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

[OriginalRed]

At face value, anyone with sense would take 11 rings over 1 no matter the context but the NBA was just too different back then. With no free agency, one team could hoard all the talent and just dominate for years, which is exactly what happened with the Celtics.

That all said, Bill Russel's impact on the Celtics is incredibly underated, especially the defensive end.

How is it underrated?? The Finals MVP trophy is NAMED after him.

That's certainly recognition but there are alot of people who aren't aware of just how insanely impactful Bill Russel was on the defensive end for the Celtics back then. If the DPOY award existed back then, he'd have probably won it almost every year just based on metrics.

[An Unbiased Fan]

What do we call a legit HOFer since with basketball its a mess? Cause some older 60's players are questionable, and some others only get in due to international play.

The bigger knock on Russell would be the smaller league size. it was simply MUCH easier to win back then, especialy with superior talent.

[dhsilv2]

the difference is kidd could actually orchestrate an offense while simultaneously playing quality d. that's why he's a hofer and horry isn't

miami was a very top heavy team not necessarily a far better team. the knicks played a very different physical defense style which was conducive to them being a legitimate contender. ewing didn't have the skill level olajuwon did which gave the rockets the edge. either way dirk had far more help if you look at the playoff bpm numbers. hakeem won in 94 clearly being the best player on either team. dirk won with wade being the better player. advantage hakeem

it wasn't just robinson supplementing duncan. ginobli had a plus 4.7 box plus minus in the 03 playoffs. plus parker chipping in 15.5 ppg which was almost 2 ppg higher than hakeem's number 2 scorer in the 94 playoffs vernon maxwell

Ah, and we'll ignore that Cassel would go on to be an all nba player because Parker....had 15.5 a game while being absolutely HORRIBLE in the playoffs that year.

But I do see what your name is about. Post - as in always be moving the goal post.

parker didn't play well overall but he provided some scoring that wasn't coming from robinson that year. somebody needs to put the ball in the basket even if they aren't playing well overall. scoring is valuable. parker had the skill to do it

i made a mistake. parker was 15.5 ppg in the regular season and 14.7 in the playoffs. so parker scored 1 ppg more than maxwell. and hakeem scored 4 ppg more than duncan in the 94 vs. 03 playoffs. duncan played really well, don't get me wrong. i just favor hakeem's accomplishment more

We're not discussing Duncan vs Hakeem. We're disusing your arbitrary criteria for teammate talent.

[dhsilv2]

love's career isn't over yet so it's to be determined how he finishes things out and how history judges him. his peak in minnesota was phenomenal and he won a chip in cleveland. hof voters may look kindly upon him

i'm not saying lucas was bad and didn't have his moments. same with bob gross on that 77 portland team. but lucas had a 0.2 career bpm in the regular season whereas kyrie is a much better scorer and has a 3.8 bpm in his career. kyrie is the better player and will be in the hall. bob gross was solid and was an elite role player in the 77 playoffs. being an elite role player is not the same as kevin love averaging 26 ppg and 12-13 rpg 2 different years in minnesota. 2016 cleveland had more talent than 77 portland. cleveland should win that series in 16 against golden state and they did. portland swept the number 1 seed kareem led lakers to get to the finals. they weren't expected to win anything

The love that average 26 a game, and missed the playoffs wasn't the Love that Lebron had.

Guess what, careers aren't flat and that is why your arbitrary hall criteria is just flat out stupid. Hakeem won in a year where talent was extremely spread out and it was almost a 100% chance that someone would win without another hall guy that year. Stockton and Malone were the only team with a chance and frankly they were the one team the rockets had no issues with. They weren't going to win it without the rockets that year. Had there been a great team in 94, the rockets wouldn't have won the title. It truly is that simple, it was one of the easiest title years for something like that to happen in NBA history.

Walton had multiple guys who were at or would be at allstarl levels and they were quality defenders. That was a very decent team lead by walton. Had walton stayed healthy and those same guys played the same way but they were able to get to a few more finals we've see some of them in teh hall instead of not. That's just now it has always worked.

love didn't put up the same stats in cleveland but in a vacuum a team would rather have him than bob gross or maurice lucas

hakeem's 0 hall of fame rockets beating stockton and malone's jazz with hornacek too is impressive. so is beating clyde drexler and rod strickland and then barkley and kevin johnson. and then ewing's knicks. you're really just unfairly dismissing all this really good talent hakeem's 0 hall of fame rockets beat

no, maurice lucas was a career 0.2 bpm player. he was never going to the hall. he was an average basketball player who had some nice moments. bob gross averaged 9 ppg 4.4 rpg and 2.9 apg in his career. he was never going to the hall any more than robert horry was

You were the one who came up with this crazy idea that it only matters if someone was in the hall. I didn't do that. You did. Your very criteria dismisses Hakeem because he by your standards didn't beat quality teams. You can't dismiss players because they aren't hall of famers or worse prop up guys who were flat out bad because they scored some points or dismiss a player who was GREAT in the playoffs as just being a "role player". Especially a guy like Horry, who's role was to make his team better and help them win....which he did 7 times. Imagine giving credit to player for scoring while not giving credit to his teammates who's shooting allowed that player to take an easier shot. That's what you're doing here.

Maurice Lucas had a better BPM than these guys you're propping up as hall of famers when it matters...during a title run. And guess what, BPM doesn't quantify defense, especially non big man defense. Just like BPM doesn't realize just how BAD Irving is on that end of the floor.

[dhsilv2]

the difference is kidd could actually orchestrate an offense while simultaneously playing quality d. that's why he's a hofer and horry isn't

miami was a very top heavy team not necessarily a far better team. the knicks played a very different physical defense style which was conducive to them being a legitimate contender. ewing didn't have the skill level olajuwon did which gave the rockets the edge. either way dirk had far more help if you look at the playoff bpm numbers. hakeem won in 94 clearly being the best player on either team. dirk won with wade being the better player. advantage hakeem

it wasn't just robinson supplementing duncan. ginobli had a plus 4.7 box plus minus in the 03 playoffs. plus parker chipping in 15.5 ppg which was almost 2 ppg higher than hakeem's number 2 scorer in the 94 playoffs vernon maxwell

Ah, and we'll ignore that Cassel would go on to be an all nba player because Parker....had 15.5 a game while being absolutely HORRIBLE in the playoffs that year.

But I do see what your name is about. Post - as in always be moving the goal post.

sam cassell had a nice career similar to parker stat wise but in 94 cassell was a rookie bench player who made a contribution to the rockets chip run but was far from all nba level

So Manu's a rookie and tony's second year so they are hall of famers, but Cassell who's roughly equivalent to a hall of famer parker per you, he doesn't count because he was a 24 year old rookie, but 20 year old Parker is a hall of famer?

[UcanUwill]

when you win 11 ships, you will put few buddies in the hall by default

[jason bourne]

walton and olajuwon won 1 each with 0 hofers

russell won 11 with 2-5 hofers

I could be wrong, but I get the feeling the OP has scored with one hot chick in his life and even then she was 8.0 out of 10. He is trying to make the case that Bill Walton and Hakeem Olajuwon's rings mean more because they were the main hof and only hof on the team.



Meh. Give me the multiple rings and going to the hofs. Rings are important and count if you're one of the superstars on a multi-hof team. One has to check further and see that they have contributed to the success of the team. I think this line of thinking fits most superstars who have won multiple rings with other HOFs on the team and was voted into the HOF.

Steve Kerr should make it as head coach who won multiple rings.

[Han Solo]

I thought this was about Larry Brown vs Phil Jackson...

So did I? Lol

[YogurtProducer]

it's not a horrible idea considering only 2 hofers have ever won a chip with no hofers, walton and olajuwon. that means it's incredibly hard to win a chip with no hall of fame help. why do you think jordan could never do it? because it's incredibly hard

if you want to ignore hof stuff, look at russell as a rookie vs. hakeem. in the regular season hakeem lead his team in win shares per 48 and russell had 3 guys on his team with a higher win shares per 48. in the playoffs hakeem's team overall had 3 guys .100 or higher in win shares per 48. russell's rookie team had 6 overall

it is what it is. russell had a lot more help and won a lot more

Kawhi might have just won a ring without HOF help

i think lowry will get in the hof. real plus minus says he's a top 6 point guard in the nba for the last 6 years

Completely agree - but that’s the only guy who might.

Do Kyrie and Love make it? Lebron might have done it to if not

[post]

The love that average 26 a game, and missed the playoffs wasn't the Love that Lebron had.

Guess what, careers aren't flat and that is why your arbitrary hall criteria is just flat out stupid. Hakeem won in a year where talent was extremely spread out and it was almost a 100% chance that someone would win without another hall guy that year. Stockton and Malone were the only team with a chance and frankly they were the one team the rockets had no issues with. They weren't going to win it without the rockets that year. Had there been a great team in 94, the rockets wouldn't have won the title. It truly is that simple, it was one of the easiest title years for something like that to happen in NBA history.

Walton had multiple guys who were at or would be at allstarl levels and they were quality defenders. That was a very decent team lead by walton. Had walton stayed healthy and those same guys played the same way but they were able to get to a few more finals we've see some of them in teh hall instead of not. That's just now it has always worked.

love didn't put up the same stats in cleveland but in a vacuum a team would rather have him than bob gross or maurice lucas

hakeem's 0 hall of fame rockets beating stockton and malone's jazz with hornacek too is impressive. so is beating clyde drexler and rod strickland and then barkley and kevin johnson. and then ewing's knicks. you're really just unfairly dismissing all this really good talent hakeem's 0 hall of fame rockets beat

no, maurice lucas was a career 0.2 bpm player. he was never going to the hall. he was an average basketball player who had some nice moments. bob gross averaged 9 ppg 4.4 rpg and 2.9 apg in his career. he was never going to the hall any more than robert horry was

You were the one who came up with this crazy idea that it only matters if someone was in the hall. I didn't do that. You did. Your very criteria dismisses Hakeem because he by your standards didn't beat quality teams. You can't dismiss players because they aren't hall of famers or worse prop up guys who were flat out bad because they scored some points or dismiss a player who was GREAT in the playoffs as just being a "role player". Especially a guy like Horry, who's role was to make his team better and help them win....which he did 7 times. Imagine giving credit to player for scoring while not giving credit to his teammates who's shooting allowed that player to take an easier shot. That's what you're doing here.

Maurice Lucas had a better BPM than these guys you're propping up as hall of famers when it matters...during a title run. And guess what, BPM doesn't quantify defense, especially non big man defense. Just like BPM doesn't realize just how BAD Irving is on that end of the floor.

i don't recall saying the only thing that matters is whether someone is in the hall. i'm just pointing out a very interesting fact that if you don't have multiple players on your team that wind up in the hall of fame you probably aren't winning a chip. two different things

you're just ignoring reality and what i already said now. hakeem didn't beat quality teams? um, stockton, malone, and hornacek are all in the top 70 all time in career bpm. stockton and malone are widely regarded as two of the best players that ever played their positions. i'm not the only one who thinks kevin johnson has a case to be in the hall. there's a difference between being a quality team, which all the teams hakeem beat in 94 were, and being a 2 hofer or more championship caliber team. hakeem beat both types of teams 4 times in 94. the knicks with ewing and riley coaching are considered to be one of the best defensive teams of all the time. not an irrelevant piece of information

i'm not dismissing guys that aren't hofers. you are an expert at putting words in my mouth. robert horry is a very good role player by any sane criteria. that's not dismissing him

lucas's bpm was slightly higher in the 77 playoffs than kyrie's bpm in the 2016 playoffs. kyrie had a much higher player efficiency rating and win shares per 48. kyrie averaged 25 ppg to lucas's 21 ppg. i'll take the guy that scores 4 ppg more. kyrie also came back next year and scored 26 ppg in the playoffs on the same 57% true shooting. lucas never scored more than 20 in any other playoff run. kyrie is simply the better scorer and player in his regular season and playoff career and would arguably have 3 chips if there weren't injuries in 2015 and then durant one upping lebron in team hopping in 2017. kyrie is hall bound. nobody except people like us even know who lucas is

[post]

Ah, and we'll ignore that Cassel would go on to be an all nba player because Parker....had 15.5 a game while being absolutely HORRIBLE in the playoffs that year.

But I do see what your name is about. Post - as in always be moving the goal post.

sam cassell had a nice career similar to parker stat wise but in 94 cassell was a rookie bench player who made a contribution to the rockets chip run but was far from all nba level

So Manu's a rookie and tony's second year so they are hall of famers, but Cassell who's roughly equivalent to a hall of famer parker per you, he doesn't count because he was a 24 year old rookie, but 20 year old Parker is a hall of famer?

parker's case for being a hall of famer over cassell at least partly rests on the fact he averaged 6 ppg more in the playoffs than cassell in his career and won 4 chips averaging 17.5 ppg to cassell's 2 chips as a 10 ppg bench player. manu is just simply a better player than anybody other than hakeem on the 94 rockets. ask anybody sane

[post]

Kawhi might have just won a ring without HOF help

i think lowry will get in the hof. real plus minus says he's a top 6 point guard in the nba for the last 6 years

Completely agree - but that’s the only guy who might.

Do Kyrie and Love make it? Lebron might have done it to if not

marc gasol is a possibility if voters think outside the box

all signs point to kyrie maintaining a very high level of play and he's right in the middle of his prime. it's very reasonable to assume he will be in the hall one day

[post]

walton and olajuwon won 1 each with 0 hofers

russell won 11 with 2-5 hofers

I could be wrong, but I get the feeling the OP has scored with one hot chick in his life and even then she was 8.0 out of 10.

is it better to bang alexandra daddario or 100 average chicks? i don't think this is the forum to discuss that

[knicksNOTslick]

It's damn near impossible to replicate the 11 rings that Russell did, simply because in today's era, teams figure you out pretty quickly. Basketball has advanced in such a way that teams can do all these analytics, prepare/train and figure out a way to beat you or replicate your success. It was much simpler back then. We just saw the Warriors recent dynasty. They were pretty dominant and all they could do was 3 rings. Lebron has been pretty dominant and while he made it to consecutive Finals for damn near a decade, teams have also figured his teams out, so all he could do was 3 rings.

Winning just one chip with 0 HOFers for a player, a lot of factors could go in your favor for that to happen. So sure it is impressive, but you could've gotten lucky, etc. due to injuries and matchups, so it could be looked at as a fluke. 11 rings is most definitely not a fluke. It's just straight dominance over a long period of time. Perhaps if the Spurs won more championships over the course of TD's career, or if David Robinson and Tim Duncan's primes coincided.

[post]

It's damn near impossible to replicate the 11 rings that Russell did, simply because in today's era, teams figure you out pretty quickly. Basketball has advanced in such a way that teams can do all these analytics, prepare/train and figure out a way to beat you or replicate your success. It was much simpler back then. We just saw the Warriors recent dynasty. They were pretty dominant and all they could do was 3 rings. Lebron has been pretty dominant and while he made it to consecutive Finals for damn near a decade, teams have also figured his teams out, so all he could do was 3 rings.

Winning just one chip with 0 HOFers for a player, a lot of factors could go in your favor for that to happen. So sure it is impressive, but you could've gotten lucky, etc. due to injuries and matchups, so it could be looked at as a fluke. 11 rings is most definitely not a fluke. It's just straight dominance over a long period of time. Perhaps if the Spurs won more championships over the course of TD's career, or if David Robinson and Tim Duncan's primes coincided.

11 rings is not a fluke, it's a sign your team is stacked with so much talent it's almost unfair to the rest of the league for more than a decade

hakeem and walton's rings were not due to injuries or matchups. hakeem beat stockton, malone, drexler, barkley, and ewing all in 94 en route to a chip. walton beat kareem's lakers, dr. j's sixers, 2 hofer nuggets with david thompson and dan issel, and the bulls lead by hofer artis gilmore all in 77 in route to a chip

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

Lebron beating 73-9 Warriors was more impressive.

That ring will never get beaten for the most impressive of all time imo.

Not really.

That 73-9 Warriors had injuries on Curry, Bogut & Iggy.

People discrediting Kawhi's 2019 ring for beating an injury plauged GSW team.

It's only fair to discredit LeBron's 2016 ring with same reasoning.

Can’t use injuries as an excuse unless they are actually proven to be injured. Injuries weren’t bad enough to side line them and if you step on the court to play you lose the right to use injuries for another player simply outplaying you.

Bogut was the only one who of those who missed games and he was only playing 15 minutes per game through the entire playoffs anyway.

Injured players don’t play 40 minutes and jack up 20 shots like Curry was doing in games 5-7.

It was just an easy escape route his fans were looking for.

What Lebron did that year was nothing short of astonishing and revisionist history will never change that.

LeBron Stan. Pointless to talk but:

LeBron was 9 for 24 in 2016 game 7.

Yes Curry was injured. Any Warriors fan that was used to seeing what Curry could do could see that Curry was injured. His feet weren't moving right. Curry was never fast an explosive but Curry had zero explosiveness after his injury. Curry had a few good shooting games after his injury but that doesn't mean he wasn't injured.

Injured players do play 40 minutes and jack up 20 shots. That is what you saw.

The Warriors team was beat down and dead. The Cavs never beat the peak 2016 Warriors in the finals because the peak 2016 Warriors did not make it to the finals. But LeBron and the Cavs also looked beat down. The Cavs also looked better earlier in the playoffs.

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

11 rings is not a fluke, it's a sign your team is stacked with so much talent it's almost unfair to the rest of the league for more than a decade

Before I actually looked at box scores and playoff series results for the 11 championship Celtics I had assumed that the 1960s Celtics dominated the NBA. But that wasn't true.

The 1960s Celtics were in a lot of 7 games series and a bunch of those game 7s were close until the final minutes.

So what happened?
Maybe the Celtics played down to the level of their competition.
MYbe the Celtics were lucky.
Maybe the Celtics could always find a little something extra when they had to and were very clutch.
Maybe the less playoff experience teams cracked under pressure and the Celtics did not.

Probabably a bit of all of the above.

[post]

11 rings is not a fluke, it's a sign your team is stacked with so much talent it's almost unfair to the rest of the league for more than a decade

Before I actually looked at box scores and playoff series results for the 11 championship Celtics I had assumed that the 1960s Celtics dominated the NBA. But that wasn't true.

The 1960s Celtics were in a lot of 7 games series and a bunch of those game 7s were close until the final minutes.

So what happened?
Maybe the Celtics played down to the level of their competition.
MYbe the Celtics were lucky.
Maybe the Celtics could always find a little something extra when they had to and were very clutch.
Maybe the less playoff experience teams cracked under pressure and the Celtics did not.

Probabably a bit of all of the above.

4 out of 11 russell finals series were 4-0 or 4-1

2 out 11 were 4-2 series

the other 5 were 7 game series, 4 of which game 7 was decided by 3 points or less, the other was a blowout

so it's a mix. sometimes boston destroyed teams, sometimes the other team had a fighting chance, and sometimes it was a coin toss outcome

perhaps red aurebach had something to do with it. i don't know

in 69, the last of the 11 chips, boston had russell, havlicek, jones, and howell as their 4 hofers vs. the lakers 3 hofers west, baylor, and chamberlain. perhaps the talent advantage simply won out

or as you said, a little bit of this and that and who knows what

[70sFan]

The ultimate goal for a player is to help his team win many championships. Russell did that better than anyone else. You can't blame him for the competition he had. And unlike LeBron, he had no control on his team building, so you can't blame him for that. More than that, it's pretty safe to say that by the end of his career he was the GOAT. It means that he had no other player better than him ever (unless you only care about personal stats and then Wilt is your guy, but personal stats clearly weren't what Russell cared about). So Russell had probably the best career possible for him.
I don't think any single year accomplishment can be better than that... There is a reason Russell is still considered one of the top 3 best players all time, together with KAJ and MJ.

russell is not considered top 3 by most people these days

Because most people are not knowledgeable enough.

[post]

walton and olajuwon won 1 each with 0 hofers

russell won 11 with 2-5 hofers

Russell's teams posted a negative srs without him and had a losing record when he wasn't on the court. HOF's a red herring here. Russell was easily the closest analog to lebron for his era.

if this info is true can you provide a source? i've never heard this and didn't find anything when i looked