Hakeem vs Shaq vs Duncan vs Bird vs Bill Russell

JordansBulls · Post #1 » by **JordansBulls** » Sat May 10, 2008 5:06 pm

Who would you rather have on your team if all are in their respective primes?

What order would you choose them?

sp6r=underrated · Post #2 » by **sp6r=underrated** » Sat May 10, 2008 5:06 pm

At there absolute apex
1. Bird/Russell
2. Shaq/Hakeem
3. TD

HarlemHeat37 · Post #3 » by **HarlemHeat37** » Sat May 10, 2008 5:14 pm

in their primes..

1.Shaq
2.Hakeem
3.Bird
4.Duncan
5.Russell

wigglestrue · Post #4 » by **wigglestrue** » Sat May 10, 2008 6:12 pm

1. Russell
2. Bird
3. Hakeem
4. Shaq
5. Duncan

TAI8 · Post #5 » by **TAI8** » Sat May 10, 2008 6:28 pm

HarlemHeat37 wrote:in their primes..

1.Shaq
2.Hakeem
3.Bird
4.Duncan
5.Russell

Post #6 » by **wetsthebed** » Sat May 10, 2008 6:35 pm

wigglestrue wrote:1. Russell
2. Bird
3. Hakeem
4. Shaq
5. Duncan

wigglestrue · Post #7 » by **wigglestrue** » Sat May 10, 2008 6:43 pm

EDIT: Wrong thread, lol.

Myth_Breaker · Post #8 » by **Myth_Breaker** » Sat May 10, 2008 6:48 pm

wigglestrue wrote:1. Russell
2. Bird
3. Hakeem
4. Shaq
5. Duncan

I support this 100%. It's not the first time when I notice that Celtics and Lakers fans - despite their obvious disagreements - can agree as to some fundamental facts connected with appreciating also players from older eras. ;-)

ronnymac2 · Post #9 » by **ronnymac2** » Sat May 10, 2008 6:52 pm

1. Shaq
2. Hakeem
3. Duncan/Bird
4. Bird/Duncan
5. Russell

HarlemHeat37 · Post #10 » by **HarlemHeat37** » Sat May 10, 2008 6:53 pm

I appreciate the older eras, I just think Russell's argument on an all-time ranking is better for his career(accolades, accomplishments, success), as opposed to his peak..

Myth_Breaker · Post #11 » by **Myth_Breaker** » Sat May 10, 2008 6:57 pm

HarlemHeat37 wrote:I appreciate the older eras, I just think Russell's argument on an all-time ranking is better for his career(accolades, accomplishments, success), as opposed to his peak..

Without his superb team accomplishments Russ definitely wouldn't be a GOAT candidate. On the other hand, these accomplishments are a FACT - and if you want to disregard this aspect, you could as well argue Garnett over Duncan. But even it terms of pure peak, I find prime Bill more dominant than all other guys on the list - and most certainly more dominant than TD.

wigglestrue · Post #12 » by **wigglestrue** » Sat May 10, 2008 7:00 pm

HarlemHeat37 wrote:I appreciate the older eras, I just think Russell's argument on an all-time ranking is better for his career(accolades, accomplishments, success), as opposed to his peak..

Not a bad point, but you're probably underestimating Russell's individual performance at his peak. He was an awesome player. But I guess it's like trying to rank whose peak was better between Ted Williams, Willie Mays, Barry Bonds, Hank Aaron...and Walter Johnson. You'd be trying to compare four sluggers (a few of whom play great defense too) and one pure defensive stopper, and the comparison forces you to determine the value of offense vs. defense, and IMO Russell's defense is far and away the most dominant force in NBA history, and enough to compensate (and then some) for his merely above average offense.

Point forward · Post #13 » by **Point forward** » Sat May 10, 2008 7:13 pm

Primes only?

Russell > Bird > Shaq > Hakeem > Duncan

With a prime Russell, "losing" becomes something you will never have to know again. When Russell was in his peak (1961-65), he was a 18/24 guy and was the GOAT of intangibles. He was so good that whenever Wilt and Russ were matched up, it was called a wash!!

Myth_Breaker · Post #14 » by **Myth_Breaker** » Sat May 10, 2008 7:31 pm

Point forward wrote:Primes only?

Russell > Bird > Shaq > Hakeem > Duncan

With a prime Russell, "losing" becomes something you will never have to know again. When Russell was in his peak (1961-65), he was a 18/24 guy and was the GOAT of intangibles. He was so good that whenever Wilt and Russ were matched up, it was called a wash!!

No, getting >28 ppg/>28 rpg vs. twice as less ppg/less rpg is anything but a "wash". :crazy:

kooldude · Post #15 » by **kooldude** » Sat May 10, 2008 7:45 pm

how come in the Hakeem vs Russell thread a while ago, most people chose Hakeem as the better player and chose Russell over Hakeem here? I'm assuming intangibles are included in evaluating who's better.

wigglestrue · Post #16 » by **wigglestrue** » Sat May 10, 2008 7:51 pm

kooldude wrote:how come in the Hakeem vs Russell thread a while ago, most people chose Hakeem as the better player and chose Russell over Hakeem here? I'm assuming intangibles are included in evaluating who's better.

I don't know.

But I wouldn't call Russell's defense "intangible". I know some people think Russell's defense couldn't have been that much better than Hakeem's defense, but I think it was, enough to more than compensate for Hakeem's massive advantage on offense.

kooldude · Post #17 » by **kooldude** » Sat May 10, 2008 7:58 pm

wigglestrue wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

I don't know.

But I wouldn't call Russell's defense "intangible". I know some people think Russell's defense couldn't have been that much better than Hakeem's defense, but I think it was, enough to more than compensate for Hakeem's massive advantage on offense.

I wouldn't call his defense intangible, but I mean like his "tendency" to win almost every single time as intangible. But as I recall, the reason was that Hakeem was as close to Russell to defense as anyone (maybe except defense-minded Wilt) but is superior in offense. If the realgm search actually works, I can find it......

shawngoat23 · Post #18 » by **shawngoat23** » Sat May 10, 2008 8:13 pm

wigglestrue wrote:1. Russell
2. Bird
3. Hakeem
4. Shaq
5. Duncan

Point forward · Post #19 » by **Point forward** » Sat May 10, 2008 8:33 pm

Myth_Breaker wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

No, getting >28 ppg/>28 rpg vs. twice as less ppg/less rpg is anything but a "wash".

I know that is hard to believe, but how do you explain that 1962 Russ was MVP? Russ: 18 / 24, Wilt: 50 / 27, MVP: Russell.

Myth_Breaker · Post #20 » by **Myth_Breaker** » Sat May 10, 2008 8:41 pm

Point forward wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

I know that is hard to believe, but how do you explain that 1962 Russ was MVP? Russ: 18 / 24, Wilt: 50 / 27, MVP: Russell.

First of all, awards do not change the facts, which state that Wilt dominated even Russ head-to-head quite regularly. Second, MVP votings always take ito account team success, and Bill of course had the best teammates/coach/GM to be successful. Third, I think that due to lack of Finals MVP award those years Russell was receiving extra season MVP votes: just to appreciate Celtics dynasty personified by him.