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

[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

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.

it's hard meaning it's a great accomplishment that is very rare. 2 of the most offensively skilled/defensively dominant big men of all time did it. it's obviously not something anyone could do. therefore it's hard. 3peating like mj did the first time with 1 hofer is also very hard and a great accomplishment

yes, hakeem didn't have to beat 3 hall of famers in 94, but russell probably had more hall of famers/the team talent advantage over the teams he beat in the playoffs. in other words, it was easier for him to win because his teams were more stacked. like when golden state got durant they became more stacked than lebron's cavs

[post]

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.

if you take hakeem off that 94 team they are a bad team. not one player on that team was a scoring threat other than hakeem

and hakeem was the defensive anchor

[Marty McFly]

The 2 most pathetic things I’ve seen....

1. Durants titles. He still has 0 in my opinion, I’m not counting that weak ****.
2. Stockton & Malone. They played 87 years together, if they were that good, they’d have won at least 1 title.

[dhsilv2]

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.

it's hard meaning it's a great accomplishment that is very rare. 2 of the most offensively skilled/defensively dominant big men of all time did it. it's obviously not something anyone could do. therefore it's hard. 3peating like mj did the first time with 1 hofer is also very hard and a great accomplishment

yes, hakeem didn't have to beat 3 hall of famers in 94, but russell probably had more hall of famers/the team talent advantage over the teams he beat in the playoffs. in other words, it was easier for him to win because his teams were more stacked. like when golden state got durant they became more stacked than lebron's cavs

Winning a title is a great accomplishment. Doing it when you don't randomly have a player selected for the hall doesn't change that. It would be different if you had a more tangible and direct valuation of teammates relative to the league and era as a metric for how good the rest of the team is. The hall piece is just frankly a dumb why to judge this.

Make a case that Russell's teammates were always better than the teams he played against without referencing the hall of fame. Similarly do it about Hakeem. Until you can do it without this arbitrary method, this discussion us beyond a poor one.

[ItsMyPotPie]

11 with 2-5 hofrs considering the warriors recently.

[freethedevil]

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.

if you take hakeem off that 94 team they are a bad team./quote]
And so were the celtics. The difference is with russell, the celtics were way better than the rockets with hakeem. russell was simply more valuable.

[TheNG]

The ultimate goal for a player is to help his team win many championships. Russell did that better than anyone else. You can't blame him for the competition he had. And unlike LeBron, he had no control on his team building, so you can't blame him for that. More than that, it's pretty safe to say that by the end of his career he was the GOAT. It means that he had no other player better than him ever (unless you only care about personal stats and then Wilt is your guy, but personal stats clearly weren't what Russell cared about). So Russell had probably the best career possible for him.
I don't think any single year accomplishment can be better than that... There is a reason Russell is still considered one of the top 3 best players all time, together with KAJ and MJ.

[The4thHorseman]

walton and olajuwon won 1 each with 0 hofers

russell won 11 with 2-5 hofers

LeBron also had zero hofers when he won in 2016.

[post]

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.

it's hard meaning it's a great accomplishment that is very rare. 2 of the most offensively skilled/defensively dominant big men of all time did it. it's obviously not something anyone could do. therefore it's hard. 3peating like mj did the first time with 1 hofer is also very hard and a great accomplishment

yes, hakeem didn't have to beat 3 hall of famers in 94, but russell probably had more hall of famers/the team talent advantage over the teams he beat in the playoffs. in other words, it was easier for him to win because his teams were more stacked. like when golden state got durant they became more stacked than lebron's cavs

Winning a title is a great accomplishment. Doing it when you don't randomly have a player selected for the hall doesn't change that. It would be different if you had a more tangible and direct valuation of teammates relative to the league and era as a metric for how good the rest of the team is. The hall piece is just frankly a dumb why to judge this.

Make a case that Russell's teammates were always better than the teams he played against without referencing the hall of fame. Similarly do it about Hakeem. Until you can do it without this arbitrary method, this discussion us beyond a poor one.

it's not dumb no matter how many times you say it is. hall of fame players are in the hall of fame because they are better than non hall of fame players. good luck winning a championship with 0 hall of fame players or only 1 like with walton and hakeem

[post]

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.

if you take hakeem off that 94 team they are a bad team./quote]
And so were the celtics. The difference is with russell, the celtics were way better than the rockets with hakeem. russell was simply more valuable.

hakeem played 80 out of 82 games in the 93-94 season. one of the games he didn't play houston lost to dallas who won 13 games all year. that shows you how bad houston was without hakeem

[post]

The ultimate goal for a player is to help his team win many championships. Russell did that better than anyone else. You can't blame him for the competition he had. And unlike LeBron, he had no control on his team building, so you can't blame him for that. More than that, it's pretty safe to say that by the end of his career he was the GOAT. It means that he had no other player better than him ever (unless you only care about personal stats and then Wilt is your guy, but personal stats clearly weren't what Russell cared about). So Russell had probably the best career possible for him.
I don't think any single year accomplishment can be better than that... There is a reason Russell is still considered one of the top 3 best players all time, together with KAJ and MJ.

russell is not considered top 3 by most people these days

[post]

walton and olajuwon won 1 each with 0 hofers

russell won 11 with 2-5 hofers

LeBron also had zero hofers when he won in 2016.

kyrie will be in the hall. he's a hall level player. perhaps love too. he was certainly a hall level player on minnesota at his peak

[michaelm]

it's hard meaning it's a great accomplishment that is very rare. 2 of the most offensively skilled/defensively dominant big men of all time did it. it's obviously not something anyone could do. therefore it's hard. 3peating like mj did the first time with 1 hofer is also very hard and a great accomplishment

yes, hakeem didn't have to beat 3 hall of famers in 94, but russell probably had more hall of famers/the team talent advantage over the teams he beat in the playoffs. in other words, it was easier for him to win because his teams were more stacked. like when golden state got durant they became more stacked than lebron's cavs

Winning a title is a great accomplishment. Doing it when you don't randomly have a player selected for the hall doesn't change that. It would be different if you had a more tangible and direct valuation of teammates relative to the league and era as a metric for how good the rest of the team is. The hall piece is just frankly a dumb why to judge this.

Make a case that Russell's teammates were always better than the teams he played against without referencing the hall of fame. Similarly do it about Hakeem. Until you can do it without this arbitrary method, this discussion us beyond a poor one.

it's not dumb no matter how many times you say it is. hall of fame players are in the hall of fame because they are better than non hall of fame players. good luck winning a championship with 0 hall of fame players or only 1 like with walton and hakeem

Perhaps they became hall of famers by winning all those championships.

[post]

Winning a title is a great accomplishment. Doing it when you don't randomly have a player selected for the hall doesn't change that. It would be different if you had a more tangible and direct valuation of teammates relative to the league and era as a metric for how good the rest of the team is. The hall piece is just frankly a dumb why to judge this.

Make a case that Russell's teammates were always better than the teams he played against without referencing the hall of fame. Similarly do it about Hakeem. Until you can do it without this arbitrary method, this discussion us beyond a poor one.

it's not dumb no matter how many times you say it is. hall of fame players are in the hall of fame because they are better than non hall of fame players. good luck winning a championship with 0 hall of fame players or only 1 like with walton and hakeem

Perhaps they became hall of famers by winning all those championships.

by that logic you should notify the hall and tell them to take stockton, malone, barkley, etc. out of the hall

[dhsilv2]

it's hard meaning it's a great accomplishment that is very rare. 2 of the most offensively skilled/defensively dominant big men of all time did it. it's obviously not something anyone could do. therefore it's hard. 3peating like mj did the first time with 1 hofer is also very hard and a great accomplishment

yes, hakeem didn't have to beat 3 hall of famers in 94, but russell probably had more hall of famers/the team talent advantage over the teams he beat in the playoffs. in other words, it was easier for him to win because his teams were more stacked. like when golden state got durant they became more stacked than lebron's cavs

Winning a title is a great accomplishment. Doing it when you don't randomly have a player selected for the hall doesn't change that. It would be different if you had a more tangible and direct valuation of teammates relative to the league and era as a metric for how good the rest of the team is. The hall piece is just frankly a dumb why to judge this.

Make a case that Russell's teammates were always better than the teams he played against without referencing the hall of fame. Similarly do it about Hakeem. Until you can do it without this arbitrary method, this discussion us beyond a poor one.

it's not dumb no matter how many times you say it is. hall of fame players are in the hall of fame because they are better than non hall of fame players. good luck winning a championship with 0 hall of fame players or only 1 like with walton and hakeem

Hall of fame players do not play their whole careers at a hall of fame level. Do you think Jason Kidd was playing at a "hall of fame" level when he won a title with Dirk? Parker, Manu or even Robinson in 03? Kobe in 00? Including super young or super old not in their prime guys as "hall of famers" is absolutely a dumb idea. it's arbitrary.

In the finals in 94 there were only two hall of fame players on the floor. So which ever team won would have met your arbitrary list. The Knicks did not play a single team with 2 hall of fame players and the rockets only had to beat one. That title was a reflection of the quality of the top playoff teams that year, they just weren't good by historical standards.

[dhsilv2]

walton and olajuwon won 1 each with 0 hofers

russell won 11 with 2-5 hofers

LeBron also had zero hofers when he won in 2016.

kyrie will be in the hall. he's a hall level player. perhaps love too. he was certainly a hall level player on minnesota at his peak

Why isn't Maurice Lucas in then? His resume is roughly the same as Irving and love...

[The4thHorseman]

walton and olajuwon won 1 each with 0 hofers

russell won 11 with 2-5 hofers

LeBron also had zero hofers when he won in 2016.

kyrie will be in the hall. he's a hall level player. perhaps love too. he was certainly a hall level player on minnesota at his peak

The main premise of your thread is based on that very moment. The moment Houston won the title.

At that time when the championship was won in 2016, neither Love nor Kyrie were considered HOF players.

[post]

Winning a title is a great accomplishment. Doing it when you don't randomly have a player selected for the hall doesn't change that. It would be different if you had a more tangible and direct valuation of teammates relative to the league and era as a metric for how good the rest of the team is. The hall piece is just frankly a dumb why to judge this.

Make a case that Russell's teammates were always better than the teams he played against without referencing the hall of fame. Similarly do it about Hakeem. Until you can do it without this arbitrary method, this discussion us beyond a poor one.

it's not dumb no matter how many times you say it is. hall of fame players are in the hall of fame because they are better than non hall of fame players. good luck winning a championship with 0 hall of fame players or only 1 like with walton and hakeem

Hall of fame players do not play their whole careers at a hall of fame level. Do you think Jason Kidd was playing at a "hall of fame" level when he won a title with Dirk? Parker, Manu or even Robinson in 03? Kobe in 00? Including super young or super old not in their prime guys as "hall of famers" is absolutely a dumb idea. it's arbitrary.

In the finals in 94 there were only two hall of fame players on the floor. So which ever team won would have met your arbitrary list. The Knicks did not play a single team with 2 hall of fame players and the rockets only had to beat one. That title was a reflection of the quality of the top playoff teams that year, they just weren't good by historical standards.

kobe averaged 21 in the 00 playoffs. he had a .202 win shares per 48 in the regular season. his playoff box plus minus was identical to the one he put up in the 02 chip. he was right on the verge of entering his peak. it's a borderline case

robinson in 03 had a plus 4 box plus minus in the playoffs and a .204 win shares per 48, the latter higher than his career playoff number

kidd had a plus 5.9 box plus minus in the playoffs when he won with dirk which is higher than his career playoff box plus minus. dirk also got outplayed by wade in that series so even if kidd wasn't a hofer at that point i don't see how it's on the same level as hakeem whose title was a reflection of the fact he is probably universally regarded as better than ewing

[post]

LeBron also had zero hofers when he won in 2016.

kyrie will be in the hall. he's a hall level player. perhaps love too. he was certainly a hall level player on minnesota at his peak

Why isn't Maurice Lucas in then? His resume is roughly the same as Irving and love...

kyrie and love are both much better than lucas. look up the numbers yourself

[post]

LeBron also had zero hofers when he won in 2016.

kyrie will be in the hall. he's a hall level player. perhaps love too. he was certainly a hall level player on minnesota at his peak

The main premise of your thread is based on that very moment. The moment Houston won the title.

At that time when the championship was won in 2016, neither Love nor Kyrie were considered HOF players.

love was clearly on his way to the hall with his peak play in minnesota. why do you think lebron wanted him so bad

anybody who has ever seen kyrie play can tell he has a special level of skill, a hall level of skill. the stats back it up

it's also irrelevant because kyrie is going in the hall so when people look back on it they will say oh look, lebron had at least one hall of fame player to help him win which is the norm and no discredit to lebron