Swap Hakeem Olajuwon and Bill Russell

[70sFan]

I used to like such threads, but I don't anymore. How can you even guess such thing?

For example, Rockets was a very promising young team in the mid-80s but they collapsed due to off-court reasons (and some injuries). Would that happen to them with Russell as well? For all players in the league history, I have the most faith in Russell's off-court impact on his teams. He was the true leader that transcendented the sport. People always talk about Jordan that way, but Jordan did it differently. Russell truly changed the whole environment whenever he came in. Would that be enough to keep Rockets away from their real issues? I have no idea.

Similarily, how would Hakeem develop as a player with much better organization around him? How much of an influence would Red have on him? Would he turn into the greatest defender ever who wasn't focused on individual scoring? Would he still come in as an international player in the 1950s? How do we adjust that?

If nothing else changes, then I think Hakeem would win multiple titles, but likely significantly less than Russell. Russell certainly wouldn't have anywhere near the success he had, but I still see him winning 1-2 rings in the 1990s. I can also see Rockets doing better in some years without the title.

[ronnymac2]

I used to like such threads, but I don't anymore. How can you even guess such thing?

For example, Rockets was a very promising young team in the mid-80s but they collapsed due to off-court reasons (and some injuries). Would that happen to them with Russell as well? For all players in the league history, I have the most faith in Russell's off-court impact on his teams. He was the true leader that transcendented the sport. People always talk about Jordan that way, but Jordan did it differently. Russell truly changed the whole environment whenever he came in. Would that be enough to keep Rockets away from their real issues? I have no idea.

Similarily, how would Hakeem develop as a player with much better organization around him? How much of an influence would Red have on him? Would he turn into the greatest defender ever who wasn't focused on individual scoring? Would he still come in as an international player in the 1950s? How do we adjust that?

If nothing else changes, then I think Hakeem would win multiple titles, but likely significantly less than Russell. Russell certainly wouldn't have anywhere near the success he had, but I still see him winning 1-2 rings in the 1990s. I can also see Rockets doing better in some years without the title.

I have a lot of faith in Bill Russell’s competitive attitude. But even he can’t stop Pablo Escobar.

[70sFan]

I used to like such threads, but I don't anymore. How can you even guess such thing?

For example, Rockets was a very promising young team in the mid-80s but they collapsed due to off-court reasons (and some injuries). Would that happen to them with Russell as well? For all players in the league history, I have the most faith in Russell's off-court impact on his teams. He was the true leader that transcendented the sport. People always talk about Jordan that way, but Jordan did it differently. Russell truly changed the whole environment whenever he came in. Would that be enough to keep Rockets away from their real issues? I have no idea.

Similarily, how would Hakeem develop as a player with much better organization around him? How much of an influence would Red have on him? Would he turn into the greatest defender ever who wasn't focused on individual scoring? Would he still come in as an international player in the 1950s? How do we adjust that?

If nothing else changes, then I think Hakeem would win multiple titles, but likely significantly less than Russell. Russell certainly wouldn't have anywhere near the success he had, but I still see him winning 1-2 rings in the 1990s. I can also see Rockets doing better in some years without the title.

I have a lot of faith in Bill Russell’s competitive attitude. But even he can’t stop Pablo Escobar.

Yeah probably, but maybe he'd stop some of his teammates from doing that (probably not, but impossible to guess).

[f4p]

Based on what we have seen, I am quite convinced that the Rockets would finish with better record than that with Russell in Hakeem's place. They wouldn't likely match the Jazz, so overall they'd have to beat Sonics in the 2nd round still.

why though? russell didn't even make the 1969 celtics win that much, with only 48 wins (though a good SRS). 1997 was still a very strong hakeem season.
.

55-wins(srs) and even 49 wins translates to legit title contender in 1969(the srs translates to arguably best team)in a year which was unusually strong(to an extreme degree) at the top for the time period.

ok, but the question was could russell pull a title out of 1997. it's not a relative question. let's face it, most of the celtics' reign was snow white and the 8 dwarves. the fact that the top non-celtics teams were sporting 5 SRS's doesn't make it as strong as 1997 just because it was stronger than the usual mid-off that was the non-celtics portion of the NBA. also, any SRS inflation experienced in 1997 would be present to the n-th degree in 1969 with 16 new NBA and ABA teams added in 3 years. so we're talking about a combined 25.6 SRS for hakeem's last 3 opponents to 14.1 SRS for russell's last 3 opponents. that's a massive step up and the 14.1 probably overstates russell's competition with expansion factored in. just the bulls are better than the combined SRS of New York and Philadelphia. and the lakers teams that took the celtics to 7 was barely half of the Sonics' SRS.

Unless we think absolute win totals are what matters here(as opposed to championships, championship probability, era-relative performance), taking a 35-win team to "best in the league" level is crazy good.

but absolute is what matters if russell needs to beat way better teams than the ones he beat.

Crazier and gooder when we remember this was an especially tough year,

[Bane] For Russell [/Bane]. to mix movies, "For Hakeem, it was Tuesday". hakeem has a career 5-6 record against 6+ SRS teams, despite being at least a 3 SRS underdog in 10 of the 11 series (and 2.2 in the other). with older clyde drexler and somehow-already-declining 2nd year sampson. 3 even SRS battles against +4-5 teams would be a veritable vacation for the Dream.

and then there was the crazy and good bit where two of the best teams of the era were conquered for the thing that actually matters: the championship

but still very low quality compared to the modern era. who knows why there was so much parity. but it existed. and the '97 jazz and bulls would be the best SRS of their era other than the '91 blazers and '94 sonics (and other bulls teams).


what it comes down to, is it seems like someone would have to be low on hakeem (you seem pretty high on hakeem) to tell me that the difference in 1969 russell and 1997 hakeem was enough to win a title in 1997. even if you think 1969 russell was better and more impactful, we have to look at what actually happened in the playoffs (and remember, russell had 50% more on-court possessions to have impact, he should show more impact than a modern player if we're keeping all else equal). for one thing, i'm not sure how close the rockets were to winning. we were a buzzer beater away from playing an OT period (50%) to get to a road game 7 (<50%). and if we beat those odds, we would have to take on a much tougher challenge in the 1997 bulls. with drexler and barkley clearly not performing at a great level. that's not very close to winning the title. looking at russell and hakeem:

russell's playoff numbers pre-1967 are very different from his numbers after. they all seem to take a big hit. his PER comes down from an elite (for a defensive monster) 21-22 to the mid-teens. his elite WS48 drops from the usual 0.200-0.250 range for most of his career to below average in the 0.082 to 0.091 range. his TS% drops 5 points. unless he somehow made the conscious choice to chase stats early in his career and then stopped, it's fair to say this version of russell was not all that close to his peak. again, he barely cracked 30% shooting in the 4 finals wins and still won.

meanwhile, hakeem had a very good 1997 playoffs while having hampered barkley and drexler along for the ride. his box numbers are every bit as good as 1993-1995. obviously, i would still take 93-95 for the better defense, but it's hard to get around the value of shooting 59% for the playoffs. and his best series was the series the rockets lost. he put up 27 ppg on 59 FG% in the WCF. one year later he would hold the jazz to -9 rORtg in the 1st round with bad defensive teammates so i'm not thinking he was so horrendous at defense just one year earlier in 1997 that russell could make up the offensive difference.

for russell to win the 1997 title, we're saying that not only was he better than 1997 hakeem, but so much better that even a somewhat down playoffs for him was better than a great playoffs for hakeem (and especially in the WCF), and then actually so, so much better than that because then he would somehow then take down a 10.7 SRS team, the likes of which he never even got close to doing. in fact, he lost 4-1 to the one +8 team he ever faced, and he was better then than 1969.

[henshao]

One thing important to remember and perhaps Hakeem is not nearly as recognized for this as he should be, he basically invented the post game that he displayed in the NBA. There have been guys with moves in the post and then there is Hakeem, to this day even guards study under him. I bring this up only along the lines of how Hakeem would have played in the 60s; of all players sent back in time he is one of the most likely to play the same as he did in his own era, as he basically pioneered the "Dream Shake"

[MacGill]

I don't think that the Celtics have as much team success for the following reasons:

- Bill was an absolute innovator in that 'defence wins championships' and he was okay in allowing his teammates to continue to handle the offensive load while he continued to anchor the D.
- He won 2 chips as player coach and was just an insane 'bball IQ' specimen. I am sure that it is hard for some to imagine but he literally only had a few players to even try to use as 'normal table stakes' for a comparison standpoint. Most notable was Mikan. In essence, Bill literally was the first of his kind given the talent he was surrounded with to not want to expand his game past what made him a champion. Incredible respect in my humble opinion.
- Regardless of what you feel about era, competition, big league, little league, fantasy league, 11/13 chips is just surreal. I probably couldn't do that at the local YMCA with even the best players on my team. You also need a lot of luck, but he did what he did and 1000% backed it up when you hear how he presented himself in interviews towards the game.

Now, Hakeem is probably the greatest true 2-way center in the history of the game pound for pound, but he started basketball late and was obviously drawn to having to improve his offensive game. Would he have had too back then? Not sure, but he also had far more tape to review and advanced game schemes etc. By then, some of the best to ever do it already played or still were. I'm not sure if Hakeem could of handled the social status of playing during Russell's era or not want to be much more involved offensively as we saw him.

Don't get me wrong, they still bring it but I'm not going to speculate on how much or little. Russell and Hakeem were perfect for their respected eras but there is so much more into maxmizing team success than simply increasing someones individual output. It can detract just as much as add.