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

[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

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?

i'm not saying he didn't do what he was capable of, i'm saying if he could play even somewhat like hakeem on offense it would be more impressive. it's not about some superficial attachment to scoring being exciting, it's about appreciating the goat level skill hakeem had on offense and it's ability to win with little help

[70sFan]

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

And Hakeem is likely to go 11/13 because of what? He naver came close to winning anything in late 90s when he had decent supporting cast.

Russell wouldn't score 29 ppg but he could impact game in different ways.

[70sFan]

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?

i'm not saying he didn't do what he was capable of, i'm saying if he could play even somewhat like hakeem on offense it would be more impressive. it's not about some superficial attachment to scoring being exciting, it's about appreciating the goat level skill hakeem had on offense and it's ability to win with little help

But firstly, Hakeem isn't GOAT-level offensive player. I appreciate centers as offensive anchors as much as anyone, but he's not close to offensive GOAT. Rockets won mainly because of defense (which is because Hakeem BTW).

Secondly, Russell wasn't the scorer Hakeem was but he could impact the game in different ways. He was definitely a better passer, he was elite transition player and he also has edge on the glasses. Russell wouldn't be outrebounded by Ewing for example, it's highly unlikely.

[post]

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.



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

i don't have the interest in learning more new hyper complex stats. it gets crazy after a while and sometimes they tell you different things depending on what stat you use. i've learned some of it over time but i honestly don't have the passion for it some of you do so i can't comment at all on whether what you're saying is convincing or even if you are getting your numbers right, which you've already shown more than once you are incapable of doing

perhaps the good old fashioned eye test is the best way to argue for hakeem over russell as opposed to an infinite maze of math. watch them play and then tell me who is better. i say hakeem

[post]

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

And Hakeem is likely to go 11/13 because of what? He naver came close to winning anything in late 90s when he had decent supporting cast.

Russell wouldn't score 29 ppg but he could impact game in different ways.

based on the eye test hakeem is better than russell

late 90's hakeem was mostly well past his peak and prime and washed up. it happens to everybody

[audiosway]

And by the way -- there's nobody who won all 11 of those championships with Russell. No teammates. No coach either.

This! Then, there is the fact that Russell was a starting player AND head coach for one of those titles also. One of my all time favorite players. He doesn't get mentioned enough.

[post]

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?

i'm not saying he didn't do what he was capable of, i'm saying if he could play even somewhat like hakeem on offense it would be more impressive. it's not about some superficial attachment to scoring being exciting, it's about appreciating the goat level skill hakeem had on offense and it's ability to win with little help

But firstly, Hakeem isn't GOAT-level offensive player. I appreciate centers as offensive anchors as much as anyone, but he's not close to offensive GOAT. Rockets won mainly because of defense (which is because Hakeem BTW).

Secondly, Russell wasn't the scorer Hakeem was but he could impact the game in different ways. He was definitely a better passer, he was elite transition player and he also has edge on the glasses. Russell wouldn't be outrebounded by Ewing for example, it's highly unlikely.

the eye test says he is definitely in contention for goat level offense and defense

hakeem became a better, more willing passer throughout his career. if he started out on the celtics with their emphasis on passing and more talent hakeem probably would've become a better passer sooner from trusting his teammates. i don't know if he would've equaled russell. maybe

russell can outrebound ewing but they are still going to lose from lack of scoring

[Fencer reregistered]

And by the way -- there's nobody who won all 11 of those championships with Russell. No teammates. No coach either.

This! Then, there is the fact that Russell was a starting player AND head coach for one of those titles also. One of my all time favorite players. He doesn't get mentioned enough.

Two titles as coach. That's actually tied for secondmost in Celtics history with Heinsohn and Jones, while Fitch and Rivers have one each. Auerbach coached the other 9 himself.

[Fencer reregistered]

russell can outrebound ewing but they are still going to lose from lack of scoring

I'm not sure that Ewing was that much better of an offensive player than Russell. He certainly scored more, but Russell was the better distributor. And Ewing sure looked pretty plodding and mechanical to the eye. Ewing's volume scoring numbers are certainly much higher than Russell's (Russell only had 3 postseasons in which he had a 30-pt game), but his advanced offensive stats look pretty lame, at least in the postseason.

[70sFan]

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

And Hakeem is likely to go 11/13 because of what? He naver came close to winning anything in late 90s when he had decent supporting cast.

Russell wouldn't score 29 ppg but he could impact game in different ways.

based on the eye test hakeem is better than russell

late 90's hakeem was mostly well past his peak and prime and washed up. it happens to everybody

How many Russell games have you seen?

[70sFan]

i'm not saying he didn't do what he was capable of, i'm saying if he could play even somewhat like hakeem on offense it would be more impressive. it's not about some superficial attachment to scoring being exciting, it's about appreciating the goat level skill hakeem had on offense and it's ability to win with little help

But firstly, Hakeem isn't GOAT-level offensive player. I appreciate centers as offensive anchors as much as anyone, but he's not close to offensive GOAT. Rockets won mainly because of defense (which is because Hakeem BTW).

Secondly, Russell wasn't the scorer Hakeem was but he could impact the game in different ways. He was definitely a better passer, he was elite transition player and he also has edge on the glasses. Russell wouldn't be outrebounded by Ewing for example, it's highly unlikely.

the eye test says he is definitely in contention for goat level offense and defense

hakeem became a better, more willing passer throughout his career. if he started out on the celtics with their emphasis on passing and more talent hakeem probably would've become a better passer sooner from trusting his teammates. i don't know if he would've equaled russell. maybe

russell can outrebound ewing but they are still going to lose from lack of scoring

Sometimes eye-test is not enough. I'm huge defender of eye-test but it's very subjective. Besides, Hakeem was still only decent passer at his peak by eye-test and he's tough shot master a la Kobe, but not as efficient as other greats. Kareem was clearly better offensive player than him for example - better scorer and better passer.

Russell would give Rockets more passing, better rebounding and even better defense. I'm not sure if that would be enough to win the finals, but it's still more likely than Hakeem winning 11 rings. I mean it's not like Russell played with superstars - Cousy was washed up by 1960 and Jones/Havlicek in the mid-60s weren't better than someone like 1995 Drexler for example. You also underrate Hakeem's supporting cast - Thorpe was legit all-star level player and they have the best spacing in the league. This team was built around Hakeem's iso scoring. Russell's Celtics were built around Russell's defensive rebounding and transition game. Hakeem wasn't as good in transition as Russell, he was also more foul-prone and Celtics usually didn't have backup center (until Wayne Embry in late 60s). I don't agree that Hakeem would suit Celtics well.

[JonFromVA]

walton and olajuwon won 1 each with 0 hofers

russell won 11 with 2-5 hofers

Russ was a unique superstar in that he didn't dominate his team's offensive possessions. He was about winning, not stat hording. With a fast pace fast break offense that was ahead of its time ... there was plenty of scoring to spread around.

If Walton had stayed healthy and won 11 rings he'd have ended up playing with more HOFers pretty much by definition because helping a team win championships is a HOF factor.

[dhsilv2]

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?

i'm not saying he didn't do what he was capable of, i'm saying if he could play even somewhat like hakeem on offense it would be more impressive. it's not about some superficial attachment to scoring being exciting, it's about appreciating the goat level skill hakeem had on offense and it's ability to win with little help

So you'd want him to be a vastly worst passer and to score more points in iso...which given the celtic's team, would have made their offense worse? Meanwhile hakeem who is an elite defender doesn't come CLOSE and I mean it isn't close defensively...defense as they say wins championships.

[dhsilv2]

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

i don't have the interest in learning more new hyper complex stats. it gets crazy after a while and sometimes they tell you different things depending on what stat you use. i've learned some of it over time but i honestly don't have the passion for it some of you do so i can't comment at all on whether what you're saying is convincing or even if you are getting your numbers right, which you've already shown more than once you are incapable of doing

perhaps the good old fashioned eye test is the best way to argue for hakeem over russell as opposed to an infinite maze of math. watch them play and then tell me who is better. i say hakeem

Have you seen enough russell to actually make that statement? Because russell vs his competition was to any eye test I've known (people who have either watched a LOT of game footage, or were alive for it to see in person) clearly more of an outlier than Hakeem was in his era. Russell while not wilt was still so far and away more skilled and athletic than virtually everyone else on the courts he played on it was crazy. More impressive was his absolutely off the chart BBIQ, something hakeem is greatly lacking in.

[freethedevil]

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

And Hakeem is likely to go 11/13 because of what? He naver came close to winning anything in late 90s when he had decent supporting cast.

Russell wouldn't score 29 ppg but he could impact game in different ways.

based on the eye test

Anyone with a good eyetest can competently back up their beliefs by breaking down granular data. So go ahead, Imma wait. Show us your eyetest is worth paying attention to.

[post]

russell can outrebound ewing but they are still going to lose from lack of scoring

I'm not sure that Ewing was that much better of an offensive player than Russell. He certainly scored more, but Russell was the better distributor. And Ewing sure looked pretty plodding and mechanical to the eye. Ewing's volume scoring numbers are certainly much higher than Russell's (Russell only had 3 postseasons in which he had a 30-pt game), but his advanced offensive stats look pretty lame, at least in the postseason.

yeah, i don't know. maybe. my point was about houston losing with russell from being unable to replicate hakeem's scoring

[post]

And Hakeem is likely to go 11/13 because of what? He naver came close to winning anything in late 90s when he had decent supporting cast.

Russell wouldn't score 29 ppg but he could impact game in different ways.

based on the eye test hakeem is better than russell

late 90's hakeem was mostly well past his peak and prime and washed up. it happens to everybody

How many Russell games have you seen?

not as many as hakeem but enough to have some idea

[post]

But firstly, Hakeem isn't GOAT-level offensive player. I appreciate centers as offensive anchors as much as anyone, but he's not close to offensive GOAT. Rockets won mainly because of defense (which is because Hakeem BTW).

Secondly, Russell wasn't the scorer Hakeem was but he could impact the game in different ways. He was definitely a better passer, he was elite transition player and he also has edge on the glasses. Russell wouldn't be outrebounded by Ewing for example, it's highly unlikely.

the eye test says he is definitely in contention for goat level offense and defense

hakeem became a better, more willing passer throughout his career. if he started out on the celtics with their emphasis on passing and more talent hakeem probably would've become a better passer sooner from trusting his teammates. i don't know if he would've equaled russell. maybe

russell can outrebound ewing but they are still going to lose from lack of scoring

Sometimes eye-test is not enough. I'm huge defender of eye-test but it's very subjective. Besides, Hakeem was still only decent passer at his peak by eye-test and he's tough shot master a la Kobe, but not as efficient as other greats. Kareem was clearly better offensive player than him for example - better scorer and better passer.

Russell would give Rockets more passing, better rebounding and even better defense. I'm not sure if that would be enough to win the finals, but it's still more likely than Hakeem winning 11 rings. I mean it's not like Russell played with superstars - Cousy was washed up by 1960 and Jones/Havlicek in the mid-60s weren't better than someone like 1995 Drexler for example. You also underrate Hakeem's supporting cast - Thorpe was legit all-star level player and they have the best spacing in the league. This team was built around Hakeem's iso scoring. Russell's Celtics were built around Russell's defensive rebounding and transition game. Hakeem wasn't as good in transition as Russell, he was also more foul-prone and Celtics usually didn't have backup center (until Wayne Embry in late 60s). I don't agree that Hakeem would suit Celtics well.

by eye test i'm not sure there's a difference between peak hakeem and russell as a passer

hakeem's peak playoff true shooting percentage was higher than kareem's and his career playoff true shooting percentage is almost identical. kareem and hakeem had an almost identical per 36 minutes points per game in the playoffs. passing kareem might've had a slight advantage but by the eye test skill set scoring wise hakeem is unparalleled

based on eye test and some advanced stats i don't think russell was necessarily superior to hakeem on defense

cousy's most valuable asset was passing. in the 60, 61, and 62 playoffs cousy averaged well over his career playoff assists per 36 minutes. overall as a player he was far from washed up in the playoffs in 60

it's arguable havlicek and jones were better in the mid 60's than drexler in 96 playoffs. either way you'd rather have mid 60's havlicek and jones than 96 playoffs drexler and horry when hakeem was going for the 3 peat

otis thorpe was not an all star

eye test says hakeem had the speed, athleticism, and ball handling to do whatever russell could in transition

hakeem fouled .6 more per game in the playoffs than russell in his career. not a trivial difference, but not noteworthy

[post]

walton and olajuwon won 1 each with 0 hofers

russell won 11 with 2-5 hofers

Russ was a unique superstar in that he didn't dominate his team's offensive possessions. He was about winning, not stat hording. With a fast pace fast break offense that was ahead of its time ... there was plenty of scoring to spread around.

If Walton had stayed healthy and won 11 rings he'd have ended up playing with more HOFers pretty much by definition because helping a team win championships is a HOF factor.

if there was plenty of scoring to go around russell had to carry less of a scoring burden than hakeem to win which makes hakeem look more impressive

perhaps walton would've played with hall of famers. that's hypothetical and doesn't change that he won with none

[post]

And Hakeem is likely to go 11/13 because of what? He naver came close to winning anything in late 90s when he had decent supporting cast.

Russell wouldn't score 29 ppg but he could impact game in different ways.

based on the eye test

Anyone with a good eyetest can competently back up their beliefs by breaking down granular data. So go ahead, Imma wait. Show us your eyetest is worth paying attention to.

you keep on believing that if it helps you sleep at night