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

[michaelm]

I can't wait for 2050 when people look back at the 2011 Celtics like "Well they had Pierce, KG, Shaq, and Ray Allen, and somehow those four Hall of Famers being together didn't win a title" Or "Ya, that Dirk guy was impressive but look at all the hall of famers he had, Kidd, Marion, Stojakovic, that team was loaded with guys, the Heat didn't stand a chance."

Because that's what this conversation feels like. A bunch of younger people looking back and just assuming that because someone made the hall of fame they played like a hall of famer from the second they stepped on the court as a rookie until the day they left the court after their last game.

Can we please stop downplaying what Bill Russell did. He dominated the league he was in. Yes there were less teams but that means the talent is more condensed and every team was rolling out multiple all stars and future hall of famers. He won 11 championships while dealing with rampant racism in his personal and professional life, not to mention every team in the league was gunning for them every year. It's one of the reasons I have Bill as the top guy of all time.

As great as MJ, Lebron, Kareem, or whoever else you want to put up there are, when they're coaching themselves to championships 10 and 11 is the moment I'll put them above Bill as the greatest basketball player of all time.

Absolutely. Did Bill win 11 titles because he had hall of famers on his team, or did those guys become hall of famers because they played with Bill ?.

[dhsilv2]

iverson is one of the best scorers ever. i don't have a personal top 10 list and don't know what shaq's list was so i won't comment further

shaq might not have been peak but he was definitely prime. either way shaq was intimidating and got in people's heads. it's debatable when hakeem's peak was

Hakeem's peak offensive season was 93, he peaked as a defender in the late 80's...

And no, Iverson was an inefficient scorer, there's a good case that Mutombo was the better player on the 76ers team that made the finals.

I thought his peak effiency was 2 points above league average

2001 he shot exactly at the league TS% in the regular season and then about 3.8% below the league regular season average in the playoffs (I know that lazy way out on the playoff TS%). So I guess you could say he was a league average scorer but we're comparing him to the best scorers, not the league average.

[post]

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

If you don't think there is a difference between them in terms of passing, then try to rewatch some games.

Hakeem averaged 57.3% TS in 1986-95 period and 56.4% in his peak offensive years (1993-95). Kareem averaged 62.0% TS in his peak offensive years (1977-80) and he averaged 57.0% in 1970-80 period in much less efficient league on average. So no, Hakeem isn't close to Kareem as a scorer. Nor as a passer. I know that many people have Kobe over James because of "eye-test" because Kobe is more flashy. Hakeem is more flashy, but he's not better post player than Kareem. Watch some 1977 or 1980 Kareem games, he was the most unstoppable bigman in NBA history.

What advanced stats do you have for Russell's defense? Win shares?

Cousy was also the worst volume scorer in NBA history in that period. He averaged 15.5 ppg on 33.5% FG and 39.9% TS. He wasn't a scrub, but he wasn't a star anymore and it can be argued that he was negative on offense overall.

Maybe they were better than Drexler, but Russell never had them when they were both better. Hondo started his breakthrough in 1968 when Sam Jones was already past his prime. Before Havlicek was good, but limited offensive player.

Otis Thorpe was an all-star in 1992. He averaged 16/10 on 59% TS and very good defense in Houston. How is that not an all-star production? You praise old Cousy and Heinsohn but Thorpe was likely better than either of them, even relative to their eras.

Eye test also shows that Hakeem didn't run in transition that much and I haven't seen him hitting open guys in transition. Hakeem had abilities to play that way, but he didn't have attitude for that.

Hakeem's fouls rate is 3.5 per36 minutes. Russell was at 2.6 per36, the difference of one foul per 36 is huge. Hakeem with Russell's 45 mpg in playoffs would average almost 4.4 fouls per game, that's a lot.

i've seen russell make nice passes. i've seen hakeem make nice passes. i never saw russell make a pass hakeem couldn't. i was never wowed by any of their passes. they were solid, nice passes finding the open cutter or passing out of a double team to jump shooters. the best pass i saw hakeem make is arguably better than the best pass i saw russell make

hakeem's 3 year playoff peak is not 93-95, it's 86-88 when his true shooting percentage was 62.2% and averaged per 36 minutes 25.2, 27.0, and 33.3 ppg. kareem's 3 year playoff peak is 76-79 when his true shooting percentage was 60.2 and averaged per 36 minutes 29.4, 21.8, and 22.4 ppg. so hakeem scored more and at a higher efficiency and the league average field goal percentage was only .9 percentage points higher in that 3 year stretch

no, hakeem beats every center i've ever seen in the offensive eye test. he had more skill that could counter whatever defenses threw at him

not win shares, points per game defense impact advanced stat

in the 62 and 63 playoffs cousy shot 1.3 percentage points higher from the field than his career playoff average. to knock him for that is flat out wrong and your numbers are wrong

i'll give you one example that russell had havlicek and jones when they were both better than drexler. i could give you others. in the 65-66 season, or the 66 playoffs in other words, jones averaged 24.8 ppg and havlicek averaged 23.6 ppg. in the 95 playoffs hakeem won a chip with drexler averaging 20.5 ppg

otis thorpe did not make the all star team the year hakeem won a chip with zero hofers. his ppg dropped from 17 when he made the all star team in 92 to 14 in the year hakeem won a chip with zero hofers. his playoff ppg dropped further from 14 to 11.3 in the playoffs in the zero hofer year. that's why otis thorpe is not an all star. so not only did hakeem not have a hofer when he beat the knicks for a chip, he didn't even have an all star

game 3 of the 95 nba finals. hakeem passes to horry in transition for a layup. hakeem scores 4 points in transition. that's just the game i most recently rewatched and it proves you wrong. he was mostly an iso scorer, but then again russell was mostly not that much of a scorer period

let's assume hakeem fouls more. he is also going to score more because he is more skilled. 1 more foul is not going to cause boston to lose when hakeem is going to score more than russell

[post]

Hakeem's peak offensive season was 93, he peaked as a defender in the late 80's...

And no, Iverson was an inefficient scorer, there's a good case that Mutombo was the better player on the 76ers team that made the finals.

shaq per 36 minutes in the 95 playoffs, when hakeem beat him, scored 1 ppg less than in the 2002 playoffs per 36 minutes, the third chip in shaq's 3peat. shaq was very close to peak against hakeem. hakeem peaked scoring wise in the 88 playoffs averaging 10 points more per 36 minutes than his career points per 36 minutes in the playoffs

there is zero case for mutombo over iverson that year

Zero? Dude...you really don't understand the importance of defense in basketball. You're comically over valuing scoring and missing that defense and passing are far more scalable and are far FAR more important especially when talking about winning multiple titles.

let me guess, your next argument will be dennis rodman was the better player on the second jordan 3peat or something equally ridiculous. just stop

[dhsilv2]

shaq per 36 minutes in the 95 playoffs, when hakeem beat him, scored 1 ppg less than in the 2002 playoffs per 36 minutes, the third chip in shaq's 3peat. shaq was very close to peak against hakeem. hakeem peaked scoring wise in the 88 playoffs averaging 10 points more per 36 minutes than his career points per 36 minutes in the playoffs

there is zero case for mutombo over iverson that year

Zero? Dude...you really don't understand the importance of defense in basketball. You're comically over valuing scoring and missing that defense and passing are far more scalable and are far FAR more important especially when talking about winning multiple titles.

let me guess, your next argument will be dennis rodman was the better player on the second jordan 3peat or something equally ridiculous. just stop

Why would I say that? is there a case for it? I haven't seen one.

We know NPI RAPM had Deke's impact higher than Iverson's. We know that team was an average regular season offense. We know they made the finals on the back of their defense and we know Iveron's shooting was down right bad in the playoffs. We know the 76ers did better with Deke on the floor in the playoffs than Iverson.

Not the same thing with Rodman...

[dhsilv2]

hakeem's 3 year playoff peak is not 93-95, it's 86-88 when his true shooting percentage was 62.2% and averaged per 36 minutes 25.2, 27.0, and 33.3 ppg. kareem's 3 year playoff peak is 76-79 when his true shooting percentage was 60.2 and averaged per 36 minutes 29.4, 21.8, and 22.4 ppg. so hakeem scored more and at a higher efficiency and the league average field goal percentage was only .9 percentage points higher in that 3 year stretch

Hakeem's assist percentage was 9.1 during that "peak". That is blackhole level offense. No great offense will ever function with that version of Hakeem. Hakeem did not have even good court vision, he consistently his entire career missed even easy passes that would have improved the teams offense. Of course we all know that those rockets were lacking skill which is a factor here, so lets not act like anyone is unaware of their limitations, but hakeem would just put his head down and attack and attack without paying attention to his teammates. That is the kind of bad offensive ability that doesn't scale and doesn't lead to nba titles.

It wasn't until Rudy came and created spacing and got shooters to buy into working to make passing lanes and line of sight passing lanes easier for hakeem that he started to look like an average passer, and he never looked better than average, despite the entire offense behind designed around helping his limitations there. Russell was an elite passer who had far better court vision, knew where teammates were and hit them in motion.

[JonFromVA]

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

The goal is winning not scoring and fact is in most cases you get more out of your teammates if you can help them shine rather than trying to carry the whole load.

Russ and Wilt taught us that dichotomy long ago, but seems it must be constantly relearned.

If Russ could just slow down Wilt, it became a battle of the "others" and Russ's troops were ready to contribute.

yes, the goal is winning, and my point lately, if you've been paying attention, has been it's more likely hakeem could win in russell's place than russell could win in hakeem's place

The thing is, we can never know that. So I'm more impressed by what Russ actually did in his own era. Winning multiple championships is hard enough ... but doing so without the same level of training/medical support, air travel, "load management", and dealing with racism?

Heck, the one time the Celtics lost in the finals with Russ, a major factor was a severe sprained ankle that Russell suffered. Otoh, the winningest team in NBA history just failed to win in the finals 2x in no small part due to injuries. The year before he arrived and the year he left ... the Celtics were nothing special.

What Russ did with the Celtics was a staggering feat and there's just no reason to diminish it.

[mplsfonz23]

So what's the question?

11 rings no matter what. Easy.

[post]

I can't wait for 2050 when people look back at the 2011 Celtics like "Well they had Pierce, KG, Shaq, and Ray Allen, and somehow those four Hall of Famers being together didn't win a title" Or "Ya, that Dirk guy was impressive but look at all the hall of famers he had, Kidd, Marion, Stojakovic, that team was loaded with guys, the Heat didn't stand a chance."

Because that's what this conversation feels like. A bunch of younger people looking back and just assuming that because someone made the hall of fame they played like a hall of famer from the second they stepped on the court as a rookie until the day they left the court after their last game.

Can we please stop downplaying what Bill Russell did. He dominated the league he was in. Yes there were less teams but that means the talent is more condensed and every team was rolling out multiple all stars and future hall of famers. He won 11 championships while dealing with rampant racism in his personal and professional life, not to mention every team in the league was gunning for them every year. It's one of the reasons I have Bill as the top guy of all time.

As great as MJ, Lebron, Kareem, or whoever else you want to put up there are, when they're coaching themselves to championships 10 and 11 is the moment I'll put them above Bill as the greatest basketball player of all time.

the 2011 celtics are irrelevant just like the stockton/malone jazz because the argument i'm making has nothing to do with teams who didn't win chips

i'm not assuming every hofer was playing like a hofer every year. teams that win the chip almost never have less than 2 players that make the hof. it's a rough standard for how much talent a team has that i never heard anyone else mention. it's an interesting fact. is it subject to criticism? of course, everything is. if you actually read the thread you'll see how i'm addressing all kinds of points people are making

kidd is already in the hall. dirk had a lot more help than hakeem

no, every team was not rolling out multiple hall of famers and boston had more than other teams. i already addressed that. try actually reading the thread

[celtics543]

I can't wait for 2050 when people look back at the 2011 Celtics like "Well they had Pierce, KG, Shaq, and Ray Allen, and somehow those four Hall of Famers being together didn't win a title" Or "Ya, that Dirk guy was impressive but look at all the hall of famers he had, Kidd, Marion, Stojakovic, that team was loaded with guys, the Heat didn't stand a chance."

Because that's what this conversation feels like. A bunch of younger people looking back and just assuming that because someone made the hall of fame they played like a hall of famer from the second they stepped on the court as a rookie until the day they left the court after their last game.

Can we please stop downplaying what Bill Russell did. He dominated the league he was in. Yes there were less teams but that means the talent is more condensed and every team was rolling out multiple all stars and future hall of famers. He won 11 championships while dealing with rampant racism in his personal and professional life, not to mention every team in the league was gunning for them every year. It's one of the reasons I have Bill as the top guy of all time.

As great as MJ, Lebron, Kareem, or whoever else you want to put up there are, when they're coaching themselves to championships 10 and 11 is the moment I'll put them above Bill as the greatest basketball player of all time.

the 2011 celtics are irrelevant just like the stockton/malone jazz because the argument i'm making has nothing to do with teams who didn't win chips

i'm not assuming every hofer was playing like a hofer every year. teams that win the chip almost never have less than 2 players that make the hof. it's a rough standard for how much talent a team has that i never heard anyone else mention. it's an interesting fact. is it subject to criticism? of course, everything is. if you actually read the thread you'll see how i'm addressing all kinds of points people are making

kidd is already in the hall. dirk had a lot more help than hakeem

no, every team was not rolling out multiple hall of famers and boston had more than other teams. i already addressed that. try actually reading the thread

Look if you want to get snarky then Hakeems' 1 chip without a hall of fame teammate came because Jordan decided to go play baseball. So take the best player out of the league and you'd have weaker teams win championships. If Jordan never leaves to play baseball then Hakeem probably has no titles at all right now.

I wasn't really responding to your initial post, I was more responding to the people in this thread who are acting like Russell was playing with prime hall of famers for his entire career. Boston had more hall of famers because they won more than other teams. KC Jones for example isn't a hall of famer without the rings.

Dirk had no more help than Hakeem had plus Dirk played a better team in the finals than Hakeem ever had to.

[post]

Zero? Dude...you really don't understand the importance of defense in basketball. You're comically over valuing scoring and missing that defense and passing are far more scalable and are far FAR more important especially when talking about winning multiple titles.

let me guess, your next argument will be dennis rodman was the better player on the second jordan 3peat or something equally ridiculous. just stop

Why would I say that? is there a case for it? I haven't seen one.

We know NPI RAPM had Deke's impact higher than Iverson's. We know that team was an average regular season offense. We know they made the finals on the back of their defense and we know Iveron's shooting was down right bad in the playoffs. We know the 76ers did better with Deke on the floor in the playoffs than Iverson.

Not the same thing with Rodman...

i'm sure whatever npi rapm is says up is down and black is white too

if iverson doesn't score 48 in game 1 the sixers get swept

[dhsilv2]

let me guess, your next argument will be dennis rodman was the better player on the second jordan 3peat or something equally ridiculous. just stop

Why would I say that? is there a case for it? I haven't seen one.

We know NPI RAPM had Deke's impact higher than Iverson's. We know that team was an average regular season offense. We know they made the finals on the back of their defense and we know Iveron's shooting was down right bad in the playoffs. We know the 76ers did better with Deke on the floor in the playoffs than Iverson.

Not the same thing with Rodman...

i'm sure whatever npi rapm is says up is down and black is white too

if iverson doesn't score 48 in game 1 the sixers get swept

They don't win without Deke's 5 blocks and 16 rebounds either...

[post]

hakeem's 3 year playoff peak is not 93-95, it's 86-88 when his true shooting percentage was 62.2% and averaged per 36 minutes 25.2, 27.0, and 33.3 ppg. kareem's 3 year playoff peak is 76-79 when his true shooting percentage was 60.2 and averaged per 36 minutes 29.4, 21.8, and 22.4 ppg. so hakeem scored more and at a higher efficiency and the league average field goal percentage was only .9 percentage points higher in that 3 year stretch

Hakeem's assist percentage was 9.1 during that "peak". That is blackhole level offense. No great offense will ever function with that version of Hakeem. Hakeem did not have even good court vision, he consistently his entire career missed even easy passes that would have improved the teams offense. Of course we all know that those rockets were lacking skill which is a factor here, so lets not act like anyone is unaware of their limitations, but hakeem would just put his head down and attack and attack without paying attention to his teammates. That is the kind of bad offensive ability that doesn't scale and doesn't lead to nba titles.

It wasn't until Rudy came and created spacing and got shooters to buy into working to make passing lanes and line of sight passing lanes easier for hakeem that he started to look like an average passer, and he never looked better than average, despite the entire offense behind designed around helping his limitations there. Russell was an elite passer who had far better court vision, knew where teammates were and hit them in motion.

kareem's assist percentage was 9.0 in 71 when he won a chip with oscar robertson. shaq's assist percentage was higher in 95 when he lost to hakeem than during his lakers 3peat. meaningless stat

jordan scored 43.7 ppg in the 86 playoffs.that year his assist percentage was higher than every year of the second bulls 3peat. meaningless stat

people create narratives to mold reality in their mind whatever way they want. i'd say there's a 50/50 chance you don't even believe most of what you are saying

[post]

Why would I say that? is there a case for it? I haven't seen one.

We know NPI RAPM had Deke's impact higher than Iverson's. We know that team was an average regular season offense. We know they made the finals on the back of their defense and we know Iveron's shooting was down right bad in the playoffs. We know the 76ers did better with Deke on the floor in the playoffs than Iverson.

Not the same thing with Rodman...

i'm sure whatever npi rapm is says up is down and black is white too

if iverson doesn't score 48 in game 1 the sixers get swept

They don't win without Deke's 5 blocks and 16 rebounds either...

it's easier to grab a rebound and block a shot than it is to create your own offense through scoring, especially when nobody else on your team demonstrates an ability to consistently create offense at anything resembling a high level at any point in their career

[dhsilv2]

hakeem's 3 year playoff peak is not 93-95, it's 86-88 when his true shooting percentage was 62.2% and averaged per 36 minutes 25.2, 27.0, and 33.3 ppg. kareem's 3 year playoff peak is 76-79 when his true shooting percentage was 60.2 and averaged per 36 minutes 29.4, 21.8, and 22.4 ppg. so hakeem scored more and at a higher efficiency and the league average field goal percentage was only .9 percentage points higher in that 3 year stretch

Hakeem's assist percentage was 9.1 during that "peak". That is blackhole level offense. No great offense will ever function with that version of Hakeem. Hakeem did not have even good court vision, he consistently his entire career missed even easy passes that would have improved the teams offense. Of course we all know that those rockets were lacking skill which is a factor here, so lets not act like anyone is unaware of their limitations, but hakeem would just put his head down and attack and attack without paying attention to his teammates. That is the kind of bad offensive ability that doesn't scale and doesn't lead to nba titles.

It wasn't until Rudy came and created spacing and got shooters to buy into working to make passing lanes and line of sight passing lanes easier for hakeem that he started to look like an average passer, and he never looked better than average, despite the entire offense behind designed around helping his limitations there. Russell was an elite passer who had far better court vision, knew where teammates were and hit them in motion.

kareem's assist percentage was 9.0 in 71 when he won a chip with oscar robertson. shaq's assist percentage was higher in 95 when he lost to hakeem than during his lakers 3peat. meaningless stat

jordan scored 43.7 ppg in the 86 playoffs.that year his assist percentage was higher than every year of the second bulls 3peat. meaningless stat

people create narratives to mold reality in their mind whatever way they want. i'd say there's a 50/50 chance you don't even believe most of what you are saying

Jordan played 3 games in 86, why would you reference a 3 game sample? Even kareem in 71 was 14 games. I'm discussing a 34 game sample.

This is why you need to use an eye test and frankly, I don't think there's any chance you've watched any of these playoff games or series in the last 5 years. go back and watch them and explain what you're seeing and why I'm more critical of Hakeem's play than the two.

Honestly, I think you've watched too many hakeem youtube highlights and have forgotten or weren't really aware of what you see seeing in the 80's. It's almost impossible to believe someone thinks Hakeem was a comparable passer to kareem or Russell.

[dhsilv2]

i'm sure whatever npi rapm is says up is down and black is white too

if iverson doesn't score 48 in game 1 the sixers get swept

They don't win without Deke's 5 blocks and 16 rebounds either...

it's easier to grab a rebound and block a shot than it is to create your own offense through scoring, especially when nobody else on your team demonstrates an ability to consistently create offense at anything resembling a high level at any point in their career

What evidence do you have for any of that? The reality is that team needed both players to play nearly perfectly to have a chance to win any games against that lakers team. But scoring on volume is not harder than anchoring a defense. There have been far more players to post high impact scoring seasons than equally high defensive teams to Deke that year. Scoring at a level of impact similar to Deke is historically significant, offense at the level of Iverson's is great but very common.

[70sFan]

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

If you don't think there is a difference between them in terms of passing, then try to rewatch some games.

Hakeem averaged 57.3% TS in 1986-95 period and 56.4% in his peak offensive years (1993-95). Kareem averaged 62.0% TS in his peak offensive years (1977-80) and he averaged 57.0% in 1970-80 period in much less efficient league on average. So no, Hakeem isn't close to Kareem as a scorer. Nor as a passer. I know that many people have Kobe over James because of "eye-test" because Kobe is more flashy. Hakeem is more flashy, but he's not better post player than Kareem. Watch some 1977 or 1980 Kareem games, he was the most unstoppable bigman in NBA history.

What advanced stats do you have for Russell's defense? Win shares?

Cousy was also the worst volume scorer in NBA history in that period. He averaged 15.5 ppg on 33.5% FG and 39.9% TS. He wasn't a scrub, but he wasn't a star anymore and it can be argued that he was negative on offense overall.

Maybe they were better than Drexler, but Russell never had them when they were both better. Hondo started his breakthrough in 1968 when Sam Jones was already past his prime. Before Havlicek was good, but limited offensive player.

Otis Thorpe was an all-star in 1992. He averaged 16/10 on 59% TS and very good defense in Houston. How is that not an all-star production? You praise old Cousy and Heinsohn but Thorpe was likely better than either of them, even relative to their eras.

Eye test also shows that Hakeem didn't run in transition that much and I haven't seen him hitting open guys in transition. Hakeem had abilities to play that way, but he didn't have attitude for that.

Hakeem's fouls rate is 3.5 per36 minutes. Russell was at 2.6 per36, the difference of one foul per 36 is huge. Hakeem with Russell's 45 mpg in playoffs would average almost 4.4 fouls per game, that's a lot.

i've seen russell make nice passes. i've seen hakeem make nice passes. i never saw russell make a pass hakeem couldn't. i was never wowed by any of their passes. they were solid, nice passes finding the open cutter or passing out of a double team to jump shooters. the best pass i saw hakeem make is arguably better than the best pass i saw russell make

hakeem's 3 year playoff peak is not 93-95, it's 86-88 when his true shooting percentage was 62.2% and averaged per 36 minutes 25.2, 27.0, and 33.3 ppg. kareem's 3 year playoff peak is 76-79 when his true shooting percentage was 60.2 and averaged per 36 minutes 29.4, 21.8, and 22.4 ppg. so hakeem scored more and at a higher efficiency and the league average field goal percentage was only .9 percentage points higher in that 3 year stretch

no, hakeem beats every center i've ever seen in the offensive eye test. he had more skill that could counter whatever defenses threw at him

not win shares, points per game defense impact advanced stat

in the 62 and 63 playoffs cousy shot 1.3 percentage points higher from the field than his career playoff average. to knock him for that is flat out wrong and your numbers are wrong

i'll give you one example that russell had havlicek and jones when they were both better than drexler. i could give you others. in the 65-66 season, or the 66 playoffs in other words, jones averaged 24.8 ppg and havlicek averaged 23.6 ppg. in the 95 playoffs hakeem won a chip with drexler averaging 20.5 ppg

otis thorpe did not make the all star team the year hakeem won a chip with zero hofers. his ppg dropped from 17 when he made the all star team in 92 to 14 in the year hakeem won a chip with zero hofers. his playoff ppg dropped further from 14 to 11.3 in the playoffs in the zero hofer year. that's why otis thorpe is not an all star. so not only did hakeem not have a hofer when he beat the knicks for a chip, he didn't even have an all star

game 3 of the 95 nba finals. hakeem passes to horry in transition for a layup. hakeem scores 4 points in transition. that's just the game i most recently rewatched and it proves you wrong. he was mostly an iso scorer, but then again russell was mostly not that much of a scorer period

let's assume hakeem fouls more. he is also going to score more because he is more skilled. 1 more foul is not going to cause boston to lose when hakeem is going to score more than russell

If your evaluation of passers is "I've seen both guys making similar passes" then there is no point to discuss this aspect further. It's not about flashy passes, it's about decision making, consistency, vision. That's what is important and Hakeem wasn't like Russell in these aspects. I'm not saying that Russell was Jokic or anything like that, but he's clealry better passer based on eye test.

So Hakeem's offensive peak is 3 first rounds exits? Why? Because he posted big numbers in very small sample of size? He was actually far worse passer, worse shooter and worse post scorer than in mid-90s. The only advantage he had over his older self is offensive rebounding.

Hakeem just isn't the best offensive center ever... he doesn't have any case in fact. Shaq and Kareem were clearly better, they led better offenses, had better numbers and impact metrics. Not to mention that there are others like Wilt, Moses and Duncan - all with excellent cases over Hakeem offensively. I get it that you like Hakeem's style the most, he's very fluid and he had a lot of moves but that doesn't make you better. Shaq, Kareem and Wilt actually fared better against the best defensive teams they faced than Hakeem (and they faced more elite defenses in playoffs careers).

If you mean DRtg, then Russell is clear GOAT and it's not close.

My numbers are not wrong, you can take them from BBallReference. Cousy was terrible scorer in 1960s, absolutely terrible.

I see that your analysis ends at "PPG", have you taken into account how much more efficient Drexler was than 1966 Hondo? Or maybe is it too hard to understand for you?

Thorpe was definitely an all-star level player but again you can't understand that because it requires more knowledge about the game than "PPG".

I don't think I'll have the time and patience for this debate. Believe in whatever you want, but you need to learn so much about basketball before starting threads like this here...

[post]

Hakeem's assist percentage was 9.1 during that "peak". That is blackhole level offense. No great offense will ever function with that version of Hakeem. Hakeem did not have even good court vision, he consistently his entire career missed even easy passes that would have improved the teams offense. Of course we all know that those rockets were lacking skill which is a factor here, so lets not act like anyone is unaware of their limitations, but hakeem would just put his head down and attack and attack without paying attention to his teammates. That is the kind of bad offensive ability that doesn't scale and doesn't lead to nba titles.

It wasn't until Rudy came and created spacing and got shooters to buy into working to make passing lanes and line of sight passing lanes easier for hakeem that he started to look like an average passer, and he never looked better than average, despite the entire offense behind designed around helping his limitations there. Russell was an elite passer who had far better court vision, knew where teammates were and hit them in motion.

kareem's assist percentage was 9.0 in 71 when he won a chip with oscar robertson. shaq's assist percentage was higher in 95 when he lost to hakeem than during his lakers 3peat. meaningless stat

jordan scored 43.7 ppg in the 86 playoffs.that year his assist percentage was higher than every year of the second bulls 3peat. meaningless stat

people create narratives to mold reality in their mind whatever way they want. i'd say there's a 50/50 chance you don't even believe most of what you are saying

Jordan played 3 games in 86, why would you reference a 3 game sample? Even kareem in 71 was 14 games. I'm discussing a 34 game sample.

This is why you need to use an eye test and frankly, I don't think there's any chance you've watched any of these playoff games or series in the last 5 years. go back and watch them and explain what you're seeing and why I'm more critical of Hakeem's play than the two.

Honestly, I think you've watched too many hakeem youtube highlights and have forgotten or weren't really aware of what you see seeing in the 80's. It's almost impossible to believe someone thinks Hakeem was a comparable passer to kareem or Russell.

because it's jordan's peak playoff ppg. his assist percentage was higher in 5 of his first 6 playoffs compared to the last 3peat. even during the first 3peat the concept applies. in 91 jordan had a lower assist percentage than in 89. in 92 it was lower than 4 out of the 6 years before 91, and in 93 it was also lower than in 4 out of 6 years before 91. that's a much larger sample saying the stat means nothing. the shaq sample was 58 games over 3 years. the same general concept applies if you look at kareem's career. the numbers are all over the place for him and show no pattern of assist percentage being higher correlating with winning

career playoff per 36 minutes assists kareem was 3.1 to olajuwon's 2.9. that by itself should tell you there's no great difference. when you factor in kareem played with magic and worthy for the last ten years of his career, which common sense tells you would make it easier to get assists, the stats probably favor hakeem as a playoff passer. a similar concept would apply to russell. when you are passing to hofers a lot of the time it stands to reason your assists are going to be higher than if you are passing to average players or bums like hakeem often was

[Pennebaker]

walton and olajuwon won 1 each with 0 hofers

russell won 11 with 2-5 hofers

11 chips for any reason is more impressive.

[dhsilv2]

kareem's assist percentage was 9.0 in 71 when he won a chip with oscar robertson. shaq's assist percentage was higher in 95 when he lost to hakeem than during his lakers 3peat. meaningless stat

jordan scored 43.7 ppg in the 86 playoffs.that year his assist percentage was higher than every year of the second bulls 3peat. meaningless stat

people create narratives to mold reality in their mind whatever way they want. i'd say there's a 50/50 chance you don't even believe most of what you are saying

Jordan played 3 games in 86, why would you reference a 3 game sample? Even kareem in 71 was 14 games. I'm discussing a 34 game sample.

This is why you need to use an eye test and frankly, I don't think there's any chance you've watched any of these playoff games or series in the last 5 years. go back and watch them and explain what you're seeing and why I'm more critical of Hakeem's play than the two.

Honestly, I think you've watched too many hakeem youtube highlights and have forgotten or weren't really aware of what you see seeing in the 80's. It's almost impossible to believe someone thinks Hakeem was a comparable passer to kareem or Russell.

because it's jordan's peak playoff ppg. his assist percentage was higher in 5 of his first 6 playoffs compared to the last 3peat. even during the first 3peat the concept applies. in 91 jordan had a lower assist percentage than in 89. in 92 it was lower than 4 out of the 6 years before 91, and in 93 it was also lower than in 4 out of 6 years before 91. that's a much larger sample saying the stat means nothing. the shaq sample was 58 games over 3 years. the same general concept applies if you look at kareem's career. the numbers are all over the place for him and show no pattern of assist percentage being higher correlating with winning

career playoff per 36 minutes assists kareem was 3.1 to olajuwon's 2.9. that by itself should tell you there's no great difference. when you factor in kareem played with magic and worthy for the last ten years of his career, which common sense tells you would make it easier to get assists, the stats probably favor hakeem as a playoff passer. a similar concept would apply to russell. when you are passing to hofers a lot of the time it stands to reason your assists are going to be higher than if you are passing to average players or bums like hakeem often was

Editing this

Look assists are a rough way to get an idea of how a player passes. When we know a player is getting double teamed we expect them to get a reasonable amounts of assists. Hakeem's assist numbers at your so called peak were abysmal, worse than any reasonable stretch of Kareem or Jordan's careers. There can be reasons a player scores more or passes less within the offensive system, countering the defense, etc. But over 34 games, 3 playoff years, there's no player putting up assist numbers that poor who was getting more double teams and had more oppertunities to pass out for easy shots than I can think of than Hakeem. He was called then and people still discuss it today, he was a black hole.