Bill Russell vs. Wilt Chamberlain

[Doctor K]

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/si/2009/writers/steve_aschburner/01/06/all.time/russell-chamberlain.jpg

This is becoming an increasingly popular topic on ISH. They had a great rivalry. Maybe the greatest.



So who should be ranked higher All-Time, and why. State your cases people.

[G.O.A.T]

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/si/2009/writers/steve_aschburner/01/06/all.time/russell-chamberlain.jpg

This is becoming an increasingly popular topic on ISH. They had a great rivalry. Maybe the greatest.



So who should be ranked higher All-Time, and why. State your cases people.

There is no argument for Chamberlain.

Russell beat him in 9 out of 10 common seasons despite having an equal or lesser supporting cast than Wilt more often than not.

Russell understood how to win, Wilt did not; end of story.

[hayden695]

I never got to watch them during there time so I cannot say. But what I can say is even if Wilt did only play for stats, no other player has ever done the things he has done. So even if it wasn't for the right reasons, he still did things that were amazing.

[CB4GOATPF]

Wilt he was the Better Player in almost Every Aspect of the Game but Foor Defense.

Russell was lucky to play with Superior Teamates throughout his career

[G.O.A.T]

I never got to watch them during there time so I cannot say. But what I can say is even if Wilt did only play for stats, no other player has ever done the things he has done. So even if it wasn't for the right reasons, he still did things that were amazing.

More amazing than 11 NBA titles, 2 NCAA titles and a Gold Medal in 15 years?

More amazing having the most Championships in the history all American team sports, winning the only title ever as a player coach and doing it again the next year?

More amazing than being undefeated in game sevens and averagin more points, rebounds and assists in those games than you did during any season of your career?

[takeittothehoop]

So far the arguments for each side are pretty funny. Not really true.

[Abraham Lincoln]

Overall sustained dominance: Russell
Peak season dominance: Chamberlain

Was said best by a contemporary, "Had Wilt played his entire career as he did in '67, he'd be regarded as a different player."

[G.O.A.T]

Wilt he was the Better Player in almost Every Aspect of the Game but Foor Defense.

Russell was lucky to play with Superior Teamates throughout his career

Not true.

Russell played with four top 50 all-time players (Jones, Hondo, Cousy, Sharman) and Wilt six (Cunningham, Baylor, West, Greer, Arizin, Thurmond)

Russell team mates combined for 26 all-star games in his career; Wilt's for 24.

[G.O.A.T]

Overall sustained dominance: Russell
Peak season dominance: Chamberlain

Was said best by a contemporary, "Had Wilt played his entire career as he did in '67, he'd be regarded as a different player."

The only legit case for Wilt.

[GP_20]

Wilt Chamberlain. Both were Top 10 Players of All-Time, but Wilt was just plain better.


He outrebounded and outscored Russell in every Head to Head series they've had whether it was the playoffs or regular season.

:applause:

I mean, when you individually dominate a player like that, it's over. Nothing else needs to be said. I don't think even great big men like Hakeem, Duncan, O'Neal, etc. can say that over another great big man.


And before someone brings up "who won?"

Wilt Chamberlain says

"When my teams played against Boston," Chamberlain has said, "I'd play my heart out against Russell, and someone else on my team would blow the game."

In other words, winning or losing is decided by teams. We are comparing 2 individual players here. Winning/losing should count too, but that should not be the basis for the argument about individual players.

[hayden695]

More amazing than 11 NBA titles, 2 NCAA titles and a Gold Medal in 15 years?

More amazing having the most Championships in the history all American team sports, winning the only title ever as a player coach and doing it again the next year?

More amazing than being undefeated in game sevens and averagin more points, rebounds and assists in those games than you did during any season of your career?
I wasn't trying to diminish Russell, I was just saying that people like to point out how Wilt only played for stats, which I believe to be true, but no one else has done those things so we can't say they are moot because he did it for the wrong reasons. As for the arguement if I were making a team Russell would be my number 1 choice.

[Kblaze8855]

Russell said himself when he was a commentator for CBS that Wilt on the Lakers was playing his role better than he ever did.

I still think the stat difference is a lot greater than the difference in their impact though. I suspect that if Wilt were in a situation like Russell where he had thrown away the playoff game(russell throwing the ball off the wire and out of bounds) and he asked his teammates to bail him out hed get blank stares and not "Havlicek steals it....over to sam Jones...Havlicek stole the ball!"

I suspect russells teammates went a little harder because of him and that Wilts might have been a little less motivated to follow him.

[G.O.A.T]

I suspect russells teammates went a little harder because of him and that Wilts might have been a little less motivated to follow him.

Spot on. Exactly why it isn't even close.

[CB4GOATPF]

Not true.

Russell played with four top 50 all-time players (Jones, Hondo, Cousy, Sharman) and Wilt six (Cunningham, Baylor, West, Greer, Arizin, Thurmond)

Russell team mates combined for 26 all-star games in his career; Wilt's for 24.

[B]Baylor was in the downside of his career when he playing with Wilt age 34 plus. Was still great but he wasn

[PistonsFan#21]

Bill Russel is just a Dikembe Mutombo type of player. He just happened to win many rings because he was on a great team in a league with only 8 or less other teams. Can you imagine if today's Boston celtics played in a league agaisnt teams like Nets, New York, Minnesota, Thunders, Raptors and Warriors all year long? They would win 11 championships too.

[Kblaze8855]

What the hell is PER gonna say here? Ignoring the inaccuracy of the number to begin with....you dont even have all numbers from those days.

And as for Russell being lucky....

What did the Celtics do without him exactly? You show 4 guys in the top 20 in PER in 58.....Russell being one of them. They had 3 of them...and an additional all star in Ed Macauley in 55 and 56...pre Russell. Went 500 and won 3 playoff games one year and went 39-33 the next and won just one playoff game. What did all that PER do to help?

[CB4GOATPF]

Bill Russel is just a Dikembe Mutombo type of player. He just happened to win many rings because he was on a great team in a league with only 8 or less other teams. Can you imagine if today's Boston celtics played in a league agaisnt teams like Nets, New York, Minnesota, Thunders, Raptors and Warriors all year long? They would win 11 championships too.

Disagree that he was only Dikembe type player. Russel had Great Floor Defense, Stealer, Pick Pocketer etc...more like Garnett with a weaker offensive arsenal compared to Othe Great Centers. He was good passer too.

[JustinJDW]

Russell, because of his success and leadership. Individual stats can only get you so far. This is a team sport people.

[CB4GOATPF]

Russell, because of his success and leadership. Individual stats can only get you so far. This is a team sport people.

[B]That is why he won, HIS TEAM not Just Him. There where even some season where some of his temates had a Superior PER than Russell (although he was mostly their best player). He was blessed like no other Sports figure to Play Along Side SUPERSTARS THAT WHERE IN THEIR PRIME WHILE HE WAS IN HIS PRIME FOR OVER A DECADE.

Wilt was Better than Russell clearly as a player, he just didn

[ShaqAttack3234]

I'll go with Wilt. He could dominate a game at both ends. And starting in 1967, I cant think of one thing Russell did better than Chamberlain.

[G.O.A.T]

I cant think of one thing Russell did better than Chamberlain.

Than you're a ****ing idiot. No two ways about it.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Than you're a ****ing idiot. No two ways about it.

:roll: Says the moron who doesn't know the difference between than and then. What did Russell do better than Wilt in seasons like 1967 and 1972? Russell himself said that Wilt played his role better than he ever did.

[G.O.A.T]

I don't understand how people can be so absurd as to ignore all the evidence that shows how clearly superior in every aspect of competition Russell was to Wilt.

Wilt was taller, stronger, faster, (not a quicker jumper however), more naturally skilled and as he'd tell you better looking.

Still Russell made every player better by a significant margin and absolutley dominated the NBA.

Celtics: 0 titles before Russell

They Win the title his first year and every series he plays in completely (except one vs. Philly in '67) for the next thirteen years.

Every player that was on the team when Russell entered the league was gone before he retired, he kept on winning.

The year after he retires ('70) they miss the playoffs.

The next year they miss the playoffs.

'72 Wilt and the Lakers who Russell owned, win their first title and set an NBA record for wins.

In '73 they win more games than anyone ever except the Lakers the year prior, they get upset before the Finals by New York. The Celtics lose a game seven for the first time in franchise history on their home floor.

They win titles in '74 and '76 two of the three most diluted talent pool seasons in NBA history. The '76 team is widely considered by Boston fans their worst title team.

Important to note the one constant piece in all this for Boston is Red Auerbach who claimed that without Russell the Celtics would have never won a single title.

Here's the bottom line:

Russell is the single greatest winner in the history of Sports and the argument against him is for a guy he consistently whooped regardless of who had the better supporting cast.

Even worse it's based on stats which Wilt cared about more than anything and Russell less than anything.

It's like you've all (who pick Wilt) have been proven wrong by history and are still dumb enough to fall for it again.

It's not like it's close here folks, or that they played in different eras, or different positions, or that one guy had more talented team mates than the other.

Wilt was traded twice. If he was a better player than the guy that 11 Championships were built around, why would anyone trade him?

Ask yourself that, what GM is so ****ing dumb that he trades someone as good as Wilt.

Why does Auerbach say he would have never coached Wilt if he was better than Russell.

Why does almost everyone who played with or against the two pick Russell?

Why? Why? Why?

[G.O.A.T]

You're right I am a ****ing idiot. Sorry, I'll check myself next time.

Finally we agree on something.

[EricForman]

Wilt he was the Better Player in almost Every Aspect of the Game but Foor Defense.

Russell was lucky to play with Superior Teamates throughout his career

bill simmons book easily debunks this theory.

there have been so many anti-wilt comments made by former teammates and opponents (as oppose to russell, whom everyone speaks highly of) that alone should end the debate.

wilt's "i can't foul out of a game" rule (that he imposed on himself) was so stupid he actually avoided contact after he had his 5th foul. think about this for a second--how much did he hurt his team by keeping this foolish record? he put his stats and records over his team always.

there is no argument for wilt over russell what so ever.

[G.O.A.T]

bill simmons book easily debunks this theory.

there have been so many anti-wilt comments made by former teammates and opponents (as oppose to russell, whom everyone speaks highly of) that alone should end the debate.

wilt's "never foul out" rule was so stupid he actually avoided contact after he had his 5th foul. he put his stats and records over his team always.

there is no argument for wilt over russell waht so ever.

Thank you for educating yourself and listening to those smarter (or at least more informed) than you. And as your usernames father would say (to those about to make a predictably misguided retort) "Not Bill Simmons dumbass"

[ShaqAttack3234]

Finally we agree on something.

And you're how old, moron? That has to be the most childish thing you can do. Editing my posts. Seriously, what purpose does that even serve?

The funny thing is that your entire argument for Russell over Chamberlain is based on TEAM success. Russell was on a GREAT team. Team success only goes so far when comparing individual players.

And it's funny how you say that he made every player better by a significant margin. How do you have any way of knowing that? In fact John Havlicek had his best seasons after Russell retired, Bob Cousy was already Bob Cousy before Russell entered the league and most of the other key players( Sam Jones, Tom Heinsohn ect.) played their entire careers with Russell so it's impossible to know how much better Russell made them.

These guys were great players in their own right. Lets not act like you could put any 4 scrubs next to Russell and they'd win a title. In fact I'd bet on Chamberlain taking a team of scrubs farther because unlike Russell, he could carry a team offensively.

When Wilt played on stacked teams he had some pretty amazing success in his own right. 68-13 record and a title in '67, 62 wins and a game 7 loss in the Eastern Division Finals in '68 with Billy Cunningham injured and a 69-13 record, NBA championship and a record 33 game winning streak. That's also excluding another 60 win season and three other finals appearances.

You want to hear something amazing? In '67, Wilt's 76ers broke the record for most wins in a season and 5 years his Lakers broke that record while setting a record winning streak that still stands today.

And as far as Wilt being traded? Wilt demanded the second trade and the first trade was more because of off the court issues.

Go watch all of the footage available of Wilt and Russell and then tell me that Russell dominated games like Chamberlain did.

[plowking]

Wilt is the most insecure individual to ever step on the court. He could not praise another man without bringing him down. Even when speaking on Russel, the guy who constantly whooped his ass, he would say, that he could do it better if in that position.

[Abraham Lincoln]

Wilt is the most insecure individual to ever step on the court. He could not praise another man without bringing him down. Even when speaking on Russel, the guy who constantly whooped his ass, he would say, that he could do it better if in that position.
His creedence differed over the course of time.


At 2:00 mark below

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTMfGVjfwbM





and two decades later at 1:22 mark below

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2CqQ4x3klT4




Part of the great Celtics dynasty goes to Red as well, for the greatest duo in league history Russell & Red had a relationship like few player/coaches have ever had in sport. Russell came into a great situation, & milked it for all it was worth whilst doing exactly what was needed to achieve the goal, beit no more no less. Chamberlain did not have the same sort of stability on a team until his 2nd go round with Coach Hannum in Philadelphia. Indeed they should have been a dynasty if not for a number of circumstances. Earlier in his career, the Warriors were struggling financially therefore encouraging Chamberlain to average as spectacular numbers as be possible.

Chamberlain's problem was not his ego, but rather his psychological versatility. He may very well have had some unknown problems. He was not a natural leader, nor was he a silent willing follower. All prior to the drill seargant Alex Hannum & later on the patient teacher Bill Sharman.

However, Russell vs. Chamberlain vs. O'Neal vs. Abdul-Jabbar is a matter of preference in what the evaluator puts the most stock into. Part of the reason why Russell has been disrespected on various boards be the lack of understanding the player evaluation process. Judge a player by how well he completes HIS objective's, not how well he completes the evaluator's creedence of his objective. "Better to understand than to be understood." Despite the numbers, championships, etc, the wise man prefers to value players based on single season play. And Wilt in '67 was in my opinion the most dominant anybody has ever been. Right next to such other legendary center years as '00 O'Neal, '62 Russell, '71 Alcindor, '94 Olajuwon, & '83 Malone.

[Psileas]

Russell was, among else, the greatest winner, defender, one of the greatest passers among big men and arguably also the greatest rebounder ever. Is this enough to put him over Wilt? Well, for one, it strikes me as curious and hypocritical that there are so many people who rank him above Wilt due to these values and yet almost nobody ranks him as the GOAT overall player, because when it comes to the Russell vs Jordan/Kareem discussions, then all this stuff suddenly takes the back seat and arise the matters of his HOF teammates, his mediocre scoring and shooting percentages and so on.

I myself rank these qualities pretty high, and that's why I'm not among the ones who rank Shaq or Hakeem ahead of Russell, but to take him over Wilt?

Someone posted before that Wilt outscored and outrebounded Russell in all their R.S + playoff series. That's true. Here are the numbers (points + rebounds):

1960 R.S

Wilt: 39.1/29.7
Russell: 19.8/23.7

1960 P.O

Wilt: 30.5/27.5
Russell: 20.7/27.0

1961 R.S

Wilt: 35.5/31.4
Russell: 18.8/25.9

1962 R.S

Wilt: 39.7/28.8
Russell: 18.5/24.6

1962 P.O

Wilt: 33.6/26.9
Russell: 22.0/25.9

1963 R.S

Wilt: 38.1/28.9
Russell: 14.6/27.8

1964 R.S

Wilt: 28.7/26.0
Russell: 14.1/24.3

1964 P.O

Wilt: 29.2/27.6
Russell: 11.2/25.2

1965 R.S

Wilt: 25.3/26.5
Russell: 12.6/22.2

1965 P.O

Wilt: 30.1/31.4
Russell: 15.6/25.3

1966 R.S

Wilt: 28.3/30.7
Russell: 10.5/20.5

1966 P.O

Wilt: 28.0/30.2
Russell: 14.0/26.2

1967 R.S

Wilt: 20.3/26.7
Russell: 12.2/21.1

1967 P.O

Wilt: 21.6/32.0 (also 10.0 apg and more than 6 bpg)
Russell: 11.4/23.4

1968 R.S

Wilt: 17.1/26.1
Russell: 7.8/17.5

1968 P.O

Wilt: 22.1/25.1
Russell: 13.7/23.9

1969 R.S

Wilt: 16.3/24.0
Russell: 6.7/17.0

1969 P.O

Wilt: 11.7/25.0 (Wilt's worst series against Russell)
Russell: 9.1/21.1

Honestly, if the playoff series wins were split (let alone in Wilt's favor) is there anyone at all who would even consider taking Russell?

Moving one step further and responding to the argument that Wilt also had great teammates after the early 60's, here are some lines of the two in selected games that Boston won:


Wilt: 29/26, Russell: 3/27, with 0 FGM (1966)
Wilt: 46/34, Russell: 18/31 (1966 playoffs)
Wilt: 30/28, Russell: 10/29 (1967)
Wilt: 26/23, Russell: 4/26 (1967)
Wilt: 28/30, Russell: 8/24 (1968 playoffs)
Wilt: 35/19, Russell 5/16 (1969),

and these are seasons when Wilt had good teammates (I won't even mention some even more impressive lines by Wilt in older games that Boston won). Did he dominate the ball too much and trusted his teammates too little? Not really. That Wilt was a damn good passer, as well, posting 5+ apg in 4 different seasons.

Maybe it could be that, apart from the known blames of Wilt's playoff failures (and some mediocre, for his level, games), his otherwise "great" teammates didn't exactly do much to raise to the occasion, either:

Billy Cunningham was one of the best rookies of the 1966 season. Then, he completely blew it in the playoffs. Hal Greer, a 44.5% FG shooter, dove to 35.2% against the Celtics (and his overall scoring went way down, as well). Chet Walker, a 45.2% FG shooter, went 37.5% in that series. These guys sucked way more than Wilt did, yet nobody remembers this. Add to this an inexperienced coach (Schayes) who never managed to even begin controling the egos of his players and his career practically was over before it even began (compare this to Russell having arguably the GOAT coach) and you have a recipe for disaster.
Ironically, the game when Wilt trusted his teammates more than any other time (7th ECF in 1968) was also a game for which Wilt takes almost all the blame, and was another game when his teammates flopped badly. Because, if Greer, Jones and Walker could hit just a respectable % of their FG's instead of once against being in the low-mid 30's, the Sixers would be the NBA Finalists (and probably champions, as well) and nobody would now know that Wilt barely even shot in that second half. Instead, he might very well have a 3rd ring, increasing his GOAT case among fans.
1969? It was Wilt's least productive series against Russell. Also, it was Baylor's least productive series against the Celtics, as well, and Baylor actually played even worse. If Wilt couldn't do a bit more (while guarded by Russell), why couldn't Baylor? It could be enough to give the Lakers the ring, which would increase Wilt's resume even more. Wilt, with 3 rings in a row (and 4 overall, along with 1972) would now be considered as having solved the Celtics' mystique and a legit winner, while doing nothing more than he did. All it takes would be a little more help from some teammates who are now simply branded "too good to lose a title with them". Just like it took a little more help from Jordan's teammates and a great coach to earn him rings in the 90's, despite Jordan not being really better individually in his title seasons than, say, the 1988-90 ones, so we don't have strange debates like "who was greater, Jordan or Isiah Thomas".
(Baylor, btw, also had an equally mediocre 1970 Finals series, and Wilt in both series took a low number of FGA's, so it's not as if their roles collided).

[Niquesports]

Not true.

Russell played with four top 50 all-time players (Jones, Hondo, Cousy, Sharman) and Wilt six (Cunningham, Baylor, West, Greer, Arizin, Thurmond)

Russell team mates combined for 26 all-star games in his career; Wilt's for 24.


We must be fair now GOAT. Russ was lucky to have played with one team,one concept,and one coach. That makes a huge difference, so to say that Russ is better just because his team did better is somewhat misleading. With that being said I do believe Russ was the better lockeroom,bench,floor teammate which as the team leader makes a big difference in your team winning this is where i give Russ the edge.

[G.O.A.T]

We must be fair now GOAT. Russ was lucky to have played with one team,one concept,and one coach. That makes a huge difference, so to say that Russ is better just because his team did better is somewhat misleading. With that being said I do believe Russ was the better lockeroom,bench,floor teammate which as the team leader makes a big difference in your team winning this is where i give Russ the edge.

I just don't think it's luck; ALL of Russell's team mates credit him with leading them. They all felt more confident because of what he was able to do and how confident he was.

Also great posts Abe and Psileas! Much respect for your opinions.

Red deserves a ton of credit, he realized he needed a guy like Russell and gave up a proven all-star to get him.

As I've said before Wilt in '67 was better than Russell ever was because he used all the skills he had to help the team win instead of to break records. Unfortunately in the 10 season their career paths crossed this was the only one Wilt was committed to team and thus it's a no brainer (or maybe I should call it a Shaqattack) that Russell had the superior career. 9 titles to one.

For those who don't understand why the titles argument matters so muchy and is not just a TEAM accomplishment. Basketball is of course a Team game and a players goals are to help his team win. No player had a greater impact on his team mates and led to them winning more than Russell. He spent the first few months before he joined the Celtics studying and evaluating every single player in the league, had a mental library of information and understood how to play the physiological game.

Russell would let Wilt get all the rebounds and take all the shots early (according to team mates) so that Wilt's team mates would not be able to get in the flow of the game and so he could conserve energy to shut him down late (which he did in nearly every must win game vs. Wilt. The Havlicek steals the ball game and game 5 of the '67 Division finals.

All of Russell's numbers went up in the playoffs and up again in the finals, all of Wilts numbers peaked in the regular season...

Could it be more obvious?

[ShaqAttack3234]

Russell was, among else, the greatest winner, defender, one of the greatest passers among big men and arguably also the greatest rebounder ever. Is this enough to put him over Wilt? Well, for one, it strikes me as curious and hypocritical that there are so many people who rank him above Wilt due to these values and yet almost nobody ranks him as the GOAT overall player, because when it comes to the Russell vs Jordan/Kareem discussions, then all this stuff suddenly takes the back seat and arise the matters of his HOF teammates, his mediocre scoring and shooting percentages and so on.

I myself rank these qualities pretty high, and that's why I'm not among the ones who rank Shaq or Hakeem ahead of Russell, but to take him over Wilt?

Someone posted before that Wilt outscored and outrebounded Russell in all their R.S + playoff series. That's true. Here are the numbers (points + rebounds):

1960 R.S

Wilt: 39.1/29.7
Russell: 19.8/23.7

1960 P.O

Wilt: 30.5/27.5
Russell: 20.7/27.0

1961 R.S

Wilt: 35.5/31.4
Russell: 18.8/25.9

1962 R.S

Wilt: 39.7/28.8
Russell: 18.5/24.6

1962 P.O

Wilt: 33.6/26.9
Russell: 22.0/25.9

1963 R.S

Wilt: 38.1/28.9
Russell: 14.6/27.8

1964 R.S

Wilt: 28.7/26.0
Russell: 14.1/24.3

1964 P.O

Wilt: 29.2/27.6
Russell: 11.2/25.2

1965 R.S

Wilt: 25.3/26.5
Russell: 12.6/22.2

1965 P.O

Wilt: 30.1/31.4
Russell: 15.6/25.3

1966 R.S

Wilt: 28.3/30.7
Russell: 10.5/20.5

1966 P.O

Wilt: 28.0/30.2
Russell: 14.0/26.2

1967 R.S

Wilt: 20.3/26.7
Russell: 12.2/21.1

1967 P.O

Wilt: 21.6/32.0 (also 10.0 apg and more than 6 bpg)
Russell: 11.4/23.4

1968 R.S

Wilt: 17.1/26.1
Russell: 7.8/17.5

1968 P.O

Wilt: 22.1/25.1
Russell: 13.7/23.9

1969 R.S

Wilt: 16.3/24.0
Russell: 6.7/17.0

1969 P.O

Wilt: 11.7/25.0 (Wilt's worst series against Russell)
Russell: 9.1/21.1

Honestly, if the playoff series wins were split (let alone in Wilt's favor) is there anyone at all who would even consider taking Russell?

Moving one step further and responding to the argument that Wilt also had great teammates after the early 60's, here are some lines of the two in selected games that Boston won:


Wilt: 29/26, Russell: 3/27, with 0 FGM (1966)
Wilt: 46/34, Russell: 18/31 (1966 playoffs)
Wilt: 30/28, Russell: 10/29 (1967)
Wilt: 26/23, Russell: 4/26 (1967)
Wilt: 28/30, Russell: 8/24 (1968 playoffs)
Wilt: 35/19, Russell 5/16 (1969),

and these are seasons when Wilt had good teammates (I won't even mention some even more impressive lines by Wilt in older games that Boston won). Did he dominate the ball too much and trusted his teammates too little? Not really. That Wilt was a damn good passer, as well, posting 5+ apg in 4 different seasons.

Maybe it could be that, apart from the known blames of Wilt's playoff failures (and some mediocre, for his level, games), his otherwise "great" teammates didn't exactly do much to raise to the occasion, either:

Billy Cunningham was one of the best rookies of the 1966 season. Then, he completely blew it in the playoffs. Hal Greer, a 44.5% FG shooter, dove to 35.2% against the Celtics (and his overall scoring went way down, as well). Chet Walker, a 45.2% FG shooter, went 37.5% in that series. These guys sucked way more than Wilt did, yet nobody remembers this. Add to this an inexperienced coach (Schayes) who never managed to even begin controling the egos of his players and his career practically was over before it even began (compare this to Russell having arguably the GOAT coach) and you have a recipe for disaster.
Ironically, the game when Wilt trusted his teammates more than any other time (7th ECF in 1968) was also a game for which Wilt takes almost all the blame, and was another game when his teammates flopped badly. Because, if Greer, Jones and Walker could hit just a respectable % of their FG's instead of once against being in the low-mid 30's, the Sixers would be the NBA Finalists (and probably champions, as well) and nobody would now know that Wilt barely even shot in that second half. Instead, he might very well have a 3rd ring, increasing his GOAT case among fans.
1969? It was Wilt's least productive series against Russell. Also, it was Baylor's least productive series against the Celtics, as well, and Baylor actually played even worse. If Wilt couldn't do a bit more (while guarded by Russell), why couldn't Baylor? It could be enough to give the Lakers the ring, which would increase Wilt's resume even more. Wilt, with 3 rings in a row (and 4 overall, along with 1972) would now be considered as having solved the Celtics' mystique and a legit winner, while doing nothing more than he did. All it takes would be a little more help from some teammates who are now simply branded "too good to lose a title with them". Just like it took a little more help from Jordan's teammates and a great coach to earn him rings in the 90's, despite Jordan not being really better individually in his title seasons than, say, the 1988-90 ones, so we don't have strange debates like "who was greater, Jordan or Isiah Thomas".
(Baylor, btw, also had an equally mediocre 1970 Finals series, and Wilt in both series took a low number of FGA's, so it's not as if their roles collided).

:applause: Great post. Well done with all of that research. I'm fascinated by 60's basketball myself because I'm too young to have watched it and such little footage is available so I have 2 questions.

1.How many games of Chamberlain and Russell are available that are basically in their entirety?
2.Where did you find all of those numbers?

Looking at those early years, in particular the 1960 and 1962 playoffs. Wilt was getting his team 10 more points per game offensively and narrowly winning the rebounding battle.

Now we have to ask ourselves, did Russell pick up that many more assists than Wilt even back then? No, probably 2-3 more per game in those series accounting for roughly half of those points. And while Russell's style did allow his teammates to play well offensively, lets not act like having the most dominant offensive player's presence didn't help Wilt's teammates either. Watch old footage and you'll often see Wilt getting doubled without the ball.

Did Russell prevent 5-6 or more ppg defensively than Wilt? That may be a little generous. Because of Wilt's offensive dominance, his defense is often forgotten. Most basketball historians would agree that if the stats were kept at the time, Wilt would probably hold the all time blocks record, his presence in the paint also intimidated nearly everyone(as most players at the time would agree with), his unmatched size and strength made him very hard to post up and he took up so much space in the lane. So we can't forget that Wilt was preventing a ton of baskets himself.

Another thing many forget. In the 1960 playoffs, Auerbach told Tom heinsohn to foul Chamberlain when the Warriors shot free throws so Chamberlain couldn't get back and block shots. Heinsohn frusturated Chamberlain so much that Chamberlain punched Heinsohn and injured his hand. The series had been split back in Boston, but Philadelphia lost the following 2 games after Chamberlain's injuries before winning again in game 5 with Chamberlain back at full strength scoring 50 points. Heinsohn won game 6 on a last second tip in. So really, Chamberlain's hand injury may have been the difference and Wilt was only a rookie. Even Heinsohn admitted that many of the plays against Chamberlain were dirty.

In 1962, The Eastern Division Finals came down to a game winning shot by Sam Jones that won game 7. With just 16 seconds remaining, the supposed choker Chamberlain had tied the game. Both Russell and Cousy called this Celtics team the greatest Celtics team ever. The team featured Russell in his best season, Heinsohn in his prime, Sam Jones coming into his own, Cousy still going strong and valuable role players such as Frank Ramsey, Tom Sanders and K.C. Jones. Yet, Chamberlain almost carried an inferior supporting cast past Russell's Celtics.

Even though Chamberlain's Warriors easily lost to Russell's Celtics in the 1964 Finals, Chamberlain outscored Russell by 18 points and grabbed an extra 2 rebounds per game. Does anyone honestly want to try to convince me that Russell somehow prevented 18 more points than Chamberlain defensively? Look at the cast Chamberlain had in the finals. His second leading corer had averaged just 13.5 ppg in the regular season and that was at 60's pace!

Philadelphia lost in a 7 game series to Russell's Celtics in 1965 with Chamberlain outscoring Russell by 14.5 points and outrebounding him by 6 boards a game. In game 7, Chamberlain had 30 and 32 to Russell's 16, 27 and 8. In the last minute, "the choker" Chamberlain had hit two clutch free throws and dunked on Russell to bring Philly within 1 point before Russell's errant inbounds pass. Of course we all know the rest. That was another time that Chamberlain nearly led an inferior cast passed an overmatched Celtics team that included Russell who was still easily in his prime, a peak Sam Jones who averaged 26 in the regular season and 29 in the playoffs on an unreal shooting percentage for the time, an emerging John Havlicek as well as Tom heinsohn, Tom Sanders and K.C. Jones.

Looking at their head to head playoff meetings I'll give a slight edge to Russell for winning the series. As far as 1962? Chamberlain was clearly the better player, IMO. Same with '64 although Russell's team won so easily that it's closer. In 1965 it was obvious that Chamberlain was the better player, particularly with the series being so close. 1966 was trickier because of Chamberlain doubling Russell's 14 ppg and grabbing 4 more boards per game while Russell won the series in 5 games. 1967 easily goes to Chamberlain and 1968? Once again Chamberlain's huge individual advantage and the fact that it was a close series make me think he was the better player, then again his team did choke away a 3-1 lead, but I think Psileas did a good job explaining that. 1969 does go to Russell because they weren't far apart statistically while Russell held Wilt well below his usual numbers while helping lead an inferior team as far as talent to the win.

The supporting cast argument simply can't be ignored, particularly when some of those series were so close with Chamberlain's obvious individual advantage, but equally obvious teammate disadvantage. I don't think anyone here is going to try to argue that Chamberlain had as much talent on those 1962 and 1965 teams as Russell's Celtics those years.

[Duncan21formvp]

Russell was wayyyyy better.

[guy]

I used to say Wilt, but after reading Bill Simmons' book (who I will point out is a biased Celtics fan), I don't really see how I can rank Wilt over him, in fact I don't see how I can rank him ahead of a few all-time greats that I had him ahead of before. From what I read, Wilt's priority to win was significantly less then other all-time greats such as Russell, Jordan, Kareem, Magic, Bird, and even someone like Shaq (the guy hasn't gotten along with all of his teammates and he's moved from team to team, but when he's on the court he's always played for the W not some irrelevant stat or record.)

Wilt cared too much about irrelevant stats and records. People point out that he was a great passer and averaged more assists then Russell, but they don't seem to realize he made it a point one season to get as many assists as possible so he can win an assist title. He had a ridiculous no-foul out record that he wanted to keep in tact which probably cost his teams many wins due to him playing less aggressive. There was a point in his career where he wanted the "unselfish" reputation of Russell, who didn't really care about that reputation and really just wanted to win, and as a result seemed to struggle at times between the balance of being passive and aggressive, hence game 7 of 1968 ECF where Wilt did not assert himself when his teammates weren't hitting their shots.

There's a few reasons he only has 2 titles, while Russell, Jordan, Kareem, Bird, Magic, Shaq, and Duncan have more. The biggest reason was he just didn't care as much. Knowing that, I don't think I could take him on my team over Russell, Jordan, Kareem, Bird, Magic, Shaq, and maybe even Duncan.

Now keep in mind I wasn't alive at the time, and I'm basing most of my opinions on what I already knew and the opinions of a biased Celtic fan who has a very well supported argument.

[Niquesports]

I just don't think it's luck; ALL of Russell's team mates credit him with leading them. They all felt more confident because of what he was able to do and how confident he was.

Also great posts Abe and Psileas! Much respect for your opinions.

Red deserves a ton of credit, he realized he needed a guy like Russell and gave up a proven all-star to get him.

As I've said before Wilt in '67 was better than Russell ever was because he used all the skills he had to help the team win instead of to break records. Unfortunately in the 10 season their career paths crossed this was the only one Wilt was committed to team and thus it's a no brainer (or maybe I should call it a Shaqattack) that Russell had the superior career. 9 titles to one.

For those who don't understand why the titles argument matters so muchy and is not just a TEAM accomplishment. Basketball is of course a Team game and a players goals are to help his team win. No player had a greater impact on his team mates and led to them winning more than Russell. He spent the first few months before he joined the Celtics studying and evaluating every single player in the league, had a mental library of information and understood how to play the physiological game.

Russell would let Wilt get all the rebounds and take all the shots early (according to team mates) so that Wilt's team mates would not be able to get in the flow of the game and so he could conserve energy to shut him down late (which he did in nearly every must win game vs. Wilt. The Havlicek steals the ball game and game 5 of the '67 Division finals.

All of Russell's numbers went up in the playoffs and up again in the finals, all of Wilts numbers peaked in the regular season...

Could it be more obvious?


I think on this subject we agree but just look at it differently. I dont feel you can say Russ was better just because his team won more. many other players played a role in that So if Hondo didnt steal the ball would that mean Wilt was better? I believe if Wilt played for Red Red would have gotten in Wilts head and it would be Wilt with the 11 titles. Now true not sure if Wilt could be the player coach and win, but no telling how Wilt would have been if he had just 1 strong coach and support cast his whole career. Now to the who was better. As a player Wilt by far, who would I want to lead my team Russ without question.

[G.O.A.T]

I think on this subject we agree but just look at it differently. I dont feel you can say Russ was better just because his team won more. many other players played a role in that So if Hondo didnt steal the ball would that mean Wilt was better? I believe if Wilt played for Red Red would have gotten in Wilts head and it would be Wilt with the 11 titles. Now true not sure if Wilt could be the player coach and win, but no telling how Wilt would have been if he had just 1 strong coach and support cast his whole career. Now to the who was better. As a player Wilt by far, who would I want to lead my team Russ without question.

If Hondo doesn't steal it the Celtics probably still win; they were ahead.

Even if Wilt and the Warriors win that year it's still 8 to 2 advantage Russell for the decade.

Red says he never woulkd or could have coached Wilt.

As I've said, Wilt played with as many all-stars and great players as Russell did except he made his team mates worse and Bill made them better.

[ShaqAttack3234]

As I've said, Wilt played with as many all-stars and great players as Russell did except he made his team mates worse and Bill made them better.

Who did Wilt make worse? Look at the 3 1/2 seasons Hal Greer played with Wilt. Do you notice any decline? I don't, in fact his greatest season statistical season came when he played with Wilt on the 62 win '68 Sixers. Jerry West had several seasons that could be argued as his best after Chamberlain joined the team. Gail Goodrich had the best season of his career playing with Chamberlain on the '72 Lakers. Point out some cases of Wilt making players worse. Your bias here is incredibly apparent.

Then there are players like Paul Arizin and Elgin Baylor who played with Chamberlain and showed no signs of getting worse because of Wilt. In fact their production was just about what you'd expect when you consider that they were in their final years and their team had added a big scorer.

[Big#50]

Both would be average in today's league. Wilt was strong but so is Bynum, Oden, Shaq, Roberts, Dikembe, Robinson and many others.

[Bigsmoke]

Wilt Chamberlain

[G.O.A.T]

Both would be average in today's league. Wilt was strong but so is Bynum, Oden, Shaq, Roberts, Dikembe, Robinson and many others.

So you're an idiot?

[GP_20]

Russell was, among else, the greatest winner, defender, one of the greatest passers among big men and arguably also the greatest rebounder ever. Is this enough to put him over Wilt? Well, for one, it strikes me as curious and hypocritical that there are so many people who rank him above Wilt due to these values and yet almost nobody ranks him as the GOAT overall player, because when it comes to the Russell vs Jordan/Kareem discussions, then all this stuff suddenly takes the back seat and arise the matters of his HOF teammates, his mediocre scoring and shooting percentages and so on.

I myself rank these qualities pretty high, and that's why I'm not among the ones who rank Shaq or Hakeem ahead of Russell, but to take him over Wilt?

Someone posted before that Wilt outscored and outrebounded Russell in all their R.S + playoff series. That's true. Here are the numbers (points + rebounds):


Great Post Psileas :applause:


It was me who mentioned about Wilt outrebounding and outscoring in every playoff and regular season series. Though I remember hearing that from you...

But your whole post was just a more detailed version of my original post





He outrebounded and outscored Russell in every Head to Head series they've had whether it was the playoffs or regular season.

:applause:

I mean, when you individually dominate a player like that, it's over. Nothing else needs to be said. I don't think even great big men like Hakeem, Duncan, O'Neal, etc. can say that over another great big man.


And before someone brings up "who won?"

Wilt Chamberlain says

"When my teams played against Boston," Chamberlain has said, "I'd play my heart out against Russell, and someone else on my team would blow the game."

In other words, winning or losing is decided by teams. We are comparing 2 individual players here. Winning/losing should count too, but that should not be the basis for the argument about individual players.



And it's the truth. Wilt outplayed Russell all the time. It's just that Wilt's teammates didn't come through like Russell's did. And your post helped explain that better.

[G.O.A.T]

At what age will you people learn that stats do not indicate who outplays who?

[GP_20]

At what age will you people learn that stats do not indicate who outplays who?
When it is head to head? It usually does.

And it's not like it was close either. When you always get outplayed statistically, you're just worse period.

And as Psileas pointed out, sometimes it was pure domination, yet Wilt's team would lose. And many times it was because his teammates just choked. That's also what Wilt had to point out. He'd play great, but his teammates would let him down. Russell was fortunate his teammates didn't.

[KG215]

Not true.

Russell played with four top 50 all-time players (Jones, Hondo, Cousy, Sharman) and Wilt six (Cunningham, Baylor, West, Greer, Arizin, Thurmond)

Russell team mates combined for 26 all-star games in his career; Wilt's for 24.


THANK YOU!!

Bill Simmons really puts this argument to rest in his book. He debunks all of the major myths that.


Here are some more numbers from Simmons' book.

Russell's record in conference finals and NBA Finals: 90-53 .629
Wilt's record in conference finals and NBA Finals: 48-44 .522

Russell's record in game 7's: 10-0
Wilt's record in game 7's: 4-5

Russell's record in elmination games for his team: 11-2
Chamberlain's record in elimination games for his team: 10-11

Russell's record against Wilt: 84-58

He also states that Russell's stats always were better in the postseason than in the regular season. Wilt's numbers dipped in the postseason.


I'm not going into detail because Simmons does a great job of doing so in his book. I used to be on the Wilt side of the fence, then I read the chapter on Wilt vs. Russell and am now on the Russell side. Reason being, is because I feel winning is more important than putting up big numbers. Russell still put up great rebounding numbers, shot a high % from the field, and if blocks were a stat back then, who knows how many he actually averaged per game.

Simmons has first hand accounts from teammates and writers who were around in that era who said Russell was a much better teammate to play with and players weren't ever particularly fond of playing with Wilt. Wilt had the crazy streak of never fouling out in a game, he had too much pride in that asinine streak, and after he picked up his 4th foul he became a HUGE liability on the defensive end for his teams.

People keep saying even though Wilt statistically dominated Russell in the head-to-head matchups, Wilt's teammates would blow the game, and cause Wilt to lose. Wilt was notorious for placing blame on others when his team lost. HELLO! That alone should be enough to tell you that Wilt was nowhere nearly as good as getting the most out of the talent around him, DESPITE playing with almost as many talented players throughout his career than Russell.

[KG215]

Wilt Chamberlain. Both were Top 10 Players of All-Time, but
And before someone brings up "who won?

Wilt Chamberlain says

"When my teams played against Boston," Chamberlain has said, "I'd play my heart out against Russell, and someone else on my team would blow the game."

In other words, winning or losing is decided by teams. We are comparing 2 individual players here. Winning/losing should count too, but that should not be the basis for the argument about individual players.


That has to be one of the stupidest arguments I've ever seen on this board. First, it tells you that Wilt was quick to place blame on anyone other than himself. Secondly, it tells you that Russell was able to get more out of his teammates than Wilt because Russell was a better team player, and was able to not only elevate his level of play in the playoffs, but also elevated the level of his teammate's play. Winning and losing is a team thing, but when you are the best player on your team, and in this case have two players who went head-to-head as often as Wilt and Russell did, and they did so with almost equal talent, than who won more is a VERY telling stat in my opinion. And in regards to W-L, Russell dominated Wilt.

[GP_20]

That has to be one of the stupidest arguments I've ever seen on this board. First, it tells you that Wilt was quick to place blame on anyone other than himself. Secondly, it tells you that Russell was able to get more out of his teammates than Wilt because Russell was a better team player, and was able to not only elevate his level of play in the playoffs, but also elevated the level of his teammate's play. Winning and losing is a team thing, but when you are the best player on your team, and in this case have two players who went head-to-head as often as Wilt and Russell did, and they did so with almost equal talent, than who won more is a VERY telling stat in my opinion. And in regards to W-L, Russell dominated Wilt.

Except the evidence points to exactly what I said dumbass.

His teammates DID actually blow the game for him.

Here is a quote from an earlier post


Billy Cunningham was one of the best rookies of the 1966 season. Then, he completely blew it in the playoffs. Hal Greer, a 44.5% FG shooter, dove to 35.2% against the Celtics (and his overall scoring went way down, as well). Chet Walker, a 45.2% FG shooter, went 37.5% in that series. These guys sucked way more than Wilt did, yet nobody remembers this. Add to this an inexperienced coach (Schayes) who never managed to even begin controling the egos of his players and his career practically was over before it even began (compare this to Russell having arguably the GOAT coach) and you have a recipe for disaster.
Ironically, the game when Wilt trusted his teammates more than any other time (7th ECF in 1968) was also a game for which Wilt takes almost all the blame, and was another game when his teammates flopped badly. Because, if Greer, Jones and Walker could hit just a respectable % of their FG's instead of once against being in the low-mid 30's, the Sixers would be the NBA Finalists (and probably champions, as well) and nobody would now know that Wilt barely even shot in that second half. Instead, he might very well have a 3rd ring, increasing his GOAT case among fans.
1969? It was Wilt's least productive series against Russell. Also, it was Baylor's least productive series against the Celtics, as well, and Baylor actually played even worse. If Wilt couldn't do a bit more (while guarded by Russell), why couldn't Baylor? It could be enough to give the Lakers the ring, which would increase Wilt's resume even more. Wilt, with 3 rings in a row (and 4 overall, along with 1972) would now be considered as having solved the Celtics' mystique and a legit winner, while doing nothing more than he did. All it takes would be a little more help from some teammates who are now simply branded "too good to lose a title with them". Just like it took a little more help from Jordan's teammates and a great coach to earn him rings in the 90's, despite Jordan not being really better individually in his title seasons than, say, the 1988-90 ones, so we don't have strange debates like "who was greater, Jordan or Isiah Thomas".
(Baylor, btw, also had an equally mediocre 1970 Finals series, and Wilt in both series took a low number of FGA's, so it's not as if their roles collided).


What more do you want? His teammates blew it, while Russell's didn't. Enough said. Stupid Celtic fans.

[GP_20]

Why don't you breakdown their games individually?


Wilt a far superior scorer. (This is a major understatement)
Wilt a better rebounder (clearly)
Russell a better defender (Though Wilt was also good)
Passing they are about even (Both have their arguments)


Seriously, Wilt's offensive advantage is far greater than Russell's defensive advantage. Individually it wasn't even close. No wonder Wilt always outplayed Russell individually head to head. Because he was a superior player.


Now I know Russell has great team impact, but I don't think it's enough to overcome Wilt's individual impact.

[KG215]

My being a Celtics fan has nothing to do with me taking Russell's side. Wilt shrunk away from the spotlight in big games. Russell didn't. I'll take the great player who elevated his level of play in big games over the player who's production decreased in big games. You don't think Wilt's teammates decrease in productivity in playoff games had nothing to do with feeding off Wilt's tenedency to shy away from the spotlight in big games?

You have already proven that winning doesn't mean that much to you by vehemently arguing that Kevin Johnson is better than certain PG's who most believe are clearly better than Johnson. Some people look at numbers as far as points, assists, rebounds, etc. and that is their determining factor on how great a player was. Others look at not only numbers but how successful said player was in the postseason and his team's success in the playoffs.

If Wilt's individual impact was so much greater than Russell's team impact, than how come Russell's teams have such a good head-to-head record against Wilt's teams?

I can also pull out quotes of Russell's teammates saying he held back a little defensively against Wilt until the fourth quarter. Again, I'm getting most of this from the Bill Simmons book, which I don't have with me right now, but I will get some of those quotes on here when I do.

Bottom line: Individual success and numbers mean more to you in determining a player's greatness, and team success goes a lot further in my assessment in a player's greatness.

[GP_20]

My being a Celtics fan has nothing to do with me taking Russell's side. Wilt shrunk away from the spotlight in big games. Russell didn't. I'll take the great player who elevated his level of play in big games over the player who's production decreased in big games. You don't think Wilt's teammates decrease in productivity in playoff games had nothing to do with feeding off Wilt's tenedency to shy away from the spotlight in big games?


In all the "big games" (playoffs), Wilt still outscored and outrebounded Russell in every meeting. It's not like he choked and lost everytime. Sometimes he had great series against Russell, but his team ended up losing. And why would his teammates shy away from the spotlight because of Wilt? Are they playing for themselves or for him? "Oh our leader is not doing well, lets bring our game down too?" wtf? A lot of these players were All-Stars already, they should be able to take over games by themselves, but they ended up choking.



You have already proven that winning doesn't mean that much to you by vehemently arguing that Kevin Johnson is better than certain PG's who most believe are clearly better than Johnson. Some people look at numbers as far as points, assists, rebounds, etc. and that is their determining factor on how great a player was. Others look at not only numbers but how successful said player was in the postseason and his team's success in the playoffs.

Like who? Kevin Johnson has been one of the best playoff PGs in NBA history. He's Top 5 All-Time in Points and Assists in Game 7s in the playoffs. Top 5. He's the only PG ever to outplay Magic (at his peak) in the playoffs (according to Magic and Individual Stats AND the win/loss). He's been a prime time performer. Not sure why you are bringing him in this.




If Wilt's individual impact was so much greater than Russell's team impact, than how come Russell's teams have such a good head-to-head record against Wilt's teams?

Because it's a TEAM GAME not 1on1. Russell's teammates routinely outplayed Wilt's.





Bottom line: Individual success and numbers mean more to you in determining a player's greatness, and team success goes a lot further in my assessment in a player's greatness.


Which is funny.
Because last time I checked, when comparing individual players, individual success/skill/accomplishments should mean more than team success/skill/accomplishments. I figured that one out by common sense.

It's like having a competition between 2 classes to see who gets the overall best score on an exam. And for you, the best student in the class that wins is the best student from both classes. Even though he might have had gotten a 95, while the best student from the losing class had a 99.

Yeah keep comparing individual players based on how their team does and not how good they are individually. :rolleyes:

[Kblaze8855]

If there is one player I think people should throw out the stats totally on its Bill Russell. A guy whos primary value is defense/leadership/clutch play who was on a team that traded better scorers for him? And we have people talking about him getting outscored? And even if the numbers are what people want...not like he wasnt doing his thing.

Didnt feel like writing this out again so I found something I said a while back:



He got 30 rebounds or more the last 3 games of the 59 finals. In game 7 of the 60 finals he had 22 points and 35 rebounds. He had 30 points and 38 rebounds to close out the 61 finals. He had 30 points and 40(yes...40) rebounds in the OT game 7 win vs the Lakers in the 62 finals. He was just under a triple double to close out the 63 finals with 12/24/9 assists. In 65 he had 22 points and 30 rebounds to win the title also setting the finals record for shooting percentage over 70%. Next year? Game 7....2 point win...25 points...32 rebounds. He had 26 rebounds/6 assists in the last game of his career. A game 7 win on the road. In 1968 he was playing 49 minutes a game in the finals because he played virtually every second plus over times. They only got to the finals in the first place because he led them back from being down 1-3 in the ECF and in the last 30 seconds of game 7? The celtics were up 2. He made fts, blocked a shot, and got an assist on the shot to seal it. In 11 win or go home final games of a tied series of any kind...hes 11-0. the guy only lost two playoff series of any kind from age 15 to 35 and he was injured and out in one of them(second season in the finals). HS titles. 2 NCAA titles. Gold medal. 11 NBA titles. **** he even COACHED two of the teams to NBA titles.


Russell never had wilt numbers but that doesnt really mean he was helping less. He never had Baylor numbers either. He never did 30/20 like Petitt. Or 30/19 like Bellamy. He had worse numbers than an awful lot of people yet the players themselves gave him 5 MVPs(players voted back then).

Hes probably the worst player ever to judge on his production.

I generally support Wilt and will continue to do so. I just dont see that him outscoring Bill or getting more rebounds automatically means he did more for his team. Its relevant. And when people say things like Bill shut Wilt down...it shows it to be untrue. But if anyone proved themselves to be beyond the numbers its Bill.

[KG215]

I will keep on doing so, because it's my OPINION!!! How many titles did Kevin Johnson win? What was Wilt's record vs. Russell? Who's numbers improved from regular season to postseason, Russell's or Wilt's? Arguing with you is pointless. You have your opinion, facts to back them up, but they are still facts only supporting your side. Just as my facts support my side. Fallacies aside, you're not going to convince me one way or the other, and even if Wilt himself admitted to you that Russell was better, you still wouldn't be convinced.

Wilt was the better player statistcally, was much more physically gifted than Russell, and dominated the game like we've never seen before. I'm not denying that. However, Russell was also a pretty good player stats wise (better than most give him credit for) AND his teams won. His teammates enjoyed playing with him much more than Wilt's enjoyed playing with him.

[GP_20]

If there is one player I think people should throw out the stats totally on its Bill Russell. A guy whos primary value is defense/leadership/clutch play who was on a team that traded better scorers for him? And we have people talking about him getting outscored? And even if the numbers are what people want...not like he wasnt doing his thing.

Didnt feel like writing this out again so I found something I said a while back:





Russell never had wilt numbers but that doesnt really mean he was helping less. He never had Baylor numbers either. He never did 30/20 like Petitt. Or 30/19 like Bellamy. He had worse numbers than an awful lot of people yet the players themselves gave him 5 MVPs(players voted back then).

Hes probably the worst player ever to judge on his production.

I generally support Wilt and will continue to do so. I just dont see that him outscoring Bill or getting more rebounds automatically means he did more for his team. If anyone proved themselves to be beyond the numbers its Bill.

Yeah and I agree. I would take Russell over Pettit, Bellamy and all those Centers as well despite his numbers being much lower. However, there is a huge difference Between Wilt and Bellamy/Pettit. Both on the offensive end, and defensive. And this difference drives Wilt above all. Like I said, Bill Russell has great team impact, that is enough to make up the difference between him and Pettit/Bellamy's numbers, but not Wilt's individual game.


Though KBlaze8855, why do you support Wilt over Russell?

[GP_20]

I will keep on doing so, because it's my OPINION!!! How many titles did Kevin Johnson win? What was Wilt's record vs. Russell? Who's numbers improved from regular season to postseason, Russell's or Wilt's? Arguing with you is pointless. You have your opinion, facts to back them up, but they are still facts only supporting your side. Just as my facts support my side. Fallacies aside, you're not going to convince me one way or the other, and even if Wilt himself admitted to you that Russell was better, you still wouldn't be convinced.

Wilt was the better player statistcally, was much more physically gifted than Russell, and dominated the game like we've never seen before. I'm not denying that. However, Russell was also a pretty good player stats wise (better than most give him credit for) AND his teams won. His teammates enjoyed playing with him much more than Wilt's enjoyed playing with him.

You know to be honest, if Wilt kept playing like he did Pre-76ers, put up great stats, great numbers, individual dominance, but never won a title, I would also have Russell over Wilt.

But I think 66-73 Wilt's "new style" of play really puts him over the top. And to be honest, he played like a winner. He was more team orientated and less about himself (though still cared a lot about himself). But especially late in his career, he was almost all team orientated.

I just wanted to point out Wilt won 2 championships as well and isn't some big loser who never won anything and just had great stats. The winning Wilt did along with his individual dominance separates Russell and Wilt for me.

[CB4GOATPF]

[QUOTE=CB4GOATPF][B]Baylor was in the downside of his career when he playing with Wilt age 34 plus. Was still great but he wasn

[Kblaze8855]

Yeah and I agree. I would take Russell over Pettit, Bellamy and all those Centers as well despite his numbers being much lower. However, there is a huge difference Between Wilt and Bellamy/Pettit. Both on the offensive end, and defensive. And this difference drives Wilt above all. Like I said, Bill Russell has great team impact, that is enough to make up the difference between him and Pettit/Bellamy's numbers, but not Wilt's individual game.


Though KBlaze8855, why do you support Wilt over Russell?

Wilt might be the only player ever who proved capable of being the best...at everything. Outside shooting aside I mean. But he could be called the best scorer, defender, playmaker, or rebounder depending on when. He had games with 100 points...games over 20 assists....55 rebounds. He was far more unselfish than his reputation considering he totally gave up his scoring to play the old Russell role o nthe Lakers. And not like he lost scoring ability. He had 66 the week after SI said he had.

I think he was far more "Me first" than Bill and because of it I dont believe his teammates wanted to go hard to win for him like they did Bill. You hear Bills old teammates talk and they seem like they just wanted to win at all costs because they knew Bill would kill for it. he didnt care who got the credit. HE just wanted to win. Hear wilts talk its far more of a disconnect. Talk about him being great but I never get the feeling they loved him like Bills teammates.

Bill was probably a bigger positive team wise if only for being so team first. Icant see Bill saying "I dominate and my teammates lose the game for me" even if they did.

I love Wilt...have a couple of his books...find him often underrated. But **** like that is why he will never be respected like Bill.

Bill was the Celtics. People talk about all his HOF teammates....half of them he got to the HOF. like KC jones and his 7/4 on 30 something percent shooting is in the HOF as a player without playing with Russell in college and the NBA. Sam Jones was no doubt great but a lot of guard back then scored a lot and didnt have such a career because they didnt have Russell. He won 5-6 titles without Cousy. Sharman wasnt always there.

They had good players but many of them...their whole legacy is built off being on that dynasty. The dynasty that began the moment Bill got there and ended the second he left. Luckily they were so bad without him they were able to draft HOF players in back to back drafts and rebuild quickly.

But really....Russell was the Celtics. Heh ad good teams but a lot of those players wouldnt be considered what they are without him. Maybe you can say the same of him...but he was in college winning 56 games in a row and back to back titles with a team that has never won since. He was in college keeping superst Heinson(later the ROY over Bill) scoreless in an entire second half and getting called out for his poor play in games he had 6 points and the other team only got 42...and his team won a blowout. He gets to the L and his own city was full of people who hated him. Breaking into his house and ****ing things up because he was black in a good neighborhood. He powers them to rings and everyone gives Cousy the credit.

He never seemed to get credit for what he did because it wasnt as flashy as a huge scoring night bue he was getting the job done for 20 years.

And the same **** happens today. His box scores called out in comparison to people he was beating. Bugs me at times that 50 years later so many people still have the same kind of opinions that him winning 16 various titles should have wiped out.

He could go and have 10 points and 35 rebounds probably block 15 shots and win and the fans would cheer Tommy, Cousy, and so on scoring more and looking flashy. And here we are with 50 years of seeing what wins games. Teamwork, defense, rebounding, chemistry, passing, and so on....and we still wont give the man his due credit because other people were scoring mroe than him.

[phxsuns4life]

Wilt might be the only player ever who proved capable of being the best...at everything. Outside shooting aside I mean. But he could be called the best scorer, defender, playmaker, or rebounder depending on when. He had games with 100 points...games over 20 assists....55 rebounds. He was far more unselfish than his reputation considering he totally gave up his scoring to play the old Russell role o nthe Lakers. And not like he lost scoring ability. He had 66 the week after SI said he had.

I think he was far more "Me first" than Bill and because of it I dont believe his teammates wanted to go hard to win for him like they did Bill. You hear Bills old teammates talk and they seem like they just wanted to win at all costs because they knew Bill would kill for it. he didnt care who got the credit. HE just wanted to win. Hear wilts talk its far more of a disconnect. Talk about him being great but I never get the feeling they loved him like Bills teammates.

Bill was probably a bigger positive team wise if only for being so team first. Icant see Bill saying "I dominate and my teammates lose the game for me" even if they did.

I love Wilt...have a couple of his books...find him often underrated. But **** like that is why he will never be respected like Bill.

Bill was the Celtics. People talk about all his HOF teammates....half of them he got to the HOF. like KC jones and his 7/4 on 30 something percent shooting is in the HOF as a player without playing with Russell in college and the NBA. Sam Jones was no doubt great but a lot of guard back then scored a lot and didnt have such a career because they didnt have Russell. He won 5-6 titles without Cousy. Sharman wasnt always there.

They had good players but many of them...their whole legacy is built off being on that dynasty. The dynasty that began the moment Bill got there and ended the second he left. Luckily they were so bad without him they were able to draft HOF players in back to back drafts and rebuild quickly.

But really....Russell was the Celtics. Heh ad good teams but a lot of those players wouldnt be considered what they are without him. Maybe you can say the same of him...but he was in college winning 56 games in a row and back to back titles with a team that has never won since. He was in college keeping superst Heinson(later the ROY over Bill) scoreless in an entire second half and getting called out for his poor play in games he had 6 points and the other team only got 42...and his team won a blowout. He gets to the L and his own city was full of people who hated him. Breaking into his house and ****ing things up because he was black in a good neighborhood. He powers them to rings and everyone gives Cousy the credit.

He never seemed to get credit for what he did because it wasnt as flashy as a huge scoring night bue he was getting the job done for 20 years.

And the same **** happens today. His box scores called out in comparison to people he was beating. Bugs me at times that 50 years later so many people still have the same kind of opinions that him winning 16 various titles should have wiped out.

He could go and have 10 points and 35 rebounds probably block 15 shots and win and the fans would cheer Tommy, Cousy, and so on scoring more and looking flashy. And here we are with 50 years of seeing what wins games. Teamwork, defense, rebounding, chemistry, passing, and so on....and we still wont give the man his due credit because other people were scoring mroe than him.

Said beautifully family....

[G.O.A.T]

Taking Wilt over Russell is like taking Goliath over David after the later slayed the former.

Despite all of Goliath's (Wilt) physical advantages it was David (Russell) who outsmarted, outworked and eventually PROVED superior.

When Russell retired in 1969 there was no debate as to who was the Greatest Player of All time, NONE.

Only in the time gone by have people too stubborn to admit their own ignorance of the topic started picking Wilt.

Wilt's goal was to put up huge stats and break records.

Russell's was to win.

Even if we assume that Wilt's goal was as noble and should be held in as high regard as Russell's (preposterous) Bill was still more successful at accomplishing what he wanted to do.

[G.O.A.T]

Wilt might be the only player ever who proved capable of being the best...at everything. Outside shooting aside I mean. But he could be called the best scorer, defender, playmaker, or rebounder depending on when. He had games with 100 points...games over 20 assists....55 rebounds. He was far more unselfish than his reputation considering he totally gave up his scoring to play the old Russell role o nthe Lakers. And not like he lost scoring ability. He had 66 the week after SI said he had.

I think he was far more "Me first" than Bill and because of it I dont believe his teammates wanted to go hard to win for him like they did Bill. You hear Bills old teammates talk and they seem like they just wanted to win at all costs because they knew Bill would kill for it. he didnt care who got the credit. HE just wanted to win. Hear wilts talk its far more of a disconnect. Talk about him being great but I never get the feeling they loved him like Bills teammates.

Bill was probably a bigger positive team wise if only for being so team first. Icant see Bill saying "I dominate and my teammates lose the game for me" even if they did.

I love Wilt...have a couple of his books...find him often underrated. But **** like that is why he will never be respected like Bill.

Bill was the Celtics. People talk about all his HOF teammates....half of them he got to the HOF. like KC jones and his 7/4 on 30 something percent shooting is in the HOF as a player without playing with Russell in college and the NBA. Sam Jones was no doubt great but a lot of guard back then scored a lot and didnt have such a career because they didnt have Russell. He won 5-6 titles without Cousy. Sharman wasnt always there.

They had good players but many of them...their whole legacy is built off being on that dynasty. The dynasty that began the moment Bill got there and ended the second he left. Luckily they were so bad without him they were able to draft HOF players in back to back drafts and rebuild quickly.

But really....Russell was the Celtics. Heh ad good teams but a lot of those players wouldnt be considered what they are without him. Maybe you can say the same of him...but he was in college winning 56 games in a row and back to back titles with a team that has never won since. He was in college keeping superst Heinson(later the ROY over Bill) scoreless in an entire second half and getting called out for his poor play in games he had 6 points and the other team only got 42...and his team won a blowout. He gets to the L and his own city was full of people who hated him. Breaking into his house and ****ing things up because he was black in a good neighborhood. He powers them to rings and everyone gives Cousy the credit.

He never seemed to get credit for what he did because it wasnt as flashy as a huge scoring night bue he was getting the job done for 20 years.

And the same **** happens today. His box scores called out in comparison to people he was beating. Bugs me at times that 50 years later so many people still have the same kind of opinions that him winning 16 various titles should have wiped out.

He could go and have 10 points and 35 rebounds probably block 15 shots and win and the fans would cheer Tommy, Cousy, and so on scoring more and looking flashy. And here we are with 50 years of seeing what wins games. Teamwork, defense, rebounding, chemistry, passing, and so on....and we still wont give the man his due credit because other people were scoring mroe than him.

I almost want to cry...preach on brother.

[GP_20]

Wilt might be the only player ever who proved capable of being the best...at everything. Outside shooting aside I mean. But he could be called the best scorer, defender, playmaker, or rebounder depending on when. He had games with 100 points...games over 20 assists....55 rebounds. He was far more unselfish than his reputation considering he totally gave up his scoring to play the old Russell role o nthe Lakers. And not like he lost scoring ability. He had 66 the week after SI said he had.

I think he was far more "Me first" than Bill and because of it I dont believe his teammates wanted to go hard to win for him like they did Bill. You hear Bills old teammates talk and they seem like they just wanted to win at all costs because they knew Bill would kill for it. he didnt care who got the credit. HE just wanted to win. Hear wilts talk its far more of a disconnect. Talk about him being great but I never get the feeling they loved him like Bills teammates.

Bill was probably a bigger positive team wise if only for being so team first. Icant see Bill saying "I dominate and my teammates lose the game for me" even if they did.

I love Wilt...have a couple of his books...find him often underrated. But **** like that is why he will never be respected like Bill.

Bill was the Celtics. People talk about all his HOF teammates....half of them he got to the HOF. like KC jones and his 7/4 on 30 something percent shooting is in the HOF as a player without playing with Russell in college and the NBA. Sam Jones was no doubt great but a lot of guard back then scored a lot and didnt have such a career because they didnt have Russell. He won 5-6 titles without Cousy. Sharman wasnt always there.

They had good players but many of them...their whole legacy is built off being on that dynasty. The dynasty that began the moment Bill got there and ended the second he left. Luckily they were so bad without him they were able to draft HOF players in back to back drafts and rebuild quickly.

But really....Russell was the Celtics. Heh ad good teams but a lot of those players wouldnt be considered what they are without him. Maybe you can say the same of him...but he was in college winning 56 games in a row and back to back titles with a team that has never won since. He was in college keeping superst Heinson(later the ROY over Bill) scoreless in an entire second half and getting called out for his poor play in games he had 6 points and the other team only got 42...and his team won a blowout. He gets to the L and his own city was full of people who hated him. Breaking into his house and ****ing things up because he was black in a good neighborhood. He powers them to rings and everyone gives Cousy the credit.

He never seemed to get credit for what he did because it wasnt as flashy as a huge scoring night bue he was getting the job done for 20 years.

And the same **** happens today. His box scores called out in comparison to people he was beating. Bugs me at times that 50 years later so many people still have the same kind of opinions that him winning 16 various titles should have wiped out.

He could go and have 10 points and 35 rebounds probably block 15 shots and win and the fans would cheer Tommy, Cousy, and so on scoring more and looking flashy. And here we are with 50 years of seeing what wins games. Teamwork, defense, rebounding, chemistry, passing, and so on....and we still wont give the man his due credit because other people were scoring mroe than him.

KBlaze I asked you why you support Wilt over Russell, and you go on talking about Bill Russell and why he was so great in your post. :confusedshrug:


Um, what about Wilt? He's the one being underrated in this thread.

[GP_20]

Of course like I said, individual domination of Wilt Chamberlain alone doesn't put him over Bill Russell the great winner. It's Chamberlain's career from 66-73 that puts him over Bill. He had what you could call a winning career from 66 on.

It's the winning he was able to do, the sacrifices he was able to make, the new dimensions he was able to show, that put him over Russell.
I mean let's be honest, what has Wilt not done? He was the leading scorer by far on his teams, the leading rebounding on his teams, the leading playmaker, and the defensive anchor on his team. He's done it all.

Bill? Could Bill Russell EVER have done all of that? Could he have scored at will if his team needed him too for the whole season? I'm talking at least 30ppg. No. He was never that great of a scorer.




But really, Wilt's career from 66-73, his 2 rings, those things put him on Top of Russell. He did it all.

[KG215]

Butch van Breda Kolff: Russell would ask 'What do I need to do to make my teammates better?' Wilt would ask, 'What's the best situation for me?'





John Havlicek: You couldn't begin to count the ways we missed [him]. People think about him in terms of defense and rebounding, but he had been the key to our offense. He made the best pass more than anyone I have ever played with. That mattered to people like Nelson, Howell, Siegfried, Sanders, and myself. None of us were one on one players...Russell made us better offensive players. His ability as a passer, pick-setter, and general surmiser of offense has always been overlooked

A quote from Havlicek's book Hondo He is basically saying Russell was not only the force behind their defense but also the key to making their offense click. He orchestrated things on offense from the center position and his teammates thrived off of him on both ends of the court.

Simmons states that Wilt finally had an epiphany in the '66-'67 season, became a more unselfish player, and his team won a title. The very next season, though, he set out to accomplish another individual goal: leading the league in assists. This all came from Wilt's own autobiography.





Bill Libby: A couple of times he went to a teammate with a hot hand and told him he was going to give him the ball exclusively because the other guys were wasting his passes and he wouldn't win the assists title this way.
Even when Wilt was trying to be unselfish and help his team, he was doing so in a harmful and selfish manner.

There are countless stories out there of Wilt demeaning his own teammates, opponents, and coaches, and many accounts of players saying they did not want to play with him. Wilt played with Willie Naulls, Naulls didn't particularly enjoy playing with Wilt, landed on the Celtics one year later, and won two championships playing with Russell.




Rick Barry: I'll say what most players feel, which is that Wilt is a loser...He is terrible in big games. He knows he is going to lose and be blamed for the loss, so he drads it, and you can see it in his eyes, and anyone whoever played with him will agree with me, regardless of whether they would admit it publicly. When it comes down to the closing minutes of a tough game, an important game, he doesn't want the ball, he doesn't want any part of the pressure. It is at these times that greatness is determined, and Wilt doesn't have it. There is no way you can compare him to a pro like Bill Russell or Jerry West...these are clutch competitors.




Bill Simmons: Russell in a 1968 game 7: In '68 Wilt took two shots after halftime and steadfastly kept passing to his ice-cold teammates, then blamed them afteward because because they couldn't make the shot.
Maybe his teammates could have made some of the shots, but Wilt being as great as he was, should have stepped up and taken the shots himself.




Jerry West: I don't want to rap Wilt because I believe only Russell was better, and I really respect what Wilt did. But I have to say he wouldn't adjust to you, you had to adjust to him.




Bill Russell: It did seem to me that [Wilt] was often ambivalent about what he wanted to get out of basketball. Anyone who changes the character and style of his play several times over a career is bound to be uncertain about which of the many potential accomplishments he wants to pursue. It's perfectly possible for a player not to make victory his first priority against all the others-money, records, personal fame, and an undivided claim to his achievements-and I often felt Wilt made some deliberate choices in his ambitions.




Wilt Chamberlain:...I wish I had won all those championships, but I really think I grew more as a man in defeat that Russell did in victory.
In the rest of that Chamberlain quote, he talks about how he felt he got more from life and enjoyed the other aspects of life outside of basketball. He said Russell only cared about winning and basketball and was in the locker room before every big game throwing up. Since we aren't arguing who had a better life outside of basketball or who enjoyed life more outside of basketball, tell me this, would you rather have Russell - the player throwing up in the locker room before a big game, not shying away in crunch time, and elevating his game in the playoffs - or would you rather have a more care free Wilt who was afraid to have the ball in crunch time and shied away from the spotlight in big games?

[G.O.A.T]

^Nice summation; I've been meaning to do that, but loaned the book to a friend.

As Simmons himself says and I've said for years now, it's not really a debate.

[G.O.A.T]

Bill Russell in Game Seven or other series clinching games Games in the NBA Finals

1957 Game 7 - 19 points, 32 rebounds; Boston Wins 125-123 in double overtime

1959 Game 4 - 15 points 34 rebounds; Boston Wins 118-113

1960 Game 7 - 22 points 35 rebounds 4 assists; Boston wins 122-103

1961 Game 5 - 30 points (on 17 FGA) 38 rebounds; Boston wins 121-112

1962 Game 7 - 30 points 40 rebounds 9 assists reported 14 blocks; Boston wins 110-107 in (OT)

1963 Game 6 - 12 points 24 rebounds 9 assists; Boston wins 112-109

1964 Game 5 - (vs. Wilt [30-25 reported 6 blocks]) 12 points 27 rebounds (reported 11 blocks); Boston wins 105-99

1965 Game 5 - 6-9 FG 10-12 FT 22 points 30 rebounds 4 assists; Boston wins 129-96

1966 Game 7 - 25 points 32 rebounds; Boston wins 95-93

1968 Game 6 - 5-7 FG 8-9 FT 12 points 19 rebounds 6 assists; Boston wins 124-109 with Russell as coach

1969 Game 7 - (vs. Wilt [18 points 27 rebounds]) 6 points 21 rebounds 6 assists; Boston wins 108-106 with Russell as coach

Factor in that in the three games of these games there is video of he averages 12.7 blocks and who knows how great those stat lines would have looked.

[KG215]

Most of it is nothing but guesses, but people have ventured to guess that he probably averaged anywhere from 8-12 blocks per game during his career.

As Simmons states in his book; why in the hell did they not keep up with blocked shots in that era?

[GP_20]

A quote from Havlicek's book Hondo He is basically saying Russell was not only the force behind their defense but also the key to making their offense click. He orchestrated things on offense from the center position and his teammates thrived off of him on both ends of the court.

Simmons states that Wilt finally had an epiphany in the '66-'67 season, became a more unselfish player, and his team won a title. The very next season, though, he set out to accomplish another individual goal: leading the league in assists. This all came from Wilt's own autobiography.





Even when Wilt was trying to be unselfish and help his team, he was doing so in a harmful and selfish manner.

There are countless stories out there of Wilt demeaning his own teammates, opponents, and coaches, and many accounts of players saying they did not want to play with him. Wilt played with Willie Naulls, Naulls didn't particularly enjoy playing with Wilt, landed on the Celtics one year later, and won two championships playing with Russell.








Maybe his teammates could have made some of the shots, but Wilt being as great as he was, should have stepped up and taken the shots himself.












In the rest of that Chamberlain quote, he talks about how he felt he got more from life and enjoyed the other aspects of life outside of basketball. He said Russell only cared about winning and basketball and was in the locker room before every big game throwing up. Since we aren't arguing who had a better life outside of basketball or who enjoyed life more outside of basketball, tell me this, would you rather have Russell - the player throwing up in the locker room before a big game, not shying away in crunch time, and elevating his game in the playoffs - or would you rather have a more care free Wilt who was afraid to have the ball in crunch time and shied away from the spotlight in big games?


Quotes are all nice to consider but shouldn't be held so highly. Especially when you have a player like Wilt who had a personality most wouldn't like versus Russell who was a great guy.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Quotes are all nice to consider but shouldn't be held so highly. Especially when you have a player like Wilt who had a personality most wouldn't like versus Russell who was a great guy.

Yeah, that's why Rick Barry isn't regarded higher as well.

[GP_20]

I still think Russell was very fortunate all his career. Was he still the best player on his title teams? Yes. Was he the main reason they won? Yes.

But Russell was fortunate enough to come right into the league and into the hands of arguably the GOAT coach. The GOAT coach. And on top of that, arguably the GOAT backcourt (even today). And another HOF. That was how his career started. What luck. :applause:

Wilt did not get anything like that at the beginning of his career, and it was later did he start playing with HOF coaches and teammates. I think this has a lot to with Russell being the winner he is. Russell even once said that he doesn't think he'd be able to play with another coach other than Red. Red knew how to maximize his player's talents and how to handle them. Russell got the correct treatment all the way. Imagine if he came into the league with a garbage coach, who didn't even care about defense, how would Russell's career fared? Maybe a ring? Trade here and there?

I'm just saying he's incredibly lucky to be welcomed into the NBA with a arguable GOAT coach and arguably the GOAT backcourt of all-time, and another HOF. wow.




Can anyone name me another NBA superstar who has had better luck than Bill Russell upon entrance in the NBA?




Most have him at Top 10 at worst.

What happens when you put a Top 10 player of all-time, with the GOAT coach, arguable GOAT backcourt, and more HOF(s).

I expect a lot of winning to occur. A lot.

[haji_d_robertas]

Russell was pretty tall. Wilt was really tall.
Russell wouldn't sign autographs for children.
Wilt tried to concieve 10,000 children.

[Niquesports]

I still think Russell was very fortunate all his career. Was he still the best player on his title teams? Yes. Was he the main reason they won? Yes.

But Russell was fortunate enough to come right into the league and into the hands of arguably the GOAT coach. The GOAT coach. And on top of that, arguably the GOAT backcourt (even today). And another HOF. That was how his career started. What luck. :applause:

Wilt did not get anything like that at the beginning of his career, and it was later did he start playing with HOF coaches and teammates. I think this has a lot to with Russell being the winner he is. Russell even once said that he doesn't think he'd be able to play with another coach other than Red. Red knew how to maximize his player's talents and how to handle them. Russell got the correct treatment all the way. Imagine if he came into the league with a garbage coach, who didn't even care about defense, how would Russell's career fared? Maybe a ring? Trade here and there?

I'm just saying he's incredibly lucky to be welcomed into the NBA with a arguable GOAT coach and arguably the GOAT backcourt of all-time, and another HOF. wow.




Can anyone name me another NBA superstar who has had better luck than Bill Russell upon entrance in the NBA?




Most have him at Top 10 at worst.

What happens when you put a Top 10 player of all-time, with the GOAT coach, arguable GOAT backcourt, and more HOF(s).

I expect a lot of winning to occur. A lot.


Never thought of Cousy and Sherman as the GOAT back court. Not even top 5

[ShaqAttack3234]

Yeah, i can't agree on the GOAT backcourt comment. These are some backcourts I'd take over them off the top of my head.

Jerry West/Gail Goodrich(particularly in '72)
Magic/Byron Scott(around '87 or '88)
Magic/Norm Nixon(especially in '82)
Isiah Thomas/Joe Dumars

[Kblaze8855]

I still think Russell was very fortunate all his career. Was he still the best player on his title teams? Yes. Was he the main reason they won? Yes.

But Russell was fortunate enough to come right into the league and into the hands of arguably the GOAT coach. The GOAT coach. And on top of that, arguably the GOAT backcourt (even today). And another HOF. That was how his career started. What luck.

Wilt did not get anything like that at the beginning of his career, and it was later did he start playing with HOF coaches and teammates. I think this has a lot to with Russell being the winner he is. Russell even once said that he doesn't think he'd be able to play with another coach other than Red. Red knew how to maximize his player's talents and how to handle them. Russell got the correct treatment all the way. Imagine if he came into the league with a garbage coach, who didn't even care about defense, how would Russell's career fared? Maybe a ring? Trade here and there?

I'm just saying he's incredibly lucky to be welcomed into the NBA with a arguable GOAT coach and arguably the GOAT backcourt of all-time, and another HOF. wow.

Can anyone name me another NBA superstar who has had better luck than Bill Russell upon entrance in the NBA?

There are at least 2 on the Lakers alone. Magic Johnson and Kobe joined teams with the best bigmen in the NBA and multiple stars along with them. Give me Kareem/Shaq and those early 80s/mid 90s Lakers team over what Bill got. They were carried by superior players. Russell was not.



And Wilt was one of 5 current/recent/soon to be all stars on his rookie team including Paul arizin who won that team the title a couple years earlier with their coach Neil. Paul was the NBAs second leading scorer when Wilt joined the team. Also Guy Rodgers who ive heard called better than Cousy by some who saw him. Led the L in assists. Had a 28 assist game before they relaxed the rules. He probably had games with 30-35 by our standards. had 20 in Wilts 100 point game. Broke Cousys single season assist record in fact. Tom Gola was an all star the first 5 seasons of Wilts career. Woody Sauldsberry was an all star the year before Wilt got there. Lets not at like Wilt was drafted to a team of scrubs and Russells owned the league. The Celtics with all this talent were a .500 team 2 years before Russell and won 1 playoff game the following year with a 39-33 record. They never did better than a 1-3 loss in the second round in 5-6 years with that backcourt AND Easy Ed who was an all nba first team hall of famer and the guy that Russell was traded for.

What did that team actually do without Russell? 3 hall of famers pre Russell. Did they accomplish anything at all?

And as for the coaching....

Russell coached the Celtics to more titles than Red did without him on the team. Just a fact. The entire Celtics dynasty and the legacy of those players and coaches is tied into if not simply built on the back of Bill Russell. When the coach retires and you coach the team to 2 titles yourself.....

Whats left to say? Who else can get the credit?

He played and coached the team....to 2 titles.

Red deserves a lot of credit for building good teams. But yyou can only give him so much when he retires and Russell just takes over the team himself. Imagine something like that today. Pop retires and Duncan coaches them to more rings?

Bill did it all.

[ShaqAttack3234]

There are at least 2 on the Lakers alone. Magic Johnson and Kobe joined teams with the best bigmen in the NBA and multiple stars along with them. Give me Kareem/Shaq and those early 80s/mid 90s Lakers team over what Bill got. They were carried by superior players. Russell was not.


Russell did have the luxuary of playing with the league MVP in his rookie season.

[Niquesports]

Yeah, i can't agree on the GOAT backcourt comment. These are some backcourts I'd take over them off the top of my head.

Jerry West/Gail Goodrich(particularly in '72)
Magic/Byron Scott(around '87 or '88)
Magic/Norm Nixon(especially in '82)
Isiah Thomas/Joe Dumars


Add
Frazier and Monore

[G.O.A.T]

I still think Russell was very fortunate all his career. Was he still the best player on his title teams? Yes. Was he the main reason they won? Yes.

But Russell was fortunate enough to come right into the league and into the hands of arguably the GOAT coach. The GOAT coach. And on top of that, arguably the GOAT backcourt (even today). And another HOF. That was how his career started. What luck. :applause:

Excdept calling it lucky is ignorant. The Celtics and thos great players (plus an all-NBA center) never won before Russell and Bill kept winning after they were gone.

Even if you believe in "luck" Russell's greatness proved able to transcend it.

[QUOTE=GP_20]Wilt did not get anything like that at the beginning of his career, and it was later did he start playing with HOF coaches and teammates. I think this has a lot to with Russell being the winner he is. Russell even once said that he doesn't think he'd be able to play with another coach other than Red. Red knew how to maximize his player's talents and how to handle them. Russell got the correct treatment all the way. Imagine if he came into the league with a garbage coach, who didn't even care about defense, how would Russell's career fared? Maybe a ring? Trade here and there?

What about College where Wilt won 0 titles with far superior team mates at Kansas than Russell had while winning two at San Fransisco? What about Russell's gold Medal in '56? Russell was already a proven winner before he even got to the NBA.

Read Red's biography and get back to us. Everything you're saying about Red, Red said about Russell. No one would ever trade Russell; that's a proven fact.

That entire argument was hypotheticals based on subjective opinion; grasping for straws GP?


I'm just saying he's incredibly lucky to be welcomed into the NBA with a arguable GOAT coach and arguably the GOAT backcourt of all-time, and another HOF. wow.

All who had never won anything prior to Russell.





Can anyone name me another NBA superstar who has had better luck than Bill Russell upon entrance in the NBA?




Chamberlain for one. If he was born into another era his stats would have been a lot lower and he would not have been as physically dominant. Magic, Bird, Jordan also had more "luck" than Russell in my opinion.

Had Russell won 7 of 13 titles, maybe I'd say he was lucky, but 11 of 13 is just to great a sample size to dismiss as luck.


Most have him at Top 10 at worst.

What happens when you put a Top 10 player of all-time, with the GOAT coach, arguable GOAT backcourt, and more HOF(s).

I expect a lot of winning to occur. A lot.

We already know what happens. He all those things plus Elgin Baylor in '69 and he lost to a greatly inferior aging Celtics team led and coached by you know who.

[QUOTE=GP_20]Quotes are all nice to consider but shouldn't be held so highly. Especially when you have a player like Wilt who had a personality most wouldn't like versus Russell who was a great guy.[/QUOTED]

Do you think their subjective opinions are more valid than yours though?

[ShaqAttack3234]

Magic, Bird, Jordan also had more "luck" than Russell in my opinion.

Get real, Bird? He joined a 29 win tema that had made no other major additions. In fact the team had lost leading scorer Bob McAdoo from the previous year, yet Bird turned them into a 61 win team as a rookie.

Jordan had more luck? He was drafted by a 27 win team and didn't have a good supporting cast until atleast his 5th NBA season.

I'd love to see you try to justify those statements.

[KG215]

Yeah, that's why Rick Barry isn't regarded higher as well.

Rick Barry was considered a prick as well and a lot of that stemmed from his contract fallout and going to the NBA. He essentially lost 3 years of his NBA prime.

And GP, on eof hte "myths" Simmons debunked in his book was "Wilt was a Great Guy". Apparently, even though he constantly threw teammates and coaches under the bus, he was still perceived as a likeable guy by the fans and outsiders. Or at least that's what I got from the book. It didn't really say or not if Russell was liked or not. In fact I thought it said something about him not being very fan and media friendly.

[CB4GOATPF]

[QUOTE=CB4GOATPF][B]Baylor was in the downside of his career when he playing with Wilt age 34 plus. Was still great but he wasn

[CB4GOATPF]

[B]PEOPLE MUST BE BLIND NOT SEE THIS. :hammerhead: :rolleyes: :confusedshrug:

RUSSELL FOR 95% OF HIS CAREER HAD CONSTANTLY TOP 4 OF THE TOP 10-20 PLAYERS IN THE LEAGUE FOR MOST EVERY SEASON (IF YOU INCLUDE HIMSELF: 5).

NOT TO MENTION = THE CELTICS BENCH: FOR ALL PRODUCTIONS DONE BY STARTERS, IN THE CASE OF BOSTON "SUPERSTAR STARTERS" WHERE BACKED UP BY SOLID BENCH PLAY, THEREBY ALSO MORE REST FOR THE STARTING "SUPERSTAR CELTICS"

WILT HAD GOOD PLAYERS BUT FOR EVERY GOO ONE THE CELTICS HAD 1-2 MORE PLUS THE BENCH. AND THIS WAS ALSO LATER IN HIS CAREER. ONE MUST ALSO REMEMBER HE HAD TO ADAPT TO OTHER TEAMS 3 DIFFERENT TIMES, SO THERE WASN

[KG215]

Do you think their subjective opinions are more valid than yours though?

Sadly enough, I really think he does.

How in the hell is using quotes from actual teammates, coaches, oppposing coaches, opponents, and media members who were around in the Wilt/Russell era not a good way to back up your argument?

GP, were you around in the 50's and 60's? I wasn't so all I have to go on is first hand accounts based on quotes from people who experienced that era firsthand. I feel 100000 times better using that in my argument than making brash, opinionated statements, on an era of basketball that happened 25 years before I was born.



Another quote from Simmons himself in his book:

You have to believe me: I read every NBA book possible to prepare to write this one. No stone was left unturned - during the summers of '07 and '08 I spent more time on www.abebooks.com than Abe did. While poring over these books, I searched for insight on the Russell-Chamberlain debate and kept a tally of every player, coach, and media member willing to go on the record. And I'm not sure what was more amazing - how many of them praised Russell, or how many of them crushed Wilt (including people who played with him and coached him). Since we could fill this entire book with quotes from people praising Russell's unselfishness, competitiveness, and clutchness...

So as you can see, the general consensus in that era - from people that were close to the situation and actually there during that time - preferred Russell to Wilt. You can have Chamberlain and his gaudy numbers all day long. I'll take Russell because with inferior talent, equal talent, or superior talent, he was going to beat Chamberlain many more times than not.

Look at 1969. Chamberlain was teamed up with Elgin Baylor and Jerry West. Russell and K.C. Jones are on the tailend of their careers, running on fumes, finish 4th in the East that year. And don't forget, the Lakers (far superior to the Celtics talent that year) had a 3-1 series lead, and Chamberlain and the Lakers STILL lost the series, despite having game 7 in LA. Russell stepped up one last time when it mattered most while Wilt was unable to overcome Russell when Russell's Celtics might have been at their lowest during Russell's entire career.

[KG215]

[QUOTE=CB4GOATPF][B]PEOPLE MUST BE BLIND NOT SEE . ONE MUST ALSO REMEMBER HE HAD TO ADAPT TO OTHER TEAMS 3 DIFFERENT TIMES, SO THERE WASN

[GP_20]

Yeah, i can't agree on the GOAT backcourt comment. These are some backcourts I'd take over them off the top of my head.

Jerry West/Gail Goodrich(particularly in '72)
Magic/Byron Scott(around '87 or '88)
Magic/Norm Nixon(especially in '82)
Isiah Thomas/Joe Dumars
I said arguably the GOAT Backcourt. I don't believe so either. Posters like G.O.A.T. have those 2 as the GOAT backcourt.


But both were HOFs. So he basically enters in a HOF backcourt. With GOAT coach. And plays with another HOF.

[GP_20]

There are at least 2 on the Lakers alone. Magic Johnson and Kobe joined teams with the best bigmen in the NBA and multiple stars along with them. Give me Kareem/Shaq and those early 80s/mid 90s Lakers team over what Bill got. They were carried by superior players. Russell was not.


So you would rather play with Shaq or Kareem, rather than a HOF backcourt, a good argument GOAT coach, and another HOF? :oldlol:

He was playing with the league MVP in his rookie year. It doesn't get much better than that. Along with a GOAT coach, and 2 other HOFs.

Shaq or 2 HOFs/MVP/GOAT Coach.

You tell me which one is better to start out with. :rolleyes:

Also you have to factor in how much Red impacted Russell's devolopment and his play. GOAT coach is really really important for a player's career to go in the right direction. Maybe more important than the players he plays with is the coach he plays with. So KBlaze8855, you really have no argument here. No one was more fortunate than Russell starting their careers.


As for the rest of your post, I've already said Russell gets the most credit. I'm just saying he was extremely fortunate to come into Boston. It's amazing actually. And with luck like that, winning isn't surprising either. It definitely becomes a factor.

[GP_20]

Excdept calling it lucky is ignorant. The Celtics and thos great players (plus an all-NBA center) never won before Russell and Bill kept winning after they were gone.

Even if you believe in "luck" Russell's greatness proved able to transcend it.


And ? Whether they won before or after, that has nothing to with my argument. My argument is Russell entered the NBA with the most fortunate situation than any other superstar in NBA history. Deny that. GOAT backcourt (according to you), GOAT coach, and another HOF. Show me another player with entrance grander than that.



Chamberlain for one. If he was born into another era his stats would have been a lot lower and he would not have been as physically dominant. Magic, Bird, Jordan also had more "luck" than Russell in my opinion.

:roll:

"luck" as in things related to other than Russell. How physically dominant Wilt was on Wilt. That is almost as bad as saying "Russell got lucky because he was good at defense".

Do you realize how stupid you sound now? That's how you sounded on your last post.

Luck as in factors outside of your control. Such as, what TEAM YOU ARE DRAFTED IN. :hammerhead:


No other NBA Superstar in the history of the game was more fortunate than Russell in this aspect.

Like I said beat this. GOAT Backcourt, League MVP, GOAT Coach, and another HOF. Beat that.

[GP_20]

Get real, Bird? He joined a 29 win tema that had made no other major additions. In fact the team had lost leading scorer Bob McAdoo from the previous year, yet Bird turned them into a 61 win team as a rookie.

Jordan had more luck? He was drafted by a 27 win team and didn't have a good supporting cast until atleast his 5th NBA season.

I'd love to see you try to justify those statements.
He thinks "luck" is how good you are too. Watch, "Jordan is lucky because he was fast and athletic, and he could play defense really well". The guy is turning into a troll.

"Bird is lucky because he has a good jumpshot" is what you'll receive.


When all I said was that Russell was lucky because he started his NBA career off at the right place, which is a factor Russell can't control, thus its on his luck. Where as athletics can be controlled by a player.

[G.O.A.T]

...

Why are you so arrogant. Ask questions if you don't understand something.

First of all I don't believe in "luck". I think Luck is simply probability taken personally.

But if we're to consider luck as circumstances beyond one's control here's my case.


Get real, Bird? He joined a 29 win tema that had made no other major additions. In fact the team had lost leading scorer Bob McAdoo from the previous year, yet Bird turned them into a 61 win team as a rookie.

McAdoo barely played for the team and was not wanted by Auerbach or Cowens or Fitch or anyone there. Calling him their leading scorer shows me you don't know much about that team or era. I'm not trying to be a dick, just telling you how someone like me who remembers that time would think.

Bird's arrivial coincided with the resurection of Tiny Archibald's career and the peak of Cornbread Maxwell's. The Celtics also made a very significant trade the next year acquiring McHale and Parrish from Golden State for Joe Barry Carroll. (And started winning titles that year) They also picked up Dennis Johnson shortly after (and won two more because no one on their roster could check Andrew Toney prior).

Like Russell he had Auerbach making the moves (Unless foolish owner John Brown was forcing his hand) so that kept solid role players coming in.

But unlike Russell he had free agency and the Celtics legacy (which Bill built) which led to Dj (leaving Phoenix) and Danny Ainge (giving up baseball) and Bill Walton signing as a free agent from LA.

Now I believe Bird is the one who made it all work, but certainly he caught as many or more breaks than Bill Russell.


Jordan had more luck? He was drafted by a 27 win team and didn't have a good supporting cast until atleast his 5th NBA season.


Jordan and Russell have a number of career paralells (sp?)

1st: They were drafted by a franchise with no titles before them.

2nd: They played for the best and most prolific coach of their era and the two greatest all-time in terms of titles won as a head man.

3rd: After they were established stars their teams drafted a player who would become the best two-way swingman of his era. (Hondo and Pip)

4th: When they left their team for good, the franchise collapsed.

Now the differences in "luck"

Russell joined a team with more quality players, but to be fair all teams had several quality players. The Celtics had three all-stars (trade one to get Russell) but so did most teams after all there 20 or more all-stars and 9 teams.

Still The Celtics were a middle of the pack team and the Bulls bottom feeders.

Jordan's luck really started in the 1990's. The stars like Magic and Bird saw their careers cut short by disease and injury respectivley and the NBA had enough of the "Jordan Rules" and started calling more fouls. It was the begining of the modern superstar calls.

In the late stages of his career Jordan had way more "luck" due to his era because of modern free agency and international players being a new trend. When the supporting cast from the first three titles faded the Bulls reloaded with free agent former all-stars like Rodman and Ron Harper and the top European player Kukuc.

The Celtics reloaded with Don Nelson (cut by Lakers), Larry Seigfried (rights waived by Syracuse), Bailey Howell (considered washed up by Baltimore and traded for Mel Counts) and Em Bryant (a six ppg scorer traded by NY for a 2nd round pick)

Jordan also had his GREAT coach his whole career whereas Russell had to take over the team as coach when the roster was weakest.

[GP_20]

G.O.A.T., I'm making the argument Russell started out his career more fortunate than any other superstar in NBA history.


You can't really top


GOAT Backcourt (according to you)
Including League MVP
Another HOF
GOAT Coach


And I think the last one, coach, seems to be the most underrated. Red played a major role in the development of Russell. He directed him towards the right path. Russell receiving Red is probably even more fortunate than him receiving GOAT Backcourt or 3 HOFs.


And no nothing related to being a good basketball player (Good Scorer, good speed, etc.) counts as luck lol. That's on their own hard work.

[Kblaze8855]

So you would rather play with Shaq or Kareem, rather than a HOF backcourt, a good argument GOAT coach, and another HOF?

He was playing with the league MVP in his rookie year. It doesn't get much better than that. Along with a GOAT coach, and 2 other HOFs.

Shaq or 2 HOFs/MVP/GOAT Coach.

You tell me which one is better to start out with.

Give me Shaq/Nick/Eddie/Fisher/Campbell over Cousy and Sharman yes. Russell joined them and led them to greatness. It would be easier to join a team already great. Its not luck when you join a team that has never done anything and they suddenly become the greatest winners ever and the moment you leave they are back in the lottery. If anyones lucky its the people who got to play with him. Not like he walked into a champion lockerroom and kept the tradition.

And Magic joined a Laker team with 4 all star level players one of them the best player in the league and one of them an older 18/9 point who he could learn from not to mention Spencer Haywood coming off a 24/9 season and Michael Cooper. give me that over cousy/sharman too.

Magic and Kobe joined teams with multiple all stars and great bigmen who were flat out better than them and took the pressure off. guys who already proved capable of more success than Cousy/Sharman did. flat out better players. Far far far better players.

And as for Cousy winning the MVP over Russell....

Russell missed much of the season being in Australia for the summer olympics. It was in December because of the different seasons in the southern hemisphere. And in what im sure is total coincidence.....the Celtics had the worst winning percentage they would have for 12 years.

Besides its well known that Cousy was more loved/admired than Russell and that the league didnt see his value at first. He was one pick from going in the second round. Of coursy flashy visible(white...this was 50s.) cousy got more love right away. Especially when Russell was out of the country for part of the season. He had to beat the league over the head with his greatness to get his due credit.



Also you have to factor in how much Red impacted Russell's devolopment and his play. GOAT coach is really really important for a player's career to go in the right direction. Maybe more important than the players he plays with is the coach he plays with. So KBlaze8855, you really have no argument here. No one was more fortunate than Russell starting their careers.

Who exactly made Russell win 56 games in a row in college with a team that has won nothing since? Who helped him win the gold medal by the widest margin of victory ever at the time? Russell was a winner before he got to Red. Red won nothing on any level without Russell. He didnt win in the BAA. he didnt win on the Blackhawks. He didnt win in the 6 years on the Celtics before russell. Red coached for 16 years before Russell never winning anything on any level. The first year Russell arrives he wins it all....and starts the greatest dynasty ever. Then retires...and Russell coaches the team to 2 titles himself. and im to act like Red had a greater impact on the legacy of Bill than Bill had on him?

If not for Russell you might not know who Red was. Russell was a winner before he got to the NBA.


As for the rest of your post, I've already said Russell gets the most credit. I'm just saying he was extremely fortunate to come into Boston. It's amazing actually. And with luck like that, winning isn't surprising either. It definitely becomes a factor.

Wilt joining a team with 4 other all stars including the second best point of his generation, the second leading scorer in the NBA who already won a ring 2 years earlier, and 2 other all star frontcourt players isnt lucky?

You saying "You have no argument" doesnt make it true.

Russell joined a team that had won nothing of relevance before him and hes the luckiest player ever because of a good backcourt and a coach whos legacy is tied to what he did the moment Bill arrived?

Russell wasnt even the luckiest Celtic of his time. KC Jones is in the HOf as a player because he won 10 titles counting college. All 10 of them on Bill Russells team. Russell is the greatest winner of all time and only 1 significant player he played with won anything without him. Hondo. And that was after 2 years rebuilding and drafting another HOF bigman with the great pick they got from being bad without Russell.

But hes the lucky one?

If you gotta pick one way or the other they were lucky to have him. Not the other way around. If only for the fact he won without every single player/coach who ever won with him that seems obvious. He won it all without Cousy, Sharman, Red, Sam Jones, Hondo and so on. No matter the lineup his team won it all. Only Hondo won without him. And it took a 34 win season without Bill to draft Cowens to get back to form.

Bill Russell is living breathing victory and everyone he played with has a greater legacy because of it.

[CB4GOATPF]

[QUOTE=KG215]That's because Wilt wore out his welcome with two teams and was traded two different times. The caoches and players didn't like playing with him. Not in a million years would the Celtics have even considered trading Russell.

[B][COLOR="Blue"]Well their fault for not beinbg able to build teams well. THEY WHERE NOT THE BEST COACH OF ALL TIME IN RED.

A MASTER EYE FOR PICKING MISSING LINKS-PIECES, BULDING A TEAM DEEPLY AND ORQUESATING A SYSTEM FROM POINT A TO Z

That’s because Russell was a MISSING LINK AN ANCHOR to What THE CELTICS NEEDED AND ALREADY HAD (GREAT OFFENSE/SHOOTING/GAME CREATING: BOB COUSY)

THEY DIDN

[GP_20]

Give me Shaq/Nick/Eddie/Fisher/Campbell over Cousy and Sharman yes. Russell joined them and led them to greatness. It would be easier to join a team already great. Its not luck when you join a team that has never done anything and they suddenly become the greatest winners ever and the moment you leave they are back in the lottery. If anyones lucky its the people who got to play with him. Not like he walked into a champion lockerroom and kept the tradition.

And Magic joined a Laker team with 4 all star level players one of them the best player in the league and one of them an older 18/9 point who he could learn from not to mention Spencer Haywood coming off a 24/9 season and Michael Cooper. give me that over cousy/sharman too.

Magic and Kobe joined teams with multiple all stars and great bigmen who were flat out better than them and took the pressure off. guys who already proved capable of more success than Cousy/Sharman did. flat out better players. Far far far better players.

And as for Cousy winning the MVP over Russell....

Russell missed much of the season being in Australia for the summer olympics. It was in December because of the different seasons in the southern hemisphere. And in what im sure is total coincidence.....the Celtics had the worst winning percentage they would have for 12 years.

Besides its well known that Cousy was more loved/admired than Russell and that the league didnt see his value at first. He was one pick from going in the second round. Of coursy flashy visible(white...this was 50s.) cousy got more love right away. Especially when Russell was out of the country for part of the season. He had to beat the league over the head with his greatness to get his due credit.




Who exactly made Russell win 56 games in a row in college with a team that has won nothing since? Who helped him win the gold medal by the widest margin of victory ever at the time? Russell was a winner before he got to Red. Red won nothing on any level without Russell. He didnt win in the BAA. he didnt win on the Blackhawks. He didnt win in the 6 years on the Celtics before russell. Red coached for 16 years before Russell never winning anything on any level. The first year Russell arrives he wins it all....and starts the greatest dynasty ever. Then retires...and Russell coaches the team to 2 titles himself. and im to act like Red had a greater impact on the legacy of Bill than Bill had on him?

If not for Russell you might not know who Red was. Russell was a winner before he got to the NBA.



Wilt joining a team with 4 other all stars including the second best point of his generation, the second leading scorer in the NBA who already won a ring 2 years earlier, and 2 other all star frontcourt players isnt lucky?

You saying "You have no argument" doesnt make it true.

Russell joined a team that had won nothing of relevance before him and hes the luckiest player ever because of a good backcourt and a coach whos legacy is tied to what he did the moment Bill arrived?

Russell wasnt even the luckiest Celtic of his time. KC Jones is in the HOf as a player because he won 10 titles counting college. All 10 of them on Bill Russells team. Russell is the greatest winner of all time and only 1 significant player he played with won anything without him. Hondo. And that was after 2 years rebuilding and drafting another HOF bigman with the great pick they got from being bad without Russell.

But hes the lucky one?

If you gotta pick one way or the other they were lucky to have him. Not the other way around. If only for the fact he won without every single player/coach who ever won with him that seems obvious. He won it all without Cousy, Sharman, Red, Sam Jones, Hondo and so on. No matter the lineup his team won it all. Only Hondo won without him. And it took a 34 win season without Bill to draft Cowens to get back to form.

Bill Russell is living breathing victory and everyone he played with has a greater legacy because of it.

I know Russell is great and all

But I can't believe you are arguing


Shaq/Role Players over League MVP/HOF, another HOF, another HOF, and a GOAT caliber Coach.

Really KBlaze8855? That's a big slap in the face to the HOFs and even Red. Just total disrespect.

Shaq/Role Players or 3 HOFs/GOAT Coach. Give me Shaq/Roleplayers? wow.

Especially considering coaches, (And by the way Russell himself said Red had A LOT do with the player he became, both had tremendous respect for each other), play a big role in developing players, and maybe no one did it better than Red.

Whatever. I don't know how many other people would take Shaq/Role Players, over 3 HOFs/GOAT coach for their careers to develop. You'd have to be nearly retarded. And remember this is in the 60s. So Kobe got Shaq/Role Players with MJ running the show. You'd be in Kobe's situation, rather than in the 60s, where Cousy was the best offensive player in the league, you had coach Red, and 2 other players that at least 1 was among Top 5.

I mean wow, you had a PG that could also set you up. The arguments for 3 HOFs/GOAT Coach just keeps getting stronger. Who wouldn't want to play with the best playmaker in the league?





I can't believe you actually even considred Shaq/Role Players.



It's got to be one of the stupidest things I've ever heard on ISH.



Remember, this is all relative to era.

[triangleoffense]

More amazing than 11 NBA titles, 2 NCAA titles and a Gold Medal in 15 years?

More amazing having the most Championships in the history all American team sports, winning the only title ever as a player coach and doing it again the next year?

More amazing than being undefeated in game sevens and averagin more points, rebounds and assists in those games than you did during any season of your career?
If your going to list stats like that you forgot to mention that Wilt lead the league in assists for a season. First C to lead the league in assists for an entire season, no PF/C has done so since. Russell did have slightly better talent around him, he was surrounded by hof'ers. Wilt was as well during his time with the Lakers but he only beat Russell one time during that span. He definitely did not have anywhere near the talent level that Russel had when he was with Philly. Basketball is a team game and you can't put too much blame or praise on a player in winning championships. Shaq/Kobe/Payton/Malone couldn't beat Hamiliton/Billups/Sheed/Tayshaun.

Russell is the better winner, Wilt is the better talent. Russell was/is definitely way smarter than Wilt. He is a true scholar of the game, still attends NBA games, especially during the playoffs. I saw him once on sportscenter and he said that he had visited the Dali Lama multiple times and have had extensive conversations with him regarding dharma and the afterlife. Wilt is the best offensive C to ever play the game, he was more athletic than Kareem. Wilt actually played Kareem when he was 17 in a charity event I believe. But this was back when Kareem was still
Lew Alcindor.

[Kblaze8855]

I know Russell is great and all

But I can't believe you are arguing


Shaq/Role Players over League MVP/HOF, another HOF, another HOF, and a GOAT caliber Coach.

Really KBlaze8855? That's a big slap in the face to the HOFs and even Red. Just total disrespect.

**** outta here. There are 130 HOF players. Doesnt mean they are all elite players. Shaq led his team to 3 titles. why wouldnt I take him over cousy/Sharman who did nothing similar till Russell led them?

Id take Shaq over say....Nash and Joe Johnson too. Its not disrespect to take Shaq over these guys. Hes flat better than them. Lets not act like someone playing 50 years ago means they are legends to a greater degree. They did nothing to make me want them over Shaq in any era. Even throwing out that hes factually better Shaq did more in his era than they did in theirs.



Shaq/Role Players or 3 HOFs/GOAT Coach. Give me Shaq/Roleplayers? wow.

Shaq and 2 all stars and good role players. Yes. Feel free to take the inferior players and lose to my team. Not like you can even say that for their era they were better. They did nothing pre Russell to stand up to Shaqs legacy.


Especially considering coaches, (And by the way Russell himself said Red had A LOT do with the player he became, both had tremendous respect for each other), play a big role in developing players, and maybe no one did it better than Red.

Whatever. I don't know how many other people would take Shaq/Role Players, over 3 HOFs/GOAT coach for their careers to develop. You'd have to be nearly retarded. And remember this is in the 60s. So Kobe got Shaq/Role Players with MJ running the show. You'd be in Kobe's situation, rather than in the 60s, where Cousy was the best offensive player in the league, you had coach Red, and 2 other players that at least 1 was among Top 5.

You say HOF coach and players like everyone in the HOF is created equal. shaq is not a standard HOF player. Shaq in the time in question could compare to anyone ever. Give me Shaq, Wilt, Kareem, or Russell over the combo you offer. this isnt even a title winning back court...and id take shaq over isiah/Dumars....who are.


I mean wow, you had a PG that could also set you up. The arguments for 3 HOFs/GOAT Coach just keeps getting stronger. Who wouldn't want to play with the best playmaker in the league?

Russells value wasnt as much offensive as defense and chemistry. He had a great offensive value but his legacy is defensive. If I can be a young offensive guard like Magic/Kobe...and have Shaq/Kareem and a number of others to fit my game or a young defensive bigman....and play with Nash or Cousy?

How does a point come into a better situation than being mentored by a star point and playing with the greatest low post weapon since Wilt while running the way showtime did with Cooper, Wilkes, and Haywood? magic had the perfect team to join and id take it easily over joining the pre Russell celtics.




I can't believe you actually even considred Shaq/Role Players.

I cant believe you disregard the simple fact that Shaq/Kareem are better than the Celtics players were and that godly bigmen win games more than flashy guards.



It's got to be one of the stupidest things I've ever heard on ISH.

Red himself wouldnt trade Shaq or Kareem for cousy and so on.



Remember, this is all relative to era.

What did Cousy and Sharman do in their era to compare to what Shaq and Kareem did in theirs that makes me wish to play with them?

They were on a team with 3 or 4 all stars depending on the season and their BEST was nearly getting swept in the second round.

Tell me. Tell me...what did the great cousy/sharman backcourt do to make a young player feel their career is in better shape joining them than joining 2 of the 3-4 best bigmen of all time?

[GP_20]

And what did Shaq do pre-Kobe?

What has had he done before? Finals sweep? 1st round sweep? What has he done?

Cousy at least was playing at an MVP level, and was a Top 3 player in the NBA (like Shaq) during that time.

You tell me, if you were Bill Russell, going into the NBA.


Would you rather go play in 57, where now you guys become the favorites, playing with 2 HOFs at their primes. Playing with league MVP and playmaker Bob Cousy. The best offensive player in the game arguably. Playing with GOAT coach Red, who is known to develop his players (And who Bill Russell said he would only want to coach him). And another future HOF who won ROY and was pretty good himself.

Or would you play with O'Neal, and an All-Star in Eddie Jones and role players. And have to go through the defending champion Chicago Bulls (72 wins), and other great teams in the league for your shot at a title.



I mean wtf? :roll:

You would rather play with "Shaq", have tough competition for title, play with a garbage coach, and no one special after that.

Versus, play for the championship right away, the league MVP, 3 HOFs, and the GOAT coach who is going to develop your game?






I mean, you ARE considering the chances of your title relative to competiion. On one side, you got the 97 Bulls, on the other side, the St. Louis Hawks. You DO want to win right? Bill Russell is that you? I mean, it probably doesn't matter to him, but luck says its easier to enter the league and go against the Hawks than the Bulls who are considered one of the GOAT teams. Another point for Russell's incredible luck please.


And you ignored the coach remark. Once again, it's your rookie season, who do you want to help develop your game over the course of your career? Red (who maybe the best in history at it), or some garbage coach? :oldlol:

Once again, Bill Russell said he would only play for Red. That's how close their relationship was. That's how good Red was. Both meant a lot to each other.

[G.O.A.T]

And what did Shaq do pre-Kobe?

More than you're GOAT coach, backcourt and Hall of Famers combined actually in terms of postseason success.


So you would rather play with Shaq or Kareem, rather than a HOF backcourt, a good argument GOAT coach, and another HOF? :oldlol:

He was playing with the league MVP in his rookie year. It doesn't get much better than that. Along with a GOAT coach, and 2 other HOFs.

Shaq or 2 HOFs/MVP/GOAT Coach.

You tell me which one is better to start out with. :rolleyes:

First you have to remeber those guys aren't HOF material and Red is not the GOAT coach if not for all the titles they won because of Russell. No one thought of Auerbach as a genius or guys like Frank Russell and Bailey Howell or KC Jones as HOF guys in 1959.

But just because it's fun to show how stupid you've become because your so stubborn and all your arguments are strictly stat based...

Let's look at:

Shaq titles without Kobe: 1
trips to the finals without Kobe: 2

Kareem titles without Magic: 1
Trips to the finals without Magic: 2

GOAT coach titles without Russell: 0
Trips to the Finals without Russell: 0

GOAT back court titles without Russell: 0
Trips to the Finals without Russell: 0

Other Celtic HOF's of 50's and 60's titles without Russell: 0
Trips to the Finals without Russell: 0

Hmmmmmmmm; which do I want...


He thinks "luck" is how good you are too. Watch, "Jordan is lucky because he was fast and athletic, and he could play defense really well".

Never said anything like that; nothing even close. Why would you say that?

[G.O.A.T]

And what did Shaq do pre-Kobe?

What has had he done before? Finals sweep? 1st round sweep? What has he done?

What did Auerbach, COusy, Sharman and the others do before Russell?




Cousy at least was playing at an MVP level, and was a Top 3 player in the NBA (like Shaq) during that time.

Cousy never won MVP until Russell joined the team and only won it once when Russell missed most of the year to win a Gold Medal and serve his Country.

Get educated.


You tell me, if you were Bill Russell, going into the NBA.

Would you rather go play in 57, where now you guys become the favorites,

They didn't become the favorites; the '57 Finals was a pretty major upset. Before the season Petit and the Hawks were heavy favorites as you could red in Cousy's biography. (But why learn anything when you can just tell people what's right)


[QUOTE=GP_20]Playing with league MVP and playmaker Bob Cousy. The best offensive player in the game arguably.

No arguable. He shot 35-40% and assists were not held in high regard. EVERYONE considered Petitt and Arizin better offensive players. (You can read about this too if you'd like)


Playing with GOAT coach Red, who is known to develop his players (And who Bill Russell said he would only want to coach him). And another future HOF who won ROY and was pretty good himself.

This wasn't Red's reputation at the time and he always said Russell had more to do with the players improvement then he did...(Also available info from a book)

If I were a mod, you'd be banned just so more people don't read what you say and become dumber.

[G.O.A.T]

Can we get a merge with the Felton\Norman thread please...lets of links and info pertaining to this debate there...

[GP_20]

What did Auerbach, COusy, Sharman and the others do before Russell?


I was countering what KBlaze said. He told me what you just said above. And I countered with what has Shaq done. And now you are going to ask the same question he did to me...read things in context idiot :hammerhead:

I'm countering his argument by using it, not making my own. I'm just saying what Shaq did before and what Cousy/Sharman did is not very different.





Cousy never won MVP until Russell joined the team and only won it once when Russell missed most of the year to win a Gold Medal and serve his Country.

Get educated.

I said Cousy was playing at an MVP level.
Learn to read before you reply please. And as he showed, he was definately playing at that level.




They didn't become the favorites; the '57 Finals was a pretty major upset. Before the season Petit and the Hawks were heavy favorites as you could red in Cousy's biography. (But why learn anything when you can just tell people what's right)


The 57 Finals was a major upset?

Final Records:
Celtics: 44-28
Hawks: 34-38


The Cetlics winning was a major upset in the NBA Finals? They had 1, 2, 3, 4, HOFs, League MVP, ROY, and GOAT Coach, and it was an upset they beat the 34-38 Hawks? A major upset? :oldlol:

You just lost all credibility


And that wasn't even my point. I was comparing them to the 97 Bulls.

That's a close isn't it G.O.A.T. 34-38 Hawks vs. 69-13 Bulls. :oldlol:

Russell was so damn lucky he had NOWHERE near the challenge in the Finals.




No arguable. He shot 35-40% and assists were not held in high regard. EVERYONE considered Petitt and Arizin better offensive players. (You can read about this too if you'd like)

Is that why he was winning MVP with no defensive game? What was he doing so well then? Rebounding? Get out of here with your usual trash. He was voted MVP purely based on his offensive game and his team usually ranked at the top on offense, definitely one of the best offensive players in the history of the game.




This wasn't Red's reputation at the time and he always said Russell had more to do with the players improvement then he did...(Also available info from a book)

Whether it was Red's reputation at the time or not, he proved that he was great at it.





If I were a mod, you'd be banned just so more people don't read what you say and become dumber.


I would do the same for you. Because I feel like I'm getting more stupid by reading your posts.

57 Finals an upset? Cousy not even arguable the best offensive player?

[G.O.A.T]

You are such a joke.

So many people here have said so and only you and Shaqattack (who I've also been a dick too) have a problem with me.

[GP_20]

You are such a joke.

So many people here have said so and only you and Shaqattack (who I've also been a dick too) have a problem with me.
Trolls and idiot generally over populate the intelligent posters.

Not surprised.

[GP_20]

Also I admit when I am wrong...As I'll do now


When Russell came to the league, he played with 4 HOFs (not 3).

My bad my bad guys.



I think that's a record for any superstar? To come into the league and play with 4 Future HOFs?


Why does it seem Russell is breaking all these records based on luck/teammates. Coincidence that he also holds the TEAM accomplishment records as well? Well if you're ignorant...then maybe

[ShaqAttack3234]

McAdoo barely played for the team and was not wanted by Auerbach or Cowens or Fitch or anyone there. Calling him their leading scorer shows me you don't know much about that team or era. I'm not trying to be a dick, just telling you how someone like me who remembers that time would think.

Bird's arrivial coincided with the resurection of Tiny Archibald's career and the peak of Cornbread Maxwell's. The Celtics also made a very significant trade the next year acquiring McHale and Parrish from Golden State for Joe Barry Carroll. (And started winning titles that year) They also picked up Dennis Johnson shortly after (and won two more because no one on their roster could check Andrew Toney prior).

Like Russell he had Auerbach making the moves (Unless foolish owner John Brown was forcing his hand) so that kept solid role players coming in.

But unlike Russell he had free agency and the Celtics legacy (which Bill built) which led to Dj (leaving Phoenix) and Danny Ainge (giving up baseball) and Bill Walton signing as a free agent from LA.

Now I believe Bird is the one who made it all work, but certainly he caught as many or more breaks than Bill Russell.



Jordan and Russell have a number of career paralells (sp?)

1st: They were drafted by a franchise with no titles before them.

2nd: They played for the best and most prolific coach of their era and the two greatest all-time in terms of titles won as a head man.

3rd: After they were established stars their teams drafted a player who would become the best two-way swingman of his era. (Hondo and Pip)

4th: When they left their team for good, the franchise collapsed.

Now the differences in "luck"

Russell joined a team with more quality players, but to be fair all teams had several quality players. The Celtics had three all-stars (trade one to get Russell) but so did most teams after all there 20 or more all-stars and 9 teams.

Still The Celtics were a middle of the pack team and the Bulls bottom feeders.

Jordan's luck really started in the 1990's. The stars like Magic and Bird saw their careers cut short by disease and injury respectivley and the NBA had enough of the "Jordan Rules" and started calling more fouls. It was the begining of the modern superstar calls.

In the late stages of his career Jordan had way more "luck" due to his era because of modern free agency and international players being a new trend. When the supporting cast from the first three titles faded the Bulls reloaded with free agent former all-stars like Rodman and Ron Harper and the top European player Kukuc.

The Celtics reloaded with Don Nelson (cut by Lakers), Larry Seigfried (rights waived by Syracuse), Bailey Howell (considered washed up by Baltimore and traded for Mel Counts) and Em Bryant (a six ppg scorer traded by NY for a 2nd round pick)

Jordan also had his GREAT coach his whole career whereas Russell had to take over the team as coach when the roster was weakest.

Regarding McAdoo, my point was that it's not like they added much to the team other than Bird and that they took away the one guy on the team capable of getting them 20 points per game. Bird gave them a go to guy offensively right away. And as far as Archibald's resurrection. Well don't you think that playing with a guy like Bird might have had something to do with that? You talk a lot about Russell's ability to make his teammates better, but wouldn't you agree that Bird had the same quality? Afterall, Archibald was there the year before and Cowens was declining.

Bird didn't come into a good situation his rookie year, he turned it into a good situation right away. He turned it into a good situation which is what kept good players coming to the Celtics. Don't forget that Boston faced 2 teams with more talent than them. The Showtime Lakers and the Moses Malone/Dr. J Sixers.

Jordan had talent and a great coach later, but he didn't have that coach until his 6th season and that's really when the championship caliber talent came around as well. Russell had a great coach and a great team in his rookie year.

Granted they were not a championship caliber team without him, but they did finish 6 games over .500 and they added hall of famer Tommy Heinsohn in Russell's rookie year as well.

[G.O.A.T]

Regarding McAdoo, my point was that it's not like they added much to the team other than Bird and that they took away the one guy on the team capable of getting them 20 points per game. Bird gave them a go to guy offensively right away. And as far as Archibald's resurrection. Well don't you think that playing with a guy like Bird might have had something to do with that? You talk a lot about Russell's ability to make his teammates better, but wouldn't you agree that Bird had the same quality? Afterall, Archibald was there the year before and Cowens was declining.

Agree with all of this, I gave Bird that credit in my last post. Just saying that without the Parish \McHale steal and the later additions, maybe he doesn't win three titles...Not saying that should be held against him, just saying that's as much luck as Russell joining a team of good players that had never won anything prior to his arrival. Bird made the Celtics contenders, Russell made the Celtics Champions.


Jordan had talent and a great coach later, but he didn't have that coach until his 6th season and that's really when the championship caliber talent came around as well. Russell had a great coach and a great team in his rookie year.

I disagree (sort of), they were a good coach and good team before Russell, Bill made them great.


Granted they were not a championship caliber team without him, but they did finish 6 games over .500 and they added hall of famer Tommy Heinsohn in Russell's rookie year as well.

Is Tommy Heinsohn a HOFer if he doesn't play with Russell? He doesn't think so.

No way Bailey Howell, Frank Ramsey or KC Jones get in without winning those titles and even Sam Jones is iffy. If he's not on the Celtics he might have to be the man on a team, he never wanted that.

Only Cousy and Hondo were great with Russell, the rest were good players that Auerbach and Russell got the most out of with a tireless work ethic and indomitable will to win.

Also I should I apologize to you for being an asshole; even though I think sometimes you're way too stubborn, you bring a lot to most discussions you are in.

[HighFlyer23]

Russell has even admitted that Wilt was better than him on D ... which was by far the strongest part of his game ... and couple that with Wilt being eponentially better on offense .. the answer is obvious ...

[Kblaze8855]

And what did Shaq do pre-Kobe?

What has had he done before? Finals sweep? 1st round sweep? What has he done?

Even aside from being factually superior....the finals alone is more than they did.


Cousy at least was playing at an MVP level, and was a Top 3 player in the NBA (like Shaq) during that time.

Winning the MVP doesnt mean he was the most valuable player and if he was...I already said there are a number of MVPs I wouldnt take over Shaq and a couple all stars with him.


You tell me, if you were Bill Russell, going into the NBA.

Would you rather go play in 57, where now you guys become the favorites, playing with 2 HOFs at their primes. Playing with league MVP and playmaker Bob Cousy. The best offensive player in the game arguably. Playing with GOAT coach Red, who is known to develop his players (And who Bill Russell said he would only want to coach him). And another future HOF who won ROY and was pretty good himself.

Or would you play with O'Neal, and an All-Star in Eddie Jones and role players. And have to go through the defending champion Chicago Bulls (72 wins), and other great teams in the league for your shot at a title.


I mean wtf?

You would rather play with "Shaq", have tough competition for title, play with a garbage coach, and no one special after that.

Versus, play for the championship right away, the league MVP, 3 HOFs, and the GOAT coach who is going to develop your game?

For one....what Russell would choose to do is not relevant to the matter of who was more lucky. It is Russell vs a number of others luck wise not asking if Russell would be better suited to join the league 40 years later and be thrown onto a team with Shaq. Its Magic on the Lakers, Kobe on the Lakers, and Russell on the Celtics. You said he was most lucky of any player ever to be where he was. It is irrelevant what his luck would be in a time machine situation. where we pluck him from 1956 and let him choose where to go. If we are gonna get into the era argument there is a lot more reason to be in the 90s than the 50s for a black athlete.

I might as well ask what Kobe would choose considering that he likely could own the 50s even more than he owns this league.

Issue is the players/coaches/situation and how much it does to help the player in each situation.

considering that Bill joined a team that did nothing with players he was better than and a coach who had accomplished zero in 16 years without him.....and that Magic would be joining the Lakers with the best player in the league, a star point to mento him, finishers everywhere and be one of 4 all stars and a guy who put up 24/9 the season before? Or Kobe joining a team with an all star level backcourt, the best bigman of the era, and tons of great role players as the core of the team comes together for 3 rings and 4 finals?

I mean...what evidence is there that either of them could have been dropped into a better situation?

Magic won 5 rings made 8 finals and was the finals MVP as a rookie. Kobe wasnt great early due to his age but cmon...he was an NBA all star at 19 and has half the fans now saying hes better than Jordan. Any evidence of his development being stunted?





I mean, you ARE considering the chances of your title relative to competiion. On one side, you got the 97 Bulls, on the other side, the St. Louis Hawks. You DO want to win right? Bill Russell is that you? I mean, it probably doesn't matter to him, but luck says its easier to enter the league and go against the Hawks than the Bulls who are considered one of the GOAT teams. Another point for Russell's incredible luck please.

Magic won the title as a rookie and Kobe had 3 rings when he was what...24? Winning it all isnt an issue for any of them. They already did it It happened. Its just a matter of who came into the best situation. Magic joined a set of out of this world offensive players one of which the best weapon of his generation(if not any generation) with an all star mentor at his position in one of the worst conferences of all time depth wise.

And again....I used only one team. You are talking about him being the luckiest athlete ever and the Lakers alone have guys like Kobe and Magic dropped into the most perfect situation I can imagine for players of their type.



And you ignored the coach remark. Once again, it's your rookie season, who do you want to help develop your game over the course of your career? Red (who maybe the best in history at it), or some garbage coach?

How did not having Red hurt Magic and Kobe again?

In what way have their skillsets suffered?

Again...you arent talking about hypothetical people. These things already happened. What is Magic gonna do as a rookie if Red is his coach? Win the title extra hard? How did ending up with Riley/Phil hurt these guys?


Once again, Bill Russell said he would only play for Red. That's how close their relationship was. That's how good Red was. Both meant a lot to each other.

I didnt say Red wasnt good or that they were not close. I said Russell won without every single player and coach. They did not do so without him. Russell was arguably the greatest winner in NCAA history, went on to be the greatest winner thus far in Olympic history(54ppg average margin of victory...Russell the captian and leading scorer), joins the Celtics and a coach and players who had won nothing become the greatest winners in history next to him.

And hes the lucky now. Not them. Hes the luckiest.....ignoring that everything he did with them he did without them right down to coaching 2 title teams.

How is he luckier for playing with them than they are for playing with him...if you admit hes the primary reason they won? How is the guy leading lesser people to success more lucky for that success...than the people riding his coattails to it?

[GP_20]

Even aside from being factually superior....the finals alone is more than they did.


Getting swept out of the Finals is not a major accomplishment. Shaq did not do a lot more than Cousy/Sharman. So I don't see the point of "What did Cousy/Sharman accomplish previous to Russell". Because just like Shaq, they had insignificant accomplishments. So at best, it's a really weak argument.




Winning the MVP doesnt mean he was the most valuable player and if he was...I already said there are a number of MVPs I wouldnt take over Shaq and a couple all stars with him.

Yes of course. But this is relative to era. Cousy was a Top 3 player in the league back then. So was O'Neal. Neither were the best (57 vs. 97). This isn't Shaq vs. Cousy as much as Shaq relative to the league vs. Cousy relative to the league. I hope you understand why. There is no time machine. Kobe joined Shaq in 97, and Russell joined Cousy in 57.





Issue is the players/coaches/situation and how much it does to help the player in each situation.

considering that Bill joined a team that did nothing with players he was better than and a coach who had accomplished zero in 16 years without him.....and that Magic would be joining the Lakers with the best player in the league, a star point to mento him, finishers everywhere and be one of 4 all stars and a guy who put up 24/9 the season before? Or Kobe joining a team with an all star level backcourt, the best bigman of the era, and tons of great role players as the core of the team comes together for 3 rings and 4 finals?

I mean...what evidence is there that either of them could have been dropped into a better situation?

Magic won 5 rings made 8 finals and was the finals MVP as a rookie. Kobe wasnt great early due to his age but cmon...he was an NBA all star at 19 and has half the fans now saying hes better than Jordan. Any evidence of his development being stunted?



I'll give you that Magic was also very fortunate.

But it wasn't a dream entrance either. Funny how you don't mention Norm Nixon. He was also a great passer/playmaker who played Magic's game. Who played Bill's game in Boston? He immediately became the defensive anchor and was able to do what he did best, defend. On the other hand, Magic's playmaking ability was limited. So let's not ignore this.







Magic won the title as a rookie and Kobe had 3 rings when he was what...24? Winning it all isnt an issue for any of them. They already did it It happened. Its just a matter of who came into the best situation. Magic joined a set of out of this world offensive players one of which the best weapon of his generation(if not any generation) with an all star mentor at his position in one of the worst conferences of all time depth wise.

I'm saying at the entrance level. Kobe/Shaq did not immediately start winning. They needed Phil for that. But coming into the league, Kobe did not have Phil. So let's stick to 97.

You tell me. 97 Bulls (69-13), or 57 Hawks (34-38), who had the more fortunate opponent contending for title? This is also part of luck.







How did not having Red hurt Magic and Kobe again?

In what way have their skillsets suffered?

Again...you arent talking about hypothetical people. These things already happened. What is Magic gonna do as a rookie if Red is his coach? Win the title extra hard? How did ending up with Riley/Phil hurt these guys?


It didn't hurt them possibly, we'll never know. But we do know that it helped Bill Russell and we do know that he is good at developing players.




I didnt say Red wasnt good or that they were not close. I said Russell won without every single player and coach. They did not do so without him. Russell was arguably the greatest winner in NCAA history, went on to be the greatest winner thus far in Olympic history(54ppg average margin of victory...Russell the captian and leading scorer), joins the Celtics and a coach and players who had won nothing become the greatest winners in history next to him.

And hes the lucky now. Not them. Hes the luckiest.....ignoring that everything he did with them he did without them right down to coaching 2 title teams.

How is he luckier for playing with them than they are for playing with him...if you admit hes the primary reason they won? How is the guy leading lesser people to success more lucky for that success...than the people riding his coattails to it?

What he was able to do without them has nothing to do with my argument. I'm arguing he was put in a very fortunate situation. And you are replying with even without the fortunate situation he would have done very well. Those are 2 different arguments.


And of course his teammates were also fortunate (more) for playing next to him. But we are talking about Top 10 players here. Of the Top 10 players, he was the most fortunate.

[GP_20]

I've been arguing entrance. But over the course of his career, I don't think ANY other Top 10 NBA player has had as much luck with starcasts and more as much as Russell. Wilt has had some great ones, but not every year. Kareem was decaying for Magic, and even Kobe has had some bad starcasts (05-07).

Russell though? Best one? Most fortunate player of the Top 10?



Seriously can anyone name me another Top 10 player of all-time that has had better starcasts/coaches through out his WHOLE career than Russell? Not 1-2 seasons, not 10, but whole career.

There is no coincidence the Top 10 player with the most help has won the most titles. It should've been expected.


Once again, Russell lucks out.

[Carbine]

I'm not going to copy down some great points made in Bill Simmons new book, but I was pretty even on the two before reading, and after reading (and thus learning a few things I didn't know before) I am now convinced Russell is the "greater" of the two, while Wilt was better as an individual player.

Too bad basketball isn't an individual game, though... so in my view Russell was the better, more influencial player.

I advise everyone to buy Simmons new book. It's great.

[ShaqAttack3234]

I disagree (sort of), they were a good coach and good team before Russell, Bill made them great.

That's pretty much what I meant. They were a good team on their own, but as far as a cast for a star player to have they were great because they had capable players at every position and another legit superstar(Cousy). Russell was what turned them into a great team.



Is Tommy Heinsohn a HOFer if he doesn't play with Russell? He doesn't think so.

Hard to say. If he put up the same numbers he did, but didn't win any rings then I'd say no. But if he was on a team with less talent and he puts up better numbers then who knows?

All I know is that he was a capable player from the start since he won rookie of the year. He doesn't win the award if Russell is there for a full season, but it still tells you that he was a quality addition to the team. And as it turned out he was a key member of the team for years.


No way Bailey Howell, Frank Ramsey or KC Jones get in without winning those titles and even Sam Jones is iffy. If he's not on the Celtics he might have to be the man on a team, he never wanted that.

You're definitely right as far as Ramsey and Jones. Howell? I won't comment on because his resume does look good regardless. 19/10 for a dozen NBA seasons while shooting a well above average(for the time) 48% for his career and missing virtually no games.


Also I should I apologize to you for being an asshole; even though I think sometimes you're way too stubborn, you bring a lot to most discussions you are in.

Thanks and I owe you an apology as well because while I disagree with you have researched the game and watched it for a long time unlike a lot of posters here.

[G.O.A.T]

The Bailey Howell point is well taken; he was a fine offensive player for the Pistons and Bullets but he defensive reputation was so notoriously bad before Boston that he was traded for a back-up center who averaged 7 points and 6 rebounds.

Also his 20-12 numbers were put it in the most shots and free throw attempts per game era in NBA history. If guys like George McGinnis and Spencer Haywood can't get in or contemporaries like Larry Costello or Richie Guerin (career 17-5-5 with a peak of 30 ppg) , I can't see them putting Howell in without the Hardware.

[GP_20]

I'm not going to copy down some great points made in Bill Simmons new book, but I was pretty even on the two before reading, and after reading (and thus learning a few things I didn't know before) I am now convinced Russell is the "greater" of the two, while Wilt was better as an individual player.

Too bad basketball isn't an individual game, though... so in my view Russell was the better, more influencial player.

I advise everyone to buy Simmons new book. It's great.

I just don't know how anyone can take Russell considering Wilt has outrebounded and outscored him in every regular season or playoff series they've ever had. Like how do you do that? That's just amazing. I wonder how many other superstar big men like Shaq or Duncan can say that about another good big man.


Like I said, what does it for me is what Wilt showed throughout his career. Which is everything. He was arguably the greatest scorer ever. He was arguably the greatest rebounder ever. If he had gone down without a ring and just displayed amazing individual domination, I would've picked Russell.

But later Wilt changed his game, and won 2 rings. He showed us that he is also one of the best playmaking centers ever as well. He showed us he can also play the "team game" and fit in perfectly on any type of team when he wants to.

He showed us that also he is a dominant defender. Top 5 at least defensive Centers of all-time.



I mean what am I missing here. You could arguably say Wilt, was a Top 3 Center in each scoring, defense, passing, and rebounding. :applause:

I agree with that statement. And that's just amazing. That's what makes Wilt the better player.

Not "team arguments" which involve teammates and not the player themselves.

[G.O.A.T]

I just don't know how anyone can take Russell considering Wilt has outrebounded and outscored him in every regular season or playoff series they've ever had. Like how do you do that? That's just amazing. I wonder how many other superstar big men like Shaq or Duncan can say that about another good big man.

If you understood basketball you'd know. Russell's goals weren't to out-score or out-rebound Chamberlain, they were to win. Everyone from the era takes Russell, you're the crazy one here not them.



Like I said, what does it for me is what Wilt showed throughout his career. Which is everything. He was arguably the greatest scorer ever. He was arguably the greatest rebounder ever. If he had gone down without a ring and just displayed amazing individual domination, I would've picked Russell.

You think like Chamberlain, one ring was enough for him too; until people started knocking him again than he wanted and finally after numerous tries got #2.


But later Wilt changed his game,

and then he changed it again and again; what are you basing your opinions off of, which book did you read or interviews\videos did you watch?


Here's my favorite part...


I mean what am I missing here. You could arguably say Wilt, was a Top 3 Center in each scoring, defense, passing, and rebounding. :applause:

I agree with that statement. And that's just amazing. That's what makes Wilt the better player.

So you agree were yourself, are amazed at your opinion and think that because of that Wilt is better...are you Wilt Chamberlain?

Few people have been as arrogant and delusional...


Not "team arguments" which involve teammates and not the player themselves.

Right Team arguments are stupid, just because it's a five man game and Russell made every player better according to the players themselves and those who observed them doesn't mean that should be considered when evaluating players.

Even though you only rank Wilt above Russell because of his 2 rings...?


If he had gone down without a ring and just displayed amazing individual domination, I would've picked Russell.

So two rings plus individual and statistical dominance is greater than 11 rings plus individual dominance.

Explain to use how that makes any sense?

[Kblaze8855]

Getting swept out of the Finals is not a major accomplishment. Shaq did not do a lot more than Cousy/Sharman. So I don't see the point of "What did Cousy/Sharman accomplish previous to Russell". Because just like Shaq, they had insignificant accomplishments. So at best, it's a really weak argument.

If losing in the finals isnt a major accomplishment not even getting there is what? Cousy/Sharman/Ed were 3 all stars....all nba first team players. Coached by Red. And combined to do nothing of relevance.



Yes of course. But this is relative to era. Cousy was a Top 3 player in the league back then. So was O'Neal. Neither were the best (57 vs. 97). This isn't Shaq vs. Cousy as much as Shaq relative to the league vs. Cousy relative to the league. I hope you understand why. There is no time machine. Kobe joined Shaq in 97, and Russell joined Cousy in 57.

Shaq in 97 have proven more than Cousy ever did without a superior player on his team. and again...I just gotta point out the fact that shaq is better than this guy. we are talking Shaq here....prime Shaq. With 2 all stars next to him. This is not Cousy/Sharman vs some nobody.


I'll give you that Magic was also very fortunate.

But it wasn't a dream entrance either. Funny how you don't mention Norm Nixon. He was also a great passer/playmaker who played Magic's game. Who played Bill's game in Boston? He immediately became the defensive anchor and was able to do what he did best, defend. On the other hand, Magic's playmaking ability was limited. So let's not ignore this.

I mentioned Norm before you did....

I mentioned him because his presence(as Magic will tell you) was a positive. Playmaking ability being limited? You dont stop playing basketball when it isnt in your hands. Magic had one of the best starts of his career ever. If Norrm hurt him he didnt do a good job of it.



I'm saying at the entrance level. Kobe/Shaq did not immediately start winning. They needed Phil for that. But coming into the league, Kobe did not have Phil. So let's stick to 97.

You tell me. 97 Bulls (69-13), or 57 Hawks (34-38), who had the more fortunate opponent contending for title? This is also part of luck.

You said for your career. And as I said this isnt hypothetical. These things happened. Kobe joined a team of immense talent where he was not looked to dominate and ended up with 3 rings in his early 20s. If we are talking about rookie year only why is the word career even being thrown around? What this is if Kobe stayed a 18 yearold backup his whole career? You spoke of development. How they developed is relevant.

As for finals opponents...

Only relevant once you are in the finals. The 97 Lakers were not. The 80 Lakers were and they won. Im not sure why you are going to hypotheticals. Or why who they play in the finals is a matter of Russells luck when hes the reason they got there in the first place.

It wasnt luck that beat the Hawks. It was russell and Heinson stepping up while the all powerful HOF backcourt shot a combined 5-40 in game 7(Cousy 2-20 Sharman 3-20).

Bill russell won in HS because he was great. He won 56 in a row and 2 titles in college because he was great. He won the gold medal by 54 points a game because he was great. But he gets to the NBA and we gotta start looking for reasons it continued?

The reason is Bill Russell. All the luck and greatness the Celtics had just decided to show up the second he arrived and fly away the moment he left sending them to the lottery.

Guy won at least 15 titles and lost only 1 healthy elimination game on any level in his life.

But hes the lucky one. Not the teammates who won with him and not without him.

He is the lucky one. He needed THEM....

Have people saying he was nothing but Reds missing piece.

Still have people bringing up his HOF teammates as if him winning them 3-10 titles has nothing to do with them being in the HOF.

**** it. If Russell were gonna get the credit hes due hed have gotten it by now. Cousy/Sharman/Red mean hes lucky and not them even if they did nothing before he got there. KC Jones is a great HOF player who put up 7ppg on 35% shooting and played with russell to get rings in the NBA AND college. Wilt being one of 4 or 5 all stars on his first team(depending on if you count a guy who made it the year after or before) isnt enough. He should have had 7 all stars. Plus not all of them are in the hall of fame. And there arent dozens of 50s/60s players who were good but dont get credit as great due to not being on Russells team and therefore a winner. I mean....Guy rodgers...the guy who broke most of Cousys assist records..got to the finals....that guy isnt a 4-5 time ring winner on the Celtics and therefore a HOF player. so him being great doesnt count against Wilt. Makes sense. Paul Arizin didnt accomplish more than Cousy and Sharman even though he put up 29/8 on the way to the title he won without Wilt or Russell. Not like he retired with the highest career PPG anyone retired with until Bob Petitt. Tom Gola didnt also have a title and wasnt all NBA the season before Wilt arrived.

Bill joined a highly successfull team loaded with stars who had proven themselves winners on the highest level time and time again. Wilt joined some scrubs who stole the rings they had from Cousys ample pre russell collection, stuffed the ballots to make those all star games, and bribed the stat keepets into making them look productive.

Its all just so clear to me now.

Now that ive learned the error of my ways allow me to slink away and lick my wounds as I think over the depths of my idiocy.

Goodnight my worthy foe.

[G.O.A.T]

Even though you destroyed his everypoint, he'll ignore that and keep saying the same things. He's an idiot when he's wrong about something. He only sees the points that support his side as valid.

You can tell him that he has his history mixed up and he'll just continue to operate as if it's true.

[GP_20]

KBlaze8855, why do you keep supporting Russell in this thread (as if he hasn't had enough support already).


Don't YOU think Wilt is better anyways? :confusedshrug:


I've already said Russell was the #1 guy on most his title teams and the #1 reason they won. And without them they would not have won. What more do you want to hear? His teammates needed him more than he needed them. His teammates were more lucky to have him then he was to have them.

I agree with all of that. But that has nothing to do with my point.



Fine forget enterances, throughout their careers, no Top 10 player has had starcasts as good as Russell. Even Kobe has had some horrible starcasts (05-07), Wilt too, Shaq, and the list goes on. Russell?

I think in terms of starcasts/coaches, throughout career, Russell ranks #1 as in having the best with him. Not 1 season, career.







But again, what are you doing? You were supposed to be on Wilt's side. :confusedshrug:

[GP_20]

If you understood basketball you'd know. Russell's goals weren't to out-score or out-rebound Chamberlain, they were to win. Everyone from the era takes Russell, you're the crazy one here not them.



In order to win, you have to score and rebound. It's a part of winning. You don't just win by showing up, you have to produce. And Wilt produced more than Russell, everytime.



You think like Chamberlain, one ring was enough for him too; until people started knocking him again than he wanted and finally after numerous tries got #2.

Rings with 2 different teams. Beat that Russell. (Joke)




and then he changed it again and again; what are you basing your opinions off of, which book did you read or interviews\videos did you watch?

Yes he changed it lots of times. And that's whats so impressive. He's done everything. And whatever he's done he has done it in historically high levels. I don't need to read a book to know that Wilt changed his game later in his career from earlier. That's all I was saying.



Here's my favorite part...



So you agree were yourself, are amazed at your opinion and think that because of that Wilt is better...are you Wilt Chamberlain?

Few people have been as arrogant and delusional...

Once again you misinterpret. I said "arguably Top 3....". And then later I myself support this statement. Which is different from saying "arguably" because arguably might mean you don't support it. But I think he was Top 3 everywhere.




Right Team arguments are stupid, just because it's a five man game and Russell made every player better according to the players themselves and those who observed them doesn't mean that should be considered when evaluating players.

Even though you only rank Wilt above Russell because of his 2 rings...?

I value Individual Domination with Team Accomplishments on the side. Thus I value both. And without one, Wilt would not be better. And of course I value Individual Domination more in individual comparisons.




So two rings plus individual and statistical dominance is greater than 11 rings plus individual dominance.

Explain to use how that makes any sense?


Yes because Individual dominance should be valued more when comparing individual players. Thus, Wilt's large advantage individually overcomes Russell's team advantage.

[Kblaze8855]

KBlaze8855, why do you keep supporting Russell in this thread (as if he hasn't had enough support already).


Don't YOU think Wilt is better anyways?


I've already said Russell was the #1 guy on most his title teams and the #1 reason they won. And without them they would not have won. What more do you want to hear? His teammates needed him more than he needed them. His teammates were more lucky to have him then he was to have them.

I agree with all of that. But that has nothing to do with my point.



Fine forget enterances, throughout their careers, no Top 10 player has had starcasts as good as Russell. Even Kobe has had some horrible starcasts (05-07), Wilt too, Shaq, and the list goes on. Russell?

I think in terms of starcasts/coaches, throughout career, Russell ranks #1 as in having the best with him. Not 1 season, career.







But again, what are you doing? You were supposed to be on Wilt's side.


I dont much care which one anyone picks. Both Wilt and russell have the most insane **** used against him. Wilt is disrespected because he was so dominant he makes people assume his opponents sucked and he was out for himself even though he won 2 titles, made 6 finals, and led 2 of the 4 best teams ever wins wise. And Russell won so much he has people pretending someone else made him a winner because nobody could be that good....even if he was the sole common factor to 15 various champions.

These guys both did so much that the mindblowing things they accomplished are the primary thing used to discredit them and I get more annoyed with it every year.

The side I appear to be on will generally be that of who is hated on most foolishly at the moment. And reading that Bill is just Reds missing piece and that PER means some of these guys riding his coattails were better than him....

Its exactly why I dont read ISH much anymore.

There comes a point where you have to totally disregard what you see or spend every minute arguing. And its easier to not read anything. Really this time...going to bed.

Not sleep. But bed....I have a game on DVR that needs watching.

[GP_20]

I dont much care which one anyone picks. Both Wilt and russell have the most insane **** used against him. Wilt is disrespected because he was so dominant he makes people assume his opponents sucked and he was out for himself even though he won 2 titles, made 6 finals, and led 2 of the 4 best teams ever wins wise. And Russell won so much he has people pretending someone else made him a winner because nobody could be that good....even if he was the sole common factor to 15 various champions.

These guys both did so much that the mindblowing things they accomplished are the primary thing used to discredit them and I get more annoyed with it every year.

The side I appear to be on will generally be that of who is hated on most foolishly at the moment. And reading that Bill is just Reds missing piece and that PER means some of these guys riding his coattails were better than him....

Its exactly why I dont read ISH much anymore.

There comes a point where you have to totally disregard what you see or spend every minute arguing. And its easier to not read anything. Really this time...going to bed.

Not sleep. But bed....I have a game on DVR that needs watching.

Yeah they are both generally underrated.

But you don't think Wilt's side was being foolishly hated on this thread? Since you think it's nearly even, you don't think statements like this



There is no argument for Chamberlain



It isn't even close.



I don't understand how people can be so absurd as to ignore all the evidence that shows how clearly superior in every aspect of competition Russell was to Wilt.


are foolish? :oldlol:

Hey at least I think it's a good comparison and everything. This is just absurd. You miss these KBlaze885? Total disrespect on Wilt.




And I never said Bill was Red's missing piece. Don't know where you heard that from. And who used PER? Probably CB4GOATPF or whatever, but no one listens to his colored arguments anyways.

[KG215]

Yes he changed it lots of times. And that's whats so impressive. He's done everything. And whatever he's done he has done it in historically high levels. I don't need to read a book to know that Wilt changed his game later in his career from earlier. That's all I was saying.


It's also been pointed out by people from that time, that Chamberlain changed his game so often for selfish reasons. He wanted to score X amount of points, or average X amount of rebounds, or lead the league in assists, for himself. Not to make his team better. Like G.O.A.T. said, Chamberlain got his 1 ring and was satisfied with that, he then wanted to move on to accomplishing more individual goals. Aren't a lot of players greatness (regardless of sport) measured by level of team success and titles won? Russell set aside personal achievement and success for team success.

Here's a question (and I'm seriously wanting your point of view on this) shouldn't a player as statistically dominant as Wilt won more than 2 rings in that era? I mean, shouldn't someone who dominated statistically at as high of a level as Wilt did, made his teams quite a bit better than any other team in the league on more than 2 occassions? While Shaq had some very impressive statistcal seasons in a much tougher era for big men to put up as gaudy of numbers as they did in the Wilt/Russell era, he has still won 4 rings, and 3 as option A, while never putting up Wiltesque numbers.

You've made it clear that in a case when comparing one player's historical greatness to another player's historical greatness, the individual statistics mean much more to you. But again, when athletes are heavily judged on the amount of success their teams had, and how many titles he won, how can you not see Russell was better?

[G.O.A.T]

Yeah they are both generally underrated.

But you don't think Wilt's side was being foolishly hated on this thread? Since you think it's nearly even, you don't think statements like this


are foolish? :oldlol:

Hey at least I think it's a good comparison and everything. This is just absurd. You miss these KBlaze885? Total disrespect on Wilt.




And I never said Bill was Red's missing piece. Don't know where you heard that from. And who used PER? Probably CB4GOATPF or whatever, but no one listens to his colored arguments anyways.

This is someone telling you you're wrong and you begging him to tell me I'm wrong. This is what you do.

He understands my argument and why I say the things I do...("did you miss these"...sad dude) if he thought WIlt was better I'd be fine with it because he understands my argument and draws a different conclusion...it's subjective. He also understands hyperbole, context and nuance, which you do not and thus understands when I say "there is no argument against Russell" I mean that laying out all the unbiased evidence I have come across and weighing it based on my educated opinions on what makes a good basketball player I draw a very clear conclusion as to who is better.

When Abe said he preferred Wilt, I asked him why and he explained he values individual season peak the most when measuring a players greatness. At that point I understood and accepted his argument knowing he understood and accepted mine. We both get smarter.

I don't respect or understand your opinion because your opinion is based mostly on other opinions you have a lot of which are factually untrue and\or lack much basis based on everything I've read and seen about the issue. When I point out these flaws you ignore it and continue to make an argument based on stats and opinions that exclusively highlight the good in Chamberlain and the "luck" or "good fortune" of Russell.

[G.O.A.T]

Debunking the Myth: Russell came into a great situation and Chamberlain a poor one.

Russell drafted by Celtics in 1957
Celtics four seasons prior: 163-124
Best Season: 46-25 Lost in Division Finals
Team Mates (accomplishments prior to Star's arrival)
F: Tom Hiensohn 22 (rookie) ; rookie averaged 16-10-2
F: Jim Loscutoff 25 (13-14-2);averaged carer highs 13 and 14 in rookie season 1956
G: Bill Sharman 29 (20-4-5); 4 time all-star three time all-nba (he'd double those)
G: Bob Cousy 27 (19-7-9); 6 time all-star 5 time all-NBA


Chamberlain acquired by Warriors in 1960.
Warriors four prior seasons:151-137
Best Season: 45-27 NBA Champs
Team Mates (accomplishments prior to Star's arrival)
F: Tom Gola 26 (14-11-4); three-time all-star, (five total) all-NBA in '58, NBA Champ '55
F: Woody Sailsbury 24 (15-12-1); averaged career highs 15 and 12 in his 2nd season 1959
G: Paul Arizin 30 (26-9-2); 7 time all-star; 4-time all-NBA selection NBA Champ '55
G: Guy Rodgers 23 (11-6-6); 2nd year future five time all-star two time league leader assists


Cousy and Arizin are a wash. Both have 11 combined all-NBA+all-star selections when their big man arrives and both put up great numbers the year before. Cousy is three years younger a slight edge to Russ.

The second best player for each team was Tom Gola for Philly a defensive whiz and all-around player who excelled most as a rebounder. Boston had Sharman a defensive whiz and all-around player who excelled most as a shooter. Sharman was the better player, but Gola having the title experience and still as an all-NBA\all-star player helps. He is 26 when Wilt gets there, Sharman 29 when Russ arrives.

The other two players are young for both teams, the PF's both fade quickly after the dominant big men arrive.

Hiensohn gets better with Russell, Rodgers gets better when he leaves Wilt.

So while I think Boston was clearly a better situation overall, not by much. Also factor in that While Philly kept it's core in tact from the 1955 title when they drafted Wilt, Boston lost all-NBA center Ed MacCauley from a team that couldn't even get to the finals to get Russell.

[GP_20]

It's also been pointed out by people from that time, that Chamberlain changed his game so often for selfish reasons. He wanted to score X amount of points, or average X amount of rebounds, or lead the league in assists, for himself. Not to make his team better. Like G.O.A.T. said, Chamberlain got his 1 ring and was satisfied with that, he then wanted to move on to accomplishing more individual goals. Aren't a lot of players greatness (regardless of sport) measured by level of team success and titles won? Russell set aside personal achievement and success for team success.



I admit he was selfish at times. But no one can just go out and do what he did when he wanted to do it. No one could go in and average 50ppg (while still winning games) because they want to. No big man can lead the league in assists (and win games) just because they want to.

He was a Top 3 center are all the major individual categories. Scoring, rebounds, passing, and defense. Good argument for all 4. :applause:


Here's a question (and I'm seriously wanting your point of view on this) shouldn't a player as statistically dominant as Wilt won more than 2 rings in that era? I mean, shouldn't someone who dominated statistically at as high of a level as Wilt did, made his teams quite a bit better than any other team in the league on more than 2 occassions? While Shaq had some very impressive statistcal seasons in a much tougher era for big men to put up as gaudy of numbers as they did in the Wilt/Russell era, he has still won 4 rings, and 3 as option A, while never putting up Wiltesque numbers.

Well yes. Maybe he should have won more. And thats why he is not the GOAT for me. That's why he is not even the GOAT center for me. Because despite his individual domination, he only has 2 rings.




You've made it clear that in a case when comparing one player's historical greatness to another player's historical greatness, the individual statistics mean much more to you. But again, when athletes are heavily judged on the amount of success their teams had, and how many titles he won, how can you not see Russell was better?

Not necessarily statistics. But more anything related to just yourself. Individual accomplishments/skill/game, etc.

But individual domination is more important than how your team functioned when arguing players. I've given you plenty of analogies to see that. The best student from the classes on an exam, is not the best one in the class that wins, but just the best overall scorer.

If we were comparing teams/classes, yes winning is very important and more important than talent and individual player ability. But we are not comparing teams here.

And we aren't playing tennis or golf here either, where whether you win or lose, it's all on you.


This is about comparing individual players. And when this is being done, their individual accomplishments should matter more. Though team accomplishments are also very important. But individual ability comes first when comparing individuals.

[GP_20]

I don't respect or understand your opinion because your opinion is based mostly on other opinions you have a lot of which are factually untrue and\or lack much basis based on everything I've read and seen about the issue. When I point out these flaws you ignore it and continue to make an argument based on stats and opinions that exclusively highlight the good in Chamberlain and the "luck" or "good fortune" of Russell.


I've said things factually untrue? :oldlol:
My opinions? What like Wilt is better individually? Russell is better team-success wise? Those opinions? Or Wilt was a dominant scorer and rebounder? Those opinions?

Yeah man I need to check myself. What was I thinking, Wilt a great scorer? :hammerhead:




Please, I've been very objective in my analysis. You are just delusional.

[triangleoffense]

Originally Posted by KG215
It's also been pointed out by people from that time, that Chamberlain changed his game so often for selfish reasons. He wanted to score X amount of points, or average X amount of rebounds, or lead the league in assists, for himself. Not to make his team better. Like G.O.A.T. said, Chamberlain got his 1 ring and was satisfied with that, he then wanted to move on to accomplishing more individual goals. Aren't a lot of players greatness (regardless of sport) measured by level of team success and titles won? Russell set aside personal achievement and success for team success.
Wilt may have been selfish during some part of his career but he lead the league in assists during his latter stretch of his career. Plus that fact doesn't take away from that accomplishment one bit. AI lead the league in scoring for 7+ leagues and he did it for a selfish purpose but how many other SGs tried to do the same and failed? The fact that he could change his game and lead the league in assists as a center, no matter what the circumstance, is extremely impressive.

Wilt lead in the league in assists because he had the talent capacity to do so, no other center can say that. Your talent and skill level are not dependent on how selfish you are. Jordan was/is labeled as one of the most selfish players in history, look where that got him and look at how many players failed at trying to be just as selfish.

[GP_20]

Debunking the Myth: Russell came into a great situation and Chamberlain a poor one.

Russell drafted by Celtics in 1957
Celtics four seasons prior: 163-124
Best Season: 46-25 Lost in Division Finals
Team Mates (accomplishments prior to Star's arrival)
F: Tom Hiensohn 22 (rookie) ; rookie averaged 16-10-2
F: Jim Loscutoff 25 (13-14-2);averaged carer highs 13 and 14 in rookie season 1956
G: Bill Sharman 29 (20-4-5); 4 time all-star three time all-nba (he'd double those)
G: Bob Cousy 27 (19-7-9); 6 time all-star 5 time all-NBA


Chamberlain acquired by Warriors in 1960.
Warriors four prior seasons:151-137
Best Season: 45-27 NBA Champs
Team Mates (accomplishments prior to Star's arrival)
F: Tom Gola 26 (14-11-4); three-time all-star, (five total) all-NBA in '58, NBA Champ '55
F: Woody Sailsbury 24 (15-12-1); averaged career highs 15 and 12 in his 2nd season 1959
G: Paul Arizin 30 (26-9-2); 7 time all-star; 4-time all-NBA selection NBA Champ '55
G: Guy Rodgers 23 (11-6-6); 2nd year future five time all-star two time league leader assists


Cousy and Arizin are a wash. Both have 11 combined all-NBA+all-star selections when their big man arrives and both put up great numbers the year before. Cousy is three years younger a slight edge to Russ.

The second best player for each team was Tom Gola for Philly a defensive whiz and all-around player who excelled most as a rebounder. Boston had Sharman a defensive whiz and all-around player who excelled most as a shooter. Sharman was the better player, but Gola having the title experience and still as an all-NBA\all-star player helps. He is 26 when Wilt gets there, Sharman 29 when Russ arrives.

The other two players are young for both teams, the PF's both fade quickly after the dominant big men arrive.

Hiensohn gets better with Russell, Rodgers gets better when he leaves Wilt.

So while I think Boston was clearly a better situation overall, not by much. Also factor in that While Philly kept it's core in tact from the 1955 title when they drafted Wilt, Boston lost all-NBA center Ed MacCauley from a team that couldn't even get to the finals to get Russell.



Interesting how you used last 4 years. Working hard to include that championship? :rolleyes:

Pathetic. If we are going to start using 4-5 years prior, then might as well say Celtics were still successful after Russell left as they won the title in 74.

It's lame G.O.A.T.



The Warriors were a non-playoff team when Wilt arrived. And he singlehandedly turned them to being the 2nd best team in the NBA record wise. Enough said. Russell arrived already in a playoff team and turned them into the best team. Wilt didn't do too bad turning a non-playoff team to the 2nd best team. I say their rookie impacts were about even. Wilt also won MVP in his rookie season. Which is also pretty amazing.



So at the end of the day


Russell joins

4 HOFs
Next Year's league MVP
GOAT Caliber Coach
Playoff Team


Wilt Joins

2 HOFs
Non-Playoff Team






No comparison.

[triangleoffense]

One important thing to note:Russell had the same coach coaching him his entire NBA career, Wilt had to play for 3 different coaches if not more during his career. That coach that was around Russell his entire career was Red, which didn't hurt either. Sure Wilt played with great teammates, hell he played with Baylor and West, but every time he seemed to have great chemistry flowing with a certain unit something drastic happens which complicated a lot of things. The coach Wilt respected the most (WWII vet, forgot his name) retired halfway during his career, he also had a coach before that he didn't meet eye to eye with, which is an understatement. You could say that the fact that Russell had the same consistent HOF coaches and players around him his entire career is what drove his amazing championship accomplishments.

If you look at the rivarly from a strictly 1 on 1 matchup, Russell averaged 13/27 a game and Chamberlin averaged 27/27. Those numbers are a little skewed actually, since Chamberlin dropped 50 on Russell 4 times and once dropped 60 on him(during the finals I believe), his game changed enormously during the end of his career as he became amazingly more rounded. A lot of statisticians during that time claim that Wilt would have 100+ quadriple-doubles if blocks and steals were a stat during that time.

[ArizaAttack24]

Kblaze raped this thread, Russell was the superior 5 on 5 player, Wilt was the superior 1 on 1 player.

[GP_20]

Kblaze raped this thread, Russell was the superior 5 on 5 player, Wilt was the superior 1 on 1 player.
Obviously you didn't get what he was saying. Because last time I asked him, KBlaze said he would rank Wilt over Russell.

[CB4GOATPF]

[QUOTE=CB4GOATPF][QUOTE=KG215]That's because Wilt wore out his welcome with two teams and was traded two different times. The caoches and players didn't like playing with him. Not in a million years would the Celtics have even considered trading Russell.

[B][COLOR="Blue"]Well their fault for not beinbg able to build teams well. THEY WHERE NOT THE BEST COACH OF ALL TIME IN RED.

A MASTER EYE FOR PICKING MISSING LINKS-PIECES, BULDING A TEAM DEEPLY AND ORQUESATING A SYSTEM FROM POINT A TO Z

That

[ArizaAttack24]

Obviously you didn't get what he was saying. Because last time I asked him, KBlaze said he would rank Wilt over Russell.
I saw that part and it's reasonable even if he thought so, He just raped the part where all of you usually discredit Russell for not putting up dominant stats.

[pierce2008mvp]

Russell pooped on Wilt.

[HighFlyer23]

kobe

[DKLaker]

Great Post Psileas :applause:


It was me who mentioned about Wilt outrebounding and outscoring in every playoff and regular season series. Though I remember hearing that from you...

But your whole post was just a more detailed version of my original post





And it's the truth. Wilt outplayed Russell all the time. It's just that Wilt's teammates didn't come through like Russell's did. And your post helped explain that better.

I actually saw many games between them live, I can tell you that back then there was very little argument that Wilt was by far the better player.
Russell was a great defensive player and rebounder but not the all around player that Wilt was. Boston had better players who played together longer under the same coaching system....better coaching than Wilt had.
The Lakers should've won more titles with Wilt but the Celtics organization was a well oiled machine like the Yankees, and they knew every trick in the book, including dirty tricks. Russell in the modern game would be comparable to prime Theo Ratliff....not an All-Star but a very solid player. Wilt would be a cross between Hakeem and Dwight Howard, an every year All-Star.

Threads like this make me wonder.........20-30 years from now will some idiots really try to claim that Robert Horry was better than Shaq? Kobe?.........MJ?......WTF!!!!!!!!

[ShaqAttack3234]

RocketGreatness, why are you posting in the same thread under 2 accounts?

[ThaRegul8r]

Why don't you breakdown their games individually?


Wilt a far superior scorer. (This is a major understatement)
Wilt a better rebounder (clearly)
Russell a better defender (Though Wilt was also good)

Why is Wilt "clearly" the better rebounder, though Russell was the better defender, though you interject that "Wilt was also good?" So evidently Russell wasn't "also good" either?


Seriously, Wilt's offensive advantage is far greater than Russell's defensive advantage.

Hmmm. Who would you say had a greater offensive impact? Wilt or Jordan?

[Dresta]

[QUOTE=CB4GOATPF][B]Baylor was in the downside of his career when he playing with Wilt age 34 plus. Was still great but he wasn

[ArizaAttack24]

Russell.

[CB4GOATPF]

So how come Russell still won in 69, despite a vastly inferior team?

Russell won? :no: No his Team won :rolleyes:

Well Experience. You play a Decade Wth the Same Players and the Best Coach Ever you have alot of advantages. And also u must account for Bench.

[GP_20]

Why is Wilt "clearly" the better rebounder, though Russell was the better defender, though you interject that "Wilt was also good?" So evidently Russell wasn't "also good" either?


Wilt outrebounded him every season and playoff series meeting they've had all their careers. Enough said.



Hmmm. Who would you say had a greater offensive impact? Wilt or Jordan?

Close. Wilt.

[ThaRegul8r]

Why is Wilt "clearly" the better rebounder, though Russell was the better defender, though you interject that "Wilt was also good?" So evidently Russell wasn't "also good" either?

Wilt outrebounded him every season and playoff series meeting they've had all their careers. Enough said.

Though when you look at what the people who were there at the time and both saw both and played against both, you find statements such as:

Wilt Chamberlain:

[Justice44]

Yeah, I can really see Bill Russell taking Wilt's Philly teams to 10 titles. You're right GOAT. It is absolutely a fact that Russell would have taken the Philadelphia Warriors and 76ers to multiple titles.:oldlol: :oldlol: It is absolutely obvious that Wilt would have only won two titles with Bill's Celtics teams. Please! Stop the madness.:mad:


Wilt would have won more titles with Russell's Celtics teams than Bill would have won titles with Wilt's Philadelphia teams. Do we honestly need to debate this? GOAT, since the only statistics you seem to think are important are titles, I present the above as evidence of Bill Russell

[Justice44]

If you understood basketball you'd know. Russell's goals weren't to out-score or out-rebound Chamberlain, they were to win. Everyone from the era takes Russell, you're the crazy one here not them.
Goat that is the goal of many athletes. Do you honestly believe Wilt was NOT trying to win. Give me a break.




Right Team arguments are stupid, just because it's a five man game and Russell made every player better according to the players themselves and those who observed them doesn't mean that should be considered when evaluating players.
That's nice GOAT but the bottom line is that a lot of hall of fame and good players that make players better.:cheers: Steve Nash makes players better. Rondo makes players better.

The bottom line is this Bill Russells ability to make players better could not help Wilt's Philly's teams win more than 2 titles. However, if Wilt was on the Russell's Celtics teams, Wilt's ability to make players better by asissts and his overwhelming offensive arsenal would give the Celtics 8 titles. See, I'll give Russell credit on making players better but the bottom line is that he had Hall of Fame caliber players before he arrived. What do you not understand? Wilt is a far superior center than Bill Russell. Honestly, GOAT do you really think Wilt would not win multiple titles if he were on Russell's Celtics teams and Bill would only win two titles if he were on Chamberlain's Philly's teams? :confusedshrug:

[Justice44]

Kblaze raped this thread, Russell was the superior 5 on 5 player, Wilt was the superior 1 on 1 player.

Wilt was the best overall player. It is absolutely ridiculous to think that Wilt did not make his players better.

[Justice44]

More amazing than 11 NBA titles, 2 NCAA titles and a Gold Medal in 15 years?

More amazing having the most Championships in the history all American team sports, winning the only title ever as a player coach and doing it again the next year?

More amazing than being undefeated in game sevens and averagin more points, rebounds and assists in those games than you did during any season of your career?

GOAT for someone who rips others for using individual stats, you are addicted to title stats. I guess you think that Rajon Rondo is equal to Oscar Robertson. Pretty soon, you will be arguing Robert Horry is better than Karl Malone. :roll:

Russell was one of the major contributors on those Celts team. Yes, he was often the best player. However, I find a man who individual dominates and takes a scrubby non-play off team to the 2nd best record in the NBA, more impressive. I find a man who takes vastly inferior Philly teams within a few points of the Boston Cetlics, more impressive. Wilt scored becuase he had to freaking score. Bill Russell to me is a level below Magic.

In many ways, he is no different than Troy Aikman. The difference is Rusell was fortunate to be on a championship level team which won seven more titles than Aikman.

[Papaya Petee]

This has been debated a gadzillion times. Wilt was a better player individually while Bill Russell was a better team player. Both sides will constantly argue the same things. One side will talk about Wilt's statistic, other about Russell's accomplishments.

I would rather have Wilt, but you can't go wrong with either one.

[ThaRegul8r]

This thread is resurrected after three months?

[Justice44]

This thread is resurrected after three months?
Are you surprised?:oldlol: :oldlol: :oldlol:

[G.O.A.T]

Looks like someone created a second account to rehash the argument.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Russell is tough to rank. I mean at first, looking at his offensive game, I couldn't see how some thought he was the best ever, but then I looked at it a different way. He's won more championships than anyone, he's arguably the best defender of all time and he's the best player-coach in NBA history. So I can see a case, but it's really tough to say with there being so little footage available.

[Justice44]

This has been debated a gadzillion times. Wilt was a better player individually while Bill Russell was a better team player. Both sides will constantly argue the same things. One side will talk about Wilt's statistic, other about Russell's accomplishments.


Actually, I argue that Wilt's impact caused most of his teams to over achieve. I believe that I might have stated in a previous post that Bill may have won no more than two rings with Wilt's teams. After pondering it, I have decided to change my position:

Bill Russell would have made Wilt's teams into consistently competitive playoff teams. There is ONLY a slight chance that Bill would have won one ring!! :roll: However, if Wilt was on Russell's teams he would win at least nine titles. :roll: :roll:

[Justice44]

Russell is tough to rank. I mean at first, looking at his offensive game, I couldn't see how some thought he was the best ever, but then I looked at it a different way. He's won more championships than anyone, he's arguably the best defender of all time and he's the best player-coach in NBA history. So I can see a case, but it's really tough to say with there being so little footage available.

It's a shame that Bill Russell is compared to Wilt. Bill Russell is one of the top defenders of all time and arguably one of the most all-around defensive players of all time. However, I just don't see how Bill's impact made the Celtics overachieve more than Wilt's on inferior Sixers teams. Bill had a Hall of Fame backcourt and other HOFers. If you put Moses Malone on those Celtics teams, you would have at least 8 titles. Wilt would have made those Celtics teams far more dominant in head to head team matches.

Why is Russell considered the greatest winner of all-time in the NBA? Cousy was often as instrumental as Russell in those Celtic titles.

[catch24]

It's a shame that Bill Russell is compared to Wilt. Bill Russell is one of the top defenders of all time and arguably one of the most all-around defensive players of all time. However, I just don't see how Bill's impact made the Celtics overachieve more than Wilt's on inferior Sixers teams. Bill had a Hall of Fame backcourt and other HOFers. If you put Moses Malone on those Celtics teams, you would have at least 8 titles. Wilt would have made those Celtics teams far more dominant in head to head team matches.

Why is Russell considered the greatest winner of all-time in the NBA? Cousy was often as instrumental as Russell in those Celtic titles.

You're an idiot. Funny that you start posing all this nonsense under a gimmick/sock. P*ssy :oldlol:

[G.O.A.T]

For those of you who are looking for evidence of Russell's intangibles showing up on the stat sheet.

Here's why he is the ultimate clutch player:

Bill's stat line's in closeout games of the NBA Finals


(points, rebounds,assists,FG,FT)

1957 19 32 2 7-17 5-10
1959 15 32 5 5-8 5-10
1960 22 35 4 7-15 8-10
1961 30 38 7 9-17 12-19
1962 30 40 5 10-17 10-15
1963 12 24 9 5-12 2-5
1964 14 24 11 5-6 4-5
1965 22 30 4 6-9 10-12
1966 25 32 1 10-22 5-5
1968 18 19 6 5-7 8-9
1969 6 21 6 2-7 2-4

averages of 19.6 points 29.7 rebounds 5.7 assists per game and a field goal percentage of 52 and free throw percentage of 68. Both significantly higher than any numbers he posted for his career. Two 30-30 games, a triple-double and another game one assist away. factor in his reported 13 blocks against Wilt's Sixers in 1964 and you have a closeout game quadruple double in the NBA Finals.

[Fatal9]

Wilt in do or die games....

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=165643

I bet his "close out" games are even better considering your team wins those. And he had some of the most incredible performances to save his teams from elimination too.

[jlauber]

While I have come to marvel at Russell's impact on the game of basketball, I still think Bill Simmons is a complete idiot...as I posted a while back...

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=160893

I'll save myself some time and copy-and-paste my take on the Simmon's PERCEPTION that Wilt and Russell played on evenly matched teams...

Simmons states that Russell's perceived superior surrounding talent difference was not all that great, on pages 61-66 (unfortunately pages 62-63 were deleted from that link...but they are unnecessary to the discussion.)

Simmons concedes that Russell had considerably more talented teams in '61, '62, '63, and '64. He somehow comes up with Russell only having a slight edge in '60 (Wilt's rookie year), and in '65, when Wilt was traded to Philly. Let's examine the last two, though. How in the world does he honestly believe that by Wilt coming to a last place before the beginning of his rookie year, in the '59-'60 season, that Russell only had a marginal edge? Wilt took that 32-40 team to a 49-26 record. Meanwhile Boston continued to improve, going from a 52-20 team in '58-'59 to a 59-16 mark in the '59-'60 season.

Let's examine the rosters: In that '59-'60 season, Wilt played with HOFer Paul Arizin, HOFer Tom Gola (who has much business being in the HOF as I do), Guy Rodgers (a quailt passing guard, but one of the worst shooters in NBA history), and a bunch of no-names. How about Russell? He combined with SIX other HOFers (SEVEN total)...Cousey, Heinsohn, Jones and Jones, Ramsey, and Heinsohn. Granted KC Jones and Frank Ramsey are probably not deserving of the HOF either, but Ramsey was certainly better than Gola.

In the '64-'65 season, Wilt was traded to the Sixers, and along with HOFer Hal Greer, and an under-rated Chet Walker, they improved from 34-46 to 40-40. Not only that, but they easily dispatched with the 48-32 Royals in the playoffs, 3-1. However, to claim that that Sixer team was only "marginally" better than Russell's Celtics, is completely ridiculous. Boston had their best record ever that year, going 62-18. Not only did Russell have Jones and Jones, Cousey, and Heinsohn, but John Havlicek as well. And, as always, Auerbach had a much deeper roster than Wilt's Sixers, with John Thompson, Mel Counts, Satch Sanders, Willie Naulls, and Larry Siegfried.

So, after we re-examine the first six years of the Russell-Wilt rivalry, it is CLEAR that Russell had FAR superior teams in ALL six of them. Yet, Wilt guided two of those mediocre rosters to game seven defeats, one by ONE point, and the other by TWO points.

Continuing, Simmons states that Wilt had superior rosters from the '65-'66 season thru the '68-'69 seasons (four years), and yet, Russell's TEAMs still went 3-1 in that span. Let's examine that statement further, shall we...

Yes, Wilt's '65-'66 76ers added HOFer Billy Cunningham, and went 55-25, while Boston dropped to 54-26. Still, the Celtics were only a year removed from their best-ever season, while the Sixers were a young, rising power. Wilt now had HOFers Greer, and Cunningham (in his rookie year), along with Walker and Luke Jackson. Player-for-player, Philly's top-four players were probably better than Boston's top-four (Russell, Havlicek, Sam Jones, and Don Nelson), but after that the Celtics had a huge edge, with players like Naulls, Counts, Sanders, and Siegfried. And, yes, Boston easily whipped the 76ers in the playoffs, 4-1. However, it was certainly not Chamberlain's fault, as he outscored Russell, per game, 28-14, and outrebounded him 30-26. In the clinching game five loss, Wilt had a maginificent game, scoring 46 points, with 34 rebounds (Russell was at 18-31 BTW.) However, the rest of the Celtics thoroughly outplayed Chamberlain's supporting cast.

How about the '68-'69 season (Russell's last year in the NBA), in which the 48-34 Celtics stunned the favored 55-27 Lakers, 4-3? I have mentioned it many times, but when LA acquired Wilt in a trade, they gave up THREE players (and a boatload of cash), including all-star guard Archie Clark, and a decent journeyman center, Darrell Imhoff...which really hurt the Lakers depth. Not only that, but Elgin Baylor was on a severe down-slide. And, finally, the Lakers had one of the worst coaches, EVER, in Butch Van Breda Kolf. I have documented that series many times, but clearly, Van Breda Kolf COST LA a title that year. His determination to have Chamberlain sacrifice his offense (and even play the high-post, as well as benching him in some games), to allow Baylor to shoot blanks (particularly in the playoffs, where he shot .385 from the field...while Wilt shot .545)...AND to keep Wilt on the bench in the last five-plus minutes of that game seven TWO-point loss, was THE reason that Boston was able to eke out a game seven win. In terms of rosters, Boston had a MUCH deeper roster...Russell, Havlicek, Howell, Sam Jones, Nelson, Sanders, Siegfried, and even rookie Don Chaney. True, they were an aging team, and on the decline, but they were deep, and experienced. Combine that with TWO miracle shots in that series (Jones hit a game-winning shot, while falling down, that banked in in game four...and Nelson hit the game-winning shot in game seven, that hit the back of the rim...bounced eight feet in the air, and came straight down thru the basket), with Van Breda Kolf's stupidity, and it was really no surprise that Boston won that series in seven games.

Incidently, Simmons later mentions how "clutch" Russell was, and how Wilt "choked" later on in that chapter, but the seventh game of those '69 Finals was an example to the contrary. While Russell was on the floor the entire fourth quarter, he was nowhere to be found. And, as always, Wilt outplayed him, despite missing the last five minutes of the game. More on that later, though.

So, we have covered eight of the ten seasons in which Russell and Wilt went H2H, and by MY tally, Russell had a HUGE edge in six of them, a slight edge in the '66 season, and probably a slightly less talented roster in '69...but much deeper, and with Russell outcoaching the idiotic Van Breda Kolf, and Boston getting TWO miraculous game-winning shots...they overcame the slight edge of talent. In any case, Wilt had THREE teams that lost game seven's by TWO, ONE, and TWO points in those eight years. He also thoroughly outplayed Russell in the other five. I have covered those years before, though, and if Simmons, or anyone else would want to challenge me on that, I would welcome the debate.

That leaves two other seasons. I will agree with Simmons that Wilt had stronger supporting casts, although, I would contend that it was not dramatic. On page 64 Simmons makes the comment that Wilt's '67 team had the "perfect storm"...his BEST team, and Russell's WORST. Here again, let's take a closer look: Yes, Philly went an astonishing 68-13, shattering almost every known team record that year. And yes, Wilt had a quality supporting cast, with Greer, Cunningham, Walker, Wali Jones, and Luke Jackson, along with Bill Melchionni. However, to say that Boston had their weakest team was somewhat ridiculous. That Celtic team went 60-21, and featured Russell, Havlicek, Howell, Jones and Jones...all in the HOF (Wilt had Greer and Cunningham as his fellow HOFers), AND the Celtics once again had a very deep bench that included Jim Barnett, Nelson, Sanders, Wayne Embry, and Siegfried. And, still despite that quality roster, Wilt crushed Russell and his teammates negated Russell's usual edge, and Chamberlain's Sixers blew out the Celtics, 4-1 (with only a 121-117 game four win preventing a sweep.)

For the umpteenth time, the '67-'68 season was well on it's way to a duplication of the previous season. Philly once again romped away with the best record league, by a wide margin, going 62-20, while Boston came in at 54-28. But, unlike the '66-'67 season, the Sixers were decimated by injuries in the post-season (all of which Simmons fails to mention BTW.) They lost Cunningham before that Eastern Finals, and he missed the rest of the season. And, despite his absence, the Sixers still jumped out to a 3-1 series lead. However, Luke Jackson was injured in game five, and was worthless the rest of the series. Those two injuries killed Philly's solid edge at the forward position, and with no real depth, the Sixers were now heavily outgunned. On top of that, Wilt's remaining teammates shot an awful 33% in the seventh game...a 100-96 loss. So, in review, the Sixers were without HOFer Cunningham, lost Jackson to injury in game five, shot a miserable percentage in game seven...and Russell's Celtics managed to edge Wilt's Sixers by FOUR points...in a seven game series. CLEARLY, had the Sixers been healthy, it would have been another easy series win for Philly.

So, Russell's 7-1 H2H post-season margin was achieved with six heavily more talented teams, one marginally more talented, one slightly less talented, and two considerably less talented (although Wilt's H2H edge makes them more talented.) And in one, his slightly less talented team, his TEAM ekes out a TWO-point game seven win, with Wilt shackled with a boob for a coach. In another, his solidly less talented team wins a game seven, by FOUR points, when Wilt loses TWO quality players to injury...therefore negating the edge that he had. The REALITY was, Russell's 7-1 edge, with a TOTAL of a nine-point swing (and without injuries, horrible coaching, and miracle shots), could just have easily have been a 5-3 edge for Wilt.

Simmons breaks down the HOF players as well, saying that Russell had a slight 10-9 total edge (and 8-8 during their H2H seasons)...but I will address that next...

[jlauber]

On pages 65 and 66 Simmons states that Russell only played with four of the 1996 NBA's Top-50 all-time players list, (Havlicek, Cousey, Sharman, and Sam Jones), while Wilt played with six (Baylor, West, Greer, Cunningham, Arizin and Thurmond.)

"Russell played with four members of the NBA's Top 50 at 50 (Havlicek, Cousy, Sharman, and Sam Jones); Wilt played with six members (Baylor, West, Greer, Cunningham, Arizin, and Thurmond). And Russell's teammates from 1957 to 1969 were selected to twenty-six All-Star games, while Wilt's teammates from 1960 to 1973 were selected to twenty-four. Let's never mention the supporting-cast card again with Russell and Chamberlain. Thank you."

I will give you my take on this in my next post, but here is an interesting link...



http://www.basketball-reference.com/blog/?p=4229

You can read the numbers for yourself, but after breaking down the minutes, these were his conclusions:

"Now you can see Russell's "score" is more than twice that of Wilt,"

"Obviously this is just a fun exercise, and far from scientific, but you can still see that Chamberlain's teammates were in fact significantly less talented than Russell's, by both our Quality of Teammates metric and even by Bill Simmons' own ranking method. So I don't think it's quite fair to say, "let's never mention the supporting-cast card again with Russell and Chamberlain," because it's still pretty obvious that Wilt's supporting cast was inferior to Russell's by a good margin."

[jlauber]

Continuing on about the quality of play between Russell's cast, and Wilt's, here was my take from another post on a similar topic:

Well, for the record, from the '59-'60 season thru the '68-'69 season, Bill Russell played with 19 other teammates in the All-Star game, while Wilt played alongside 16 all-star teammates. Both Russell and Wilt made the All-Star game every year in those ten years, making Russell and teammates with 29 appearances, while Wilt and his teammates made 26 appearances.

I didn't research any all-star teams before, or after, those ten years, because those were the 10 years in which Russell and Wilt went H2H.

Here we go:

1959-60:
Russell, Cousey, Sharman
Wilt, Gola, Arizin

1960-61:
Russell, Cousey, Heinsohn
Wilt, Gola, Arizin

1961-62:
Russell, Cousey, Heinsohn, S. Jones
Wilt, Arizin

1962-63:
Russell, Cousey, Heinsohn
Wilt, Rodgers, Meschery

1963-64:
Russell, Heinsohn, S. Jones
Wilt, Rodgers

1964-65:
Russell, S. Jones
Wilt, Thurmond

1965-66:
Russell, Havlicek, S. Jones
Wilt, Walker, Greer

1966-67:
Russell, Havlicek, Howell
Wilt, Greer, Walker

1967-68:
Russell, Havlicek, S. Jones
Wilt, Greer

1968-69:
Russell, Havlicek
Wilt, Baylor, West

Furthermore, Tom Meschery and Tom Gola were very questionable in their appearances. Some might question Bailey Howell, but in his 66-67 season appearance, he averaged 20 ppg on .512 shooting, which was considerably better than what Meschery or Gola had in their all-star seasons.

Wilt did play with nine different teammates in that 10 year span, while Russell only played with six, so if that is what Simmons meant when he said that Wilt played with more all-stars, then he was correct. HOWEVER, Russell's teammates had more APPEARANCES.

[jlauber]

And further still...

Both Wilt and Russell are credited with playing with eight other HOFers. There are some discernable differences, however. At some points in his career, Chamberlain played with Paul Arizin, Tom Gola, Nate Thurmond, Hal Greer, Billy Cunningham, Elgin Baylor, Jerry West, and Gail Goodrich. Meanwhile, Russell played alongside Bob Cousey, Frank Ramsey, Bill Sharman, KC Jones, Sam Jones, Tom Heinsohn, John Havlicek, and Bailey Howell.

For the sake of the Russell-Wilt debate, though, let's break them down. Chamberlain played with Goodrich, but that was AFTER Russell retired. He also played with Elgin Baylor, but contrary to popular opinion, he only actually played with Baylor for ONE semi-full season, in the '68-'69 season, and only TWO post-seasons. Wilt most missed of the '69-'70 season, while Baylor missed almost the entire '70-'71 season (and post-season, as well), and Baylor retired after the first nine games of the '71-'72 season (and not coincidently, LA IMMEDIATELY went on their record-breaking 33 game winning streak BTW.) And, as I mentioned, Baylor played in two post-seasons with Wilt, and he was awful in both of them. In fact, his idiotic coach preferred Baylor's offense over Wilt's, and asked Chamberlain to sacrifice his scoring for Baylor's. Not only that, but Baylor was a baseline-to-baseline player, and Van Breda Kolf actually had Chamberlain playing a high post for the first half of the '68-'69 season. The greatest low-post scorer in NBA history was asked to play a high-post??? The FACT was, Baylor was already on a downward slide by the time Chamberlain joined LA, and I have always maintained that Baylor actually DETRACTED from the Lakers from that point on. In any case, Baylor and Wilt hardly played together at all.

Continuing...

Chamberlain also played with Nate Thurmond, for ONE year...Thurmond's rookie year, in which Nate was asked to play at forward, and not his natural center position (where he would become a HOF player.) Wilt also played alongside Paul Arizin, a legitimate HOFer, who was nearing the end of his career by the time Wilt came along. And, Wilt played with Tom Gola. Now, Gola was a four time All-Star, and is in the HOF. However, he was hardly deserving of either. In his BEST season, he averaged 16 ppg. Over the course of his entire career, he averaged 11.3 ppg, 7.8 rpg, and shot .431 from the field.

Chamberlain was traded to the 76ers in the '64-'65 season, and played there until the end of the '67-'68 season. They were a bottom-dwelling team when he arrived, though, and even with Wilt, they only had a 40-40 season in his first year (they were 34-46 the year before.) However, in the playoffs that season, Chamberlain led them to a crushing 3-1 series win over the 48-32 Royals, and then a game seven, one point loss to the 62-18 Celtics. Philly added Billy Cunningham to the roster in the '65-'66 season, and they edged the Celtics by one game in that season (55-25 to Boston's 54-26.) Still, the Sixers were a young team, and while Boston declined slightly from the year before, they were still only a year removed from their best-ever record during their "Dynasty." A case could be made that while the 76ers had a better record, they were probably not a better team. In any case, Wilt thoroughly outplayed Russell in the post-season that year (as he always did BTW), averaging 28 ppg, and 31 rpg, to Russell's 14 ppg and 26 rpg. But, Russell's teammates easily outplayed Wilt's, and Boston won the series, 4-1.

In the following season, the 76ers finally meshed, and they went on to a then-record 68-13 mark, easily outdistancing the Celtics, who had one of their best records during the "Dynasty", at 60-21. That Celtic team was LOADED, too. They had FIVE HOFers (Russell, Havlicek, Sam Jones, KC Jones, and Howell), along with Wayne Embry, Don Nelson, Larry Siegfried, and Jim Barnett. Despite that talented roster, the 76ers, with HOFers Wilt, Greer, and Cunningham, as well as Luke Jackson, Chet Walker (who should be in the HOF), and Wali Jones,...BURIED the Celtics, 4-1. And, once again, Chamberlain just crushed Russell in every statistical category in that post-season.

And the following season, '67-'68, the Sixers were well on their way to a duplication. They again ran away with the best record in the league, at 62-20, while Boston was a distant second at 54-28. Before the Eastern Finals, though, the Sixers lost Billy Cunningham to a wrist injury, and he would not return the rest of the year. Still, they managed to take a 3-1 series lead over Boston without him. Then, Luke Jackson went down with a leg injury in game five. On top of that, Wilt was nursing a variety of injuries, including two arthritic knees. The Celtics roared back to tie the series, 3-3, and in game seven Chamberlain only TOUCHED the ball TWICE on the offensive end in 4th quarter (and those were on offensive rebounds), and his teammates fired blanks all game long (they shot 33% in that game)...and Boston edged Philly 100-96 to win that series. There were several suspicious events that happened in that game seven, but I won't take the time to address them now. In any case, Wilt's Sixers lost that game seven, by FOUR points, DESPITE not having Cunningham at all, with Jackson basically worthless from game five on, Wilt himself under 100%, and his team shooting an ungodly horrible percentage in that last game. I have long argued that the BEST team did NOT win the title that year.

But, back to my original point...which was basically this...

Take away Chamberlain's stint with the Sixers, and here is what we had: Throw out Goodrich, who never played with Wilt during the Russell-era. Throw out Thurmond, who was a rookie playing out of position. Throw out a washed Baylor, who was more of a hindrance during his time with Wilt (especially in the playoffs.) Throw out Gola, who was no more of a HOFer than myself. What does that leave? Wilt basically played with West and Arizin...and not together. So, aside from the Sixers, Wilt played with two quality players, and not at the same time. That was it. And Arizin was nearing the end of his career, and West suffered injuries in the '70-'71 season, and missed the post-season.

Granted, Chamberlain played with talented rosters in Philly, at least from '66-'68 (Cunningham did not arrive until '66.) And, his team's only won one title in those three years. However, his teammates played poorly in the '66 playoffs, and his team was decimated with injuries in the '68 season.

Now, how about Russell's supporting cast? Unlike Wilt, who was drafted by a last-place team (that he immediately turned into a 48-32 team...and a close six game series loss to Boston in the playoffs), ...Russell came to a playoff team. Yes, he was the final piece of the puzzle that took them over the hump. But, Auerbach also added more quality players each year. I have mentioned it many times, but Russell played alongside FIVE other HOFers in the '61-'62 season, while Wilt basically carried a last-place roster, with Arizin in his last year, and an over-rated Gola, to a game seven, two-point loss to the Celtics in the playoffs. There was simply no comparison in talent levels on those two teams...yet Wilt almost single-handedly led that team to an upset over a vaunted Celtic team.

Here is a breakdown of Russell's supporting cast in the decade in which he battled Wilt:

Two of his HOFers were questionable HOFers to be sure. Frank Ramsey was a career 13.4 scorer. And KC Jones was never even an all-star (although he was acknowledged as a good defender.) But, the rest of Russell's HOF teammates were very good, to say the least. Cousey had four 20+ ppg seasons in his career (and another six 18 ppg seasons.) Sharman had three 20+ ppg seasons (and two more 19+ ppg seasons.) Heinsohn had three 20+ ppg seasons in a relatively short nine year career (and all with Russell BTW.) Howell was an under-rated player who played with Russell for three years, and had 20.0, 19.8, and 19.7 ppg averages in those three years (he also had three other 20+ ppg and two other 19+ ppg seasons in his career.) Sam Jones played with Russell for 12 years, and had 10 rings. He had four 20+ ppg seasons while there (as well as three other 18+ ppg seasons.) Not only that, but he one year in which he averaged 25.9 ppg.

And then there was Havlicek. Havlicek played with Russell for seven years, and came away with six rings. He played with Boston another nine years, and won two more rings. What is interesting, though, is that he had three 20+ ppg seasons (and three 18+ ppg seasons) with Russell. His high seasonal average with Russell, was 21.6 ppg. However, after Russell retired,
Hondo had five more 20+ ppg game seasons (and one more 19 ppg), with ALL five of them better than any of his during the Russell-era. In fact, he had a 28.9 and a 27.5 ppg season, which are Jerry West-like years.

For those that argue that Russell made his teammates better, Havlicek is an example to the contrary. He was clearly a better player AFTER Russell. Even more interesting, however, is that you have to wonder how those other Celtic players, particularly Sam Jones, would have fared had they played somewhere else? My point is that most all of them were probably capable of scoring more with other teams in which they would have been the primary focus of the offense. Why is that important? Because I think it clearly proves that Russell was every bit the beneficiary of great teammates, as they were of playing with him. The FACT was, Russell played with not only talented rosters, but usually very DEEP rosters, as well. Wilt, on the other hand, aside from his years with the Sixers, not only had less talented teammates, he had less quantity, as well.

I have posted this link before, which is termed WIN SHARES, but here it is again...

http://www.basketball-reference.com/...ws_yearly.html

Here is the explanation of that stat...

http://www.basketball-reference.com/about/ws.html

And, using that WIN SHARES stat, here is the yearly breakdown between Russell and Wilt, in their 10 years in the league together...

'59-60: Wilt 17.0 (1), Russell 13.8 (2)
'60-61: Wilt 18.8 (1), Russell 13.0 (5)
'61-62: Wilt 23.1 (1), Russell 15.5 (4)
'62-63: Wilt 20.9 (1), Russell 13.5 (6)
'63-64: Wilt 25.0 (1), Russell 17.3 (3)
'64-65: Wilt 15.1 (4), Russell 16.9 (2) Oscar with 17.0 was (1)
'65-66: Wilt 21.4 (1), Russell 11.7 (4)
'66-67: Wilt 21.9 (1), Russell 12.2 (4)
'67-68: Wilt 20.4 (1), Russell 8.2 (NR)
'68-69: Wilt 14.7 (1), Russell 10.9 (7) Reed tied with Wilt at (1), and as a sidenote, Baylor was NR at 8.5, and West (9), at 10.8.

I think these ratings are significant. Of course, the Russell supporters will argue that Russell didn't care about stats, and that they didn't diminish his 11 rings, but IMHO, it shows that Wilt HAD to play at a much higher level for his TEAM's to be competitive. Most Pro-Russell people will say that Russell was TEAM player, who made his teammates better. However, these numbers reflect the fact that Chamberlain contributed FAR more to his TEAM's success, than Russell did to his.

I wonder how Simmons would respond to that assertion?

[G.O.A.T]

It's certainly a good counterpoint and a more fair presentation of the argument,but a few quick thoughts:

1) I think you use too much revisionist history, saying things like how good the Celtics were besides Russell and how many HOFer's he played with. It's easy to say Russell played with seven HOFer's in his early Boston years, however Ramsay, Sam and KC Jones, Tom Hiensohn, those guys never make it if Russell doesn't lead them to titles.

2) Chamberlain's cast from '66 to '69 was clearly better ; some of the guys you cite as Boston's valuable depth like Don Nelson and Larry Seigfried were cast offs that were cut or released by their previous teams. Basically it was an aging Russell and Sam Jones along with Hondo that carried those teams. Even if we concede Baylor in '69, the Lakers still have a much more prolific roster, especially at the top.

3) Wilt's early team mates on the Warriors were very good. Yes they struggled in '59 but that's because they lost rookie PG Guy Rodgers for half the year and HOF center Neil Johnston broke down. The year before they were in the conference finals against the Celtics. Same with '57 and in '56 they were NBA Champions. Wilt arrives in essence they trade Johnston for him and never got any further in the postseason. In the four seasons prior to Wilt arriving in Philly, they won two five playoff series and one world championship. In Wilt's first four there, two playoff series and no world Championships.

4) Tons of great players have won titles with less around them than a superstar rival. Magic's Lakers in '91 were much more talented than Jordan's Bulls, Same with the Blazers and Suns the next two seasons. I've already cited what happened when the talent shifted in Wilt's favor over Russell.

Bottom line, you correctly point out the one-sidedness of Simmons argument, but that was his point, he doesn't see how someone can win 9 titles in 10 years against a rival and still have it debated who was better and either do I. It's like being at a HS basketball game and team A is up 50-30 and team B makes a blocked shot and their fans starting roaring, what des teams B's fans yell "scoreboard, scoreboard etc. Russ has scoreboard.

[jlauber]

G.O.A.T.

I will agree with you about Ramsey and KC Jones. Heinsohn's numbers were pretty solid, even if not HOF worthy, though. And, as I pointed out, how would guys like Heinsohn, Sharman, and particularly Sam Jones have done on other teams, where they might not have shared the ball as much.

IMHO, Wilt only played on two teams that were better than Russell's supporting cast, 66-67 and 67-68 Philly, and if the 68 team had not suffered a rash of injuries, I am convinced they would have easily won that season.

The only other two teams that were remotely close to Russell's were the 65-66 Sixers, and the 68-69 Lakers. While the '66 76ers had a one game edge over Boston in the regular season, I don't believe they were favored. That Sixer team was an up-and-coming team, to be sure, but they had gone 40-40 the year before, while Boston had just won their seventh straight title, and had had their best record during their Dynasty of 62-18. So, when the 54-26 Celts beat the 55-25 Sixers, I don't think that was a great shock. True, the 65 76ers had given Boston all they could handle, just the year before, but instead of Simmons marvelling at THAT fact (when a 40-40 team lost a game seven, by one point to a 62-18 team), he rips Wilt for his "superior" '66 team losing. In any case, to blame Chamberlain for that series loss in '66 was ridiculous. Chamberlain outscored Russell 28-14, outrebounded him 30-26, and probably outshot him (Wilt shot .509 during that series...but I don't have Russell's numbers.) AND, in the clinching game five loss, Chamberlain put up a 46-34 game (to Russell's 18-31.) So much for the "choking" theory.

As for the 68-69 Lakers...one more time. Their incompetent COACH cost them that series. LA would have been better off with Soupy Sales as their head coach. AND, when you take into account that Boston had TWO miraculous shots to win TWO games in that series...well, just another case of the bad luck that followed Wilt throughout his career.

Look, Russell did whatever it took to win. There is no question in my mind that Russell made his teammates better than Wilt did his. I don't think it was a coincidence that Russell's teammates almost always outplayed Chamberlain's. Russell put his players in their optimum positions, and took opponents' out of their's. But for Simmons to suggest that Wilt and Russell played with equal talent throughout their careers is ludicrous. As was pointed out by that one poster...Russell basically had better talent ON THE FLOOR with him, TWICE as often as Wilt did, during their 10 years of H2H play.

To the greatest of Russell, his team's went 7-1 (really 9-1) against Chamberlain's. But, IMHO, Wilt really only two superior rosters in those ten years, and had one of them been decimated by injuries (and horrible shooting at the worst possible time), Wilt would have been 2-0 with those two teams. You can argue that Russell went 2-0 against Wilt with about even teams (65-66 and 68-69), but I have given you some reasons why Wilt's TEAM lost.

BUT, what about the six seasons? Russell had FAR superior surrounding talent...and Chamberlain nearly led those mediocre teams to stunning upsets. One more time...with a shot here, or there (or a miss by a Boston player on one their "miraculous shots), or a play here, or there, and Wilt could easily have gone 5-3 against Russell. FOUR game seven losses by a TOTAL of NINE points is not a DOMINANT victory by Russell over Wilt.

My main point is that I truly believe Russell was the greatest player to ever play the game. BUT, Simmons' almost makes it seem like Wilt was some "choker" or "failure" who collapsed against Russell. NONE of his numbers, or statements, back that up. His arguments were so one-sided that he can't be taken seriously.

[Bandito]

This is not a debate Wilt own Russell ass.

[jlauber]

This is not a debate Wilt own Russell ass.

Chamberlain statistically outplayed Russell, but Russell made his team's better. I would not say that either one "owned" the other. It is a testament to their greatness, that this topic is still being hotly debated some 40 years after they last went H2H.

[G.O.A.T]

Jlauber,

As always i appreciate the thoughtfulness of your responses and while I doubt we'll ever wholly agre, I enjoy the discussion every time.

I'd like your response to my point about Wilt's supporting cast from '60-'64. (Bullet 3 in my last post)

Also would point out that as easy as it is to dismiss the last second shots, steals etc. for the Celtics as good luck and Wilt's teammates struggles in big situations as bad luck, at some point it stops being just a coincidence.

Guys like Russell, MJ, Bird and Magic made their own luck a lot of the time. Same goes for guys like Wilt. As great as Wilt was he never made people better, at least not mentally. That's what his coaches, teammates and opponents all say and even he himself has admitted as much.

I've played on good teams, you always felt like you were going to win no matter what and I've played on teams with bad chemistry and you're just waiting for something to go wrong. I feel like WIlt and his teammates were often in the later mindset waiting for something to go wrong.

[jlauber]

Jlauber,

As always i appreciate the thoughtfulness of your responses and while I doubt we'll ever wholly agre, I enjoy the discussion every time.

I'd like your response to my point about Wilt's supporting cast from '60-'64. (Bullet 3 in my last post)

Also would point out that as easy as it is to dismiss the last second shots, steals etc. for the Celtics as good luck and Wilt's teammates struggles in big situations as bad luck, at some point it stops being just a coincidence.

Guys like Russell, MJ, Bird and Magic made their own luck a lot of the time. Same goes for guys like Wilt. As great as Wilt was he never made people better, at least not mentally. That's what his coaches, teammates and opponents all say and even he himself has admitted as much.

I've played on good teams, you always felt like you were going to win no matter what and I've played on teams with bad chemistry and you're just waiting for something to go wrong. I feel like WIlt and his teammates were often in the later mindset waiting for something to go wrong.

I can't argue those points. For all of his individual dominance, Wilt's TEAMMATES seldom outplayed Russell's. And I agree, it is hard to believe that it could be coincidence in seven out of eight post-season series' between the two.

It is interesting, that I debated Wilt's side of the Russell-Wilt discussions for many years (and still do, although, thanks to your insightful posts, I have changed my opinions)...and it was a losing battle. For decades, most observers ranked Russell over Wilt. Now, in the last decade, or so, it seems that Wilt has overtaken Russell in many of these "polls."

Now, I find myself having to defend Russell's brilliance, despite the fact that he was the game's greatest "winner." The fact is, while Wilt had all of the records, Russell won more MVPs (although I still don't know how Russell beat Wilt out in that 61-62 season.) Russell's PEERS generally rated Russell ahead of Wilt. I never could understand it, either, until just recently.

Fatal9 posted some spectacular footage of Russell, in his prime, and while the average viewer would probably just look at his performances as "ho hum"...if you take a REAL CLOSE look, you see Russell doing all the right things. AND, it seems that in every single play, he has a purpose. You just can't overlook his intimidation, his determination for entire games, his relentless defense, his brilliant outlet passes, his specatular help defense, the way gets the ball to the teammates that have an advantage over their opposing players..the list is endless.

IMHO, no player made his TEAMS better, and his opposing TEAMS worse, than Russell.

[Justice44]

Chamberlain statistically outplayed Russell, but Russell made his team's better. I would not say that either one "owned" the other. It is a testament to their greatness, that this topic is still being hotly debated some 40 years after they last went H2H.
Lauber. The bottom line is that Wilt would have been percieved as making his teammates better if he were on the Celtics instead of Russell. I'll give Rusell the edge on making teammates better, however I think this is overstated. Russell homers act as if Rusell made his HOF players 10 points better when in fact he probably made them two points better. Lastly, great point guards make teammates better.

This is why atheletes such as Ray Lewis are overrated.

Again Wilt wins 9 titles with Rusell's celtics teams while Bill may just win one title with any of chamberlain's teams.

[Justice44]

For those of you who are looking for evidence of Russell's intangibles showing up on the stat sheet.

Here's why he is the ultimate clutch player:

Bill's stat line's in closeout games of the NBA Finals


(points, rebounds,assists,FG,FT)

1957 19 32 2 7-17 5-10
1959 15 32 5 5-8 5-10
1960 22 35 4 7-15 8-10
1961 30 38 7 9-17 12-19
1962 30 40 5 10-17 10-15
1963 12 24 9 5-12 2-5
1964 14 24 11 5-6 4-5
1965 22 30 4 6-9 10-12
1966 25 32 1 10-22 5-5
1968 18 19 6 5-7 8-9
1969 6 21 6 2-7 2-4

averages of 19.6 points 29.7 rebounds 5.7 assists per game and a field goal percentage of 52 and free throw percentage of 68. Both significantly higher than any numbers he posted for his career. Two 30-30 games, a triple-double and another game one assist away. factor in his reported 13 blocks against Wilt's Sixers in 1964 and you have a closeout game quadruple double in the NBA Finals.
Wow, I can name Non-Hall of famers who are clutch players as well. I am not disputing Bill being clutch. I am disputing this as evidence to put him above Wilt. Robert Horry is an all-time clutch shooter. Is he better than Karl Malone? Reggie Miller is one of the best playoff shooters in NBA history. Should I put him above Clyde Drexler. BTW Jerrry West was considered a clutch scorer as well. Is he above Jordan? Please. :oldlol:

[Justice44]

You're an idiot. Funny that you start posing all this nonsense under a gimmick/sock. P*ssy :oldlol:
Yeah it is a gimmick that Wilt brutally outplayed Russell. What I find a gimmick is that Russell homers love to flash out rings as evidence of Rusell's undisputed superiority. Okay, I guess you think James Worthy is better than Larry Bird.:oldlol: :oldlol: Pretty soon, you will try to convince me John Paxson is better than Steve Nash. Now who is the real idiot!:oldlol: :oldlol:

[Justice44]

For those of you who are looking for evidence of Russell's intangibles showing up on the stat sheet.

Here's why he is the ultimate clutch player:

Bill's stat line's in closeout games of the NBA Finals


(points, rebounds,assists,FG,FT)

1957 19 32 2 7-17 5-10
1959 15 32 5 5-8 5-10
1960 22 35 4 7-15 8-10
1961 30 38 7 9-17 12-19
1962 30 40 5 10-17 10-15
1963 12 24 9 5-12 2-5
1964 14 24 11 5-6 4-5
1965 22 30 4 6-9 10-12
1966 25 32 1 10-22 5-5
1968 18 19 6 5-7 8-9
1969 6 21 6 2-7 2-4

averages of 19.6 points 29.7 rebounds 5.7 assists per game and a field goal percentage of 52 and free throw percentage of 68. Both significantly higher than any numbers he posted for his career. Two 30-30 games, a triple-double and another game one assist away. factor in his reported 13 blocks against Wilt's Sixers in 1964 and you have a closeout game quadruple double in the NBA Finals.
Intangibles can not count more than tangibles. For instance, Joe Montanna is better than Peyton Manning in the post season because Montanna's numbers reflect it. Montanna had outstanding superbowl stats.

[jlauber]

Lauber. The bottom line is that Wilt would have been percieved as making his teammates better if he were on the Celtics instead of Russell. I'll give Rusell the edge on making teammates better, however I think this is overstated. Russell homers act as if Rusell made his HOF players 10 points better when in fact he probably made them two points better. Lastly, great point guards make teammates better.

This is why atheletes such as Ray Lewis are overrated.

Again Wilt wins 9 titles with Rusell's celtics teams while Bill may just win one title with any of chamberlain's teams.

I don't think that there is any question that Russell played with more talented teams throughout his career. But even Wilt, himself, said that Russell blended better with those teammates than he would have.

Look, G.O.A.T. made a comment in another topic, that had Russell not played during Wilt's career, that Chamberlain likely would have won 6-10 titles. I think that is a fair assessment. I don't want to diminish Russell's accomplishments, because to do so, does the same to Wilt's. IMHO, Wilt's close seven game losses with inferior teams was a testament to his greatness, instead of the opinions of many other's that Wilt was a failure.

[G.O.A.T]

just add justice44 to your ignore list, it's a duplicate account of someone else, after it was created he joined a bunch of threads that were already buried. Whoever he is he doesn't understand the discussion nor does he have any desire to.

[Horatio33]

Quote:
Originally Posted by GP_20
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThaRegul8r
Why is Wilt "clearly" the better rebounder, though Russell was the better defender, though you interject that "Wilt was also good?" So evidently Russell wasn't "also good" either?


Wilt outrebounded him every season and playoff series meeting they've had all their careers. Enough said.


Though when you look at what the people who were there at the time and both saw both and played against both, you find statements such as:

Wilt Chamberlain: “Where I see him as the tremendous player is as a rebounder. He was the only guy who could rebound along with me, and sometimes I thought he was a better rebounder than I was. He used more things to get to the ball than I had to use. I always had the highest respect for his rebounding."

Johnny Kerr: "[T]here is a side of basketball that can’t be measured in numbers. Often, it is not how many rebounds a player gets, but when does he get them? Does it happen in the middle of the second quarter when no one else is under the basket or does it happen late in the game when everyone is jumping over your back and trying to tear your head off to get to the ball? [...] Russell appealed to those with an artist’s sense of the game. His baskets, his rebounds, his blocks all seemed to come when it really meant something."

Jerry West: "When it counts, Bill Russell is the best rebounder of all. “Wilt and Nate Thurmond are great rebounding centers, [...] but Russell is far and away the best the game has ever known."

I would like to point out that West said this while he was a teammate of Wilt on the Lakers.

Ben Kerner, St. Louis Hawks owner, whose team faced Russell and the Celtics in 1957, '58, '60 and '61: "In big games, no one was better. In the fourth quarter, he’d get every defensive rebound. How are you supposed to win when you get only one shot and there’s Russell sweeping the backboards?"

Wilt Chamberlain: "Russell was the best clutch rebounder this game has ever seen."

So it isn't that simple as being "clearly better" when so many people who were there at the time—even people who were playing with Wilt every night—say otherwise.


Quote:
Originally Posted by GP_20
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThaRegul8r
Hmmm. Who would you say had a greater offensive impact? Wilt or Jordan?


Close. Wilt.


Ah. There was a reason I asked. Had you said Jordan, I would have then whipped out the fact that five years ago Dean Oliver revealed that statistical analysis showed that Bill Russell had the same impact through his defense that a prime Jordan did. Thus if Jordan's offensive impact > Wilt's, and Russell's defensive impact = Jordan's offensive impact, then it wouldn't be true that Wilt's offensive advantage was far greater than Russell's defensive advantage. Unfortunately though, you didn't take the bait.

great post. anyone can put numbers up anyone can grab 6 rebounds in a quarter against New Jersey in December. Not everybody can grab 6 rebounds in the 4th quarter of game 7 of the NBA finals. It's either in you or it isn't. Russell had the testicular fortitide to come through in the clutch repeatedly. just like Jordan. Bird. Magic. Kareem.

Chamberlain didn't have this. he could score a bunch of points in the first 2 or 3 quarters but when the game was on the line he shrank from it.

[jlauber]

great post. anyone can put numbers up anyone can grab 6 rebounds in a quarter against New Jersey in December. Not everybody can grab 6 rebounds in the 4th quarter of game 7 of the NBA finals. It's either in you or it isn't. Russell had the testicular fortitide to come through in the clutch repeatedly. just like Jordan. Bird. Magic. Kareem.

Chamberlain didn't have this. he could score a bunch of points in the first 2 or 3 quarters but when the game was on the line he shrank from it.

Another fallacy. There are MANY examples of Chamberlain dominating at clutch times, and in big games. In the 64-65 ECF game seven, Wilt scored the last eight points, (including going 2-2 from the FT line)...and he brought his Sixers back from a 110-101 deficit to within 110-109. AND, "clutch" Russell hit a guidewire with the inbounds pass, allowing Philly a chance to win the game. However, "Havlicek stole the ball!" In that game, Chamberlain scored 30 points, on 12-15 shooting, with 32 rebounds (Russell had a solid game, as well, scoring 15 points, on 7-16 shooting, with 29 rebounds.)

AND, in the clinching game six win over Milwaukee in the 71-72 WCF's, Chamberlain SINGLE-HANDEDLY carried LA in the 4th quarter, thoroughly outplaying Kareem down the stretch, bringing the Lakers all the way back from a 10 deficit with ten minutes to play, and a win.

Russell was a clutch player, too, but take a look at the video footage in game seven of the 68-69 Finals. That was the game in which Wilt injured his knee, and had to come out, with a little over five minutes left. In that 4th quarter, Wilt had as many rebounds, on his injured leg (he stayed in for two possessions), as Russell did for the entire quarter. And while that post-season was one of Wilt's worst, he still outscored Russell, 18-6, outshot Russell, 7-8 to 2-7, and outrebounded him, 27-21...despite Russell playing all 48 minutes to Wilt's 43.

Fatal9 pointed out Wilt's performances in must-win games...and he was brilliant in nearly all of them.

[Justice44]

just add justice44 to your ignore list, it's a duplicate account of someone else, after it was created he joined a bunch of threads that were already buried. Whoever he is he doesn't understand the discussion nor does he have any desire to.
Oh please. The bottom line is that you are pathetically arrogant to think that you have an airtight case for Bill R. How can you have that type of audacity!:lol :lol

[Justice44]

just add justice44 to your ignore list, it's a duplicate account of someone else, after it was created he joined a bunch of threads that were already buried. Whoever he is he doesn't understand the discussion nor does he have any desire to.
It's funny how you ignore the fact that Wilt would have won 9 titles with those celtics teams without Russell. :oldlol: :oldlol:

[Justice44]

just add justice44 to your ignore list, it's a duplicate account of someone else, after it was created he joined a bunch of threads that were already buried. Whoever he is he doesn't understand the discussion nor does he have any desire to.
Now how do you know I am a duplicate account? You confuse not comprehending the discussion with rejecting your asinine arguments.

[jlauber]

Russell's IMPACT cannot be measured by stats alone (although he had his share of them.) Regul8r posted an analysis which credited Russell's defensive IMPACT, as the equivalent of Jordan's offensive impact. How many more points was Russell's mere presence worth, on the defensive end? The fact is, his IMPACT was enough to make his teammates worth more points on the offensive end (by his outlet passes, his brilliant passing from the post, and his relentless offensive rebounding), AND, his defense minimized opposing offenses, just in INTIMIDATION alone...much less his actual shot-blocking, his exceptional "help" defense, and his outstanding rebounding (less second chance attempts by opponents.)

And, believe it, or not, it was not about Wilt's stats. It was about his IMPACT on the game. Look, there have been quite a few VERY GOOD players who averaged 30+ ppg in a season...Barry, Iverson, Maravich, Archibald, B. King, McAdoo, and others. But, what their true IMPACT. Most of them played on average to perhaps good teams, at best.

Take for instance, Walt Bellamy in the 61-62 season. 31.6 ppg, 19 rpg, and led the league in FG% at .519. AND, he played on a last place team. I have long maintained that Wilt's surrounding cast in that 61-62 season was no better than Bellamy's. Yet, Wilt almost single-handedly carried that Warrior team to within an eyelash of beating the vaunted Celtics in the playoffs. I contend that had Wilt swapped teams with Bellamy, that it would have been Chicago battling Boston in the playoffs, while Philadelphia would have languished in last place.

Wilt's IMPACT was actually greater in the middle to end of his career. While he was "only" putting up 24-24-.600 seasons, the FACT was, EVERYONE in the league KNEW he could easily score 40-50 points in a game. At his PEAK, even Russell could not match his overall IMPACT. However, what separated Russell from Wilt, was that Russell was OBSESSED with winning. As amazing as this sounds, I really think that Wilt underachieved throughout his career (much like Kareem BTW), and it seemed that he just did not sustain the intensity that Russell did.

In any case, Russell's IMPACT has to be considered, at the very least, among the most dominant ever.

[theguru]

Lauber. The bottom line is that Wilt would have been percieved as making his teammates better if he were on the Celtics instead of Russell. I'll give Rusell the edge on making teammates better, however I think this is overstated. Russell homers act as if Rusell made his HOF players 10 points better when in fact he probably made them two points better. Lastly, great point guards make teammates better.


:cheers: I totally agree.


just add justice44 to your ignore list, it's a duplicate account of someone else, after it was created he joined a bunch of threads that were already buried. Whoever he is he doesn't understand the discussion nor does he have any desire to.

That's a bit harsh. Even if you don't agree with the man, that's far from a troll post.

[G.O.A.T]

That's a bit harsh. Even if you don't agree with the man, that's far from a troll post.


Look at the first few posts the guy made and tell me that's how someone acts when they first create an account in a forum. Also note that the only thread he chose to post in was buried several pages deep.

You'll come to see that this forum is not well moderated and that you have to do your own legwork. I've found in my time on the internet that it's not worthwhile having a discussion within anyone who needs to create multiple accounts for any reason.

He probably has lots of good points (maybe, not probably on second thought) but he also has an agenda, I'm not interested in that at all.

[G.O.A.T]

Jerimiah Tax recounts there first battle in 1959.,,

[I]The personal duel in American professional team sports is largely a thing of the past. This is true because athletes have learned that victory most often follows the subordination of individual talent to a cooperative effort. In basketball, a highly fluid game in which players constantly exchange assignments, it is perhaps truest of all. And yet, occasionally, two players appear whose skills are so similar and on whom their teammates count so greatly that a meeting of the teams becomes the occasion for a man-to-man battle.

Two such are the Boston Celtics' Bill Russell and the Philadelphia Warriors' Wilt Chamberlain, whose teams met last Saturday night in the Boston Garden before a tense, chattering crowd in a game that commanded the interest of basketball buffs all over the nation.

Russell is a lithe, graceful athlete who stands a shade under 6 feet 10 inches tall and moves with the ease of a man a foot shorter. He has been a professional for three years now, after leading the University of San Francisco to two national collegiate titles, the U.S. to victory in the Olympic Games in Melbourne and the Celtics to two world championships. On the Celtics, surrounded by many of the finest shooters ( Bill Sharman, Tom Heinsohn, Frank Ramsey) and playmakers ( Bob Cousy, Sam Jones, K.C. Jones) in basketball, he has two chief functions: first, to harass the opposition by blocking their shots and intimidating them by his presence when they think of shooting, and, second, to capture rebounds off the backboards to start Boston's fast-breaking attack. He has filled this difficult role so well since his arrival that Boston has become the best team ever assembled.

Chamberlain, slender of leg and thigh but powerfully muscled in arms and shoulders, is about three inches taller than Russell. After three highly successful years of basketball at Kansas University, he became impatient to capitalize on his deserved reputation and quit school for an extremely lucrative season with the Harlem Globetrotters. This is his first year with the Warriors, where his is an even more demanding assignment than Russell's. Aside from the fine shooting of Paul Arizin and the excellent playmaking of Guy Rodgers, the Warriors cannot support him in the style to which Russell is accustomed. If Philadelphia is to beat the better teams in the pro league, he must do both of Russell's jobs, on defense and rebounding, and also score a great many points himself. In the first few games of the season, against other teams, he did just that, and Philadelphia won. And as the hour approached for the game with Boston there were experts who were certain he would also score enough points against Russell to turn the trick again.

The experts were wrong. What the duel proved, chiefly, is that against Russell, Chamberlain cannot get away with the few simple offensive moves he has found so effective against lesser men. Every time he tried to use his chief weapon, a fall-away jump shot, Russell went up with him; Russell's large hand flicked away at his vision, slapped at the ball, once blocked it outright

[jlauber]

[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]Jerimiah Tax recounts there first battle in 1959.,,

[I]The personal duel in American professional team sports is largely a thing of the past. This is true because athletes have learned that victory most often follows the subordination of individual talent to a cooperative effort. In basketball, a highly fluid game in which players constantly exchange assignments, it is perhaps truest of all. And yet, occasionally, two players appear whose skills are so similar and on whom their teammates count so greatly that a meeting of the teams becomes the occasion for a man-to-man battle.

Two such are the Boston Celtics' Bill Russell and the Philadelphia Warriors' Wilt Chamberlain, whose teams met last Saturday night in the Boston Garden before a tense, chattering crowd in a game that commanded the interest of basketball buffs all over the nation.

Russell is a lithe, graceful athlete who stands a shade under 6 feet 10 inches tall and moves with the ease of a man a foot shorter. He has been a professional for three years now, after leading the University of San Francisco to two national collegiate titles, the U.S. to victory in the Olympic Games in Melbourne and the Celtics to two world championships. On the Celtics, surrounded by many of the finest shooters ( Bill Sharman, Tom Heinsohn, Frank Ramsey) and playmakers ( Bob Cousy, Sam Jones, K.C. Jones) in basketball, he has two chief functions: first, to harass the opposition by blocking their shots and intimidating them by his presence when they think of shooting, and, second, to capture rebounds off the backboards to start Boston's fast-breaking attack. He has filled this difficult role so well since his arrival that Boston has become the best team ever assembled.

Chamberlain, slender of leg and thigh but powerfully muscled in arms and shoulders, is about three inches taller than Russell. After three highly successful years of basketball at Kansas University, he became impatient to capitalize on his deserved reputation and quit school for an extremely lucrative season with the Harlem Globetrotters. This is his first year with the Warriors, where his is an even more demanding assignment than Russell's. Aside from the fine shooting of Paul Arizin and the excellent playmaking of Guy Rodgers, the Warriors cannot support him in the style to which Russell is accustomed. If Philadelphia is to beat the better teams in the pro league, he must do both of Russell's jobs, on defense and rebounding, and also score a great many points himself. In the first few games of the season, against other teams, he did just that, and Philadelphia won. And as the hour approached for the game with Boston there were experts who were certain he would also score enough points against Russell to turn the trick again.

The experts were wrong. What the duel proved, chiefly, is that against Russell, Chamberlain cannot get away with the few simple offensive moves he has found so effective against lesser men. Every time he tried to use his chief weapon, a fall-away jump shot, Russell went up with him; Russell's large hand flicked away at his vision, slapped at the ball, once blocked it outright

[Justice44]

Look at the first few posts the guy made and tell me that's how someone acts when they first create an account in a forum. Also note that the only thread he chose to post in was buried several pages deep.

You'll come to see that this forum is not well moderated and that you have to do your own legwork. I've found in my time on the internet that it's not worthwhile having a discussion within anyone who needs to create multiple accounts for any reason.

He probably has lots of good points (maybe, not probably on second thought) but he also has an agenda, I'm not interested in that at all.
Of couse I have an agenda! You have an agenda as well. How does that discredit the brutal facts which reflect Rusell's inferiority to KING Chamberlain?

[G.O.A.T]

When he retired in 1969 Sporting News ran a feature on why Russell was the Greatest Player Ever. It cited the opinions of over 25 all-star players and NBA head coaches from the era.

In 1971 when the NBA voted for it's Silver Anniversary team, only Russell was a unanimous selection.

In 1980 when they selected the 35th Anniversary team, Russell was voted the greatest player ever.

Why is there a debate now?

[theguru]

When he retired in 1969 Sporting News ran a feature on why Russell was the Greatest Player Ever. It cited the opinions of over 25 all-star players and NBA head coaches from the era.

In 1971 when the NBA voted for it's Silver Anniversary team, only Russell was a unanimous selection.

In 1980 when they selected the 35th Anniversary team, Russell was voted the greatest player ever.

Why is there a debate now?

Because he is inferior to Wilt in EVERY individual statistical category.

[G.O.A.T]

Because he is inferior to Wilt in EVERY individual statistical category.

Except the ones that matter most

Postseason APG: Russell 4.7 Chamberlain 4.4

Postseason RPG: Russell 24.9 Chamberlain 24.5

Win-Loss record in Conference & NBA Finals: Russ 90-53, Wilt 48-44

Win-Loss in Game 7's: Russell 10-0, Wilt 4-5

Win-Loss in Elimination Games: Russell 16-2, Wilt 10-11

Championships: Russell 11, Wilt 2

And what everyone in 1980 knew all the stats. Both players were retired. They still picked Russell over Wilt.

Or in 1962 when Wilt averaged 50-28 and Russell was MVP and the Celtics won the Title.

So obviously stats do not matter very much when comparing players like Russell and Wilt.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Except the ones that matter most

Postseason APG: Russell 4.7 Chamberlain 4.4

Postseason RPG: Russell 24.9 Chamberlain 24.5

Win-Loss record in Conference & NBA Finals: Russ 90-53, Wilt 48-44

Win-Loss in Game 7's: Russell 10-0, Wilt 4-5

Win-Loss in Elimination Games: Russell 16-2, Wilt 10-11

Championships: Russell 11, Wilt 2

And what everyone in 1980 knew all the stats. Both players were retired. They still picked Russell over Wilt.

Or in 1962 when Wilt averaged 50-28 and Russell was MVP and the Celtics won the Title.

So obviously stats do not matter very much when comparing players like Russell and Wilt.

I do notice a decline in Wilt's numbers from the regular season to the playoffs. The decline isn't that bad most seasons, but it's huge in 1962.

Wilt in the 1960 regular season(38/27/2, 46 FG%), Wilt in the 1960 playoffs(33/26/2, 50 FG%)
Wilt in the 1961 regular season(37/27/2, 51 FG%), Wilt in the 1961 playoffs(37/23/2, 47 FG%, swept in 3 games).
Wilt in the 1962 regular season(50/26/2, 51 FG%), Wilt in the 1962 playoffs(35/27/3, 47 FG%)
Wilt in the 1964 regular season(37/22/5, 52 FG%), Wilt in the 1964 playoffs(35/25/3, 54 FG%)

Although we stopped seing a lot of those same declines when he was traded to the 76ers, although it's obvious that he was still a better scorer in the regular season

Wilt in the 1965 regular season w/ Philly(30/22/4, 53 FG%), Wilt in the 1965 playoffs(29/27/4, 53 FG%),
Wilt in the 1966 regular season(34/25/5, 54 FG%), Wilt in the 1966 playoffs(28/30/3, 51 FG%)
Wilt in the 1967 regular season(24/24/8, 68 FG%), Wilt in the 1967 playoffs(22/29/9, 58 FG%)
Wilt in the 1968 regular season(24/24/9, 60 FG%), Wilt in the 1968 playoffs(24/25/7, 53 FG%)

A big decline occured in 1969 when Wilt averaged 21/21/5 on 58% shooting, only to average just 14/25/3 on 55% shooting in the playoffs.

For his career, Wilt averaged 30/23/4 on 54% shooting in the regular season, but 22.5/24.5/4 on 52% shooting. In comparison, Russell averaged 15/22.5/4 on 44% shooting in the regular season, but 16/25/5 on 43% shooting in the playoffs.

[G.O.A.T]

I do notice a decline in Wilt's numbers from the regular season to the playoffs. The decline isn't that bad most seasons, but it's huge in 1962.

Wilt in the 1960 regular season(38/27/2, 46 FG%), Wilt in the 1960 playoffs(33/26/2, 50 FG%)
Wilt in the 1961 regular season(37/27/2, 51 FG%), Wilt in the 1961 playoffs(37/23/2, 47 FG%, swept in 3 games).
Wilt in the 1962 regular season(50/26/2, 51 FG%), Wilt in the 1962 playoffs(35/27/3, 47 FG%)
Wilt in the 1964 regular season(37/22/5, 52 FG%), Wilt in the 1964 playoffs(35/25/3, 54 FG%)

Although we stopped seing a lot of those same declines when he was traded to the 76ers, although it's obvious that he was still a better scorer in the regular season

Wilt in the 1965 regular season w/ Philly(30/22/4, 53 FG%), Wilt in the 1965 playoffs(29/27/4, 53 FG%),
Wilt in the 1966 regular season(34/25/5, 54 FG%), Wilt in the 1966 playoffs(28/30/3, 51 FG%)
Wilt in the 1967 regular season(24/24/8, 68 FG%), Wilt in the 1967 playoffs(22/29/9, 58 FG%)
Wilt in the 1968 regular season(24/24/9, 60 FG%), Wilt in the 1968 playoffs(24/25/7, 53 FG%)

A big decline occured in 1969 when Wilt averaged 21/21/5 on 58% shooting, only to average just 14/25/3 on 55% shooting in the playoffs.

For his career, Wilt averaged 30/23/4 on 54% shooting in the regular season, but 22.5/24.5/4 on 52% shooting. In comparison, Russell averaged 15/22.5/4 on 44% shooting in the regular season, but 16/25/5 on 43% shooting in the playoffs.

Russell numbers go up even more in game sevens where he averaged 30 rebounds and shot nearly 70% from the line.

I just imagine what Russell would have done with Wilt's ability.

Ironically in 1967 Wilt had his finest game in closing out the Celtics. Wilt posted 29 points 36 rebounds and 13 assists en route to victory and the eventual NBA title.

Earlier in the season Russell had said of Wilt "He's unstoppable, he's playing like me"

Unfortunately, Wilt became obsessed with assist and FG% records over the next few years and never beat Russell again.

[97 bulls]

When he retired in 1969 Sporting News ran a feature on why Russell was the Greatest Player Ever. It cited the opinions of over 25 all-star players and NBA head coaches from the era.

In 1971 when the NBA voted for it's Silver Anniversary team, only Russell was a unanimous selection.

In 1980 when they selected the 35th Anniversary team, Russell was voted the greatest player ever.

Why is there a debate now?
because in 1980, jordan was in high school

[G.O.A.T]

because in 1980, jordan was in high school

Jordan has NOTHING to with this thread at all.

[97 bulls]

Jordan has NOTHING to with this thread at all.
not greatest center but greatest ever sure he does. thats what the post was refering to

[G.O.A.T]

not greatest center but greatest ever sure he does. thats what the post was refering to

No it wasn't.

This is a Chamberlain vs. Russell thread. No one besides you ever mentioned MJ.

[jlauber]

I do notice a decline in Wilt's numbers from the regular season to the playoffs. The decline isn't that bad most seasons, but it's huge in 1962.

Wilt in the 1960 regular season(38/27/2, 46 FG%), Wilt in the 1960 playoffs(33/26/2, 50 FG%)
Wilt in the 1961 regular season(37/27/2, 51 FG%), Wilt in the 1961 playoffs(37/23/2, 47 FG%, swept in 3 games).
Wilt in the 1962 regular season(50/26/2, 51 FG%), Wilt in the 1962 playoffs(35/27/3, 47 FG%)
Wilt in the 1964 regular season(37/22/5, 52 FG%), Wilt in the 1964 playoffs(35/25/3, 54 FG%)

Although we stopped seing a lot of those same declines when he was traded to the 76ers, although it's obvious that he was still a better scorer in the regular season

Wilt in the 1965 regular season w/ Philly(30/22/4, 53 FG%), Wilt in the 1965 playoffs(29/27/4, 53 FG%),
Wilt in the 1966 regular season(34/25/5, 54 FG%), Wilt in the 1966 playoffs(28/30/3, 51 FG%)
Wilt in the 1967 regular season(24/24/8, 68 FG%), Wilt in the 1967 playoffs(22/29/9, 58 FG%)
Wilt in the 1968 regular season(24/24/9, 60 FG%), Wilt in the 1968 playoffs(24/25/7, 53 FG%)

A big decline occured in 1969 when Wilt averaged 21/21/5 on 58% shooting, only to average just 14/25/3 on 55% shooting in the playoffs.

For his career, Wilt averaged 30/23/4 on 54% shooting in the regular season, but 22.5/24.5/4 on 52% shooting. In comparison, Russell averaged 15/22.5/4 on 44% shooting in the regular season, but 16/25/5 on 43% shooting in the playoffs.

Here again, Wilt's post-seasons were inevitably played against Russell, usually in either the first or second rounds (and in some cases, the second round was Wilt's first.) In Wilt's post-seasons, he went up against Russell eight times, Reed three times, Thurmond three times, and Kareem twice. All among the greatest defensive centers in NBA history.


"When he retired in 1969 Sporting News ran a feature on why Russell was the Greatest Player Ever. It cited the opinions of over 25 all-star players and NBA head coaches from the era.

In 1971 when the NBA voted for it's Silver Anniversary team, only Russell was a unanimous selection.

In 1980 when they selected the 35th Anniversary team, Russell was voted the greatest player ever.

Why is there a debate now?"

No argument there. Russell was considered the best by his peers. And that is what amazes me about so many posters here...who have him ranked near the bottom of the top-10. Russell, at the VERY LEAST, is top-3 all-time...and IMHO, he is #1.

[jlauber]

G.O.A.T.,

I remember reading a comment by you about the Russell-Wilt debates...

something along the lines of...

If there had been no Russell, Wilt would have probably won anywhere from 6-10 rings...and HE would be ranked as THE greatest ever.

That is a fine tribute to BOTH.

[theguru]

Except the ones that matter most

Postseason APG: Russell 4.7 Chamberlain 4.4

Postseason RPG: Russell 24.9 Chamberlain 24.5

Win-Loss record in Conference & NBA Finals: Russ 90-53, Wilt 48-44

Win-Loss in Game 7's: Russell 10-0, Wilt 4-5

Win-Loss in Elimination Games: Russell 16-2, Wilt 10-11

Championships: Russell 11, Wilt 2

And what everyone in 1980 knew all the stats. Both players were retired. They still picked Russell over Wilt.

Or in 1962 when Wilt averaged 50-28 and Russell was MVP and the Celtics won the Title.

So obviously stats do not matter very much when comparing players like Russell and Wilt.

I wouldn't consider these individual stats.

What about Wilt averaging 15 more points than Russell for his career. Or Wilt shooting 10% better than Russell from the field even though he took nearly twice as many shots? It's like comparing Ben Wallace to Patrick Ewing.

[jlauber]

I wouldn't consider these individual stats.

What about Wilt averaging 15 more points than Russell for his career. Or Wilt shooting 10% better than Russell from the field even though he took nearly twice as many shots? It's like comparing Ben Wallace to Patrick Ewing.

Guru,

I USED to believe the same thing. But having studied footage of both (and I did see them play live BTW...albeit on TV)...

Wilt's INDIVIDUAL talent and skills stand out, no question. But you REALLY have to take the time to watch the IMPACT that Russell had on the game. It seems like he always made the key rebound, or pass, or defensive play...and that does not include the INTIMIDATION that he also made famous.

Believe me, I honestly think that Russell was THE most prepared player in NBA history, and perhaps the most intelligent. Almost everything he did on the court had a purpose. Most players, even today, block a shot into the seats. Russell would not only block shots...he would DIRECT them... to his teammates. AND, there was a post here, maybe a link (I am so old I am losing my memory) in which Russell made the comment that he got the ball to teammates who had an offensive edge against their defender, or to other teammates who were in position to score. His OFFENSE was in his TEAM's offense. He simply made his teammates more successful, and his impact on the floor had the opposite effect on opposing TEAMs.

You certainly could not quantify Russell's IMPACT...although Regul8r DID present a substantial analysis which was probably as accurate as it gets. Russell's DEFENSIVE IMPACT was the equivalent of MJ's OFFENSIVE IMPACT.

Having said that, though. G.O.A.T. made the best comment I have read on the Russell-Wilt rivalry. Had Russell not played in Wilt's time...we would probably all be saying that Wilt was the greatest ever.

And that, is good enough for me.

[G.O.A.T]

I wouldn't consider these individual stats.

What about Wilt averaging 15 more points than Russell for his career. Or Wilt shooting 10% better than Russell from the field even though he took nearly twice as many shots? It's like comparing Ben Wallace to Patrick Ewing.

If you really think that's a valid comparison there is no sense having this discussion.

Russell scored 30 in game seven of the NBA finals. How many times has Wallace scored 20? Also Wallace was not one of the three greatest passing centers of all-time. Nor did he ever finish in the top in the league in FG%. Nor did his FT% rise significantly in the postseason.

Wilt averaging 15 points per game more is irrelevant because Russell's teams won anyway. They didn't NEED him to score more. When they did, he did, every time without fail except 1967 when Chamberlain played as both he and Bill have said "Like Russell".

So let's start with that, Russell was an above average offensive player. His points per game and assists as well as offensive rebounds were all above the average for starters at his position and all positions. This is not debatable, none of Russell's teammates or opponents have ever said otherwise. I defy you to find a single quote or article or book talking about Bill's limitations of offense. Saying otherwise shows you've done nothing more than evaluate him on statistics without context.

Second as for those not being individual stats, it's not an individual game. Look at how Russell's stats go up in those playoff games, up higher in conference finals games and even higher in Finals games. Look at how high they are in game sevens. Look at them in elimination games. Across the board with very few exceptions his numbers go up based on how important the game is.

We can both agree (I hope) that is a trait synonymous with the GREATEST of the Great players and that there is a high likelihood of a correlation between Russell's elevated play and the Celtics record in those games.

Add to that how pretty much every Celtic gushes over how it was Russell that made everything possible and it's really hard not to see him as a clearly superior player to Wilt for the course of his career. Wilt's numbers went down more often than not, Russell's up. Wilt's team lost as much as they won and almost always to Russell, Bill's only lost once when he was healthy from 1955-1969.

If you want to believe that's a coincidence, fine. If you want to believe it happened because of how much better Russell's teammates were, you're ignoring facts and opinions of those very same players, but fine.

However if you want to say Russell was an average or worse offensive player, you're wrong. If you compare him to an offensive liability like Wallace you're nuts. If you think his teams were always better than Wilt's you need to look at the rosters and win-loss records of both teams from 1965-1969 and then look at what happened in the playoffs.

Basketball is a team game dominated by transcendent individual performances within the context of team. You need to be your absolute best while allowing space for all of your teammates to be their best. Go play pickup basketball and tell me how many guys are "scorers" (in their mind or reality) and how many are defensive anchors, communicators and leaders. Then learn a few things about supply and demand and decide which guy is more valuable.

[G.O.A.T]

Guru,
Having said that, though. G.O.A.T. made the best comment I have read on the Russell-Wilt rivalry. Had Russell not played in Wilt's time...we would probably all be saying that Wilt was the greatest ever.

And that, is good enough for me.

That's what a marvel at most about both.

Russell was so good he stopped Wilt Chamberlain from being the undisputed Greatest Player of All-Time.

Look at these numbers, in the 10 years Russell and Wilt shared, here's Wilt's record in playoff series vs. specific opponents.

Dolph Schayes and the Syracuse Nationals: 2-1
Oscar Robertson\Jerry Lucas and the Royals: 2-0
Bob Pettit and the Hawks: 1-0
Rick Barry and the Warriors: 2-0
Willis Reed and the Knicks: 1-0
Atlanta Hawks: 1-0
Bill Russell & the Celtics: 1-7

Imagine if Russell played in the 50's or the 70's. Wilt wins 4-7 more titles and is very likely the undisputed greatest ever.

[jlauber]

That's what a marvel at most about both.

Russell was so good he stopped Wilt Chamberlain from being the undisputed Greatest Player of All-Time.

Look at these numbers, in the 10 years Russell and Wilt shared, here's Wilt's record in playoff series vs. specific opponents.

Dolph Schayes and the Syracuse Nationals: 2-1
Oscar Robertson\Jerry Lucas and the Royals: 2-0
Bob Pettit and the Hawks: 1-0
Rick Barry and the Warriors: 2-0
Willis Reed and the Knicks: 1-0
Atlanta Hawks: 1-0
Bill Russell & the Celtics: 1-7

Imagine if Russell played in the 50's or the 70's. Wilt wins 4-7 more titles and is very likely the undisputed greatest ever.

G.O.A.T.,

I am a relative newcomer to this forum...and I remember butting heads with you when I first joined. BUT, you (and a few others here) have changed many of my opinions.

Continuing...I have come across some of your posts before I came onboard...and I must say, you have really matured as a writer, and as a valuable resource. There will be some that will disagree with some of your posts, but I certainly think most all here respect them.

[G.O.A.T]

G.O.A.T.,

I am a relative newcomer to this forum...and I remember butting heads with you when I first joined. BUT, you (and a few others here) have changed many of my opinions.

Continuing...I have come across some of your posts before I came onboard...and I must say, you have really matured as a writer, and as a valuable resource. There will be some that will disagree with some of your posts, but I certainly think most all here respect them.

You caught me at a bad time and I showed you little respect. As you're learned I'm sure a lot of folks can really frustrate you here if your goal is to learn and teach varying opinions. When I seen another Wilt vs. Russell thread with a brand new account arguing Wilt, I assumed the worst (another multiple account from a poster with a bizarre agenda). Appreciate your patience in getting to understand my opinions and the reasoning behind them. The more people we have here who appreciate the entire history of the game the better.

[jlauber]

You caught me at a bad time and I showed you little respect. As you're learned I'm sure a lot of folks can really frustrate you here if your goal is to learn and teach varying opinions. When I seen another Wilt vs. Russell thread with a brand new account arguing Wilt, I assumed the worst (another multiple account from a poster with a bizarre agenda). Appreciate your patience in getting to understand my opinions and the reasoning behind them. The more people we have here who appreciate the entire history of the game the better.

No, it was a mutual misunderstanding.

And having said that...your GOAT list is a fountain of information. It is one thing to quote some stats...quite another to put them all in perspective. And then you add so many little-known tidbits...just a great body of work. Like I said, I'm sure there are those will disagree with some of your opinions, just as they would mine, or anyone else's...but they will also respect them.

The important thing is that we are all getting an education here. And for all the meaningless drivel that I see on this forum...it is refreshing to read the valuable contributions of quite a few here. Whether we agree or not.

[feyki]

For those of you who are looking for evidence of Russell's intangibles showing up on the stat sheet.

Here's why he is the ultimate clutch player:

Bill's stat line's in closeout games of the NBA Finals


(points, rebounds,assists,FG,FT)

1957 19 32 2 7-17 5-10
1959 15 32 5 5-8 5-10
1960 22 35 4 7-15 8-10
1961 30 38 7 9-17 12-19
1962 30 40 5 10-17 10-15
1963 12 24 9 5-12 2-5
1964 14 24 11 5-6 4-5
1965 22 30 4 6-9 10-12
1966 25 32 1 10-22 5-5
1968 18 19 6 5-7 8-9
1969 6 21 6 2-7 2-4

averages of 19.6 points 29.7 rebounds 5.7 assists per game and a field goal percentage of 52 and free throw percentage of 68. Both significantly higher than any numbers he posted for his career. Two 30-30 games, a triple-double and another game one assist away. factor in his reported 13 blocks against Wilt's Sixers in 1964 and you have a closeout game quadruple double in the NBA Finals.

Amazing post :applause: .

[Carbine]

When he retired in 1969 Sporting News ran a feature on why Russell was the Greatest Player Ever. It cited the opinions of over 25 all-star players and NBA head coaches from the era.

In 1971 when the NBA voted for it's Silver Anniversary team, only Russell was a unanimous selection.

In 1980 when they selected the 35th Anniversary team, Russell was voted the greatest player ever.

Why is there a debate now?

This is really interesting.

[Psileas]

Amazing post :applause: .

However, according to my data, Russell didn't have a triple double in that 1964 game. His line was 14/26/6, not 11.

[feyki]

However, according to my data, Russell didn't have a triple double in that 1964 game. His line was 14/26/6, not 11.

His Assist number has probably been six . But maybe , he meant blocks as 11 :confusedshrug: .

[Psileas]

His Assist number has probably been six . But maybe , he meant blocks as 11 :confusedshrug: .

Maybe he mistook his blocks number for assists. He did think this was his assists' number, though, because he wrote the following:

factor in his reported 13 blocks against Wilt's Sixers in 1964 and you have a closeout game quadruple double in the NBA Finals.