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

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

I think Wilt was significantly above average passer for a center once Wilt set his mind to being a passer. I think It is safe to say that Wilt was a better passer than Hakeem.

Sometimes winning makes teams get lazy. It did not happen to the Russel Celtics.

I think Hakeem was a better player than Russel. Russell covered a lot of ground quickly defensively but young Hakeem was also fast. I was shocked at some of the way too blockable shots opponents put up against Russell. It seems the league had not yet adjusted to shot blocking.

Still Hakeem being better than Russel does not mean that Hakeem would win 11 rings with those Celtics. We can't measure Russell's effect on his teammates. The Celtics role players need to come through over and over and over again for the Celtics to win 11 rings. People like Hakeem. Evan in the bad late 1980s and early 1990s Hakeem always came through in his first round playoff defeats. I can't say the same for Hakeem in the regular season. Hakeem did get irritated with management not giving him good enough teammates and that was a problem Russel never had.

I can't say that Hakeem would not have got the most out of his teammates but I also am not sure that Hakeem would have got the most out of his teammates.

[michaelm]

jerry west won the finals mvp in 1969 on the losing team. west scored 28.8 more points than russell and had more assists than anybody on either team and shot 9.3 points higher from the field than russell. if west doesn't have a 42 point triple double in game 7 the lakers get blown out. boston had more depth and won because of that. if one team has team offense and team defence if the Lakers despite a brilliant individual offensive performance by West. the best player and the other team wins the other team has more depth. that's common sense. duh

What it means is that the Celtics team offense and team defence were sufficient to beat the team offense and team defence of the Lakers despite a brilliant individual offensive.performance by West, you keep assuming a team is the sum of the individual players, and the sum of their (regular season) offensive statistics at that.

What Russell’s teams were good at was getting to and winning finals series. It might be unfair for individual players and for those obsessed with their offensive statistics, but in the end the object of the game Of NBA basketball is to win the necessary games to get to a finals series, and then win the finals series. Do you think it is vaguely possible Russell might have had an influence beyond his ppg in the finals in his last season particularly given he was captain coach ?.

west was also on the all defense team that year. boston had 3 guys, russell, havlicek, and sanders on the all defense team. obviously defense matters and boston had more high end talent than the lakers in that regard too if you go by all defense team that year. a guy like west that is on the all defense team and was all nba team in 68-69 season is the better player than russell. of course russell is more valuable than what his ppg indicate in 69 or any other year. that's not the point. the point is boston had more depth and won which is common sense. it's very difficult for one man to play extremely well with lack of help and beat a team that simply has more options up and down the roster

people say wilt and hakeem were selfish earlier in their career and didn't pass enough. that makes no sense because west scored just as much as those guys in the 69 finals and had more assists too. was jerry west "selfish" too. i don't think so. i think he did what he had to do to keep his team in the series to the last moment and the people who watched the games at the time and voted on the finals mvp award realized that without west the lakers didn't really have a chance and he had a greater impact on his team than any other player in the series on either team

if you look at team stats for the 69 finals, the lakers averaged more points, rebounds, and assists, and shot higher from the field. so i don't see how boston's defense made some big difference. the biggest team stat difference was boston shot 15 points higher from the foul line throughout the series. wilt's bad free throw shooting hurt but so did the inability of other laker players to step up consistently other than west as a scorer

I have readily acknowledged as has everyone else that you couldn't have maintained that Celtics team over the period of time it lasted in the 60s in Hakeem's era or now, because of different salary cap rules for one.

What we know is that those Celtics teams were a good fit with Russell and he with them, players added along the way developed in that system, and the Celtics offensive and defensive schemes worked with the players those teams had. You can't guarantee any of that will apply with a different player however good as an individual player that player may be, and it is a proven fact that Russell could devise/be put in complete charge of both the offensive and defensive schemes for a team given he was captain coach for their last 2 titles. You have also previously barely acknowledged that the player many consider the GOAT defensive player might have had a significant impact because of that side of the game. That Wilt was a horrible FT shooter can be incorporated into a defensive strategy btw.

In any case I don't disagree with your OP, 11 titles for that 60s Celtics team can't be considered the same as 11 titles now or in Hakeem's era, although how 11 compares with 2 is hard to know. I have never said Hakeem couldn't have won 11 titles in Russell's era either, I just think Russell's feat was a creditable one for which he should be credited rather than belittled, particularly on the basis of another player hypothetically managing to do the same.

[post]

Post, you're ideas were worth playing with and considering or the thread would not have got to 18 pages. People have not agreed with you, I have not agreed with you but you're ideas were at least worth considering (which isn't always the case).

My advice for the future is that people get If people get a little condescending with you, don't escalate the condescension. If people don't agree with you, so what. Being a little insulting on the internet is a bad habit that too many of us have. I can't say that I have never done it.

whatever. i don't need an ethics lecture

I think Wilt was significantly above average passer for a center once Wilt set his mind to being a passer. I think It is safe to say that Wilt was a better passer than Hakeem.

Sometimes winning makes teams get lazy. It did not happen to the Russel Celtics.

I think Hakeem was a better player than Russel. Russell covered a lot of ground quickly defensively but young Hakeem was also fast. I was shocked at some of the way too blockable shots opponents put up against Russell. It seems the league had not yet adjusted to shot blocking.

Still Hakeem being better than Russel does not mean that Hakeem would win 11 rings with those Celtics. We can't measure Russell's effect on his teammates. The Celtics role players need to come through over and over and over again for the Celtics to win 11 rings. People like Hakeem. Evan in the bad late 1980s and early 1990s Hakeem always came through in his first round playoff defeats. I can't say the same for Hakeem in the regular season. Hakeem did get irritated with management not giving him good enough teammates and that was a problem Russel never had.

I can't say that Hakeem would not have got the most out of his teammates but I also am not sure that Hakeem would have got the most out of his teammates.

it's not safe. wilt didn't want to shoot much anymore. when you don't want to shoot and are looking to pass left and right you get a lot more chances to accumulate not only assists but semi difficult passes that can be put on a highlight reel decades later. nobody makes highlight reels of hakeem passing, not because he didn't make nice passes or never got assists in his career, but because the story people listen to says wilt lead the league in assists so lets show people what he could do in that regard and ignore what hakeem could do in that regard because in the popular zeitgeist he's not seen as a passer

"Hakeem did get irritated with management not giving him good enough teammates and that was a problem Russel never had."

yeah, that pretty much sums up the whole thread. the fact russell could roll out of bed onto a contender every year is a big part of the reason he is overrated with this obsessive focus people have on counting chips and winning to evaluate a player when obviously some guys in nba history are just going to be unlucky to be stuck on bad or mediocre teams a lot of the time or even if they are on contenders like west and wilt were in 69 they will simply not have enough depth to win against a super deep boston team

[post]

What it means is that the Celtics team offense and team defence were sufficient to beat the team offense and team defence of the Lakers despite a brilliant individual offensive.performance by West, you keep assuming a team is the sum of the individual players, and the sum of their (regular season) offensive statistics at that.

What Russell’s teams were good at was getting to and winning finals series. It might be unfair for individual players and for those obsessed with their offensive statistics, but in the end the object of the game Of NBA basketball is to win the necessary games to get to a finals series, and then win the finals series. Do you think it is vaguely possible Russell might have had an influence beyond his ppg in the finals in his last season particularly given he was captain coach ?.

west was also on the all defense team that year. boston had 3 guys, russell, havlicek, and sanders on the all defense team. obviously defense matters and boston had more high end talent than the lakers in that regard too if you go by all defense team that year. a guy like west that is on the all defense team and was all nba team in 68-69 season is the better player than russell. of course russell is more valuable than what his ppg indicate in 69 or any other year. that's not the point. the point is boston had more depth and won which is common sense. it's very difficult for one man to play extremely well with lack of help and beat a team that simply has more options up and down the roster

people say wilt and hakeem were selfish earlier in their career and didn't pass enough. that makes no sense because west scored just as much as those guys in the 69 finals and had more assists too. was jerry west "selfish" too. i don't think so. i think he did what he had to do to keep his team in the series to the last moment and the people who watched the games at the time and voted on the finals mvp award realized that without west the lakers didn't really have a chance and he had a greater impact on his team than any other player in the series on either team

if you look at team stats for the 69 finals, the lakers averaged more points, rebounds, and assists, and shot higher from the field. so i don't see how boston's defense made some big difference. the biggest team stat difference was boston shot 15 points higher from the foul line throughout the series. wilt's bad free throw shooting hurt but so did the inability of other laker players to step up consistently other than west as a scorer

I have readily acknowledged as has everyone else that you couldn't have maintained that Celtics team over the period of time it lasted in the 60s in Hakeem's era or now, because of different salary cap rules for one.

What we know is that those Celtics teams were a good fit with Russell and he with them, players added along the way developed in that system, and the Celtics offensive and defensive schemes worked with the players those teams had. You can't guarantee any of that will apply with a different player however good as an individual player that player may be, and it is a proven fact that Russell could devise/be put in complete charge of both the offensive and defensive schemes for a team given he was captain coach for their last 2 titles. You have also previously barely acknowledged that the player many consider the GOAT defensive player might have had a significant impact because of that side of the game. That Wilt was a horrible FT shooter can be incorporated into a defensive strategy btw.

In any case I don't disagree with your OP, 11 titles for that 60s Celtics team can't be considered the same as 11 titles now or in Hakeem's era, although how 11 compares with 2 is hard to know. I have never said Hakeem couldn't have won 11 titles in Russell's era either, I just think Russell's feat was a creditable one for which he should be credited rather than belittled, particularly on the basis of another player hypothetically managing to do the same.

mike trout is the best player in baseball. nobody cares that his teams can't make the playoffs. nobody really cares how many world series babe ruth or hank aaron or willie mays or ted williams won. nobody really cares how many stanley cups gretzky and lemieux and orr won. people hype up super bowls when talking about football players but i don't see that as anymore intelligent than hyping up chips in the nba to rank individual players

[michaelm]

west was also on the all defense team that year. boston had 3 guys, russell, havlicek, and sanders on the all defense team. obviously defense matters and boston had more high end talent than the lakers in that regard too if you go by all defense team that year. a guy like west that is on the all defense team and was all nba team in 68-69 season is the better player than russell. of course russell is more valuable than what his ppg indicate in 69 or any other year. that's not the point. the point is boston had more depth and won which is common sense. it's very difficult for one man to play extremely well with lack of help and beat a team that simply has more options up and down the roster

people say wilt and hakeem were selfish earlier in their career and didn't pass enough. that makes no sense because west scored just as much as those guys in the 69 finals and had more assists too. was jerry west "selfish" too. i don't think so. i think he did what he had to do to keep his team in the series to the last moment and the people who watched the games at the time and voted on the finals mvp award realized that without west the lakers didn't really have a chance and he had a greater impact on his team than any other player in the series on either team

if you look at team stats for the 69 finals, the lakers averaged more points, rebounds, and assists, and shot higher from the field. so i don't see how boston's defense made some big difference. the biggest team stat difference was boston shot 15 points higher from the foul line throughout the series. wilt's bad free throw shooting hurt but so did the inability of other laker players to step up consistently other than west as a scorer

I have readily acknowledged as has everyone else that you couldn't have maintained that Celtics team over the period of time it lasted in the 60s in Hakeem's era or now, because of different salary cap rules for one.

What we know is that those Celtics teams were a good fit with Russell and he with them, players added along the way developed in that system, and the Celtics offensive and defensive schemes worked with the players those teams had. You can't guarantee any of that will apply with a different player however good as an individual player that player may be, and it is a proven fact that Russell could devise/be put in complete charge of both the offensive and defensive schemes for a team given he was captain coach for their last 2 titles. You have also previously barely acknowledged that the player many consider the GOAT defensive player might have had a significant impact because of that side of the game. That Wilt was a horrible FT shooter can be incorporated into a defensive strategy btw.

In any case I don't disagree with your OP, 11 titles for that 60s Celtics team can't be considered the same as 11 titles now or in Hakeem's era, although how 11 compares with 2 is hard to know. I have never said Hakeem couldn't have won 11 titles in Russell's era either, I just think Russell's feat was a creditable one for which he should be credited rather than belittled, particularly on the basis of another player hypothetically managing to do the same.

mike trout is the best player in baseball. nobody cares that his teams can't make the playoffs. nobody really cares how many world series babe ruth or hank aaron or willie mays or ted williams won. nobody really cares how many stanley cups gretzky and lemieux and orr won. people hype up super bowls when talking about football players but i don't see that as anymore intelligent than hyping up chips in the nba to rank individual players

We have a philosophical difference then which probably explains why we have been arguing. I think team play is very important in basketball, more so than in some of the other sports you mention. What you do a a batter or pitcher in baseball does stand on its own a lot more imo.

[post]

I have readily acknowledged as has everyone else that you couldn't have maintained that Celtics team over the period of time it lasted in the 60s in Hakeem's era or now, because of different salary cap rules for one.

What we know is that those Celtics teams were a good fit with Russell and he with them, players added along the way developed in that system, and the Celtics offensive and defensive schemes worked with the players those teams had. You can't guarantee any of that will apply with a different player however good as an individual player that player may be, and it is a proven fact that Russell could devise/be put in complete charge of both the offensive and defensive schemes for a team given he was captain coach for their last 2 titles. You have also previously barely acknowledged that the player many consider the GOAT defensive player might have had a significant impact because of that side of the game. That Wilt was a horrible FT shooter can be incorporated into a defensive strategy btw.

In any case I don't disagree with your OP, 11 titles for that 60s Celtics team can't be considered the same as 11 titles now or in Hakeem's era, although how 11 compares with 2 is hard to know. I have never said Hakeem couldn't have won 11 titles in Russell's era either, I just think Russell's feat was a creditable one for which he should be credited rather than belittled, particularly on the basis of another player hypothetically managing to do the same.

mike trout is the best player in baseball. nobody cares that his teams can't make the playoffs. nobody really cares how many world series babe ruth or hank aaron or willie mays or ted williams won. nobody really cares how many stanley cups gretzky and lemieux and orr won. people hype up super bowls when talking about football players but i don't see that as anymore intelligent than hyping up chips in the nba to rank individual players

We have a philosophical difference then which probably explains why we have been arguing. I think team play is very important in basketball, more so than in some of the other sports you mention. What you do a a batter or pitcher in baseball does stand on its own a lot more imo.

who's the better running back, emmitt smith or barry sanders. emmitt won three super bowls and has more career total stats. but by eye test barry sanders was the better running back and played on bad teams. barry sanders couldn't control the teams he played on anymore than hakeem or wilt could

ovechkin finally won a stanley cup in 2018. whether or not he ever wins doesn't change he's one of the greatest goal scorers ever. does the fact that maurice richard won 8 stanley cups make him a better player. no. ovechkin can not control the team he plays on

yogi berra won 10 world series. does that make him better than ty cobb who never won a world series. no

[michaelm]

mike trout is the best player in baseball. nobody cares that his teams can't make the playoffs. nobody really cares how many world series babe ruth or hank aaron or willie mays or ted williams won. nobody really cares how many stanley cups gretzky and lemieux and orr won. people hype up super bowls when talking about football players but i don't see that as anymore intelligent than hyping up chips in the nba to rank individual players

We have a philosophical difference then which probably explains why we have been arguing. I think team play is very important in basketball, more so than in some of the other sports you mention. What you do a a batter or pitcher in baseball does stand on its own a lot more imo.

who's the better running back, emmitt smith or barry sanders. emmitt won three super bowls and has more career total stats. but by eye test barry sanders was the better running back and played on bad teams. barry sanders couldn't control the teams he played on anymore than hakeem or wilt could

ovechkin finally won a stanley cup in 2018. whether or not he ever wins doesn't change he's one of the greatest goal scorers ever. does the fact that maurice richard won 11 stanley cups make him a better player. no. ovechkin can not control the team he plays on

yogi berra won 10 world series. does that make him better than ty cobb who never a world series. no

As I said, we have a philosophical difference where basketball is concerned, I value a team/ensemble game over iso play.

I don’t necessarily extend this to the other sports you mention though, particularly baseball as I have already said.

[post]

We have a philosophical difference then which probably explains why we have been arguing. I think team play is very important in basketball, more so than in some of the other sports you mention. What you do a a batter or pitcher in baseball does stand on its own a lot more imo.

who's the better running back, emmitt smith or barry sanders. emmitt won three super bowls and has more career total stats. but by eye test barry sanders was the better running back and played on bad teams. barry sanders couldn't control the teams he played on anymore than hakeem or wilt could

ovechkin finally won a stanley cup in 2018. whether or not he ever wins doesn't change he's one of the greatest goal scorers ever. does the fact that maurice richard won 11 stanley cups make him a better player. no. ovechkin can not control the team he plays on

yogi berra won 10 world series. does that make him better than ty cobb who never a world series. no

As I said, we have a philosophical difference where basketball is concerned, I value a team/ensemble game over iso play.

I don’t necessarily extend this to the other sports you mention though, particularly baseball as I have already said.

if a hypothetical basketball player averages 50 ppg for his entire career on good percentages and plays defense and plays 10-15 years and never wins a chip and is always on a non contending team are you honestly going to tell me that player is not the goat because he is stuck with bum teammates

[post]

We have a philosophical difference then which probably explains why we have been arguing. I think team play is very important in basketball, more so than in some of the other sports you mention. What you do a a batter or pitcher in baseball does stand on its own a lot more imo.

who's the better running back, emmitt smith or barry sanders. emmitt won three super bowls and has more career total stats. but by eye test barry sanders was the better running back and played on bad teams. barry sanders couldn't control the teams he played on anymore than hakeem or wilt could

ovechkin finally won a stanley cup in 2018. whether or not he ever wins doesn't change he's one of the greatest goal scorers ever. does the fact that maurice richard won 11 stanley cups make him a better player. no. ovechkin can not control the team he plays on

yogi berra won 10 world series. does that make him better than ty cobb who never a world series. no

As I said, we have a philosophical difference where basketball is concerned, I value a team/ensemble game over iso play.

I don’t necessarily extend this to the other sports you mention though, particularly baseball as I have already said.

do you think rick barry lost in the 67 finals because he averaged 40.8 ppg, more than double the second leading scorer on his team, when he should've been passing more (instead of getting just 3.3 apg) or because the 67 sixers were obviously the superior team talent wise. wilt, hal greer, billy cunnigham, and chet walker. 4 hofers vs. rick barry, nate thurmond (who was not a good offensive player), and a bunch of nobodies. then why did rick barry win in the 75 finals averaging 29.5 ppg, more than double the second leading scorer on his team, when his team was a 3.67 srs underdog and he averaged 5 apg. are you really going to tell me rick barry won in 75 because he got 1.7 more apg than in 67 and 11.3 ppg less than in 67. lol

[Pg81]

Russell > Hakeem.

[michaelm]

Double

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

"Hakeem did get irritated with management not giving him good enough teammates and that was a problem Russel never had."

yeah, that pretty much sums up the whole thread. the fact russell could roll out of bed onto a contender every year is a big part of the reason he is overrated with this obsessive focus people have on counting chips and winning to evaluate a player when obviously some guys in nba history are just going to be unlucky to be stuck on bad or mediocre teams a lot of the time or even if they are on contenders like west and wilt were in 69 they will simply not have enough depth to win against a super deep boston team

69 Lakers have bad depth and Baylor was shooting like crap in the playoffs.

On the other hand the 69 Celtics depth also isn't all that great and other than Havlicek and Nelson they were getting too old.
In 1970 with Russell and Sam Jones retired, and Bailey Howel hitting the age wall and Sanders aging, 3rd rate centers the Celtics team was bad.

I don't think Siegfried and Bryant ever were very good players.

[michaelm]

As I said, we have a philosophical difference where basketball is concerned, I value a team/ensemble game over iso play.

I don’t necessarily extend this to the other sports you mention though, particularly baseball as I have already said.

if a hypothetical basketball player averages 50 ppg for his entire career on good percentages and plays defense and plays 10-15 years and never wins a chip and is always on a non contending team are you honestly going to tell me that player is not the goat because he is stuck with bum teammates

Enough with the hypotheticals. In the real world I think the actual Hakeem is an all time great player, who gets extra credit for managing to take a team to titles as well.

I just don’t think there is any reason to belittle Russell as I keep saying, sure he couldn’t have done what he did 30 or 50 years later in any circumstance, but he could hardly have done more in his career than he did, including in the opinion of many being the GOAT defensive player. Hakeem was also a great defensive player and may well be the superior player overall considered as an individual player, I just don’t see how anyone can do other than credit Russell for doing what he did in his own time or why anyone would want to do otherwise, particularly since he was one of the trailblazers who led to the sport being graced by the likes of Hakeem rather than “white milkmen” as some have put it, and took considerable flak while doing so.

To put it more succinctly, Russell won and kept winning.

[post]

"Hakeem did get irritated with management not giving him good enough teammates and that was a problem Russel never had."

yeah, that pretty much sums up the whole thread. the fact russell could roll out of bed onto a contender every year is a big part of the reason he is overrated with this obsessive focus people have on counting chips and winning to evaluate a player when obviously some guys in nba history are just going to be unlucky to be stuck on bad or mediocre teams a lot of the time or even if they are on contenders like west and wilt were in 69 they will simply not have enough depth to win against a super deep boston team

69 Lakers have bad depth and Baylor was shooting like crap in the playoffs.

On the other hand the 69 Celtics depth also isn't all that great and other than Havlicek and Nelson they were getting too old.
In 1970 with Russell and Sam Jones retired, and Bailey Howel hitting the age wall and Sanders aging, 3rd rate centers the Celtics team was bad.

I don't think Siegfried and Bryant ever were very good players.

69 celtics had enough depth to overcome west scoring 16 more points than havlicek in game 7. they did it by either matching or outscoring the lakers 2-7 scorers in the game. same general trend for the series averages. siegfried and bryant don't have to be very good for that to happen. when i say super depth i don't mean they were all great players. just that they had more collective ability than the lakers so that no matter what west did it wasn't going to overcome that collective depth

[post]

We have a philosophical difference then which probably explains why we have been arguing. I think team play is very important in basketball, more so than in some of the other sports you mention. What you do a a batter or pitcher in baseball does stand on its own a lot more imo.

who's the better running back, emmitt smith or barry sanders. emmitt won three super bowls and has more career total stats. but by eye test barry sanders was the better running back and played on bad teams. barry sanders couldn't control the teams he played on anymore than hakeem or wilt could

ovechkin finally won a stanley cup in 2018. whether or not he ever wins doesn't change he's one of the greatest goal scorers ever. does the fact that maurice richard won 11 stanley cups make him a better player. no. ovechkin can not control the team he plays on

yogi berra won 10 world series. does that make him better than ty cobb who never a world series. no

As I said, we have a philosophical difference where basketball is concerned, I value a team/ensemble game over iso play.

I don’t necessarily extend this to the other sports you mention though, particularly baseball as I have already said.

who's the better running back, emmitt smith or barry sanders. emmitt won three super bowls and has more career total stats. but by eye test barry sanders was the better running back and played on bad teams. barry sanders couldn't control the teams he played on anymore than hakeem or wilt could

ovechkin finally won a stanley cup in 2018. whether or not he ever wins doesn't change he's one of the greatest goal scorers ever. does the fact that maurice richard won 11 stanley cups make him a better player. no. ovechkin can not control the team he plays on

yogi berra won 10 world series. does that make him better than ty cobb who never a world series. no

As I said, we have a philosophical difference where basketball is concerned, I value a team/ensemble game over iso play.

I don’t necessarily extend this to the other sports you mention though, particularly baseball as I have already said.

do you think rick barry lost in the 67 finals because he averaged 40.8 ppg, more than double the second leading scorer on his team, when he should've been passing more (instead of getting just 3.3 apg) or because the 67 sixers were obviously the superior team talent wise. wilt, hal greer, billy cunnigham, and chet walker. 4 hofers vs. rick barry, nate thurmond (who was not a good offensive player), and a bunch of nobodies. then why did rick barry win in the 75 finals averaging 29.5 ppg, more than double the second leading scorer on his team, when his team was a 3.67 srs underdog and he averaged 5 apg. are you really going to tell me rick barry won in 75 because he got 1.7 more apg than in 67 and 11.3 ppg less than in 67. lol

if barry doesn't score 55 in game 3 in 67 they probably only win 1 game in that series instead of 2. his second leading scorer was a guy that for his career averaged 7 ppg. lol

[post]

if a hypothetical basketball player averages 50 ppg for his entire career on good percentages and plays defense and plays 10-15 years and never wins a chip and is always on a non contending team are you honestly going to tell me that player is not the goat because he is stuck with bum teammates

Enough with the hypotheticals. In the real world I think the actual Hakeem is an all time great player, who gets extra credit for managing to take a team to titles as well.

I just don’t think there is any reason to belittle Russell as I keep saying, sure he couldn’t have done what he did 30 or 50 years later in any circumstance, but he could hardly have done more in his career than he did, including in the opinion of many being the GOAT defensive player. Hakeem was also a great defensive player and may well be the superior player overall considered as an individual player, I just don’t see how anyone can do other than credit Russell for doing what he did in his own time or why anyone would want to do otherwise, particularly since he was one of the trailblazers who led to the sport being graced by the likes of Hakeem rather than “white milkmen” as some have put it, and took considerable flak while doing so.

To put it more succinctly, Russell won and kept winning.

who's the better running back, emmitt smith or barry sanders. emmitt won three super bowls and has more career total stats. but by eye test barry sanders was the better running back and played on bad teams. barry sanders couldn't control the teams he played on anymore than hakeem or wilt could

ovechkin finally won a stanley cup in 2018. whether or not he ever wins doesn't change he's one of the greatest goal scorers ever. does the fact that maurice richard won 11 stanley cups make him a better player. no. ovechkin can not control the team he plays on

yogi berra won 10 world series. does that make him better than ty cobb who never a world series. no

As I said, we have a philosophical difference where basketball is concerned, I value a team/ensemble game over iso play.

I don’t necessarily extend this to the other sports you mention though, particularly baseball as I have already said.

As I said, we have a philosophical difference where basketball is concerned, I value a team/ensemble game over iso play.

I don’t necessarily extend this to the other sports you mention though, particularly baseball as I have already said.

do you think rick barry lost in the 67 finals because he averaged 40.8 ppg, more than double the second leading scorer on his team, when he should've been passing more (instead of getting just 3.3 apg) or because the 67 sixers were obviously the superior team talent wise. wilt, hal greer, billy cunnigham, and chet walker. 4 hofers vs. rick barry, nate thurmond (who was not a good offensive player), and a bunch of nobodies. then why did rick barry win in the 75 finals averaging 29.5 ppg, more than double the second leading scorer on his team, when his team was a 3.67 srs underdog and he averaged 5 apg. are you really going to tell me rick barry won in 75 because he got 1.7 more apg than in 67 and 11.3 ppg less than in 67. lol

if barry doesn't score 55 in game 3 in 67 they probably only win 1 game in that series instead of 2. his second leading scorer was a guy that for his career averaged 7 ppg. lol

let's break this series down a little more. sixers win the first 2 games. barry has 37 points and 7 assists in game 1 and they lost. so he was passing and scoring and they lose because their defense sucked and gave up 141 points. game 2 the sixers blow them out by 31 and the warriors shot 29.5% from the field as a team. lol barry scored 30. now let's move to game 3. barry goes crazy and scores 55 and they win. so sixers are up 2-1 now. game 4 the sixers win by 14. barry scores 43. so the sixers would've swept the warriors if barry didn't go nuts scoring 55 in game 3. lol