more impressive: 1 chip with 0 hofers or 11 with 2-5 hofers?

[post]

srs differential, it uses historical pm studies, wowy, to estimate the impact for older players and it uses modern apm for newer players.

I'm taking out the subjectivity of portability(which hurts hakeem btw)

Russell has 6 seasons of +6 value and 3 of +6.5 value. He has 8 of +5.5 value and 9 at +5. All 13 of his seaosns were at +4.5 and all but 1 of his titles were at +5.

Hakeem has one season at +7, two at +6.5(both of those resulted in championships btw) and 5 seasons of +6. He has 7 seasons of +5.5, 8 seasons of +5 and only 9 of his seasons were even +4.

So right off the bat, hakeem has 8 seasons at the minimum level russell needed to play at to win 10 of his 11 titles. Even if we just dispel it down to induvidual impact, hakeem lacks the capability to hit 10, and in all likely hood he loses other titles because he has less of those seasons than russell at every level russell got an additional championship at. From the russell level or russell+seasons, hakeem already won titles.


Russell was the best or second best player in the league literally every season he played, hakeem was not.

There's frankly no way to argue for hakeem.

Statstically, russell's career was signifcantly more valuable

In terms of accoaldes, russell is pretty easily the most decorated player in history

Team success, no one touches russell

Intangibles? Russell won b2b titles over an overwhelming favorite as a player coach

i don't have the interest in learning more new hyper complex stats. it gets crazy after a while and sometimes they tell you different things depending on what stat you use. i've learned some of it over time but i honestly don't have the passion for it some of you do so i can't comment at all on whether what you're saying is convincing or even if you are getting your numbers right, which you've already shown more than once you are incapable of doing

perhaps the good old fashioned eye test is the best way to argue for hakeem over russell as opposed to an infinite maze of math. watch them play and then tell me who is better. i say hakeem

Have you seen enough russell to actually make that statement? Because russell vs his competition was to any eye test I've known (people who have either watched a LOT of game footage, or were alive for it to see in person) clearly more of an outlier than Hakeem was in his era. Russell while not wilt was still so far and away more skilled and athletic than virtually everyone else on the courts he played on it was crazy. More impressive was his absolutely off the chart BBIQ, something hakeem is greatly lacking in.

who cares if he was more of an outlier. it's a question of skill by eye test

hakeem did not greatly lack iq but believe what you want

[dhsilv2]

i don't have the interest in learning more new hyper complex stats. it gets crazy after a while and sometimes they tell you different things depending on what stat you use. i've learned some of it over time but i honestly don't have the passion for it some of you do so i can't comment at all on whether what you're saying is convincing or even if you are getting your numbers right, which you've already shown more than once you are incapable of doing

perhaps the good old fashioned eye test is the best way to argue for hakeem over russell as opposed to an infinite maze of math. watch them play and then tell me who is better. i say hakeem

Have you seen enough russell to actually make that statement? Because russell vs his competition was to any eye test I've known (people who have either watched a LOT of game footage, or were alive for it to see in person) clearly more of an outlier than Hakeem was in his era. Russell while not wilt was still so far and away more skilled and athletic than virtually everyone else on the courts he played on it was crazy. More impressive was his absolutely off the chart BBIQ, something hakeem is greatly lacking in.

who cares if he was more of an outlier. it's a question of skill by eye test

hakeem did not greatly lack iq but believe what you want

Well if your eye test didn't illistrate hakeem's lack of IQ then your eye test isn't very good imo.

[post]

Intangibles? Russell won b2b titles over an overwhelming favorite as a player coach

and shaq, the greatest physically imposing scoring force in history, who hakeem beat for a chip, said hakeem was the only player he couldn't psychologically break

[dhsilv2]

and shaq, the greatest physically imposing scoring force in history, who hakeem beat for a chip, said hakeem was the only player he couldn't psychologically break

Shaq also called allen iverson one of the 10 best players of all time. Shaq says a lot of stuff without thinking about it first...or more likely he only says things without thinking about it first. He was also in his 3rd season and not close to peak physical monster he'd become nor even close to his peak in terms of skill and understanding of the game.

[JonFromVA]

walton and olajuwon won 1 each with 0 hofers

russell won 11 with 2-5 hofers

Russ was a unique superstar in that he didn't dominate his team's offensive possessions. He was about winning, not stat hording. With a fast pace fast break offense that was ahead of its time ... there was plenty of scoring to spread around.

If Walton had stayed healthy and won 11 rings he'd have ended up playing with more HOFers pretty much by definition because helping a team win championships is a HOF factor.

if there was plenty of scoring to go around russell had to carry less of a scoring burden than hakeem to win which makes hakeem look more impressive

perhaps walton would've played with hall of famers. that's hypothetical and doesn't change that he won with none

The goal is winning not scoring and fact is in most cases you get more out of your teammates if you can help them shine rather than trying to carry the whole load.

Russ and Wilt taught us that dichotomy long ago, but seems it must be constantly relearned.

If Russ could just slow down Wilt, it became a battle of the "others" and Russ's troops were ready to contribute.

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

NBA was a smaller league in the 1960s. They had more Hall of Famers per team. They did not increase the number of future Hall of Famers per year much when the league got bigger. 1960s had more All Stars per team.

OP's argument is that one championship with less Hall of Famers is more impressive is not much of an argument especially when you ask which of those players would be Hall of Famers without ring.

Heihnson is something like the 12th highest scorer in the league for 5 years. Even now with more players I am not sure that 12th highest scorer for 5 years is good enough to get a guy into the Hall of Fame without rings.

My eye test also says Hakeem is better than Russell in a random era but not better than Russell relative to the eras that they played in.

Also, when a guy wins 11 championships and win all the close games you have to seriously consider the possibility that Russell may have been the ultimate leader.

I reject the idea that Russell's teammates were all that special. I don't care if they are in the Hall of Fame. I have seen their stats relative to their league. I have watched perhaps 8 games some, (watched some repeatedly) and and my eye test does not make me think those guys were that much better than their competition.

Cousy was impressive but not efficient. Think White Chocolate Jason Williams but with a bad shot even for his era.
Havlicek was a tireless athlete but he missed too many shots. He became a better shooter after Russel retired.

Satch Sanders defense impressed me but not as much as Draymond Green impresses me.
Bailey Howell could score.
Sam Jones was a good scorer and could score against good defense using his short range baseline bank shots. From further out he could hit shots if open.

Sharmin coukd hit shots at an OK rate from deeper than was normal in his era. By modern standards Sharmin is nothing.

Heihnson could at a low rate hit really bad shots that he probably should not have been taking. Heihnson is an acceptable 1st option if the othe team will also shoot at a horrible fg%. If the opposition is going to shoot at 43% or better then Heihnson becomes a negative.

Ramsey and the other guys are just depth.

walton and olajuwon won 1 each with 0 hofers

russell won 11 with 2-5 hofers

Those were fake Hall of Famers. They were just good players.
Hakeem and Walton also played with good players.

[post]

and shaq, the greatest physically imposing scoring force in history, who hakeem beat for a chip, said hakeem was the only player he couldn't psychologically break

Shaq also called allen iverson one of the 10 best players of all time. Shaq says a lot of stuff without thinking about it first...or more likely he only says things without thinking about it first. He was also in his 3rd season and not close to peak physical monster he'd become nor even close to his peak in terms of skill and understanding of the game.

iverson is one of the best scorers ever. i don't have a personal top 10 list and don't know what shaq's list was so i won't comment further

shaq might not have been peak but he was definitely prime. either way shaq was intimidating and got in people's heads. it's debatable when hakeem's peak was

[post]

Russ was a unique superstar in that he didn't dominate his team's offensive possessions. He was about winning, not stat hording. With a fast pace fast break offense that was ahead of its time ... there was plenty of scoring to spread around.

If Walton had stayed healthy and won 11 rings he'd have ended up playing with more HOFers pretty much by definition because helping a team win championships is a HOF factor.

if there was plenty of scoring to go around russell had to carry less of a scoring burden than hakeem to win which makes hakeem look more impressive

perhaps walton would've played with hall of famers. that's hypothetical and doesn't change that he won with none

The goal is winning not scoring and fact is in most cases you get more out of your teammates if you can help them shine rather than trying to carry the whole load.

Russ and Wilt taught us that dichotomy long ago, but seems it must be constantly relearned.

If Russ could just slow down Wilt, it became a battle of the "others" and Russ's troops were ready to contribute.

yes, the goal is winning, and my point lately, if you've been paying attention, has been it's more likely hakeem could win in russell's place than russell could win in hakeem's place

[michaelm]

if there was plenty of scoring to go around russell had to carry less of a scoring burden than hakeem to win which makes hakeem look more impressive

perhaps walton would've played with hall of famers. that's hypothetical and doesn't change that he won with none

The goal is winning not scoring and fact is in most cases you get more out of your teammates if you can help them shine rather than trying to carry the whole load.

Russ and Wilt taught us that dichotomy long ago, but seems it must be constantly relearned.

If Russ could just slow down Wilt, it became a battle of the "others" and Russ's troops were ready to contribute.

yes, the goal is winning, and my point lately, if you've been paying attention, has been it's more likely hakeem could win in russell's place than russell could win in hakeem's place

Bottom line is that 11 titles is hard to match or beat, and we know that Russell managed to win that many. That all the factors which combined to allow Russell to win that many including health, a sustained peak, leadership ability, a playing style which suited his team mates and the playing scheme of the team could be repeated hypothetically by Hakeem is a big reach imo particularly since his offensive prowess was as an iso scorer which may not have melded well with the HOF team mates you mention on the Celtics who didn’t play offense that way. If he could slow down Wilt, still probably unmatched as an athlete and physical specimen in the history of the NBA, was a 20 ppg player at his peak as an offensive player, a good playmaker and an inspiring leader and undertook modern physical training and was coached in modern playing schemes perhaps a team which could win a title or two in more modern times could have been built around one of the greatest and most successful players of all time, but whether that could be done with the actual team which was built around Hakeem is a different question.

We will never know obviously, but for me one
likelihood is that a team which was built around Russell would likely suit him better than one built around Hakeem and vice versa.

[freethedevil]

based on the eye test

Anyone with a good eyetest can competently back up their beliefs by breaking down granular data. So go ahead, Imma wait. Show us your eyetest is worth paying attention to.

you keep on believing that if it helps you sleep at night

You don't think a knowledgeable person should be able to back up their beliefs?

Shame.

[dhsilv2]

and shaq, the greatest physically imposing scoring force in history, who hakeem beat for a chip, said hakeem was the only player he couldn't psychologically break

Shaq also called allen iverson one of the 10 best players of all time. Shaq says a lot of stuff without thinking about it first...or more likely he only says things without thinking about it first. He was also in his 3rd season and not close to peak physical monster he'd become nor even close to his peak in terms of skill and understanding of the game.

iverson is one of the best scorers ever. i don't have a personal top 10 list and don't know what shaq's list was so i won't comment further

shaq might not have been peak but he was definitely prime. either way shaq was intimidating and got in people's heads. it's debatable when hakeem's peak was

Hakeem's peak offensive season was 93, he peaked as a defender in the late 80's...

And no, Iverson was an inefficient scorer, there's a good case that Mutombo was the better player on the 76ers team that made the finals.

[post]

NBA was a smaller league in the 1960s. They had more Hall of Famers per team. They did not increase the number of future Hall of Famers per year much when the league got bigger. 1960s had more All Stars per team.

OP's argument is that one championship with less Hall of Famers is more impressive is not much of an argument especially when you ask which of those players would be Hall of Famers without ring.

Heihnson is something like the 12th highest scorer in the league for 5 years. Even now with more players I am not sure that 12th highest scorer for 5 years is good enough to get a guy into the Hall of Fame without rings.

My eye test also says Hakeem is better than Russell in a random era but not better than Russell relative to the eras that they played in.

Also, when a guy wins 11 championships and win all the close games you have to seriously consider the possibility that Russell may have been the ultimate leader.

I reject the idea that Russell's teammates were all that special. I don't care if they are in the Hall of Fame. I have seen their stats relative to their league. I have watched perhaps 8 games some, (watched some repeatedly) and and my eye test does not make me think those guys were that much better than their competition.

Cousy was impressive but not efficient. Think White Chocolate Jason Williams but with a bad shot even for his era.
Havlicek was a tireless athlete but he missed too many shots. He became a better shooter after Russel retired.

Satch Sanders defense impressed me but not as much as Draymond Green impresses me.
Bailey Howell could score.
Sam Jones was a good scorer and could score against good defense using his short range baseline bank shots. From further out he could hit shots if open.

Sharmin coukd hit shots at an OK rate from deeper than was normal in his era. By modern standards Sharmin is nothing.

Heihnson could at a low rate hit really bad shots that he probably should not have been taking. Heihnson is an acceptable 1st option if the othe team will also shoot at a horrible fg%. If the opposition is going to shoot at 43% or better then Heihnson becomes a negative.

Ramsey and the other guys are just depth.

walton and olajuwon won 1 each with 0 hofers

russell won 11 with 2-5 hofers

Those were fake Hall of Famers. They were just good players.
Hakeem and Walton also played with good players.

the celtics won the chip in 57 when russell was a rookie. boston had russell and 6 other hofers. the celtics beat a team with 1 hofer and 4 hofers. the two teams combined didn't even have as many hofers as the celtics minus russell

the stats relative to the league show cousy lead the league in assists 8 years in a row. that's special

only kareem, kobe, duncan, lebron, karl malone, and shaq have longer streaks of consecutive all nba selections than cousy. most of those guys are regularly included in top ten of all time lists. that shows cousy was special in his time just like those other guys were special in their time. cousy's field goal percentage was 37.8 the year he won mvp. league average was 38.0. white chocolate jason williams never got within 1 percentage point of league average field goal percentage any year and would only have been considered an mvp by an insane person

per 36 minutes sam jones had 5 years outscoring paul pierce's peak playoff ppg. sam jones had 10 years outscoring paul pierce's ppg when pierce won a chip. sam jones peaked at 5th in the league in ppg in the regular season. paul pierce peaked at 6th in the league in ppg. sam jones was as special as paul pierce if not more and pierce will probably get in the hall

reggie miller is a hofer. miller peaked at 8th in the league in scoring, never reached the top 10 again, and is 111th in career ppg. bailey howell peaked at 6th in the league in scoring, which he did twice, had another year 8th in scoring, and is 97th all time in ppg. i've seen people say howell was chasing rings at the end of his career with russell, trying to devalue howell. howell in the 68 and 69 playoffs was matching his career playoff ppg numbers. therefore he was not some past his prime old man chasing rings but a very solid scorer at that point playing a vital role in the 68 and 69 boston chips

tom heinsohn is 98th all time in ppg to miller's 111th all time. heinsohn peaked 10th in the league to miller's peak of 8th

bill sharman peaked at 5th in the league in scoring and had 7 straight years in the top 10. he is 128th in career ppg to miller's 111th but had a much better prime relative to his league. sharman also had a field goal percentage which was 2nd in the nba in 1953-54 season while being 7th in the league in scoring. he frequently put the ball in the basket at a highly efficient rate relative to his league. sharman lead the league in free throw percentage 7 times in his career. sharman is 14th all time in free throw percentage. if you look at the free throw shooters ahead of him on the all time list many of them were great three point shooters. it's reasonable to assume sharman would've been a great three point shooter

do i really need to make a case for havlicek when he is often on top 50 all time lists?

that's 6 not fake hofers russell enjoyed the extraordinary luxury of playing with. cousy, jones, howell, heinsohn, sharman, and havlicek

and i haven't even begun to consider the other guys

you said "My eye test also says Hakeem is better than Russell in a random era but not better than Russell relative to the eras that they played in."

i'm not sure where i'd rank hakeem by eye test relative to his era compared to russell. that's a much harder question. at least you agree hakeem is better by eye test in a random era

[post]

Shaq also called allen iverson one of the 10 best players of all time. Shaq says a lot of stuff without thinking about it first...or more likely he only says things without thinking about it first. He was also in his 3rd season and not close to peak physical monster he'd become nor even close to his peak in terms of skill and understanding of the game.

iverson is one of the best scorers ever. i don't have a personal top 10 list and don't know what shaq's list was so i won't comment further

shaq might not have been peak but he was definitely prime. either way shaq was intimidating and got in people's heads. it's debatable when hakeem's peak was

Hakeem's peak offensive season was 93, he peaked as a defender in the late 80's...

And no, Iverson was an inefficient scorer, there's a good case that Mutombo was the better player on the 76ers team that made the finals.

shaq per 36 minutes in the 95 playoffs, when hakeem beat him, scored 1 ppg less than in the 2002 playoffs per 36 minutes, the third chip in shaq's 3peat. shaq was very close to peak against hakeem. hakeem peaked scoring wise in the 88 playoffs averaging 10 points more per 36 minutes than his career points per 36 minutes in the playoffs

there is zero case for mutombo over iverson that year

[70sFan]

the eye test says he is definitely in contention for goat level offense and defense

hakeem became a better, more willing passer throughout his career. if he started out on the celtics with their emphasis on passing and more talent hakeem probably would've become a better passer sooner from trusting his teammates. i don't know if he would've equaled russell. maybe

russell can outrebound ewing but they are still going to lose from lack of scoring

Sometimes eye-test is not enough. I'm huge defender of eye-test but it's very subjective. Besides, Hakeem was still only decent passer at his peak by eye-test and he's tough shot master a la Kobe, but not as efficient as other greats. Kareem was clearly better offensive player than him for example - better scorer and better passer.

Russell would give Rockets more passing, better rebounding and even better defense. I'm not sure if that would be enough to win the finals, but it's still more likely than Hakeem winning 11 rings. I mean it's not like Russell played with superstars - Cousy was washed up by 1960 and Jones/Havlicek in the mid-60s weren't better than someone like 1995 Drexler for example. You also underrate Hakeem's supporting cast - Thorpe was legit all-star level player and they have the best spacing in the league. This team was built around Hakeem's iso scoring. Russell's Celtics were built around Russell's defensive rebounding and transition game. Hakeem wasn't as good in transition as Russell, he was also more foul-prone and Celtics usually didn't have backup center (until Wayne Embry in late 60s). I don't agree that Hakeem would suit Celtics well.

by eye test i'm not sure there's a difference between peak hakeem and russell as a passer

hakeem's peak playoff true shooting percentage was higher than kareem's and his career playoff true shooting percentage is almost identical. kareem and hakeem had an almost identical per 36 minutes points per game in the playoffs. passing kareem might've had a slight advantage but by the eye test skill set scoring wise hakeem is unparalleled

based on eye test and some advanced stats i don't think russell was necessarily superior to hakeem on defense

cousy's most valuable asset was passing. in the 60, 61, and 62 playoffs cousy averaged well over his career playoff assists per 36 minutes. overall as a player he was far from washed up in the playoffs in 60

it's arguable havlicek and jones were better in the mid 60's than drexler in 96 playoffs. either way you'd rather have mid 60's havlicek and jones than 96 playoffs drexler and horry when hakeem was going for the 3 peat

otis thorpe was not an all star

eye test says hakeem had the speed, athleticism, and ball handling to do whatever russell could in transition

hakeem fouled .6 more per game in the playoffs than russell in his career. not a trivial difference, but not noteworthy

If you don't think there is a difference between them in terms of passing, then try to rewatch some games.

Hakeem averaged 57.3% TS in 1986-95 period and 56.4% in his peak offensive years (1993-95). Kareem averaged 62.0% TS in his peak offensive years (1977-80) and he averaged 57.0% in 1970-80 period in much less efficient league on average. So no, Hakeem isn't close to Kareem as a scorer. Nor as a passer. I know that many people have Kobe over James because of "eye-test" because Kobe is more flashy. Hakeem is more flashy, but he's not better post player than Kareem. Watch some 1977 or 1980 Kareem games, he was the most unstoppable bigman in NBA history.

What advanced stats do you have for Russell's defense? Win shares?

Cousy was also the worst volume scorer in NBA history in that period. He averaged 15.5 ppg on 33.5% FG and 39.9% TS. He wasn't a scrub, but he wasn't a star anymore and it can be argued that he was negative on offense overall.

Maybe they were better than Drexler, but Russell never had them when they were both better. Hondo started his breakthrough in 1968 when Sam Jones was already past his prime. Before Havlicek was good, but limited offensive player.

Otis Thorpe was an all-star in 1992. He averaged 16/10 on 59% TS and very good defense in Houston. How is that not an all-star production? You praise old Cousy and Heinsohn but Thorpe was likely better than either of them, even relative to their eras.

Eye test also shows that Hakeem didn't run in transition that much and I haven't seen him hitting open guys in transition. Hakeem had abilities to play that way, but he didn't have attitude for that.

Hakeem's fouls rate is 3.5 per36 minutes. Russell was at 2.6 per36, the difference of one foul per 36 is huge. Hakeem with Russell's 45 mpg in playoffs would average almost 4.4 fouls per game, that's a lot.

[post]

The goal is winning not scoring and fact is in most cases you get more out of your teammates if you can help them shine rather than trying to carry the whole load.

Russ and Wilt taught us that dichotomy long ago, but seems it must be constantly relearned.

If Russ could just slow down Wilt, it became a battle of the "others" and Russ's troops were ready to contribute.

yes, the goal is winning, and my point lately, if you've been paying attention, has been it's more likely hakeem could win in russell's place than russell could win in hakeem's place

Bottom line is that 11 titles is hard to match or beat, and we know that Russell managed to win that many. That all the factors which combined to allow Russell to win that many including health, a sustained peak, leadership ability, a playing style which suited his team mates and the playing scheme of the team could be repeated hypothetically by Hakeem is a big reach imo particularly since his offensive prowess was as an iso scorer which may not have melded well with the HOF team mates you mention on the Celtics who didn’t play offense that way. If he could slow down Wilt, still probably unmatched as an athlete and physical specimen in the history of the NBA, was a 20 ppg player at his peak as an offensive player, a good playmaker and an inspiring leader and undertook modern physical training and was coached in modern playing schemes perhaps a team which could win a title or two in more modern times could have been built around one of the greatest and most successful players of all time, but whether that could be done with the actual team which was built around Hakeem is a different question.

We will never know obviously, but for me one
likelihood is that a team which was built around Russell would likely suit him better than one built around Hakeem and vice versa.

i don't see a strong reason to think hakeem's iso scoring couldn't fit in with massive hall of fame talent. he fit in fine with hofer drexler and won a chip. the idea he couldn't fit in is similar to the general idea people have said about other situations that turned out wrong. can lebron play with wade and bosh people said. well they won 2 chips in 4 years. can durant play with golden state. 2 chips in 3 years, probably would've been 3 if he didn't get hurt

perhaps what you are saying is correct about russell playing in and winning in the 90's or 21st century. i wouldn't dismiss the idea entirely. i just think it's more likely hakeem wins 11 chips with boston

[michaelm]

yes, the goal is winning, and my point lately, if you've been paying attention, has been it's more likely hakeem could win in russell's place than russell could win in hakeem's place

Bottom line is that 11 titles is hard to match or beat, and we know that Russell managed to win that many. That all the factors which combined to allow Russell to win that many including health, a sustained peak, leadership ability, a playing style which suited his team mates and the playing scheme of the team could be repeated hypothetically by Hakeem is a big reach imo particularly since his offensive prowess was as an iso scorer which may not have melded well with the HOF team mates you mention on the Celtics who didn’t play offense that way. If he could slow down Wilt, still probably unmatched as an athlete and physical specimen in the history of the NBA, was a 20 ppg player at his peak as an offensive player, a good playmaker and an inspiring leader and undertook modern physical training and was coached in modern playing schemes perhaps a team which could win a title or two in more modern times could have been built around one of the greatest and most successful players of all time, but whether that could be done with the actual team which was built around Hakeem is a different question.

We will never know obviously, but for me one
likelihood is that a team which was built around Russell would likely suit him better than one built around Hakeem and vice versa.

i don't see a strong reason to think hakeem's iso scoring couldn't fit in with massive hall of fame talent. he fit in fine with hofer drexler and won a chip. the idea he couldn't fit in is similar to the general idea people have said about other situations that turned out wrong. can lebron play with wade and bosh people said. well they won 2 chips in 4 years. can durant play with golden state. 2 chips in 3 years, probably would've been 3 if he didn't get hurt

perhaps what you are saying is correct about russell playing in and winning in the 90's or 21st century. i wouldn't dismiss the idea entirely. i just think it's more likely hakeem wins 11 chips with boston

I will take a guy actually winning 11 titles over a guy doing so hypothetically. A massive number of things have to go right to win that many however good you are, including luck with injuries, maintaining close to peak physical condition, maintaining motivation etc, etc for that long which simply can’t be guaranteed in any hypothetical scenario. If you want to argue which player was best at his peak both are all time greats in their eras, and I wouldn’t argue Russell vs Hakeem on the basis of 11 vs 2, obviously no-one is winning 11 titles in Hakeem’s time or now with the growth of the game and salary cap rules etc.

[dhsilv2]

iverson is one of the best scorers ever. i don't have a personal top 10 list and don't know what shaq's list was so i won't comment further

shaq might not have been peak but he was definitely prime. either way shaq was intimidating and got in people's heads. it's debatable when hakeem's peak was

Hakeem's peak offensive season was 93, he peaked as a defender in the late 80's...

And no, Iverson was an inefficient scorer, there's a good case that Mutombo was the better player on the 76ers team that made the finals.

shaq per 36 minutes in the 95 playoffs, when hakeem beat him, scored 1 ppg less than in the 2002 playoffs per 36 minutes, the third chip in shaq's 3peat. shaq was very close to peak against hakeem. hakeem peaked scoring wise in the 88 playoffs averaging 10 points more per 36 minutes than his career points per 36 minutes in the playoffs

there is zero case for mutombo over iverson that year

Zero? Dude...you really don't understand the importance of defense in basketball. You're comically over valuing scoring and missing that defense and passing are far more scalable and are far FAR more important especially when talking about winning multiple titles.

[jk31]

I think, if you win 11 championships then you will have more Hall of Famers in the long run,because they will get elected to the hall of fame because they won so many championships.

[freethedevil]

Shaq also called allen iverson one of the 10 best players of all time. Shaq says a lot of stuff without thinking about it first...or more likely he only says things without thinking about it first. He was also in his 3rd season and not close to peak physical monster he'd become nor even close to his peak in terms of skill and understanding of the game.

iverson is one of the best scorers ever. i don't have a personal top 10 list and don't know what shaq's list was so i won't comment further

shaq might not have been peak but he was definitely prime. either way shaq was intimidating and got in people's heads. it's debatable when hakeem's peak was

Hakeem's peak offensive season was 93, he peaked as a defender in the late 80's...

And no, Iverson was an inefficient scorer, there's a good case that Mutombo was the better player on the 76ers team that made the finals.

I thought his peak effiency was 2 points above league average

[celtics543]

I can't wait for 2050 when people look back at the 2011 Celtics like "Well they had Pierce, KG, Shaq, and Ray Allen, and somehow those four Hall of Famers being together didn't win a title" Or "Ya, that Dirk guy was impressive but look at all the hall of famers he had, Kidd, Marion, Stojakovic, that team was loaded with guys, the Heat didn't stand a chance."

Because that's what this conversation feels like. A bunch of younger people looking back and just assuming that because someone made the hall of fame they played like a hall of famer from the second they stepped on the court as a rookie until the day they left the court after their last game.

Can we please stop downplaying what Bill Russell did. He dominated the league he was in. Yes there were less teams but that means the talent is more condensed and every team was rolling out multiple all stars and future hall of famers. He won 11 championships while dealing with rampant racism in his personal and professional life, not to mention every team in the league was gunning for them every year. It's one of the reasons I have Bill as the top guy of all time.

As great as MJ, Lebron, Kareem, or whoever else you want to put up there are, when they're coaching themselves to championships 10 and 11 is the moment I'll put them above Bill as the greatest basketball player of all time.