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

[LA Bird]

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.

Would appreciate some sources on how Russell is so great in these areas as to offset his inefficient scoring.
Otherwise, it's pure conjecture.

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?

They obviously developed their offensive game throughout their careers but even as rookies, they were already more skilled offensively than Russell. This was a poor FT shooter with no post game who took on a minimal role in scoring volume, and still ended with one of the worst shooting efficiency. He is not putting up 25ppg on 55% TS with modern training or not because he is just not a good scorer.

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?

His weak offense should be judged regardless of whether he wins or not. If it's a problem when he loses, it should still be a problem when he wins. Otherwise, you are no different than ring-counting fans.

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).

Facing elimination, Russell put up 19 and 15 points in G7 of ECF in those 2 years you mentioned. That is an average of around 11 points after pace adjustment. If it wasn't for Sam Jones' clutch plays, Russell would not have even made it to the Finals. Let's not pretend Russell could switch into an offensive juggernaut whenever he wanted. He is the GOAT defensive player but nothing special offensively. A few great games against a Lakers team without a legitimate center does not change that.

[JoeMalburg]

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.

Would appreciate some sources on how Russell is so great in these areas as to offset his inefficient scoring.
Otherwise, it's pure conjecture.

I didn't prepare a bibliography for our discussion. I thought we were basketball fans talking, not having a oxford-style debate. Here's more things I've read, or conjecture depending on your interpretation:

The offense ran through Russell post-Cousy. He'd initiate the half court offense from the high post as primarily a facilitator. I would cite that as an example of his offensive IQ and passing ability, why else would Auerbach design it that way. Havlicek and Auerbach are the two primary sources I could cite from memory pertaining to that offensive scheme but I don't recall any direct quotes.

As for the screen setting, that's an observational assessment. In most of the extend game film (non just highlights) of the Russell era Celtics available he is setting a lot of screens on and away from the ball while on offense and when a shot goes up he is usually looking for a rebounding angle. That plays into the offensive rebounds, unfortunately that stat was not kept at the time, but one can assume that a man who collected over 20,000 caroms nabbed a few of his own teams misses.

We also know from the limited footage and anecdotal accounts of teammates and competitors that Russell could be a one man fast break as well as throw the best outlet pass of the era starting the Celtics famous fast break during the Cousy years. I'm almost certain that a basketball fan with your obvious level of knowledge would also know that Russell was notorious for blocking shots to his teammates, in effect an outlet pass triggering a fast break.

His weak offense should be judged regardless of whether he wins or not. If it's a problem when he loses, it should still be a problem when he wins. Otherwise, you are no different than ring-counting fans.

I don't consider it weak offense. He was a below average scorer, especially for a superstar and especially at his position, but he contributed to the offense in several other ways and rarely was his poor scoring ability a hindrance to his teams success. I can tell you from years of coaching experience that things that happen when you win are not problems until they cause you to lose. That is not to say you never need to address something proactively, but sometimes (maybe always) you can overlook a flaw in a player or team if the end result is optimal. Especially it is consistently optimal. Isn't that just an outlier?

Facing elimination, Russell put up 19 and 15 points in G7 of ECF in those 2 years you mentioned. That is an average of around 11 points after pace adjustment. If it wasn't for Sam Jones' clutch plays, Russell would not have even made it to the Finals. Let's not pretend Russell could switch into an offensive juggernaut whenever he wanted. He is the GOAT defensive player but nothing special offensively. A few great games against a Lakers team without a legitimate center does not change that.

First let me say thank goodness the scorekeepers didn't adjust for pace inflation or those Celtics would have been in for a rude awakening. Second let's not pretend I ever said that Russell could turn into an offensive juggernaut at any time, let alone whenever he wanted. Read it again and if I didn't include the proper context and qualifiers let me know.

I think we just have a philosophical difference in terms of how we feel players should be evaluated.

[nurseryc]

Hakeem was the better player however it's impossible to compare eras and there is no way to make a comparison

[DamnWestbrook]

Russell is higher on my all time list, but Hakeem was the better player.

This. But the problem is even Anthony Davis is better than Russell. Russell will always have his Celtics titles though.

[Shot Clock]

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.

You set the bar.

Chamberlain couldn't do a thing against Russell; not like he did to the rest of the league, anyway.

62 points in any era isn't getting stopped or slowed down and it's far from "couldn't do a thing.

[Frosty]

IIRC Russell's teams were always below league average on offense and way above average on D. The stacked team thing is a myth,

I've been thinking about this claim for awhile. (not your specifically just the general claim) And I thought what if I look at how many above average a players (according to PER) a player had. I took any players above 15 PER (15 representing an average player) with 1500 minutes played in that season

Russell
1957 Sharman 19.4, Cousy 21, Heinsohn 18
1958 Cousy 17.9, Sharman 18.8, Heinsohn 16.9, Ramsey 19.5
1959 Cousy 19.9, Sharman 16.8, Heinsohn 17.9, Ramsey 15.7, Jones 18 (1466 mins)
1960 Cousy 18.7, Heinsohn 18.4, Sharman 18.5, Jones 17.7
1961 Cousy 17.4, Heinsohn 18.4, Jones 17.7, Ramsey 15.2, Sharman17
1962 Jones 17.9, Heinsohn 20, Cousy 18.3, Ramsey 16.3
1963 Jones 19.1, Havlicek 15.4, Heinsohn 18.7, Cousy 16.6
1964 Havlicek 16.9, Jones 17.6, Heinsohn 17
1965 Jones 20.7, Havlicek 16.3
1966 Havlicek 16.7, Jones 21.7, Siegfried 16.5
1967 Havlicek 19.2, Howell 19.5, Jones, 18.5, Siegfried 16.2
1968 Havlicek 17.7, Howell 18.1, Jones 18.3, Nelson 18.2
1969 Havlicek 17, Howell 19.4, Jones 17.6, Nelson 17.5



Hakeem had the following team:

1985 Sampson 17.4, McCray 15.5, Lloyd 15.2
1986 Sampson 16.9, Lloyd 17.7, Lucas 17.4, All three are gone shortly after
1987 McCray 15.7
1988 McCray 15.1, Short 15.8
1989 Thorpe 15.4, Floyd 16.4
1990 Thorpe 16.1, Wiggins 16.3
1991 Thorpe 17.2, Smith 18.3, Floyd 16.1 Floyd hardly played in PS
1992 Thorpe 17.2,Smith 15,
1993 Smith 17.1
1994 Thorpe 16.1
1995 Smith 16.2, Cassell 15.9, Drexler 22.1


It's pretty clear who had a more loaded cast around them

[AussieBuck]

Appreciate the effort and understand you didn't make the post for me but I'm not particularly moved by PER. Bit of a rubbish volume stat IMO. If they had an average defense they would have never cracked .500

[Frosty]

Appreciate the effort and understand you didn't make the post for me but I'm not particularly moved by PER. Bit of a rubbish volume stat IMO. If they had an average defense they would have never cracked .500

I'm not a fan of PER or some of the other "advanced stats" . Especially when they are used on early periods where our data is incomplete. But it does give at least some type of quantitative measurement that gives us an indication of a players relative value. I'm curious as to why you feel it's a "volume stat" as it's broken down on a pace basis.

There's no doubt Boston relied on their defense but portraying his cast as non-stacked just isn't supported by historical accounts or stats.