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

[michaelm]

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.

the 2011 celtics are irrelevant just like the stockton/malone jazz because the argument i'm making has nothing to do with teams who didn't win chips

i'm not assuming every hofer was playing like a hofer every year. teams that win the chip almost never have less than 2 players that make the hof. it's a rough standard for how much talent a team has that i never heard anyone else mention. it's an interesting fact. is it subject to criticism? of course, everything is. if you actually read the thread you'll see how i'm addressing all kinds of points people are making

kidd is already in the hall. dirk had a lot more help than hakeem

no, every team was not rolling out multiple hall of famers and boston had more than other teams. i already addressed that. try actually reading the thread

Try doing something yourself other than endlessly repeating a dogmatic opinion which is in regard to a hypothetical matter and inherently unprovable.

Russell won 11 titles. The end.

[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

The thing is, we can never know that. So I'm more impressed by what Russ actually did in his own era. Winning multiple championships is hard enough ... but doing so without the same level of training/medical support, air travel, "load management", and dealing with racism?

Heck, the one time the Celtics lost in the finals with Russ, a major factor was a severe sprained ankle that Russell suffered. Otoh, the winningest team in NBA history just failed to win in the finals 2x in no small part due to injuries. The year before he arrived and the year he left ... the Celtics were nothing special.

What Russ did with the Celtics was a staggering feat and there's just no reason to diminish it.

it's a great accomplishment for russell. i never said he wasn't very good. but hakeem didn't load manage, and i don't think it was a lack of overt racism and traveling on a plane instead of a bus or train that allowed hakeem to develop goat level skills

[post]

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.

the 2011 celtics are irrelevant just like the stockton/malone jazz because the argument i'm making has nothing to do with teams who didn't win chips

i'm not assuming every hofer was playing like a hofer every year. teams that win the chip almost never have less than 2 players that make the hof. it's a rough standard for how much talent a team has that i never heard anyone else mention. it's an interesting fact. is it subject to criticism? of course, everything is. if you actually read the thread you'll see how i'm addressing all kinds of points people are making

kidd is already in the hall. dirk had a lot more help than hakeem

no, every team was not rolling out multiple hall of famers and boston had more than other teams. i already addressed that. try actually reading the thread

Try doing something yourself other than endlessly repeating a dogmatic opinion which is in regard to a hypothetical matter and inherently unprovable.

Russell won 11 titles. The end.

it's not dogmatic to point out by eye test skill wise hakeem could do whatever russell could but russell could not do whatever hakeem could do. hakeem could play russell's role in boston's offense if he had to but russell could not play hakeem's role in houston's offense. maybe someone else's eye test disagrees. i know what i see with my own two eyes watching the two play. and it's not "dogmatic," but an obvious fact, to point out one guy played with a lot more hofers than another guy

[post]

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.

the 2011 celtics are irrelevant just like the stockton/malone jazz because the argument i'm making has nothing to do with teams who didn't win chips

i'm not assuming every hofer was playing like a hofer every year. teams that win the chip almost never have less than 2 players that make the hof. it's a rough standard for how much talent a team has that i never heard anyone else mention. it's an interesting fact. is it subject to criticism? of course, everything is. if you actually read the thread you'll see how i'm addressing all kinds of points people are making

kidd is already in the hall. dirk had a lot more help than hakeem

no, every team was not rolling out multiple hall of famers and boston had more than other teams. i already addressed that. try actually reading the thread

Look if you want to get snarky then Hakeems' 1 chip without a hall of fame teammate came because Jordan decided to go play baseball. So take the best player out of the league and you'd have weaker teams win championships. If Jordan never leaves to play baseball then Hakeem probably has no titles at all right now.

I wasn't really responding to your initial post, I was more responding to the people in this thread who are acting like Russell was playing with prime hall of famers for his entire career. Boston had more hall of famers because they won more than other teams. KC Jones for example isn't a hall of famer without the rings.

Dirk had no more help than Hakeem had plus Dirk played a better team in the finals than Hakeem ever had to.

jordan's bulls might've beat hakeem's rockets. but jordan himself admitted the bulls had no answer for hakeem

if boston's hofers are hofers because they won robert horry and steve kerr should be in the hall. but they aren't. because they aren't hofer caliber players. kc jones might not be a hofer, i'm not sure. but he was an incredible role player that added super depth to boston

dirk clearly had more scoring help. jason terry outscored lebron and virtually matched bosh. hakeem scored twice as many points as vernon maxwell, houston's second leading scorer in 94 finals with zero hofers, compared to dirk not coming close to doubling terry's points. you can undervalue jason kidd all you want but he played well in the 2011 finals and he's a hofer. dirk also didn't have to anchor a defense. he had tons of defensive help with kidd, marion, and chandler. the super team heat were not necessarily a better team than the riley coached ewing lead knicks. one was offensive heavy, the other defensive heavy. both were legit contenders in 94 and 11.

[post]

They don't win without Deke's 5 blocks and 16 rebounds either...

it's easier to grab a rebound and block a shot than it is to create your own offense through scoring, especially when nobody else on your team demonstrates an ability to consistently create offense at anything resembling a high level at any point in their career

What evidence do you have for any of that? The reality is that team needed both players to play nearly perfectly to have a chance to win any games against that lakers team. But scoring on volume is not harder than anchoring a defense. There have been far more players to post high impact scoring seasons than equally high defensive teams to Deke that year. Scoring at a level of impact similar to Deke is historically significant, offense at the level of Iverson's is great but very common.

the evidence partly comes from playing basketball a lot and realizing a rebound can virtually fall in your lap but creating offense against quality defense requires doing a lot more with hand eye coordination and foot work. it also comes from the distance needed to release the ball from your hands to put it in the basket on offense vs. the distance required to use your hands to grab a loose ball rebound. one requires much more skill. i don't have some physics equation to prove that. i'm not a scientist. it seems like common sense though

iverson is 7th all time in career ppg. that's not common

[dhsilv2]

it's easier to grab a rebound and block a shot than it is to create your own offense through scoring, especially when nobody else on your team demonstrates an ability to consistently create offense at anything resembling a high level at any point in their career

What evidence do you have for any of that? The reality is that team needed both players to play nearly perfectly to have a chance to win any games against that lakers team. But scoring on volume is not harder than anchoring a defense. There have been far more players to post high impact scoring seasons than equally high defensive teams to Deke that year. Scoring at a level of impact similar to Deke is historically significant, offense at the level of Iverson's is great but very common.

the evidence partly comes from playing basketball a lot and realizing a rebound can virtually fall in your lap but creating offense against quality defense requires doing a lot more with hand eye coordination and foot work. it also comes from the distance needed to release the ball from your hands to put it in the basket on offense vs. the distance required to use your hands to grab a loose ball rebound. one requires much more skill. i don't have some physics equation to prove that. i'm not a scientist. it seems like common sense though

iverson is 7th all time in career ppg. that's not common

I wouldn't apply your play unless you played at a pro level to what's happening in a professional game. Deke was the best or nearly the best defender in the game and is one of the most impactful players on that end (and really outside of a handful of offensive guys one of the most impactful players on either side of the ball in the ~20 years of RAPM data we have). Rebounding...sure at times a board can just come to you, though being 7 feet tall (which virtually nobody on the planet is) sure makes it easier. Part of being great at basketball is just being born with the right genetics. It's not a skill or talent.

If the 76ers aren't getting those boards and if Deke isn't challenging and in this case blockin 5 shots, the 76ers lose. Defensive anchors in low scoring playoff series are absolutely critical.

Iverson is a hall of fame player, just like Deke it. They're among the best to ever play the game. Iverson however for all his strengths, was good, not great offensive anchor. Deke is a top 5 all time defensive anchor.

[post]

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.

i've seen russell make nice passes. i've seen hakeem make nice passes. i never saw russell make a pass hakeem couldn't. i was never wowed by any of their passes. they were solid, nice passes finding the open cutter or passing out of a double team to jump shooters. the best pass i saw hakeem make is arguably better than the best pass i saw russell make

hakeem's 3 year playoff peak is not 93-95, it's 86-88 when his true shooting percentage was 62.2% and averaged per 36 minutes 25.2, 27.0, and 33.3 ppg. kareem's 3 year playoff peak is 76-79 when his true shooting percentage was 60.2 and averaged per 36 minutes 29.4, 21.8, and 22.4 ppg. so hakeem scored more and at a higher efficiency and the league average field goal percentage was only .9 percentage points higher in that 3 year stretch

no, hakeem beats every center i've ever seen in the offensive eye test. he had more skill that could counter whatever defenses threw at him

not win shares, points per game defense impact advanced stat

in the 62 and 63 playoffs cousy shot 1.3 percentage points higher from the field than his career playoff average. to knock him for that is flat out wrong and your numbers are wrong

i'll give you one example that russell had havlicek and jones when they were both better than drexler. i could give you others. in the 65-66 season, or the 66 playoffs in other words, jones averaged 24.8 ppg and havlicek averaged 23.6 ppg. in the 95 playoffs hakeem won a chip with drexler averaging 20.5 ppg

otis thorpe did not make the all star team the year hakeem won a chip with zero hofers. his ppg dropped from 17 when he made the all star team in 92 to 14 in the year hakeem won a chip with zero hofers. his playoff ppg dropped further from 14 to 11.3 in the playoffs in the zero hofer year. that's why otis thorpe is not an all star. so not only did hakeem not have a hofer when he beat the knicks for a chip, he didn't even have an all star

game 3 of the 95 nba finals. hakeem passes to horry in transition for a layup. hakeem scores 4 points in transition. that's just the game i most recently rewatched and it proves you wrong. he was mostly an iso scorer, but then again russell was mostly not that much of a scorer period

let's assume hakeem fouls more. he is also going to score more because he is more skilled. 1 more foul is not going to cause boston to lose when hakeem is going to score more than russell

If your evaluation of passers is "I've seen both guys making similar passes" then there is no point to discuss this aspect further. It's not about flashy passes, it's about decision making, consistency, vision. That's what is important and Hakeem wasn't like Russell in these aspects. I'm not saying that Russell was Jokic or anything like that, but he's clealry better passer based on eye test.

So Hakeem's offensive peak is 3 first rounds exits? Why? Because he posted big numbers in very small sample of size? He was actually far worse passer, worse shooter and worse post scorer than in mid-90s. The only advantage he had over his older self is offensive rebounding.

Hakeem just isn't the best offensive center ever... he doesn't have any case in fact. Shaq and Kareem were clearly better, they led better offenses, had better numbers and impact metrics. Not to mention that there are others like Wilt, Moses and Duncan - all with excellent cases over Hakeem offensively. I get it that you like Hakeem's style the most, he's very fluid and he had a lot of moves but that doesn't make you better. Shaq, Kareem and Wilt actually fared better against the best defensive teams they faced than Hakeem (and they faced more elite defenses in playoffs careers).

If you mean DRtg, then Russell is clear GOAT and it's not close.

My numbers are not wrong, you can take them from BBallReference. Cousy was terrible scorer in 1960s, absolutely terrible.

I see that your analysis ends at "PPG", have you taken into account how much more efficient Drexler was than 1966 Hondo? Or maybe is it too hard to understand for you?

Thorpe was definitely an all-star level player but again you can't understand that because it requires more knowledge about the game than "PPG".

I don't think I'll have the time and patience for this debate. Believe in whatever you want, but you need to learn so much about basketball before starting threads like this here...

russell's pace adjusted assist stats are similar to hakeem's. i didn't say it's about flashy passes. but flashy passes show a lot of skill in creating opportunity that might not have been there otherwise. if hakeem had to play russell's role in boston's offense he had enough vision and iq to play that role consistently based on eye test

a peak by definiton is a small sample size. hakeem was always a great post scorer. and saying the only advantage his older self had is offensive rebounding is not intelligent when you just said you think he was a better passer in the 90's. it's also not smart because the stats clearly say he was a better offensive rebounder in the 80's. he had more athleticism in the 80's. you don't know what you are talking about

wilt's numbers dropped a lot vs. the celtics. hakeem played against the number 1 rated defense once in the playoffs during his peak and so did kareem and they both lost. hakeem took bird's celtics to 6 games and kareem got swept by walton's blazers. kareem also never won anything without having a goat caliber pg, oscar and magic. hakeem dominated one of the goat offensive and defensive centers, david robinson, when both were in their prime in the playoffs. shaq was less dominate against an old robinson in the playoffs during shaq's peak and shaq had the good fortune of playing with a goat caliber sg in kobe so he never had to carry the offensive load hakeem did. and the nets in 02 had no center despite leading the league in defensive rating

no, there are not defensive rating stats for bill russell individually. his pace adjusted blocks are not that different than hakeem's

cousy was a great passer in the 60's and made it a lot easier for russell and everyone else to score. cousy shot 34.2% in the playoffs for his career. in his last two playoff years he shot 35.7 and 35.3. you are simply wrong

https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/c/cousybo01.html

drexler was much less efficient in the 96 playoffs when hakeem was going for the 3peat whereas havlicek increased his efficiency every year after the 66 playoffs. russell finished 4th, 5th, 2nd, 2nd, 1st, 3rd, 4th, 3rd, 3rd, 4th, and 7th on his team in playoff ppg in the years he won chips. that means on average he was the 3-4th best scorer on his team during chip runs. he was carried to an incredible degree as a scorer. it is almost impossible houston's rockets at any point in hakeem's career could've carried him to such an immense degree if at all

11 ppg and 10 rpg on 57%, what thorpe did in the 94 playoffs, is not all star level. it's very good role player level

[70sFan]

i've seen russell make nice passes. i've seen hakeem make nice passes. i never saw russell make a pass hakeem couldn't. i was never wowed by any of their passes. they were solid, nice passes finding the open cutter or passing out of a double team to jump shooters. the best pass i saw hakeem make is arguably better than the best pass i saw russell make

hakeem's 3 year playoff peak is not 93-95, it's 86-88 when his true shooting percentage was 62.2% and averaged per 36 minutes 25.2, 27.0, and 33.3 ppg. kareem's 3 year playoff peak is 76-79 when his true shooting percentage was 60.2 and averaged per 36 minutes 29.4, 21.8, and 22.4 ppg. so hakeem scored more and at a higher efficiency and the league average field goal percentage was only .9 percentage points higher in that 3 year stretch

no, hakeem beats every center i've ever seen in the offensive eye test. he had more skill that could counter whatever defenses threw at him

not win shares, points per game defense impact advanced stat

in the 62 and 63 playoffs cousy shot 1.3 percentage points higher from the field than his career playoff average. to knock him for that is flat out wrong and your numbers are wrong

i'll give you one example that russell had havlicek and jones when they were both better than drexler. i could give you others. in the 65-66 season, or the 66 playoffs in other words, jones averaged 24.8 ppg and havlicek averaged 23.6 ppg. in the 95 playoffs hakeem won a chip with drexler averaging 20.5 ppg

otis thorpe did not make the all star team the year hakeem won a chip with zero hofers. his ppg dropped from 17 when he made the all star team in 92 to 14 in the year hakeem won a chip with zero hofers. his playoff ppg dropped further from 14 to 11.3 in the playoffs in the zero hofer year. that's why otis thorpe is not an all star. so not only did hakeem not have a hofer when he beat the knicks for a chip, he didn't even have an all star

game 3 of the 95 nba finals. hakeem passes to horry in transition for a layup. hakeem scores 4 points in transition. that's just the game i most recently rewatched and it proves you wrong. he was mostly an iso scorer, but then again russell was mostly not that much of a scorer period

let's assume hakeem fouls more. he is also going to score more because he is more skilled. 1 more foul is not going to cause boston to lose when hakeem is going to score more than russell

If your evaluation of passers is "I've seen both guys making similar passes" then there is no point to discuss this aspect further. It's not about flashy passes, it's about decision making, consistency, vision. That's what is important and Hakeem wasn't like Russell in these aspects. I'm not saying that Russell was Jokic or anything like that, but he's clealry better passer based on eye test.

So Hakeem's offensive peak is 3 first rounds exits? Why? Because he posted big numbers in very small sample of size? He was actually far worse passer, worse shooter and worse post scorer than in mid-90s. The only advantage he had over his older self is offensive rebounding.

Hakeem just isn't the best offensive center ever... he doesn't have any case in fact. Shaq and Kareem were clearly better, they led better offenses, had better numbers and impact metrics. Not to mention that there are others like Wilt, Moses and Duncan - all with excellent cases over Hakeem offensively. I get it that you like Hakeem's style the most, he's very fluid and he had a lot of moves but that doesn't make you better. Shaq, Kareem and Wilt actually fared better against the best defensive teams they faced than Hakeem (and they faced more elite defenses in playoffs careers).

If you mean DRtg, then Russell is clear GOAT and it's not close.

My numbers are not wrong, you can take them from BBallReference. Cousy was terrible scorer in 1960s, absolutely terrible.

I see that your analysis ends at "PPG", have you taken into account how much more efficient Drexler was than 1966 Hondo? Or maybe is it too hard to understand for you?

Thorpe was definitely an all-star level player but again you can't understand that because it requires more knowledge about the game than "PPG".

I don't think I'll have the time and patience for this debate. Believe in whatever you want, but you need to learn so much about basketball before starting threads like this here...

russell's pace adjusted assist stats are similar to hakeem's. i didn't say it's about flashy passes. but flashy passes show a lot of skill in creating opportunity that might not have been there otherwise. if hakeem had to play russell's role in boston's offense he had enough vision and iq to play that role consistently based on eye test

a peak by definiton is a small sample size. hakeem was always a great post scorer. and saying the only advantage his older self had is offensive rebounding is not intelligent when you just said you think he was a better passer in the 90's. it's also not smart because the stats clearly say he was a better offensive rebounder in the 80's. he had more athleticism in the 80's. you don't know what you are talking about

wilt's numbers dropped a lot vs. the celtics. hakeem played against the number 1 rated defense once in the playoffs during his peak and so did kareem and they both lost. hakeem took bird's celtics to 6 games and kareem got swept by walton's blazers. kareem also never won anything without having a goat caliber pg, oscar and magic. hakeem dominated one of the goat offensive and defensive centers, david robinson, when both were in their prime in the playoffs. shaq was less dominate against an old robinson in the playoffs during shaq's peak and shaq had the good fortune of playing with a goat caliber sg in kobe so he never had to carry the offensive load hakeem did. and the nets in 02 had no center despite leading the league in defensive rating

no, there are not defensive rating stats for bill russell individually. his pace adjusted blocks are not that different than hakeem's

cousy was a great passer in the 60's and made it a lot easier for russell and everyone else to score. cousy shot 34.2% in the playoffs for his career. in his last two playoff years he shot 35.7 and 35.3. you are simply wrong

https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/c/cousybo01.html

drexler was much less efficient in the 96 playoffs when hakeem was going for the 3peat whereas havlicek increased his efficiency every year after the 66 playoffs. russell finished 4th, 5th, 2nd, 2nd, 1st, 3rd, 4th, 3rd, 3rd, 4th, and 7th on his team in playoff ppg in the years he won chips. that means on average he was the 3-4th best scorer on his team during chip runs. he was carried to an incredible degree as a scorer. it is almost impossible houston's rockets at any point in hakeem's career could've carried him to such an immense degree if at all

11 ppg and 10 rpg on 57%, what thorpe did in the 94 playoffs, is not all star level. it's very good role player level

Flashy passes don't show that... Consistency in finding good opportunities or even better - creating these opportunities are what makes player a great passer. Russell was never ATG passer, but he had that feel and he could find open guys in transition or in high post consistently. Hakeem didn't do that as well, especially early in his career. He missed a lot of good opportunities and he was quite turnover prone. He improved as a passer later, but we're talking about him replacing Russell so his early weaknesses are also important. Hakeem was never great passer, he was a poor one who developed into decent one.

Also, assist numbers don't tell anything about player's ability to pass the ball. You should know that.

I said that his only advantage OVER his older self is offensive rebounding, meaning that young Hakeem was worse at everything offensively except offensive rebounding. I'm not a native English speaker but I thought what I said is clear. Old Hakeem was better scorer, passer, playmaker and shooter. Younger Hakeem was better offensive rebounder. I got everything right here...

Here are numbers of 1960-68 Wilt, 1970-80 Kareem, 1986-96 Hakeem and 1994-04 Shaq against -4 rDRtg defenses or better:

Wilt Chamberlain (42 playoffs games): 47.5 mpg, 28.5 rpg, 4.3 apg, 28.1 ppg on 50.8% FG, 50.6% FT, 52.2% TS (+3.84 rTS%)
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (25 playoffs games): 44.1 mpg, 15.9 rpg, 4.1 apg, 33.3 ppg on 54.5% FG, 72.2% FT, 56.9% TS (+5.28 rTS%)
Shaquille O'Neal (48 playoffs games): 41.1 mpg, 13.3 rpg, 2.9 apg, 3.3 tov, 26.9 ppg on 55.8% FG, 53.5% FT and 56.9% TS (+4.59% rTS)
Hakeem Olajuwon (17 playoffs games): 42.0 mpg, 10.2 rpg, 3.1 apg, 3.4 tov, 24.1 ppg on 48.9% FG, 75.2% FT and 53.9% TS (+0.30% rTS)

Hakeem played by far the least amount of games against elite defenses, he also had clearly the weakest boxscore production against them. Funny that you mentioned 1986 finals, as Hakeem wasn't dominant in this series - 25 ppg on 53% and only 1.8 apg with almost 3 turnovers is nothing to dream about. Especially when you compare that Kareem dominated Blazers (and Kareem had much worse team).

We don't have Russell's blocks numbers, so you don't know that. I'm saying that Russell's teams were far more dominant defensively than Hakeem's, far more than any other in NBA history. Hakeem's defensive impact isn't close to Russell's.

So it's good for Cousy that he shot 35% FG because that's his playoffs average? What is this logic about? When you are always poor scorer, then you can be poor because it doesn't matter? No, I'm not wrong - Cousy had his value as a passer but his scoring was so terrible that it didn't make him elite (or even very good) offensive player.

If Russell's teammates were so good offensively then why Celtics were always among the worst offensive teams in the league? Certainly not because his HoF teammates were that great...

[celtics543]

Why bother arguing, Post isn't have his point of view changed, no matter how many facts are pointed out. He started a huge thread to say how Hakeem is better than Russell, which is worth debating but why not put it on the player comparison board and be straight from the beginning?

[post]

Why bother arguing, Post isn't have his point of view changed, no matter how many facts are pointed out. He started a huge thread to say how Hakeem is better than Russell, which is worth debating but why not put it on the player comparison board and be straight from the beginning?

it's not a hakeem vs. russell thread. it's addressing much larger questions. if you don't want to debate further then concede defeat and move along

[dhsilv2]

Why bother arguing, Post isn't have his point of view changed, no matter how many facts are pointed out. He started a huge thread to say how Hakeem is better than Russell, which is worth debating but why not put it on the player comparison board and be straight from the beginning?

At least someone won't come along and think his way of thinking makes sense as he's been presented with counter point after counter point and he's had little substance in response. Often these types of discussions will down the road lead one to realize they should pay more attention to their blind spots.

[post]

What evidence do you have for any of that? The reality is that team needed both players to play nearly perfectly to have a chance to win any games against that lakers team. But scoring on volume is not harder than anchoring a defense. There have been far more players to post high impact scoring seasons than equally high defensive teams to Deke that year. Scoring at a level of impact similar to Deke is historically significant, offense at the level of Iverson's is great but very common.

the evidence partly comes from playing basketball a lot and realizing a rebound can virtually fall in your lap but creating offense against quality defense requires doing a lot more with hand eye coordination and foot work. it also comes from the distance needed to release the ball from your hands to put it in the basket on offense vs. the distance required to use your hands to grab a loose ball rebound. one requires much more skill. i don't have some physics equation to prove that. i'm not a scientist. it seems like common sense though

iverson is 7th all time in career ppg. that's not common

I wouldn't apply your play unless you played at a pro level to what's happening in a professional game. Deke was the best or nearly the best defender in the game and is one of the most impactful players on that end (and really outside of a handful of offensive guys one of the most impactful players on either side of the ball in the ~20 years of RAPM data we have). Rebounding...sure at times a board can just come to you, though being 7 feet tall (which virtually nobody on the planet is) sure makes it easier. Part of being great at basketball is just being born with the right genetics. It's not a skill or talent.

If the 76ers aren't getting those boards and if Deke isn't challenging and in this case blockin 5 shots, the 76ers lose. Defensive anchors in low scoring playoff series are absolutely critical.

Iverson is a hall of fame player, just like Deke it. They're among the best to ever play the game. Iverson however for all his strengths, was good, not great offensive anchor. Deke is a top 5 all time defensive anchor.

i did not play at a professional level. the concept applies at any level relative to your competition. mutombo was first team all defense that year. iverson was first team all nba. in a vacuum you'd rather have the first team all nba player. eye test shows in the finals shaq slaughtered mutombo whereas the sixers offense was terrible without iverson taking over

being 7'2" 245 like mutombo makes rebounding and blocking shots easier than scoring and passing was for 6'0" 165 iverson

[dhsilv2]

the evidence partly comes from playing basketball a lot and realizing a rebound can virtually fall in your lap but creating offense against quality defense requires doing a lot more with hand eye coordination and foot work. it also comes from the distance needed to release the ball from your hands to put it in the basket on offense vs. the distance required to use your hands to grab a loose ball rebound. one requires much more skill. i don't have some physics equation to prove that. i'm not a scientist. it seems like common sense though

iverson is 7th all time in career ppg. that's not common

I wouldn't apply your play unless you played at a pro level to what's happening in a professional game. Deke was the best or nearly the best defender in the game and is one of the most impactful players on that end (and really outside of a handful of offensive guys one of the most impactful players on either side of the ball in the ~20 years of RAPM data we have). Rebounding...sure at times a board can just come to you, though being 7 feet tall (which virtually nobody on the planet is) sure makes it easier. Part of being great at basketball is just being born with the right genetics. It's not a skill or talent.

If the 76ers aren't getting those boards and if Deke isn't challenging and in this case blockin 5 shots, the 76ers lose. Defensive anchors in low scoring playoff series are absolutely critical.

Iverson is a hall of fame player, just like Deke it. They're among the best to ever play the game. Iverson however for all his strengths, was good, not great offensive anchor. Deke is a top 5 all time defensive anchor.

i did not play at a professional level. the concept applies at any level relative to your competition. mutombo was first team all defense that year. iverson was first team all nba. in a vacuum you'd rather have the first team all nba player. eye test shows in the finals shaq slaughtered mutombo whereas the sixers offense was terrible without iverson taking over

being 7'2" 245 like mutombo makes rebounding and blocking shots easier than scoring and passing was for 6'0" 165 iverson

Stop saying eye test and then not explaining what you're seeing. You think Hakeem and Russell are similar passers based on your eye test. Your eye test isn't going to get you anywhere as not just I have already said.

As for your last point, yes it does. Guess what, you get ZERO extra credit for doing things that are hard in basketball.

[post]

Jordan played 3 games in 86, why would you reference a 3 game sample? Even kareem in 71 was 14 games. I'm discussing a 34 game sample.

This is why you need to use an eye test and frankly, I don't think there's any chance you've watched any of these playoff games or series in the last 5 years. go back and watch them and explain what you're seeing and why I'm more critical of Hakeem's play than the two.

Honestly, I think you've watched too many hakeem youtube highlights and have forgotten or weren't really aware of what you see seeing in the 80's. It's almost impossible to believe someone thinks Hakeem was a comparable passer to kareem or Russell.

because it's jordan's peak playoff ppg. his assist percentage was higher in 5 of his first 6 playoffs compared to the last 3peat. even during the first 3peat the concept applies. in 91 jordan had a lower assist percentage than in 89. in 92 it was lower than 4 out of the 6 years before 91, and in 93 it was also lower than in 4 out of 6 years before 91. that's a much larger sample saying the stat means nothing. the shaq sample was 58 games over 3 years. the same general concept applies if you look at kareem's career. the numbers are all over the place for him and show no pattern of assist percentage being higher correlating with winning

career playoff per 36 minutes assists kareem was 3.1 to olajuwon's 2.9. that by itself should tell you there's no great difference. when you factor in kareem played with magic and worthy for the last ten years of his career, which common sense tells you would make it easier to get assists, the stats probably favor hakeem as a playoff passer. a similar concept would apply to russell. when you are passing to hofers a lot of the time it stands to reason your assists are going to be higher than if you are passing to average players or bums like hakeem often was

Editing this

Look assists are a rough way to get an idea of how a player passes. When we know a player is getting double teamed we expect them to get a reasonable amounts of assists. Hakeem's assist numbers at your so called peak were abysmal, worse than any reasonable stretch of Kareem or Jordan's careers. There can be reasons a player scores more or passes less within the offensive system, countering the defense, etc. But over 34 games, 3 playoff years, there's no player putting up assist numbers that poor who was getting more double teams and had more oppertunities to pass out for easy shots than I can think of than Hakeem. He was called then and people still discuss it today, he was a black hole.

hakeem was double and triple teamed consistently in the playoffs during his peak because collectively his teammates were not a threat, especially after they lost sampson. yet still hakeem consistently made shots in the face of immense defensive pressure. i don't believe hakeem lost in the first round of the 88 playoffs averaging 37.5 ppg on 64% true shooting because he only averaged 1.8 apg. dirk averaged 2.0 assists in the 11 finals with 26 ppg on 53.7% true shooting. hakeem lost that series because the other team had more depth and sleepy floyd was not capable of scoring at a high volume consistently

hakeem had a higher assist percentage throughout his playoff career than kareem yet won less. kareem had more talent to play with throughout his career just like russell did. by your own logic hakeem would win as much or more in kareem's place on kareem's teams. jordan is a guard so he's likely going to have a higher assist percentage than hakeem. jordan also had the good fortune to play with a top 50 player of all time in pippen for his 6 chips and under a coach widely regarded as one of the best ever

[dhsilv2]

hakeem was double and triple teamed consistently in the playoffs during his peak because collectively his teammates were not a threat, especially after they lost sampson. yet still hakeem consistently made shots in the face of immense defensive pressure. i don't believe hakeem lost in the first round of the 88 playoffs averaging 37.5 ppg on 64% true shooting because he only averaged 1.8 apg. dirk averaged 2.0 assists in the 11 finals with 26 ppg on 53.7% true shooting. hakeem lost that series because the other team had more depth and sleepy floyd was not capable of scoring at a high volume consistently

hakeem had a higher assist percentage throughout his playoff career than kareem yet won less. kareem had more talent to play with throughout his career just like russell did. by your own logic hakeem would win as much or more in kareem's place on kareem's teams. jordan is a guard so he's likely going to have a higher assist percentage than hakeem. jordan also had the good fortune to play with a top 50 player of all time in pippen for his 6 chips and under a coach widely regarded as one of the best ever

Go pull up a game with Hakeem from that era and then a dirk game during his better seasons. I want you to take a stop watch and come up with how much time each player has the ball in their hands.

[post]

I wouldn't apply your play unless you played at a pro level to what's happening in a professional game. Deke was the best or nearly the best defender in the game and is one of the most impactful players on that end (and really outside of a handful of offensive guys one of the most impactful players on either side of the ball in the ~20 years of RAPM data we have). Rebounding...sure at times a board can just come to you, though being 7 feet tall (which virtually nobody on the planet is) sure makes it easier. Part of being great at basketball is just being born with the right genetics. It's not a skill or talent.

If the 76ers aren't getting those boards and if Deke isn't challenging and in this case blockin 5 shots, the 76ers lose. Defensive anchors in low scoring playoff series are absolutely critical.

Iverson is a hall of fame player, just like Deke it. They're among the best to ever play the game. Iverson however for all his strengths, was good, not great offensive anchor. Deke is a top 5 all time defensive anchor.

i did not play at a professional level. the concept applies at any level relative to your competition. mutombo was first team all defense that year. iverson was first team all nba. in a vacuum you'd rather have the first team all nba player. eye test shows in the finals shaq slaughtered mutombo whereas the sixers offense was terrible without iverson taking over

being 7'2" 245 like mutombo makes rebounding and blocking shots easier than scoring and passing was for 6'0" 165 iverson

Stop saying eye test and then not explaining what you're seeing. You think Hakeem and Russell are similar passers based on your eye test. Your eye test isn't going to get you anywhere as not just I have already said.

As for your last point, yes it does. Guess what, you get ZERO extra credit for doing things that are hard in basketball.

i see the same look of bewilderment and defeat on mutombo's face in game 1 after getting treated like a little child in the post by shaq as was on david robinson's face when hakeem abused him on a criminal level in the 95 playoffs. i see tyronn lue playing many more minutes than he usually does because he had to play hyper aggressive physical quick defense to stop iverson from even getting the ball in the second half and then the lakers trapping and forcing the ball out of iverson's hands numerous times. then i see iverson abusing lue in overtime, eventually stepping over him after hitting a clutch shot to help win game 1

my argument is that people should be seen as more impressive when they do harder things. einstein, newton, and darwin are seen as greater scientists because they did things that were harder than what others could do

[post]

hakeem was double and triple teamed consistently in the playoffs during his peak because collectively his teammates were not a threat, especially after they lost sampson. yet still hakeem consistently made shots in the face of immense defensive pressure. i don't believe hakeem lost in the first round of the 88 playoffs averaging 37.5 ppg on 64% true shooting because he only averaged 1.8 apg. dirk averaged 2.0 assists in the 11 finals with 26 ppg on 53.7% true shooting. hakeem lost that series because the other team had more depth and sleepy floyd was not capable of scoring at a high volume consistently

hakeem had a higher assist percentage throughout his playoff career than kareem yet won less. kareem had more talent to play with throughout his career just like russell did. by your own logic hakeem would win as much or more in kareem's place on kareem's teams. jordan is a guard so he's likely going to have a higher assist percentage than hakeem. jordan also had the good fortune to play with a top 50 player of all time in pippen for his 6 chips and under a coach widely regarded as one of the best ever

Go pull up a game with Hakeem from that era and then a dirk game during his better seasons. I want you to take a stop watch and come up with how much time each player has the ball in their hands.

i think i made my point sufficiently well without catering to demands to go to borderline absurd lengths to make that point

[Edrees]

If we're assuming the same decade I'll go with 11 chips.

If we're talking 11 chips before 1970 and 1 chip after 1990 I'll go with 1 chip.

[michaelm]

hakeem was double and triple teamed consistently in the playoffs during his peak because collectively his teammates were not a threat, especially after they lost sampson. yet still hakeem consistently made shots in the face of immense defensive pressure. i don't believe hakeem lost in the first round of the 88 playoffs averaging 37.5 ppg on 64% true shooting because he only averaged 1.8 apg. dirk averaged 2.0 assists in the 11 finals with 26 ppg on 53.7% true shooting. hakeem lost that series because the other team had more depth and sleepy floyd was not capable of scoring at a high volume consistently

hakeem had a higher assist percentage throughout his playoff career than kareem yet won less. kareem had more talent to play with throughout his career just like russell did. by your own logic hakeem would win as much or more in kareem's place on kareem's teams. jordan is a guard so he's likely going to have a higher assist percentage than hakeem. jordan also had the good fortune to play with a top 50 player of all time in pippen for his 6 chips and under a coach widely regarded as one of the best ever

Go pull up a game with Hakeem from that era and then a dirk game during his better seasons. I want you to take a stop watch and come up with how much time each player has the ball in their hands.

i think i made my point sufficiently well without catering to demands to go to borderline absurd lengths to make that point

Again that is your opinion. In the opinion of most others on this thread you haven’t done so.

[michaelm]

hakeem's 3 year playoff peak is not 93-95, it's 86-88 when his true shooting percentage was 62.2% and averaged per 36 minutes 25.2, 27.0, and 33.3 ppg. kareem's 3 year playoff peak is 76-79 when his true shooting percentage was 60.2 and averaged per 36 minutes 29.4, 21.8, and 22.4 ppg. so hakeem scored more and at a higher efficiency and the league average field goal percentage was only .9 percentage points higher in that 3 year stretch

Hakeem's assist percentage was 9.1 during that "peak". That is blackhole level offense. No great offense will ever function with that version of Hakeem. Hakeem did not have even good court vision, he consistently his entire career missed even easy passes that would have improved the teams offense. Of course we all know that those rockets were lacking skill which is a factor here, so lets not act like anyone is unaware of their limitations, but hakeem would just put his head down and attack and attack without paying attention to his teammates. That is the kind of bad offensive ability that doesn't scale and doesn't lead to nba titles.

It wasn't until Rudy came and created spacing and got shooters to buy into working to make passing lanes and line of sight passing lanes easier for hakeem that he started to look like an average passer, and he never looked better than average, despite the entire offense behind designed around helping his limitations there. Russell was an elite passer who had far better court vision, knew where teammates were and hit them in motion.

kareem's assist percentage was 9.0 in 71 when he won a chip with oscar robertson. shaq's assist percentage was higher in 95 when he lost to hakeem than during his lakers 3peat. meaningless stat

jordan scored 43.7 ppg in the 86 playoffs.that year his assist percentage was higher than every year of the second bulls 3peat. meaningless stat

people create narratives to mold reality in their mind whatever way they want. i'd say there's a 50/50 chance you don't even believe most of what you are saying

Your last paragraph is exactly what you yourself are doing, imo only of course.