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

[post]

Robert Horry should be a Hall of Famer IMO so that cancels out Hakeem.

great role player in the right place at the right time many times but not a hofer

[TheSheriff]

You realize that those guys played with hall of famers in years when they didn’t win titles right? Shouldn’t that detract from their legacies?

Plus both Walton and Hakeem have more than one ring.

[Young gun 6]

Dirk has the hardest modern championship x

Lebron beating 73-9 Warriors was more impressive.

That ring will never get beaten for the most impressive of all time imo.

[Drygon]

Dirk has the hardest modern championship x

Lebron beating 73-9 Warriors was more impressive.

That ring will never get beaten for the most impressive of all time imo.

Not really.

That 73-9 Warriors had injuries on Curry, Bogut & Iggy.

People discrediting Kawhi's 2019 ring for beating an injury plauged GSW team.

It's only fair to discredit LeBron's 2016 ring with same reasoning.

[freethedevil]

walton and olajuwon won 1 each with 0 hofers

russell won 11 with 2-5 hofers

Russell's teams posted a negative srs without him and had a losing record when he wasn't on the court. HOF's a red herring here. Russell was easily the closest analog to lebron for his era.

[JayMKE]

The league was only like 8 teams in the 60s and Boston won almost every year, of course they're going to have 2-5 HOFers at any given time

[TheNG]

I'll tell you what's less impressive than both:
Building 3 super teams, and yet having only 3-6 record in the finals.

[post]

You realize that those guys played with hall of famers in years when they didn’t win titles right? Shouldn’t that detract from their legacies?

Plus both Walton and Hakeem have more than one ring.

yes, i know, walton has a ring as a bench player with boston and hakeem has a ring with hofer drexler

walton had a washed up lenny wilkins (hofer) as a rookie and didn't win a title and had hall of fame help in his last year with boston as a bench player. so no, i don't see that as detracting from his legacy of winning a chip with 0 hofers

hakeem didn't win a title as a rookie with hofer sampson. russell won the title as a rookie with 6 hofers, arguably 3 real ones. hakeem didn't win a title in his second year with sampson. they lost to one of the goat teams, the 85-86 celtics. russell didn't win a title in his second year but had 7 hall of famers. granted, russell got hurt in that series but it's obvious he had vastly superior help once again. hakeem didn't win a title in his 3rd year with sampson. russell won a title in his 3rd year with 6 hofers. so in that 3 year run with sampson, compared to the help russell had, no, i don't see how that hurts hakeem's legacy. to think it does is to think all you need is to give hakeem one hall of famer and he automatically should win a championship every year. that's an unrealistic standard

as for why hakeem didn't win a title in 96 at age 33 with drexler to accomplish a 3peat, an incredibly rare achievement, whereas russell won a chip at age 33, having 3 real hofers makes 3peating a lot easier than having 1 real hofer

as for the next year at age 34 when hakeem had drexler and barkley and didn't win a title yet russell won a title at age 34, again, russell had 3 real hofers and hakeem played vastly better than russell in the playoffs at the same age of 34

after that russell retired and hakeem was washed up

the end

[post]

walton and olajuwon won 1 each with 0 hofers

russell won 11 with 2-5 hofers

Russell's teams posted a negative srs without him and had a losing record when he wasn't on the court. HOF's a red herring here. Russell was easily the closest analog to lebron for his era.

i guess you mean when he was injured. not a big surprise a team would play worse with a great player out with injury

[post]

The league was only like 8 teams in the 60s and Boston won almost every year, of course they're going to have 2-5 HOFers at any given time

whatever way you slice it, russell had more talent on his teams than hakeem. could russell win a chip with 0 hofers, or more specifically that roster that hakeem won with in 94? i don't think so

[dhsilv2]

Most of Those hall of famers that everyone uses to detract from Russell are only HOF guys because of their titles.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

With no rings which of Russell's teammates would be Hall of Farmer?

Russell is a Hall of Famer.

Cousy might be a Hall of Famer without rings but not because he was a dominant player. Cousy' shooting percentage was horrible. Cousy's defense and athleticism are nothing special. Cousy is a borderline Hall of Fame player without rings because he changed ball handling.

John Havlicek Belongs in the Hall without rings for what he did after Russell retired. Havlicek was a good defender and had infinite stamina and worked hard but he was not a good shooter for most of his years with Russell. Havlicek could get an open shot but he did not hit the shots all that well until later in his career.

Sam Jones is an All-Star without rings but not a Hall of Famer.

Heinsohn shot undefendable shots but he shot horribly by modern standards and was only mediocre by the standards of the day.

Sharmin was a good shooter for his era. Not good by modern standards. Without rings Sharmin would not be a Hall of Famer.

KC Jones, Frank Ramsey and Satch Sanders are just role players.

Is Bailey Howell in the Hall? His scoring was important at the end of the Russell Celtics run.

Still without the Rings only Russell, Havlicek and maybe Cousy get into the Hall.

Cousy won an MVP...he's in the hall on that alone.

[dhsilv2]

Clearly era and quality of the league matter. But using hall of fame as a metric of he teammates were good is just a horrible idea. Hakeem for example had as good or better supporting talent as Robinson did in his title year. hell lets do

Blazers - 1 hall of famer
Suns - 1 hall of famer (though KJ should be in)
Jazz - 2
Knicks - 1

Bottom line is that talent was pretty evenly distributed and Hakeem that year really had as good a set of teammates as anyone else. It was a relatively soft era in terms of top team talent when the super team bulls weren't around.

[post]

Clearly era and quality of the league matter. But using hall of fame as a metric of he teammates were good is just a horrible idea. Hakeem for example had as good or better supporting talent as Robinson did in his title year. hell lets do

Blazers - 1 hall of famer
Suns - 1 hall of famer (though KJ should be in)
Jazz - 2
Knicks - 1

Bottom line is that talent was pretty evenly distributed and Hakeem that year really had as good a set of teammates as anyone else. It was a relatively soft era in terms of top team talent when the super team bulls weren't around.

it's not a horrible idea considering only 2 hofers have ever won a chip with no hofers, walton and olajuwon. that means it's incredibly hard to win a chip with no hall of fame help. why do you think jordan could never do it? because it's incredibly hard

if you want to ignore hof stuff, look at russell as a rookie vs. hakeem. in the regular season hakeem lead his team in win shares per 48 and russell had 3 guys on his team with a higher win shares per 48. in the playoffs hakeem's team overall had 3 guys .100 or higher in win shares per 48. russell's rookie team had 6 overall

it is what it is. russell had a lot more help and won a lot more

[dhsilv2]

Clearly era and quality of the league matter. But using hall of fame as a metric of he teammates were good is just a horrible idea. Hakeem for example had as good or better supporting talent as Robinson did in his title year. hell lets do

Blazers - 1 hall of famer
Suns - 1 hall of famer (though KJ should be in)
Jazz - 2
Knicks - 1

Bottom line is that talent was pretty evenly distributed and Hakeem that year really had as good a set of teammates as anyone else. It was a relatively soft era in terms of top team talent when the super team bulls weren't around.

it's not a horrible idea considering only 2 hofers have ever won a chip with no hofers, walton and olajuwon. that means it's incredibly hard to win a chip with no hall of fame help. why do you think jordan could never do it? because it's incredibly hard

if you want to ignore hof stuff, look at russell as a rookie vs. hakeem. in the regular season hakeem lead his team in win shares per 48 and russell had 3 guys on his team with a higher win shares per 48. in the playoffs hakeem's team overall had 3 guys .100 or higher in win shares per 48. russell's rookie team had 6 overall

it is what it is. russell had a lot more help and won a lot more

It does not mean it is hard, unless you mean it is hard to not just by random chance have a second hall of fame player on a team. I mean MJ only played 2 seasons with the bulls without another hall of famer.

Russell also played teams with more hall of famers on them in his playoff runs. If you have to beat a team with 3 guys in the hall (something hakeem didn't have to do) then better teammates matter.

[Young gun 6]

Dirk has the hardest modern championship x

Lebron beating 73-9 Warriors was more impressive.

That ring will never get beaten for the most impressive of all time imo.

Not really.

That 73-9 Warriors had injuries on Curry, Bogut & Iggy.

People discrediting Kawhi's 2019 ring for beating an injury plauged GSW team.

It's only fair to discredit LeBron's 2016 ring with same reasoning.

Can’t use injuries as an excuse unless they are actually proven to be injured. Injuries weren’t bad enough to side line them and if you step on the court to play you lose the right to use injuries for another player simply outplaying you.

Bogut was the only one who of those who missed games and he was only playing 15 minutes per game through the entire playoffs anyway.

Injured players don’t play 40 minutes and jack up 20 shots like Curry was doing in games 5-7.

It was just an easy escape route his fans were looking for.

What Lebron did that year was nothing short of astonishing and revisionist history will never change that.

[DoItALL9]

It'd be the better question

I thought this was about Larry Brown vs Phil Jackson...

The only one Phil got that wasn't expected was 2010.
Larry's one shines brighter than any of Phil's individually but not all collectively

Sent from my LM-G710 using RealGM mobile app

[freethedevil]

Clearly era and quality of the league matter. But using hall of fame as a metric of he teammates were good is just a horrible idea. Hakeem for example had as good or better supporting talent as Robinson did in his title year. hell lets do

Blazers - 1 hall of famer
Suns - 1 hall of famer (though KJ should be in)
Jazz - 2
Knicks - 1

Bottom line is that talent was pretty evenly distributed and Hakeem that year really had as good a set of teammates as anyone else. It was a relatively soft era in terms of top team talent when the super team bulls weren't around.

it's not a horrible idea considering only 2 hofers have ever won a chip with no hofers, walton and olajuwon.

Until you explain how that makes those chips more impressive, it is very much a horrible idea.

[CircleCitysportsfan]

Give me the rings, you can have the argument.

[freethedevil]

walton and olajuwon won 1 each with 0 hofers

russell won 11 with 2-5 hofers

Russell's teams posted a negative srs without him and had a losing record when he wasn't on the court. HOF's a red herring here. Russell was easily the closest analog to lebron for his era.

i guess you mean when he was injured. not a big surprise a team would play worse with a great player out with injury

Because title worthy teams are usually good without their superstars. Because how important you are to your team is literally how valuable you are.

Russell was more valuable to a dynastic level team than hakeem was to an average title team. Russell not only succedeed more, but he carried harder. Hakeem has zero argument against russell as a player.

[freethedevil]

Lebron beating 73-9 Warriors was more impressive.

That ring will never get beaten for the most impressive of all time imo.

Not really.

That 73-9 Warriors had injuries on Curry, Bogut & Iggy.

People discrediting Kawhi's 2019 ring for beating an injury plauged GSW team.

It's only fair to discredit LeBron's 2016 ring with same reasoning.

Can’t use injuries as an excuse unless they are actually proven to be injured.

He was demonstrably injured with an injury that scientifcally takes multiple weeks of rest to heal. Claiming otherwise is the equivalent of kyrie' pondering the flatness of the earth.