Kareem vs Shaq vs Hakeem vs Russell vs Wilt

[VCMVP1551]

Wilt hardly played with a lot of great players for the first half of his career

That's not true.

He played with 5 hall of famers(Paul Arizin, Tom Gola, Nate Thurmond, Billy Cunningham, Hal Greer) in his first 7 seasons. All of them were atleast at or near their prime for part of the time they played with Wilt.

Then consider the fact that he played with 3 hall of famers after that(Jerry West, Elgin Baylor and Gail Goodrich). West and Goodrich were in their prime when they played with Wilt and Elgin was at the end of his prime and still an elite player when Wilt joined the team.

5 hall of famers in the first half of his career and then 3 more in the 2nd half.

[Psileas]

That's not true.

He played with 5 hall of famers(Paul Arizin, Tom Gola, Nate Thurmond, Billy Cunningham, Hal Greer) in his first 7 seasons. All of them were atleast at or near their prime for part of the time they played with Wilt.

The 5 HOF'ers is a somewhat deceiving reference. First of all, they belonged to seperate teams: Arizin and Gola to the Warriors up to 1962, then only Gola for a few games in 1963, then only Nate Thurmond for 1964 and 1965, then Billy C and Greer.
Second, the depth of the league was already enough to assure that even a core of Arizin+Gola (+young Guy Rodgers) would not form something so special to even make the playoffs. Indeed, the 1959 Warriors posted a mediocre 32-40 record and missed the post-season.
As for the rest: Thurmond was a center playing out of position as long as Wilt was there and although he showed glimpses of his talent in 1964, he was still developing. In 1965, he had developed enough to enter All-Star territory, but him and Wilt only played half a season together. Cunningham was no much different, really: Very talented, developing, but still a rookie. I'll give you Greer.

Then consider the fact that he played with 3 hall of famers after that(Jerry West, Elgin Baylor and Gail Goodrich). West and Goodrich were in their prime when they played with Wilt and Elgin was at the end of his prime and still an elite player when Wilt joined the team.

5 hall of famers in the first half of his career and then 3 more in the 2nd half.

Although I didn't talk about the second half and I already stated that Wilt played for better teams then, consider some things as well:

-Baylor was a completely non-factor after 1970. You might very well consider him retired already during 1970-71.
-Wilt missed 85% of the regular season in 1970. The Lakers had a mediocre season without him.
-Goodrich came to the team during the 1970-71 season.
-West missed the entire 1971 postseason.

In other words, apart from the fact that 3/4 of these HOF'ers were in their twilight, they never played altogether, either. At times, not even 3 of these 4 (including almost the whole 1970 season). They still formed better and deeper squads than Wilt's 1960-66 ones, though.

[millwad]

"a) Hakeem was seriously limited by nobodies. Teams with mediocre centers didn't dominate Kareem in a similar way. And if you have any problems with that, let me give you another example: Hakeem getting dominated by Shaq in 1999-before you mention his age, bear in mind that Hakeem was just as old as Kareem was in your example against Moses."-Psileas

Yepp, I misquoted you, my bad. But you wrote, "Hakeem was seriously limited by nobodies. Teams with mediocre centers in didn't dominate Kareem in a similar way."

You obviously said that Hakeem was dominated by nobodies. And when you said, that teamS with mediocre centers didn't dominate Kareem in a similar way you meant that Hakeem was dominated by mediocre centers a couple of times at least. So, you have still only told about him being limited by the 2nd best team in the league with good big-men. PLEASE, tell me about a couple of other times Dream being dominated by mediocre centers and limited by nobodies? Why is this so hard? Just tell when the dude got dominated by mediocre centers....? And "dominated by mediocre centers" isn't one single player, it's a couple, tell me, homie.


Hakeem's best centeropponents in 94 vs. Wilt's.

Chris Webber Russell
Shaq Bellamy
Robinson Beaty
Mourning Thurmond
Mutombo Ellis
Ewing
Daugherty
Divac
Parish
Smits

Now, let's compare:
Playing the same all-time greats more times is an easier task than playing different all-time greats. I mean, Russell probably knew every single move Wilt had in a pocket and new how to play him. And considering that Wilt only played 3 HOF:ers that season (Russell, Bellamy and Thurmond) And that Beaty almost missed half of the season doesn't make your case any stronger.
And among those Wilt played, only Russell is considered to be among the 10 greatest Centers by all-time while Hakeem faced Shaq, Ewing and Robinson who's on that list.


Not weird that they lost those games Russell was injured, missing your starting center is a big deal to any team. And correct me know if I'm wrong but if I remember correctly, Russell never won a title without having 2 or even 3 HOF:ers on the team, right? What I'm saying is that Hakeem was more important to his team those back-to-back than Russell ever was and that's a fact, look at Houston championteam from 94 n' 95, Hakeem was their all. A 60's celtic-team would still include all-time greats and that the fact, you're giving Russell a little bit much credit.

[Psileas]

"a) Hakeem was seriously limited by nobodies. Teams with mediocre centers didn't dominate Kareem in a similar way. And if you have any problems with that, let me give you another example: Hakeem getting dominated by Shaq in 1999-before you mention his age, bear in mind that Hakeem was just as old as Kareem was in your example against Moses."-Psileas

Yepp, I misquoted you, my bad. But you wrote, "Hakeem was seriously limited by nobodies. Teams with mediocre centers in didn't dominate Kareem in a similar way."

You obviously said that Hakeem was dominated by nobodies. And when you said, that teamS with mediocre centers didn't dominate Kareem in a similar way you meant that Hakeem was dominated by mediocre centers a couple of times at least. So, you have still only told about him being limited by the 2nd best team in the league with good big-men. PLEASE, tell me about a couple of other times Dream being dominated by mediocre centers and limited by nobodies? Why is this so hard? Just tell when the dude got dominated by mediocre centers....? And "dominated by mediocre centers" isn't one single player, it's a couple, tell me, homie.

You want to argue with such semantics? OK, find me only one such series, no problem. Oh, and all these white midgets that Russell supposedly faced (yes, "all these" is the correct phrase here instead of "just one or two", since you wrote "Russell's FG-percentage is damn low too, and that against white midgets", so you clearly imply that facing white midgets was the rule).

Hakeem's best centeropponents in 94 vs. Wilt's.

Chris Webber Russell
Shaq Bellamy
Robinson Beaty
Mourning Thurmond
Mutombo Ellis
Ewing
Daugherty
Divac
Parish
Smits

First of all, get Webber out of the way. C-Web obviously was a PF and only faced Hakeem once, when his team started with no center. After all, Jerry Lucas almost certainly faced Wilt during that season, but I had no problem to exclude him entirely and replace him with a considerably worse player.

Second, do you know what will happen if we reverse that list? Something like this:

Hakeem's worst center opponents in 94 vs. Wilt's.

Dwayne Schintzius--Joe Strawder
Chris Dudley--Erwin Mueller
Will Perdue--Connie Dierking
Mike Peplowski--Darrall Imhoff
Jon Koncak--LeRoy Ellis
Luc Longley
Shawn Bradley
Felton Spencer
Sean Rooks

Now, let's compare:
Playing the same all-time greats more times is an easier task than playing different all-time greats. I mean, Russell probably knew every single move Wilt had in a pocket and new how to play him.

OK, and how's that supposed to be a good thing for Wilt?

And considering that Wilt only played 3 HOF:ers that season (Russell, Bellamy and Thurmond) And that Beaty almost missed half of the season doesn't make your case any stronger.

We've already gone through this a few lines ago. OK, Beaty missed 40% of the season. Still there remained Bill Bridges in one of the best seasons of his career (if not the best). Actually, he was an all-star that season, while Zelmo missed it.

And among those Wilt played, only Russell is considered to be among the 10 greatest Centers by all-time while Hakeem faced Shaq, Ewing and Robinson who's on that list.

Thurmond is considered top-10 by some, so that's arguably 2 top-10 centers in 9 opponents compared to 3 in 26 oppontnts. But if you like such details, I can also argue that Russell is the only guy from both lists who is widely (=among basketball experts, not youngsters and casual fans) considered top-5 greatest player of all-time.

[Psileas]

Not weird that they lost those games Russell was injured, missing your starting center is a big deal to any team. And correct me know if I'm wrong but if I remember correctly, Russell never won a title without having 2 or even 3 HOF:ers on the team, right? What I'm saying is that Hakeem was more important to his team those back-to-back than Russell ever was and that's a fact, look at Houston championteam from 94 n' 95, Hakeem was their all. A 60's celtic-team would still include all-time greats and that the fact, you're giving Russell a little bit much credit.

I've not said anything bad about Hakeem's title runs. You want to argue that he was more important to these titles than Russell for his team, fine. But Hakeem has under his belt 16 seasons more, is still left 9 titles short and although he didn't have teammates good enough to help him win a title up to '93, it's still not fair to compare favorably someone who often couldn't get past 1 playoff round (in a conference considered weaker than the opponent East) to the clearly best player of a champion team, no matter whether he had multiple good teammates or not.

[millwad]

Wow, mr smart guy. Bill Russell faced alot of small white guys and black for that case, just look at the heights yourself, Beaty who was one of the greats of that era was 6-9, then there were alot of guys like Mueller (6-8), Vern Mikkelsen (6-7), Nat Clifton (6-6), Neil Johnston (6-8), Dolph Schayes (6-7), Ed Macauley (6-8), Wayne Embry (6-8), Jerry Lucas (6-8), Gus Johnson (6-6), Bill Bridges (6-6), Billy Cunningham (6-6), Bob Rule (6-9), Jim Washington (6-6), Paul Silas (6-8), Fred Hetzel (6-8), Jim Washington (6-6), Jim Barnes (6-8), WAS THAT ENOUGH? And these guys were the good ones too, all of them got serious playing time and contributed to their respective teams.

Now tell me, beside the one time Hakeem got limited by the Sonics who reached the finals, when did Hakeem get seriously limited by nobodies, and nobodies aren't one player, it's a couple of them, hand em out, homie.



When the hell was Thurmond considered by anybody to be a top-10 center EVER? That's a joke, I've never seen anyone put Thurmond in that list, EVER.
Never won a thing, averaged 15 points on 42% shooting and 15 rebounds during his career and his playoff-stats are 11.9 points on 41% shooting combined with 13.6 rebounds.. So no, there's no top-10 in this guy and it's still 3 top-10:ers vs 1. Joke of the year, Nate Thurmond among the 10 greatest centers, nice try though....

[greymatter]

Wilt was good against 6'5" guys in the 60's and hardly showed up in the playoffs. Needed 2 top 15 players to win a title in West and Baylor.

When you're done talking out of your ass, you might find it interesting to learn that Baylor played 2 regular season games in 70-71, only 9 games in 71-72, and retired in the middle of the season after succumbing to injury. He played no part in the '72 Lakers' title.

[Psileas]

Wow, mr smart guy. Bill Russell faced alot of small white guys and black for that case, just look at the heights yourself, Beaty who was one of the greats of that era was 6-9, then there were alot of guys like Mueller (6-8), Vern Mikkelsen (6-7), Nat Clifton (6-6), Neil Johnston (6-8), Dolph Schayes (6-7), Ed Macauley (6-8), Wayne Embry (6-8), Jerry Lucas (6-8), Gus Johnson (6-6), Bill Bridges (6-6), Billy Cunningham (6-6), Bob Rule (6-9), Jim Washington (6-6), Paul Silas (6-8), Fred Hetzel (6-8), Jim Washington (6-6), Jim Barnes (6-8), WAS THAT ENOUGH? And these guys were the good ones too, all of them got serious playing time and contributed to their respective teams.

Now tell me, beside the one time Hakeem got limited by the Sonics who reached the finals, when did Hakeem get seriously limited by nobodies, and nobodies aren't one player, it's a couple of them, hand em out, homie.

First of all, unlike nowadays, players back then were measured without their shoes on, so in every listed height add 1-1.5 inch to convert them to modern type measurement (or take out 1-1.5 for today's players for their actual height).

Now, let's check your cases, one by one:

Mueller: Did play center for a while (mostly 1967), but is considered one of the worst starting big men in the whole Wilt-Russell era. No wonder that wherever he played good minutes he was doing so for bad teams and was winning nothing. Also, he was 6-9 with shoes on and played most of his career with C being his second position.

Vern Mikkelsen: Was a PF, Clyde Lovellette and later Larry Foust were the starting centers of the Lakers when Russell played in 57-59.

Nat Clifton: PF, who played only a bit more than 1 season against Russell's teams. Try Walter Dukes, Phil Jordon, Ray Felix for the C position instead.

Neil Johnston : At last one decent choice. Too bad he only managed to play at a good level up to 1958 and that Russell never faced any problems against him (this includes a game when rookie Russell left the high scoring Johnston scoreless for 40 minutes and another game when a 2nd year Russell grabbed 49 rebounds against him, including 32 rebounds in a single half...).

Dolph Schayes: PF, at least as long as Russell played. Red Kerr was the center.

Ed Macauley: Didn't play at C much in the end his his career. Charlie Share did. After all, Ed was considered pretty weak for a center at Russell's era.

Wayne Embry: You know what? His nickname was "The Wall". Not exactly what a midget would be called. He weighed 240 as a rookie and then put on more weight, making him one of the most immovable players in the league.

Jerry Lucas: Trying to qualify Lucas as a midget is like trying to qualify Ben Wallace and Dennis Rodman as midgets because of their height. Yes, he was pretty short for a center, and he still kicked ass. Not to mention that he mostly played as a PF, as well.

Gus Johnson: Not a center (still very strong and athletic overall).

Bill Bridges: Another PF you're trying to pass as a C, whereas Zelmo Beaty or Walt Bellamy were the main centers of the team.

Billy Cunningham: Duh, not a center, especially when Russell played, while even ignoring the fact that he was one of the most athletic guys his size.

Bob Rule: 6-9 without shoes is a midget? Is Alonzo Mourning a midget?

Jim Washington: Played C only occasionally, for an expansion team...

Paul Silas: Played the C occasionally. Was never considered anywhere close to tall during his own era. His long career as a C owes nothing to his height, pretty much the contrary, it was a barrier. Oh, and he did last up to 1980.

Fred Hetzel: And Nate Thurmond was the PF, I suppose.

Jim Barnes: During the only 2 seasons he was relevant, he played one season as a PF alongside Willis Reed (for a team that still missed the playoffs) and another for a team that had 5 guys just as tall as him or taller.

So, let's see: You listed 16 players, with the smallest of them being 6-6 barefoot. Among these 16 players, exactly 2 played almost exclusively the C position (Johnston, Embry), another 1-2 (Rule-Silas) played frequently as centers and none of them was shorter than 6-8 barefoot. Most of the others played as second big men (PF's) for their teams, sharing center responsibilities only when there was an absolute need.
Not to mention that many of them peaked during the 50's and quickly fell off when Russell's and Wilt's era came, while others were respectable for only a couple of seasons and usually filled gaps for mediocre teams. Oh, and that some of all these were not as white or weak as you'd expect them to be.

In all, you did your best to show that Russell faced midgets and there are still a lot of big holes you have to cover.

When the hell was Thurmond considered by anybody to be a top-10 center EVER? That's a joke, I've never seen anyone put Thurmond in that list, EVER.
Never won a thing, averaged 15 points on 42% shooting and 15 rebounds during his career and his playoff-stats are 11.9 points on 41% shooting combined with 13.6 rebounds.. So no, there's no top-10 in this guy and it's still 3 top-10:ers vs 1. Joke of the year, Nate Thurmond among the 10 greatest centers, nice try though....

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/dailyd...reatestCenters

Finished 15th, which means he took a few votes. After all, Ewing is also arguable, so I can easily soften my own case by saying that they were 2, not 3.
In all, 21 centers were voted. Hakeem faced 10 of them, but 3 of them had clearly passed their physical/game primes years ago (Gilmore, McAdoo, Walton), another one had passed his own, but remained an All-Star (Kareem), while 2 others (Malone, Sabonis) were very near the end of their own primes (some may argue Sabonis was past his, anyway). Wilt faced 9 of them, but 7 of them were in their primes, while another was in he beginning of his (Haywood) and only one was a rookie (McAdoo)-still better than he was when he faced Hakeem.

[millwad]

All these guys I mentioned are either, Centers, C-PF or PF-C, ALL OF 'EM! I have hard time believing that they are written as a position just for fun. And fact remains that Bill Russell faced alot of shorter and whiter players...

Didn't you just say that Thurmond is arguably considered by some people to be a top-ten? I told you that I've never seen him being on that list and then you give me link and list where he's on 15th place and not even close to the top-10. And how is Ewing arguably, he got 4 times more votes than Thurmond and double as much as the 11th on the list.

And for ffs, stop with this BS about Malone being very near the end of his prime when Hakeem entered the league, Moses was voted all-star 5 times after the year Hakeem entered the league. That's as many or more times being an all-star than Unseld, Mcadoo, Haywood, 2 less than Thurmond for his career, 2 less than Cowens for his career. So those years you considered Moses as very close to the end of his prime he made at least as many all-star teams than Unseld, Mcadoo and Haywood did for their career (all Wilt's opponents) and almost as many as Cowens and Thurmond. He was in his prime for at least 6 years after Hakeem entered the league, cut the crap.

Uhm, and yeah, those 9 he faced, only two of them are even in the top 10.
And Cowens did only play Wilt for 3 years and Cowens is nr 15 on that list and shouldn't be higher. Wilt faced McAdoo for 1 year and dude is nr 16 on that list and shouldn't either be higher. Wilt faced Gilmore for 2 years and Gilmore isn't close the top then either. He faced Lanier for 3 years, and dude isn't a top-10 either. Haywood for 3 years too and he ain't no top-10 or even close.

Lol, and you tried to take away Malone as a real competitor for those 11 years he faced Hakeem. So what is this, Wilt only faced 2 players who's in the true top-10 and the rest of those 7 are in the low places of the list and he only faced those "bottom"-guys for a maximum of 3 years. So Hakeem faced 6 top 10-guys in his career and 5 of them in their prime. So nice try comparing those with 1 year against McAdoo, 2 years against Gilmore etc.. I'm proud of you.

[Psileas]

All these guys I mentioned are either, Centers, C-PF or PF-C, ALL OF 'EM! I have hard time believing that they are written as a position just for fun. And fact remains that Bill Russell faced alot of shorter and whiter players...

And I have a hard time believing that, whereas practically all the teams where the players you mentioned played had bigger guys than them, who also played big minutes, they would be stupid enough to use their second (or worse than that) tallest players to face Russell. You even went as far as to use guys like Cunningham, who, in Russell's era, had Wilt Chamberlain by him. Cunningham guarded Russell as much as Marion guarded Shaq or Kukoc guarded Hakeem, and so did others among the players you listed.
BTW, Kareem, whom I consider a top-3 player ever, also faced shorter centers than Russell and usually the difference between him and his opponents was bigger than Russell's compared to his. If you want to use a standard, make sure you use it eveywhere.

Didn't you just say that Thurmond is arguably considered by some people to be a top-ten? I told you that I've never seen him being on that list and then you give me link and list where he's on 15th place and not even close to the top-10. And how is Ewing arguably, he got 4 times more votes than Thurmond and double as much as the 11th on the list.

He took votes, didn't he? This automatically means that some people among these who voted in this list consider him top-10.

And for ffs, stop with this BS about Malone being very near the end of his prime when Hakeem entered the league, Moses was voted all-star 5 times after the year Hakeem entered the league. That's as many or more times being an all-star than Unseld, Mcadoo, Haywood, 2 less than Thurmond for his career, 2 less than Cowens for his career. So those years you considered Moses as very close to the end of his prime he made at least as many all-star teams than Unseld, Mcadoo and Haywood did for their career (all Wilt's opponents) and almost as many as Cowens and Thurmond. He was in his prime for at least 6 years after Hakeem entered the league, cut the crap.

Being an All-Star doesn't mean you're nesessarily in your prime. Dr.J was an all-star up to the end of his career, this doesn't mean his was in his prime in 1987. Hell, you tried to argue before against Wilt's competition in the 70's for exactly the same reason ("Wilt playing Kareem for 4 years when Wilt wasn't even in his true prime") and that's even while considering the primes of Wilt-Hakeem, not even the primes of their competitors. Plus, I've already mentioned that Wilt also was an All-Star and a valid MVP contestant up to 1973 (which Malone never was after 1985, BTW). How don't Wilt's 1970-73 seasons count but Malone's 1985-90 do?

Uhm, and yeah, those 9 he faced, only two of them are even in the top 10.

Also, 2 of them are in the top 3 (vs one for Hakeem, and that, past his prime), both in their primes and he faced them a total of about 170 times.

And Cowens did only play Wilt for 3 years and Cowens is nr 15 on that list and shouldn't be higher. Wilt faced McAdoo for 1 year and dude is nr 16 on that list and shouldn't either be higher. Wilt faced Gilmore for 2 years and Gilmore isn't close the top then either. He faced Lanier for 3 years, and dude isn't a top-10 either. Haywood for 3 years too and he ain't no top-10 or even close.

1) And despite this and the fact he was 34+, he was a consistant MVP contestant, all-NBA, all-NBA Defense, faced them mutliple times a year, outplayed these guys more often than they outplayed him and still had Kareem and the Bucks go against him, as well.

2) If Walton, after only 2 great seasons, is considered top-10 and Sabonis, whose name, judging from his NBA career alone, shouldn't even be on the list, is voted 11th, you bet they should be ranked higher, especially Cowens, who has to show an MVP and a ROY and an ASG MVP and 2 championships and a 68-win season and multiple double-double seasons. I'll take this resume over Walton's and Sabonis' any day of the week.

Lol, and you tried to take away Malone as a real competitor for those 11 years he faced Hakeem. So what is this, Wilt only faced 2 players who's in the true top-10 and the rest of those 7 are in the low places of the list and he only faced those "bottom"-guys for a maximum of 3 years. So Hakeem faced 6 top 10-guys in his career and 5 of them in their prime. So nice try comparing those with 1 year against McAdoo, 2 years against Gilmore etc.. I'm proud of you.

Walton is not a top-10 center (or at least, the Walton Hakeem faced) and Kareem never faced Hakeem in his prime. So, he went against 5 such centers, 3 in their primes and he faced them less frequently than Wilt faced his own rivals.