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

[michaelm]

i calculated wins/losses myself just now. in 13 years the celtics were 26-26 when russell didn't play. in the 2 years hakeem won chips houston was 4-8 in games olajuwon didn't play. so i don't see how your claim has any merit russell's teams were worse than hakeem's teams when they both didn't play. the year after that when hakeem was going for a 3peat houston was 1-9 in games hakeem didn't play

can you show how the negative srs is worse with russell out than the srs of when hakeem is out. i don't think you can. just look at how bad houston was in those 3 years without hakeem. how could they have a better srs without hakeem than boston had without russell

26-26 should produce a better srs than 5-17, right?

Simple question. What more should Russell have done in his own era to win your approval ?.

don't know what you mean by "approval." i'm not denying he was very good

My point is that it is hard to see how he could have done anything more impressive than winning 11 titles as the leader of a team. It was a different era and should be and very likely is Impossible to replicate in this era or Olajuwon’s era.

Olajuwon’s titles are obviously very impressive as well in his era, but I don’t understand why you are intent on dying on a hill to compare what can’t really be compared, particularly by bringing the number of HOF players on a team into it.

[post]

Simple question. What more should Russell have done in his own era to win your approval ?.

don't know what you mean by "approval." i'm not denying he was very good

My point is that it is hard to see how he could have done anything more impressive than winning 11 titles as the leader of a team. It was a different era and should be and very likely is Impossible to replicate in this era or Olajuwon’s era.

Olajuwon’s titles are obviously very impressive as well in his era, but I don’t understand why you are intent on dying on a hill to compare what can’t really be compared, particularly by bringing the number of HOF players on a team into it.

it would've been more impressive if he scored more points

[michaelm]

don't know what you mean by "approval." i'm not denying he was very good

My point is that it is hard to see how he could have done anything more impressive than winning 11 titles as the leader of a team. It was a different era and should be and very likely is Impossible to replicate in this era or Olajuwon’s era.

Olajuwon’s titles are obviously very impressive as well in his era, but I don’t understand why you are intent on dying on a hill to compare what can’t really be compared, particularly by bringing the number of HOF players on a team into it.

it would've been more impressive if he scored more points

Now we are down to our philosophical difference. If a dynastic team is built around a player then a dynastic team is built around a player. How this is achieved is irrelevant imo in what is a team sport.

You are also prone to changing your ground/shifting horses as others have said.

I can obviously come up with arguments to discredit Olajuwon’s titles which include a rather prominent HOFer but such arguments would be spuriious, I personally give him great credit including for reasons you mention but the bottom line is that like all title winners he beat everyone who turned up to play him; in his case in addition he played wonderfully well himself.

[post]

My point is that it is hard to see how he could have done anything more impressive than winning 11 titles as the leader of a team. It was a different era and should be and very likely is Impossible to replicate in this era or Olajuwon’s era.

Olajuwon’s titles are obviously very impressive as well in his era, but I don’t understand why you are intent on dying on a hill to compare what can’t really be compared, particularly by bringing the number of HOF players on a team into it.

it would've been more impressive if he scored more points

Now we are down to our philosophical difference. If a dynastic team is built around a player then a dynastic team is built around a player. How this is achieved is irrelevant imo in what is a team sport.

You are also prone to changing your ground/shifting horses as others have said.

I can obviously come up with arguments to discredit Olajuwon’s titles which include a rather prominent HOFer but such arguments would be spuriious, I personally give him great credit including for reasons you mention but the bottom line is that like all title winners he beat everyone who turned up to play him; in his case in addition he played wonderfully well himself.

what's more likely: hakeem wins 11 in russell's place or russell wins with hakeem's 94 roster?

[freethedevil]

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.

i calculated wins/losses myself just now. in 13 years the celtics were 26-26 when russell didn't play. in the 2 years hakeem won chips houston was 4-8 in games olajuwon didn't play. so i don't see how your claim has any merit russell's teams were worse than hakeem's teams when they both didn't play. the year after that when hakeem was going for a 3peat houston was 1-9 in games hakeem didn't play

can you show how the negative srs is worse with russell out than the srs of when hakeem is out. i don't think you can. just look at how bad houston was in those 3 years without hakeem. how could they have a better srs without hakeem than boston had without russell

26-26 should produce a better srs than 5-17, right?

fair, but you're comapring a career to two seasons. IN the last season russell won, his team went 0-8 without him. Surely that's worse than 5-17?

[post]

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.

i calculated wins/losses myself just now. in 13 years the celtics were 26-26 when russell didn't play. in the 2 years hakeem won chips houston was 4-8 in games olajuwon didn't play. so i don't see how your claim has any merit russell's teams were worse than hakeem's teams when they both didn't play. the year after that when hakeem was going for a 3peat houston was 1-9 in games hakeem didn't play

can you show how the negative srs is worse with russell out than the srs of when hakeem is out. i don't think you can. just look at how bad houston was in those 3 years without hakeem. how could they have a better srs without hakeem than boston had without russell

26-26 should produce a better srs than 5-17, right?

fair, but you're comapring a career to two seasons. IN the last season russell won, his team went 0-8 without him. Surely that's worse than 5-17?

boston was 2-3 without russell the last year russell won

are you a pathological liar?

[post]

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.

i calculated wins/losses myself just now. in 13 years the celtics were 26-26 when russell didn't play. in the 2 years hakeem won chips houston was 4-8 in games olajuwon didn't play. so i don't see how your claim has any merit russell's teams were worse than hakeem's teams when they both didn't play. the year after that when hakeem was going for a 3peat houston was 1-9 in games hakeem didn't play

can you show how the negative srs is worse with russell out than the srs of when hakeem is out. i don't think you can. just look at how bad houston was in those 3 years without hakeem. how could they have a better srs without hakeem than boston had without russell

26-26 should produce a better srs than 5-17, right?

fair, but you're comapring a career to two seasons. IN the last season russell won, his team went 0-8 without him. Surely that's worse than 5-17?

russell played 13 years. in hakeem's first 13 years his team was 34-56 when he didn't play. that is significantly worse than 26-26

[freethedevil]

i calculated wins/losses myself just now. in 13 years the celtics were 26-26 when russell didn't play. in the 2 years hakeem won chips houston was 4-8 in games olajuwon didn't play. so i don't see how your claim has any merit russell's teams were worse than hakeem's teams when they both didn't play. the year after that when hakeem was going for a 3peat houston was 1-9 in games hakeem didn't play

can you show how the negative srs is worse with russell out than the srs of when hakeem is out. i don't think you can. just look at how bad houston was in those 3 years without hakeem. how could they have a better srs without hakeem than boston had without russell

26-26 should produce a better srs than 5-17, right?

fair, but you're comapring a career to two seasons. IN the last season russell won, his team went 0-8 without him. Surely that's worse than 5-17?

boston was 2-3 without russell the last year russell won

are you a pathological liar?

r u?

In 68-69, russell went down for 5 games and the celtics lost all 5.

I'm not sure where i got 8 from, but they were 0-5 withotut russell, the oldest team in the league, and they weren't even considered contenders at the time.

Russell won the title as a player coach in his worst season knocking out the best attacker of his era(west) and a b2b mvp in the final. As I said before, Hakeem has no argument vs russell

[post]

fair, but you're comapring a career to two seasons. IN the last season russell won, his team went 0-8 without him. Surely that's worse than 5-17?

boston was 2-3 without russell the last year russell won

are you a pathological liar?

r u?

In 68-69, russell went down for 5 games and the celtics lost all 5.

I'm not sure where i got 8 from, but they were 0-5 withotut russell, the oldest team in the league, and they weren't even considered contenders at the time.

Russell won the title as a player coach in his worst season knocking out the best attacker of his era(west) and a b2b mvp in the final. As I said before, Hakeem has no argument vs russell

boston was 48-34 in russell's last year

https://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/BOS/1969.html

boston was 46-31 in the games russell played

https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/r/russebi01/gamelog/1969

add 2 wins and 3 losses for boston when russell didn't play to go from 77 to 82 games

i'm wasting my time arguing with you

[freethedevil]

boston was 2-3 without russell the last year russell won

are you a pathological liar?

r u?

In 68-69, russell went down for 5 games and the celtics lost all 5.

I'm not sure where i got 8 from, but they were 0-5 withotut russell, the oldest team in the league, and they weren't even considered contenders at the time.

Russell won the title as a player coach in his worst season knocking out the best attacker of his era(west) and a b2b mvp in the final. As I said before, Hakeem has no argument vs russell

boston was 48-34 in russell's last year

https://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/BOS/1969.html

boston was 46-31 in the games russell played

https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/r/russebi01/gamelog/1969

add 2 wins and 3 losses for boston when russell didn't play to go from 77 to 82 games

i'm wasting my time arguing with you

Russell suffered severely sprained ligaments in his right knee in a 95-94 loss to New York at Boston Garden. With New York leading 95-92, Russell was the recipient of a pass and scored on a layup. He fell hard to the floor and writhed in pain as the Knicks ran out the last 12 seconds. He was carried on a stretcher to the dressing room and transferred to University Hopsital, where X-rays were negative. He would be out for a week, and Celtics GM Red Auerbach announced his return to the bench on a temporary basis. Boston lost five straight, their longest losing streak since the 1949-50 season. Russell returned February 9, 1969 against the 76ers, helped them overcome a 10-point deficit, blocked two shots and then dunked a shot with two seconds remaining to tie the game and send it into overtime, where after the Celtics took the lead he had made a key free throw and a key steal to preserve it as Boston won 122-117.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/BOS/1969_games.html

The game log shows, 5 losses after russell's injury, not 3. Care to explain how the celtics only lost 3 games if they went on a 5 game losing streak?
They were 0-5.

[michaelm]

it would've been more impressive if he scored more points

Now we are down to our philosophical difference. If a dynastic team is built around a player then a dynastic team is built around a player. How this is achieved is irrelevant imo in what is a team sport.

You are also prone to changing your ground/shifting horses as others have said.

I can obviously come up with arguments to discredit Olajuwon’s titles which include a rather prominent HOFer but such arguments would be spuriious, I personally give him great credit including for reasons you mention but the bottom line is that like all title winners he beat everyone who turned up to play him; in his case in addition he played wonderfully well himself.

what's more likely: hakeem wins 11 in russell's place or russell wins with hakeem's 94 roster?

Who knows? . That’s the problem with hypothetical comparisons across disparate eras.

All I know is that it is fairly hard to do better than win 11 titles, and true teams can be greater than the sum of their parts which probably applies to both players, but how do you know or measure what Russell’s qualities were as a leader, other than that he led a team to 11 titles?.

[post]

r u?

In 68-69, russell went down for 5 games and the celtics lost all 5.

I'm not sure where i got 8 from, but they were 0-5 withotut russell, the oldest team in the league, and they weren't even considered contenders at the time.

Russell won the title as a player coach in his worst season knocking out the best attacker of his era(west) and a b2b mvp in the final. As I said before, Hakeem has no argument vs russell

boston was 48-34 in russell's last year

https://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/BOS/1969.html

boston was 46-31 in the games russell played

https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/r/russebi01/gamelog/1969

add 2 wins and 3 losses for boston when russell didn't play to go from 77 to 82 games

i'm wasting my time arguing with you

Russell suffered severely sprained ligaments in his right knee in a 95-94 loss to New York at Boston Garden. With New York leading 95-92, Russell was the recipient of a pass and scored on a layup. He fell hard to the floor and writhed in pain as the Knicks ran out the last 12 seconds. He was carried on a stretcher to the dressing room and transferred to University Hopsital, where X-rays were negative. He would be out for a week, and Celtics GM Red Auerbach announced his return to the bench on a temporary basis. Boston lost five straight, their longest losing streak since the 1949-50 season. Russell returned February 9, 1969 against the 76ers, helped them overcome a 10-point deficit, blocked two shots and then dunked a shot with two seconds remaining to tie the game and send it into overtime, where after the Celtics took the lead he had made a key free throw and a key steal to preserve it as Boston won 122-117.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/BOS/1969_games.html

The game log shows, 5 losses after russell's injury, not 3. Care to explain how the celtics only lost 3 games if they went on a 5 game losing streak?
They were 0-5.

the first two games of the 5 game losing streak russell played. it's a 3 game losing streak which were the 3 losses i already mentioned boston had without russell. trust me, i'm way too smart for you to get some weak stuff like this past me

[post]

Now we are down to our philosophical difference. If a dynastic team is built around a player then a dynastic team is built around a player. How this is achieved is irrelevant imo in what is a team sport.

You are also prone to changing your ground/shifting horses as others have said.

I can obviously come up with arguments to discredit Olajuwon’s titles which include a rather prominent HOFer but such arguments would be spuriious, I personally give him great credit including for reasons you mention but the bottom line is that like all title winners he beat everyone who turned up to play him; in his case in addition he played wonderfully well himself.

what's more likely: hakeem wins 11 in russell's place or russell wins with hakeem's 94 roster?

Who knows? . That’s the problem with hypothetical comparisons across disparate eras.

All I know is that it is fairly hard to do better than win 11 titles, and true teams can be greater than the sum of their parts which probably applies to both players, but how do you know or measure what Russell’s qualities were as a leader, other than that he led a team to 11 titles?.

that's a valid position

my opinion is russell would have a hard time scoring enough to lead the 94 rockets to a championship over the knicks defense which was one of the best of all time. hakeem's ability to dominate on both ends of the floor makes it more likely in my opinion he wins 11 chips in russell's place

[freethedevil]

boston was 48-34 in russell's last year

https://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/BOS/1969.html

boston was 46-31 in the games russell played

https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/r/russebi01/gamelog/1969

add 2 wins and 3 losses for boston when russell didn't play to go from 77 to 82 games

i'm wasting my time arguing with you

Russell suffered severely sprained ligaments in his right knee in a 95-94 loss to New York at Boston Garden. With New York leading 95-92, Russell was the recipient of a pass and scored on a layup. He fell hard to the floor and writhed in pain as the Knicks ran out the last 12 seconds. He was carried on a stretcher to the dressing room and transferred to University Hopsital, where X-rays were negative. He would be out for a week, and Celtics GM Red Auerbach announced his return to the bench on a temporary basis. Boston lost five straight, their longest losing streak since the 1949-50 season. Russell returned February 9, 1969 against the 76ers, helped them overcome a 10-point deficit, blocked two shots and then dunked a shot with two seconds remaining to tie the game and send it into overtime, where after the Celtics took the lead he had made a key free throw and a key steal to preserve it as Boston won 122-117.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/BOS/1969_games.html

The game log shows, 5 losses after russell's injury, not 3. Care to explain how the celtics only lost 3 games if they went on a 5 game losing streak?
They were 0-5.

the first two games of the 5 game losing streak russell played. it's a 3 game losing streak which were the 3 losses i already mentioned boston had without russell. trust me, i'm way too smart for you to get some weak stuff like this past me

ohhh, fair enough. i guess he never had a cast as bad as hakeem then.

[freethedevil]

what's more likely: hakeem wins 11 in russell's place or russell wins with hakeem's 94 roster?

Who knows? . That’s the problem with hypothetical comparisons across disparate eras.

All I know is that it is fairly hard to do better than win 11 titles, and true teams can be greater than the sum of their parts which probably applies to both players, but how do you know or measure what Russell’s qualities were as a leader, other than that he led a team to 11 titles?.

that's a valid position

my opinion is russell would have a hard time scoring enough to lead the 94 rockets to a championship over the knicks defense which was one of the best of all time. hakeem's ability to dominate on both ends of the floor makes it more likely in my opinion he wins 11 chips in russell's place

only issue with your theory is hakeem wasn't as good as he was during those two championships as he was for the entirety of his career.

For Hakeem to match Russell he would need 11 seasons of +4-+6.5 impact. Hakeem straight up wasn't as good as he was during his best season for the vast majority of his career.

He didn’t miss much time in his career, so WOWY numbers are hard to come by. Journalists and teammates always claimed that the Celtics fell apart without him; Boston was a 35-win team (-1.9 SRS) in 28 games he missed from 1958-69, and for the other 915 games of his career they played at a 59-win pace (6.4 SRS). This is a tiny piece of evidence – the years are spread out, teams change, and so on — but it echoes the same story as Russell’s other value signals.

That's atg level impact for a massive stretch of time, and ofc, liek hakeem, in his best years, russell was more impactful. He took average teams to being way better than any other team in his era for a 4 year stretch as opposed to hakeem taking bad teams to being championship teams for a two year stretch.

There is zero chance hakeem wins 11 titles, there's a decent chance russell wins more than 2.

[post]

Who knows? . That’s the problem with hypothetical comparisons across disparate eras.

All I know is that it is fairly hard to do better than win 11 titles, and true teams can be greater than the sum of their parts which probably applies to both players, but how do you know or measure what Russell’s qualities were as a leader, other than that he led a team to 11 titles?.

that's a valid position

my opinion is russell would have a hard time scoring enough to lead the 94 rockets to a championship over the knicks defense which was one of the best of all time. hakeem's ability to dominate on both ends of the floor makes it more likely in my opinion he wins 11 chips in russell's place

only issue with your theory is hakeem wasn't as good as he was during those two championships as he was for the entirety of his career.

For Hakeem to match Russell he would need 11 seasons of +4-+6.5 impact. Hakeem straight up wasn't as good as he was during his best season for the vast majority of his career.

He didn’t miss much time in his career, so WOWY numbers are hard to come by. Journalists and teammates always claimed that the Celtics fell apart without him; Boston was a 35-win team (-1.9 SRS) in 28 games he missed from 1958-69, and for the other 915 games of his career they played at a 59-win pace (6.4 SRS). This is a tiny piece of evidence – the years are spread out, teams change, and so on — but it echoes the same story as Russell’s other value signals.

That's atg level impact for a massive stretch of time, and ofc, liek hakeem, in his best years, russell was more impactful. He took average teams to being way better than any other team in his era for a 4 year stretch as opposed to hakeem taking bad teams to being championship teams for a two year stretch.

There is zero chance hakeem wins 11 titles, there's a decent chance russell wins more than 2.

i have no clue where you are getting the numbers +4-+6.5 from. there are no box plus minus numbers from russell's time. hakeem had a playoff career 7.1 bpm. the two years he won a chip he averaged 7.2 for those 2 years. so he was playing at his career average for the 2 chip runs in the playoffs. hakeem had five years in the playoffs where his bpm was higher than his career playoff average. so to say he wasn't as good as his best season, which presumably you mean the 2 years he won chips, for the vast majority of his career is not backed up by the playoff bpm numbers. his career is not what matters but the first 13 years to compare to russell's 13 years. he had 10 seasons ranging from 4.7-12 bpm and 1 at 3.8 bpm in those 13 years. i'd say that meets your criteria pulled out of thin air of +4-+6.5 for 11 years. to maintain there is zero chance hakeem wins 11 titles is based on nothing

hakeem won 2 chips with his team having a 2.3 and 4.11 lower srs than the team they beat in the finals. russell in 11 chips only beat a team with a higher srs than boston once in the finals. to me that means more than a biased sample of 28 games russell missed from 58-69 that leaves out the 16-8 record boston had in the 56-57 season in 24 games russell missed

[70sFan]

it would've been more impressive if he scored more points

Now we are down to our philosophical difference. If a dynastic team is built around a player then a dynastic team is built around a player. How this is achieved is irrelevant imo in what is a team sport.

You are also prone to changing your ground/shifting horses as others have said.

I can obviously come up with arguments to discredit Olajuwon’s titles which include a rather prominent HOFer but such arguments would be spuriious, I personally give him great credit including for reasons you mention but the bottom line is that like all title winners he beat everyone who turned up to play him; in his case in addition he played wonderfully well himself.

what's more likely: hakeem wins 11 in russell's place or russell wins with hakeem's 94 roster?

Definitely Russell with 1994 Rockets. People act like Russell was Ben Wallace on offense, but he averaged 20 ppg on +3% rTS in 1960-63 period in playoffs. His offensive peak (1962) was quite good, he dominated in the finals and did really good job against Wilt in ECF.

Neither is likely because Houston was built around Hakeem's iso scoring, which Russell didn't have, but if I have to choose, Russell has much better chance of winning one with 1994 Rockets than Hakeem winning 11 out of 13.9

[70sFan]

don't know what you mean by "approval." i'm not denying he was very good

My point is that it is hard to see how he could have done anything more impressive than winning 11 titles as the leader of a team. It was a different era and should be and very likely is Impossible to replicate in this era or Olajuwon’s era.

Olajuwon’s titles are obviously very impressive as well in his era, but I don’t understand why you are intent on dying on a hill to compare what can’t really be compared, particularly by bringing the number of HOF players on a team into it.

it would've been more impressive if he scored more points

It wouldn't. He did everything to impact the game as much as he could and that resulted in absurd 11/13 rings (one loss is when Russell was injured). I know that scoring is the most exciting part of basketball for most fans, but it doesn't matter how you impact the game as long as your impact is higher.

It's like saying that Jordan isn't impressive enough because he didn't average 10 apg. What would that change?

[post]

Now we are down to our philosophical difference. If a dynastic team is built around a player then a dynastic team is built around a player. How this is achieved is irrelevant imo in what is a team sport.

You are also prone to changing your ground/shifting horses as others have said.

I can obviously come up with arguments to discredit Olajuwon’s titles which include a rather prominent HOFer but such arguments would be spuriious, I personally give him great credit including for reasons you mention but the bottom line is that like all title winners he beat everyone who turned up to play him; in his case in addition he played wonderfully well himself.

what's more likely: hakeem wins 11 in russell's place or russell wins with hakeem's 94 roster?

Definitely Russell with 1994 Rockets. People act like Russell was Ben Wallace on offense, but he averaged 20 ppg on +3% rTS in 1960-63 period in playoffs. His offensive peak (1962) was quite good, he dominated in the finals and did really good job against Wilt in ECF.

Neither is likely because Houston was built around Hakeem's iso scoring, which Russell didn't have, but if I have to choose, Russell has much better chance of winning one with 1994 Rockets than Hakeem winning 11 out of 13.9

neither is likely according to you but "definitely" it's more likely russell wins in hakeem's place because occasionally he could average 20 ppg in an era where ppg were inflated a lot relative to 93-94 season. russell might not be ben wallace but he's not scoring anywhere close to 29 ppg like hakeem did for the 94 playoffs and 27 against the legendary knicks defense in the finals

[freethedevil]

that's a valid position

my opinion is russell would have a hard time scoring enough to lead the 94 rockets to a championship over the knicks defense which was one of the best of all time. hakeem's ability to dominate on both ends of the floor makes it more likely in my opinion he wins 11 chips in russell's place

only issue with your theory is hakeem wasn't as good as he was during those two championships as he was for the entirety of his career.

For Hakeem to match Russell he would need 11 seasons of +4-+6.5 impact. Hakeem straight up wasn't as good as he was during his best season for the vast majority of his career.

He didn’t miss much time in his career, so WOWY numbers are hard to come by. Journalists and teammates always claimed that the Celtics fell apart without him; Boston was a 35-win team (-1.9 SRS) in 28 games he missed from 1958-69, and for the other 915 games of his career they played at a 59-win pace (6.4 SRS). This is a tiny piece of evidence – the years are spread out, teams change, and so on — but it echoes the same story as Russell’s other value signals.

That's atg level impact for a massive stretch of time, and ofc, liek hakeem, in his best years, russell was more impactful. He took average teams to being way better than any other team in his era for a 4 year stretch as opposed to hakeem taking bad teams to being championship teams for a two year stretch.

There is zero chance hakeem wins 11 titles, there's a decent chance russell wins more than 2.

i have no clue where you are getting the numbers +4-+6.5 from.

srs differential, it uses historical pm studies, wowy, to estimate the impact for older players and it uses modern apm for newer players.

I'm taking out the subjectivity of portability(which hurts hakeem btw)

Russell has 6 seasons of +6 value and 3 of +6.5 value. He has 8 of +5.5 value and 9 at +5. All 13 of his seaosns were at +4.5 and all but 1 of his titles were at +5.

Hakeem has one season at +7, two at +6.5(both of those resulted in championships btw) and 5 seasons of +6. He has 7 seasons of +5.5, 8 seasons of +5 and only 9 of his seasons were even +4.

So right off the bat, hakeem has 8 seasons at the minimum level russell needed to play at to win 10 of his 11 titles. Even if we just dispel it down to induvidual impact, hakeem lacks the capability to hit 10, and in all likely hood he loses other titles because he has less of those seasons than russell at every level russell got an additional championship at. From the russell level or russell+seasons, hakeem already won titles.


Russell was the best or second best player in the league literally every season he played, hakeem was not.

There's frankly no way to argue for hakeem.

Statstically, russell's career was signifcantly more valuable

In terms of accoaldes, russell is pretty easily the most decorated player in history

Team success, no one touches russell

Intangibles? Russell won b2b titles over an overwhelming favorite as a player coach