Just Curious...where do you rank Russell?

[jlauber]

I am just curious...and I would like a little feedback:

Where would you rank Bill Russell among the all-time greats?

IMHO...and in terms of career...he was the greatest. However, it seems like his legacy has diminished in the "ESPN Generation."

Give me your reasoning, as well.

[EroticVanilla]

Well if I could have one players career it would probably be Russell, 11 titles and one of if not the best defenders ever. If your asking where he would go on my top 10 "list" that I don't have then he would be someplace in the top 10 I guess.

[jlauber]

Well, to be fair, I suspect that the majority here did not see Russell play. I suppose it would be similar if someone asked me what I thought of Babe Ruth or Ted Williams. I can only go by what I actually witnessed in my lifetime...so IMHO, Willie Mays was the greatest. But I have to admit, from what I have read and seen of Ruth and Williams, hard to argue with anyone that would suggest that they were the greatest ever.

I SAW Russell play. And, I will be the first to admit that even I underestimated his impact. Too often I was comparing him with Wilt in their H2H matchups...which was unfair to Russell. It was never his intention to OUTPLAY Wilt. Rather, he wanted to limit his impact just enough to lead his team to wins. He accomplished it by "holding" Wilt to 50 point games...and he accomplished it by holding him to 20 point games.

I suggest that you get your hands on some old footage of Russell, and REALLY study his impact on the game. I believe you will come away with far more appreciation for his greatness.

In any case...I just find it fascinating that a player who was so widely accepted as the greatest ever by his own generation...has dropped to the bottom of the Top-10 on many lists.

[JMT]

We're of the same age; like you, I've been an NBA fan since the mid-60's.

To me, Wilt is the greatest player ever. He could do more things at a higher level than anyone else I've ever seen.

On any given day, Russell goes from 2nd to 4th on my "list". My first thought when I saw your post was 3rd, behind Jordan.

Russell is the greatest winner in American sports, and as such would likely get my Greatest Teammate nod. Don't get me wrong; I'm not dimishing his individual talents in the least. But I think Wilt was more individually dominant than any player ever; Jordan a marvelous combo of individual and team success; followed by Russell, who achieved more team success but was less overwhelming individually.

[SmoothRED]

Top 5. You don't win 11 rings only to be the bottom of a Top 10 list.

[Swaggin916]

Right around 10th. You can't ignore his 11 championships, but no way was he a better player than guys like Shaq, Jordan, Wilt, Kareem, Magic, Bird, Oscar, etc.

[ShaqAttack3234]

8th or 9th all time.

[SmoothRED]

Right around 10th. You can't ignore his 11 championships, but no way was he a better player than guys like Shaq, Jordan, Wilt, Kareem, Magic, Bird, Oscar, etc.
He's greater than all of them except maybe Jordan, Kareem or Wilt, but you are right he's not better than any of them.

[BRabbiT]

Top 5...


6 - 8


Players ahead of him (imo)...
Bird
Olajuwon
Chamberlain
Kareem
MJ
Magic

[ShaqAttack3234]

All time list.

1.Jordan or Jabbar(undecided before I finish watched all the prime Kareem footage available
3.Shaq
4.Wilt
5.Bird
6.Magic
7.Olajuwon
8.Duncan/Russell
10.Kobe/Moses

[magnax1]

I rank him at 6th, and some times I feel that is to low. He was an amazing player. His impact was huge, because he didn't need to dominate the ball to have an impact. He got everyone involved and made an impact on defense better then, or as good as anyone ever.
However the five people I rank ahead (Shaq, Wilt, Jordan, Kareem and Bird) were all better just because if you really needed it, they could score 40+ a game while still getting there team mates involved. Russell was lucky enough that he had maybe 5 team mates who were top 200 (cousy, Havlicek, Sam Jones, Heinsohn, and Bailey Howell) I can't say that of any other player except maybe Magic Johnson.
Really, I think it'd be more fair for me to put him at #2 or 3, but for some reason I just don't want too.
EDIT:I did not watch him live, but I've watched about a dozen of his games. There really aren't alot of games of his to watch though.

[SmoothRED]

Russell was the Celtics, people need to realize that. Not the other way around.

[goldenryan]

1.jordan
2.kareem
3.wilt
4.magic
5.russell
6.bird

[Psileas]

#4 for quite some time now, behind Wilt, Jordan and Kareem. I've repeatedly stated that Russell is the arguable GOAT in a lot of categories, statistical or intangible: Defense, shot-blocking, rebounding, winning, mental toughness and leadership, basketball IQ, passing for a big man. His raw scoring abilities though keep him from getting even higher. If the guy could score like someone like Zo, I'd seriously consider him for #1.

[G.O.A.T]

Right around 10th. You can't ignore his 11 championships, but no way was he a better player than guys like Shaq, Jordan, Wilt, Kareem, Magic, Bird, Oscar, etc.

So dumb...so dumb.


#4 for quite some time now, behind Wilt, Jordan and Kareem. I've repeatedly stated that Russell is the arguable GOAT in a lot of categories, statistical or intangible: Defense, shot-blocking, rebounding, winning, mental toughness and leadership, basketball IQ, passing for a big man. His raw scoring abilities though keep him from getting even higher. If the guy could score like someone like Zo, I'd seriously consider him for #1.

He was a considerably better scorer than Alonzo Murning when he needed to be. I don't remember Mourning dropping 40 in the playoffs or scoring 30 three times in closeout game six or sevens of the NBA finals.


8th or 9th all time.

I know we've had our differences at times and ultimately I think you're a great addition to the site, but this is embarrassing. Having him outside of the top three is inexcusable, top four I start to question your sanity. Outside the top six and I have no reason to take your opinion on anything seriously until you do a significant amount more studying. What more could he have done to prove himself? He failed one time in 15 years, winning 14 championships (of all sorts combined).

[SmoothRED]

#4 for quite some time now, behind Wilt, Jordan and Kareem. I've repeatedly stated that Russell is the arguable GOAT in a lot of categories, statistical or intangible: Defense, shot-blocking, rebounding, winning, mental toughness and leadership, basketball IQ, passing for a big man. His raw scoring abilities though keep him from getting even higher. If the guy could score like someone like Zo, I'd seriously consider him for #1.
He wasn't drafted to score.

[Gifted Mind]

I know we've had our differences at times and ultimately I think you're a great addition to the site, but this is embarrassing. Having him outside of the top three is inexcusable, top four I start to question your sanity. Outside the top six and I have no reason to take your opinion on anything seriously until you do a significant amount more studying. What more could he have done to prove himself? He failed one time in 15 years, winning 14 championships (of all sorts combined).
:lol
G.O.A.T. you shouldn't be so harsh. Everyone has different opinions and point of views, even though they might be wrong, you just have to respect them. I mean there is a point when an opinion is just completely absurd, but I think anywhere from #1 to #9 is at least respectable. Once again, they still might be completely wrong, but I wouldn't dismiss anyone completely if they had Russell below 6th or something.

[G.O.A.T]

:lol
G.O.A.T. you shouldn't be so harsh. Everyone has different opinions and point of views, even though they might be wrong, you just have to respect them. I mean there is a point when an opinion is just completely absurd, but I think anywhere from #1 to #9 is at least respectable. Once again, they still might be completely wrong, but I wouldn't dismiss anyone completely if they had Russell below 6th or something.

I do. It means you value things that don't win basketball games. I've played with players who think that way, it ruins basketball.

This is an online forum, I don't let this stuff bother me in my real life, but when i spend time one here, I do so with the intent of learning sharing what I've learned and discussing the gray areas. I have no patience or need for people who don't understand the game, ranking Russell lower than six means you don't understand the game in my experience without exception.

[Disaprine]

at number two

[Big League]

1. Michael Jordan
2. Bill Russell

[L.Kizzle]

1. Michael Jordan
2. Bill Russell
Explain?

[SmoothRED]

Explain?
You explain your list first bro. :pimp:

[L.Kizzle]

You explain your list first bro. :pimp:
I didn't post a list. :pimp:

[bdreason]

I put him 3rd.

[SmoothRED]

I didn't post a list. :pimp:
Why don't you start. :pimp:

[bdreason]

And my reasoning is:

1. Kareem - Winning + statistical dominance.
2. Jordan - Winning + statistical dominance.
3. Russell - Winning.
4. Wilt - Statistical dominance.

[Big League]

Explain?
I have to put Russell above all the other centers because of all the championships and excellent leadership skills. Russell was the consummate teammate.
I'm not sure there's a need to explain my choice of Jordan as the greatest.

After Jordan the next best non-centers were probably Magic Johnson, Larry Bird, Oscar Robertson, and Jerry West. I cannot rank any of those four above Russell. These are all great players, but I have to put to Russell at #2 because of the importance of his position and the ridiculous number of championships.

[L.Kizzle]

And my reasoning is:

1. Kareem - Winning + statistical dominance.
2. Jordan - Winning + statistical dominance.
3. Russell - Winning.
4. Wilt - Statistical dominance.
Russell dominated in the statistical category (rebound and blocks if they would have kept them) and Wilt did in the winning?

[L.Kizzle]

I have to put Russell above all the other centers because of all the championships and excellent leadership skills. Russell was the consummate teammate.
I'm not sure there's a need to explain my choice of Jordan as the greatest.

After Jordan the next best non-centers were probably Magic Johnson, Larry Bird, Oscar Robertson, and Jerry West. I cannot rank any of those four above Russell. These are all great players, but I have to put to Russell at #2 because of the importance of his position and the ridiculous number of championships.
Of course there is, you explained for Russell why not MJ?

[jlauber]

I have no problems with any of these posts. These are all opinions anyway. I understand Jordan gaining prominance in the last 20 years, or so, as well.

IMHO, though, Russell's ranking has been diminished by the more current generation, that did not actually see him play, because of his offensive numbers (15.1 ppg and .441 FG%.) I understand it from the standpoint that they are not flashy. If someone would tell me Joe DiMaggio was the greatest baseball player ever, I would have a difficult time accepting it, based on his career numbers (which were exceptional BTW.) Comparing Ted Williams' and DiMaggio's stats, and the vast majority of observers would probably take Williams' in a heartbeat. However, DiMaggio also played for ten pennant winners and nine WS winners. True, his Yankee teams were loaded, but David Halborstam's book, 'The Summer of '49', illustrates how important DiMaggio was to that Yankee team that season. He was injured for much of it, but he rallied the Yankees late, and eventually led them to the pennant and WS win.

I was involved in a heated debate about Johnny Unitas and Bart Starr on another forum. Based purely on volume of stats, Unitas was hands down a better QB. But, Starr was more efficient, and as amazing as this will seem...Starr was FAR MORE CLUTCH. In fact, Unitas had two great title games in the 50's...and was AWFUL in any BIG game after that. Meanwhile, NO other NFL QB every performed better in the post-season than Starr. Look it up. Starr went 9-1 in the post-season, and still has the highest post-season QB rating in NFL history.

I don't want to divert attention from the original topic, though...which is this:
Russell did whatever it took to win. I can't stress that enough. And he did it in nearly every post-season series, or critical post-season game he played. It's easy to dismiss that by saying that he played with great players. BUT, first of all, how much of those other player's success was due to Russell? And, more importantly, how did Boston do BEFORE Russell arrived, and AFTER he left?

Fatal9 posted some video footage of a post-season series in 1965 against Oscar and the Royals. At first glance, it is nothing special. Players running up and down the court, and making baskets, or missing shots. But, if you really study it...Russell is making plays all over the court. There were several blocks...one of them on Oscar that even the Big O could not have seen coming. He also INTIMIDATED the Royals on numerous shots. He blocks shots to teammates; he taps offensive rebounds to open teammates; he zips outlet passes that lead to easy fastbreak layups;...and if that player misses that layup, there is Russell following the play and getting a put-back.

I also understand those that favor Chamberlain in these discussions. I am a life-long Wilt fan. IMHO, at his BEST, he was the greatest ever. I honestly think that even ardent Russell fans would acknowledge that. And I also think that Wilt was the victim of mediocre teammates, poor coaching, bad luck, untimely injuries, some bad officiating, and untimely poor play by his teammates, in his career. Still, 1-7 against Russell, and some of those with as talented as teams as Russell had, is just hard to ignore. For all of Wilt's brilliance in the first half of his career, when he took teams with no real talent, other than himself, to within an eyelash of knocking off the vaunted Celtic Dynasty...there was the bitter disappointment of losing with as talented as teammates as Russell had. Not all of it was Wilt's fault, but at some point, as great as Wilt was, he SHOULD have dominated when those teams needed him most. True, in 66-67, he DID dominate. And that is what is so frustrating for Wilt fans. Why didn't he do that more often, especially in the next couple of seasons following that year?

Kareem scores high on many lists here, and I have no problem with that. EXCEPT, for all of HIS greatness, he only played on ONE title team in his first ten years. After he led the Bucks to an overwhelming title in his second season (70-71), he could not lead the same very talented supporting cast to titles in 71-72, 72-73, or 73-74. In fact, despite some gaudy stats, particularly in the 71-72 season (which I rank as one of the top-5 in NBA history)...he more-or-less failed in the post-season. Some will come up with excuses for those failures. But, just like Wilt, at some point Kareem needed to really DOMINATE, and he could not. I will acknowledge that Kareem was THE main reason LA won titles in 79-80, 81-82, and 84-85, but here again, why couldn't he lead the 80-81 and 82-83 Lakers to titles?

I have mentioned Jordan's LOSING teams before. MJ, for all of his brilliance, and yes, he led his team's to six titles...still played on FIVE losing teams. Much like Wilt, some of them were with awful supporting casts. But as the 93-94 season proved...those six title teams had the best rosters in the NBA at the time. He even returned in the 94-95 season, and with that loaded roster, he STILL could not lead them to a title. And for those that will argue that he was rusty...how about Wilt in his 69-70 season? Wilt was ripped for his "failure" to lead an inferior Laker team to a championship over the Knicks...even though he got them to a game seven on one leg (and was VERY rusty...having missed most all of the season due to that leg injury and surgery.)

And that is one of the most important elements in these "all-time" discussions. Russell never needed excuses. Although, to be honest, had he not been injured in one of his post-seasons, and perhaps, had he not been hindered by being a player-coach in another...who knows? Maybe 13-13 in his career. Throw in his two straight NCAA titles (and 55 straight wins), and the man could conceivably had gone his entire college and professional career as a champion.

Once again, we are all entitled to our opinions. Hopefully, though, they are educated opinions...that involve studying history, and not just on pure statistics. One of the most important arguments in Russell's favor in these discussions, is the fact that his peers, and those that were involved in the NBA when he played, overwhelmingly selected Russell as the greatest ever. Why was that?

In any case...I am enjoying the responses here. Thanks to those that took the time to post on this topic.

[ShaqAttack3234]

He was a considerably better scorer than Alonzo Murning when he needed to be. I don't remember Mourning dropping 40 in the playoffs or scoring 30 three times in closeout game six or sevens of the NBA finals.

Russell played at a much faster pace with more scoring oppurtunities, yet he wasn't averaging as much as Mourning. Typically averaging about 21 ppg on 50-51% shooting and pretty solid free throw shooting for a center. Had a peak of about 23 ppg.

Russell was averaging a shade under 19 ppg at his peak on 46% shooting. Typically, he was more around 16-17 ppg in his prime on 44-45% shooting. If Russell was a more gifted scorer holding his offense back I'd think that he'd atleast be more efficient than Mourning while averaging less points. You can point to the faster pace and the lower shooting percentages, but if you acknowledge the faster pace leading to lower shooting percentages, you also have to acknowledge the faster pace leading to more scoring and higher scoring averages.

Mourning had a polished offensive game with a good mid-range jumpshot, solid free throw shooting ability and a good jumphook and turnaround jumper. From all of the footage I've seen of Russell, I haven't seen an offensive skillset nearly of that caliber.


I know we've had our differences at times and ultimately I think you're a great addition to the site, but this is embarrassing. Having him outside of the top three is inexcusable, top four I start to question your sanity. Outside the top six and I have no reason to take your opinion on anything seriously until you do a significant amount more studying. What more could he have done to prove himself? He failed one time in 15 years, winning 14 championships (of all sorts combined).

Saying that not having Russell in the top 3 is inexcusable is nonsensical, IMO.

Looking at the footage available(as well as the stats), I've concluded that he certainly wasn't a better player than Kareem or Shaq(both of whom had a great deal of team success themselves). I definitely have Jordan ahead of Shaq so that's 3 right there, and I have Bird right there with Shaq. And Auerbach himself said when asked who was the better player that he'd have to flip a coin, or something to that effect. In the past, you've cited many quotes from peers for your argument for Russell, so it'd be pretty tough to act like having Bird over Russell is not a valid opinion considering the man who drafted and coached Russell and the man who coached Bird said it was basically a toss up.

It is tough to compare big men to guards and small forwards so I'll only really compare Russell to the other big men. Watching footage of Russell doesn't impress me nearly as much as watching Shaq play for years or watching Kareem in his prime. Russell was most likely the best defensive player out of the 3, but the other 2 were 40 times better as scorers, more skilled at passing out of the post from what I saw and had to be double teamed throughout games. And like Russell, both of them also showed the ability to step up in big games.

Russell may have been marginally better as a rebounder and I'm sure he was the best outlet passer out of them(although it isn't really as important in today's game, Shaq however did show a gift for it in Phoenix). Was his defensive advantage over the other 2 larger than their offensive advantage over Russell? I doubt it. Watching the footage and comparing, Jabbar and O'Neal's offensive superiority is obvious while Russell's edge on the defensive end will only be obvious if you really study the game. And it's not like Jabbar and O'Neal didn't make among the biggest defensive impacts of their era as well. Jabbar was a very good defensive player in almost all aspects from what I've seen and Shaq certainly made a huge impact and was his team's most valuable defender throughout his prime with his only real weakness being pick and roll defense(which got worse as he got older) and he wouldn't go out and guard jump shooting big men(but where would you rather have Shaq? Chasing Vlade Divac outside so he won't score 14-15 points? Or in the paint protecting the rim and getting rebounds?

And to me, a dominant offensive player is more valuable than a dominant defensive player if they're equal in their respective categories. I mean, there's a reason why Mutombo was never regarded as an elite player despite being one of the greatest defenders and rebounders as well as a competent offensive player. Obviously I'm not trying to compare Russell and Mutombo.

Now of course, I know your stance on Chamberlain vs Russell, but I can't ignore that Chamberlain was better at everything from a skill standpoint except free throw shooting(which Russell struggled at as well), and some things like scoring, Chamberlain blew Russell away in. Now, there is the championship argument. I believe that Russell did generally play on more talented teams(although not in 1968 and 1969), but look at how close some of those series were.

In 1962, Chamberlain led his team to the final seconds of game 7 vs Russell's Celtics. In fact, Chamberlain had tied the game at 107, but Sam Jones hit a game-winning shot. Now the series was as close as it could be, and the difference in the end wasn't Russell, it was Jones' shot. Looking at the rosters, Russell definitely seemed to have a more talented team, and in the head to head matchup, Chamberlain easily wins statistically. So, how am I to conclude that Russell was superior if Chamberlain led a less talented team to a 107 tie in game 7 with 16 seconds to go while outplaying Russell statistically? Because Russell's teammate hit a shot? That doesn't make sense to me.

In 1965, the 76ers trailed Boston 110-109 in with 5 seconds left in game 7, Russell turned the ball over on the inbounds pass and ultimately, the difference was John Havlicek's steal. Chamberlain had 30 points and 32 rebounds while Russell had 16 points, 27 rebounds and 8 assists.

Now right there, those games could have gone either way and the difference wouldn't have necessarily been because of Russell or Chamberlain.

Regarding Duncan and Olajuwon, this is where it really gets tough to me. Again, both are more impressive when I watch the footage, but I try to keep a certain amount of historical perspective in mind which is why I have had him above those 2 at times. But then I ask myself the same offense vs defense questions and then consider that Olajuwon is also among the greatest defenders of all time and Duncan is one of the game's greats on that end as well.

[Psileas]

He was a considerably better scorer than Alonzo Murning when he needed to be. I don't remember Mourning dropping 40 in the playoffs or scoring 30 three times in closeout game six or sevens of the NBA finals.


No, he wasn't. First of all, Russell didn't drop 40, ever. His playoff career high is 32, which is less than Zo's.
Second, Mourning didn't play in 12 Finals series, so obviously he had a lot less chances to get these figures. Third, like someone already mentioned, Mourning had a more extensive and polished game when it came to scoring. Russell wasn't drafted to score for the Celtics, but I doubt any team would draft him to score. I could see him getting 20-22 ppg for teams like New York or Detroit, relying on the same things he relied on playing for the Celtics. He'd still get a lot a rebounds, assists, blocks and, of course, he'd win much much less.

[G.O.A.T]

No, he wasn't. First of all, Russell didn't drop 40, ever. His playoff career high is 32, which is less than Zo's.
Second, Mourning didn't play in 12 Finals series, so obviously he had a lot less chances to get these figures. Third, like someone already mentioned, Mourning had a more extensive and polished game when it came to scoring. Russell wasn't drafted to score for the Celtics, but I doubt any team would draft him to score. I could see him getting 20-22 ppg for teams like New York or Detroit, relying on the same things he relied on playing for the Celtics. He'd still get a lot a rebounds, assists, blocks and, of course, he'd win much much less.

Fair points, but according to "Second Wind" Russell had 41 to open the 1962 playoffs. I think 32 is his Finals career high.

I should have stated he was a better offensive player than Zo, not a better scorer. Also I'll concede that Zo clearly had a more polished offensive game as most skilled modern post players do.

[EricForman]

1: Jordan
2: Russell
3: Bird
4: Magic
5: Kareem
6: Wilt
7: Shaq
8: Duncan
9: Hakeem
10: Kobe

I know plenty will disagree at me ranking Bird/Magic over Kareem and Wilt. Just let me say this... you can argue the point and Wilt/Kareem definitely has a strong case to be put above Magic/Bird, but if you act like it's ridiculous to put Bird/Magic over those two as if there is nothing to justify that, then you're wrong.

that's all. i rank my players based on winning titles as #1 guy, statistical dominance (vs peers), level of teammates vs other stars teammates, and ultimately, the "it" factor, meaning the ability to seemingly step up when it matters, to make miracles happen, to completely lay the smack down and have that "EFF YOU" attitude going. (Jordan and Bird have it more than anyone in the history of the league in my opinion. you know if your life is on the line in the final 5 minutes of a game 7 you'd want Jordan, Bird, or even Kobe over Wilt)

And to be honest I wanna put Shaq above Wilt too but that'd just lead to the old school defenders writing multiple 400 word essays and post videos that's supposed to be "proof" that Wilt was amazing, but in reality, I'm thinking "um, this doesnt look as hard or impressive as a typical lebron james highlight reel"


So i'll just let it be. The difference between all the top 6 positions are minimal, anyways.

[Lebron23]

1. Kareem Abdul Jabbar/Michael Jordan
2. Michael Jordan/Kareem Abdul Jabbar
3. Larry Bird
4. Magic Johnson
5. Wilt Chamberlain
6. Shaquille O'Neal
7. Tim Duncan
8. Hakeem Olajuwon
9. Bill Russell
10. Kobe Bryant

[Shep]

4th

[phoenix18]

22nd.

[JtotheIzzo]

3rd, behind MJ and KAJ

[Jailblazers7]

Top 5 in my book. My top 5 includes MJ, Wilt, Russell, Kareem, Magic.

I don't care what people say about him individually 11 rings speak for themselves. Not to mention the fits he gave Wilt.

[catch24]

4th behind Chamberlain, Jabbar and Jordan.

[MakeHistory78]

I watched Russell in games...To me he is 6# of all time...
First of all as an MJ fan i want to thank Wilt Chamberlain and Bill Russell.These two especially and Oscar Robertson took the game to another level after a weak Era the 50's..The 60's was a much better Era and that's because Wilt and Russell!

Bill Russell wasn't better than Wilt.Wilt was more skilled,fadeaway shots,finger rolls,Dunks..He had a better footwork than Russell,he was stronger,a better athlete not by far but he was better..
Russell has 11 rings but Wilt was the better player.
To me the GOAT is a combination of Rings and to be the best player.
Russell has the rings but he wasn't the better player.
Wilt was the better player but he hasn't the rings.
Michael Jordan has it all.This is one reason I believe he is the GOAT!

Also Many Celtics fans believe that Bird is the GCOAT(Greatest Celtic)..

I don't take anything from Russ..He is a great player.The greatest Winner..But with very good teammates.

To me MJ is the GOAT and in the GOAT discussion I put him Wilt and KAJ..

[SRZ66]

career accomplishments: ranked #1

overall basketball skill/ basketball player talent: #2,385

basically bo outlaw playing in the 60's

[G.O.A.T]

Russell played at a much faster pace with more scoring oppurtunities, yet he wasn't averaging as much as Mourning. Typically averaging about 21 ppg on 50-51% shooting and pretty solid free throw shooting for a center. Had a peak of about 23 ppg.

[QUOTE=ShaqAttack3234]Russell was averaging a shade under 19 ppg at his peak on 46% shooting. Typically, he was more around 16-17 ppg in his prime on 44-45% shooting. If Russell was a more gifted scorer holding his offense back I'd think that he'd atleast be more efficient than Mourning while averaging less points. You can point to the faster pace and the lower shooting percentages, but if you acknowledge the faster pace leading to lower shooting percentages, you also have to acknowledge the faster pace leading to more scoring and higher scoring averages.

Mourning had a polished offensive game with a good mid-range jumpshot, solid free throw shooting ability and a good jumphook and turnaround jumper. From all of the footage I've seen of Russell, I haven't seen an offensive skillset nearly of that caliber.

I will concede that Mourning is the better scorer and more polished player. I shouldhave stated that Russell was the superior offensive player not scorer.




Saying that not having Russell in the top 3 is inexcusable is nonsensical, IMO..

I just can't think what else he could have done to prove it. Only Kareem and MJ have a valid argument because they are the only ones who ever came close to winning at his level and admittedley did so in a more traditionally skilled and aesthetically pleasing way.


Looking at the footage available(as well as the stats), I've concluded that he certainly wasn't a better player than Kareem or Shaq(both of whom had a great deal of team success themselves).

This is just silly to me. Maybe 1/100th of Russell's career (more likely 1/300th) is available on film and most of the things he did either weren't kept as stats then or don't show up in the stat sheet.

You have 60 years of evidence in basketball that suggest stats alone do not indicate which player or team is the best.

It's like watching one scene in Pulp Fiction and saying it's a bad movie despite the fact almost everyone who saw the whole movie and reviewed it said it was one of the greatest films ever.


I definitely have Jordan ahead of Shaq so that's 3 right there, and I have Bird right there with Shaq. And Auerbach himself said when asked who was the better player that he'd have to flip a coin, or something to that effect. In the past, you've cited many quotes from peers for your argument for Russell, so it'd be pretty tough to act like having Bird over Russell is not a valid opinion considering the man who drafted and coached Russell and the man who coached Bird said it was basically a toss up.

I searched every online book I have and all my archived SI Vault articles fpertaining to Auerbach and the only time I can evefind him saying anything like that is while Bird was playing. Meanwhile a quick skim through "Red & Me" is litered with Auerbach praising Russell.


It is tough to compare big men to guards and small forwards so I'll only really compare Russell to the other big men. Watching footage of Russell doesn't impress me nearly as much as watching Shaq play for years or watching Kareem in his prime. Russell was most likely the best defensive player out of the 3, but the other 2 were 40 times better as scorers, more skilled at passing out of the post from what I saw and had to be double teamed throughout games. And like Russell, both of them also showed the ability to step up in big games.

[QUOTE=ShaqAttack3234]Russell may have been marginally better as a rebounder and I'm sure he was the best outlet passer out of them(although it isn't really as important in today's game, Shaq however did show a gift for it in Phoenix). Was his defensive advantage over the other 2 larger than their offensive advantage over Russell? I doubt it.

Yes. Russell was a VERY GOOD offensive player not average or just above average. He was in the top ten in assists and field goal percentage in hi career. Is the best passing center in postseason history (my opinion and stats) and led his team in scoring in multiple playoff series wins. He averaged over 20 in game sevens and closeout games and his fieldgoal and fre throw percentages climbed from their regular season numbers. Was he as good as Shaq, no but he was far from average.

As for defense, yes Shaq and Kareem are good defenders, but Russell is the greatest ever. I'd liken the difference to comparing Jabbar's offense to say Karl Malone's. At first glance they seem pretty similair statistically, but anyone who seen them both knows there is a HUGE difference regarding who had the better impact. You can't tell Shaq was as good on defense as Malone on offense.


Watching the footage and comparing, Jabbar and O'Neal's offensive superiority is obvious while Russell's edge on the defensive end will only be obvious if you really study the game.

Well maybe if any full games of Russell were available it'd be more obvious to you. I've read stories of Russell blocks 15 shots in a game, almost all right to teamates which essentially makes it a block and a steal.



And to me, a dominant offensive player is more valuable than a dominant defensive player if they're equal in their respective categories.

Then why does the Greatest Defensive center of All-Time have 11 rings in 13 seasons and the three greatest offensive centers of all-time combined have just 12 in over 40 seasons?




Now of course, I know your stance on Chamberlain vs Russell, but I can't ignore that Chamberlain was better at everything from a skill standpoint except free throw shooting(which Russell struggled at as well), and some things like scoring, Chamberlain blew Russell away in. Now, there is the championship argument. I believe that Russell did generally play on more talented teams(although not in 1968 and 1969), but look at how close some of those series were.

We're not far off on the teammates thing. Russ had better teammates from '60-'65 and Chamberlian better ones from '66-'69. However, the chasm was never as wide as say the difference between the 2002 New Jersey Nets and the Lakers.

I agree Chambrlain was a superior physical player and had superior skills. Yet Russell always beat him in close games and close series.




In 1962, Chamberlain led his team to the final seconds of game 7 vs Russell's Celtics. In fact, Chamberlain had tied the game at 107, but Sam Jones hit a game-winning shot. Now the series was as close as it could be, and the difference in the end wasn't Russell, it was Jones' shot. Looking at the rosters, Russell definitely seemed to have a more talented team, and in the head to head matchup, Chamberlain easily wins statistically. So, how am I to conclude that Russell was superior if Chamberlain led a less talented team to a 107 tie in game 7 with 16 seconds to go while outplaying Russell statistically? Because Russell's teammate hit a shot? That doesn't make sense to me.

In 1965, the 76ers trailed Boston 110-109 in with 5 seconds left in game 7, Russell turned the ball over on the inbounds pass and ultimately, the difference was John Havlicek's steal. Chamberlain had 30 points and 32 rebounds while Russell had 16 points, 27 rebounds and 8 assists.

Now right there, those games could have gone either way and the difference wouldn't have necessarily been because of Russell or Chamberlain.

To me this is an argument for my side. Obviously if the series comes down to seven games, the talent level on the two teams is pretty damn close. Yet Russell won the close games versus Wilt every single time. That's not coincidnce. You're examples are commonly cited in this argument yet in '65 the Sixers would have had to score even if Hondo doesn't steal it. The odds are against them in general and history is really against them.

The stats arguments for Chamberlain vs. Russell are meaningless. Russell's role was to get other people stats, Chamberlain's role was to pile up stats. It's like comparing Dennis Rodman to Adrian Dantley on the '88 Pistons. Dantley was the superior talent and the vastly superior offensive player, yet Rodman gets in the starting line-up and they win two straight titles because everyone else gets better. That's how basketball works, not which superstar player can score the most or get the most rebounds, but which superstar player can get the most out of the other four guys on the floor. That's how I see it anyway.


Anyway I appreciate and enjoyed your response. I found it thoughtful and revealing.

I think where we differ most is in our opinions of Russell as an offensive player. You seem to think he was the fourth or fifth best offensive player on his team. I feel he was always first or second best on his team.

Havlicek wrote in his autobiography that they missed Russell nearly as much on the offensive end as the defensive end in 1970. He said that after Cousy "the offense ran through Russell". That Bill was a tremedous passer who always got the ball to the right guy at the right time.

Consider this. In 1969 Chamberlain was the reigning MVP and was teamed with prime Jerry West (1969 Finals MVP) and prime Elgin Baylor (All-NBA 1st Team 1969) and yet they lost four out of five to a Celtics team that missed the playoffs the next year after Russell and Sam Jones (who lost his starting job in 1969) retired.

[JMT]

career accomplishments: ranked #1

overall basketball skill/ basketball player talent: #2,385

basically bo outlaw playing in the 60's

Best laugh I've had in years.

[G.O.A.T]

1: Jordan
2: Russell
3: Bird
4: Magic
5: Kareem
6: Wilt
7: Shaq
8: Duncan
9: Hakeem
10: Kobe

I know plenty will disagree at me ranking Bird/Magic over Kareem and Wilt. Just let me say this... you can argue the point and Wilt/Kareem definitely has a strong case to be put above Magic/Bird, but if you act like it's ridiculous to put Bird/Magic over those two as if there is nothing to justify that, then you're wrong.

that's all. i rank my players based on winning titles as #1 guy, statistical dominance (vs peers), level of teammates vs other stars teammates, and ultimately, the "it" factor, meaning the ability to seemingly step up when it matters, to make miracles happen, to completely lay the smack down and have that "EFF YOU" attitude going. (Jordan and Bird have it more than anyone in the history of the league in my opinion. you know if your life is on the line in the final 5 minutes of a game 7 you'd want Jordan, Bird, or even Kobe over Wilt)

And to be honest I wanna put Shaq above Wilt too but that'd just lead to the old school defenders writing multiple 400 word essays and post videos that's supposed to be "proof" that Wilt was amazing, but in reality, I'm thinking "um, this doesnt look as hard or impressive as a typical lebron james highlight reel"


So i'll just let it be. The difference between all the top 6 positions are minimal, anyways.

Nitpicking here, really just asking you to elaborate.

I'm surprised you have Bird above Magic and Kareem above Wilt and Shaq above Duncan based on your criteria.

[phoenix18]

Top 5 in my book. My top 5 includes MJ, Wilt, Russell, Kareem, Magic.

I don't care what people say about him individually 11 rings speak for themselves. Not to mention the fits he gave Wilt.

I dont know, 11 rings is obviously a great achievement, but his teammates were excellent as well. How many HOF's did he play with? I always think that he played with a fantasy team and slight him from time to time.

[G.O.A.T]

I dont know, 11 rings is obviously a great achievement, but his teammates were excellent as well. How many HOF's did he play with? I always think that he played with a fantasy team and slight him from time to time.

None of his rosters were as loaded as say the Lakers of the 80's.

His teams usually won tough six or seven game series. They never dominated the NBA in a single season like say the Bulls did and Russell actualy played with just two more all-star players than Wilt Chamberlain.

[Doctor K]

To me this is an argument for my side. Obviously if the series comes down to seven games, the talent level on the two teams is pretty damn close. Yet Russell won the close games versus Wilt every single time. That's not coincidnce. You're examples are commonly cited in this argument yet in '65 the Sixers would have had to score even if Hondo doesn't steal it. The odds are against them in general and history is really against them.

I don't agree with this conclusion you made. The talent level is close between his teammates since the series came down to 7 games? Not true. Russell for sure had more talented teammates, but Wilt's advantage over Russell still made it a close series imo. Without Wilt/Russell, Boston would've blew them off. But Wilt's domination over Russell took it to 7 games. And Wilt's teammates never made clutch plays at the end, while Russell's have. Otherwise, Russell would have some more losses and Wilt more wins.

[G.O.A.T]

I don't agree with this conclusion you made. The talent level is close between his teammates since the series came down to 7 games? Not true. Russell for sure had more talented teammates, but Wilt's advantage over Russell still made it a close series imo. Without Wilt/Russell, Boston would've blew them off. But Wilt's domination over Russell took it to 7 games. And Wilt's teammates never made clutch plays at the end, while Russell's have. Otherwise, Russell would have some more losses and Wilt more wins.

Except there are no examples in history to support this.

If Wilt had a larger impact than Russell then how come when Wilt's teammates were unquestionably better Russell still won more often?

Wilt NEVER dominated Russell. You can't dominate someone who always beats you. If your argument is stats based you don't understand the rivalry. In fact Russell let Wilt score a lot of points and grab a lot of rebounds (according to Russell and his teammates). He did this because he understood no one could stop Wilt and that if you got Wilt mad and he unleashed his full potential he could be unstoppable. So Russell would sit back and study the moves he was using that night and then be able to identify and stop them late in the game.

Meanwhile on offense against Wilt, Russell's strategy was to be a decoy and passer and draw Wilt away from the rim as much as possible.

The fact is they played ten seasons against each other and only in five of those did Russell have better teammates for sure. One year is a toss up and four of them Wilt had better teammates for sure.

I'll break it down year by year if you want, just ask.

The idea that Wilt's edge was just enough to force long series, but never enough to win them is absurd when you really think about it. All the close games they played and not ONE single time does Wilt do that little bit extra to beat Russell when it matters most.

Let's pretend you're right:

Forget that Russell won 60% of the time in the regular season and won over 80% in the postseason vs. Wilt.

Forget that Wilt's stats go down in the playoffs and that they were always the lowest vs. Russell and that Russell's stats go up in the postseason and up again in the Finals and up again in closeout games and are of the charts in game sevens.

Forget that Russell is 10-0 in game sevens.

It's all coincidence and him having better teammates. Teammates who collectively won a total of two titles without him in the rest of all their careers combined ('74 and '76 Celtics Hondo and Nelly + Don Chaney in '74).

Also it's him having a better coach, one of the greatest of all-time. One with nine rings. Of course just because he never won a ring without Russell. Or that he lost playoff series in six straight years without Russell and lost the one series of his coaching career that Russell was injured in and never lost any series otherwise.

We should also point out that Russell was drafted then traded to the Celtics, the greatest franchise ever. Just be sure not to know that they never won a playoff series prior to Russell getting there. In the three years prior to Bills arrival they lost to Syracuse. Russell won two National Titles and an Olympic Gold Medal and never lost a game in the process of doing all that.

Ignore the FACT that Russell won two titles as a head coach and that to do so he beat two teams who were hailed as "The Greatest Team Ever" to do so.

Don't think about the FACT that he was the first Black coach in ANY sport in America and that it was the Super Racist 60's and he was in SUper Duper racist Boston. I'm sure that didn't make beating teams better than yours any more difficult.

Forget that he did that while his back was giving out and his legs were Jelly and his teammates (besides Hondo) all WAY over the hill or guys picked up off waivers or in trades for late round draft picks.

Forget that he did that without the home court advantage and did so by coming back from 3-1 and 2-0 deficits.

Don't think about fact that five of the 50 GREATEST players ever were on those teams (Wilt on both) he beat.


See, I'm tired of hearing people who never watched and haven't bothered to read about this stuff tell me that their opinion is that Wilt had worse teammates or was unlucky or worst of all was a better player than Russell. All of the factors surrounding the two men changed constantly but one thing remained the same, Russell won and Wilt lost. It doesn't make Wilt a loser, for everyone lost to Russell, but it does make Russell the better player. It's the old SCOREBOARD argument.

[Fatal9]

Top 8-10. Don't know if he will be in my top 10 in another decade (with Lebron, Kobe and others finishing up their legacies).

[Doctor K]

Except there are no examples in history to support this.

If Wilt had a larger impact than Russell then how come when Wilt's teammates were unquestionably better Russell still won more often?

Wilt NEVER dominated Russell. You can't dominate someone who always beats you. If your argument is stats based you don't understand the rivalry. In fact Russell let Wilt score a lot of points and grab a lot of rebounds (according to Russell and his teammates). He did this because he understood no one could stop Wilt and that if you got Wilt mad and he unleashed his full potential he could be unstoppable. So Russell would sit back and study the moves he was using that night and then be able to identify and stop them late in the game.

Meanwhile on offense against Wilt, Russell's strategy was to be a decoy and passer and draw Wilt away from the rim as much as possible.

The fact is they played ten seasons against each other and only in five of those did Russell have better teammates for sure. One year is a toss up and four of them Wilt had better teammates for sure.

I'll break it down year by year if you want, just ask.

The idea that Wilt's edge was just enough to force long series, but never enough to win them is absurd when you really think about it. All the close games they played and not ONE single time does Wilt do that little bit extra to beat Russell when it matters most.

Let's pretend you're right:

Forget that Russell won 60% of the time in the regular season and won over 80% in the postseason vs. Wilt.

Forget that Wilt's stats go down in the playoffs and that they were always the lowest vs. Russell and that Russell's stats go up in the postseason and up again in the Finals and up again in closeout games and are of the charts in game sevens.

Forget that Russell is 10-0 in game sevens.

It's all coincidence and him having better teammates. Teammates who collectively won a total of two titles without him in the rest of all their careers combined ('74 and '76 Celtics Hondo and Nelly + Don Chaney in '74).

Also it's him having a better coach, one of the greatest of all-time. One with nine rings. Of course just because he never won a ring without Russell. Or that he lost playoff series in six straight years without Russell and lost the one series of his coaching career that Russell was injured in and never lost any series otherwise.

We should also point out that Russell was drafted then traded to the Celtics, the greatest franchise ever. Just be sure not to know that they never won a playoff series prior to Russell getting there. In the three years prior to Bills arrival they lost to Syracuse. Russell won two National Titles and an Olympic Gold Medal and never lost a game in the process of doing all that.

Ignore the FACT that Russell won two titles as a head coach and that to do so he beat two teams who were hailed as "The Greatest Team Ever" to do so.

Don't think about the FACT that he was the first Black coach in ANY sport in America and that it was the Super Racist 60's and he was in SUper Duper racist Boston. I'm sure that didn't make beating teams better than yours any more difficult.

Forget that he did that while his back was giving out and his legs were Jelly and his teammates (besides Hondo) all WAY over the hill or guys picked up off waivers or in trades for late round draft picks.

Forget that he did that without the home court advantage and did so by coming back from 3-1 and 2-0 deficits.

Don't think about fact that five of the 50 GREATEST players ever were on those teams (Wilt on both) he beat.


See, I'm tired of hearing people who never watched and haven't bothered to read about this stuff tell me that their opinion is that Wilt had worse teammates or was unlucky or worst of all was a better player than Russell. All of the factors surrounding the two men changed constantly but one thing remained the same, Russell won and Wilt lost. It doesn't make Wilt a loser, for everyone lost to Russell, but it does make Russell the better player. It's the old SCOREBOARD argument.

Yes, but you didn't understand the argument I was making.

In 1962, Russell for sure had the better teammates. Yet it still went down to the end in Game 7. And in the end, it was a tie. But then, it wasn't Russell or Wilt who decided who would break the tie. It was Sam Jones. So i am giving Wilt credit, for just 1962 (not their whole careers), for making it essentially even with the worse starcast.

[julizaver]

I hate to compare players at different positions, so i will post my all-time 4 list of centers:

1. Wilt Chamberlain
2. Kareem A. Jabbar
3. Shaq O'Neal and Russell

...

[G.O.A.T]

Yes, but you didn't understand the argument I was making.

In 1962, Russell for sure had the better teammates. Yet it still went down to the end in Game 7. And in the end, it was a tie. But then, it wasn't Russell or Wilt who decided who would break the tie. It was Sam Jones. So i am giving Wilt credit, for just 1962 (not their whole careers), for making it essentially even with the worse starcast.

How many plays did Russell make during that game or that series to put them in position to win?

The fact that Russell's teammates made big plays in big situations is because everyone knew their role and were able to comfotably focus on that only because Russell always ad their back.

I did understand the argument, my point was your conclusion is faulty based on the other historically evidence of Russell in similair situations.

I do think Wilt elevated his team at times, but he also limited them. That '62 Warriors team was not a collection of scrubs.

Paul Arizin - 4-time all-NBA pick; averaged 22 a game in '62
Tom Gola - All-Star 60-64
Tom Meschery - 1963 All-Star
Guy Rodgers - All-Star from 63-67; Led NBA in assists in '63
Al Attles - Defensive specialist; a premier defensive guard

Are...
Bob Cousy (slightly better than Arizin; both at the end of their careers)
Tom Hiensohn (Gola better all-around, Hiensohn better scorer; draw)
Sam Jones (Would become a much better player than Meschery but at this point they were both just becoming all-stars; slight edge Boston)
Frank Ramsey (Rodgers is the more impactful player and on the way up, Ramsey is at the end of his days; edge Philly)
KC Jones (Exactly what Attles is but with rings, switch them places and Attles is in the HOF; draw)

...That much superior?

So overall I'd say Boston had a better team; their core was barely better (probably equal when you consider Wilt's skill edge over Russell) toss in Loustcuff and Satch Sanders and the Celtics have better depth.

I know you're not some knucklehead or anything like that, I'm just making the point that the disparity in terms of supporting cast talent is not that wide.

[Psileas]

Except there are no examples in history to support this.

If Wilt had a larger impact than Russell then how come when Wilt's teammates were unquestionably better Russell still won more often?

What sounds inconsistent with your criteria is the fact that you rank Russell over Wilt for various reasons including leadership, smart play, defense, stepping up when it matters, yet you take as granted that Wilt's best teammates were better than Russell's in the 1966-68 period, despite the fact that

- Russell's teammates enjoy an equally overwhelming title advantage
- Russell's teammates have actually comparable, if not better stats, whereas Russell has way worse stats than Wilt.
- Russell's teammates stepped up and made clutch plays a lot more than Wilt's. See Sam Jones making game winners. See John Havlicek making a winning steal. When did Hal Greer make anything similar? Where is Cunningham beating the Celtics with clutch defense? Hell, Greer was the guy who made the mistake in the 1965 ECF and Cunningham went (almost literally) nuts in 1966, completely losing his temper and concentration- he even missed a game. And all of them, along with Walker, shot in the low 30's in the 7th Game of 1968. Just for a change, we never saw Havlicek, Jones or Howell screw things up that badly. Ironically, the closest someone came to this was when Russell's inbounds pass (in the "Havlicek Steal's Game") hit the wire and gave possession to the Sixers.
So why should we accept that Wilt's teammates, even in the 1966-68 period, were better than Russell's? Because the Sixers had better records? Sorry, but going by responsibility sharing alone, this goes more to Wilt.


Wilt NEVER dominated Russell. You can't dominate someone who always beats you. If your argument is stats based you don't understand the rivalry.

The thing is, when you compare players, stats have to play the most major role, because basketball is a team game, so bringing up wins is never enough. Wilt always put up better stats than Russell. Winning, losing, with better teammates, with worse teammates. Russell had to have a rare 30-point night AND play great defense on Wilt just to keep track individually. See Detroit vs Chicago in 1988-91. Going by series wins, Isiah leads Michael 3-1. Who was considered the best player, even back then? The guy with the clearly better stats, and that was a guy who had not even won his first title.


In fact Russell let Wilt score a lot of points and grab a lot of rebounds (according to Russell and his teammates). He did this because he understood no one could stop Wilt and that if you got Wilt mad and he unleashed his full potential he could be unstoppable. So Russell would sit back and study the moves he was using that night and then be able to identify and stop them late in the game.


The only times I've seen Russell "allow" Wilt to score was either when Wilt had gained a really close position to the basket or at the end of games that had been already over. The notion that he let Wilt have his game is even worse than the ironic notion that you made in another thread (that Wilt's coach "might also tell him to shoot worse percentages").
According to Wilt and also to available footage, Russell played him less dirty than anybody else, but he still tried to make him shoot under bad conditions, contested all his shots (including some dunks) and got plenty of double team help. That's not "letting Wilt have his points", that's a pretty conscious effort to limit him.



The fact is they played ten seasons against each other and only in five of those did Russell have better teammates for sure. One year is a toss up and four of them Wilt had better teammates for sure.

Well, see above. The only time Wilt might have better teammates, according to your criteria, would be 1969. In 1965, with Cunningham still being a rookie, I don't see it even arguable that Wilt had better teammates.


The idea that Wilt's edge was just enough to force long series, but never enough to win them is absurd when you really think about it. All the close games they played and not ONE single time does Wilt do that little bit extra to beat Russell when it matters most.

And he still does a lot more than his teammates, who, plenty of times, couldn't even do the basics (again, see before), let alone the little things. A few clutch plays, a few less stinkers from their part, and Wilt's "lack of this small extra thing missing" wouldn't even need and be discussed. The thing that Wilt should do to consistently win would be to produce the numbers he did against normal centers against the GOAT defender AND cover his teammates in the clutch. And that's nowhere as easy as the task of his teammates to do a little better themselves.

Let's pretend you're right:


Forget that Russell won 60% of the time in the regular season and won over 80% in the postseason vs. Wilt.

Forget that Wilt's stats go down in the playoffs and that they were always the lowest vs. Russell and that Russell's stats go up in the postseason and up again in the Finals and up again in closeout games and are of the charts in game sevens.

Forget that Russell is 10-0 in game sevens.

See that you use stats to get certain points? Yes, you did say "forget them", but this implies that they play a major role which we'll deliberately ignore. And the thing is that Wilt still had better individual numbers in all these clutch situations: Better stats than Russell when facing each other, regular season or playoffs, better stats in the Finals, better stats in do-or-die games. A great 25 pt-30 reb night for Russell was a below average night for Wilt.



It's all coincidence and him having better teammates. Teammates who collectively won a total of two titles without him in the rest of all their careers combined ('74 and '76 Celtics Hondo and Nelly + Don Chaney in '74).

How many titles did Wilt's teammates win without him? Greer zero, Billy C zero, Walker zero, hell, even West and Baylor stayed at zero. Only Arizin had won one, in a pretty different (and weaker) era.


Also it's him having a better coach, one of the greatest of all-time. One with nine rings. Of course just because he never won a ring without Russell. Or that he lost playoff series in six straight years without Russell and lost the one series of his coaching career that Russell was injured in and never lost any series otherwise.

At least, Auerbach was a real NBA coach, who had a pro-coach grasp of the game, a 384-263 record before Russell and had already made a Finals series. Not a just retired player who decided to try as a coach, neither a college coach who decided to see how he'd do in the pros.


We should also point out that Russell was drafted then traded to the Celtics, the greatest franchise ever. Just be sure not to know that they never won a playoff series prior to Russell getting there. In the three years prior to Bills arrival they lost to Syracuse. Russell won two National Titles and an Olympic Gold Medal and never lost a game in the process of doing all that.

Ignore the FACT that Russell won two titles as a head coach and that to do so he beat two teams who were hailed as "The Greatest Team Ever" to do so.

Don't think about the FACT that he was the first Black coach in ANY sport in America and that it was the Super Racist 60's and he was in SUper Duper racist Boston. I'm sure that didn't make beating teams better than yours any more difficult.

Forget that he did that while his back was giving out and his legs were Jelly and his teammates (besides Hondo) all WAY over the hill or guys picked up off waivers or in trades for late round draft picks.

Forget that he did that without the home court advantage and did so by coming back from 3-1 and 2-0 deficits.

Don't think about fact that five of the 50 GREATEST players ever were on those teams (Wilt on both) he beat.

Agreed. Russell managed to endure plenty of tough moments to get where he got and he always had a winner's mentality.



See, I'm tired of hearing people who never watched and haven't bothered to read about this stuff tell me that their opinion is that Wilt had worse teammates or was unlucky or worst of all was a better player than Russell. All of the factors surrounding the two men changed constantly but one thing remained the same, Russell won and Wilt lost. It doesn't make Wilt a loser, for everyone lost to Russell, but it does make Russell the better player. It's the old SCOREBOARD argument.

Then, the same thing makes a lot of 70's players better than Kareem and a lot of 80's players better than Jordan or Bird.

[julizaver]

Except there are no examples in history to support this.

If Wilt had a larger impact than Russell then how come when Wilt's teammates were unquestionably better Russell still won more often?

Wilt NEVER dominated Russell. You can't dominate someone who always beats you. If your argument is stats based you don't understand the rivalry. In fact Russell let Wilt score a lot of points and grab a lot of rebounds (according to Russell and his teammates). He did this because he understood no one could stop Wilt and that if you got Wilt mad and he unleashed his full potential he could be unstoppable. So Russell would sit back and study the moves he was using that night and then be able to identify and stop them late in the game.

Meanwhile on offense against Wilt, Russell's strategy was to be a decoy and passer and draw Wilt away from the rim as much as possible.

The idea that Wilt's edge was just enough to force long series, but never enough to win them is absurd when you really think about it. All the close games they played and not ONE single time does Wilt do that little bit extra to beat Russell when it matters most.

Let's pretend you're right:

Forget that Russell won 60% of the time in the regular season and won over 80% in the postseason vs. Wilt.

Forget that Wilt's stats go down in the playoffs and that they were always the lowest vs. Russell and that Russell's stats go up in the postseason and up again in the Finals and up again in closeout games and are of the charts in game sevens.


Forget that Russell is 10-0 in game sevens.

It's all coincidence and him having better teammates. Teammates who collectively won a total of two titles without him in the rest of all their careers combined ('74 and '76 Celtics Hondo and Nelly + Don Chaney in '74).

Also it's him having a better coach, one of the greatest of all-time. One with nine rings. Of course just because he never won a ring without Russell. Or that he lost playoff series in six straight years without Russell and lost the one series of his coaching career that Russell was injured in and never lost any series otherwise.

We should also point out that Russell was drafted then traded to the Celtics, the greatest franchise ever. Just be sure not to know that they never won a playoff series prior to Russell getting there. In the three years prior to Bills arrival they lost to Syracuse. Russell won two National Titles and an Olympic Gold Medal and never lost a game in the process of doing all that.

Ignore the FACT that Russell won two titles as a head coach and that to do so he beat two teams who were hailed as "The Greatest Team Ever" to do so.

Don't think about the FACT that he was the first Black coach in ANY sport in America and that it was the Super Racist 60's and he was in SUper Duper racist Boston. I'm sure that didn't make beating teams better than yours any more difficult.

Forget that he did that while his back was giving out and his legs were Jelly and his teammates (besides Hondo) all WAY over the hill or guys picked up off waivers or in trades for late round draft picks.

Forget that he did that without the home court advantage and did so by coming back from 3-1 and 2-0 deficits.

Don't think about fact that five of the 50 GREATEST players ever were on those teams (Wilt on both) he beat.


See, I'm tired of hearing people who never watched and haven't bothered to read about this stuff tell me that their opinion is that Wilt had worse teammates or was unlucky or worst of all was a better player than Russell. All of the factors surrounding the two men changed constantly but one thing remained the same, Russell won and Wilt lost. It doesn't make Wilt a loser, for everyone lost to Russell, but it does make Russell the better player. It's the old SCOREBOARD argument.

You said by yourself no one could stop Wilt ( agree, Celtics try to limited his game by using constant fouls tactics and team efforts). But the statement that Russell allowed Wilt to score and rebound early in the games - especially in playoffs - I can not agree - in such games you gain nothing for granted.

Not agree about clutch plays in 7 th games. I will give you a resume about all clutch games between them:

(1962 playoffs) In a closely contested Game 7 , Chamberlain tied the score at 107 with 16 seconds to go, but then Celtics shooting guard Sam Jones sank a clutch shot which won Boston the game and the series.


(1965 playoffs) In the final minute, Chamberlain hit two clutch free throws and slam dunked on Russell, bringing Boston's lead down to 1 at 110

[Niquesports]

None of his rosters were as loaded as say the Lakers of the 80's.

His teams usually won tough six or seven game series. They never dominated the NBA in a single season like say the Bulls did and Russell actualy played with just two more all-star players than Wilt Chamberlain.


I have Russ as # 5 behind only
kareem
Wilt
Magic
MJ.

Its hard for me to agree that the 60's Celtics werent more loaded than the 80's Lakers. KC Jones was one of the best defender G in the history of the league, Sam Jones was considered the 3 best Guard in the league, we have been in a debate where you talk about how great hondo was, Tom Hienson and Satch Sanders were both very good Forwards.

[G.O.A.T]

Thaks for the response, I hope this post is able to better illuminate my perspective for you.


So why should we accept that Wilt's teammates, even in the 1966-68 period, were better than Russell's? Because the Sixers had better records? Sorry, but going by responsibility sharing alone, this goes more to Wilt.

How about because when Wilt took less responsiability his team won more ('67 & '72) A better record is a pretty good indication, building a 3-1 series lead also a damn good indication. Having more all-NBA players, All-stars and All-time greats is also a good sign.



The thing is, when you compare players, stats have to play the most major role, because basketball is a team game, so bringing up wins is never enough. Wilt always put up better stats than Russell. Winning, losing, with better teammates, with worse teammates. Russell had to have a rare 30-point night AND play great defense on Wilt just to keep track individually. See Detroit vs Chicago in 1988-91. Going by series wins, Isiah leads Michael 3-1. Who was considered the best player, even back then? The guy with the clearly better stats, and that was a guy who had not even won his first title.

Zeke and Jordan's resume otherwise arfe not even close, Wilt and Russ are neck and neck.

More on it later, but stats tell you what type of player a guy is and how important he is to his team, not who he's better than. Is Zach Randolph better than Pau Gasol? JR Smith better than Shane Battier? etc.




The only times I've seen Russell "allow" Wilt to score was either when Wilt had gained a really close position to the basket or at the end of games that had been already over. The notion that he let Wilt have his game is even worse than the ironic notion that you made in another thread (that Wilt's coach "might also tell him to shoot worse percentages").
According to Wilt and also to available footage, Russell played him less dirty than anybody else, but he still tried to make him shoot under bad conditions, contested all his shots (including some dunks) and got plenty of double team help. That's not "letting Wilt have his points", that's a pretty conscious effort to limit him.

So now I have to decide if I want to trust your opinion and judgement or the opinion of all Russell's teammates, coach and Russell himself.

Obviously when he says he let him score it means he didn't exert too much energy trying to stop something he knew he couldn't every time so that he'd be able to more when it mattered most. Think Foreman\Ali Rumble in the Jungle. Big George dominated the fight, threw and landed more punches at a higher perecentage, had more big punches and controlled the fight's pace; but Ali wore him down, outsmarted him and knocked him out in the end.



Well, see above. The only time Wilt might have better teammates, according to your criteria, would be 1969. In 1965, with Cunningham still being a rookie, I don't see it even arguable that Wilt had better teammates.

Never said '65 went to Wilt. '66-'69 are not debatable for me anymore. i've had the conversation for 10 years, I never hear anything new. Wilt's teammates were better across the board. The closeness in numbers is a reflection of the difference between how Wilt and Russ used their teammates.



And he still does a lot more than his teammates, who, plenty of times, couldn't even do the basics (again, see before), let alone the little things. A few clutch plays, a few less stinkers from their part, and Wilt's "lack of this small extra thing missing" wouldn't even need and be discussed. The thing that Wilt should do to consistently win would be to produce the numbers he did against normal centers against the GOAT defender AND cover his teammates in the clutch. And that's nowhere as easy as the task of his teammates to do a little better themselves.

Excuses, Russell never needed them. If you want to say that's just luck or coincidence, that's on you.






See that you use stats to get certain points? Yes, you did say "forget them", but this implies that they play a major role which we'll deliberately ignore. And the thing is that Wilt still had better individual numbers in all these clutch situations: Better stats than Russell when facing each other, regular season or playoffs, better stats in the Finals, better stats in do-or-die games. A great 25 pt-30 reb night for Russell was a below average night for Wilt.

Stats like ppg, rpg and apg fg% only serve to show you what type of player the guy is. Obviously Russell wasn't going to outscore Wilt, he wasn't trying to. They were both trying to win, so obviously that's a more relevant stat.

By looking at Russell and Chamberlains stats I can see that they are the most important player to their team, but I certainly can't tell which one is better.




How many titles did Wilt's teammates win without him? Greer zero, Billy C zero, Walker zero, hell, even West and Baylor stayed at zero. Only Arizin had won one, in a pretty different (and weaker) era.

This would be a good point if Wilt had won more than one title with a single teammate. Also notable that Wilt was drafted to a team that still had most it's 1956 Championship nucleus in tact, the lone exception being center Neil Johnston who was replaced by Wilt and became the coach. So all those guys won titles without Wilt and failed to repeat the feat with him despite still playing at an all-star level (Gola, Arizin, Rodgers, Meschery)




At least, Auerbach was a real NBA coach, who had a pro-coach grasp of the game, a 384-263 record before Russell and had already made a Finals series. Not a just retired player who decided to try as a coach, neither a college coach who decided to see how he'd do in the pros.

A good point in that Wilt's coaching situation early in his career was a mess. However he did eventually play for Alex Hannum (who won an NBA and ABA title without Wilt) and Bill Sharman the former Celtic who taught Wilt to "play like Russell" and magically they won a title.








Then, the same thing makes a lot of 70's players better than Kareem and a lot of 80's players better than Jordan or Bird.

How which players won more than Kareem in the 70's, Magic in the 80's or Jordan in the 90's?

[joyner82]

1. Kareem
2. Jordan
3. Wilt
4. Bird
5. Russell

[jlauber]

I HAVE to jump in here...

Russell had FAR superior personnel from 59-60 to 64-65. Not even close.

61-62. Wilt had Tom Gola....may have been an All-Star...not even CLOSE to being a TRUE all-star. Heinsohn was 10 times the player Gola was. Look up the numbers. Wilt also had Arizin...a legitimate HOFer...EXCEPT that he was in his last season. He was nowhere near a force anymore. He had Guy Rodgers...a CAREER .378 shooter. That was IT. Before Wilt arrived, that SAME roster was a LAST-PLACE team. Wilt SINGLE-HANDEDLY CARRIED that team to a game seven, TWO-POINT loss against a Celtic team that had SIX HOFers and a HOF coach.

But, I won't take the time to go season by season here. Instead I will copy-and-paste from a prior post on this topic...

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=160893

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]

Simmons would respond by explaining that you are doing the same thing you accuse him of:

A few things you messed up on:

1. KC Jones was not on 1967 Celtics, he retired in 1966 along with Red Auerbach. You never mention that perhaps Russell being the first Black coach in the history of American sports while still being the best player on his team might have hampered him and contributed to the "perfect storm" that allowed Wilt to finally beat him.

2. The 1960 Warriors team that Wilt was drafted too was not a last place team. The struggled in 1959 because their all-NBA center Neil Johnston missed the whole season nearly with career ending injuries. The previous year they were NBA semifinalists, two years before that World Champions and five of the top six players from that team were still on the team and two of the top three were still playing at an all-star level.

3. You called Guy Rodgers "one of the worst shooters in NBA history" Yet he has a higher career % than Bob Cousy and you never mention that. Rodgers also was a better assist man than Cousy during common seasons for them as Wilt or Russ' teammates.

4. You say Gola was a questionably all-star despite the fact he was one of the best all-around players in the league. You say Heinsohn wasway better but Gola averaged as many rebounds, more assists and was a much better defender. How was he supposed to score like Tom when Tom was getting open shots because of Russell and Cousy and Gola was feeding Wilt for 35 shots a game. Gola and Mechery are questionable all-stars, but Heinsohn, Ramsey and KC Jones are not questionable HOFers. Without the Rings, none of them are in.

5. You said KC Jones was one of the best defensive PG's but never mention that Al Attles was considered his equal until the rings started piling up.

6. The 1969 Elgin Baylor stuff is killing me. He was NOT on a downslide and he did not miss significant time that year. He was all-NBA first team that year and the year prior. He missed 4 games because of injury and none in the playoffs. In the Finals he had 30 point and 15 rebound games. The next year is when the injuries took hold.

7. Tom Gola over rated, but Bailey Howell underrated? I can't follow that.

8. You never mention that Wilt's PF his rookie year was Woody Sauldsberry the rookie of the year in '58 and an all-star in '59 or that Wilt humiliated him so that it ruined his career. Meanwhile Russelll took guys whose careers were over like Don Nelson, Em Bryant and Don Chaney and made them relevant and winners.

9. You say Russell's teammates were vastly superior from '60-'65, yet you then illustrate that Wilt played with just three fewer all-stars in that span? How does that make sense.

10. You mentioned Willie Nauls and Clyde Lovellette and Mel Counts when citing Boston's depth, but those guys came to Boston by choiuce to play with Russell. Why not go polay with Wilt? Because they wanted to win.

11. 1968: Up 3-1 and losing your fourth best player to a minor injury that he played through decides the series. No way.


You know I respect you and your opinions and you know I enjoy what you bring to this place, but I think your being too critical of Simmons. He started the chapter saying he was going to put to rest "myths" that means he was only going to present one side of the argument. Of course there are two sides always and you know that we both see them and understand them, but you also must know that you (and I) constanbtly make arguments where we only present one side because we can assume the person were debating understands the other.

[jlauber]

Look, I won't argue Russell's 11 rings, nor his ability to get more out of his teammates, nor his his ability to bring out the worst in his opponents...but the FACT was, Russell played on not only more talented teams for all but two of the decade against Wilt, his teams were always deeper, as well. Take for instance the 65-66 season. SEVEN players averaged in double-figures (and NINE over 8 ppg) while Philly had FOUR (and SIX over 8 ppg.)

The 68-69 were OVERWHELMINGLY deeper. The Lakers had a prime West, an over-rated Baylor (who HURT them in the playoffs), and an incorrectly used Wilt...and little else. Boston had a team with EIGHT quality players that year. Just compare rosters. The more I look at that series, the more I am amazed that LA was able to get to a game seven, two-point, defeat. Boston had far more talent (yes, FAR more); the Lakers had TWO players who HURT them (Baylor firing bricks in the entire post-season, and Johnny Egan with a turnover in game four that COST his team the game.) Factor in that Boston needed TWO miracle shots to win two games, and that LA had a complete idiot for a coach, who COST them the series...plain-and-simple. The fact was, West played brilliantly, while Wilt outplayed Russell (as usual), and the rest of the personnel battles were won by Boston players...not even close.

As for Russell's departure the following season resulting in a 14 game drop. Sam Jones also retired after that 68-69 season, and you minimize his career. Meanwhile, when Wilt went down the next season, LA dropped nine games (actually only eight, as they went 39-31 without Wilt during the regular season.) I think, here again, that that was a wash in terms of impact. And there is no way LA should have taken a heavily-favored Knick team to a game seven that year, either. West was in his prime, Baylor was shot, and Wilt was nowhere near 100%.

My final tally has Russell with an edge in eight years, some significantly, and Wilt with two. And in one of those two, injuries just decimated his team. So, in reality, Wilt had ONE team that was better than Russell's...and they destroyed Russell's Celtics that year. Had Wilt been surrounded with that kind of personnel for all ten seasons, I don't think there is any question it would have been 7-1 Wilt, instead of the other way around. As it was, Wilt's TEAMs lost FOUR game sevens by NINE points. With a basket, here-or-there, and Wilt would have had an much as a 5-3 edge...with personnel that was nowhere near as talented for most of their H2H battles.

[jlauber]

G.O.A.T.,

I DO respect your opinions as well. And I agree with most of them. Russell was the consumate teammate, and a winner. He never needed excuses for why his team's lost.

But I really feel that Wilt gets ripped by those that say he had equal talent. It was just not true. Yes, Wilt could have had stepped up in game seven's in both 67-68 and 68-69, and he didn't do it. One, was his coach's fault, and the other was a combination of factors. In any case, even while not taking over offensively in either, he STILL outscored, outshot, and outrebounded Russell in BOTH of those games.

True, Russell could not have cared less. The bottom line...Russell got more out of his teammates, and made Wilt's worse. I will grant you that...and that IMHO, made Russell a better player.

[G.O.A.T]

G.O.A.T.,

I DO respect your opinions as well. And I agree with most of them. Russell was the consumate teammate, and a winner. He never needed excuses for why his team's lost.

But I really feel that Wilt gets ripped by those that say he had equal talent. It was just not true. Yes, Wilt could have had stepped up in game seven's in both 67-68 and 68-69, and he didn't do it. One, was his coach's fault, and the other was a combination of factors. In any case, even while not taking over offensively in either, he STILL outscored, outshot, and outrebounded Russell in BOTH of those games.

True, Russell could not have cared less. The bottom line...Russell got more out of his teammates, and made Wilt's worse. I will grant you that...and that IMHO, made Russell a better player.

I don't agree. I still don't see an argument for Russell having more talented teammates from '66-'69 at any time. I also think that overall it's a lot closer than people think. A major reason for Boston's depth was Russell. He studided every player on his team and figured out how to incorporate them best.

We can agree to disagree here I guess. I find Simmons argument much more accurate and compelling.

[LA_Showtime]

Byron Russell is pretty good.

[Psileas]

Thaks for the response, I hope this post is able to better illuminate my perspective for you.


How about because when Wilt took less responsiability his team won more ('67 & '72) A better record is a pretty good indication, building a 3-1 series lead also a damn good indication. Having more all-NBA players, All-stars and All-time greats is also a good sign.

If things like regular season records and 3-1 advantages in best of 7 series are good indications, then Wilt was also better than Russell.

All-NBA teammates?
Russell had more all-NBA teammates and all-stars in 1966. They were tied in both categories in 1967, though, ironically Sam Jones, all-NBA 2nd teammer, did not make the All-Star Game. In 1968, Russell had 1 more all-star teammate and they were tied in the other category. Even going by this, Wilt has more help only in 1969.



Zeke and Jordan's resume otherwise arfe not even close, Wilt and Russ are neck and neck.

By the time Chicago first beat the Pistons 1991, their resumes were a lot closer than what they became: Jordan had 0 titles, 2 MVP's, Isiah had 2 titles, 1 Finals' MVP. Of course, Jordan had a dicisive statistical advantage, but then again, so did Wilt over Russell.



More on it later, but stats tell you what type of player a guy is and how important he is to his team, not who he's better than. Is Zach Randolph better than Pau Gasol? JR Smith better than Shane Battier? etc.

You can make cases for guys who play for mediocre teams. Randolph, due to his not so high basketball (and probably general) IQ, may not really be better than Gasol, but I could see many making this question reversed if Gasol had stayed for the Grizzlies and Zach was a Laker.


So now I have to decide if I want to trust your opinion and judgement or the opinion of all Russell's teammates, coach and Russell himself.
Obviously when he says he let him score it means he didn't exert too much energy trying to stop something he knew he couldn't every time so that he'd be able to more when it mattered most. Think Foreman\Ali Rumble in the Jungle. Big George dominated the fight, threw and landed more punches at a higher perecentage, had more big punches and controlled the fight's pace; but Ali wore him down, outsmarted him and knocked him out in the end.

The problem is that opinions and quotes, even from the same person, may differ from time to time. I've heard Russell claim that he gave his best against Wilt. Wilt also gives a completely different picture of the Celtics' defense than a team not really focused on him. Which quotes are truer? Sometimes, you have to see and judge yourself. The figures tend to agree: The thing that even you mentioned, that Wilt's productivity fell against the Celtics, is a sign that the Celtics were really concerned about him. Otherwise, there would be no reason for him to drop his productivity against one of the smallest teams (when it comes to big men) in the league.


Never said '65 went to Wilt. '66-'69 are not debatable for me anymore. i've had the conversation for 10 years, I never hear anything new. Wilt's teammates were better across the board. The closeness in numbers is a reflection of the difference between how Wilt and Russ used their teammates.

I think you said that Wilt had better teammates for 5 years, which is the span from 1965 to 1969. However, the only season I still find Wilt to have a somewhat obvious advantage is in 1969. And this due to the fact that West and Baylor are ranked above Hondo and Jones - the same way that Hondo and Jones are ranked above Greer and Cunningham as well.



Excuses, Russell never needed them. If you want to say that's just luck or coincidence, that's on you.

Like you said, it can't be coincidence all the time. You said there was a patern of Wilt not being able to find a way to beat Russell in the end. I similarly say there was a patern of Wilt's teammates not being able to find a way to beat Russell's teammates. Which, judging from their personal performance, and from the simple fact that what "the next 9 players" do against "the next 9 players" is always more important than what "the #1 man" does against "the #1 man", is more plaucible to me.



Stats like ppg, rpg and apg fg% only serve to show you what type of player the guy is. Obviously Russell wasn't going to outscore Wilt, he wasn't trying to. They were both trying to win, so obviously that's a more relevant stat.

That's the thing. Russell knew from the beginning that he would not win the individual battle, so he went for the team battle. Wilt was big on stats, but even if he wasn't, his talent alone would indicate that he should care about both sides.



This would be a good point if Wilt had won more than one title with a single teammate. Also notable that Wilt was drafted to a team that still had most it's 1956 Championship nucleus in tact, the lone exception being center Neil Johnston who was replaced by Wilt and became the coach. So all those guys won titles without Wilt and failed to repeat the feat with him despite still playing at an all-star level (Gola, Arizin, Rodgers, Meschery)

The Warriors could never come close to repeating, because even the early 60's league was nothing like the 1956 league. The same Warrior team that you mention went only 32-40 against the 1959 NBA.



A good point in that Wilt's coaching situation early in his career was a mess. However he did eventually play for Alex Hannum (who won an NBA and ABA title without Wilt) and Bill Sharman the former Celtic who taught Wilt to "play like Russell" and magically they won a title.

Yes, eventually Wilt played for 2 good coaches, as well. Having them for all his career would help, though.



How which players won more than Kareem in the 70's, Magic in the 80's or Jordan in the 90's?

First of all, I said 80's Jordan and Bird. I already mentioned Jordan and the Pistons. Bird lost the championship 7 times in the 80's (many times losing with home court advantage). Kareem didn't lose to anyone lots of times, but the fact that he could only win 1 title in the 70's would make it sound as if he wasn't by far the best player of the 70's (which he was) and that players like Thurmond in 1973 or Wilt in 1972 or even Walton in 1977 had good cases over him. I don't even think that Reed was better than rookie Kareem in 1970, let alone the rest.

[julizaver]

OK, in my post I post some arguments - in four 7 th games Wilt made the key plays in 2 of them, and although playing better than Russell in one was absent for the final and Russ made some key plays in one. So every bit of numbers says Wilt superior to Russell.
Ok, let's see it other way - let ignore the supporting cast, but what about the coaches - Red is considered the greatest coach ever, so is there an argument that at coach position Red is superior to Wilt's coaches during thosse days? I don't think so.


Let ask you few questons?

1. Who do you think will win one on one game if Russ and Wilt happen to play against each other?
2. Who of both has more impact to the game of basketball, in the meaning of popularity,media attention, changes in rules and etc?
3. Who of both has the more legendary status ?
4. If Wilt can play like Russell in 67' or 72' could Russell do the opposite if needed?
5. If the goal of basketball is to score more points than your oponent, which is more important - to score points or to defend the basket ?
6. What if Wilt happen to play in Celtics under Red Auerbach and Russell played for all those Wilt's coaches. Is there someone who think that Russell will win 7 from 8 postseason series - with Warriors, Sixers ? If you considered Wilt teamates better take away him from 1966 and 1968 Sixers teams and try to replaced him with Russell - what about team oriented Wilt with 24 points 24 rebounds and 8 assists per game shooting over 60 % playing for Celtics.

So what is the meaning of word "better". If someone make his teamates better it means only that he is more valuable for that team, than anybody in that team. So if Russell was more suitable for Celtics team than Wilt, does it make him better player? Put the low scoring low percentage Russell on that warriors team and try to sugest the outcome of possible meeting with Wilt with Celtics. Do you think that Russell will make Arizin, Gola , Meschery, Attles and Rogers so better that they will beat 60's Celtics of Wilt and Red.

[G.O.A.T]

1. Who do you think will win one on one game if Russ and Wilt happen to play against each other?

Wilt



2. Who of both has more impact to the game of basketball, in the meaning of popularity,media attention, changes in rules and etc?
Russell because of the social issues, but the rivalry exceeds both.



3. Who of both has the more legendary status ?

Russell as he is the only player to be voted Greatest ever by the NBA.



4. If Wilt can play like Russell in 67' or 72' could Russell do the opposite if needed?

It's never needed. Never has been in NBA history. But no Russell could not score 50 a game.


5. If the goal of basketball is to score more points than your oponent, which is more important - to score points or to defend the basket ?

Defend the basket of course, because all five players can score very few can defend the basket.


6. What if Wilt happen to play in Celtics under Red Auerbach and Russell played for all those Wilt's coaches. Is there someone who think that Russell will win 7 from 8 postseason series - with Warriors, Sixers ? If you considered Wilt teamates better take away him from 1966 and 1968 Sixers teams and try to replaced him with Russell - what about team oriented Wilt with 24 points 24 rebounds and 8 assists per game shooting over 60 % playing for Celtics.


If the roles were switched, there would be no Celtic dynasty, Auerbach would have been fired because he and Wilt would have clashed and Russell would have won titles in Philly and then moved to San Fransisco (where he played college) and that would have become the NBA's great dynasty. It was Russell who made the Celtics, not the other way around.


So what is the meaning of word "better". If someone make his teamates better it means only that he is more valuable for that team, than anybody in that team. So if Russell was more suitable for Celtics team than Wilt, does it make him better player?

Russell was better suited for any team as he proved throughout his career. Every player that was on the roster left before he did, all other 11 spots changed and they never stopped winning. The second he left they missed the playoffs. Russell didn't lose a basketball game (college or Olympics) for over two years before he ever suited up for the Celtics.


Put the low scoring low percentage Russell on that warriors team and try to sugest the outcome of possible meeting with Wilt with Celtics.

Watch everyone else score more, Russell score more at a higher percentage and the team become a defensive monster. Russell getting fewer touches would allow more players to get into the flow and motivate them to play better defense. That's common sense seeing as that's what happened wherever Russell went and whoever played with him without exception.


Do you think that Russell will make Arizin, Gola , Meschery, Attles and Rogers so better that they will beat 60's Celtics of Wilt and Red.

Obviously. Also Red said he never have Wilt on the Celtics.

[jlauber]

Obviously. Also Red said he never have Wilt on the Celtics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilt_Chamberlain

[COLOR="DarkRed"]"During summer vacations, Chamberlain worked as a bellhop in Kutsher's Hotel. Red Auerbach, the coach of the Boston Celtics, spotted the talented teenager there and had him play 1-on-1 against Kansas University standout and national champion, B. H. Born, elected the Most Valuable Player of the 1953 NCAA Finals. Chamberlain won 25

[Doctor K]

How many plays did Russell make during that game or that series to put them in position to win?

The fact that Russell's teammates made big plays in big situations is because everyone knew their role and were able to comfotably focus on that only because Russell always ad their back.

I did understand the argument, my point was your conclusion is faulty based on the other historically evidence of Russell in similair situations.

I do think Wilt elevated his team at times, but he also limited them. That '62 Warriors team was not a collection of scrubs.

Paul Arizin - 4-time all-NBA pick; averaged 22 a game in '62
Tom Gola - All-Star 60-64
Tom Meschery - 1963 All-Star
Guy Rodgers - All-Star from 63-67; Led NBA in assists in '63
Al Attles - Defensive specialist; a premier defensive guard

Are...
Bob Cousy (slightly better than Arizin; both at the end of their careers)
Tom Hiensohn (Gola better all-around, Hiensohn better scorer; draw)
Sam Jones (Would become a much better player than Meschery but at this point they were both just becoming all-stars; slight edge Boston)
Frank Ramsey (Rodgers is the more impactful player and on the way up, Ramsey is at the end of his days; edge Philly)
KC Jones (Exactly what Attles is but with rings, switch them places and Attles is in the HOF; draw)

...That much superior?

So overall I'd say Boston had a better team; their core was barely better (probably equal when you consider Wilt's skill edge over Russell) toss in Loustcuff and Satch Sanders and the Celtics have better depth.

I know you're not some knucklehead or anything like that, I'm just making the point that the disparity in terms of supporting cast talent is not that wide.

Ok fine maybe not much better but better. But starcast of Russell's was still better. Though at least for 1962, you have to say Wilt was better. Ignoring the other years.

Russell + Better Starcast - Sam Jones Game Winner = Wilt + Worse Starcast

Without Sam Jones game winner, it was a tie is what i'm saying. So, we can conclude since we know Russell has a better starcast, that Wilt was better than Russell during that season. I mean, he made clutch plays and tied Russell's more talented team.

And the fact that Sam Jones made that game winner, though might play a small part in knowing your role like you were saying, but had a lot more to due with Sam Jones shooting correctly, having a little bit of luck, and making the shot. Let's not forget, this is basketball! And the last thing Sam Jones was thinking about when taking that shot was Bill Russell. There was a lot more on his mind, the defender in front of him, the hoop, shooting form, timing, etc. Not Bill Russell. Give credit to Jones.



So, with a better starcast for Russell, even series without Sam Jones, I don't know how you can't say that Wilt > Russell in 62 at least.

[julizaver]

G.O.A.T - why are you underestimated Red Auerbach - He said that about Wilt, because he already have Russell and there is no way to say otherwise. Obviously the coaches defends it's own players, it's happen then and it's happen nowadays. Ask LA coach and he will say that he would took Kobe Bryant instead of Lebron James.
Do you think for real that Red having Wilt will not utilize his talents. As Sharman, Hannum and Mcguire did (the last ask Wilt to shoot more, because Warriors lack a consistent second scorer and that they will have more chance to win if Wilt scores more than 50). So I tell you what I think about early Wilt in Celtics - Red will design plays for him, set a new tactic, new picks and new strategy. I am sure that his primary goal will be to urge Wilt to go stright at Russell every time he received the ball in order to fouled out him or put him in foul troubles, diminishing his defense.

[Niquesports]

G.O.A.T - why are you underestimated Red Auerbach - He said that about Wilt, because he already have Russell and there is no way to say otherwise. Obviously the coaches defends it's own players, it's happen then and it's happen nowadays. Ask LA coach and he will say that he would took Kobe Bryant instead of Lebron James.
Do you think for real that Red having Wilt will not utilize his talents. As Sharman, Hannum and Mcguire did (the last ask Wilt to shoot more, because Warriors lack a consistent second scorer and that they will have more chance to win if Wilt scores more than 50). So I tell you what I think about early Wilt in Celtics - Red will design plays for him, set a new tactic, new picks and new strategy. I am sure that his primary goal will be to urge Wilt to go stright at Russell every time he received the ball in order to fouled out him or put him in foul troubles, diminishing his defense.

I dont question Wilts Greatness. I think if he had the chance to play with Red he might even had been better if possible. But what most misunderstand isnt that Russell was "better" than Wilt but the things he did that dont show up in the box scorers is what made him able to win over Wilt.I dont think the case is that one had better teammates than the other I think it was even but it was the leadership and will to win that Russell's teammates picked up on. Does any one think Wilt could have lead a team to a title as Player Coach ? I doubt and one being honest would say yes and thats the difference between the two. Thats why I'd say Wilt was the better player but I'd take Russell over him any day if I had to choose

[G.O.A.T]

^these last four responses were great.

I have really enjoyed this conversation.

And while I think we've all made our points and while i'd enjoy the discussion if it went on another2 months, I want to try and find some common ground for us first.

I just wanted to share a few general thoughts quickly.

I love Wilt, for years I argued the virtues of Wilt as near Russell's equal, better than Kareem and better than Jordan. It used to be (though not online) that the Russell camp was the one in higher number. But time has changed this and now more often then not I find myself trying to educate people about Russell and the Celtics dynasty.

Most people (now) think they were just a bunch of superstars who outmatched everyone. And that Russell was some sort of Diekembe Mutombo playing against short white guys. It's bizarre.

I never mean to knock Wilt down. I understand the excuses and see them as legit, but they are still excuses and I'll take the guy who didn't need to make any excuses every time.

Sam Jones was a GREAT player in particularly in the clutch, however a lot of is do to Russell. As folks here have pointed out, Jones was reluctant to take a big scoring load, he liked the idea of being a role player with less pressure. Russell facilitated that, he told him (from Red and Me a book by Russell) "Sam, I'll take care of your man on defense and Red will make sure Larry and Bailey help carry the load on offense; you just be ready when we need you...cause we will"

I just want people to understand why he was great, not just that he was. To understand his greatest was unique and that only Jordan has ever combined the mental and physical side of the game like Russell. As great as Magic and Bird were, they were not transcendent athletes and as great as Wilt and Kareem were, and both intelligent men, they were not basketball thinkers.

Every other player in history is littered with crucial flaws or physical\mental limitations or just isn't good enough to touch their rarefied air. It's taken me 20 years to draw this conclusion and I am here (and writing the GOAT List) to show you how I got to them.

Thanks for the debate, look forward to picking it up when time allows.

[julizaver]

I dont question Wilts Greatness. I think if he had the chance to play with Red he might even had been better if possible. But what most misunderstand isnt that Russell was "better" than Wilt but the things he did that dont show up in the box scorers is what made him able to win over Wilt.I dont think the case is that one had better teammates than the other I think it was even but it was the leadership and will to win that Russell's teammates picked up on. Does any one think Wilt could have lead a team to a title as Player Coach ? I doubt and one being honest would say yes and thats the difference between the two. Thats why I'd say Wilt was the better player but I'd take Russell over him any day if I had to choose

Sad, but we will never know what a player coach will be Wilt since the Lakers do not allow him to play with Q's in 1973/74 ABA. Yes, at the time Wilt was 37 years old, but still a premium athlete.
About your choice - If I am a coach and my team need a dominant scorer in the middle I will took Wilt Chamberlain, If I am coach of an expansion team I will choose again Wilt, cause he can do a lot more things on the court. And if I am a coach of 62-66's Lakers I will choose maybe Russell, because he will give me what I need most.
My point is that basketball game is collective five man sport. Teams won championships, not single individuals. So winning is not the first criteria when compare given player - if you want to know who was the best see them head to head. Russell do not chose Celtics - they choose him. Russell don't won championships his teams won it. The same for Wilt of course.

[PistonsFan#21]

Bill Russel is so overrated...He played in a weak era on a stacked team. How many teams were in the league back when he played? Its easier to win championships when you can make the playoffs without any effort and compete agaisnt only 7 teams all year long.

[beermonsteroo]

In my opinion Russel is overrated. Head to Head as a player he would not make my Top 15.
Of Course due to his 11 rings his legacy his great. But those 11 Rings shouldn't be overrated. there are plenty of other Celtics with loads of Rings too. The level of competition was just so much lower then it was in later years.
Russel was a great defender, but he was a rather mediocere offensive Player. Really nothing special at all. Therefore i just can't consider him a Top 10 player.
If you say well Russel dominated, got 11 rings and so on. Well George Mikan dominated although in his time, actually he stood out more then Russel ever did. Yet i haven't heared his name in the GOAT discussion yet. But if you threw in Russels Name, a guy like Mikan would have to be there too.

[Niquesports]

Sad, but we will never know what a player coach will be Wilt since the Lakers do not allow him to play with Q's in 1973/74 ABA. Yes, at the time Wilt was 37 years old, but still a premium athlete.
About your choice - If I am a coach and my team need a dominant scorer in the middle I will took Wilt Chamberlain, If I am coach of an expansion team I will choose again Wilt, cause he can do a lot more things on the court. And if I am a coach of 62-66's Lakers I will choose maybe Russell, because he will give me what I need most.
My point is that basketball game is collective five man sport. Teams won championships, not single individuals. So winning is not the first criteria when compare given player - if you want to know who was the best see them head to head. Russell do not chose Celtics - they choose him. Russell don't won championships his teams won it. The same for Wilt of course.


Sure basketball is a team sport but on a team there are players that make up the heart of that team.1 player 1 coach can change the whole makeup of a team. Its the focus its the night in night out dedication to winning, its the understanding of each players role and that player accepting it for the sake of the team.

With Wilt it was always about Wilt his teams were only gonna be as good as he played. IF by cgance he only scored 20 it was unlikely his team would win.Thats the difference between him and Russ. In the box scores another player might have out played Russ, but he was fine with that as long as the team won.

I guess there are many players you can question just how much impact did they really have on there teams. I mean could the Showtime Lakers still had won a few title without Magic ? But its hard to look at the facts that Russ won back to back NCAA titles winning 55 gm in a row and then goes on and wins 11 titles in the NBA..THe Man justs wins

[Niquesports]

Bill Russel is so overrated...He played in a weak era on a stacked team. How many teams were in the league back when he played? Its easier to win championships when you can make the playoffs without any effort and compete agaisnt only 7 teams all year long.


Sure its so easy to make the playoffs when you dont have to face teams like the Nets,Knicks,Wizzards,Kings, Warriors,Wolves yes getting past these teams must be hard. Consider this in the 62s of the 9 in the league 9 teams had a HOF player cant say that about todays era. Just because the game has evolved doesnt mean the era is stronger.

[PistonsFan#21]

Sure its so easy to make the playoffs when you dont have to face teams like the Nets,Knicks,Wizzards,Kings, Warriors,Wolves yes getting past these teams must be hard. Consider this in the 62s of the 9 in the league 9 teams had a HOF player cant say that about todays era. Just because the game has evolved doesnt mean the era is stronger.

Yeah its easy to pick the worst teams in the league. But you also forget the other 16 teams that made the playoffs. Look at the good or decent teams in the West that will miss the playoffs because the competition is too hard.

And obviously there is gonna be more HOF on each teams if there is less teams in the league. Also '62 was still early and the standards to make the HOF were lower back then.

[beermonsteroo]

Sure its so easy to make the playoffs when you dont have to face teams like the Nets,Knicks,Wizzards,Kings, Warriors,Wolves yes getting past these teams must be hard. Consider this in the 62s of the 9 in the league 9 teams had a HOF player cant say that about todays era. Just because the game has evolved doesnt mean the era is stronger.

Well if there are only 9 Teams the chance is pretty high that all of then have a Hall of Famer. But a 9 Team leauge is really a joke. The regular season was more or less totally useless. I mean Playing 80 games just to determine who gets seede 1 2 3 and fourth is pretty pathetic in my opinion.
I mean the single regular season game was so ****.. unimportant. Therefore i don't really give much about stats and regualar season awrds prior to the 70es. They just don't mean nothing. Nobody was playing at full pace anyway. It was more or less conserving energy for the playoffs over a 80 game season. Of course that's nit Russels fault, but you have to take this into consideration. 11 Rings back then may equal 5 rings today

[Niquesports]

Yeah its easy to pick the worst teams in the league. But you also forget the other 16 teams that made the playoffs. Look at the good or decent teams in the West that will miss the playoffs because the competition is too hard.

And obviously there is gonna be more HOF on each teams if there is less teams in the league. Also '62 was still early and the standards to make the HOF were lower back then.


OF the 16 teams that would be in the playoffs right now 10 of the 16 have sure HOFers if Durrant keeps up his pace. Yes lets look at the teams that would miss the playoffs in the West. Wolves,Warriors,Kings Clippers,Rockets Memphid Hornets thats a weak bunch in any era. With the exception of Paul not one of these teams has a HOF todays game is watered down A case could be made this is the weakest era of all time

[beermonsteroo]

OF the 16 teams that would be in the playoffs right now 10 of the 16 have sure HOFers if Durrant keeps up his pace. Yes lets look at the teams that would miss the playoffs in the West. Wolves,Warriors,Kings Clippers,Rockets Memphid Hornets thats a weak bunch in any era. With the exception of Paul not one of these teams has a HOF todays game is watered down A case could be made this is the weakest era of all time


Well you are right when you say that this era is Week right know. That is true without a doubt. Still the Level of competition is than higher back then. Not even to talk about the loaded 80es and 90es.

[Niquesports]

Well if there are only 9 Teams the chance is pretty high that all of then have a Hall of Famer. But a 9 Team leauge is really a joke. The regular season was more or less totally useless. I mean Playing 80 games just to determine who gets seede 1 2 3 and fourth is pretty pathetic in my opinion.
I mean the single regular season game was so ****.. unimportant. Therefore i don't really give much about stats and regualar season awrds prior to the 70es. They just don't mean nothing. Nobody was playing at full pace anyway. It was more or less conserving energy for the playoffs over a 80 game season. Of course that's nit Russels fault, but you have to take this into consideration. 11 Rings back then may equal 5 rings today


Sorry if there are only 9 teams in the league as opposed to 30 that means every night your playing a top team in todays game half the teams might have a hard time beating some College teams.IF you dont understand how great a feat winning 11 titles in a proffesional sport then I cant help you winning 5 rings today is like winning 2 rings in the 60's

[PistonsFan#21]

OF the 16 teams that would be in the playoffs right now 10 of the 16 have sure HOFers if Durrant keeps up his pace. Yes lets look at the teams that would miss the playoffs in the West. Wolves,Warriors,Kings Clippers,Rockets Memphid Hornets thats a weak bunch in any era. With the exception of Paul not one of these teams has a HOF todays game is watered down A case could be made this is the weakest era of all time

Lol buddy. 4 of the 9 teams in 1962 had losing records. Thats almost 50% of the league!

A team like Memphis would be among the best teams in the NBA if you put them in 1962. Rudy Gay, Marc Gasol, Oj Mayo and Randolph. Atleast 2 of those players would be even considered for the HOF.

[Niquesports]

Well you are right when you say that this era is Week right know. That is true without a doubt. Still the Level of competition is than higher back then. Not even to talk about the loaded 80es and 90es.


I would say when a team like the Cavs can have 1 great player 1 past prime player and 10 players that would come off the bench if they played in any other era yet that team has the best record I dont know what competition your talking about. Wehn in the 60's teams had 2 and 3 all star caliber players

[Niquesports]

Lol buddy. 4 of the 9 teams in 1962 had losing records. Thats almost 50% of the league!

A team like Memphis would be among the best teams in the NBA if you put them in 1962. Rudy Gay, Marc Gasol, Oj Mayo and Randolph. Atleast 2 of those players would be even considered for the HOF.

Of course many of the teams had losing records they didnt have teams like Memphis,Wizzards,Nets,Kings, to beat up on and improve there record. ALso there is nothing anyone on Memphis has done to desreve to be even considered for the HOF

[PistonsFan#21]

Of course many of the teams had losing records they didnt have teams like Memphis,Wizzards,Nets,Kings, to beat up on and improve there record. ALso there is nothing anyone on Memphis has done to desreve to be even considered for the HOF

What are you talking about? There were 2 of the 9 teams that had record such as 29-51 and the worst was at 18-62. They are the teams that Bill Russel and celtics were beating on to improve their record. They are the Nets, Kings, Wizards of their generation.

If a team is good they dont need bad teams to simply have a winning record. There was only 5 decent to good teams back then which is why it was easier to win so much championships.

[G.O.A.T]

Lol buddy. 4 of the 9 teams in 1962 had losing records. Thats almost 50% of the league!

This might be the funniest thing I've ever seen. How strange is it that in a sport where one team losses and one team wins every game that almost half the teams would have losing records.

These are the type of people who thing a nine team league is more watered down than a 30 team league.

[Niquesports]

What are you talking about? There were 2 of the 9 teams that had record such as 29-51 and the worst was at 18-62. They are the teams that Bill Russel and celtics were beating on to improve their record. They are the Nets, Kings, Wizards of their generation.

If a team is good they dont need bad teams to simply have a winning record. There was only 5 decent to good teams back then which is why it was easier to win so much championships.


Having limited knowledge of the game clouds your understanding . You cant just look at stats and say they were weak. That 18-62 team had HOF Walt Bellamy and that 29-51 team had Willie Naulis and Richie Guerin so both teams had better players than any of todays weak teams . So yes it would have been harder to beat a 18-62Packers team than a todays Nets team.

[PistonsFan#21]

Having limited knowledge of the game clouds your understanding . You cant just look at stats and say they were weak. That 18-62 team had HOF Walt Bellamy and that 29-51 team had Willie Naulis and Richie Guerin so both teams had better players than any of todays weak teams . So yes it would have been harder to beat a 18-62Packers team than a todays Nets team.

This guys were HOF because they played in a era where stats were inflated. Walt Bellamy sure wouldnt put up 32pts and 19rebs in his rookie year if he were to play today, let alone being a HOF

[PistonsFan#21]

This might be the funniest thing I've ever seen. How strange is it that in a sport where one team losses and one team wins every game that almost half the teams would have losing records.

These are the type of people who thing a nine team league is more watered down than a 30 team league.

Whats even funnier is that today the concept is still the same. One team loses and one team wins yet if you check not half of the teams have losing records. How come :confusedshrug:

[Niquesports]

This guys were HOF because they played in a era where stats were inflated. Walt Bellamy sure wouldnt put up 32pts and 19rebs in his rookie year if he were to play today, let alone being a HOF


And Dwight Howard would be the best C in the game if he played in the 60's and Chris paul D Williams wouldnt be the best PG if they played in the 60's and Elgin Baylor would still be the best SF if all todays SF played in the 60's and the Lakers wouldnt be defending Champs that would go to Russell lead Celtics

[ILLsmak]

I agree with ShaqAttack.

If you are doing a top ten list, before you can get into personal preference you almost HAVE to put MJ at 1. Then you put Kareem. Those are resume people that you can't argue. Plus they did it in the more modern NBA.

Then you can go anywhere. The reason I believe Shaq is greater than Wilt and Russell (although maybe not deserving of the 3rd spot... maybe would throw Bird before him) is because he was like the mixture of Wilt and Bill in the modern era. Rings and statistical domination.

I hate when people mention that guys like Bill Russell and Tim Duncan (Which is a GREAT comparison, believe it or not) and use their want to win as an excuse for the fact that their stats don't compare to other all time greats. We can say Wilt probably didn't always want to win... (or went about it the wrong way, at least.) But can you guys really say that Shaq ever did things the wrong way when trying to win? What separates Shaq's contribution to his team from Russell's? Just because he had good stats doesn't mean he wasn't always making the right decision. I can't think of a situation where Shaq put stats above his team?

You realize his career high is 61 and he did that on his birthday, just for fun, I'd say. It's not like Shaq was always taking bad shots or not running the offense.

I think players who win and don't put up stats get too much credit because people think there is some magic in them that makes their team win. They never have the more logical view that maybe their teammates are doing more.

-Smak

[Niquesports]

Whats even funnier is that today the concept is still the same. One team loses and one team wins yet if you check not half of the teams have losing records. How come :confusedshrug:


yet 14 of todays teams have losing records with 2 right at .500 which might as well be a losing record and whats funny that half the league in a watered down league maybe you should check things out before you post :rockon:

[PistonsFan#21]

And Dwight Howard would be the best C in the game if he played in the 60's and Chris paul D Williams wouldnt be the best PG if they played in the 60's and Elgin Baylor would still be the best SF if all todays SF played in the 60's and the Lakers wouldnt be defending Champs that would go to Russell lead Celtics

:roll: :roll:

Tell me thats a joke

[ILLsmak]

This might be the funniest thing I've ever seen. How strange is it that in a sport where one team losses and one team wins every game that almost half the teams would have losing records.

These are the type of people who thing a nine team league is more watered down than a 30 team league.

30 team is more watered down, but imagine a 30 team league back then! They only had 9 teams because there wasn't enough talent to make 30. Now there is, at least, enough talent to make close to 30 and then there are some doormats. There were probably doormats back then, too.

Just because they had the best of the best on nine teams doesn't mean they were as good as the players of today. And people who talk about hall of famers back then are hilarious, too, because it's not like they are going to NOT make hall of famers. Hall of famers would be the best players, it doesn't mean they are suddenly equal to a hall of famer in a 30 team league.

-Smak

[PistonsFan#21]

yet 14 of todays teams have losing records with 2 right at .500 which might as well be a losing record and whats funny that half the league in a watered down league maybe you should check things out before you post :rockon:

Its 12 teams with a losing record and 2 teams at .500

Alot of teams are sinking to have a higher draft pick too which wasnt a common thing to do back then

[Niquesports]

I agree with ShaqAttack.

If you are doing a top ten list, before you can get into personal preference you almost HAVE to put MJ at 1. Then you put Kareem. Those are resume people that you can't argue. Plus they did it in the more modern NBA.

Then you can go anywhere. The reason I believe Shaq is greater than Wilt and Russell (although maybe not deserving of the 3rd spot... maybe would throw Bird before him) is because he was like the mixture of Wilt and Bill in the modern era. Rings and statistical domination.

I hate when people mention that guys like Bill Russell and Tim Duncan (Which is a GREAT comparison, believe it or not) and use their want to win as an excuse for the fact that their stats don't compare to other all time greats. We can say Wilt probably didn't always want to win... (or went about it the wrong way, at least.) But can you guys really say that Shaq ever did things the wrong way when trying to win? What separates Shaq's contribution to his team from Russell's? Just because he had good stats doesn't mean he wasn't always making the right decision. I can't think of a situation where Shaq put stats above his team?

You realize his career high is 61 and he did that on his birthday, just for fun, I'd say. It's not like Shaq was always taking bad shots or not running the offense.

I think players who win and don't put up stats get too much credit because people think there is some magic in them that makes their team win. They never have the more logical view that maybe their teammates are doing more.

-Smak


I think it is magical when a player wins 11 titles in 13 years in addition to winning 2 NCAA titles . Not sure how much basketball you have ever played but there a people that just the example that they show in terms of will to win that it does make there teammates do more. IF Shaq had winning a No 1 priority than he would have came to camp in shape his leadership Kobe would have respeced and the team would have maybe won 3 more titles .

[Niquesports]

Its 12 teams with a losing record and 2 teams at .500

Alot of teams are sinking to have a higher draft pick too which wasnt a common thing to do back then


yea the Wizzards lose 16 games for a hope at winning the lottery and who is that big an impact player that its worth sinking for just to have a player you have to pay a high salary to with no certainty that that player will change your ball club. I mean there is no Ewing in this years draft.

[G.O.A.T]

Whats even funnier is that today the concept is still the same. One team loses and one team wins yet if you check not half of the teams have losing records. How come :confusedshrug:

Currently 17 of 30 teams have winning records. That's 57% of the league.

five of of nine is 56%

So your point was?

[Niquesports]

:roll: :roll:

Tell me thats a joke


Sorry your so uniformed maybe you should read up on more about basketball before the year 2000

[Harison]

I have Russell in the Top4. I can see why some are placing as high as Top2, but dont understand why some are having Rus bellow Top5 - there is MORE to the basketball than scoring, some understand that, some dont. He was ultimate winner, arguably one of the best in all sports, thats very impressive, even in this "flashy scoring" driven generation.

[G.O.A.T]

30 team is more watered down, but imagine a 30 team league back then! They only had 9 teams because there wasn't enough talent to make 30. Now there is, at least, enough talent to make close to 30 and then there are some doormats. There were probably doormats back then, too.

Just because they had the best of the best on nine teams doesn't mean they were as good as the players of today. And people who talk about hall of famers back then are hilarious, too, because it's not like they are going to NOT make hall of famers. Hall of famers would be the best players, it doesn't mean they are suddenly equal to a hall of famer in a 30 team league.

-Smak

Agreed and I'm not trying to infer that.

You're right that there is no way to say for sure the stars then would be stars today, but I do know this.

In the late stages of his career Wilt more than held his own with a young prime Kareem, who in the late stages of his career held his own with young Hakeem, Bird, Ewing etc. Older Bird and Magic held there own against a young Jordan who in his mid-late 30's outlasted Shaq and Duncan who dominated the modern era.

So I don't think players have gotten better by much if at all.

The greats are the greats because they are great in their time not because we think they'll be great in another time or not.

[Niquesports]

Agreed and I'm not trying to infer that.

You're right that there is no way to say for sure the stars then would be stars today, but I do know this.

In the late stages of his career Wilt more than held his own with a young prime Kareem, who in the late stages of his career held his own with young Hakeem, Bird, Ewing etc. Older Bird and Magic held there own against a young Jordan who in his mid-late 30's outlasted Shaq and Duncan who dominated the modern era.

So I don't think players have gotten better by much if at all.

The greats are the greats because they are great in their time not because we think they'll be great in another time or not.


I think its silly when someone just blurps out that player wouldnt be good if he played in todays game. I mean how good would Dirk be if he played in the 60's when any coach he played for would tell him to stay on the block and post up. Facing players like Thurmond . I have never seen George Mikan play but I can read and listen to people that have and if its universal that everyone talks how good he was I have to believe it and if his resume in his era is better than Shaq's in todays era you cant rank Shaq over him.Goat we have agreed and disagreed but I do respect the fact that you back your opinion with a strong basketball IQ . To many on ISh just have no clue of the history of the game

[guy]

People are dumb for looking at W-L records and using that to determine if an era is weak or not compared to another era. It doesn't look work like that. In the end, total record % for an entire league is 50%. You can compare conferences/division to each other in a given year like that but you can't do it for an entire league.

[PistonsFan#21]

Sorry your so uniformed maybe you should read up on more about basketball before the year 2000

Oh so i am misinformed yet you are the one that claims Elgin Baylor is better than any SF playing today? Let me make a thread and see what people think of that.

[Niquesports]

Oh so i am misinformed yet you are the one that claims Elgin Baylor is better than any SF playing today? Let me make a thread and see what people think of that.


Show me a SF today that has his numbers .

[guy]

Show me a SF today that has his numbers .

Um, really?

[ILLsmak]

I think it is magical when a player wins 11 titles in 13 years in addition to winning 2 NCAA titles . Not sure how much basketball you have ever played but there a people that just the example that they show in terms of will to win that it does make there teammates do more. IF Shaq had winning a No 1 priority than he would have came to camp in shape his leadership Kobe would have respeced and the team would have maybe won 3 more titles .

Did the Lakers ever not make the playoffs? Was Shaq ever out of shape in the playoffs. Dude has only missed like one playoff game in his career and that was a game that they were going to win anyway (And did win.) Haterrrrr.

Look at what the UCONN women's basketball team is doing now. If 50 years down the road women's basketball has more parity, will that still be the best team ever? I'd say probably not.

That's absolutely untrue that a player makes a teammate do more. Think of how many times a great player has created an open shot for a teammate only to have him brick it. There are good role players and they are just as essential to winning as a good player. In fact, it's probably more reliant on the role players because stars see the same defensive scheme whether they are on or off. It's up to the role players to step in and take advantages of the 'holes.'

As for Kobe respecting anyone's leadership, that's laughable. Three more titles? You realize that Shaq was declining near the end of his Laker days, right, what years would they have won titles? He had plenty of good years before that but never won because he never had a team. I'm sure if BILL RUSSELL was on those teams he would have made his teammates into winners. He would have gone to the FT line and made those free throws for Nick Anderson.

-Smak

[ShaqAttack3234]

I think it is magical when a player wins 11 titles in 13 years in addition to winning 2 NCAA titles . Not sure how much basketball you have ever played but there a people that just the example that they show in terms of will to win that it does make there teammates do more. IF Shaq had winning a No 1 priority than he would have came to camp in shape his leadership Kobe would have respeced and the team would have maybe won 3 more titles .

This is over simplifying it. Kobe simply didn't like being the number 2 option. This was a problem in the 90's, 2001, 2003, 2004 ect. Phil constantly had to talk Kobe into buying into this, even when they were winning. Hell, Del Harris even had to talk a young Kobe into buying into this, and that Kobe was far from a number 1 option.

And how out of shape was Shaq, really? He bulked up from 330 to 340 prior to the 1999-2000 season because of the pounding he takes. This turned out to be an ideal weight for him since Shaq peaked. He won a title at 382 pounds in 2002. He never really got heavier than that, should he have weighed a bit less? Sure, but he looked fine and played well at 355-360 his last season in LA, got down to 327 in Miami, felt too light, got back up to 340ish and won another title.

During the prime of his career(1992-2005), I never saw Shaq out of shape to the point where it seemed to affect his athleticism.

Shaq was never like Shawn Kemp later in his career, Eddy Curry, Oliver Miller, Robert Traylor ect.

Shaq was over 300 pounds when he entered the league with Orlando. His frame simply carried a lot of weight, plus at 7'1"-7'2" you tend to weigh a lot anyway.

Look at Yao Ming, Greg Oden, Andrew Bynum, Bill Walton, Ralph Sampson ect. It's amazing that Shaq's body has held up as well as it has. In fact, it's shocking.

[magnax1]

This is over simplifying it. Kobe simply didn't like being the number 2 option. This was a problem in the 90's, 2001, 2003, 2004 ect. Phil constantly had to talk Kobe into buying into this, even when they were winning. Hell, Del Harris even had to talk a young Kobe into buying into this, and that Kobe was far from a number 1 option.

And how out of shape was Shaq, really? He bulked up from 330 to 340 prior to the 1999-2000 season because of the pounding he takes. This turned out to be an ideal weight for him since Shaq peaked. He won a title at 382 pounds in 2002. He never really got heavier than that, should he have weighed a bit less? Sure, but he looked fine and played well at 355-360 his last season in LA, got down to 327 in Miami, felt too light, got back up to 340ish and won another title.

During the prime of his career(1992-2005), I never saw Shaq out of shape to the point where it seemed to affect his athleticism.

Shaq was never like Shawn Kemp later in his career, Eddy Curry, Oliver Miller, Robert Traylor ect.

Shaq was over 300 pounds when he entered the league with Orlando. His frame simply carried a lot of weight, plus at 7'1"-7'2" you tend to weigh a lot anyway.

Look at Yao Ming, Greg Oden, Andrew Bynum, Bill Walton, Ralph Sampson ect. It's amazing that Shaq's body has held up as well as it has. In fact, it's shocking.
04 definitely affected his athleticism. Why else would he have sucked so bad compared to every other year from 98-06? He had one bad year in the late 90's though I don't remember which.

[ShaqAttack3234]

04 definitely affected his athleticism. Why else would he have sucked so bad compared to every other year from 98-06? He had one bad year in the late 90's though I don't remember which.

Shaq was 31/32 by that time and in his 12th NBA season. That's a big reason why he was less athletic than his prime. He wasn actually lighter than he was in 2002 and 2003 that season.

And he didn't suck in comparison to the previous 2 seasons. He was getting 4 fewer shots per game compared to the previous 2 seasons, partially due to the additions of Payton and Malone and his free throw shooting declined(which has nothing to do with athleticism). His rebounding and block numbers were higher than they had been since 2001 and his FG% was the highest it had been since 1997-1998.

Shaq in 2004 was definitely better than Shaq in 2006.

[G.O.A.T]

That's absolutely untrue that a player makes a teammate do more.

Have you ever played the game? If you had and were any good, you'd know how silly your statement was.

[magnax1]

Shaq was 31/32 by that time and in his 12th NBA season. That's a big reason why he was less athletic than his prime. He wasn actually lighter than he was in 2002 and 2003 that season.

And he didn't suck in comparison to the previous 2 seasons. He was getting 4 fewer shots per game compared to the previous 2 seasons, partially due to the additions of Payton and Malone and his free throw shooting declined(which has nothing to do with athleticism). His rebounding and block numbers were higher than they had been since 2001 and his FG% was the highest it had been since 1997-1998.

Shaq in 2004 was definitely better than Shaq in 2006.
Shaq in 04 Was most definitely not better in 04 then 06. He was unmotivated and overweight. He basically played no D. He just didn't care at all, or at least thats what it seemed. He also played a huge part in exploding the 04 Lakers from the inside out. Shaq in 04 is closer to last years Shaq then 06 Shaq.

[Niquesports]

Did the Lakers ever not make the playoffs? Was Shaq ever out of shape in the playoffs. Dude has only missed like one playoff game in his career and that was a game that they were going to win anyway (And did win.) Haterrrrr.

Look at what the UCONN women's basketball team is doing now. If 50 years down the road women's basketball has more parity, will that still be the best team ever? I'd say probably not.

That's absolutely untrue that a player makes a teammate do more. Think of how many times a great player has created an open shot for a teammate only to have him brick it. There are good role players and they are just as essential to winning as a good player. In fact, it's probably more reliant on the role players because stars see the same defensive scheme whether they are on or off. It's up to the role players to step in and take advantages of the 'holes.'

As for Kobe respecting anyone's leadership, that's laughable. Three more titles? You realize that Shaq was declining near the end of his Laker days, right, what years would they have won titles? He had plenty of good years before that but never won because he never had a team. I'm sure if BILL RUSSELL was on those teams he would have made his teammates into winners. He would have gone to the FT line and made those free throws for Nick Anderson.

-Smak


Shaq was on the decline when he left the Lakers that sure didnt hurt him helping the Heat win a title. As far as Russell helping those team win. YOu must not understand what true leadership does for a team. How it can change the atmosphere of so so team into a winner. Maybe you dont understand the impact Unseld had on the Bullets,Bird had with the Celtics, Robinson had with the Spurs as well as Duncan. maybe it was Luck that Magic come to the Lakers and help lead them and Kareem to his first finals with the Lakers. Or maybe it was a coincidence that Russell comes to a team with 2 All Star Guards and leads them to there first of 11 titles.

Sure the role players play just as much if not maybe more of a importance to a team sucess heck its 11 other players on that team. BUt its been well know that Shaq doesnt have the dedication that would have made his teams better.

Lastly parity doesnt make a teams better because of the parity. THe UConn women will go down as the UCLA Burins of the late 60's early 70's a team must match there sucess to be considered on there level.

[jlauber]

I can't reiterate this enough...

Russell won 11 rings in 13 seasons (after going ubeaten in 55 straight college games, and winning two straight NCAA championships.) He certainly doesn't need any excuses, BUT, he was injured in one of the championship series his team lost, AND, he was a PLAYER-COACH in the other.

I am as big a Wilt fan as there has ever been. However, he played on team's with winning records in 13 out of 14 seasons. He played on five 50+ win teams in his career, and four that won 60+. He anchored two of the best team's in history. He went to six Finals. He played in another five more Conference Finals.

As great as Wilt was...he only played on TWO champions.

Ok, how about the Jordan fans. MJ played on six title teams. He also played on FIVE losers. He played on 50+ win teams that did not make the Finals. He came back late in 94-95, and on a team that won 55 games without him the year before, and could not get them into the Finals.

And for those that have Kareem at the top of their list...

Kareem, in his second season, carried a young team to a world championship. Most observers felt that his Bucks would be the next great dynasty. However, with basically the same core of players, he did not lead them to titles in 71-72, 72-73, and 73-74. In the mid-to-late 70's he could not get his team to the Finals, and even had a losing season one year. When he was paired with Magic, and as talented a team that the NBA has ever seen, he was able to win five more rings. BUT, they still did not win titles in 80-81, 82-83, or 83-84.

Granted, Wilt, MJ, and Kareem backers can come up with all sorts of excuses. Mediocre surrounding talent, injuries, bad officiating, poor coaching, old age, bad luck, and choking teammates.

IMHO, Russell's best teams were no better than many of Wilt's, Kareem's, and MJ's best teams, that did NOT win titles.

You can make excuses for other's...but Russell doesn't need them. He LED his team's to titles...plain-and-simple. Throw out the stats...Russell was not interested. His stats were in his TEAM's stats.

Everyone here is entitled to their opinions...but to rank Russell near the bottom of their Top-10's, or even lower, is simply not acknowledging the fact that Russell was voted the best player in NBA history in 1980. Yes, it was before Kareem went on his title run, or before Jordan, or before Shaq. Still, there has never been anyone else that has won 11 rings. And, as G.O.A.T. pointed out...Russell won 11. MJ, Kareem, and Wilt, won 14...COMBINED.

Other than going 13 for 13, what more could Russell have done? Maybe he concentrates on his OWN stats, and wins some more rebounding titles. Or maybe he goes all out on offense, and averages 25-30 ppg (he was certainly capable of it...he had several in the Finals alone.) But, suppose he does things, and he only wins 6-7 titles (and then Wilt wins several more)...would that have made him a greater player?

What made Russell better than everyone else who ever played the game, was that he made his teammates better, and made his opposing teams, worse. And in doing so, he was game's ultimate winner. AND, the objective of every game played, is to WIN.

IMHO,...Russell is the greatest to have ever played the game. Everyone else is fighting over #2.

[Doctor K]

Have you ever played the game? If you had and were any good, you'd know how silly your statement was.
Though I think that was a silly statement, I think yours earlier was just as silly. :lol

The one that it's because of Russell Sam Jones made the game winner. I mean, I understand he Russell makes him understand his role, concentrate and play his game, and all of that. But, in the end, you have to give credit to Sam Jones. As I said earlier, when making that game-winner, he had the ball, shooting & dribbling techinques/skills, the defender in front of him, the time, and other factors that were in his mind. Not Bill Russell. It almost sounded like you were giving Bill Russell more credit for the game winner than Sam Jones. But in reality, Sam Jones deserves almost all the credit for his game winner and Russell 0 almost. Otherwise, it's just silly.

but yes i also agree it's silly to think Russell didn't bring out the best out of his teammates overall. But in clutch situations in which Russell had nothing to do with the play, it was almost all the player who made the clutch play. Because if you play basketball and have been put in clutch situations, you are so pressured and concentrated on making the shot, you think of how your teammates and their reactions after the shot goes in or out.

[Fatal9]

I think it would be interesting if a guy like Nate Thurmond (who could lock down Wilt more than Russell btw, and shut down Kareem several times) played on those Celtic teams. Maybe he would be the guy we'd be preaching as GOAT because of the ring count. By the looks of it, he seems to be just the rebounder/defender Russell was, had a more polished scoring game later in his career, and has had multiple seasons/playoff runs with 4+apg. Probably not the same competitor or leader, though he did seem to step up many times in the playoffs. When he had a legit offensive threat on his team in Barry, he led the Warriors to NBA finals in '67 (where they became the only team to defeat Wilt's '67 Sixer team twice in the playoffs), and led the upset over Kareem's Bucks in '73 (when Barry returned to the Warriors from the ABA). Would have loved to see what he could have done in Russell's situation in a defense/rebounding role with tons of offensive help.

[jlauber]

I think it would be interesting if a guy like Nate Thurmond (who could lock down Wilt more than Russell btw, and shut down Kareem several times) played on those Celtic teams. Maybe he would be the guy we'd be preaching as GOAT because of the ring count. By the looks of it, he seems to be just the rebounder/defender Russell was, had a more polished scoring game later in his career, and has had multiple seasons/playoff runs with 4+apg. Probably not the same competitor or leader, though he did seem to step up many times in the playoffs. When he had a legit offensive threat on his team in Barry, he led the Warriors to NBA finals in '67 (where they became the only team to defeat Wilt's '67 Sixer team twice in the playoffs), and led the upset over Kareem's Bucks in '73 (when Barry returned to the Warriors from the ABA). Would have loved to see what he could have done in Russell's situation in a defense/rebounding role with tons of offensive help.


Thurmond was very under-rated, and as you stated, he probably played Wilt and Kareem better than anyone else. Still, I remember his Warrior teams of 71-72, and 72-73. BOTH were LOADED with talent. And both of them gave the Bucks all they could handle. But, in the 71-72 season, the Lakers destroyed them, 5-1, and beat them 129-99 and then 162-99 (I watched EVERY Laker game that year BTW.) And in that 162-99 annihilation, there were several sequences in the first half, which proved to me, beyond any doubt, that Wilt could have been even more dominant than he was. In those sequences (I believe it four or five...nearly all of them in a row), Wilt just powered his way into the lane, without the ball, and then caught passes at the rim, and dunked on a helpless Thurmond.

The following season, the Warriors, behind Thurmond's brilliant play against Kareem, shocked the Bucks, 4-2, in the first round of the playoffs. That set up a Warrior-Laker WCF's. I was in attendance in Oakland for game three of the playoffs, and Wilt blocked everything the Warriors threw up, and I can't recall Thurmond' shooting, but it was awful. The Lakers won that game, on the road, 126-70, and blew out Golden St., 4-1 in the playoffs.

Of course, Wilt, in his PRIME, in the 66-67 Finals, completely shut down Thurmond, holding him to 34-99 from the field in that series (.343), while shooting 42-75 himself (.560), and outrebounded him per game, 28.5 to 26.7.

[sannguyen19]

i know the dude won a lot of rings..but the NBA had fewer teams..his FG% sucks. i say hes a bit overrated. Skill wise i wouldnt even put him in my top 20...can u imagine a guy like David Robinson playing in that era...

[Niquesports]

Though I think that was a silly statement, I think yours earlier was just as silly. :lol

The one that it's because of Russell Sam Jones made the game winner. I mean, I understand he Russell makes him understand his role, concentrate and play his game, and all of that. But, in the end, you have to give credit to Sam Jones. As I said earlier, when making that game-winner, he had the ball, shooting & dribbling techinques/skills, the defender in front of him, the time, and other factors that were in his mind. Not Bill Russell. It almost sounded like you were giving Bill Russell more credit for the game winner than Sam Jones. But in reality, Sam Jones deserves almost all the credit for his game winner and Russell 0 almost. Otherwise, it's just silly.

but yes i also agree it's silly to think Russell didn't bring out the best out of his teammates overall. But in clutch situations in which Russell had nothing to do with the play, it was almost all the player who made the clutch play. Because if you play basketball and have been put in clutch situations, you are so pressured and concentrated on making the shot, you think of how your teammates and their reactions after the shot goes in or out.


Where I agree Russell was not the factor in Jones making the shot no more than he was in Hondo stealing the ball. However,There is something to be said for his leadership. Pushing players in practice,having a were going to win this game attitude in the looker room and during timeouts, playing the best player the game had seen up to that day,Wilt, with a no back down determination,and being the most unselfish Great of all time . These things have to rub off on teammates there is a atmosphere of winning that Championship teams have and its starts with its leaders.

Granted the Celtics were the perfect team. Great Coach Russ called Red the Best Manager of Men he's ever seen. Red was able to have Hondo accept his role of coming off the bench yet still allowed him to feel like a star. Red took the advice and selected a Black player from a small Black school ,Sam Jones, and have him accept the role of playing behind Sherman and then step in and become the teams go to starter. HE Knew how to trust in his leader Russ yet still make sure the other 11 players were happy.

ALthough I believe the Celtic dynasty was mostly due to Russ's leadership he also had so much help. A player in Hondo who was able to take over as team leader in later years and lead the Celtics to 2 more titles, A player in Don Nelson that help inovate the game as a head Coach, a player in Heinsohn that later became a very good coach also winning two titles, a player in KC that won as a coach every wehere he went winning titles as Bostons coach and leading a Bullets team to the finals,Now how much of this were these players and how much of it was being around Russell thats open for debate but its one thing for sure if you were around Russell winning was all that was important and there was no debate on that.

[julizaver]

I think it would be interesting if a guy like Nate Thurmond (who could lock down Wilt more than Russell btw, and shut down Kareem several times) played on those Celtic teams. Maybe he would be the guy we'd be preaching as GOAT because of the ring count. By the looks of it, he seems to be just the rebounder/defender Russell was, had a more polished scoring game later in his career, and has had multiple seasons/playoff runs with 4+apg. Probably not the same competitor or leader, though he did seem to step up many times in the playoffs. When he had a legit offensive threat on his team in Barry, he led the Warriors to NBA finals in '67 (where they became the only team to defeat Wilt's '67 Sixer team twice in the playoffs), and led the upset over Kareem's Bucks in '73 (when Barry returned to the Warriors from the ABA). Would have loved to see what he could have done in Russell's situation in a defense/rebounding role with tons of offensive help.

Just waiting for someone to mentioned Nate Thurmond :) - he was great hard nosed center (especially in defense).But in his case the problem was injuries, when he was at his peak - for sure they took some of his greatness away. His peak was between 1966 and 1970. However he was a low percentage scorer - shooting short and mid-range jumpers (42 % FG for a career), and average free throw shooter for a center.
He played in three playoff series against Wilt Chamberlain and his teams lost every time to Wilt's teams. And the stat's line were:

1967 NBA Finals (6 games):
Wilt Chamberlain - 17.7 ppg, 28.5 rpg, 6.8 apg 56 % FG
Nate Thurmond - 14.2 ppg, 26.6 rpg, 3.3 apg 34,3 % FG

1969 NBA WC playoffs (6 games)
Wilt Chamberlain - 12.0 ppg, 23.5 rpg, 3.0 apg 50 % FG
Nate Thurmond - 16.7 ppg, 19.5 rpg, 4.7 apg 39,2 % FG

1973 NBA WC playoffs (5 games)
Wilt Chamberlain - 8.0 ppg, 23.6 rpg, 4.0 apg 55 % FG
Nate Thurmond - 15.8 ppg, 17.2pg, 4.2 apg 39,8 % FG

Nate Thurmond never played in the playoffs with Wilt the scorer, so he was able to outscored Wilt in 1969 and 1973 series, but his FG % was always lower than 40 %. Wilt has the edge in rebounds, FG % and blocked shots.

[julizaver]

Thurmond was very under-rated, and as you stated, he probably played Wilt and Kareem better than anyone else. Still, I remember his Warrior teams of 71-72, and 72-73. BOTH were LOADED with talent. And both of them gave the Bucks all they could handle. But, in the 71-72 season, the Lakers destroyed them, 5-1, and beat them 129-99 and then 162-99 (I watched EVERY Laker game that year BTW.) And in that 162-99 annihilation, there were several sequences in the first half, which proved to me, beyond any doubt, that Wilt could have been even more dominant than he was. In those sequences (I believe it four or five...nearly all of them in a row), Wilt just powered his way into the lane, without the ball, and then caught passes at the rim, and dunked on a helpless Thurmond.

The following season, the Warriors, behind Thurmond's brilliant play against Kareem, shocked the Bucks, 4-2, in the first round of the playoffs. That set up a Warrior-Laker WCF's. I was in attendance in Oakland for game three of the playoffs, and Wilt blocked everything the Warriors threw up, and I can't recall Thurmond' shooting, but it was awful. The Lakers won that game, on the road, 126-70, and blew out Golden St., 4-1 in the playoffs.

Of course, Wilt, in his PRIME, in the 66-67 Finals, completely shut down Thurmond, holding him to 34-99 from the field in that series (.343), while shooting 42-75 himself (.560), and outrebounded him per game, 28.5 to 26.7.
The game you watched 126-70, Wilt outplayed completely Nate - in 39 minutes he had 10 points (2/2 FG and 8/10 FT) 25 rebounds 3 assists against Thurmond's 37 min, 9 points (3 /13 FG and 3/4 FT) 13 rebounds and 2 assists.

[G.O.A.T]

Though I think that was a silly statement, I think yours earlier was just as silly. :lol

The one that it's because of Russell Sam Jones made the game winner. I mean, I understand he Russell makes him understand his role, concentrate and play his game, and all of that. But, in the end, you have to give credit to Sam Jones. As I said earlier, when making that game-winner, he had the ball, shooting & dribbling techinques/skills, the defender in front of him, the time, and other factors that were in his mind. Not Bill Russell. It almost sounded like you were giving Bill Russell more credit for the game winner than Sam Jones. But in reality, Sam Jones deserves almost all the credit for his game winner and Russell 0 almost. Otherwise, it's just silly.

but yes i also agree it's silly to think Russell didn't bring out the best out of his teammates overall. But in clutch situations in which Russell had nothing to do with the play, it was almost all the player who made the clutch play. Because if you play basketball and have been put in clutch situations, you are so pressured and concentrated on making the shot, you think of how your teammates and their reactions after the shot goes in or out.


Where Specifically did I say that? I say a lot of silly things it's hard to keep track.

I wouldn't say that Russell had more than 5% to do with that game winner, probably the same amount as Red or KC or whoever taught Sam the game, but I was illustrating how Russell always thought ahead and put players in position to succeed. The shot Jones hit to save game four of the 1969 Finals was on a play Russell called that was designed by Larry Siegfried from a play they ran at Ohio State. The Picket Fence play of course.

Sam's role was to hit the big shots; just as it was KC's role to pester the offensive guard, Havlicek's to get the steals and Russell's to be there for the offensive rebound or blocked shot when they failed.

Russell is not some magical basketball god (I know my perspective can come across this way) he's just really, really underrated here. Look how many people in this thread have him outside the top 5 ever and says he's overrated. That means they've done NO research at all about Russell. They don't know he was voted the greatest player ever in 1970 and 1980 and they just don't get it.

[Niquesports]

Where Specifically did I say that? I say a lot of silly things it's hard to keep track.

I wouldn't say that Russell had more than 5% to do with that game winner, probably the same amount as Red or KC or whoever taught Sam the game, but I was illustrating how Russell always thought ahead and put players in position to succeed. The shot Jones hit to save game four of the 1969 Finals was on a play Russell called that was designed by Larry Siegfried from a play they ran at Ohio State. The Picket Fence play of course.

Sam's role was to hit the big shots; just as it was KC's role to pester the offensive guard, Havlicek's to get the steals and Russell's to be there for the offensive rebound or blocked shot when they failed.

Russell is not some magical basketball god (I know my perspective can come across this way) he's just really, really underrated here. Look how many people in this thread have him outside the top 5 ever and says he's overrated. That means they've done NO research at all about Russell. They don't know he was voted the greatest player ever in 1970 and 1980 and they just don't get it.

Many will never get it Goat. Most have only been influenced by ESPN when it comes to basketball. If it isnt high scoring with lots of flash its no good . Most are too uniformed to know that when they call Pat Ewing a great Center the fail to realize that he was taught by John Thompson who has said many times on DC radio that he learned how to play Center from Russell. Few know that the Pat they were watching at Georgetown was a imitation of Russell.

[jlauber]

Just waiting for someone to mentioned Nate Thurmond :) - he was great hard nosed center (especially in defense).But in his case the problem was injuries, when he was at his peak - for sure they took some of his greatness away. His peak was between 1966 and 1970. However he was a low percentage scorer - shooting short and mid-range jumpers (42 % FG for a career), and average free throw shooter for a center.
He played in three playoff series against Wilt Chamberlain and his teams lost every time to Wilt's teams. And the stat's line were:

1967 NBA Finals (6 games):
Wilt Chamberlain - 17.7 ppg, 28.5 rpg, 6.8 apg 56 % FG
Nate Thurmond - 14.2 ppg, 26.6 rpg, 3.3 apg 34,3 % FG

1969 NBA WC playoffs (6 games)
Wilt Chamberlain - 12.0 ppg, 23.5 rpg, 3.0 apg 50 % FG
Nate Thurmond - 16.7 ppg, 19.5 rpg, 4.7 apg 39,2 % FG

1973 NBA WC playoffs (5 games)
Wilt Chamberlain - 8.0 ppg, 23.6 rpg, 4.0 apg 55 % FG
Nate Thurmond - 15.8 ppg, 17.2pg, 4.2 apg 39,8 % FG

Nate Thurmond never played in the playoffs with Wilt the scorer, so he was able to outscored Wilt in 1969 and 1973 series, but his FG % was always lower than 40 %. Wilt has the edge in rebounds, FG % and blocked shots.

It would be interesting to find some games from the 65-66, 66-67, and 67-68 regular seasons, involving Wilt and Thurmond. Thurmond almost always missed at least a few games in those years, but there are at least a couple of games against the Warriors, in those years, that we know Wilt had 30+ points. I suspect that he probably had at least a couple in the 65-66 season.

And yes, much like Wilt did to Kareem, he held Thurmond way below his normal shooting percentages. And from what we do know, Wilt shot well over 50% against both. A PRIME Wilt, with an intent to score, most assuredly would have topped 30+ against each, as well.

[jlauber]

Many will never get it Goat. Most have only been influenced by ESPN when it comes to basketball. If it isnt high scoring with lots of flash its no good . Most are too uniformed to know that when they call Pat Ewing a great Center the fail to realize that he was taught by John Thompson who has said many times on DC radio that he learned how to play Center from Russell. Few know that the Pat they were watching at Georgetown was a imitation of Russell.

What is amazing to me is that, as G.O.A.T. and I have pointed out...Kareem and Wilt played on several teams that won over 60 games...and did NOT win a championship. Jordan played on 50+ wins team that did not. None of them played on 40+ win teams that DID win titles.

Russell never needed someone to make excuses for his failures. You simply can't argue the facts. Russell took a good team, to 11 titles in 13 years. And, after he left, they immediately became a bad team.

And the problem with making comparison's...is that there are very few other professional athletes, in a team sport, that can come close. Joe DiMaggio played on nine WS winners, and Bart Starr went 9-1 in the post-season, with five titles. Players like Montana, as great as he was, were involved in post-season failures, in which he played awful ('86 and '87.) Unitas and Elway, both of whom were considered "clutch" were actually mediocre in BIG games (look it up...I would be more than happy to debate the points.)

Kareem, MJ, Wilt, Shaq, Duncan, even Magic...all had post-season's in which they could not lead their team's to titles...even with FAVORED teams. The same could not be said of Russell.

If you want to argue stats,... fine, Russell is not going to be a top-10 player. And Russell would not argue it, either. But then again, he would not have cared. If you want to argue leading TEAMs to titles...well, there is NO argument. Russell was the game's greatest winner. Now, that is ALL he cared about.

Greatest ever...the line starts at #2...

[ILLsmak]

Have you ever played the game? If you had and were any good, you'd know how silly your statement was.

haha. I'm sure you've waited to say that for a long time. I'm not going to 'go there' again w/ you man.

But I will talk about the point I made. There IS a relationship between role players and stars, but good role players mean just as much as good stars. There needs to be a certain combination of both.

It is a common misconception, though, so I don't really worry too much about people thinking it, but I kind of believe it's something that you'd debunk with all of your 'playing the game' and 'being good at it.'

-Smak

[guy]

Kareem, MJ, Wilt, Shaq, Duncan, even Magic...all had post-season's in which they could not lead their team's to titles...even with FAVORED teams.

Which team of Jordan's was like that?

[ILLsmak]

I can't reiterate this enough...

Russell won 11 rings in 13 seasons (after going ubeaten in 55 straight college games, and winning two straight NCAA championships.) He certainly doesn't need any excuses, BUT, he was injured in one of the championship series his team lost, AND, he was a PLAYER-COACH in the other.

I am as big a Wilt fan as there has ever been. However, he played on team's with winning records in 13 out of 14 seasons. He played on five 50+ win teams in his career, and four that won 60+. He anchored two of the best team's in history. He went to six Finals. He played in another five more Conference Finals.

As great as Wilt was...he only played on TWO champions.

Ok, how about the Jordan fans. MJ played on six title teams. He also played on FIVE losers. He played on 50+ win teams that did not make the Finals. He came back late in 94-95, and on a team that won 55 games without him the year before, and could not get them into the Finals.

And for those that have Kareem at the top of their list...

Kareem, in his second season, carried a young team to a world championship. Most observers felt that his Bucks would be the next great dynasty. However, with basically the same core of players, he did not lead them to titles in 71-72, 72-73, and 73-74. In the mid-to-late 70's he could not get his team to the Finals, and even had a losing season one year. When he was paired with Magic, and as talented a team that the NBA has ever seen, he was able to win five more rings. BUT, they still did not win titles in 80-81, 82-83, or 83-84.

Granted, Wilt, MJ, and Kareem backers can come up with all sorts of excuses. Mediocre surrounding talent, injuries, bad officiating, poor coaching, old age, bad luck, and choking teammates.

IMHO, Russell's best teams were no better than many of Wilt's, Kareem's, and MJ's best teams, that did NOT win titles.

You can make excuses for other's...but Russell doesn't need them. He LED his team's to titles...plain-and-simple. Throw out the stats...Russell was not interested. His stats were in his TEAM's stats.

Everyone here is entitled to their opinions...but to rank Russell near the bottom of their Top-10's, or even lower, is simply not acknowledging the fact that Russell was voted the best player in NBA history in 1980. Yes, it was before Kareem went on his title run, or before Jordan, or before Shaq. Still, there has never been anyone else that has won 11 rings. And, as G.O.A.T. pointed out...Russell won 11. MJ, Kareem, and Wilt, won 14...COMBINED.

Other than going 13 for 13, what more could Russell have done? Maybe he concentrates on his OWN stats, and wins some more rebounding titles. Or maybe he goes all out on offense, and averages 25-30 ppg (he was certainly capable of it...he had several in the Finals alone.) But, suppose he does things, and he only wins 6-7 titles (and then Wilt wins several more)...would that have made him a greater player?

What made Russell better than everyone else who ever played the game, was that he made his teammates better, and made his opposing teams, worse. And in doing so, he was game's ultimate winner. AND, the objective of every game played, is to WIN.

IMHO,...Russell is the greatest to have ever played the game. Everyone else is fighting over #2.

But the NBA had just begun, and basketball was in an early stage. That's why everything done then must be taken with a grain of salt. He does have the greatest resume, and Wilt has (imo) the greatest stats. Kareem has the greatest longevity and MJ has a little bit of everything plus it was in the most modern era. If you want to make a case, you can put any of those guys number 1, but I think it's kind of reaching to use accomplishments back then to compare to accomplishments now. All of those guys were ahead of their time, but the best... I don't know. I really, truly, as I said before, believe that Tim Duncan is a great comparison for Bill Russell. A winner who plays his role perfectly. And who is to say Bill couldn't have scored some clutch hoops especially if he came up in today's game. But he wouldn't have won 11. That's why he won so many freaking championships, but isn't close to the leader in playoff games. There were like two series. I can only imagine what an NCAA championship was like then, either. Was it still 64? I've done my work w/ nba history but not ncaa history.

-Smak

[jlauber]

Which team of Jordan's was like that?

94-95 Bulls, with basically the same roster that went 55-27 the year before without him, and 57-25 (and won the title) the year before that, with him.

Granted, he was somewhat rusty, but here again...my point was that Russell didn't need ANY excuses. He simply won.

[Doctor K]

94-95 Bulls, with basically the same roster that went 55-27 the year before without him, and 57-25 (and won the title) the year before that, with him.

Granted, he was somewhat rusty, but here again...my point was that Russell didn't need ANY excuses. He simply won.

Has Jordan every lost a series while having HCA?

[jlauber]

But the NBA had just begun, and basketball was in an early stage. That's why everything done then must be taken with a grain of salt. He does have the greatest resume, and Wilt has (imo) the greatest stats. Kareem has the greatest longevity and MJ has a little bit of everything plus it was in the most modern era. If you want to make a case, you can put any of those guys number 1, but I think it's kind of reaching to use accomplishments back then to compare to accomplishments now. All of those guys were ahead of their time, but the best... I don't know. I really, truly, as I said before, believe that Tim Duncan is a great comparison for Bill Russell. A winner who plays his role perfectly. And who is to say Bill couldn't have scored some clutch hoops especially if he came up in today's game. But he wouldn't have won 11. That's why he won so many freaking championships, but isn't close to the leader in playoff games. There were like two series. I can only imagine what an NCAA championship was like then, either. Was it still 64? I've done my work w/ nba history but not ncaa history.

-Smak

I can tell you this much about the NCAA Tourney back in the 60's and 70's...and just after Russell's era. A team HAD to WIN their conference. Best example of MY era...the 70-71 USC Trojans went 24-2...and did not make the NCAA Tourney. Why? Because they lost two close games to the eventual champ, UCLA Bruins. There was no such a thing as a '85 Villanova, or '83 NC St. back then. AND, there was NO shot clock, nor a 3 pt line, either...both of which would help a team that was down.

So, IMHO, what Russell accomplished in college was even more remarkable. As for the NBA playoffs back then. There was seldom a lousy team making the playoffs...unlike the NBA of the last 30 years.

Yes, Russell's 68-69 Celtics were an exception, but here again, just another example of Russell's greatness. He took an aged 48-34 team, and won three straight playoff series without home-court edge. After he retired, they fell to 34-48, too.

[ILLsmak]

94-95 Bulls, with basically the same roster that went 55-27 the year before without him, and 57-25 (and won the title) the year before that, with him.

Granted, he was somewhat rusty, but here again...my point was that Russell didn't need ANY excuses. He simply won.

Why hate? I Think that is a legit excuse. I was sooo happy to see MJ lose especially cuz Shaq was moving on, but... to say he should have come back and won the ring that year is absurd.

Especially because Stern wasn't going to LET him win the ring that year. That would look hella dubious.

-Smak

[jlauber]

Why hate? I Think that is a legit excuse. I was sooo happy to see MJ lose especially cuz Shaq was moving on, but... to say he should have come back and won the ring that year is absurd.

Especially because Stern wasn't going to LET him win the ring that year. That would look hella dubious.

-Smak

I'm not "hating"...

look, here is the bottom line...

Wilt, Kareem, MJ, and even Magic...all played on very good-to-great teams, that did NOT win a championship.

And, once again, there were probably some legitimate excuses for all of them. But, Russell didn't ANY excuse (although he could argue that he was injured in the post-season of one loss, and was a first-year player-COACH in another loss...his only two "failures" in his career.)

He never played on a losing team, as well. Wilt, Kareem, and MJ cannot make that claim, either.

[ILLsmak]

I'm not "hating"...

look, here is the bottom line...

Wilt, Kareem, MJ, and even Magic...all played on very good-to-great teams, that did NOT win a championship.

And, once again, there were probably some legitimate excuses for all of them. But, Russell didn't ANY excuse (although he could argue that he was injured in the post-season of one loss, and was a first-year player-COACH in another loss...his only two "failures" in his career.)

He never played on a losing team, as well. Wilt, Kareem, and MJ cannot make that claim, either.

Sorry but you have to be hating if you are bringing up 94-95 to discredit MJ. There's gotta be better ammo you can use than that.

Wilt, as I have said, probably didn't understand 100% what it takes to win. He maybe did later, but I don't think he did early. Kareem is newer era and MJ and magic are recent era. You realize there are tons of good teams that don't win the championship these days. It's hard to win a championship now. Too many factors. Free agency has changed, too, hasn't it? It's just different.

If you want to separate the NBA into 2 (or even 3) eras... then I'll give Bill the nod for his era, no doubt.

-SMak

[guy]

94-95 Bulls, with basically the same roster that went 55-27 the year before without him, and 57-25 (and won the title) the year before that, with him.

Granted, he was somewhat rusty, but here again...my point was that Russell didn't need ANY excuses. He simply won.

No, they were not the same roster that went 55-27. They were barely above .500 before Jordan came back. They were not favored at all against the Magic who were clearly the best team and most complete team in the East at the time. Jordan has NEVER lost a series where his team was the favorite. He's won alot where he wasn't the favorite, but not vice-versa.

[jlauber]

No, they were not the same roster that went 55-27. They were barely above .500 before Jordan came back. They were not favored at all against the Magic who were clearly the best team and most complete team in the East at the time. Jordan has NEVER lost a series where his team was the favorite. He's won alot where he wasn't the favorite, but not vice-versa.


Alot!!!! The man played on FIVE losing teams in his career. His team's went 1-9 in his first ten playoff games. I am so sick-and-tired of those that make him out like he was some kind of a miracle worker. EVERYONE of his championship teams were favored...even against Phoenix, who had a better record.

One more time...how good were those TEAMs that Jordan played on in the 90's? They went 55-27 WITHOUT him, and went a close game seven against a Knick team (in a controversial game seven BTW), that would go on to lose a close game seven series against the Rockets in the Finals.

You want miracles...how about Wilt taking basicallyt the same last-place roster when he arrived, and guiding them to a two-point game seven loss to the 60-20 Celtics, and SIX HOFers in 61-62? Or how about Wilt taking a 40-40 team (that was 34-46 before he arrived) to a game seven, one point loss against a 62-18 Celtic team?

How about taking a 48-34 team to a championship, like Russell did?

Where are THOSE series in MJ's career?????

[jlauber]

Sorry but you have to be hating if you are bringing up 94-95 to discredit MJ. There's gotta be better ammo you can use than that.

Wilt, as I have said, probably didn't understand 100% what it takes to win. He maybe did later, but I don't think he did early. Kareem is newer era and MJ and magic are recent era. You realize there are tons of good teams that don't win the championship these days. It's hard to win a championship now. Too many factors. Free agency has changed, too, hasn't it? It's just different.

If you want to separate the NBA into 2 (or even 3) eras... then I'll give Bill the nod for his era, no doubt.

-SMak

My problem with "eras" is this...how do we KNOW that Russell would NOT lead his team's to titles on today's game? How do we KNOW that Wilt would NOT average 50-25 in today's game?

Look, if we are to believe that TODAY's "era" is the best ever...does that mean you believe that Howard is a better center, today, than what Shaq was 10 years ago? Hakeem 15 years ago? Kareem 35 years ago? Wilt 45 years ago? Russell 50 years ago?

Is Lebron better today, than Kobe five years ago? Than MJ 20 years ago? Than Magic 30 years ago? Than Oscar 45 years ago?

Do we just automatically discount what was achieved 10 years ago? 20 years ago? 30 years ago? 50 years ago?

And if not...where is the cutoff? Do we contend that MJ was great 20 years ago, but that Magic and Bird were not 25 years ago? Or that Hakeem was great 15 years ago, but that a Kareem, who dominated him just a few years before that, was not? Or of Kareem was great 35 years ago, but Wilt, who by all accounts outplayed him 40 years ago...and on bad knees and well past his prime...was not? Or if Wilt was great 45 years ago, but Rusell was not...even though it was Russell who routinely led his team's past Wilt's, was not?

[ILLsmak]

My problem with "eras" is this...how do we KNOW that Russell would NOT lead his team's to titles on today's game? How do we KNOW that Wilt would NOT average 50-25 in today's game?

Look, if we are to believe that TODAY's "era" is the best ever...does that mean you believe that Howard is a better center, today, than what Shaq was 10 years ago? Hakeem 15 years ago? Kareem 35 years ago? Wilt 45 years ago? Russell 50 years ago?

Is Lebron better today, than Kobe five years ago? Than MJ 20 years ago? Than Magic 30 years ago? Than Oscar 45 years ago?

Do we just automatically discount what was achieved 10 years ago? 20 years ago? 30 years ago? 50 years ago?

And if not...where is the cutoff? Do we contend that MJ was great 20 years ago, but that Magic and Bird were not 25 years ago? Or that Hakeem was great 15 years ago, but that a Kareem, who dominated him just a few years before that, was not? Or of Kareem was great 35 years ago, but Wilt, who by all accounts outplayed him 40 years ago...and on bad knees and well past his prime...was not? Or if Wilt was great 45 years ago, but Rusell was not...even though it was Russell who routinely led his team's past Wilt's, was not?

One if at most, please. But probably none at all...

We don't know that, do we. We only know what happened, era by era. Which is why I say it's best to compare eras.

10 years ago was not a new era.

Can you compare pre-shot clock, pre-3 point, pre-expansion, pre-jump shot, even... How come nobody mentions George Mikan? There's obviously a cut off. You can only compare a player to his peers... and success does define a player. However, using logic you have to realize success is harder to sustain with more competition. It has to be somewhat of a weighted scale.

Dwight Howard vs Shaq is a reach when you see Shaq still competing with Howard even now. Howard is not an all time great that has lead his team to a championship. Success might be harder to come by with today's talent, but you need SOME success in order to be in that discussion. 1 finals appearance doesn't compare to what Shaq did. But Shaq's 4 could compare to Russells. Jordan's 6 can.

-Smak

[jlauber]

One if at most, please. But probably none at all...

We don't know that, do we. We only know what happened, era by era. Which is why I say it's best to compare eras.

10 years ago was not a new era.

Can you compare pre-shot clock, pre-3 point, pre-expansion, pre-jump shot, even... How come nobody mentions George Mikan? There's obviously a cut off. You can only compare a player to his peers... and success does define a player. However, using logic you have to realize success is harder to sustain with more competition. It has to be somewhat of a weighted scale.

Dwight Howard vs Shaq is a reach when you see Shaq still competing with Howard even now. Howard is not an all time great that has lead his team to a championship. Success might be harder to come by with today's talent, but you need SOME success in order to be in that discussion. 1 finals appearance doesn't compare to what Shaq did. But Shaq's 4 could compare to Russells. Jordan's 6 can.

-Smak

Smak,

You are one of the reasons why I frequent this forum. I enjoy these discussions. I certainly don't come here and expect everyone to agree with my opinions, either.

You mentioned Mikan. I only bring up the athletes that I actually witnessed play. There are those that believe Babe Ruth would still be great today. I never saw Ted Williams play, but by extension, he was every bit as great as Mantle and Mays, both of whom I DID see. I also saw Koufax and Ryan. Would Mays, Mantle, Ryan, Gibson and Koufax be great today? Maybe, maybe not...but their skills were certainly not prehistoric. Ryan was hitting 101 MPH over 35 years ago. Mantle was hitting 500+ ft. HRs 50 years ago.

I do believe we can really only rank greatness in comparison to how players performed against THEIR peers. Using that criteria, has there ever been a more dominant individual than Chamberlain? He came into a league that had never seen a 30 ppg scorer, nor a .500 shooter, and "only" a 23 rpg player. During his career he had a 50 ppg season, and then followed that with a 44 ppg...neither which has been approached since. He had several seasons above 23 rpg, including two at 27 rpg. And he had THREE .600 FG% seasons...and even one at .700+. His numbers were just so astonishing, that many believe that he has at least a dozen, if not considerably more, that will NEVER be broken.

And then there was Russell. What more can you say? 11 titles in 13 years. Throw in two more in his last two years in college (along with a 55 game winning streak.) And, the reality was...HE was the main reason. He came to a good team, and immediately turned them into a champion. And when he retired, the Celtics crashed to a 34-48 mark. You certainly couldn't call that coincidence.

But, everyone looks at Wilt and Russell, and they just can't accept what they accomplished. They have to find cracks, or excuses. Yet, they jump on the Jordan bandwagon, and contend that he was the greatest ever. The reality is, though, that Jordan last played a meaningful game some 12 years ago. Why do those fans dismiss Wilt and Russell, but accept MJ? How about Magic and Bird? Kareem?

I know you hate it when I bring up Kareem, in his late 30's, outplaying Hakeem. And by extension, Wilt and Thurmond outplaying a young Kareem. My point is, the torch is passed SLOWLY. The game of basketball today was not that much different than that which was played 50 years ago.

The "ESPN Generation" laugh at footage of the "slow, white, scrawny, uncoordinated, under-sized, nerdy" players of the 60's and 70's. The fact was, they did not exist back then, either. Jerry Lucas was a highly skilled player that would outshoot the majority of three-point marksmen of today. Pete Maravich was doing things with a basketball, 40 years ago, that no one has come to today. McAdoo was a more skilled Nowitzki 35 years ago. Dr. J, Gus Johnson, and David Thompson were doing the same high-flying dunks back in the 60's and 70's, that MJ was doing in the 90's. Has anyone else ever duplicated Kareem's sky-hook? If 6-8 Rodman could grab 19 rpg in HIS era, why wouldn't a more athletic Russell do the same? And, while the "ESPNers" may not like to believe it...Wilt was MORE athletic than Howard.

Anyway...what Russell and Wilt achieved...was accomplished against athletes of very nearly the same quality as of those that play today. And because of that, they should be accepted for what they were...

[guy]

Alot!!!! The man played on FIVE losing teams in his career. His team's went 1-9 in his first ten playoff games. I am so sick-and-tired of those that make him out like he was some kind of a miracle worker. EVERYONE of his championship teams were favored...even against Phoenix, who had a better record.



Bulls were not favored in 89 vs. the Cavs, 89 vs. the Knicks, 91 vs. the Lakers, 93 vs. Knicks, 93 vs. the Suns, or 98 vs. the Jazz. Looking back now, maybe they should've been favored against some of those teams (specifically the Finals teams) but that wasn't the case back then regardless.

The FACT is you were wrong. Jordan has never lost when HIS team was favored. You bringing up what happened earlier in his career and what Wilt and Russell did has nothing to do with the topic. Jordan, just like Russell, never lost as the favorite. Just admit it and move on or tell me another time where he was the favorite and lost cause it clearly wasn't in 1995 vs. the Magic.

[jlauber]

Bulls were not favored in 89 vs. the Cavs, 89 vs. the Knicks, 91 vs. the Lakers, 93 vs. Knicks, 93 vs. the Suns, or 98 vs. the Jazz. Looking back now, maybe they should've been favored against some of those teams (specifically the Finals teams) but that wasn't the case back then regardless.

The FACT is you were wrong. Jordan has never lost when HIS team was favored. You bringing up what happened earlier in his career and what Wilt and Russell did has nothing to do with the topic. Jordan, just like Russell, never lost as the favorite. Just admit it and move on or tell me another time where he was the favorite and lost cause it clearly wasn't in 1995 vs. the Magic.

You're joking right? The Bulls were HEAVY favorites in ALL of their Finals. HEAVY favorites.

[ILLsmak]

Smak,

You are one of the reasons why I frequent this forum. I enjoy these discussions. I certainly don't come here and expect everyone to agree with my opinions, either.

You mentioned Mikan. I only bring up the athletes that I actually witnessed play. There are those that believe Babe Ruth would still be great today. I never saw Ted Williams play, but by extension, he was every bit as great as Mantle and Mays, both of whom I DID see. I also saw Koufax and Ryan. Would Mays, Mantle, Ryan, Gibson and Koufax be great today? Maybe, maybe not...but their skills were certainly not prehistoric. Ryan was hitting 101 MPH over 35 years ago. Mantle was hitting 500+ ft. HRs 50 years ago.

I do believe we can really only rank greatness in comparison to how players performed against THEIR peers. Using that criteria, has there ever been a more dominant individual than Chamberlain? He came into a league that had never seen a 30 ppg scorer, nor a .500 shooter, and "only" a 23 rpg player. During his career he had a 50 ppg season, and then followed that with a 44 ppg...neither which has been approached since. He had several seasons above 23 rpg, including two at 27 rpg. And he had THREE .600 FG% seasons...and even one at .700+. His numbers were just so astonishing, that many believe that he has at least a dozen, if not considerably more, that will NEVER be broken.

And then there was Russell. What more can you say? 11 titles in 13 years. Throw in two more in his last two years in college (along with a 55 game winning streak.) And, the reality was...HE was the main reason. He came to a good team, and immediately turned them into a champion. And when he retired, the Celtics crashed to a 34-48 mark. You certainly couldn't call that coincidence.

But, everyone looks at Wilt and Russell, and they just can't accept what they accomplished. They have to find cracks, or excuses. Yet, they jump on the Jordan bandwagon, and contend that he was the greatest ever. The reality is, though, that Jordan last played a meaningful game some 12 years ago. Why do those fans dismiss Wilt and Russell, but accept MJ? How about Magic and Bird? Kareem?

I know you hate it when I bring up Kareem, in his late 30's, outplaying Hakeem. And by extension, Wilt and Thurmond outplaying a young Kareem. My point is, the torch is passed SLOWLY. The game of basketball today was not that much different than that which was played 50 years ago.

The "ESPN Generation" laugh at footage of the "slow, white, scrawny, uncoordinated, under-sized, nerdy" players of the 60's and 70's. The fact was, they did not exist back then, either. Jerry Lucas was a highly skilled player that would outshoot the majority of three-point marksmen of today. Pete Maravich was doing things with a basketball, 40 years ago, that no one has come to today. McAdoo was a more skilled Nowitzki 35 years ago. Dr. J, Gus Johnson, and David Thompson were doing the same high-flying dunks back in the 60's and 70's, that MJ was doing in the 90's. Has anyone else ever duplicated Kareem's sky-hook? If 6-8 Rodman could grab 19 rpg in HIS era, why wouldn't a more athletic Russell do the same? And, while the "ESPNers" may not like to believe it...Wilt was MORE athletic than Howard.

Anyway...what Russell and Wilt achieved...was accomplished against athletes of very nearly the same quality as of those that play today. And because of that, they should be accepted for what they were...

They are accepted, but you have to understand that it's nearly impossible for any team today, no matter who the players are, to win 11 in 13. And for Wilt, it's hard to imagine a player could score 50 ppg. Especially a C now with the way defenses are because they could design a scheme to ball deny him.

Shaq is my favorite player, and I think Wilt is my second (all time) and third would be Bird. It's interesting because I've only seen one of the three play on a seasonal basis but I've seen tape and stats of the others. I can understand how you feel. If some years down the road another center comes along and is doing his thing and people are saying he was better than Shaq, I'd be the first one to defend Shaq and say, "You just didn't see it happen."

I'm not worried about your opinion and I respect it because I can see where you are coming from, but I still think that with all the game has changed that you can't compare them directly apples to apples (per se.)

-Smak

[AirJordan23]

You're joking right? The Bulls were HEAVY favorites in ALL of their Finals. HEAVY favorites.


Lay off the crack. The Bulls weren't favored in 1991 due to the Lakers experience and match ups. They weren't favored in 1998 either against the Jazz. The Jazz had beat the Hakeem/Barkley/Drexler Rockets, Duncan/DRob Spurs and swept the Shaq led Lakers. The Bulls were coming off a 7 game series against Indiana and their core was extremely old. When you factor in fatigue, age, homecourt and everything the Jazz were favored.

[magnax1]

I remember vividly that a lot of people were choosing the Jazz in the 98 Finals. I thought they were crazy, even though I was a Jazz fan and I thought that at that point they weren't any less talented, it wasn't smart to bet against a team that won 5 of the last 7 finals.

[guy]

You're joking right? The Bulls were HEAVY favorites in ALL of their Finals. HEAVY favorites.

No are YOU joking? In 91, the Lakers were favorites cause of their experience, which the Bulls didn't have much of. In 93, both the Knicks and Suns were favorites cause the Bulls looked like a tired team that struggled all season (for their standards). In 98, Bulls were old specifically Jordan, Pippen was hit hard with injuries, Rodman was acting even more uncontrollable, and everyone knew this was their last season together. Why is that the 90s Bulls get this reputation of being absolutely overwhelming favorites against everyone they played?

You seem to be knowledgeable and have seen alot of NBA history. But sorry to say this, I'm not sure how reliable and unbias some of your opinions can be if you can't even recall certain things from the 90s, which wasn't even that long ago. Seriously, the 95 Bulls were favorites to win the title?

[jlauber]

No are YOU joking? In 91, the Lakers were favorites cause of their experience, which the Bulls didn't have much of. In 93, both the Knicks and Suns were favorites cause the Bulls looked like a tired team that struggled all season (for their standards). In 98, Bulls were old specifically Jordan, Pippen was hit hard with injuries, Rodman was acting even more uncontrollable, and everyone knew this was their last season together. Why is that the 90s Bulls get this reputation of being absolutely overwhelming favorites against everyone they played?

You seem to be knowledgeable and have seen alot of NBA history. But sorry to say this, I'm not sure how reliable and unbias some of your opinions can be if you can't even recall certain things from the 90s, which wasn't even that long ago. Seriously, the 95 Bulls were favorites to win the title?

The Lakers were "more experienced" in '91, instead of old and well past their prime, and the Bulls who had crushed the same Jazz in '97 were now suddenly old. And if you honestly think Phoenix was favored over the two-time defending Bulls?

Why couldn't Jordan carry a 55 win team over a 59 win Piston team in '90?

[ShaqAttack3234]

Why couldn't Jordan carry a 55 win team over a 59 win Piston team in '90?

Well, he got them to game seven and the team's second option shot what? 2 for 16? That 1990 Bulls team wasn't that good either. Pippen had emerged as an all-star caliber player, but he certainly wasn't as good as he'd become, Jordan still had to carry the scoring load. He averaged more than twice as many points as anyone else in the regular season, and his scoring average increased in the playoffs.

Detroit, on the otherhand was stacked and coming off a championship the previous season.

Regarding the 1969 Celtics, Russell certainly didn't carry them either. John Havlicek may very well have been their best player by that point, although Russell deserves the credit for Chamberlain's poor offensive performance in the 1969 finals.

And the 1995 Bulls? They were missing Horace Grant from the previous season and had fallen off from the 55 win team they were in 1994. Their best big man was Will Perdue.

[guy]

The Lakers were "more experienced" in '91, instead of old and well past their prime, and the Bulls who had crushed the same Jazz in '97 were now suddenly old. And if you honestly think Phoenix was favored over the two-time defending Bulls?

Why couldn't Jordan carry a 55 win team over a 59 win Piston team in '90?


1. LOL at this absolute MYTH. Magic was 31, Worthy was 29, Scott was 29, and Perkins was 29. Yes so old and past their prime. Bottom line is they were favorites, even if you don't think they should've been.

2. Jordan was 35, Pippen was 32, and Rodman was 37. So thats not old, but the 91 Lakers were:rolleyes: ? Now you can obviously bring up that Malone and Stockton were old as well. However, they ran right through their competition, and I'm talking about stacked teams in the Rockets, Spurs, and Lakers. The Bulls on the other hand were coming off a 7 game series and were not going to have HCA. Now IMO, I thought it was ridiculous that the Jazz were favorites, considering who the leaders were: Arguably the most clutch player ever in Jordan for the Bulls vs. arguably the most unclutch in Malone for the Jazz. But whatever the case the Jazz were favorites.

97 is not the same as 98. The Bulls were clearly better in 97 then in 98, and they did not CRUSH the Jazz, who took them to 6 games, and 3 out of the 4 Bulls wins were all decided in the last minute.

3. Suns had the best record, and the Bulls did not look like 2x defending champions all year. It was clear to everyone that they did not play like the same team all year.

4. I don't know. Maybe cause the 1990 Pistons were better? Maybe cause Jordan's teammates shot like a combined 25% in game 7? Its not like the Jordan never led his teams over other teams with better records.

However, he never LOST to teams with worse records and/or the Bulls were the favorite against, which you have yet to acknowledge you were wrong about.

[jlauber]

Well, he got them to game seven and the team's second option shot what? 2 for 16? That 1990 Bulls team wasn't that good either. Pippen had emerged as an all-star caliber player, but he certainly wasn't as good as he'd become, Jordan still had to carry the scoring load. He averaged more than twice as many points as anyone else in the regular season, and his scoring average increased in the playoffs.

Detroit, on the otherhand was stacked and coming off a championship the previous season.

Regarding the 1969 Celtics, Russell certainly didn't carry them either. John Havlicek may very well have been their best player by that point, although Russell deserves the credit for Chamberlain's poor offensive performance in the 1969 finals.

And the 1995 Bulls? They were missing Horace Grant from the previous season and had fallen off from the 55 win team they were in 1994. Their best big man was Will Perdue.



Detroit, on the otherhand was stacked and coming off a championship the previous season.

So, Detroit is favored after winning the title the previous year, but Chicago was NOT favored in '93 or '98?


They were missing Horace Grant from the previous season and had fallen off from the 55 win team they were in 1994

So, in essence, Horace Grant was more of a factor than Jordan?


In any case, Jordan couldn't carry a 55 win team to a title in '90. He languished on several losing teams in his career, as well.

And, back to my ORIGINAL point...Wilt, Kareem, and MJ...all had multiple years in which they did NOT win a title. All played on at least one losing team. NONE of them won a title with a 48-34 team (and only Wilt came close with a 49-31 and a 40-40 team.)

Russell was a winner. THE greatest winner of all-time. You can argue individual stats 'til the cows come home. And you can come up with all kinds of excuses why Wilt, Kareem, and MJ did not win more titles. Russell doesn't need any, though.

[ShaqAttack3234]

So, Detroit is favored after winning the title the previous year, but Chicago was NOT favored in '93 or '98?

Who cares if they were? Chicago won those years so they did exactly what thye were supposed to do. but there were serious question marks around Chicago those seasons. In 1993, they had fallen off by 10 wins from the previous season, Barkley was named league and the Suns won 62 games. I wouldn't say Phoenix was favored, but nobody was assuming Chicago was going to win either.

In 1998, there were also serious question marks around the Bulls. They again had fallen off by 7 games, they were old, Pippen had struggled with injuries, Jordan had played through injuries and the Jazz had homecourt advantage.


So, in essence, Horace Grant was more of a factor than Jordan?

No, but when you're going up against Orlando with Shaq and now Horace Grant in the paint, and you have no big men plus Jordan is rusty. you can't expect them to win. Particularly since Orlando had a more talented team and thye had Shaq who was the runner up in MVP voting.


In any case, Jordan couldn't carry a 55 win team to a title in '90. He languished on several losing teams in his career, as well.

Look at his supporting cast in the only really losing season at any point in his "prime". That was 1987. He averaged 37.1 ppg which was 1.6 more ppg than the Bulls 2nd, 3rd and 4th leading scorers COMBINED. After that, he led a team that had no business winning 50 games to 50 games and the 2nd round of the playoffs.


And, back to my ORIGINAL point...Wilt, Kareem, and MJ...all had multiple years in which they did NOT win a title. All played on at least one losing team. NONE of them won a title with a 48-34 team (and only Wilt came close with a 49-31 and a 40-40 team.)

Russell was a winner. THE greatest winner of all-time. You can argue individual stats 'til the cows come home. And you can come up with all kinds of excuses why Wilt, Kareem, and MJ did not win more titles. Russell doesn't need any, though.

I was just disputing the claim that Jordan lost on teams more talented than some of Russell's Celtics teams. And as far as greatest winner? I don't believe in such a title. Jordan, Russell, O'Neal, Kareem, Duncan, Bird, Magic ect. were all great winners in different situations.

[jlauber]

Jordan also could not turn a loser into a winner in his first year (or second, or third, either)...unlike Wilt, Robinson, Bird, and Kareem. And, Russell took over a 39-33 team and led them to a world title in his first season.

[GP_20]

90 Pistons were favored over 90 Bulls
91 Lakers were favored over 91 Bulls
93 Bulls were favored over 93 Suns
95 Magic were favored over 95 Bulls
98 Bulls and 98 Jazz was pretty even.


^^^ Truth

So in some parts jjabuer you are right, in others you are wrong.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Jordan also could not turn a loser into a winner in his first year (or second, or third, either)...unlike Wilt, Robinson, Bird, and Kareem. And, Russell took over a 39-33 team and led them to a world title in his first season.

Jordan missed almost all of his second season so using that against him is unfair. Russell also joined a team with the league MVP(Bob Cousy) and several other hall of famers.

[HisAirness3]

Jordan also could not turn a loser into a winner in his first year (or second, or third, either)...unlike Wilt, Robinson, Bird, and Kareem. And, Russell took over a 39-33 team and led them to a world title in his first season.
Jordan turned the City of Chicago into a Basketball City. Without him, Basketball would mean nothing in Chicago, he brought 6 NBA Championships that have never been brought in the City of Chicago before. There was none, zero championships in Chicago before him.

Wilt was never capable of winning the big one, until later in his career. Robinson never won the big one as the leader. Celtics were already known for being an amazing basketball team before Bird was even around. Kareem brought just one title to the City of Milwaukee. Had seasons in his prime where he would miss the playoffs (Kobe-esque) then he eventually stormed off to Los Angeles.

Nobody made a bigger impact than Jordan did to the City of Chicago except Bill Russell to the City of Boston.

[jlauber]

Jordan turned the City of Chicago into a Basketball City. Without him, Basketball would mean nothing in Chicago, he brought 6 NBA Championships that have never been brought in the City of Chicago before. There was none, zero championships in Chicago before him.

Wilt was never capable of winning the big one, until later in his career. Robinson never won the big one as the leader. Celtics were already known for being an amazing basketball team before Bird was even around. Kareem brought just one title to the City of Milwaukee. Had seasons in his prime where he would miss the playoffs (Kobe-esque) then he eventually stormed off to Los Angeles.

Nobody made a bigger impact than Jordan did to the City of Chicago except Bill Russell to the City of Boston.

I am not questioning Jordan's contributions to Chicago. I am merely stating the obvious...Jordan was NOT a miracle worker. He was able to take the most loaded rosters of the 90's to titles. One only need be reminded of the 93-94 Bulls to know just how good those players were.

And, while he was individually brilliant in his first several seasons, he could not turn a loser around, nor could he even carry a very good team to a title. If that is considered a "knock" on Jordan, then so be it.

Obviously the Bulls would not have won any titles without MJ. Nor would the Lakers have won any without Magic. Nor would the Lakers have won any without Shaq. Nor would the Spurs have won any without Duncan. And most certainly, Boston does not win ONE title, in the 60's, without Russell.

But Russell led some good, but not great, teams to titles. You could probably argue that with Shaq, as well. But, you could also find several teams in Shaq's career that were good enough to win, and didn't. Here again, there were probably legitimate excuses as to why some of those teams did not win. Same with Wilt, who was probably the most "snake-bit" player of all-time.

Still, while other players did not win titles in year's that they were capable of winning...Russell did. Not only that, but once again, he led team's that were probably not the best in the league, to titles. Maybe Rick Barry can make that claim in 74-75, but there would be very few other's.

[ShaqAttack3234]

And, while he was individually brilliant in his first several seasons, he could not turn a loser around, nor could he even carry a very good team to a title. If that is considered a "knock" on Jordan, then so be it.


What "very good team"? The 1990 team wasn't that good, particularly since Jordan still had to carry so much of the load. He averaged more than twice as many points as any other player on the roster. His teams in 1988 and 1989 sucked and overachieved because of Jordan.

[jlauber]

What "very good team"? The 1990 team wasn't that good, particularly since Jordan still had to carry so much of the load. He averaged more than twice as many points as any other player on the roster. His teams in 1988 and 1989 sucked and overachieved because of Jordan.

I'm sorry but 55 wins, and playing alongside a top-50 player of all-time IS a very good team. Were they the best team in the league? Maybe not. But here again...IF Jordan were indeed this "miracle worker", he couldn't even win with a 55 win team.

As for his 94-95 team...Pippen, Kukoc, Kerr, Harper, and Armstrong...

and yes, no Horace Grant. Not a lot of difference from the 93-94 Bulls. As for their record BEFORE MJ that year...well, once again...no Grant.

So, in essence, Grant carried a team at least as far, in 93-94, as Jordan did in 94-95.

[ILLsmak]

I sure was cheering for the Jazz in 98, but there was no chance they were the favorites.

-Smak

[Fatal9]

The 1990 team was very good....

Pippen was an all-star that year and was a beast in the playoffs. He had one game where he didn't play well because of his health and that's used to diminish an otherwise excellent run. Grant had developed into an excellent front court presence. You had BJ Armstrong, Hodges and King coming off the bench with really productive minutes. Paxson was a deadly shooter who stepped up in key moments (game 4 vs. Pistons for example). Cartwright was solid at that point in his career too. Every night you had a different guy step up to go along with Pippen/Jordan/Grant.

Bulls lost because Jordan played/shot like crap in the road games of that series. He played well in the home games but his performance in that series was really up and down. If he plays even average, Bulls steal a game on the road and the series never goes 7 where Pippen had the untimely migraine.

[jlauber]

The 1990 team was very good....

Pippen was an all-star that year and was a beast in the playoffs. He had one game where he didn't play well because of his health and that's used to diminish an otherwise excellent run. Grant had developed into an excellent front court presence. You had BJ Armstrong, Hodges and King coming off the bench with really productive minutes. Paxson was a deadly shooter who stepped up in key moments (game 4 vs. Pistons for example). Cartwright was solid at that point in his career too. Every night you had a different guy step up to go along with Pippen/Jordan/Grant.

Bulls lost because Jordan played/shot like crap in the road games of that series.

I honestly believe MJ is among the greatest ever. Maybe even #1. Probably the best post-season scorer, and maybe most clutch player ever, as well.

But, I suspect that he doesn't win any titles without Pippen...or at least not unless he had another comparable player to Pippen. Pippen, IMHO, was under-rated. I think he could easily have been a 25-30 ppg scorer on another team in the 90's.

[guy]

So, Detroit is favored after winning the title the previous year, but Chicago was NOT favored in '93 or '98?


No for the same reason the team of the player this thread is about wasn't the favorite in 1967 or 1969, even though they were defending champions.

I find it funny how some posters, jlauber in this example, get proven wrong about something on a certain player, Jordan ever losing as a favorite in this case, and then they change the subject and bring up something else to diminish the player i.e. 'why couldn't Jordan lead a 55-win team over the 1990 Pistons?' And then they try to act like they don't have an agenda to diminish someone. Just admit that you were wrong or that you do have an agenda.