Was Kareem Definitely the King of the 70's?

[MrLurker]

Hello friends! I just made an account, but I tune in here and there - particularly for projects like the Top 100.

Something I find special about this board, besides a breadth of knowledge about the game's history, is an unusual willingness to humor ideas that challenge convention. A particularly fascinating example of this to me is when consensus generational standouts - Lebron, Jordan, Kareem, and Russell - see their stature questioned.

Over this top 100, it seems the board has shifted towards team-performance - and lack thereof when a player is absent - as a core factor in evaluating a player. The results were a touch surprising: While players more commonly doubted like Russell and James seem to have solidified their status as true standouts with this means of assessing goodness, king of kings Jordan looks a bit shakier with a reasonably concrete challenger in Magic - as well as a conceptually interesting maybe-usurper in Olajuwon.

Omitted from this process - excepting a comparison to Moses apart from his summit - was Jabbar. Moreover, there seems to be a tendency among Jordan-skeptics to group Kareem alongside Lebron and Russell in a new three-faced mountain still wanting for a name.

But was Jabbar truly unassailable?

There were vigorous defenses naturally - sometimes coloring him as an ancient, misunderstood James - but those defenses omitted a key point:

By the method of looking at a team's win totals - or net-rating or simple-rating - Bill Walton trumps Kareem. While many numbers and guesses were thrown for Kareem in various years - all rather impressive - I do not think I have seen the value of 12.

12 points of net-rating was what Walton was worth to the Blazers. Has Jabbar even been worth that?

While Jabbar seems to have many possible peaks - a trait he shares with James - 77 was the only year at his summit - with the acknowledgement that 80 was also very impressive - where everyone had a shot at his crown. That is because before 77, the league was split into two sparing Kareem challengers like Erving.

While Kareem was impressive in defeat, it was nonetheless a defeat to an eventual champion led by Bill Walton in the year he was worth 12 points of net-rating to his team.

I do not mean this as an attack. Kareem was a great great player and perhaps even greater than we remember.

But if we must make a new mountain, with the chief consideration being the estimated worth of a player's play...

Does there need to be a 3rd face?

Aren't all our bases are covered with two?

And if Kareem is of that calibre, what does that say of the man who swept him?

[70sFan]

I think the best way to judge 1977 WCF is to watch 3 of 4 available games and get your own conclusions. I think that Walton was a fantastic player who looks extremely good under a microscope, but Kareem definitely outplayed him in that series. Sometimes, supporting cast matter.

[Dutchball97]

I think to some on the board this question probably wouldn't go over too well because this has been discussed quiet a bit but I do also think it's a good thing to bring up every now and then. It's hard to deny Kareem's individual excellence and it's also hard to deny you'd expect Kareem to have a little more team success in the relatively weak 70s. I should preface this by acknowledging this question is something that has influenced my own evaluation of Kareem as well and that while I have the same top 4 as the current top 100 list, they're in a completely different order with Kareem actually moving down a spot for me despite him moving up in the actual list.

Outside of Kareem's first couple of years on the Bucks, he played on some horrid teams the rest of the 70s. I'd advise to look at every single season seperately and decide on what you'd expect a GOAT-level player to be able to do with his supporting cast. I came to the conclusion that there were a couple of years where I'm not entirely convinced Kareem got the maximum out of his situation but even in those years it's not like he missed the play-offs with a championship caliber team, more like the idea that certain others might have been able to maybe get a round further or won a couple more games. I simply think Kareem has a bit more question marks around him than Russell, Jordan and LeBron in terms of results but I did end up seeing Kareem as a more serious GOAT candidate than I did when I took his team results at face value.

[Djoker]

As good as Walton was, he wasn't in the same class as Kareem. In 1977, Kareem almost played the same kind of defense Walton did. That year he was strong enough to handle big centers measuring at 260 to 270 lbs while also very agile to contest shots. Because he was such a monster on offense, I think his defense gets underrated.

[prolific passer]

Kareem from a numbers and accolade standpoint? Sure.

From a team success standpoint? I'll go with Wes Unseld who I believe his team was the only team to make the playoffs every year of the 70s.

[Doctor MJ]

And if Kareem is of that calibre, what does that say of the man who swept him?

Worthy questions and to respond in a nutshell:

I think Kareem is the clear cut Player of the Decade in the '70s, but do think that Walton at his peak was out-impacting Kareem at that moment.

I do think Walton was a clearly stronger defender, but the offensive part is where things get so tricky. I think it is very worthwhile to watch Portland vs LA, but I think it's hard to answer "Who outplayed who?" because the two team offenses functioned so differently.

Walton couldn't score anything like Kareem, but Kareem also couldn't do what Walton did as a passing pivot. How do we quantify this and decide who was better? As I've said, I think impact indicator basically scream "Big Red!" and I don't think that should be dismissed lightly, but that also only speaks to the specific contexts they were in, not what they could do across a variety of scenarios.

[penbeast0]

I don't think you can consider Walton the player of the decade when he only played 1 arguably full year in that period. You can certainly argue that he peaked higher than Kareem (despite his playing only 65 games in even that RS) but that's different than being the player of the decade. Julius has a much stronger case than Walton for overall impact but I tend to agree that Kareem was clearly superior whether or not his teams did well.

Whether Kareem's career was as strong as other greatest of a decade performers like Mikan, Russell/Wilt, Magic/Bird, Jordan, Duncan, LeBron, etc. is the argument. I tend to rate him a bit lower than most for his 70s impact but no one else from the 70s is in the argument at Kareem's level once you take multiyear value into account.

[SHAQ32]

as well as a conceptually interesting maybe-usurper in Olajuwon.

Hakeem is the Kobe of centers; massively overrated because of how skilled and aesthetically pleasing but was too much of a ballhog and not as efficient. It's crazy how high he is on people's atg lists. But I'm not judging.

[Cavsfansince84]

as well as a conceptually interesting maybe-usurper in Olajuwon.

Hakeem is the Kobe of centers; massively overrated because of how skilled and aesthetically pleasing but was too much of a ballhog and not as efficient. It's crazy how high he is on people's atg lists. But I'm not judging.

The one thing Hakeem had though was some incredible playoff performances. Pretty consistently and show me the list of guys who averaged over 33ppg in a title run while also being a top 3 def player in the league at the same time(if not #1). Pretty short list and it might only be Hakeem.

[falcolombardi]

I think the best way to judge 1977 WCF is to watch 3 of 4 available games and get your own conclusions. I think that Walton was a fantastic player who looks extremely good under a microscope, but Kareem definitely outplayed him in that series. Sometimes, supporting cast matter.

Are th3 games still available? Couldnt find then on youtube

[tsherkin]

as well as a conceptually interesting maybe-usurper in Olajuwon.

Hakeem is the Kobe of centers; massively overrated because of how skilled and aesthetically pleasing but was too much of a ballhog and not as efficient. It's crazy how high he is on people's atg lists. But I'm not judging.

He WAS a defensive titan. He was also a pretty good scorer through his whole career, and then much better at his peak. And he was a playoff riser. Remember, dude was a 25.9 ppg guy in the playoffs on 56.9% TS (+1.6% over his RS TS%). He was only a 104 TS+ guy on his career, of course, though much better in the playoffs, but his impact was more on defense... and then at his peak, floating volume for the team.

People do misremember Hakeem as an offensive titan because of the aesthetic of his offensive game. It's not quite the same as someone like Carmelo or Kobe, though. Kobe had an 8-year peak around 106, 107 TS+ and was 104 TS+ on a very, very long career. Melo, another player who is overrated (in his case, DRASTICALLY) by the visual appearance of his game, was a 100 TS+ guy on his career and not close to Kobe as a playmaker. He's actually overrated. Kobe gets underrated because people think he was inefficient when he was not, especially in his prime.

Hakeem was efficient. He wasn't an ATG offensive player for most of his RS career, but he was notably better in the playoffs and that makes a large difference. And then again, ATG defender. Blossomed on better teams with better spacing and simpler reads thanks to Rudy T and some young guys, and also Drexler in 95.

Food for thought. But yes, he's spoken of as if he was an absolute monster on O, and that wasn't his usual RS self.

[kcktiny]

Was Kareem Definitely the King of the 70's?

Absolutely. It's not even close.

Jabbar is arguably the greatest player in NBA history. The only other players in contention are probably Chamberlain, Russell, Jordan, James (anyone else?).

But was Jabbar truly unassailable?

Yes. Likely the most dominant player to ever play the game, he has both peak and career length accolades.

While Jabbar seems to have many possible peaks - a trait he shares with James - 77 was the only year at his summit - with the acknowledgement that 80 was also very impressive

Jabbar's first 5 years in the league (1969-70 to 1973-74) with Milwaukee he played 43 min/g, averaged 30.5 pts/g, 15.5 reb/g, 4.3 ast/g. He missed just 8 games over 5 seasons, averaged playing 3400+ minutes/season. The Bucks averaged 61 wins a season, no other team averaged more than 54. Milwaukee also had the best winning percentage in the playoffs (.632) and one title.

He not only scored much more than all other Cs, he shot much better than all other Cs (other than Chamberlain who attempted less than half the shots Jabbar did). He shot 55.3% on 2s when the league average C (other than Chamberlain) shot just 45.9% on 2s. That's 9%-10% higher than the league average C (other than Wilt).

He was all-NBA each season, 4 times all-NBA 1st team, all-defense team 4 times, all-defense 1st team twice.

I doubt many on this discussion board saw him play at that the time, nor have watched any of the few games of him available from that time.

He was also very impressive the last half of the decade - 39 min/g, 26.6 pts/g, 54.8% 2pt FG% when just the league average C shot 48.2% on 2s. Averaged playing 2900 minutes/season, 74 games/season.

Over the decade he scored 3200+ more points than did any other player in the regular season, 400+ more points in the playoffs.

How many people know that over the entire decade of the 1970s Jabbar - in 79 playoff games - averaged 45 min/g, 30.2 pts/g, 16.2 reb/g.

By the method of looking at a team's win totals - or net-rating or simple-rating - Bill Walton trumps Kareem.

Jabbar's first 10 years in the league he averaged playing 3177 minutes/season, played 41 min/g (37-44 min/g each season), scored 28.6 pts/g, 14.8 reb/g, 4.5 ast/g.

Bill Walton in his entire career played just 10 seasons, averaged playing only 1325 minutes/season and just 47 games/season, only once played 2000+ minutes in a season, never played more than 2264 minutes in a season. He averaged playing just 28 min/g, never played more than 35 min/g in a season.

When he played Walton was very good. But he had one - and just one - great playoff run in his career as a starter. He can best be described as a flash-in-the-pan because he missed far too many games.

And if Kareem is of that calibre, what does that say of the man who swept him?

Walton did not sweep Jabbar, the Blazers swept the Lakers. That series Jabbar averaged 43 min/g, 30 pts/g, 16 reb/g. Walton averaged 43 min/g, 19 pts/g, 15 reb/g, Maurice Lucas 41 min/g, 23 pts/g, 12 reb/g.

Jabbar shot 61% that series, the rest of the Lakers shot 43.5%.

It's hard to deny Kareem's individual excellence and it's also hard to deny you'd expect Kareem to have a little more team success in the relatively weak 70s.

You already know Milwaukee had by far the best W-L record in the regular season the first half of the decade.

But other than a well-past-his-prime Oscar Robertson, do you even know who played the most minutes for Milwaukee other than Jabbar the 6 seasons he was there? A young Bob Dandridge, Jon McGlocklin, Lucious Allen, Curtis Perry, and Greg Smith.

How about the Lakers pre-Magic? Try Don Ford, Norm Nixon, Lucious Allen (again), Jamaal Wilkes, and Cazzie Russell.

I highly doubt that any team Jabbar played on in the decade of the 70s would have been even a .500 team without him.

I simply think Kareem has a bit more question marks around him than Russell

How many HOFers did Russell have as teammates?

I do think Walton was a clearly stronger defender

Than Jabbar?? All-defensive 1st team 5 times, all-defensive 2nd team 6 times, and you say clearly? You say this based on what?

The first 6 years of the 70s Milwaukee among all teams allowed the lowest 2pt FG% on defense at 42.7% - first and foremost because of Jabbar.

[MrLurker]

I think to some on the board this question probably wouldn't go over too well because this has been discussed quiet a bit but I do also think it's a good thing to bring up every now and then. It's hard to deny Kareem's individual excellence and it's also hard to deny you'd expect Kareem to have a little more team success in the relatively weak 70s. I should preface this by acknowledging this question is something that has influenced my own evaluation of Kareem as well and that while I have the same top 4 as the current top 100 list, they're in a completely different order with Kareem actually moving down a spot for me despite him moving up in the actual list.

Outside of Kareem's first couple of years on the Bucks, he played on some horrid teams the rest of the 70s. I'd advise to look at every single season seperately and decide on what you'd expect a GOAT-level player to be able to do with his supporting cast. I came to the conclusion that there were a couple of years where I'm not entirely convinced Kareem got the maximum out of his situation but even in those years it's not like he missed the play-offs with a championship caliber team, more like the idea that certain others might have been able to maybe get a round further or won a couple more games. I simply think Kareem has a bit more question marks around him than Russell, Jordan and LeBron in terms of results but I did end up seeing Kareem as a more serious GOAT candidate than I did when I took his team results at face value.

An interesting perspective.

To clarify, my gripe is not that Kareem didn't win enough - I think a decent case was actually made for there being bigger questions of Jordan in similar situations - but more that he did not individually distinguish himself from his peers in the manner Russell and James managed to - at least from the means of assessment much of the project seems to be preferential to.

With Jabbar you have Walton and Erving. He was swept and less valuable than the former at a peak and avoided the prime of the latter.

With Russell you have Wilt who - when we take results at face-value - looks a planet apart.

With Lebron you have Steph. I thought Steph had a significant WAR-esque-analytic advantage - but it seems pure results actually veer strongly towards James.

For Jordan's challengers, I'm quite surprised it was Hakeem whose placement improved. If we took these results at face-value - shouldn't it be Magic knocking on Jabbar and Jordan's respective doors?

[Rishkar]

as well as a conceptually interesting maybe-usurper in Olajuwon.

Hakeem is the Kobe of centers; massively overrated because of how skilled and aesthetically pleasing but was too much of a ballhog and not as efficient. It's crazy how high he is on people's atg lists. But I'm not judging.

I would say that he's decently overrated on offense (at least outside of this board) for many of the same reasons that Kobe is overrated. The two are decently similar, they both shot a lot on slightly above average efficiency, they both had really good longevity but a pretty sharp decline towards the end of their career, both were functional enough passers to utilize their scoring threat, and both were playoff risers. The difference between them is that Hakeem is likely a top 5 defender ever at the position where it matters the most, and Kobe is a guard with questionable impact on that end of the ball (I see him as a negative in the regular season and a slight positive in the postseason, leaving him around neutral).

[MrLurker]

as well as a conceptually interesting maybe-usurper in Olajuwon.

Hakeem is the Kobe of centers; massively overrated because of how skilled and aesthetically pleasing but was too much of a ballhog and not as efficient. It's crazy how high he is on people's atg lists. But I'm not judging.

I would say that he's decently overrated on offense (at least outside of this board) for many of the same reasons that Kobe is overrated. The two are decently similar, they both shot a lot on slightly above average efficiency, they both had really good longevity but a pretty sharp decline towards the end of their career, both were functional enough passers to utilize their scoring threat, and both were playoff risers. The difference between them is that Hakeem is likely a top 5 defender ever at the position where it matters the most, and Kobe is a guard with questionable impact on that end of the ball (I see him as a negative in the regular season and a slight positive in the postseason, leaving him around neutral).

I certainly don't mean to cast aspersions towards Hakeem. I'm just surprised box-skepticism did more for Olajuwon than Johnson.

I do think there's a point to be made that great scorers tend to be overrated - at least relative to a WAR-type approach to player-rankings. Jordan, Kobe, and Hakeem all might be beneficiaries. Kareem also might benefit but I am sympathetic to the idea his defense is undersold.

I'm not so sure that applies with Hakeem who is often talked about as the greatest defender ever.

[Rishkar]

Jabbar is arguably the greatest player in NBA history. The only other players in contention are probably Chamberlain, Russell, Jordan, James (anyone else?).

I think Tim Duncan has a case based on his leadership.

I simply think Kareem has a bit more question marks around him than Russell

How many HOFers did Russell have as teammates?

The hall of famers argument is weird to me. Outside of K.C. Jones (who I feel is similar to Alex Caruso), Sanders (who reminds me of Royce O'Neal), Havlicek (who I think of as similar to Pippen), he didn't have much defensive help. He was shutting down Wilt chamberlain to Jimmy Butler's '19-'20 season scoring rate (higher totals because of his insane minutes averages) and doing this to other centers https://backpicks.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Russell-v-All-Star-Centers.png In '62 through '65, he led 4 of the 5 greatest defenses in NBA history. Across that span, he averaged 44.325 minutes per game, with the second-highest Celtic in each of those years averaging 33.2 minutes per game. I struggle to attribute that defensive impact to anyone else (especially given the Celtic's collapse when he retires) and struggle to see his teams as loaded in offensive talent when the Celtics regularly had such weak offenses. I think Cousy, Heinsohn, Sharman, and early career Havlicek are all decently overrated because at the time they played Boston had an incredibly high pace (and per-possession efficiency wasn't really thought much about), and coaches and players thought that having more possessions was the way to win basketball games (more opportunities to score). Russell and Havlicek both thought that Bill was a better offensive player than defensive (an idea I don't buy into myself) but he was obviously capable of initiating fastbreaks at an elite level due to his rebounding (might be the greatest rebounder ever, especially on a per minute basis), passing, and ability to drive the ball up the court himself without having to pass to one of his guards. This skill was more valuable in his era, where it was harder to score in the halfcourt because of the lack of spacing.

[Djoker]

Here are the WOWY numbers for both guys.

Kareem

1975:

65 games with Kareem -- 35-30 (44-win pace) +1.75 MOV
17 games without Kareem -- 3-14 (14-win pace) -5.71 MOV

1978:

62 games with Kareem -- 37-25 (49-win pace) +3.98 MOV
20 games without Kareem -- 8-12 (33-win pace) -1.40 MOV

1979:

80 games with Kareem -- 46-34 (47-win pace) +3.14 MOV
2 games without Kareem -- 1-1 (41-win pace) 0.00 MOV

Walton

1975:

35 games with Walton -- 12-23 (28-win pace) -2.37 MOV
47 games without Walton -- 26-21 (45-win pace) +2.53 MOV

1976:

51 games with Walton -- 26-25 (42-win pace) +0.14 MOV
31 games without Walton -- 11-20 (29-win pace) -3.52 MOV

1977:

65 games with Walton -- 44-21 (56-win pace) +7.92 MOV
17 games without Walton -- 5-12 (24-win pace) -3.35 MOV

1978:

58 games with Walton -- 48-10 (68-win pace) +10.0 MOV
24 games without Walton -- 10-14 (34-win pace) -3.21 MOV

1979:

82 games without Walton -- 45-37 +1.26 MOV.

All in all both Walton's teams and Kareem's teams were equally mediocre without them in the lineup but with both men in the lineup Walton's teams were far better in 1977 and 1978 which was his peak. Where Kareem provided a very good +20 Pythagorean Win lift with Walton it was a roughly +35 Pythagorean Win lift. Kareem's teams hovered just below contender level while Walton's teams were strong contenders maybe even historically great with him in the lineup during 1977 and 1978.

WOWY favors Walton but I still think the supporting cast Walton had is much better than that which Kareem had in those years.

[Rishkar]

Hakeem is the Kobe of centers; massively overrated because of how skilled and aesthetically pleasing but was too much of a ballhog and not as efficient. It's crazy how high he is on people's atg lists. But I'm not judging.

I would say that he's decently overrated on offense (at least outside of this board) for many of the same reasons that Kobe is overrated. The two are decently similar, they both shot a lot on slightly above average efficiency, they both had really good longevity but a pretty sharp decline towards the end of their career, both were functional enough passers to utilize their scoring threat, and both were playoff risers. The difference between them is that Hakeem is likely a top 5 defender ever at the position where it matters the most, and Kobe is a guard with questionable impact on that end of the ball (I see him as a negative in the regular season and a slight positive in the postseason, leaving him around neutral).

I certainly don't mean to cast aspersions towards Hakeem. I'm just surprised box-skepticism did more for Olajuwon than Johnson.

I do think there's a point to be made that great scorers tend to be overrated - at least relative to a WAR-type approach to player-rankings. Jordan, Kobe, and Hakeem all might be beneficiaries. Kareem also might benefit but I am sympathetic to the idea his defense is undersold.

I'm not so sure that applies with Hakeem who is often talked about as the greatest defender ever.

From my understanding, Hakeem has some of the best raw plus/minus data ever. When it gets regularized, the formula assumes that this incredible impact is an outlier or noise (which it very well could be) and rounds it down a bit. Not a statistician by any means (I'm a high school fast food worker) so if anyone who knows more about it wants to make a case for Hakeem's impact stats, I would love for them to pitch in (and correct me if needed).

[ShaqAttac]

Jabbar is arguably the greatest player in NBA history. The only other players in contention are probably Chamberlain, Russell, Jordan, James (anyone else?).

I think Tim Duncan has a case based on his leadership.

I simply think Kareem has a bit more question marks around him than Russell

How many HOFers did Russell have as teammates?

The hall of famers argument is weird to me. Outside of K.C. Jones (who I feel is similar to Alex Caruso), Sanders (who reminds me of Royce O'Neal), Havlicek (who I think of as similar to Pippen), he didn't have much defensive help. He was shutting down Wilt chamberlain to Jimmy Butler's '19-'20 season scoring rate (higher totals because of his insane minutes averages) and doing this to other centers https://backpicks.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Russell-v-All-Star-Centers.png In '62 through '65, he led 4 of the 5 greatest defenses in NBA history. Across that span, he averaged 44.325 minutes per game, with the second-highest Celtic in each of those years averaging 33.2 minutes per game. I struggle to attribute that defensive impact to anyone else (especially given the Celtic's collapse when he retires) and struggle to see his teams as loaded in offensive talent when the Celtics regularly had such weak offenses. I think Cousy, Heinsohn, Sharman, and early career Havlicek are all decently overrated because at the time they played Boston had an incredibly high pace (and per-possession efficiency wasn't really thought much about), and coaches and players thought that having more possessions was the way to win basketball games (more opportunities to score). Russell and Havlicek both thought that Bill was a better offensive player than defensive (an idea I don't buy into myself) but he was obviously capable of initiating fastbreaks at an elite level due to his rebounding (might be the greatest rebounder ever, especially on a per minute basis), passing, and ability to drive the ball up the court himself without having to pass to one of his guards. This skill was more valuable in his era, where it was harder to score in the halfcourt because of the lack of spacing.

ppl keep talking about hof like russels team didnt miss b2b playoff without him.

russell is the goat. thats why he won 11. beat a superteam too so

[Rishkar]

Jabbar is arguably the greatest player in NBA history. The only other players in contention are probably Chamberlain, Russell, Jordan, James (anyone else?).

I think Tim Duncan has a case based on his leadership.

I simply think Kareem has a bit more question marks around him than Russell

How many HOFers did Russell have as teammates?

The hall of famers argument is weird to me. Outside of K.C. Jones (who I feel is similar to Alex Caruso), Sanders (who reminds me of Royce O'Neal), Havlicek (who I think of as similar to Pippen), he didn't have much defensive help. He was shutting down Wilt chamberlain to Jimmy Butler's '19-'20 season scoring rate (higher totals because of his insane minutes averages) and doing this to other centers https://backpicks.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Russell-v-All-Star-Centers.png In '62 through '65, he led 4 of the 5 greatest defenses in NBA history. Across that span, he averaged 44.325 minutes per game, with the second-highest Celtic in each of those years averaging 33.2 minutes per game. I struggle to attribute that defensive impact to anyone else (especially given the Celtic's collapse when he retires) and struggle to see his teams as loaded in offensive talent when the Celtics regularly had such weak offenses. I think Cousy, Heinsohn, Sharman, and early career Havlicek are all decently overrated because at the time they played Boston had an incredibly high pace (and per-possession efficiency wasn't really thought much about), and coaches and players thought that having more possessions was the way to win basketball games (more opportunities to score). Russell and Havlicek both thought that Bill was a better offensive player than defensive (an idea I don't buy into myself) but he was obviously capable of initiating fastbreaks at an elite level due to his rebounding (might be the greatest rebounder ever, especially on a per minute basis), passing, and ability to drive the ball up the court himself without having to pass to one of his guards. This skill was more valuable in his era, where it was harder to score in the halfcourt because of the lack of spacing.

ppl keep talking about hof like russels team didnt miss b2b playoff without him.

russell is the goat. thats why he won 11. beat a superteam too so

The only two years that he didn't win a ring were when he was injured (although that 76er's team might have won even against a healthy Russell)