RealGM

Obviously Russell won a bunch of chips when there weren't a lot of teams and has the advantage defensively but Kareem smashes him offensively and was very productive into his late-30's. Would anyone still take Russell? (not all-time but to start a team)

I would take kareem easily, i suppose you could argue russell if it's in the same era but if it's 70s and 80s then you take Kareem and don't think twice about it.

I would take Russell for most eras and not think twice:

1. Significantly better defensive impact, particularly help defense and getting back on transition where Russell was extremely mobile
2. Significantly better rebounding
3. A guy who was a great team leader and locker room presence v. one who (though some of the problems weren't of his own making but were anti-Muslim prejudice) was a sullen and aloof presence whose teams often underperformed their talent except one year with Oscar and once Magic came in to become the team leader (if not yet best player).
4. A guy who wont leave 27 of the 30 franchises in the NBA because he only wants to play in NY or LA . . . 70s version of Carmelo or the Dwightmare.

Russell had a much bigger impact in his era than Kareem in his and while you can say that once the 3 point line and modern offenses come in that his impact will be greatly reduced, it also might be that modern offenses and collapsing zone defenses will lessen the impact of the skyhook as well. This is no longer the era of the post offense.

For me, it's gotta be KAJ in basically all eras except the 60s and maybe 70s. I think Russell would've been clearly less valuable today than he was in his era, while Kareem's skillset transcends all eras. Just such a talented all-around player. Russell's main value - his enormous defensive impact, would've suffered today, and even Bill's biggest fans around here admit that. His leadership is certainly a nice quality to possess, but if I could pick a rich man's Noah (that's basically what Russell would be today), or Kareem, I'm going with the latter, and wouldn't even hesitate.

Honestly, I was really surprised by how many people said they would take Russell over Duncan to build around, in yesterday's thread...Sure, I admire Mr. Russell as much as anyone, and I'm a big fan - you gotta have tremendous respect for that man, because it's certainly well deserved, but as far as the greats of the 60s, I'd take Wilt over him for today's game. Oscar, I believe is also a transcendent player, but him (and West and even Baylor), are a much less sure thing than Russ and Wilt, because the bigmen's game wasn't based on handling the ball, or being a playmaker (passing from the post wouldn't IMO be a problem).

Honestly, I think you need less talent around Kareem to build a good team, than around Russell, because Abdul-Jabbar was such a gifted scorer, and still a very good defender (I think Kareem's defensive impact would be closer to Russell's today than it was back in the day).

Honestly, I greatly disagree with Penbeast that this era is no longer an era of post offense. I thnk it's more about the fact that 7 feet tall, really athletic and skilled bigmen are an extinct breed. Look even at a guy like Yao - he totally altered the course of a game on both ends of the court, and Yao wasn't nearly as great as Kareem, particularly had stamina and injury problems that Kareem didn't have, and likely still wouldn't have today. Jabbar was also a very intelligent offensive player, who could easily play Tim Duncan's role (score when the opportunity is there, or pass to open teammates when double teamed, or even make plays from the post).

Even an offensively limited player like Dwight Howard was pretty much devastating, in his best years in Orlando, and Dwight didn't even really have a jumpshot in his arsenal...


Oh, and as far as Kareem having some special "cultural needs", as he put it - I think it'd be more bearable for him to play in a small market today, with the Internet and all of these other ways of communication. Also, I think we shouldn't put that much emphasis on it, because it seems to be a circumstantial thing, in quite a large part. Oscar's retirement certainly played a significant role in Kareem's desire to leave Milwaukee...

Yes you could justify it for the simple fact that Kareem left his original team to play in a large market area as he wanted NY or LA. So if you know that up front you will gladly take Russell unless you are one of those franchises.

The whole leaving for market thing is kinda absurd here. Bill Russell had the best of the best situations going for him in Boston. If KAJ was in Bill Russell's shoes and drafted to the Celtics, it's safe to say KAJ would have never left his original team as well.

thizznation wrote:The whole leaving for market thing is kinda absurd here. Bill Russell had the best of the best situations going for him in Boston. If KAJ was in Bill Russell's shoes and drafted to the Celtics, it's safe to say KAJ would have never left his original team as well.

This is no more true than the opposite. We don't actually know. So the history matters. If you have a transcedent superstar who changes teams then its a concern period. And so those guys who never did (or in Mike or Mailman's case when it was too late to matter) then that's to their advantage.

I have no problem with guys who simply ignore that when deciding which guy to take because the circumstances in the fictional situation are different. But nor will I criticize those who refuse to ignore the actual historical record. This forum fetishizes hypotheticals and criticizes dealing with what actually happened. I understand why it happens, but I think there are some dangerous flaws in that thinking as well.

I respectfully agree to disagree.

That's amusing, Tex, not only because it's true, but because there's ALSO a really reflexive acceptance that "what happened" is an inarguable truth that can be distilled to one easy-to-argue point.

Both tendencies are really active parts of this board's character.

rrravenred wrote:That's amusing, Tex, not only because it's true, but because there's ALSO a really reflexive acceptance that "what happened" is an inarguable truth that can be distilled to one easy-to-argue point.

Both tendencies are really active parts of this board's character.

Oh I quite agree the reverse happens and that Im guilty of at times and that it too is a flawed approach. I guess its just my position that its the lessor of the two evils when engaging in these types of hypotheticals.

In a post 1980 nba(basically modern nba)I just can't see bill russell having anymore defensive impact than a prime KG or Duncan... And if I'm not taking those two over Kareem(and they outclass Russell offensively btw)I'm damn sure not taking russell over rim.

Kareem would be ridiculously easy to build a title team around.

What people need, and fail, to realize is that in any decision involving "Who would you _______________," the answer is completely dependent on the "you" making the decision. It's completely subjective. Everyone doesn't think the same, value the same thing in players, value the same things in a team, etc., thus the answers will vary. But no one can look beyond what choice they would make, and can't understand why anyone would or could choose differently. For this particular question, some people will choose Kareem, some will choose Russell. It's as simple as that. People think differently and value different things. But a lot of people seem obsessed with homogeneity and conformity. Establishing one uniform answer from which any deviation is wrong.

But a lot of people seem obsessed with homogeneity and conformity.

As if the consensus gives their opinion any more validity.

Russell had a much bigger impact in his era than Kareem in his

Ultimately this is what it comes down to. An owner or GM may prefer the guy who sells more tickets by scoring points but a head coach will prefer Russell every time. Celtics in the midst of their dynasty were not even selling out the Boston Garden.


May 1966

Texas Chuck wrote:

rrravenred wrote:That's amusing, Tex, not only because it's true, but because there's ALSO a really reflexive acceptance that "what happened" is an inarguable truth that can be distilled to one easy-to-argue point.

Both tendencies are really active parts of this board's character.

Oh I quite agree the reverse happens and that Im guilty of at times and that it too is a flawed approach. I guess its just my position that its the lessor of the two evils when engaging in these types of hypotheticals.

How is it a flawed approach to admit that one player had A LOT more favorable circumstances to justify the statment "he lever left his original team"? Right now you are comparing apples to oranges with black and white analysis. Lazy and inaccurate analysis if you will.

The Infamous1 wrote:In a post 1980 nba(basically modern nba)I just can't see bill russell having anymore defensive impact than a prime KG or Duncan... And if I'm not taking those two over Kareem(and they outclass Russell offensively btw)I'm damn sure not taking russell over rim.

Kareem would be ridiculously easy to build a title team around.

I can't put it any better than this. I respect the hell out of what Russell did but in today's NBA I don't think it's possible for one player to be a defensive specialist and be:

MVP
FMVP
Best player on a multiple title team

I don't think Russell is that much better than Hakeem, DRob, Dikemebe, or whoever else and they couldn't do it. I get it that Russell had jedi skills with an Iron Man heart and Game of Thrones ruthlessness. But he still would have to display an offensive game on par with Shaq/Hakeem/Dirk before I'm going to take him over KAJ. It's not like Kareem didn't dominate his era either. He had 5 MVP's in the 70's, what happened to this forum saying winning isn't everything?

Russell's whole resume is based around his team success......

no way, i always felt that people put russell on their top 10 lists of players or in their top 5 centers out of respect and because of his reputation for being on winning teams rather than his abilities, its kind of how people will rate lenny bruce high on their top stand-up comedians of all time but his act doesn't hold up well at all, he gets rated so high because what he did for comedy and free speech in general, the same can be said about russell,

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26V8CW16A3U[/youtube]

KAJ easily. Most people think this way, so I do as well.

The amount of people going against my opinion (and as such, the opinion of the majority here) is making me uneasy.

Fall in line and conform or I'll start reporting against-the-grain posts to mods.

The opinions of the Not-We will be expunged. Fear not, quivering poster, the jackbooted hands of your Mods do not sleep, do not rest and are reinforced with the merciless steel of our fanaticism.

There's probably 10-15 PF/C's I'd take over Russell in starting a franchise right now. Kareem is number one.