Hakeem Olajuwon is beginning to become quite overrated here.

[MiseryCityTexas]

and even if hes considered overrated on these forums, he was still mad underrated in the 90s even after he won them championships, because everyone was still on shaq's, pat ewing's, and alonzo mourning's nuts back in the day.

i means its gonna take awhile for anybody to break hakeem's shot blocking record. especially considering today's standards, because the majority of today's centers are soft as ****, or cant hoop worth ****.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Can you explain me why Sam Jones, Havlicek, Cousy and Heinsohn were not the ones winning multiple MVP's?? You know, when the players themselves voted for MVP, Bill Russell won it 5 times. I guess that were only voting for Bill Russell because they were supposed to.

I never said Jones, Havlicek, Cousy and Heinsohn were better than Russell, but winning a championship is a team accomplishment, particularly when the centerpiece of your team is your 4th option offensively.

In fact in Russell's first MVP season he was 4th on his team in scoring and only 0.1 ppg ahead of 5th place Frank Ramsey(another hall of fame player I forgot). The leading scorer was Bill Sharman(another hall of fame player I forgot). As you see Russell played with so many hall of famers that his 11 championships are the perfect example of why titles are team accomplishments and you have to view them in the right context.

Don't forget that Cousy led the league in assists the first 5 seasons Russell was in the NBA and they were teammates. You also can't forget that Cousy was really the key to their offensive game and Cousy consistently averaged more points than Russell during that time. So is it a stretch to say that Cousy was as valuable for Russell's first 4 or 5 years in the league? That'd make Russell the defensive MVP(who also started a lot of their fastbreaks) and Cousy the offensive MVP for the first few championships.

In Russell's second and fourth MVP season he had 6 hall of fame teammates and he had no less than 5 hall of fame teammates in any of his MVP seasons. Most of the time they were at or around their primes. And Russell's last MVP season was in 1965(when Sam Jones averaged 26 ppg). That leaves 3 Celtic championships after that where you could easily make a case that both Havlicek and Jones were better than Russell. In fact by the time of Russell's last championship he wasn't even averaging double digits in points and that was in the 1960's when the pace was very fast!

So don't act like Russell was the undisputed best player on all 11 titles. They consistently had a great team. Havlicek and Cousy are arguably top 5 at their position. I'm sure some older fans/players would make a case that Sam Jones is a top 5 SG as well. Was Russell the undisputed best player for a while on those teams? Yes, but on more than half of those teams you could make a case for other players.

I've watched as much footage as I've been able to from that era and Russell was a very limited offensive player. I didn't see him score much aside from open dunks. He had an ugly jumper and an aqward hook shot I saw him shoot, but he didn't make those at a particularly good rate. What I did notice is that he ran the floor well for a big man and handled the ball well for that time, but he really was very limtied offensively and he needed a team with a few great scorers on it to be successful. As a result I don't see how he can be ranked ahead of Kareem, Shaq, Wilt and Hakeem who didn't need a certain type of teammate, particularly Shaq, Kareem and Hakeem who won without multiple stars certain years. Watch footage of Russell yourself and honestly tell me he was better than those other 4 centers I mentioned. Offensively I see him somewhere between Mutombo and Ben Wallace. Bigger than Wallace and more athletic than Mutombo though and a better passer(particularly outlet passer) than either.

MVP's are a bad way to judge too. They're always very subjective and it always depends on how lucky you are as far as how many other great seasons players had that year. For example Steve Nash has 2 MVP's.

[MiseryCityTexas]

I completely agree with this. People say "Bill Russell" and "11 rings" as though he was the only one responsible for winning them. Did Russell put the team on his back and carry them to their championships? I don't believe so... While he did provide the defensive anchor for his squads, other players stepped up offensively.

Skill-wise, Russell does not belong in the same category as Kareem, Wilt, Shaq, Hakeem, or even Sabonis. DRob was a much more skilled player.

Not that I'm hating on Russell, who was a great player, but he gets WAY too much credit for those championships. He was an important factor in his team's success but was not the overwhelming reason that they won.

yeah. everyone on russel's celtics team either had a sick set shot jumper (bill sharman, insert any white nba player from the 50s who played on the celtics here), played tenacious d (kc jones), score in the post (tom heinson, don nelson) or could score off the dribble (bob cousy, sam jones). so bill russel had alot of help.

[takeittothehoop]

What some people don"t realise is that russell's teamates became so good because of him. Because if they didn't have Russell's outstanding defense they would have given up far more points and struggled in the rebound department. Which then means you ultimately lose more games and those players would have never got the credibillity they did. That's just what I think anyway.

[Shepseskaf]

MVP's are a bad way to judge too. They're always very subjective and it always depends on how lucky you are as far as how many other great seasons players had that year. For example Steve Nash has 2 MVP's.

Agreed again. Does anyone want to make an argument that Nash was a better player than Isiah -- who has zero MVPs?

[ShaqAttack3234]

What some people don"t realise is that russell's teamates became so good because of him. Because if they didn't have Russell's outstanding defense they would have given up far more points and struggled in the rebound department. That's just what I think anyway.

Bob Cousy led the league in assists 4 straight years before Russell as a Celtic. During that time his scoring numbers were also identical to his numbers with Russell. Bill Sharman produced at the same rate for a few years before Russell arrived. Tom Heinsohn was a rookie the same year as Russell and played well enough to win rookie of the year despite Russell missing almost half the season because of injuries. John Havlicek won 2 championships and had his best statistical seasons after Russell retired. These were good players no matter what. Russell without a doubt was a big part of the team, but he didn't turn these players into good players, they were great with or without Russell.

Agreed again. Does anyone want to make an argument that Nash was a better player than Isiah -- who has zero MVPs?

I sure hope not.

[takeittothehoop]

Russell was entering the latter part of his career when Havlicek entered the league. You can't say Russell leaving helped him win a championship.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Russell was entering the latter part of his career when Havlicek entered the league. You can't say Russell leaving helped him win a championship.

Havlicek was drafted in 1962 and who said Russell leaving helped him? I said that Havlicek didn't need Russell to be a great player which is true.

[iLoveNBA]

Hakeem was better than Shaq, If you ask me. At least prime wise Hakeem was better, Shaq has the longevity advantage though.

1. KAJ
2. Russell
3. Wilt
4. Hakeem
5. Shaq

[takeittothehoop]

He didn't need Russell then because he was nearing the end of his career thus meaning he was less helpful/ effective. He wasn't a major part of the team like he was in the mid 50's.

[takeittothehoop]

Hakeem was better than Shaq, If you ask me. At least prime wise Hakeem was better, Shaq has the longevity advantage though.

1. KAJ
2. Russell
3. Wilt
4. Hakeem
5. Shaq

Can't argue much with that list. Hakeem/ shaq could almost go either way.

[ShaqAttack3234]

He didn't need Russell then because he was nearing the end of his career thus meaning he was less helpful/ effective. He wasn't a major part of the team like he was in the mid 50's.

What does that have to do with anything? The fact is that you said that Russell's teammates were so good because of Russell. You have no evidence to back that up. I already proved that wrong in the case of Cousy and Sharman and there's evidence to suggest that's not the case with Havlicek or Heinsohn either.

[takeittothehoop]

If you Take Russell away from that team then Cousy, sharman, jones etc. would never have became the defenders they were which would mean they give up a ton Of points and have no interior defense and they certainly would not have won 11 titles.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Of course Boston wouldn't have won 11 titles without Russell, that goes without saying, but regardless the hall of famers Russell played with were great players in their own right. Russell made their job easier defensively, but they made his job easier offensively.

[takeittothehoop]

Defense wins championships though. Judging russell really comes down to what attributes you appreciate the most in a basketball player.