams long.

Are you purposely ignoring all of the other implications of this or really don't see them? How many teams have fallen out of contention for titles because of injuries during earlier rounds? How many upsets have we seen during rounds in a 4 series model that we wouldn't have in if the best teams only needed to jump in and start playing in their conference finals?

It's would be like winning the semi finals today. He also joined a team that in his first year had the MVP, another All NBA first teamer and the Rookie of the year on it. And neither were him.

This is much more a product of an eight team league than his titles...right?

He joined a weak 8 team league that was only just allowing black people to play and was very balanced. Of the 8 teams the year before he joined, 7 of them had between 31 and 39 wins. Boston had 2 First teamers on it and added the best two rookies in the league. And that's not like adding 2 rookies today that have little organized ball experience. Both had at least 3 years in a leadership role at their respective colleges. Take any balanced league and toss the best two rookies on and we would see a juggernaut in the making. We've seen the impact that a great big can have on a team from day one. All of the top Centers made big splashes.

For future reference, I am way too old and way too knowledgeable to even entertain that comparison.

Ok Yoda, but you are the only one impressed with this. No one cares how old you are or how knowledgeable you think you are there are lots of people on here with knowledge. Pulling out the wise old man card doesn't buy you anything. I'm old enough and wise enough to know that their are people both young and old that are wiser than me.

Cousy was a top five player, Sharman a great talent, Heinsohn a great scorer and rebounder from the offensive forward position, but that was also a team that won two playoff series in six years with that core (sans Heinsohn, plus All-NBA regular Ed MaCauley) and was the only NBA franchise that had never reached a Final prior to 1957 and Russell.

Addressed this earlier. This is like playing down how good of a core SAS had before tossing Duncan on the team.

He was above league average every year early in his career and top ten multiple times in FG%. He was more efficient than Mikan, who dominated the league on offense.

Centers should always be above league average. Mutumbo was above league average. Doesn't mean he had a good offensive game it just means that he could put the ball back in the hoop at a reasonable rate. Not an all time GOAT list center rate.

Then you compare him to a guy no one ranks on their GOAT list for good reason. The league was a petri dish waiting to grow into something and that petri dish wasn't filled with quality growth material. Compare him to his peers like Wilt and you see how little he was able to accomplish offensively even in a league where he had a huge athletic advantage.

Relative to era means, they are almost identically above average and Russell is a considerably higher volume scorer in terms of percentage of teams points scored. Looking at their numbers in terms of FG% is like looking at their raw BPG numbers. Russell will double or triple Ewing, because of era, not ability.

I'm sorry how is a percentage in any way related to a per game stat. It's just not. Let's stick to reality. Russell never was able to put up volume scoring consistently on anything that would resemble good efficiency for a center on the goat list. Even against extremely weak competition.

No excuse? How about, "we won the title" That's a pretty good excuse isn't it?

And once again we are back to the WINZZZZZ argument. The foundation stone for Russell's ranking

It's a really weak argument when you consider what the Celtics had to gain from a more active or efficient Russell in terms of scoring.Could it have made a difference in 1958 when he was hurt or 1967 when Wilt and a more talented healthy supporting cast peaked and destroyed the Celtics? No, obviously. Where does any argument that Russell should have tried to improve his scoring exist?

It doesn't, unless you don't subscribe to simple logic.

Talk about simple logic. The team won so a player had no reason to improve his game. No reason to make good use of every offensive possession he had. Ignore his inability to score even 50% of the time or bring his FT% out of the Wilt/Shaq level of futility.

[AussieBuck]

IIRC Russell's teams were always below league average on offense and way above average on D. The stacked team thing is a myth, just a bunch of low percentage gunners who were mistakenly considered good on offense because they played at a high pace.

[LA Bird]

I'd argue that Russell was a very good offensive player overall throughout his career, a very effective scorer in college and even in his early pro career, an efficient offensive player

'Efficient' is not a word I would use to describe a player who was around 2nd to last in TS% in his position over his career.

Spoiler:

Russell's rank in FGA/36 and TS% among centers who averaged more than 30 minutes
1957: 4th, 5th (out of 6)
1958: 5th, 4th (out of 6)
1959: 3rd, 2nd (out of 3)
1960: 4th, 1st (out of 4)
1961: 4th, 3rd (out of 4)
1962: 5th, 4th (out of 5)
1963: 6th, 6th (out of 6)
1964: 6th, 6th (out of 6)
1965: 8th, 6th (out of 8)
1966: 7th, 7th (out of 7)
1967: 8th, 5th (out of 8)
1968: 8th, 8th (out of 8)
1969: 11th, 10th (out of 11)
(Credit to Owly for the stats, adding in years prior to 1961)

At USF and on the '56 Olympic squad, Felton was the top scorer. Those teams literally never lost once he took on that role.

USF, like the Celtics, almost never lost because of his defense, not because of his scoring. It's fairly obvious from where USF were ranked in points scored (116th, 91st) and points allowed (1st, 1st) in the two years they won the NCAA title.

As for the Olympics, context matters.

1956 Team USA (ppg)
14.1 Bill Russell
12.5 Robert Jeangerard
11.1 Ron Tomsic
10.9 K.C. Jones (NBA career average of 7 points on 39% FG)
9.3 Charles Darling
9.1 James Walsh (Played 10 games in NBA averaging 2 points)
8.6 Burdette Haldorson
8.0 Dick Boushka
6.8 William Evans
5.8 Bill Hougland
4.9 Gilbert Ford

Russell outscored no-name college players most of whom never made it to the NBA and won a title in a tournament which team USA had historically dominated in (7 straight Olympic gold medals: 3 before, 3 after him). The fact that he led the team in scoring is not that impressive once you put it into context. Jerry Shipp led team USA in scoring en route to 1964 gold medal... exactly how many posters here have heard of this guy?

Ewing went from 20 PPG on 47% shooting as rookie to 29 PPG on 55% shooting three years later. Why couldn't Russell, by all accounts a more athletically superior man relative to his peers and possessing a greater basketball IQ and will to win, produce similar results?

Because he never had anything close to the offensive repertoire needed to put up the scoring volume and efficiency that Ewing did? Russell shouldn't be excused for his mediocre offense just because he won a lot of championships with his GOAT defense. College stats against poor competition (especially since Russell was one of the very few black players at the time) doesn't mean anything. Rodman averaged 26 points on 64% FG in his last 3 years in college and nobody calls him a good offensive player.

[JoeMalburg]

'Efficient' is not a word I would use to describe a player who was around 2nd to last in TS% in his position over his career.

I said efficient offensive player, not efficient scorer. Russell conserved energy on offense to use for defense, they ran few plays for him (1 according to some anecdote I read, the eight play or something) and he did several things like setting screens and passing that directly lead to his teammates scoring, plus the extra possessions earned with offensive rebounds. That is what I consider to be an efficient offensive player, but no, not an efficient scorer.

Because Ewing) never had anything close to the offensive repertoire needed to put up the scoring volume and efficiency that Ewing did?

Neither did Ewing in college or when he entered the league, same with Hakeem, but both developed offensive games out of necessity under the tutelage of modern coaching. Auerbach didn't have any assistant coaches, no one hired any shooting coaches or someone to work on his post game. That's what makes it a hypothetical, if Russell were born into another era and had the benefits of modern coaching and strategy he'd have to develop an offensive game because it's improbable that he'd ever end up on such an offensively talented team like the Celtics. Conversely do you really believe Hakeem or Ewing become the same players if they are born in the 30's instead of the 60's?

Russell shouldn't be excused for his mediocre offense just because he won a lot of championships with his GOAT defense. College stats against poor competition (especially since Russell was one of the very few black players at the time) doesn't mean anything. Rodman averaged 26 points on 64% FG in his last 3 years in college and nobody calls him a good offensive player.

Rodman played NAIA basketball in rural Oklahoma and was four years older than everyone else, while a vastly superior college game was being played in the NCAA. Bill Russell was the best player in the Nation and won two consecutive National Championships and 60 straight games at the highest level.

Also I do believe that Russell is excused for his mediocre scoring (not mediocre offense) because of winning. Why should he adjust his approach or take time and energy away from what he was doing on defense to improve offensively if it is not needed to help the team win?

I didn't mention Russell being the leading scorer at USF and in the Sydney games because I thought the stats were impressive or proved his offensive prowess, I was giving the example that when Russell's teams weren't loaded with elite scorers he scored more, more efficiently and carried the largest share of the offensive burden. He was never in a situation that necessitated that as a Celtic over the course of an entire season, however I would cite both game 7 of the '62 Finals and the '65 Finals as times where Russell took on near alpha level scoring responsibilities while his teammates were either struggling ('62) or at less of an offensive advantage than he was ('65).

There is enough evidence for me to confidently conclude that if it were necessary to win, Russell could have and would have evolved significantly as an offensive player.

[RayAP19]

Imagine how quickly you would dismiss an argument like that if someone claimed Shaq "couldn't do a thing vs Hakeem" and yet Shaq lit him up for 50 on 7 occasions. 62 in one meeting.

That's an AWFUL argument. Wilt Chamberlain averaged 50 points in one season. 62 is barely above average for him, whereas 62 is more than double Shaq's career high average for one season.

Stop trying to compare raw stats across eras. It doesn't work.