Why is MJ considered better than Bill Russell?

[G-Funk]

Doesn't Bill Russell deserve to be considered the GOAT since he does have 11 Championships and could have had 7 maybe more Finals MVP's. Isn't the ultimate goal is to win it all? A lot of ppl will point out Russell's era as if he had an advantage over his competition...

[Walduś]

espn

[Rose]

Way less teams, so it was easier to get 5 all stars on one team, way less big men that could guard him. Really only Thurmond and Wilt could. Everyone else was a slow white guy.

[hkfosho]

Doesn't Bill Russell deserve to be considered the GOAT since he does have 11 Championships and could have had 7 maybe more Finals MVP's. Isn't the ultimate goal is to win it all? A lot of ppl will point out Russell's era as if he had an advantage over his competition...

there's your answer.

/thread

[XxSMSxX]

Because most people alive today haven't seen Russell play and box scores were wonky as **** back then so you can't really just go straight off stats

[SyRyanYang]

How many team are there at Bill's time and how many fans are watching?

[Rose]

How many team are there at Bill's time and how many fans are watching?
like 6-8, and no one because they didn't really have a cable deal yet.

[DC Zephyrs]

Because MJ was better.

[asdf1990]

i bet u think kobe is goat. am i correct?

[NoEasy9]

Because he was more recent than Russell. If Jordan had played in the 60s and Russell played in the 90s more people would consider Russell the greater player. It is just the way it works in the nba and in sports in general...

[OldSchoolBBall]

Doesn't Bill Russell deserve to be considered the GOAT since he does have 11 Championships and could have had 7 maybe more Finals MVP's. Isn't the ultimate goal is to win it all? A lot of ppl will point out Russell's era as if he had an advantage over his competition...

His era, the fact that he had by far the most talented teams of that era, and the fact that he was only dominant on one side of the court. His stats would translate to about 14-16 pts/14 reb/4-5 ast/46-48% FG today - would today's fans be willing to declare such a player, playing on easily the most talented team in the league, the GOAT just because he won every year? I'm not sure.

That said, he can't be lower than top 6 imo, and I have no problem with him anywhere in the top 6, though I do disagree that he's GOAT - MJ and KAJ (at the very least) pretty clearly have better cases.

[DuMa]

its a good question. but not very many people, and even less people online, can say they legitimately saw both of their careers play out and make their own unbiased opinion.

[Mr. I'm So Rad]

Because MJ is an icon. He changed basketball in the business sense and made it marketable and made everyone interested in it again.

Bill Russell didn't have his own huge nike shoe deal

It has nothing to do with stats, rings, etc. Those are all secondary. It's because we were exposed to MJ more than guys like Russell, Chamberlain, etc. It's that simple.

[DeronMillsap]

League was still in its infancy when Russell won his titles. Jordan won his during the peak years, and he was also great when it was on the rise in the 80's.

[L.Kizzle]

His era, the fact that he had by far the most talented teams of that era, and the fact that he was only dominant on one side of the court. His stats would translate to about 14/14/4/48% today - would today's fans be willing to declare such a player, playing on easily the most talented team in the league, the GOAT just because he won every year? I'm not sure.

That said, he can't be lower than top 6 imo, and I have no problem with him anywhere in the top 6, though I do disagree that he's GOAT - MJ and KAJ (at the very least) pretty clearly have better cases.
Well, if he was the reason they won all those titles, than ...

[G-Funk]

there's your answer.

/thread


My point is, that Russell's competition had the same luxury, it's not like everyone got to play 32 teams except his team... and why does that only apply to MJ and Not Bird or Magic and others...

[OldSchoolBBall]

Well, if he was the reason they won all those titles, than ...

No doubt he was their best player, but imo not all titles have equal weight. A player who has to do a lot of heavy lifting gets more credit for a title than one who had to do less heavy lifting due to having better teammates, even if both players are the best players on their teams. For example, Shaq's 2000 title is worth way more than KG's 2008 title imo.

[L.Kizzle]

No doubt he was their best player, but imo not all titles have equal weight. A player who has to do a lot of heavy lifting gets more credit for a title than one who had to do less heavy lifting due to having better teammates, even if noth players are the best players on their teams. For example, Shaq's 2000 title is worth way more than KG's 2008 title imo.
Every team was stacked back than, not just the Celtics as everyone seems to believe.

[G-Funk]

League was still in its infancy when Russell won his titles. Jordan won his during the peak years, and he was also great when it was on the rise in the 80's.



Way less teams, so it was easier to get 5 all stars on one team, way less big men that could guard him. Really only Thurmond and Wilt could. Everyone else was a slow white guy.


Because most people alive today haven't seen Russell play and box scores were wonky as **** back then so you can't really just go straight off stats



Because he was more recent than Russell. If Jordan had played in the 60s and Russell played in the 90s more people would consider Russell the greater player. It is just the way it works in the nba and in sports in general...



I agree with most points but why doesn't this same reasons apply to Magic or Bird? Double standards?

[OldSchoolBBall]

Every team was stacked back than, not just the Celtics as everyone seems to believe.

Every team was MORE stacked than they are in the 2000's, for instance, but the Celts were clearly the most talented team throughout the decade. It wasn't like in the 80's where you had at least 3-4 teams roughly on a similar talent level with LA/Boston/Philly/Detroit, albeit during different parts of the decade.

[G-Funk]

i bet u think kobe is goat. am i correct?


No, Kobe will never be better than MJ, fact.

[NoEasy9]

It is pretty hilarious how misunderstood Bill Russell's career is. I blame this on fantasy basketball and John Hollinger.

Bill Russell has 5 NBA MVPs and guess who else has just as much? Michael Jordan. He played against 8 nba teams at the time, which means that they were stacked and that there was at least a minimum of one HOFer on each team...

It goes both ways.

Michael Jordan did not accomplish anything Russell didnt in a team standpoint.

I have no problem with calling MJ the greatest ever, because he probably was. But to say his championships has more weight than Russell is absolute horseshit.

[Ne 1]

Way less teams, so it was easier to get 5 all stars on one team, way less big men that could guard him. Really only Thurmond and Wilt could. Everyone else was a slow white guy.

Less teams= talent is less spread out. Adding too many expansion teams just waters the league down.

Also need to end this myth that Russell and Wilt played "nothing but short, un-athletic white guys"

Walt Bellamy: 6'11"
Dennis Awtrey: 6'11"
Tom Boerwinkle: 7'0"
Nate Bowmen: 6'11"
Mel Counts: 7'0"
Walter Dukes: 7'0"
Jim Eakins: 6'11"
Ray Felix: 6'11"
Hank Finkel: 7'0"
Artis Gilmore: 7'2"
Swede Halbrook: 7'3"
Reggie Harding: 7'0"
Bob Lanier: 6'11"
Jim McDaniels: 6'11"
Otto Moore: 6'11"
Dave Newmark: 7'0"
Rich Niemann: 7'0"
Billy Paultz: 6'11"
Craig Raymond: 6'11"
Elmore Smith: 7'0"
Chuck Share: 6'11"
Ronald Taylor: 7'1"
Nate Thurmond: 6'11"
Walt Wesley: 6'11"



The NBA had 1/3 of the players that they do now. That means Bill Russell and Wilt Chamberlain faced these 25 guys 3 times more often than they would in the modern NBA scheduling.

The truth is, height will never be more of a factor than skill. With several exceptions, players over 7' are typically not very successful. At a collegian level, only three 7 footers have made all-American first team in the last twenty years: Shaquille O'Neal, Andrew Bogut, and Chris Mihm. In last years all-star game, Dirk Nowitzki, Pau Gasol, and Chris Kaman were the only 3 of 30 players selected to be 7 feet, and all are known far more for their skill sets than dominating with size. If height was such a significant factor, then Manute Bol, Shawn Bradly, and Gheorghe Muresan would be hall of fame players, not just fan favorite scrubs.

[magnax1]

So Russell is better only because he won more? Jordan is best to me because he played best, not because he won so much. Russell is tied with Wilt at a somewhat distant second to me, because he was such a great player, not because he won 11 titles.

[DeronMillsap]

I agree with most points but why doesn't this same reasons apply to Magic or Bird? Double standards?
I think it's the way Jordan dominated on the offensive end. Bird and Magic didn't really have to that for their teams. All three of their teams were stacked but the only guy who stood out for Jordan was Pippen, while Bird and Magic had McHale, Parish, Kareem, Worthy on their respective teams. Bird and Magic had more HOF-caliber teammates.

Basically, his dominance within his team and as well as against his opponents. Took away titles from a lot of All-Time 50 players.

[Helix]

Every team was stacked back than, not just the Celtics as everyone seems to believe.

Well, I wouldn't say EVERY team was stacked back then, but to a point you're right. The Celtics WERE a little more "stacked" than the rest of the teams (at least until the Sixers acquired Wilt), but the Celtics had a HUGE advantage over everyone else and that advantage was named Red Auerbach.

[Ne 1]

the fact that he was only dominant on one side of the court.

Lets clear some things about Russell's lack of offensive skills.

Russell was an amazing rebounder averaging 22 rpg (16+ rpg when adjusted to today's pace and still higher than Rodman's average. He was a good ball handler for a big man, since he often runs the ball after rebounding to get a clear pass down court and start the fast break, and of course a great defender. He was also a great passer; he consistently ranked in the top 10 in assists and that is beyond what you would expect from a center. Not most guards could do that. His scoring was solid at 15ppg on 13 FGA's. Not exactly mind blowing numbers but then everyone on the 60's Celtics didn't have a mind blowing PPG.


Celtics had a structured offense where all 5 guys on the floor would have the opportunity to score. The leading scorer on the Celtics only averaged 22 points and there were 5-6 other guys scoring in double-digits. Bill or anyone else on the Celtics didn't need not to fully exert themselves on offense since the scoring was distributed. Russell had the same shooting percentage as the top two scorers (Jones and Havlicek) on the team. Understand that Red wanted Russell to stay focused more on his rebounding and outlet passing instead of his shooting.

Also back in college, when his coach wasn't pigeonholing him on a defensive and rebounding role, Bill was scoring 20ppg on 52 FG%.


Conclusion: The Reason for Russell's low PPG in the NBA was Russell was given very few opportunities to score (13 FGA)

IMO Kareem is the GOAT, but Russell also has a strong case. 11 rings and 5 MVPs speaks for its self.

Honestly assigning an arbitrary criteria that the top players must be an offensive threat is just naive. I guess this shows the prevailing stat hog mentality and double standards of today's fans. Magic averaged less than 20 PPG, is he worthy to be put in the top 10? John Stockton only averaged 13 PPG is he worthy to be included in the top 15-20?

People put way too much stock on an individuals scoring stats to determine their greatness, especially when such scoring stats (and stats in general) don't tell a complete picture of the player's contributions.

[NoEasy9]

I think it's the way Jordan dominated on the offensive end. Bird and Magic didn't really have to that for their teams. All three of their teams were stacked but the only guy who stood out for Jordan was Pippen, while Bird and Magic had McHale, Parish, Kareem, Worthy on their respective teams.

Basically, his dominance within his team and as well as against his opponents. Took away title from a lot of All-Time 50 players.
It was the defense that separated Jordan from Magic and Bird. Magic and Bird were good at playing the passing lanes, but that was it. Jordan could shut down players and was a tremendous help side defender. Offensively, Jordan isnt even that much better than Bird. He is better, but not as much as most people think.

[DeronMillsap]

It was the defense that separated Jordan from Magic and Bird. Magic and Bird were good at playing the passing lanes, but that was it. Jordan could shut down players and was a tremendous help side defender. Offensively, Jordan isnt even that much better than Bird. He is better, but not as much as most people think.
Yeah, Jordan's defense was great too but even that was overshadowed by his offensive/scoring skills.

Good post, will rep when I get a chance.

[Ne 1]

he had by far the most talented teams of that era

So your saying Russell only won because he had talented teammates?

- Boston had never even been to the Finals before Bill Russell. Despite having multiple HOF players and a HOF coach.

- During the 1962 season, Russell took himself out for 4 games and the Celtics lost 4 straight games even with Cousy, Sharman, Jones, Ramsey and other HoF's.

- In the 1969 season he took himself out for 5 games due to injury and Boston lost 5 straight games even with Hall of famers Jones, Hondo, Howell and Sanders

The occurrences that I mentioned are the worst losing streaks of the Russell-era Celtics. The latter is the worst losing streak of the Celtics since Red Auerbach took over the helm.

After he retired, Boston went from 48 wins to 34 and they didn't make the playoffs despite having several HOF players. An abysmal 14 game drop off. Compare that to Jordan who a lot of people consider the undisputed greatest and the most valuable player ever.

After Jordan retired in '93 the Bulls only had a 2 game drop off. (57 wins to 55). Hell, if it wasn't for one of the most controversial phantom foul calls ever, the Bulls would've been in the ECF with home court advantage against the Pacers who they swept in the regular season. It would've been a huge blow to Jordan's prestige and importance seeing the team that he left behind reach the conference finals and most likely make the Finals. And no, the post-98 Bulls doesn't count since it was a virtual restructuring of the Bulls with Jordan, Pippen, Rodman and Phil Jackson all going out.

And the modest 48 wins that the Celtics garnered during the '69 season is the lowest number of wins that the Celtics have during the Russell -era and occurred only because Russell spent a lot of time on the injured list and/or recovering.

Boston with an "All-Star" cast like that should be able to shake off his departure and continue the dynasty, but they couldn't.

He has 5 rings without Cousy and 5 without Hondo and 2 without coach Auerbach. 3 without KC and Heinsohn, 2 of which came as a player/coach.


Bill made HOF players out of his teammates. He had a good cast because he was the one making them look good. He was the one constant in Boston's dynasty.

[Mr. I'm So Rad]

Wilt and Russell don't count because they played before the advent of ESPN.

Muhammad Ali Was a Rebel. Michael Jordan Is a Brand Name.

In celebrating Jordan as a hero, are we merely worshipping capitalism?

By Michael Crowley

http://www.nieman.harvard.edu/reports/article/102181/Muhammad-Ali-Was-a-Rebel-Michael-Jordan-Is-a-Brand-Name.aspx

This is the reason. MJ was basketball's cash cow. He was the 80s and 90s pre-decision LeBron James as far as his star power and sheer impact on the business side of the NBA. No other athlete was promoted like MJ. Hell even Wilt's 100 Point game wasn't even televised. That's why. People only cite stats and rings to further justify their stance on the subject but MJ was a huge star and was selling out arenas even before he was winning titles because he was such a huge attraction and was promoted so heavily.

[eppelp]

Russel has a case, just like Kareem, Jordan and Wilt. It all depends on what you value more. Stats, Team success or individual accolades? That's a lot harder to decide than you might think, especially with players you never saw. Also it is the GREATEST of all time, not the BEST of all time. Some of you might even consider the hardships a player went through to get to the top (For example the racism especially players from the early years had to deal with).

Truth be told, I prefer to rank player in tiers and Russell, Wilt, Jordan and Kareem are the ones in the GOAT-Candidate tier.

[DeronMillsap]

This is the reason. MJ was basketball's cash cow. He was the 80s and 90s pre-decision LeBron James as far as his star power and sheer impact on the business side of the NBA. No other athlete was promoted like MJ. Hell even Wilt's 100 Point game wasn't even televised. That's why. People only cite stats and rings to further justify their stance on the subject but MJ was a huge star and was selling out arenas even before he was winning titles because he was such a huge attraction and was promoted so heavily.
Yeah, the NBA had major network contracts back in 1962. One of those 4 networks should have given a new league money.
:rolleyes:

[raptorfan_dr07]

Definitely a legitimate question. Personally, I believe that Jordan is the greatest player ever but that's just my opinion. Bill Russell definitely has a case for GOAT and only idiots would say otherwise. The way I see it, Jordan, Kareem, and Russell are the 3 players who can be in the discussion for GOAT. Maybe Wilt to a lesser extent.

[Mr. I'm So Rad]

Yeah, the NBA had major network contracts back in 1962. One of those 4 networks should have given a new league money.
:rolleyes:

My point exactly. The NBA wasn't the media giant it is now so no one really got to see Wilt, Russell and others unless it was in person. MJ came in and electrified people with his crazy athleticism and showmanship. He made the NBA marketable, very marketable. He made the NBA what it is today. It wasn't his crazy stats or his rings but his promotion that made him a star. More people grew up watching Michael Jordan winning dunk contests and hitting game winners more than Bill Russell grabbing a bunch of rebounds and winning championships. MJ is more recent and is the biggest NBA star ever and one of the most if not the most famous American athlete ever.

[DeronMillsap]

My point exactly. The NBA wasn't the media giant it is now so no one really got to see Wilt, Russell and others unless it was in person. MJ came in and electrified people with his crazy athleticism and showmanship. He made the NBA marketable, very marketable. He made the NBA what it is today. It wasn't his crazy stats or his rings but his promotion that made him a star. More people grew up watching Michael Jordan winning dunk contests and hitting game winners more than Bill Russell grabbing a bunch of rebounds and winning championships. MJ is more recent and is the biggest NBA star ever and one of the most if not the most famous American athlete ever.
So it was all about marketing, and that's why Jordan is considered the GOAT?

[eppelp]

So it was all about marketing, and that's why Jordan is considered the GOAT?

That's at least why he's considered the clear cut GOAT by many. No one is gonna argue that you can consider Jordan the GOAT, but he isn't worlds ahead of the others. And from my experience I have to say, the less people know about basketball the clearer the cut between Jordan and the others becomes.

[andgar923]

For those of you that are saying MJ is considered better due to marketing here are 2 words:

Babe Ruth

[2010splash]

Celtics fans crack me up. Bill Russell's skillset resembled a Deke Mutombo at best. He played in a weak era and won a lot... who cares?

[Mr. I'm So Rad]

For those of you that are saying MJ is considered better due to marketing here are 2 words:

Babe Ruth

Well baseball is different in that baseball is an older sport that relishes in the past and sometimes can't seem to move on from it. And I'm not sayin MJ is considered GOAT solely due to marketing but that is the main reason. Casual fans want to be entertained. They don't care that MJ was averaging 37ppg on 54% shooting along with 8 rebounds and 8 assists. They just wanted to see his highlights.

Baseball and Basketball are totally different

[guy]

Bill Russell has 5 NBA MVPs and guess who else has just as much? Michael Jordan. He played against 8 nba teams at the time, which means that they were stacked and that there was at least a minimum of one HOFer on each team...


No offense, but there is so much wrong with this way of thinking. The only way you can say 8 teams mean they were all stacked relative to today is if you think the popularity and the talent pool as a result was as large. There's no way it was. Had nothing changed since Russell's day, half the black players today probably aren't even playing, and barely any if any of the players from overseas are playing. Good chance guys like Hakeem, Ewing, Duncan, Dirk, and Kobe never even pick up a basketball.

I don't get it, do people think today's equivalent of the 8 team NBA in much of the 60s the same as if we just cut 300 out of the 400 players in the league? So someone like Luol Deng would be an 8th man in the league? Sorry, but thats ridiculous.

And as far as HOFers and MVPs go, as the NBA, the worldwide talent pool, and popularity have grown, there have always only been 5 HOFers per class and 1 MVP every year. These have not increased proportionately as the game has gotten bigger.

I don't think the older eras should really get penalized. They're obviously pioneers and they did what they did with what was in front of them. But there's a lot of holes in this common way of thinking.

[andgar923]

Well baseball is different in that baseball is an older sport that relishes in the past and sometimes can't seem to move on from it. And I'm not sayin MJ is considered GOAT solely due to marketing but that is the main reason. Casual fans want to be entertained. They don't care that MJ was averaging 37ppg on 54% shooting along with 8 rebounds and 8 assists. They just wanted to see his highlights.

Baseball and Basketball are totally different

The 'main' reason?

And btw.... 'casual' fans aren't the only ones that think MJ is the GOAT you know.

Its actually insulting to assume that this is the case.

Also, without MJ's feats on the court there is no marketing machine. It wasn't like today where marketing comes before the game, MJ had to establish himself on the court and then maintain it. People tuned in to watch MJ in droves BECAUSE he performed and 'continued' to do so.

MJ is considered the GOAT because he could do it all, and he did it in spectacular fashion... he was the perfect storm.

MJ's game was just flat out BETTER in every aspect.

[NoEasy9]

No offense, but there is so much wrong with this way of thinking.
You are allowed to have an opinion. Just understand it is dead wrong and you are an idiot. That is all.

[guy]

You are allowed to have an opinion. Just understand it is dead wrong and you are an idiot. That is all.

LOL wow why doesn't your smart ass elaborate and tell me why I'm dead wrong then instead of being a dick?

[Mr. I'm So Rad]

The 'main' reason?

And btw.... 'casual' fans aren't the only ones that think MJ is the GOAT you know.

Its actually insulting to assume that this is the case.

Also, without MJ's feats on the court there is no marketing machine. It wasn't like today where marketing comes before the game, MJ had to establish himself on the court and then maintain it. People tuned in to watch MJ in droves BECAUSE he performed and 'continued' to do so.

MJ is considered the GOAT because he could do it all, and he did it in spectacular fashion... he was the perfect storm.

MJ's game was just flat out BETTER in every aspect.

Yes the main reason. I'm not saying casual fans are the only ones that think MJ is the GOAT, but there are more casual fans that watch basketball because it's basketball rather than the fans that dive very deep into it.
I would say its the former.

I'm not taking away his feats MJ's numbers were legendary and spectacular. What I'm saying is the NBA saw he was marketable. Wilt's stats are far more impressive than MJ's yet more people consider MJ the GOAT instead of Wilt. Is it because of titles? Well Russell has more titles than both of them combined but more people consider MJ the GOAT. I'm not saying that you are wrong in believing that MJ is the GOAT because I believe he is, but I'm saying just consider why.

Magic and Bird were winning titles and Bird's teams were sweeping MJ out of the playoffs yet MJ was still the bigger star even though Magic was a triple double machine and Bird was a trashtalkin, sharpshooting basketball genius. It's the same with LeBron James. He was a superstar before he even entered the NBA and was displayed as being the best guy in the league before he even won anything because the league promoted him so much. And even with his recent "villain turn" he is still the biggest star in the league.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Conclusion: The Reason for Russell's low PPG in the NBA was Russell was given very few opportunities to score (13 FGA)

Well, IMO, Russell just wasn't a scorer. He shot 44% from the field for his career and 56% from the line. Russell did a lot of things to help his teams win like defense whether it be helping out and blocking or altering shots, or guarding Wilt, starting fast breaks with outlet passes, rebounding, setting picks and providing leadership. But scoring just wasn't an area excelled in, IMO. Even if you watch the footage that's available, you'll rarely see him make a shot in the low post, most of his points were dunks or lay ups set ip by Cousy, or put backs. Not that there's anything wrong with that, or that it should exclude him from GOAT discussions, because I agree that there shouldn't be any set rules. These rankings are subjective.

Edit: Also on the subject of rebounds, I think minutes have to be taken into consideration when discussing the modern equivalent because stars played more minutes back then. Several were playing 44-45 mpg and a few played even more, this hasn't been the case in the past 20 years, so I think OldSchool's estimate for rebounding is pretty close.


John Stockton only averaged 13 PPG is he worthy to be included in the top 15-20?

Well, personally, I don't think Stockton should be in the discussion for top 15-20, though my reasoning isn't based on his scoring numbers.



It was the defense that separated Jordan from Magic and Bird. Magic and Bird were good at playing the passing lanes, but that was it. Jordan could shut down players and was a tremendous help side defender. Offensively, Jordan isnt even that much better than Bird. He is better, but not as much as most people think.

I Disagree about Bird's defense. His team defense was very good overall. Very high IQ and good at helping out and double teaming and his rotations were excellent. He used his limited athletic ability as well as he could, he typically played hard at that end and could contest a shot and go straight up though he wasn't a shot blocker. His man defense really wasn't bad for the era either, though guarding players with good post games was considered his weakness. I think he was a superior defender to Magic, not as good defensively as Jordan of course, but he made 3 all-defensive teams for a reason.

[XxSMSxX]

What was the league average in FG% around that time Shaq?

[BarberSchool]

Some troll job this has been.

[Pointguard]

I think greatest winner of all time is an appropriate title for Russell. There it is, Russel is Gwoat. He was not the Greatest of All Time which is an individual accolade which is more about the player than the outcome. Tom Brady won more than Peyton Manning yet you don't hear this GOAT thing on Brady. Derek Jeter won't get the GOAT argument over Pujols. Henri Richard who won 11 Cups with Montreal but he isn't in the league of Gretsky... But in basketball... .

I have him ranked high but I have trouble with making GWOAT = GOAT. In every other team sport, the greatest is very skilled with the instrument in use. Russell is far inferior with the rock than anybody in the consensus top ten (Wilt, Jordan, KAJ, Bird, Magic, Shaq, Kobe, Hakeem, Duncan). Amazingly a world class sprinter and high jumper with great reach has stunningly low FG% numbers while not pushing the issue. He was smart enough to play within his limitations but but he still shot below 37% in four playoff runs. He shot below 44% in like 8 of his seasons. And this with him being at point blank range. He surpassed 17ppg only twice in 13 years. Since I noticed that DRose doesn't get fouled enough Russell wasn't good at the line either. He is however, a very good passer but not at some astonishing level and he isn't used as prototype for being a great passing center either.

So he concedes offense to more than likely to anybody in the top 20 best players in the game. So his defense should be incomparable to anybody

[Soundwave]

No disrespect to Bill Russell, but honestly he probably isn't one of the top 10 offensive players in NBA history.

Great defensive player, solid on the offensive end (but not great), tremendous leader.

Jordan has all the individual dominance (scoring titles, MVPs, highest scoring average in NBA history, etc.) that people look at one top of a ton of championships/team success as well, and he dominated on both ends of the court.

There's just no holes in Jordan's resume.

[NBASTATMAN]

Doesn't Bill Russell deserve to be considered the GOAT since he does have 11 Championships and could have had 7 maybe more Finals MVP's. Isn't the ultimate goal is to win it all? A lot of ppl will point out Russell's era as if he had an advantage over his competition...


ESPN and he is a better individual player.. NOt sure about a better team player.. Probably not...

[G.O.A.T]

A few things that need some clarification or counter points...

1) The Celtics were not by far the most talented team of their era. From 60-63 maybe, but that's it. When they added Russell and Heinsohn they lost Ed Macauley and Cliff Hagan (Both HOFer's also)

2) Russell was not a weak offensive player: He is the greatest passing center of all-time statistically and in my opinion. He almost always shot above the league average in FG%. He had multiple 20+ per game averages for postseason games, multiple 30 point games closing out the NBA Finals and did all this without a single play being run in the half court for him in his 13 years. Russell didn't score because he didn't need to score for the Celtics to win most nights. When they needed him to score, he scored.

3) I don't rank players based on who I think was better at skill A+ skill B, but that being said, Russell is not just a little better defensively than Jordan, he's way better. Russell is the Greatest defensive player ever and it's not debatable. He invented blocked shot intimidation and defensive scouting of player tendencies. The only thing that comes close to Russell's impact of defense is Wilt Chamberlain's impact on offense.

4) It was harder to win title's in the 1960's because of the 8-9 teams, not easier. As soon as the league expanded (and Russ retired) many more teams started winning titles.

5) When Russell entered the NBA in 1956 it was still 80% white, but that changed right away. By 1965 more than 2/3rds of the starters were black. Russell was basketball's Jackie Robinson, it's first black star and the one who changed the game for future generations.

There are a lot of good reasons to rank Jordan above Russell, there are even reasons to rank Kareem or Wilt above him if you don't think winning is the most important thing (you're wrong if you think that, but I understand some still do) My problem is and has always been that most people don't take the time to understand Russell's impact. I've never seen anyone (on ISH) who fully understands his game and doesn't say something that is a long ways from accurate when explaining their case against him. Hope this helps.

[ginobli2311]

A few things that need some clarification or counter points...

1) The Celtics were not by far the most talented team of their era. From 60-63 maybe, but that's it. When they added Russell and Heinsohn they lost Ed Macauley and Cliff Hagan (Both HOFer's also)

2) Russell was not a weak offensive player: He is the greatest passing center of all-time statistically and in my opinion. He almost always shot above the league average in FG%. He had multiple 20+ per game averages for postseason games, multiple 30 point games closing out the NBA Finals and did all this without a single play being run in the half court for him in his 13 years. Russell didn't score because he didn't need to score for the Celtics to win most nights. When they needed him to score, he scored.

3) I don't rank players based on who I think was better at skill A+ skill B, but that being said, Russell is not just a little better defensively than Jordan, he's way better. Russell is the Greatest defensive player ever and it's not debatable. He invented blocked shot intimidation and defensive scouting of player tendencies. The only thing that comes close to Russell's impact of defense is Wilt Chamberlain's impact on offense.

4) It was harder to win title's in the 1960's because of the 8-9 teams, not easier. As soon as the league expanded (and Russ retired) many more teams started winning titles.

5) When Russell entered the NBA in 1956 it was still 80% white, but that changed right away. By 1965 more than 2/3rds of the starters were black. Russell was basketball's Jackie Robinson, it's first black star and the one who changed the game for future generations.

There are a lot of good reasons to rank Jordan above Russell, there are even reasons to rank Kareem or Wilt above him if you don't think winning is the most important thing (you're wrong if you think that, but I understand some still do) My problem is and has always been that most people don't take the time to understand Russell's impact. I've never seen anyone (on ISH) who fully understands his game and doesn't say something that is a long ways from accurate when explaining their case against him. Hope this helps.

its hard for someone like me because the only thing i have to go off of is research and a combination of people's opinions (like yours).....because i never saw russell or wilt play live.

its easy for me to compare magic/jordan/bird/hakeem/shaq/duncan because i watched all of them play both in college and in the pros.

[AirJordan&Magic]

Celtics fans crack me up. Bill Russell's skillset resembled a Deke Mutombo at best. He played in a weak era and won a lot... who cares?

You do not seriously believe that his skillset resembles Dikembe Mutombo? That is beyond ridiculous.

Of course, like the majority of posters here, I have never seen Bill Russell play. But I can say that I watched alot of footage of him, and he was EASILY better than Mutombo. It's ridiculous to even make such a foolish statement.

From the footage I've observed, Not only was he obviously a dominant rebounder and shot-blocker.... Russell was also a good passer, particularly outlet passing. Also, Russell was a better transition defender than given credit for.... I've seen many videos of him sprinting full court, chasing down the defender and pinning the shot off the glass in the same manner that LeBron does, and people go ballistic over it.

And though Russell was not a dominant offensive player, he still provided quality buckets. Didn't he average something like 23.5 ppg on 45% shooting in the 1965 finals, I believe?

[Johnni Gade]

MJ was a better player imo :)

[Heilige]

A few things that need some clarification or counter points...

1) The Celtics were not by far the most talented team of their era. From 60-63 maybe, but that's it. When they added Russell and Heinsohn they lost Ed Macauley and Cliff Hagan (Both HOFer's also)

2) Russell was not a weak offensive player: He is the greatest passing center of all-time statistically and in my opinion. He almost always shot above the league average in FG%. He had multiple 20+ per game averages for postseason games, multiple 30 point games closing out the NBA Finals and did all this without a single play being run in the half court for him in his 13 years. Russell didn't score because he didn't need to score for the Celtics to win most nights. When they needed him to score, he scored.

3) I don't rank players based on who I think was better at skill A+ skill B, but that being said, Russell is not just a little better defensively than Jordan, he's way better. Russell is the Greatest defensive player ever and it's not debatable. He invented blocked shot intimidation and defensive scouting of player tendencies. The only thing that comes close to Russell's impact of defense is Wilt Chamberlain's impact on offense.

4) It was harder to win title's in the 1960's because of the 8-9 teams, not easier. As soon as the league expanded (and Russ retired) many more teams started winning titles.

5) When Russell entered the NBA in 1956 it was still 80% white, but that changed right away. By 1965 more than 2/3rds of the starters were black. Russell was basketball's Jackie Robinson, it's first black star and the one who changed the game for future generations.

There are a lot of good reasons to rank Jordan above Russell, there are even reasons to rank Kareem or Wilt above him if you don't think winning is the most important thing (you're wrong if you think that, but I understand some still do) My problem is and has always been that most people don't take the time to understand Russell's impact. I've never seen anyone (on ISH) who fully understands his game and doesn't say something that is a long ways from accurate when explaining their case against him. Hope this helps.


This. I feel Russell is underrated here and he is a top 3 player by far. I personally have him as #2 on my list. Thoughts on this post OldSchoolBBall???

[nycelt84]

Tom Brady won more than Peyton Manning yet you don't hear this GOAT thing on Brady.



Tom Brady is and has always been better than Peyton Manning. Up until a few years ago the majority of football writers agreed and if/or when the Patriots win the Super Bowl this year you will start to hear a lot of people calling Tom Brady the greatest QB of all-time.

[ginobli2311]

Tom Brady is and has always been better than Peyton Manning. Up until a few years ago the majority of football writers agreed and if/or when the Patriots win the Super Bowl this year you will start to hear a lot of people calling Tom Brady the greatest QB of all-time.

yea. if you did a poll in 5 years about the greatest qb's of all time. it would be brady/montana battling it out for the number 1 spot unless something seriously changes.

if the pats win it all this year.....the manning vs. brady discussion is pretty much dead. brady would have 4 superbowls and manning would be 9-10 in the playoffs.

really not much of a discussion mainly because brady's level of play has been much higher in the playoffs.

[HBKMGa]

yea. if you did a poll in 5 years about the greatest qb's of all time. it would be brady/montana battling it out for the number 1 spot unless something seriously changes.

if the pats win it all this year.....the manning vs. brady discussion is pretty much dead. brady would have 4 superbowls and manning would be 9-10 in the playoffs.

really not much of a discussion mainly because brady's level of play has been much higher in the playoffs.

yup, factor in that manning is older and has no chance to catch up.

[kizut1659]

I don't think its that close. Jordan was a clear-cut best player on his team and in the league during hi time, and Russel was not. I am just not convinced that Russel was that much more valuable than someone like Cousy in the early years and Havlicek in the later years. As for Russel being a great rebounder - yes, he was but Chamberlain averaged slightly more. For those of you who are claiming that Russel could have been a great scorer if he wanted to, I am not convinced - compare his shooting percentage to Chamberlain's or even a guard like Oscar Robinson. Bottom line is that Russel is a great winner, but too limited of a player to be considered GOAT.

[SinJackal]

It is pretty hilarious how misunderstood Bill Russell's career is. I blame this on fantasy basketball and John Hollinger.

Bill Russell has 5 NBA MVPs and guess who else has just as much? Michael Jordan. He played against 8 nba teams at the time, which means that they were stacked and that there was at least a minimum of one HOFer on each team...

It goes both ways.

Michael Jordan did not accomplish anything Russell didnt in a team standpoint.

I have no problem with calling MJ the greatest ever, because he probably was. But to say his championships has more weight than Russell is absolute horseshit.

I disagree with the bolded. While I'm one of the people on here who actually thinks Bill Russell is underappreciated, I don't think his titles were equal to Jordan's.

Let's not forget the "playoffs" back then consisted of one series between whoever had the top seeds from the season. That, by default, makes his titles worth less than Jordan's, since he only had to win a single postseason series to win a title. Then there are the arguments about how there were only a small number of teams in the league, and the era and competition factors.

All that said, Russell is underappreciated in my opinion, and I have him as my #2 GOAT. But let's not act like each of his titles were the same as each of Jordan's. They weren't. Not every title since the NBA started was earned under the same degree of difficulty.

[G.O.A.T]

I don't think its that close. Jordan was a clear-cut best player on his team and in the league during hi time, and Russel was not.

Actually that's 100% incorrect. Not only did Russell win as many MVP's as Jordan and twice as many titles, he was also voted the greatest player of all-time in 1970 and 1980 by NBA experts. So you had that all wrong.



I am just not convinced that Russel was that much more valuable than someone like Cousy in the early years and Havlicek in the later years.

Cousy, Hondo, Auerbach and the rest of the league would disagree. You're not convinced because you don't want to be, not because you have an informed opinion.



As for Russel being a great rebounder - yes, he was but Chamberlain averaged slightly more. For those of you who are claiming that Russel could have been a great scorer if he wanted to, I am not convinced - compare his shooting percentage to Chamberlain's or even a guard like Oscar Robinson.

Look at his shooting percentages in playoff games when his team needed him to score to win.

Also his FG% was almost always above the league average. Had he played in the 80's instead of the 60's, people would never bring up his FG%, but because it looks low compared to what people shoot today, some folks actually think it's a valid point against Russell, which of course it's not.


Bottom line is that Russel is a great winner, but too limited of a player to be considered GOAT.

How was he limited? He had an unofficial quadruple double in game seven of the NBA Finals?

He's certainly capable of making as great or greater impact on the court than any other player in NBA history based on all accounts so I'm not sure what limitations you speak of.


These are the posts that bother me, uninformed and yet steadfast in an opinion that's baseless and ignorant.

[jlip]

I disagree with the bolded. While I'm one of the people on here who actually thinks Bill Russell is underappreciated, I don't think his titles were equal to Jordan's.

Let's not forget the "playoffs" back then consisted of one series between whoever had the top seeds from the season. That, by default, makes his titles worth less than Jordan's, since he only had to win a single postseason series to win a title. Then there are the arguments about how there were only a small number of teams in the league, and the era and competition factors.
All that said, Russell is underappreciated in my opinion, and I have him as my #2 GOAT. But let's not act like each of his titles were the same as each of Jordan's. They weren't. Not every title since the NBA started was earned under the same degree of difficulty.

I actually did research as to determine whether Russell's Celtics had an easier road to their titles in the playoffs than MJ's Bulls based upon the fact that there were fewer teams and a shorter post season and this is what I unconvered. Again, this is looking squarely at the championship seasons.

# of Championships
Russell's Celtics-11
Jordan's Bulls-6

Total Series Played
Russell's Celtics-25
Jordan's Bulls-24

Avg. series played per title
Russell's Celtics-2.3
Jordan's Bulls-4

Avg. games played per title
Russell's Celtics-13.4
Jordan's Bulls-19.3

If we were to stop right here it would appear that the Bulls definitely had a tougher road to the championship each year. They played nearly the same amount of series en route to 6 titles as the Celtics played en route to 11 titles. They also averaged more series and games played per title run. At this point the 6 titles do look to be at least as impressive as 11. But let’s dig deeper. Let’s see actually how challenging the series were.

In the 25 series that they played on their way to 11 titles, Russell’s Celtics were pushed to a game seven 10 times. They were also pushed to a game five in a best of five series once. This means that the Celtics were pushed to the brink of elimination in 44% of their playoff series. 5 of those game sevens were decided by 2 points or 1 point.

I want to put this in perspective. The Celtics were a total of 10-12 points away from losing 5 of their titles. (Just FYI, another game 7 was decided by 5 points, another by 4 points, and another by 3 points.) So we have a dynastic team that is on the verge of being eliminated in almost half of its series. That level of competition and struggle can't be ignored or minimized.

In the 24 series that they played on their way to 6 titles, Jordan’s Bulls were pushed to a game seven (or elimination game) a grand total of 2 times. This means that the Bulls were pushed to the brink of elimination in only 8.3% of their series. One of those game sevens was a 110-81 or 29 pt. blowout. The other game seven was at least more competitive. It was an 88-83 win. Not much suspense here.

Let’s look at the other end of the spectrum. In those same 25 series Russell’s Celtics swept their opponents only twice. That is 8% of their series. On the other hand, Jordan’s Bulls swept their opponents 9 times, including every single first round. 37.5% of their series were against teams that were not competitive enough to even win one game. Adding those extra rounds and games sure doesn’t seem to add to the difficulty of the road to a title especially when those teams aren’t putting up that much resistance.

Next, as mentioned earlier, Russell’s Celtics averaged only 13.4 games per title run, while Jordan’s Bulls averaged 19.3 games per title run. The Celtics’ competition caused them to average 4.45 losses per title run. The Bull’s competition caused them to average 4.33 losses per title run. So despite playing nearly 6 games fewer, Russell’s Celtics still loss, on average, slightly more games showing their competition was at least as, if not, more challenging than the Bulls. They were not just breezing their way to titles at all. The fewest number of games the Celtics lost in any championship post season was 2. The fewest number of losses the Bulls had in any championship postseason was 2 despite playing more games. The most losses the Celtics had in any post season that they won the title were 7. The most losses the Bulls had in any post season that they won the title were 7 again, despite playing more games.

Russell’s Celtics won 5 of their 25 series on the road as underdogs in their title years. Jordan’s Bulls won 3 of their 24 series on the road as underdogs in their title years.

So let’s summarize this. Yes Russell’s Celtics played in a league with significantly fewer teams and a shorter post season than Jordan’s Bulls. But while the Bulls were so much better than their competition that they swept 37.5% of their opponents in what amounted to meaningless, noncompetitive series, the Celtics were being forced to an elimination game in 44% of their series. The Bulls did play more game sixes (7 to 5 in favor of the Bulls). Adding the game sixes to the equation tells us that 37.5% of the Bulls’ series en route to their titles were competitive enough to go at least 6 games. But again that pales in comparison to the competitive and challenging nature of the Celtics' playoff runs. 60% of all of the Celtics’ series went at least 6 games, and this doesn’t even include a 5 game best of five series.

In conclusion, I’m sorry. With these numbers no one can convince me that it was easier to win titles in Russell’s era than in the modern era. Try telling a team that is about 8 or 9 combined plays from losing 5 of their titles that their titles mean less than a team that was barely pushed to an elimination during their title runs. Those titles were hard earned. Their road to titles were not any easier than the Bulls, and the Bulls' titles are not worth any more IMO. Contrary to popularly regurgitated rhetoric, adding more teams does not make the path to a championship more difficult if you are so superior to those additional teams that they are getting swept. That's just padding the win column. I can't view playing 8 games against this season's Cavs as being more difficult than playing 5 games against this season's Heat just because it's more games. It's not the quantity of the competition. It’s the quality of the competition that makes the road difficult. 6 is neither greater than nor equal to 11.

[SinJackal]

[QUOTE=jlip]I actually did research as to determine whether Russell's Celtics had an easier road to their titles in the playoffs than MJ's Bulls based upon the fact that there were fewer teams and a shorter post season and this is what I unconvered. Again, this is looking squarely at the championship seasons.

# of Championships
Russell's Celtics-11
Jordan's Bulls-6

Total Series Played
Russell's Celtics-25
Jordan's Bulls-24

Avg. series played per title
Russell's Celtics-2.3
Jordan's Bulls-4

Avg. games played per title
Russell's Celtics-13.4
Jordan's Bulls-19.3

If we were to stop right here it would appear that the Bulls definitely had a tougher road to the championship each year. They played nearly the same amount of series en route to 6 titles as the Celtics played en route to 11 titles. They also averaged more series and games played per title run. At this point the 6 titles do look to be at least as impressive as 11. But let

[jlip]

Good post.

I disagree with your assessment though. I think the fact that Jordan ensured that so few series ever got to seven games, is a testament to his dominance, more than it is a lack of competition as you're claiming. Barkley's Suns were NOT a weak team. Neither were Payton's Sonics, or the Stockton/Malone Jazz teams, the last Showtime Lakers squad (which he completely manhandled with insane finals stats after losing Game 1). Those Pacer teams were not slouches either. Nor were the Ewing Knicks, or the Bad Boys Pistons teams MJ battled prior to winning his titles. MJ also started his career during the dynasty Celtics era with nearly no help on his team, and yet he dropped 63 on the Celtics shortly after coming off of what was supposed to be a season-ending injury (he came back early from it to help the team get to the playoffs and possibly advance).

You're looking solely at his championship seasons. . .once MJ "figured it out", he just started rolling. But let's not act like him dominating teams shows weakness in the NBA. He had to go through a lot of very tough teams. MJ personally ****-blocked the whole league from titles. Russell did something similar as well. Russell going to 7 games more doesn't mean the league was tougher, maybe it's because Russell and his team couldn't take out teams as early as MJ and his Bulls could?

It goes both ways, you know?

Good playoff run comparisons though with the numbers. Helps put things into perspective. Russell is still my #2 GOAT though. I think MJ's road to titles was more difficult, and he was imo more dominant in games than Russell since he could impact the game heavily on both ends. Not as much as Russell did defensively, but I think MJ's offense had a bigger impact than Russell's defense, and MJ's defense had at least as much impact as Russell's offense.

That's my opinion though. But I am not one of those people who think Russell is not deserving of being rated way up there. He is easily deserving of a very high GOAT ranking.

Cool. Good post likewise.
Also I wasn't implying that MJ's era was weak. The language in my post may have given that impression, but that was not my intention. I respect your perspective and just feel we will have to cordially agree to disagree.

As it pertains to my GOAT rankings I actually have two different categories because I feel that there are two general ways to play the game. One is to play in such a way whereas the player is individually dominant, and this is so often seen by his stats. In that category I have Wilt, Kareem, and MJ (in no particular order.) The other is to play the game in such a manner whereas your primary objective is to improve your teammates' quality of play. In that category I have Russell and Magic. Bird and Oscar Robertson IMO seem to somewhat combine those two styles of play.

I do have a question that I have often asked people though, and I'm not trying to be funny or anything, but if one is of the opinion that the Russell era Celtics' titles do not carry as much weight as titles won in the modern era, what does he consider their 11 titles to equate to today?

[SpecialQue]

Wilt and Russell don't count because they played before the advent of ESPN.

Muhammad Ali Was a Rebel. Michael Jordan Is a Brand Name.

In celebrating Jordan as a hero, are we merely worshipping capitalism?

By Michael Crowley

http://www.nieman.harvard.edu/reports/article/102181/Muhammad-Ali-Was-a-Rebel-Michael-Jordan-Is-a-Brand-Name.aspx

Good lord was that an astonishingly retarded article. So Jordan's overrated as a player because he wasn't political and didn't have a fiery personality like Muhammad Ali? There's jack $hit in this article that says why Jordan as a player wasn't the GOAT. Ridiculous.

I'm not placing myself in Jordan's camp, but the posters here have come up with better arguments against Jordan than the chump who wrote this garbage.

Also, does anyone know where we can actually SEE Russell play? I'd give my left nut to see some full games from the 60s, especially those Celtics games.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Also his FG% was almost always above the league average. Had he played in the 80's instead of the 60's, people would never bring up his FG%, but because it looks low compared to what people shoot today, some folks actually think it's a valid point against Russell, which of course it's not.

This is something I don't understand, if we view his FG% differently because of the league average, then shouldn't we also view a 30 point game different because of the extra 30-35 possessions per game? And I'd think a great scorer holding back his offense for the team would have a high FG% like Wilt in the late 60's/early 70's. It didn't prevent his teams from winning obviously, but scoring simply doesn't seem like it was one of Russell's strengths.

[HB40TheNextStar]

MJ v. KAJ would make a better thread.

[chips93]

Doesn't Bill Russell deserve to be considered the GOAT since he does have 11 Championships and could have had 7 maybe more Finals MVP's. Isn't the ultimate goal is to win it all? A lot of ppl will point out Russell's era as if he had an advantage over his competition...


11 championships says more about the teams he was on than it says about russell himself

[B]

Quick Quiz: what was Bill Russell's record in game 7's? All playoffs not just finals

21-0

[kizut1659]

Actually that's 100% incorrect. Not only did Russell win as many MVP's as Jordan and twice as many titles, he was also voted the greatest player of all-time in 1970 and 1980 by NBA experts. So you had that all wrong. .

Russel should not have gotten the MVP at least in 1962. Jordan should have gotten the MVP in 1997. I think MVP votes often get it wrong and I do not put all that much credence in this award. Also, if you want to go by accolodates, Bill Russel only made 1st team nba 3(!!!) times. Are you saying that we should just look at the MVP awards and ignore all nba-selections?


Look at his shooting percentages in playoff games when his team needed him to score to win. Also his FG% was almost always above the league average. Had he played in the 80's instead of the 60's, people would never bring up his FG%, but because it looks low compared to what people shoot today, some folks actually think it's a valid point against Russell, which of course it's not.

What was the league shooting percentage at that time? Russel's was only 44%. Was it that much lower than the league average, especially if one also takes in Russel's poor ft shooting? Even if the league average was low, why are you comparing theshooting percentage of the supposed GOAT to the league average rather than his peers during this period? Are you saying Russel shooting worse FG% not only than Chamberlain but Robertson, West, etc is not at all relevant in evaluating whether Russel was a great offensive player?

As for playoffs, sometimes Russel played well offensively and sometimes he didn't - its not like his offensive game and shooting percentage tended to improve during the playoffs. For example, he shot .356% during 1964 playoffs and Boston still wo relatively easily. I am not going to take away the fact that Russel had great finals games (such as game 7 in 1962 finals) but he had a lot of mediocre/poor offensive games as well (such game 7 1969 finals).


How was he limited? He had an unofficial quadruple double in game seven of the NBA Finals?

Again, he was a decent but not a great offensive player. I do not see how a GOAT in the game of basketball can have that limitation.

[Pointguard]

11 championships says more about the teams he was on than it says about russell himself

Yes, it could be that and that is why I don't go for the win argument. Its like saying that Ben Wallace was better than Shaq to some degree. You have to isolate winning once a player establishes he can do that.

[kizut1659]

This is something I don't understand, if we view his FG% differently because of the league average, then shouldn't we also view a 30 point game different because of the extra 30-35 possessions per game? And I'd think a great scorer holding back his offense for the team would have a high FG% like Wilt in the late 60's/early 70's. It didn't prevent his teams from winning obviously, but scoring simply doesn't seem like it was one of Russell's strengths.

I know, I am not sure why Russel fans cannot simply acknowledge it. Why can't one say Russel for who he was -a great player and a great winner -without trying to give him an attribute/skill that he simply did not have?

[L.Kizzle]

[QUOTE=B

[jlip]

Russel should not have gotten the MVP at least in 1962. Jordan should have gotten the MVP in 1997. I think MVP votes often get it wrong and I do not put all that much credence in this award. Also, if you want to go by accolodates, Bill Russel only made 1st team nba 3(!!!) times. Are you saying that we should just look at the MVP awards and ignore all nba-selections?


@ the bolded part...
The players who actually faced Russell anywhere from 10-13 times each that season voted him MVP in a landslide. Not only that, the media who watched him play did an unofficial vote that season and again voted him the league's MVP in a landslide.

In that very year, 1962, Syracuse Nationals head coach, Alex Hannum, had the following to say about Russell, [I]

[L.Kizzle]

[QUOTE=jlip]I actually did research as to determine whether Russell's Celtics had an easier road to their titles in the playoffs than MJ's Bulls based upon the fact that there were fewer teams and a shorter post season and this is what I unconvered. Again, this is looking squarely at the championship seasons.

# of Championships
Russell's Celtics-11
Jordan's Bulls-6

Total Series Played
Russell's Celtics-25
Jordan's Bulls-24

Avg. series played per title
Russell's Celtics-2.3
Jordan's Bulls-4

Avg. games played per title
Russell's Celtics-13.4
Jordan's Bulls-19.3

If we were to stop right here it would appear that the Bulls definitely had a tougher road to the championship each year. They played nearly the same amount of series en route to 6 titles as the Celtics played en route to 11 titles. They also averaged more series and games played per title run. At this point the 6 titles do look to be at least as impressive as 11. But let

[jlip]

I know he only lost one game seven in the Finals, that was in his second season to the Hawks. The Celtics lost the division Finals to the Sixers in 5 games in 1967 I believe.

Russell is 10-0 in game sevens. He never lost one. The loss to the Hawks in 1958 was game 6 of the Finals and Russell was injured barely playing 20 minutes. He suffered a chip fracture in his ankle during the 3rd quarter of game 3 and had actually missed games 4 and 5 because of the injury. He was not expected to return for game 6 and really shouldn't have.

[Pointguard]

Russel should not have gotten the MVP at least in 1962.

He should not have gotten it in 1963 either. There was definitely politics involved. The players in the league didn't value defense and weren't into it. But miracoulosuly they unamiously honor the guy that was into it when Wilt had an offensive year that had a real dream state feel to it and 63 was just as impressive as 62 for Wilt. I don't see why professionals would honor defense and not find it worthy enough to incorporate it into their game.

[GiveItToBurrito]

Way less teams, so it was easier to get 5 all stars on one team, way less big men that could guard him. Really only Thurmond and Wilt could. Everyone else was a slow white guy.

Plus Russell played with multiple hall of famers. Jordan only played with one along with a few borderline all-stars like Kukoc, Grant, and Rodman. Russell was great, but he didn't win like MJ. He also wasn't as good a player, no matter how you look at it.

[L.Kizzle]

Plus Russell played with multiple hall of famers. Jordan only played with one along with a few borderline all-stars like Kukoc, Grant, and Rodman. Russell was great, but he didn't win like MJ. He also wasn't as good a player, no matter how you look at it.
For real??

[Pointguard]

My question is... If the players who played against him, the media who watched him, and the coaches that coached against him considered him the rightful MVP in 1962, under what credible authority do you claim that he should not have been the MVP that season?

It had more to do with who Wilt was dating. Wilt was 5th in the voting the next year, with an equally monstrous offensive year. Elgin Baylor, who was close to being defensively challenged at that time, was ahead of him. Petite and O were also ahead of him while Russell won. Wilt was at 44.8ppg 24.3regs with a record FG% efficeincy. Baylor was at 34ppg and 14 rebs and inferior on the boards. Baylor was 10ppg and 10rebounds below Wilt far less defensively and far less efficient. It wasn't about basketball.

[gts]

I know he only lost one game seven in the Finals, that was in his second season to the Hawks. The Celtics lost the division Finals to the Sixers in 5 games in 1967 I believe.the loss to the st louis hawks was a 6 game series

russell never lost a game 7 playoff game 21 and 0...

[andgar923]

Again..... was he a better player than MJ?

[NoEasy9]

Again..... was he a better player than MJ?
If all you want to talk about is individual talent, then we mind as well call Wilt Chamberlain the greatest ever. Seriously, can anyone think of a more talented individual player than Wilt Chamberlain?

Team Accomplishments over Individual stats and accomplishments all day every day. That was what made Russell so successful.

[andgar923]

If all you want to talk about is individual talent, then we mind as well call Wilt Chamberlain the greatest ever. Seriously, can anyone think of a more talented individual player than Wilt Chamberlain?

Team Accomplishments over Individual stats and accomplishments all day every day. That was what made Russell so successful.

Wilt isn't better than MJ either, sorry.

And if we wanted to accept that, then MJ had more rings than Wilt and more talent than Bill, so......

Again.... as somebody mentioned earlier, the other player that has a more legit argument is Kareem.

[tpols]

Wilt isn't better than MJ either, sorry.

And if we wanted to accept that, then MJ had more rings than Wilt and more talent than Bill, so......

Again.... as somebody mentioned earlier, the other player that has a more legit argument is Kareem.
Going on numbers and play wilt dominated his era more than jordan did and was a more dominant player in general.

[NoEasy9]

Wilt isn't better than MJ either, sorry.

And if we wanted to accept that, then MJ had more rings than Wilt and more talent than Bill, so......

Again.... as somebody mentioned earlier, the other player that has a more legit argument is Kareem.
Based off of what? I love MJ, but he wasnt the more talented individual player than Wilt was. The only real thing that MJ did better than Wilt was shoot FTs. He wasnt a better passer, not a better scorer, not a better defender, and not a better rebounder...nor did he have the same impact as Wilt did...since MJ wasnt a big.

MJ revolutionized the game in the 80s and 90s, but he wasnt more individually talented than Wilt was.

[kizut1659]

It had more to do with who Wilt was dating. Wilt was 5th in the voting the next year, with an equally monstrous offensive year. Elgin Baylor, who was close to being defensively challenged at that time, was ahead of him. Petite and O were also ahead of him while Russell won. Wilt was at 44.8ppg 24.3regs with a record FG% efficeincy. Baylor was at 34ppg and 14 rebs and inferior on the boards. Baylor was 10ppg and 10rebounds below Wilt far less defensively and far less efficient. It wasn't about basketball.

exactly. Wilt just was not liked (and i can see why). This does not mean that Russel was a better or more valuable player or deserved to win an MVP. Again, if you just want to look at honors, Chamberlain was selected as NBA
1st team that year while Russel was 2nd team.

[Ne 1]

Going on numbers and play wilt dominated his era more than jordan did and was a more dominant player in general.

Agreed.

Wilt is simply more dominating. While Jordan fans are quick to point out Wilt's flaw (free throws), I can equally point out that Jordan was not that great of a 3 point shooter, unless the line is moved in (the league's attempt to help inferior players score more).

Jordan averaged 1 mores assist per game than Wilt during his career, and this is while he has been enjoying the luxury of looser rules governing assists. Had the rulebook been the same back then as it now, governing assists, this number would be even.

Jordan took more shots than Wilt, yet both averaged 30.1 ppg during their careers. As far as who was the better scorer, there is no question: During Wilt's first 7 years, he scored like no man in history. Jordan never had a 70+ point game. Wilt had 4. Jordan never averaged 38+ ppg for a season. Wilt did it 3 times.

Jordan was also much more selfish. When Wilt's coaches asked him to score, he did. When they asked him to sacrificed his scoring titles, he did. Jordan fought any attempt to cut back his shot attempts and led the league in field goal attempts a record 9 times (would be 10 if he played the entire '95 season.) Read about Jordan's spats with Phil Jackson and Doug Collins. Read about how he put down Tex Winter and the triangle! Even his own teammate Horace Grant said that Jordan cared more about his points than the team. If Wilt had that selfish attitude, there is no telling how many more points he would have. Also, if you take Wilt's scoring through the same number of career games, his scoring average is higher.

Wilt is a vastly superior rebounder, and while Jordan fans will point out that "Wilt should have more, since he is a center", I counter that Jordan should have a lot more assists, since he is a guard, but the numbers do not support him. Wilt is one of the greatest passers ever at center, but Jordan isn't as dominating at his position with respect to rebounds (Oscar and Magic, for instance, are both better rebounders). And while Jordan does have more 1st team all defensive selections, keep in mind that #1) the team wasn't created until Wilt's 10th year in the league and #2) Only one center is selected vs. 2 guards. If Jordan were the greatest defensive guard ever, there would be a point, but as long as Walt Frazier is remembered, Jordan could never be better than #2.

Jordan has also received the benefit of rules changes that have been implemented to help offensive players, such as well-defined rules concerning zones, rules against hand checking, and flagrant fouls. He's been spoiled by the luxuries given to the modern player, such as chartered planes, first class hotels, superior athletic shoes, and modern sports medicine (and he still hasn't approached Wilt's minutes per game!). Jordan has benefited from the joke that has become NBA officiating, in which superstars receive preferential treatment, and Jordan has probably received more than any player in history. The steps and the fouls he gets away with are ridiculous!

Consider also that Jordan benefited from the dilution of talent in the 1990s that came from expansion, giving him inferior talent to play against, compared to the 1980s. It is no coincidence that Jordan's teammate, Dennis Rodman, said that the 1996 Bulls could not have won 70 games playing against 1980s teams. While Jordan has many accomplishments, they cannot compare to Wilt's, and while the press and the Jordan radicals try to rationalize Wilt's numbers, as you can see, it's equally easy to rationalize Jordan's, and when it comes down to it, Wilt is still the most dominating player in history, and Jordan has never came close to threatening Wilt's 100 point game or 50.4 PPG average, and scoring is supposed to be Jordan's specialty, let alone Wilt's 8.6 APG in a season, or his rebounding numbers, or his 72.7% field goal percentage.

Finally, consider each player's ability to carry a team. Wilt came into the league and carried a bad team to immediate contention. He took the 1962 Warriors, not a great team, to the 7th game of the conference finals, where they lost by 2 points on a controversial call, to the champion Celtics. Jordan, on the other hand, came into the league and joined a losing team and after 3 years, they were STILL a losing team. He was 1-9 in the playoffs and posted 3 consecutive losing seasons. The truth is, Jordan played 5 seasons without Scottie Pippen and in each of those 5 seasons, he could not win more games than he lost, and in the final 2 years, he failed to get Washington to the playoffs. Yes, he was older than Wilt when Wilt retired, but Wilt played MANY more minutes, because Jordan retired 3 times. The fact is, without great teammates, Jordan was a loser. Wilt, on the other hand, could carry a poor team much farther than Jordan, showing just how much more dominant he was.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Based off of what? I love MJ, but he wasnt the more talented individual player than Wilt was. The only real thing that MJ did better than Wilt was shoot FTs. He wasnt a better passer, not a better scorer, not a better defender, and not a better rebounder...nor did he have the same impact as Wilt did...since MJ wasnt a big.

MJ revolutionized the game in the 80s and 90s, but he wasnt more individually talented than Wilt was.

I disagree regarding Jordan vs Wilt.

I think Jordan was a better scorer, I don't think it's a coincidence that despite playing in an era with far fewer shots that MJ's career playoff scoring average is 10.9 ppg higher than Wilt's, his highest scoring series are easily better than Wilt's, same with his highest scoring playoff runs.

Prime Wilt had a bigger impact defensively, IMO, but I think Jordan was the better offensive player.

And I also think that he impacted games at least as much, if not more, even with poor teammates, 3rd year MJ(who wasn't the player he was in his prime), carried his team to a 40-42 record. In one of his best individual years, Wilt's team was 31-49 and they missed the playoffs, and in '65, before he was traded to Philadelphia, I believe his Warriors were 11-33. I can't imagine prime Jordan leading teams to such poor records.



Agreed.

Wilt is simply more dominating. While Jordan fans are quick to point out Wilt's flaw (free throws), I can equally point out that Jordan was not that great of a 3 point shooter, unless the line is moved in (the league's attempt to help inferior players score more).

I think that by 1990 Jordan was a capable 3 point shooter. The only years that he took a significant amount with the normal line, he shot 35 and 38%, respectively. In 1990, he was 12th in 3s made and only 7 of the players who made more 3s than Jordan that year shot a better %. His mid-range shot was also visibly better in '92 than '90, so I wonder how good of a season he could've had shooting 3s had he taken them regularly that year.

[jlip]

It had more to do with who Wilt was dating. Wilt was 5th in the voting the next year, with an equally monstrous offensive year. Elgin Baylor, who was close to being defensively challenged at that time, was ahead of him. Petite and O were also ahead of him while Russell won. Wilt was at 44.8ppg 24.3regs with a record FG% efficeincy. Baylor was at 34ppg and 14 rebs and inferior on the boards. Baylor was 10ppg and 10rebounds below Wilt far less defensively and far less efficient. It wasn't about basketball.

I'm talking about 1962 exclusively though. I can't believe that the players, the media, and the coaches considered Russell the MVP over Wilt in '62 just because he was dating Kim Novak (I presume), especially given that Russell seemed not to have that good of a relationship with the media considering he would never sign autographs and was often considered too angry and militant. Also, the Celtics had their 2nd longest losing streak of Russell's career in 1962. It was a four game skid. Russell missed all four games with an Achilles tendon injury. (Ironically the longest losing streak of Russell's career was a five game skid during the 1969 season. Again Russell missed those five games with an injury.)

[jlauber]

@ the bolded part...
The players who actually faced Russell anywhere from 10-13 times each that season voted him MVP in a landslide. Not only that, the media who watched him play did an unofficial vote that season and again voted him the league's MVP in a landslide.

In that very year, 1962, Syracuse Nationals head coach, Alex Hannum, had the following to say about Russell, “From a coach’s viewpoint, Bill’s the most valuable player in the history of the game.”

My question is... If the players who played against him, the media who watched him, and the coaches that coached against him considered him the rightful MVP in 1962, under what credible authority do you claim that he should not have been the MVP that season?

My problem with this "voting" was this...

Take a look at Wilt's and Russell's numbers in the 59-60 season (Chamberlain's rookie year.) And then, take a look at their TEAM's W-L records. Wilt won the MVP award that year.

Now, do the same thing for the 61-62 season. Virtually every number was the same...EXCEPT...Chamberlain put up an even more staggering offensive season. Russell's stats and TEAM record were about the same, as was Chamberlain's TEAM record.

Furthermore, while I guess the voting was done before the post-season, how can anyone argue against Chamberlain in the playoffs, either. He took a FAR inferior roster (basically the same last place team he joined in his rookie season), to a game seven, two-point loss against a 60-20 Celtic team that had a 6-3 edge in HOFers.

There was an ESPN article last year (I believe) that not only ranked Wilt's 61-62 season as the greatest in NBA history...they claimed that it was the greatest EVER in ALL of major professional team sports HISTORY.


But let's carry this even further. Wilt led the NBA in rebounding and FG% in his 71-72 season, and was voted first team all-defense. He also took a team that had gone 48-34 the year before, to a 69-13 record, which was the best ever at the time...and a world title. Meanwhile, Kareem, played on a team that actually dropped from their record of the year before (going from 66-16 down to 63-19), but he did lead the NBA in scoring. Who won the MVP award that year? Of course, it was Kareem. Wilt did get some measure of revenge by winning the Finals MVP, but still, it sure seems like a double-standard to me.

And, as Pointguard pointed out. How does Wilt finish SEVENTH in the MVP balloting in his 62-63 season? All he did that year was LEAD the league in 15 of the 22 statistical categories (67%!), and by a huge margin in several. And, even though he played on an awful team, he still led the NBA in Win Shares, and here again, by a wide margin. On top of all of that, he set a PER mark of 31.8, which is still the highest in NBA history.

Now, for those that argue that Wilt played on a losing team in that 62-63 season...one, Kareem won the award on a losing team in his 75-76 season...and in a year that he was nowhere near as dominant as Wilt was in 62-63. And two, Wilt then took that same basic roster of 62-63 (along with rookie Nate Thurmond, who was playing part-time, out of position, and who shot .395) to the Finals the very next year. Did Wilt win the award that year, after taking a last-place team to the Finals the very next year? Nope...Russell wins it again.

Take a look at his 69-69 season...and keep in mind that not only did Unseld win the MVP award with FAR inferior stats (and who was abused by Chamberlain H2H)...but Wilt was NOWHERE to be found in the MVP balloting. How was that possible, in a year in which he averaged 20.5 ppg, led the NBA in rebounding, and led the NBA in FG%. On top of all of that, how good was his defense that year? In a game on Christmas day that year, he blocked 23 shots.

I'm sorry, but I am convinced that there was anti-Wilt bias in his entire career.

[G.O.A.T]

This is something I don't understand, if we view his FG% differently because of the league average, then shouldn't we also view a 30 point game different because of the extra 30-35 possessions per game? And I'd think a great scorer holding back his offense for the team would have a high FG% like Wilt in the late 60's/early 70's. It didn't prevent his teams from winning obviously, but scoring simply doesn't seem like it was one of Russell's strengths.

You have to view everything in context I think.

The scoring numbers sort of find their middle with the faster pace equaling lower percentages, but also it's important to note that that same faster pace allotted for statistical anomalies and exceptions (like Wilt). However for the most part if you compare the league's top scorer's, they are pretty level with most of the NBA's post-shot clock history.

The era Russell played in and the field goal percentage of the league is also why you have to take his rebounding numbers with a grain of salt.

Just like 20 rebounds in 1962 isn't 20 rebounds in 2011, 45% from the field in 1962 isn't 45% in 2011.

Russell was not a great scorer, and had he been asked to do it every night he and his team would have failed, but he understood that and channeled his efforts towards things that not every guy on his team could do.

And no, scoring was not Russell's strength, but he was above average at it by any era's standards. And he has some postseason numbers that stack up with just about any center in any era.

My problem is people saying he was limited offensively or an average or poor offensive player. How can a guy have the highest apg of any center all-time and have multiple Championship playoff runs and NBA finals where he topped 20 ppg and be an average offensive player?

How can he be called "the key to our offense after Cousy" by John Havlicek his teammate for five post-Cousy titles and be average?

It's just dumb and it bothers me a little that people don't admit their ignorance online, because if you confronted someone in person the same way they'd have no choice but to back down.

[pauk]

career - its between russel and jordan for me

talent - oscar robertson easily

[jlip]

I disagree regarding Jordan vs Wilt.

I think Jordan was a better scorer, I don't think it's a coincidence that despite playing in an era with far fewer shots that MJ's career playoff scoring average is 10.9 ppg higher than Wilt's, his highest scoring series are easily better than Wilt's, same with his highest scoring playoff runs.

Prime Wilt had a bigger impact defensively, IMO, but I think Jordan was the better offensive player.

And I also think that he impacted games at least as much, if not more, even with poor teammates, 3rd year MJ(who wasn't the player he was in his prime), carried his team to a 40-42 record. In one of his best individual years, Wilt's team was 31-49 and they missed the playoffs, and in '65, before he was traded to Philadelphia, I believe his Warriors were 11-33. I can't imagine prime Jordan leading teams to such poor records.

This is where I find that individual scoring volume is less a function of pace and more a function of role, system, but more specifically, number of shots taken by the player. It's perfectly understood that Wilt's era was a far faster era than Jordan's as far as pace is concerned. During Wilt's first 6 seasons he shot more than anybody in league history, but things changed after that. As a result, Wilt, again playing in a much faster era, and averaging over 7 more minutes of playing time attempted "only" 22.5 fg per game for his career. Jordan managed to attempt 22.9 fg per game for his career during the regular season in fewer minutes and in a slower pace.

In the playoffs Wilt attempted 17.1 shots per game while playing 47.2 mpg. In Jordan's slower era with fewer shots available he attempted 25.1 shots per game in just 41.8 mpg. Wilt did attempt more fts per game than Jordan though. It appears that pace and number of possessions was not a factor here. It's more or less a players' willingness to take shots. I found the same thing when I compared Kobe's shots per game with Oscar Robertson's.

[G.O.A.T]

My problem with this "voting" was this...

Take a look at Wilt's and Russell's numbers in the 59-60 season (Chamberlain's rookie year.) And then, take a look at their TEAM's W-L records. Wilt won the MVP award that year.

Yes he did, but then the playoffs happened and people remembered that Russell was the real MVP and thus he won it the nest three years. I would have voted for Wilt after the 1959-60 season too, his numbers were like nothing the league had ever seen, and previously when a center dominated the league statistically he won titles, so people assumed Wilt would in titles, but he didn't and Russell did, pretty simple to figure out if you eliminate your love for Wilt.

Wilt could have and should have been better than Russell, but he wasn't.



There was an ESPN article last year (I believe) that not only ranked Wilt's 61-62 season as the greatest in NBA history...they claimed that it was the greatest EVER in ALL of major professional team sports HISTORY.

If they mean in terms of stats, then yes. But it wasn't even his best season, so you know the person writing that is not very informed or passionate about the subject.



But let's carry this even further. Wilt led the NBA in rebounding and FG% in his 71-72 season, and was voted first team all-defense. He also took a team that had gone 48-34 the year before, to a 69-13 record, which was the best ever at the time...and a world title. Meanwhile, Kareem, played on a team that actually dropped from their record of the year before (going from 66-16 down to 63-19), but he did lead the NBA in scoring. Who won the MVP award that year? Of course, it was Kareem. Wilt did get some measure of revenge by winning the Finals MVP, but still, it sure seems like a double-standard to me.

A big part of the reason was because Wilt and West split votes. (West got more btw, so that tells you who the players viewed as the team leader, a major factor among players when voting for an MVP)


And, as Pointguard pointed out. How does Wilt finish SEVENTH in the MVP balloting in his 62-63 season?

Maybe because his team finished 20 games under .500 and last in attendance. Where is the value?

Was he dominant? was it an all-time great statisitical season? Of course, but it was not an MVP worthy season as the team went no where and lost money, they could have done that without him, and lost less money.


Now, for those that argue that Wilt played on a losing team in that 62-63 season...one, Kareem won the award on a losing team in his 75-76 season...and in a year that he was nowhere near as dominant as Wilt was in 62-63. And two, Wilt then took that same basic roster of 62-63 (along with rookie Nate Thurmond, who was playing part-time, out of position, and who shot .395) to the Finals the very next year. Did Wilt win the award that year, after taking a last-place team to the Finals the very next year? Nope...Russell wins it again.

Nope, Oscar got it that year.

[ShaqAttack3234]

You have to view everything in context I think.

The scoring numbers sort of find their middle with the faster pace equaling lower percentages, but also it's important to note that that same faster pace allotted for statistical anomalies and exceptions (like Wilt). However for the most part if you compare the league's top scorer's, they are pretty level with most of the NBA's post-shot clock history.

The era Russell played in and the field goal percentage of the league is also why you have to take his rebounding numbers with a grain of salt.

Just like 20 rebounds in 1962 isn't 20 rebounds in 2011, 45% from the field in 1962 isn't 45% in 2011.

Russell was not a great scorer, and had he been asked to do it every night he and his team would have failed, but he understood that and channeled his efforts towards things that not every guy on his team could do.

And no, scoring was not Russell's strength, but he was above average at it by any era's standards. And he has some postseason numbers that stack up with just about any center in any era.

My problem is people saying he was limited offensively or an average or poor offensive player. How can a guy have the highest apg of any center all-time and have multiple Championship playoff runs and NBA finals where he topped 20 ppg and be an average offensive player?

How can he be called "the key to our offense after Cousy" by John Havlicek his teammate for five post-Cousy titles and be average?

It's just dumb and it bothers me a little that people don't admit their ignorance online, because if you confronted someone in person the same way they'd have no choice but to back down.

Well, I think that Russell's ability to run the floor, set picks and get offensive rebounds ensured that he'd be able to score points, so I agree that he wasn't below average. My best description of him would be an opportunistic scorer. Not a dominant scorer, but a guy who could get points in a variety of ways, just not as far as I've seen by throwing the ball to him in the post and having him consistently create his own offense. But in that era with all of the fast breaks and missed shots, a guy who ran the floor so well and got so many offensive rebounds could be a scoring threat. And sometimes, you can get will your team to victory that way. I saw a bit of that with Dwight Howard in game 6 vs Cleveland when he had 40. He did score in the post, but a lot of his points were from outworking Varejao and Ilgauskas on the offensive glass, setting picks and rolling to the basket and running the floor.

Regarding assists, well, I think there were alot more "easy" assists back then such as this one. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJjBDUhbBcs#t=0m29s

Very simple pass and a defensive mistake, to Russell's credit, he spotted it, and he looked for the cutter first and saw that the cutter wasn't open, so you can see his IQ, but that's why I don't really view assist numbers the same.

Here's a nice pass though, and the type of play that I've always loved. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qiVAFBZzTac&feature=related#t=4m54s

That's an example of why I liked the early 2000s Kings so much, or why I like watching Pau Gasol, and why Bill Walton is one of my favorite players. But I haven't seen that many passes like that, and it's not a pass that I haven't seen other big men make.

If you have specific examples of Russell's passing then feel free to post them, but I'm a skeptic by nature, so I do have to see things for myself.

I think it'd be foolish to question whether he was a good passer, but it's different for me to compare him specifically to others who I've seen make enough great passes to list as some of the greatest passing big men of all time. I mean I've seen some phenomenal passes from Wilt in some early 70's Laker games, and not much footage of him exists.

[jlauber]

I disagree regarding Jordan vs Wilt.

I think Jordan was a better scorer, I don't think it's a coincidence that despite playing in an era with far fewer shots that MJ's career playoff scoring average is 10.9 ppg higher than Wilt's, his highest scoring series are easily better than Wilt's, same with his highest scoring playoff runs.

Prime Wilt had a bigger impact defensively, IMO, but I think Jordan was the better offensive player.

And I also think that he impacted games at least as much, if not more, even with poor teammates, 3rd year MJ(who wasn't the player he was in his prime), carried his team to a 40-42 record. In one of his best individual years, Wilt's team was 31-49 and they missed the playoffs, and in '65, before he was traded to Philadelphia, I believe his Warriors were 11-33. I can't imagine prime Jordan leading teams to such poor records.




I think that by 1990 Jordan was a capable 3 point shooter. The only years that he took a significant amount with the normal line, he shot 35 and 38%, respectively. In 1990, he was 12th in 3s made and only 7 of the players who made more 3s than Jordan that year shot a better %. His mid-range shot was also visibly better in '92 than '90, so I wonder how good of a season he could've had shooting 3s had he taken them regularly that year.


Jordan never played on a roster as bad as Wilt's 62-63 team. Jordan had the NBA's best rebounder on his 86-87 team. Wilt had a roster that collectively shot .412 without using his .528...which would have been well below the worst team in the league. BTW, did MJ ever take a 40-40 team to a game seven, ONE-POINT loss against a 62-18 team? Did he ever take a 49-31 team, that was outgunned by HOFers 6-3, to a game seven, two-point loss against a 60-20 team?

As far as Wilt's post-season scoring, I have addressed in MANY times. Wilt's TEAM was so bad in his 62-63 (his 45 ppg season) that they missed the playoffs. Wilt also faced a HOF center in nearly 67% of his 160 post-season games, as well as All-Star centers in several others. Not only that, but Wilt's TEAMS were outgunned by HOFers EVERY post-season, but one. In some of them by as much as a 7-2 margin (his 63-64 season...and his HOF teammate was rookie Nate Thurmond, who was playing part-time, out of position, and shooting .395 in the process.)

Furthermore, in Wilt's "scoring" seasons, from 59-60, he averaged 33 ppg and 26 rpg, on about 49% shooting, in league's that shot from .410 to .441, in the post-season. Meanwhile Jordan played in league's that nearly shot 50%...and his career post-season FG% at .487, was still well below Wilt's .522. Wilt not only had his share of HUGE playoff games, he had a 50-35 game against Russell (as well as several 40+ point games against him.) He had FOUR 50+ point games in the post-season, as well.

As far as regular season SCORING, SHOOTING, REBOUNDING, PASSING (yes Wilt LED the NBA one year), and probably DEFENSE (Wilt also probably blocked more shots in one season, than Jordan did in his career), Wilt was FAR greater than MJ. 70+ point games...Wilt has a 6-0 edge over MJ. 60+ point games? Wilt with a 32-5 edge. 50+ point games? Wilt with a 118-39 margin.

FG%? Wilt with a NINE-TO-ZERO edge in that category, including the two highest in NBA history.

Rebounding? This is truly laughable. Wilt was THE greatest rebounder in NBA history (and ESPECIALLY in the post-season, when he pounded even Russell.)

MJ was a better FT shooter, and a better 3 pt shooter (although, if you take away the year's when the NBA moved in the line, he only shot .288), and that was IT.

[gilalizard]

Wilt and Russell don't count because they played before the advent of ESPN.

Muhammad Ali Was a Rebel. Michael Jordan Is a Brand Name.

In celebrating Jordan as a hero, are we merely worshipping capitalism?

By Michael Crowley

http://www.nieman.harvard.edu/reports/article/102181/Muhammad-Ali-Was-a-Rebel-Michael-Jordan-Is-a-Brand-Name.aspx


Thanks for sharing that article. Very interesting.

I especially liked the comparison between MJ and Ali, and how as much as they are champions of their respective sports, they also represent what that meant to fans in different eras.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Jordan never played on a roster as bad as Wilt's 62-63 team. Jordan had the NBA's best rebounder on his 86-87 team. Wilt had a roster that collectively shot .412 without using his .528...which would have been well below the worst team in the league. BTW, did MJ ever take a 40-40 team to a game seven, ONE-POINT loss against a 62-18 team? Did he ever take a 49-31 team, that was outgunned by HOFers 6-3, to a game seven, two-point loss against a 60-20 team?

As far as Wilt's post-season scoring, I have addressed in MANY times. Wilt's TEAM was so bad in his 62-63 (his 45 ppg season) that they missed the playoffs. Wilt also faced a HOF center in nearly 67% of his 160 post-season games, as well as All-Star centers in several others. Not only that, but Wilt's TEAMS were outgunned by HOFers EVERY post-season, but one. In some of them by as much as a 7-2 margin (his 63-64 season...and his HOF teammate was rookie Nate Thurmond, who was playing part-time, out of position, and shooting .395 in the process.)

Furthermore, in Wilt's "scoring" seasons, from 59-60, he averaged 33 ppg and 26 rpg, on about 49% shooting, in league's that shot from .410 to .441, in the post-season. Meanwhile Jordan played in league's that nearly shot 50%...and his career post-season FG% at .487, was still well below Wilt's .522. Wilt not only had his share of HUGE playoff games, he had a 50-35 game against Russell (as well as several 40+ point games against him.) He had FOUR 50+ point games in the post-season, as well.

As far as regular season SCORING, SHOOTING, REBOUNDING, PASSING (yes Wilt LED the NBA one year), and probably DEFENSE (Wilt also probably blocked more shots in one season, than Jordan did in his career), Wilt was FAR greater than MJ. 70+ point games...Wilt has a 6-0 edge over MJ. 60+ point games? Wilt with a 32-5 edge. 50+ point games? Wilt with a 118-39 margin.

FG%? Wilt with a NINE-TO-ZERO edge in that category, including the two highest in NBA history.

Rebounding? This is truly laughable. Wilt was THE greatest rebounder in NBA history (and ESPECIALLY in the post-season, when he pounded even Russell.)

MJ was a better FT shooter, and a better 3 pt shooter (although, if you take away the year's when the NBA moved in the line, he only shot .288), and that was IT.

I don't know how you can just compare their scoring numbers without mentioning that Wilt took more shots.

Jordan attempted over 25 shots per game twice, his highest being 27.8, Wilt topped Jordan's 27.8 in each of his first 5 seasons with as much as 39.5 shots per game in his 3rd season.

As far as FG%? Jordan is a guard, when was the last time a high scoring guard led the NBA in FG%? Prime Jordan consistently shot between 51-54% from the field and 83-85% at the line. Wilt in his scoring years shot around the same percentage from the field, but closer to 50% from the line, 61% in his best season.

As far as scoring titles, Jordan has the record which is 10, while Wilt has 7. Now you could argue that Wilt may have been able to win scoring titles from '67-'69 had he been asked to and possibly '70 had he been healthy. But then you could say that had Jordan not retired in '94, and had he not been injured in '86 that he'd have 3 more himself. So Jordan has more scoring titles in reality and if you play the hypothetical game.

[gilalizard]

like 6-8, and no one because they didn't really have a cable deal yet.


Yeah, probably most people who saw Russell play on TV did it by adjusting the bunny ears on top of their sets.

[jlauber]

I don't know how you can just compare their scoring numbers without mentioning that Wilt took more shots.

Jordan attempted over 25 shots per game twice, his highest being 27.8, Wilt topped Jordan's 27.8 in each of his first 5 seasons with as much as 39.5 shots per game in his 3rd season.

As far as FG%? Jordan is a guard, when was the last time a high scoring guard led the NBA in FG%? Prime Jordan consistently shot between 51-54% from the field and 83-85% at the line. Wilt in his scoring years shot around the same percentage from the field, but closer to 50% from the line, 61% in his best season.

As far as scoring titles, Jordan has the record which is 10, while Wilt has 7. Now you could argue that Wilt may have been able to win scoring titles from '67-'69 had he been asked to and possibly '70 had he been healthy. But then you could say that had Jordan not retired in '94, and had he not been injured in '86 that he'd have 3 more himself. So Jordan has more scoring titles in reality and if you play the hypothetical game.

Once again, Wilt's FG% numbers were attained in league's that shot FAR worse than Jordan's. As far as scoring goes, Jordan took more shots per game in his career. Furthermore, when Wilt won his scoring titles, he won them by as much as 18.8 ppg (and another at 10 ppg.)

Wilt led the NBA in scoring, seven times. He led the NBA in FG%, nine times, He led the in rebounding, 11 times. And, he even led the NBA in assists one year, which is one more than MJ, a guard, did.

Not only that, but Wilt led the NBA in scoring and rebounding in the same season, FIVE times. He led the NBA in scoring AND FG%, in the same season, FOUR times. He led the NBA in rebounding and FG%, in the same season, EIGHT times. And, he led the NBA in scoring, rebounding, and FG%, in the same season, THREE times.

[jlauber]

Yes he did, but then the playoffs happened and people remembered that Russell was the real MVP and thus he won it the nest three years. I would have voted for Wilt after the 1959-60 season too, his numbers were like nothing the league had ever seen, and previously when a center dominated the league statistically he won titles, so people assumed Wilt would in titles, but he didn't and Russell did, pretty simple to figure out if you eliminate your love for Wilt.

Wilt could have and should have been better than Russell, but he wasn't.



So, from that 59-60 season thru that 63-64 season, here was Wilt statistically outplaying Russell in almost every facet of the game...and in many cases, by HUGE margins...and doing so on team's that were outgunned by HOFers by margins of 7-3, 7-3, 6-3, 8-1, and 7-2...and NEARLY beating two of those heavily-favored Celtic teams TWICE (losing game seven's by two and one point)...Russell was the better player?????


If they mean in terms of stats, then yes. But it wasn't even his best season, so you know the person writing that is not very informed or passionate about the subject.



Agreed. Wilt was even more dominant in his 66-67 season. And, a case could be made that Wilt's 62-63 was even greater than his 61-62 season. Of course, there has NEVER been an NBA player, in the HISTORY of the game, that could rival Wilt's 61-62 and 62-63 seasons, either.


A big part of the reason was because Wilt and West split votes. (West got more btw, so that tells you who the players viewed as the team leader, a major factor among players when voting for an MVP)



No, it was flat out anti-Wilt bias. Virtually everyone that watched the Lakers play that year KNEW that it was WILT leading that team. And, of course, while West really struggled in the post-season, Wilt took over in the playoffs.


Maybe because his team finished 20 games under .500 and last in attendance. Where is the value?

Was he dominant? was it an all-time great statisitical season? Of course, but it was not an MVP worthy season as the team went no where and lost money, they could have done that without him, and lost less money.



BUT, then Wilt takes that same crappy roster to the Finals the very next year, and a HUGE improvement over the year before...and Oscar wins the MVP (despite a MUCH better roster...and a far less improvement in team success.)

As far as the Warriors saving money without Wilt...well, they did trade Wilt. What happened next? Wilt took his Sixer team, a crappy team the year before, to a game seven, one point loss against the 62-18 Celtics. THEN, Chamberlain led the Sixers to the best record in the league over the course of the next three years, and a world championship...which included thumping those Warriors in the Finals.



Once again...I am CONVINCED that there was an anti-Wilt bias in his entire career in the NBA. Furthermore, many players resented the fact that he could so easily dominate them, and the entire league. Let's face reality...Wilt SHREDDED the NBA record book...in virtually everu category. It was so bad, that opposing centers were getting standing ovations when they would hold Wilt to 54 points (just as Darrell Imhoff.)

[G.O.A.T]

Once again...I am CONVINCED that there was an anti-Wilt bias in his entire career in the NBA. Furthermore, many players resented the fact that he could so easily dominate them, and the entire league. Let's face reality...Wilt SHREDDED the NBA record book...in virtually everu category. It was so bad, that opposing centers were getting standing ovations when they would hold Wilt to 54 points (just as Darrell Imhoff.)

I skipped everything else because we've already debated it.

I do wonder if you;ve ever considered the rnoy of you're two arguments being

a) Russell had better teammates
b) Wilt had better stats

Wouldn't A suggest that B was likely?

Regardless, my greater point is that you are wrong (in my opinion of course) to suggest their was an anti-Wilt bias, at least if you mean personally. Players liked Wilt (except his early teammates who resented him), if there was an anti-Wilt bias, it would have also shown in 1966, 67 and 68.

What there actually was, was an anti-not winning the title bias against him.

Right or wrong, the way NBA players think is that he who has the most talent should have the title. In over 100 NBA biographies I've researched that's the most common theme among players who were once elite or on an elite team.

As soon as Wilt's team started really winning consistently and he started playing a team game (which him not playing was not his fault, but his coaches request, we agree.) he was an MVP lock.

Once he got to LA and wasted a sure title season by feuding with a stubborn coach, he had to dodge that stigma again.

If someone never watched, or read about those seasons and just viewed the stats, it would seem ludicrous that Wilt wasn't the MVP, but when you consider the context overall, it makes perfect sense.

You like Wilt, so you give him the benefit of the doubt, others who were less talent, but believed they worked harder and understood how to play the game the right way better resented him. And his team's losing, though not primarily his fault as sometimes presented to be sure, was excuse enough to justify their resentment.

Let's remember too that from '61 to '63, not just the players, but the media and a private Sport Magazine poll selected Russell as MVP. I do think it's pretty disrespectful to diminish that by suggesting it was a conspiracy against Dippy.

[G.O.A.T]

Well, I think that Russell's ability to run the floor, set picks and get offensive rebounds ensured that he'd be able to score points, so I agree that he wasn't below average. My best description of him would be an opportunistic scorer.

That's about perfect. If the opposing team was weak at center he'd go for 30, if he was playing Wilt, he'd shoot only enough to make Wilt keep going for his ball fakes and to force him to expend some energy on the defensive end.


Not a dominant scorer, but a guy who could get points in a variety of ways, just not as far as I've seen by throwing the ball to him in the post and having him consistently create his own offense. But in that era with all of the fast breaks and missed shots, a guy who ran the floor so well and got so many offensive rebounds could be a scoring threat. And sometimes, you can get will your team to victory that way.

Again, I think you're spot on. He was not a guy you could throw the ball into every other possession and say get me 30, he was a guy who could score 20 without you noticing.

Early on he was like Ben Wallace in that no plays were ever run for him (though Ben and Rip Hamilton did an alley oop screen and roll off an elbow curl) but unlike Wallace, Russell would find ways to score 10-20 consistently because he understood the timing and spacing of the game so well. Russell would constantly find ways to help others score while simultaneously looking for opportunities for an easy two of his won.


Regarding assists, well, I think there were alot more "easy" assists back then such as this one. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJjBDUhbBcs#t=0m29s

Very simple pass and a defensive mistake, to Russell's credit, he spotted it, and he looked for the cutter first and saw that the cutter wasn't open, so you can see his IQ, but that's why I don't really view assist numbers the same.

If there were so many though, how come in a game with more made field goals, fewer were assisted on?

Assists weren't given out the same way either. Regardless, Russell was putting up numbers that near and sometimes above half the league leader. How many centers have ever done that?


If you have specific examples of Russell's passing then feel free to post them, but I'm a skeptic by nature, so I do have to see things for myself.

I wish I had more examples, but honestly there are like 20 Russell games floating out their and though I've seen a handful more, I don't personally own any nor can a cite a specific play from the games I have seen.

Most of my opinion on Russell is formed based on what his peers and contemporaries have had to say about him. I feel they are more qualified to judge than I. That goes the same for today's players. I have my opinions, but I also know how little I really know about the players.

[Pointguard]

I skipped everything else because we've already debated it.

I do wonder if you;ve ever considered the rnoy of you're two arguments being

a) Russell had better teammates
b) Wilt had better stats

Wouldn't A suggest that B was likely?

Regardless, my greater point is that you are wrong (in my opinion of course) to suggest their was an anti-Wilt bias, at least if you mean personally. Players liked Wilt (except his early teammates who resented him), if there was an anti-Wilt bias, it would have also shown in 1966, 67 and 68.

There definitely was a hughe anti Wilt bias. Are you seriously saying that is not the case??? Everybody hates goliath wasn't applied to earlier big people. You really think Wilt was 7th in MVP voting in '63??? Where Wilt was nearly shut out? Players back then might have saw game tape here and there of other games but they were voting basically on what they saw in boxscores. In a natural world, players hate the dynasties that prevent them from winning, getting notoriety, HOF votes and championships.

Wilt's out of mind statistical years came shortly after the nation was transfixed on Maris and Mantle chasing 61 homers. Like I said before the Nation was obsessed with offense. This race for 61 was stealing headlines for weeks - while there was a real threat of atomic war - we wanted to be on the offensive end of that as well. We wanted to be the first to the moon. Sports numbers was the way of the nation. 714 was as american as apple pie. Pele was showing the value of skill and scoring in soccer as well. Yet Wilt's numbers which were more of a deviation of great output than we witness in any other sport (the race to 61 would have been broken in the area of 100) is worth an incredible void of support. One year with six guys that were far inferior defensively as well getting more support.


What there actually was, was an anti-not winning the title bias against him. They voted before the playoffs ('61). And they weren't win crazy in their voting in other years.


If someone never watched, or read about those seasons and just viewed the stats, it would seem ludicrous that Wilt wasn't the MVP, but when you consider the context overall, it makes perfect sense. I could believe that in one of the years but defintely not two, and him finishing seventh provides more context than the context you speak of.


You like Wilt, so you give him the benefit of the doubt, others who were less talent, but believed they worked harder and understood how to play the game the right way better resented him. And his team's losing, though not primarily his fault as sometimes presented to be sure, was excuse enough to justify their resentment. Wouldn't these people resent Russell who didn't develop his offense and was blessed with a great situation, more so than Wilt??? Players are competitors they want to secure the advantages they have on superior talents. No way does a player resent MJ not playing the game right. That would be their dream and him loosing! Icing on the cake.

[Pointguard]

My problem is people saying he was limited offensively or an average or poor offensive player. How can a guy have the highest apg of any center all-time and have multiple Championship playoff runs and NBA finals where he topped 20 ppg and be an average offensive player?

How can he be called "the key to our offense after Cousy" by John Havlicek his teammate for five post-Cousy titles and be average?

It's just dumb and it bothers me a little that people don't admit their ignorance online, because if you confronted someone in person the same way they'd have no choice but to back down.

Don't know if this was a reference to me, so I will reiterate.
I said he was limited offensivley in comparison to GOATS - all of which I named. AND in every sport the Great Ones are creative and proficient with the instrument in use - except Russell. I also said Russell was GWOAT.

[momo]

Celtics fans crack me up. Bill Russell's skillset resembled a Deke Mutombo at best. He played in a weak era and won a lot... who cares?

That is nonsense.

[G.O.A.T]

There definitely was a hughe anti Wilt bias. Are you seriously saying that is not the case??? Everybody hates goliath wasn't applied to earlier big people. You really think Wilt was 7th in MVP voting in '63??? Where Wilt was nearly shut out? Players back then might have saw game tape here and there of other games but they were voting basically on what they saw in boxscores. In a natural world, players hate the dynasties that prevent them from winning, getting notoriety, HOF votes and championships.

Once again Wilt was seventh because his team missed the playoffs in a league where 67% of the teams qualify for the postseason. I would have left him off my ballot all together. Finishing 7th of 9 teams and last in attendence means no one was valuable.

Now Wilt's season is historically very significant from an individual and statistical perspective.

And unless you have some evidence to suggest players voted based on something besides the 10 times they played each team and 5-10 they watched them play then you're just making stuff up.

I am disgusted by people in this thread trying to act like they individually are more qualified to determine the MVP of a basketball season than the actual players who played that season.


I could believe that in one of the years but defintely not two, and him finishing seventh provides more context than the context you speak of.

What? The context of him finishing seventh is that his team finished seventh.

Why does it surprise you that he finished so low, that's how that works historically.



Wouldn't these people resent Russell who didn't develop his offense and was blessed with a great situation, more so than Wilt???

No, because that's not how people viewed it at the time. Going to Boston wasn't viewed as some great situation. In addition Russell played a team first game 100%, so players loved him, especially his teammates, whereas Wilt's teammates early on did not like his style of play or the way he was treated by coaches.

The especially didn't like him after he claimed to be quitting after the 1960 playoffs. At that point it was start winning or shut up about Wilt.




Don't know if this was a reference to me, so I will reiterate.
I said he was limited offensivley in comparison to GOATS - all of which I named. I also said Russell was GWOAT.

Comparatively to Russell, Jordan was limited on defense then too right? After all Jordan did not have the capability to impact games with his shot blocking.

What about Bird or Magic's defense? Are you going to tell me that they were as good defensively as Russell was offensively? Because if you do, I think you're a liar. No one ever hid Russell on offense, in fact after 1963, they ran the offense through him. A limited player could not be the focal point of a team's offense that wins five titles in six years.

As far as you calling Russell the greatest winner, a lot of people do that, but not as a compliment, but as a way of dismissing him from the company of other less accomplished and respected player who they feel have a more complete skill set.

Winning is the point of the game, and all sports. If Russell is the greatest winner then he is the greatest player and the debate ends. If you don't think that way than something besides winning must be most important to you.

I've said this before, but we are not scouting players on potential or what they could do based on our opinions. We are evaluating careers, things that happened and things that didn't.


AND in every sport the Great Ones are creative and proficient with the instrument in use - except Russell.

Really, do you want to stand by this as your opinion. Because that sounds ****ing ridiculous to me.

[Niquesports]

Once again Wilt was seventh because his team missed the playoffs in a league where 67% of the teams qualify for the postseason. I would have left him off my ballot all together. Finishing 7th of 9 teams and last in attendence means no one was valuable.

Now Wilt's season is historically very significant from an individual and statistical perspective.

And unless you have some evidence to suggest players voted based on something besides the 10 times they played each team and 5-10 they watched them play then you're just making stuff up.

I am disgusted by people in this thread trying to act like they individually are more qualified to determine the MVP of a basketball season than the actual players who played that season.



What? The context of him finishing seventh is that his team finished seventh.

Why does it surprise you that he finished so low, that's how that works historically.




No, because that's not how people viewed it at the time. Going to Boston wasn't viewed as some great situation. In addition Russell played a team first game 100%, so players loved him, especially his teammates, whereas Wilt's teammates early on did not like his style of play or the way he was treated by coaches.

The especially didn't like him after he claimed to be quitting after the 1960 playoffs. At that point it was start winning or shut up about Wilt.





Comparatively to Russell, Jordan was limited on defense then too right? After all Jordan did not have the capability to impact games with his shot blocking.

What about Bird or Magic's defense? Are you going to tell me that they were as good defensively as Russell was offensively? Because if you do, I think you're a liar. No one ever hid Russell on offense, in fact after 1963, they ran the offense through him. A limited player could not be the focal point of a team's offense that wins five titles in six years.

As far as you calling Russell the greatest winner, a lot of people do that, but not as a compliment, but as a way of dismissing him from the company of other less accomplished and respected player who they feel have a more complete skill set.

Winning is the point of the game, and all sports. If Russell is the greatest winner then he is the greatest player and the debate ends. If you don't think that way than something besides winning must be most important to you.

I've said this before, but we are not scouting players on potential or what they could do based on our opinions. We are evaluating careers, things that happened and things that didn't.



Really, do you want to stand by this as your opinion. Because that sounds ****ing ridiculous to me.
Im 80% with you G.O.A.T. however I think you put way too much emphasis on a player being on a winning "TEAM".Everything i have read and heard is enough for me to know Russell is the greatest "TEAM" leader of all time.I wouldn't call him the Greatest player of all time.IS it that simple that Russ would have won 11 titles if he had played with the Hawks? how many of those titles did Sam Jones and Hondo ect... have at least 3/4 th the impact Russell had ? How much of a impact did Red have who many have called the Greatest leader of men of all time?Being the focal player of a "TEAM" winning 11 titles is phenomenal,however that alone doesn't make him a better individual player than Wilt,Elgin,Oscar,Magic,Bird,KAJ.I like leadership in players thats why I love Russ,Magic,Oscar,Isiah MJ,Kobe.I think Wilt was much like Lebron is today outstanding skill set,but questionable leadership.

[G.O.A.T]

Im 80% with you G.O.A.T. however I think you put way too much emphasis on a player being on a winning "TEAM".Everything i have read and heard is enough for me to know Russell is the greatest "TEAM" leader of all time.I wouldn't call him the Greatest player of all time.IS it that simple that Russ would have won 11 titles if he had played with the Hawks? how many of those titles did Sam Jones and Hondo ect... have at least 3/4 th the impact Russell had ? How much of a impact did Red have who many have called the Greatest leader of men of all time?

I know what you mean and I imagine it comes off that way to some, but the facts are the facts.

Red was a coach for ten years and never won a title before Russell. Cousy and Sharman six years together no rings with a HOF center in Ed Maccauley playing with them. Hondo and the Celtics finished in last place the year after Russell left and won just two titles in seven seasons with a HOF center in Cowens. Sam Jones was the man, but he was never nearly as valuable as Russell and he'd be the first to tell you.

As for Russell going to the Hawks...

I think the Dynasty is even more dominant. Russell, Pettit and Lovellette on the same team? Remember the Hawks got to the Finals in '57, '58, '60 and '61...they went 1-3, all vs. Boston. Now if we were to replay those series with Russell and Cliff Hagan switching places, don't you think the Hawks win all four?

What about if Russell went #1 in the draft to the Royals?

Russell and Maurice Stokes together pre-Wilt...DOMINATION.

Later on you could see a roster with Oscar, Russell, Jerry Lucas and Jack Twyman...WOW! (remember Oscar and Luc were territorial selections)

Put him on the Warriors or Pistons or Nats (all title contenders the previous seasons) and he is a sure title with those teams.

The only teams he might struggle with initially were the Lakers (who had a plan to get him but it flopped) and the Knicks.

Even then, he won everywhere he went and I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.


Being the focal player of a "TEAM" winning 11 titles is phenomenal,however that alone doesn't make him a better individual player than Wilt,Elgin,Oscar,Magic,Bird,KAJ.I like leadership in players thats why I love Russ,Magic,Oscar,Isiah MJ,Kobe.I think Wilt was much like Lebron is today outstanding skill set,but questionable leadership.

11 titles in 13 years is so freaking amazing.

Consider that it started and ended with his arrival and departure from the league and it gets more impressive.

Factor in that the team he came to had no history of winning (only NBA franchise that had not won a title or made the finals in one league or another) and it gets even more astounding.

Throw in that he was the first black superstar, the first black MVP, the first black player to lead a team to a title, the first black coach in any sport, the first black coach to win a title in any sport and still the only black coach to win back-to-back titles in the NBA and you're mind is sufficiently blown I assume.

21-0 in do or die games for his career
10-0 in game sevens
11-1 in the Finals with his one loss coinciding with the only major injury of his career.

At some point it all stops being coincidence.

[kizut1659]

You have to view everything in context I think.

The scoring numbers sort of find their middle with the faster pace equaling lower percentages, but also it's important to note that that same faster pace allotted for statistical anomalies and exceptions (like Wilt). However for the most part if you compare the league's top scorer's, they are pretty level with most of the NBA's post-shot clock history.

The era Russell played in and the field goal percentage of the league is also why you have to take his rebounding numbers with a grain of salt.

Just like 20 rebounds in 1962 isn't 20 rebounds in 2011, 45% from the field in 1962 isn't 45% in 2011.

Russell was not a great scorer, and had he been asked to do it every night he and his team would have failed, but he understood that and channeled his efforts towards things that not every guy on his team could do.

And no, scoring was not Russell's strength, but he was above average at it by any era's standards. And he has some postseason numbers that stack up with just about any center in any era.

My problem is people saying he was limited offensively or an average or poor offensive player. How can a guy have the highest apg of any center all-time and have multiple Championship playoff runs and NBA finals where he topped 20 ppg and be an average offensive player?

How can he be called "the key to our offense after Cousy" by John Havlicek his teammate for five post-Cousy titles and be average?

It's just dumb and it bothers me a little that people don't admit their ignorance online, because if you confronted someone in person the same way they'd have no choice but to back down.

I never said Russel was an average offensive player - only that he was not a great offensive player. You did not answer my previous question - what was the league FG% during that time - i am genuinely curious. I do agree that Russel did have some couple years where he put up good offensive numbers in playoffs, namely in 62 and 63, even though again they are still not near Chamberlain or KAJ category. What were the NBA finals where he tooped 20ppg per game? I am pretty sure 1962 was one of them? Any other ones?

[G.O.A.T]

I never said Russel was an average offensive player - only that he was not a great offensive player. You did not answer my previous question - what was the league FG% during that time - i am genuinely curious. I do agree that Russel did have some couple years where he put up good offensive numbers in playoffs, namely in 62 and 63, even though again they are still not near Chamberlain or KAJ category. What were the NBA finals where he tooped 20ppg per game? I am pretty sure 1962 was one of them? Any other ones?

Russell

When Russell entered the league the league's FG% was 38%, by the early 60's it had moved to 42% and by the late 60's 44%.

I know he topped 20 a game for the Finals in '62, '63 and '66 and I think maybe '68, if not he was close.

In '65 he scored 18 a game on 75% shooting from the field and had two-triple doubles (potential quadruple doubles if we had block numbers) in a five game series.

[kizut1659]

Russell

When Russell entered the league the league's FG% was 38%, by the early 60's it had moved to 42% and by the late 60's 44%.

I know he topped 20 a game for the Finals in '62, '63 and '66 and I think maybe '68, if not he was close.

In '65 he scored 18 a game on 75% shooting from the field and had two-triple doubles (potential quadruple doubles if we had block numbers) in a five game series.

Russel's career fg% is 44% (43% for playoffs) so sounds like he was a couple percentage point better than the league average average over the span of his career. Is there a website where the stats for 60s games are available - i have had a hard time finding them.

[Round Mound]

Russell is great: best defender and 2nd best rebounder of his era but MJ played bothe ends and dominated both at his spot.

[Duncan21formvp]

The same reason Wayne Gretzky is considered the greatest Hockey player all time despite only having 4 rings. Or should Henri Richard who won 11 Stanley Cups be the GOAT for Hockey?

Babe Ruth won 7 championships in Baseball and is considered the GOAT, however Yogi Berra won 10 championships in Baseball and is not considered the GOAT.

While I put Russell in the top 3 with MJ and Kareem, as you can see from those examples, why just having the most titles doesn't make you GOAT. And Yogi Berra was damn good.

[Pointguard]

Once again Wilt was seventh because his team missed the playoffs in a league where 67% of the teams qualify for the postseason. I would have left him off my ballot all together. Finishing 7th of 9 teams and last in attendence means no one was valuable.
Players vote as players and fans of the game. They don't vote as GM's. They prefer fewer fans on the road, there is a quiet auditorium feel that has a practice feel without any added pressure. Now if you are suggesting that their crowds were fewer for home games then you would have to understand the anti Wilt stand people were taking. Knick and Philadelphia fans would go to Jersey to see a guy average 50ppg and who has the capacity to get 100 on a night. They do it now for Lebron and Blake Griffin. Besides didn't the franchise just move that year?

This dynamic of winning as being an override on assessing MVP's wasn't true when Petite set up how this MVP thing would work in 1956 (5 years prior) - He was on a team with a loosing record. Nor was winning an overriding dynamic in the more established sports. Any gigantic deviation in stat's was recognized in all of the sports. As I said before Musial wasn't on the level of Mickey Mantle but he won MVP because of the numberical number of home runs. This was the year before Wilt's domination. The winning thing wasn't phenom it was then.

Russell was part of Wilt's get dominated party. He got his cake just like everybody else. Players know when a guy is better than the other. Russell had unbreakable records broke on him just like the others. And Wilt did it where one of Russells claim to fame were. Without looking I know that Russell, supposedly Wilt's defensive equal to Chamberlain's offense, was holding Wilt to half his average in anything. Wilt had a hughe number of games above his average against Russell during the first 5 years. And 12 games (this is a cumulative number) where he doubled Russell's scoring along with more than a double digit rebounding edge. That's domination.


And unless you have some evidence to suggest players voted based on something besides the 10 times they played each team and 5-10 they watched them play then you're just making stuff up.
LOL, you're telling me in all the books you read, that the players on numerous occassions don't say "then I looked at the boxscores." - you think they're playing Suduko??? You aren't playing me stupid with that comment.


I am disgusted by people in this thread trying to act like they individually are more qualified to determine the MVP of a basketball season than the actual players who played that season.
I'm saying that there is politics, a dislike of Wilt's dating practices, Red Aurabach and people who were more swayed by those things more than basketball.



What? The context of him finishing seventh is that his team finished seventh.

When he outscored Russell by 31ppg and three rebounds his teams record was 49 and 31. And were in 2nd place in the East.


Why does it surprise you that he finished so low, that's how that works historically. The greatest statistical year (I'm talking 1961 here which was a 2nd place finish in wins). Is good enough in every sport to win MVP unaminously across the board. It wasn't like Wilt's defense was bad either. His statistical proportions in baseball would have been at least a 7 homerun game with 21 RBI's single game and a 90 homerun 200 RBI season.


No, because that's not how people viewed it at the time. Going to Boston wasn't viewed as some great situation. So now you're telling me they don't want to win or value winning? You can't have it both ways.


In addition Russell played a team first game 100%, so players loved him, especially his teammates, whereas Wilt's teammates early on did not like his style of play or the way he was treated by coaches.
I would jump for joy knowing that the guy who got 60 points on me and took the finest girl intown would have coaching problems! Oh and Russell wasn't some Magic Johnson. He passed a lot because Cousy and Heinsohn were better at scoring.


The especially didn't like him after he claimed to be quitting after the 1960 playoffs. At that point it was start winning or shut up about Wilt.
So it wasn't about his play??? I personally like a guy that considered quitting and then sets the bar much higher than anybody else. You also way overestimate the number of people who have this win at all cost attitude that Russell had. Some people play for money, some play because they enjoy the game, some because of the fame. I really believe that the obssessive winners are few. Perhaps more in that day than now. But I only have Duncan, KG, Ginobli, Lebron, Dwade and a few others in this group. And I don't think they are overwhelmingly respected for this trait.


Comparatively to Russell, Jordan was limited on defense then too right? After all Jordan did not have the capability to impact games with his shot blocking.

In all fairness to Jordan, teams didn't pass the ball on his side of the court because they feared his defense. Teams feared the double down on his side because he would steal or knock the ball off of the offensibe players leg out of bounds. So they feared the turnover like they feared a great shot blocker.


What about Bird or Magic's defense? Are you going to tell me that they were as good defensively as Russell was offensively? Because if you do, I think you're a liar. No one ever hid Russell on offense, in fact after 1963, they ran the offense through him. A limited player could not be the focal point of a team's offense that wins five titles in six years. Magic controlled the pace of the game and got steals. People did not think clearly because Magic had them playing his game. Bird's Celtics was one of the most disciplined teams the league had in the 80's. When Magic controlled the pace, Boston was highly inefficient on offense across the board Parrish and McHale excluded as they weren't under the same pressure. The guards and SF were out of their element. Magic had his tenticles in defense thru his control of tempo and the deception that the game was a free for all. Bird talked trash at such high levels players got crosseyed and they saw two rims. LOL, but true. But your question is too hard for me to answer. If I seen Russell play more I could see how he was interwined in the offense better.


As far as you calling Russell the greatest winner, a lot of people do that, but not as a compliment, but as a way of dismissing him from the company of other less accomplished and respected player who they feel have a more complete skill set.
No. If Russell wanted to be GOAT he should have gotten to the gym and worked on his low post game. If Wilt wanted to be GOAT he should have played his heart out in the playoffs. KAJ and Shaq needed more energy and hustle. Magic and Bird improved themselves in every way but didn't have the defensive end tight. Jordan is the only one I can't find an angle on. He worked hard, he dominated, he improved, his hunger wasn't surpassed.


Winning is the point of the game, and all sports. If Russell is the greatest winner then he is the greatest player and the debate ends. If you don't think that way than something besides winning must be most important to you. He was never totally responsible for his wins - no one is in team sports. Red Aurabach was very key as he put together a very structured team. They played united. They played with a scoring unit. They played, defense, they played in a winning way. Russell wasn't responsible for scoring. He wasn't responsible for the pieces. He wasn't even responsible for consistent inside scoring. You don't win without that. You need a lot of pieces and Russell was a few but you need a lot.

Isn't there this maxim that good offense beats good defense... . If I outscore you I win... Russell was great on the reactive side of the ball not the proactive. I think he was good offensively but not great.

Greatness comes to us when we are confident, proficient, creative, skilled, and resourceful with whatever instrument we use. Please, let me know of the exceptions. With a ball in his hand Russell is not the greatest ever.

IMO, He didn't even work toward that end.

[jlauber]

In the Russell-Wilt debate, people tend to overlook, or do not know, that Wilt was drafted in HIGH SCHOOL, and the year before his rookie season, his Warrior team finished in LAST PLACE.

How about Russell? He came to a Boston team (via a trade) that had finished 39-33 the year before. Not only that, but the Celtics ALSO drafted Tom Heinsohn. So Boston replaced Ed McCauley with Russell AND added Heinsohn to an already quality team. On top of all of that, the Celtics drafted Sam Jones the very next year. So, it was NOT just Russell who turned the Celts into champs, but SEVERAL quality players...along with a HOF coach (something Wilt did not have for many years.)

BTW, for all of Auerbach's anti-Wilt comments throughout his career, he DESPERATELY wanted Wilt while Chamberlain was still in High School.

And while Wilt, himself stated that Russell blended better with his HOF teammates, than perhaps he (Wilt) would have, the fact was, once Chamberlain was surrounded with a decent supporting cast, they were a powerhouse EVERY year from '66 thru '68 with the Sixers (they had the best record in the league each year, and won a dominating title in '67.) AND, his Laker teams went to FOUR Finals in FIVE years, and again, won a title in record-breaking fashion in '72. So, in Wilt's last eight years he was knocking at a title every year but one. And, there were a variety of reasons why six of the eight did not win rings. Poor coaching (especially in '69), poor play by teammates (especially in the post-season...like '66, '68, and '69), horribly officiated games (game five cost LA a title in '70), and devastating injuries (with SEVERAL of them in '68.) BUT, while Wilt languished on some horrible teams, Russell always had a handful of HOFers to fall back on. Russell NEVER had to play with rosters that Wilt had in his first six seasons (and his 62-63 teammates were probably the worst in NBA history.)

Furthermore, there are those that look at Russell's 7-1 TEAM edge in the post-season against Wilt's TEAM's, and somehow believe that Russell dominated Wilt. The fact was, Wilt's TEAM's lost FOUR game seven's to Russell's TEAM's, by a TOTAL of NINE points. And two of those teams were vastly inferior to Russell's TEAM's ('62 and '65.) And, in the '64 Finals, Russell's Celtic's enjoyed a 7-2 edge in HOFers, too.

In their ten years in the league, Russell's Celtics had a SIGNIFICANT edge in talent in six of them. In their first six years, Russell's TEAM's had an edge in HOFers by 7-3, 7-3, 6-3, 8-1, 7-2, and 5-2 margins. In their last four years, when Chamberlain finally had quality supporting casts, Wilt's TEAM's all finished ahead of Russell's in the regular season. BUT, Russell STILL had an edge in HOF teammates EVERY year...as well as much deeper rosters.

Of course, there will be those that argue that Russell's TEAM's still beat Wilt's TEAM's, 3-1 in that span. First of all, Wilt's '66 76ers won their last 11 games to edge Russell's Celtics by ONE game. Boston was STILL the seven-time defending champs, as well, and once again, were much deeper. On top of that, Wilt averaged 28 ppg, 30 rpg, and shot .509 in the ECF's against Russell that year, but Chamberlain's teammates were AWFUL. Jackson shot .429; Walker shot .375; Jones shot .325; Greer shot .325; and Cunningham shot .161. So, CLEARLY, it was NOT Chamberlain's fault that his TEAM did not win the title that year.

How about the '67-68 season, then, when Wilt's TEAM ran roughshod over the NBA and outdistanced Boston by eight games...and then lost a game seven to Boston, by four points in the ECF's? Well, for those that may not have read this before...the Sixers played that entire series without HOFer Cunningham, who broke his wrist in the previous round. And, even without him, Philly still had a 3-1 series lead. However, in game five, BOTH Jackson and Jones suffered leg injuries, and were worthless the last three games. Even more devastasting, was that Chamberlain was injured in game THREE of that series, and was noticeably hobbled the REST of the series. Even Russell acknowledged that a lessor player would not have played. On top of all of that, in game seven, the Sixer players did NOT pass the ball to Chamberlain the second half of that game (he only TOUCHED the ball a handful of times in the entire second half), AND, they collectively shot 33%...in a four point loss.

How about the '68-69 season, then, when Wilt's Lakers had a 55-27 record, to Boston's 48-34...and STILL lost a game seven, by TWO points in the Finals to the Celts? I have documented that series MANY times, but here is a quick recap:

Boston players hit TWO miraculous game-winning shots in that seven game series. Wilt's TEAMMATE, Elgin Baylor did absolutely nothing in games three thru five ( a TOTAL of 24 points), and two of those games were close losses. And then there was Johnny Egan...who basically replaced HOFer Gail Goodrich from the year before. Had Egan not lost the ball in the waning moments of game four, when LA had the lead, and the ball, in a series that they led 2-1, the Lakers would have won that game four to go up 3-1. And after easily beating Boston in game five, 117-104, they would have won the title, 4-1. Instead, he lost the ball, and Sam Jones hit one of those two miraculous game-winners, at the buzzer, and while falling down. And finally, there was Chamberlain's incompetent coach...who had no idea how to use Wilt, but who preferred Baylor shooting blanks to Wilt's offense. The idiot even made the comment that while the Lakers would score when they passed the ball into Wily, the offense looked "ugly." Of course, his biggest gaffe was in leaving Wilt on the bench in the last five minutes of that game seven...a two-point loss. His excuse? Wilt's teammate, Mel Counts, was playing well in Chamberlain's absence. Hmmm...Chamberlain shot 7-8 from the floor in that game...while Counts shot 4-13. Had Wilt been lucky enough to have even Carrot-Top as his coach, the Lakers probably would have won the title.

All of which brings us to Wilt's 66-67 TEAM. That team romped to the best record in NBA history (at the time), and ran away from the 60-21 Celtics (one of Boston's best records during their Dynasty BTW), with a 68-13 record. In their H2H matchup in the ECF's, Chamberlain's TEAMMATES neutalized Russell's usual edge, and with Wilt just crushing Russell in EVERY facet of the game, the Sixers routed Boston, 4-1 (and had they not lost a close game four in Boston, they would have swept them.)

Now, for those that argue that Russell COULD have scored more against Wilt...why DIDN'T he in that '67 series? In fact, in the clinching game five loss, Russell scored FOUR points on 2-5 shooting...while Wilt poured in 29 points on 10-16 shooting. Furthermore, in the clinching game five loss of the '66 ECF's, when Chamberlain's TEAMMATES were just pathetic, Wilt put up a 46-34 game against Russell. If Russell were truly a better player than Wilt, why didn't he reciprocate in the '67 ECF's?

And, the really interesting fact about those '67 ECF's, was that Wilt dominated Russell in the SAME fashion that he did in nearly every H2H post-season series encounter. The difference, obviously, was that, for once, Wilt's TEAMMATES were just as good as Russell's, and they were healthy, as well. The fact was, Wilt routinely outscored Russell by HUGE margins in their post-season margins, as well as outrebounding Russell in EVERY H2H post-season series (and in some, by HUGE margins.) And, given the known FG% numbers in their 142 H2H games, Chamberlain probably outshot Russell in EVERY post-season series, and we do KNOW that he outshot him by a .556 to .358 margin in '67.

As I have stated many times now, Russell may have slightly outplayed Wilt in a small number of their 142 H2H games, but Wilt not only outplayed him in the vast majority of them, he absolutely buried him in some 40 of those games.

Now, hopefully that will give the readers here a little better perspective on the Russell-Wilt rivalry.

[G.O.A.T]

In the Russell-Wilt debate, people tend to overlook, or do not know, that Wilt was drafted in HIGH SCHOOL, and the year before his rookie season, his Warrior team finished in LAST PLACE.

You tend to overlook why they finished in last place.

Do you need me to remind you or are you going to acknowledge the obvious reason and also point out that Wilt came to a team with 2 HOFers in their prime (same number as Russell did).



No. If Russell wanted to be GOAT he should have gotten to the gym and worked on his low post game.

A lot of our disagree is over semantics, but this is where you lose me completely.

For Russell to be considered the greatest you believe he would have had to do something that he proved he didn't need to do for his team to win?

He should have not done what he did do, which always worked, and instead done something arbitrary to meet your standard?

All the other players whose weaknesses you listed cost them and their teams title's, Russell's did not. Only an injury and the Greatest Single Season performance by a player in NBA history did.


Greatness comes to us when we are confident, proficient, creative, skilled, and resourceful with whatever instrument we use. Please, let me know of the exceptions. With a ball in his hand Russell is not the greatest ever.

IMO, He didn't even work toward that end.

Luckily for Russell, he figured out that as a center in the 1950's and 60's about 95% of the time he'd be playing the game without the ball in hand, I'd say he had the right approach.

[AllenIverson3]

ur a ****in dumb ass...Robert Horry has 7 rings....Is he better than shaq, duncan, jordan kobe??? gtfo with that logic... u must be no older than 12 years old.

[jlauber]

You tend to overlook why they finished in last place.

Do you need me to remind you or are you going to acknowledge the obvious reason and also point out that Wilt came to a team with 2 HOFers in their prime (same number as Russell did).



Huh????

Let's take a look at their respective rosters in Wilt's rookie season...

Wilt did have ONE legitimate great teammate, Paul Arizin, but to say that he was in his prime is to say that almost all of Russell's HOF teammates were in their prime. Arizin was 31 in Wilt's rookie season, and was done by age 33.

You always bring up Wilt's HOF teammates, much like Bill Simmons, but you never put them in proper context. Wilt's other "HOF" teammate in that 59-60 season? The "great" Tom Gola. As I have stated many times, Gola was a CAREER 11.3 ppg, 7.8 rpg, .431 shooter. In his BEST season, he averaged 15.0 ppg, 10.4 rpg, and shot .433. I don't care how good a teammate he was, he was NOT a HOFer.

That reminds of those posters who point out the "fact" that Wilt had two All-Star teammates on his horribel 62-63 roster. Tom Meschery and Guy Rodgers. C'mon! Meschery was a ONE-TIME all-star, who DID play his BEST with Wilt...but 16.0 ppg, 9.8 rpg, and .425 shooting is NOT all-star level. As for Rodgers...quite possibly the WORST shooter in NBA history (a career .378 shooter, who NEVER once shot 40% in a season.) And before someone compares his shooting with Cousy...Cousy shot considerably better against the NBA league average, than Rodgers did. How bad a shooter was Rodgers? He had one season in which the league average was .446...and he shot .347!

So, we now KNOW that Chamberlain played with only ONE quality player in his rookie season. How about Russell in that 59-60 season? Sharman, Cousy, Heinsohn, Ramsey, Sam Jones, and KC Jones...ALL in the HOF. Two of those players were over 30...Cousy at 31, and Sharman at 33. So, here again, if Arizin was in his "prime" then so was Cousy. Now, if you want to argue that Ramsey and KC Jones are as questionable as Gola, fine. I will say that Ramsey was a better offensive player than Gola, and KC Jones was probably a better defensive player.

And of those seven players, only KC Jones averaged less 10 ppg in that 59-60 season. And along with Russell,...Ramsey, Sharman, Cousy, and Heinsohn all averaged over 15 ppg.

And, as bad as Wilt's teammates were, even those two "stars", Arizin and Gola, played horribly in their three post-seasons with Wilt. In Arizin's last two playoff seasons, he shot .328 and .375. In Gola's last three post-seasons with Wilt, he shot .412, .206, and .271. Yep, he was a HOFer alright.

So, as you can plainly see, Russell had a HUGE edge in surrounding talent. And that trend would continue until the mid-60's, when Wilt was traded to the Sixers. BUT, even THEN, Russell had more HOF teammates EVERY season until he retired.

And YOU know, as well as I, that, not only did Russell have more HOF teammates, he played with them MUCH longer. For those that have never read this before, Russell played alongside quailty teammates, TWICE as many minutes in his career, than Chamberlain...

http://www.basketball-reference.com/blog/?p=4229


"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."

Furthermore, the idiotic Simmons says that Wilt played with nearly as many HOF teammates as Russell in his career. That is such a stretch of the truth. While Russell played alongside HIS HOF teammates for anywhere from six to 12 years, how about Wilt? Let's see...Chamberlain played with the great Nate Thurmond...ONE season...Thurmond's rookie year. AND, Nate was playing 26 mpg, and mostly out of position (he played PF that year...and he was a HOF center). Not only that, but he shot .395 from the field.

Then there was Gail Goodrich. OK,...except that Russell had retired by the time Goodrich played with Wilt. Furthermore, Wilt played with Goodrich for TWO seasons.

Simmons also loves to bring up Baylor. After all, Elgin played on Wilt's teams for four seasons. EXCEPT, that Wilt was injured for nearly all of one of them (69-70), while Baylor played in TWO early season games in 70-71, and then "retired" after nine games in the 71-72 season (and not surprisingly, the Lakers immediately won 33 straight games, en route to a title.) And even in the season that Wilt missed 70 games, Baylor missed 28. On top of all of that, Baylor was well past his prime...and like Arizin and Gola, he was AWFUL in his post-seasons in the seasons he played with Wilt. In their ONE "full" season together, 68-69, Baylor averaged 15.3 ppg on .385 shooting in the post-season.

Then there was Jerry West. Wilt and West played together for five seasons. While West missed a ton of games in those years, he at least played considerably more than Baylor. Still, West missed the entire last fourth of the 70-71 season, including the playoffs...which left Chamberlain without BOTH West and Baylor in the playoffs that year. He also missed 21 games in their inaugural season together (68-69), eight games in the year in which Wilt missed 70, and 13 games in Wilt's last season (72-73.) The only year in which West was reasonably healthy, the 71-72 season, the Lakers won the title. Of course, West had the worst shooting slump of his entire post-season career that year...but, fortunately for LA, Wilt dominated in the playoffs, and won the Finals MVP.

But, even if you are going to use West and Baylor in the Russell-Wilt debates...those two only played with Wilt, and against Russell, for ONE season (that 68-69 year.)

So that leaves Wilt's HOF teammates in his 3 1/2 years with the Sixers (from halfway thru the 64-65 season thru the 67-68 season.) Cunningham did not join Philly until the 65-66 season, and was awful in the post-season that year, shooting .161 in the playoffs. He also broke his wrist in the first round of the playoffs in the 67-68 season, and missed the ECF's, when Philly lost a game seven, by four points, to the Celtics.

The ONLY HOF teammate that Wilt could count on EVERY year he played with him, was Hal Greer, whom he played alongside for all three-and-half years in Philadelphia. BUT, even Greer had a meltdown in the '66 ECF's, when he shot .325. And, in game seven of the '68 ECF's, he shot 8-25 from the floor. Still, overall, Greer was a great player when he was paired with Wilt.

Chamberlain also played alongside both Chet Walker and Luke Jackson in those 3 1/2 years, and while both had injury or shooting slumps in the post-season, they were exceptionally good players. But, if you are going to include them in any discussion about quality teammates, then you can argue that Russell had Bailey Howell, a HOFer and a deadly 20 ppg scorer in his Celtic years, and Satch Sanders, whom many regarded as one of the best defensive forwards of his era.

And, of course, Russell had those others. Cousy, Heinsohn, Sharman, Jones, Jones, Ramsey, and Havlicek...and for MANY years. Furthermore, Sam Jones and Havlicek were legitimate 25-30 ppg scorers in their careers, and in fact, Havlicke had a season AFTER Russell, in which he averaged 28.9 ppg.

On top of those players, Russell also had Lovelette and Embry...both in the HOF...as well as players like Don Nelson, Larry Siegfried, and even Don Chaney.

Once again, Russell enjoyed an edge in HOFers, in Wilt's first six years, by margins of 7-3, 7-3, 6-3, 8-1, 7-2, and 5-2. Even in his last four years he had margins of 4-3, 6-3 (in a year in which Philly destroyed them in the ECF's, 4-1), 5-3 (and it was 5-2 in the ECF's, as Cunningham missed the entire series), and 4-3 (and as always, a much deeper bench.)

Now, do you still want to say that Wilt played with the same number of "prime" HOFers as Chamberlain? That was completely ridiculous. Russell had an overwhelming edge in talent in the vast majority of his H2H seasons with Wilt, and an edge in EVERY season.

[KevinNYC]

If Russell wanted to be GOAT he should have gotten to the gym and worked on his low post game.

I would have thought that being the best player on 2 NCAA championships, an Olympic championship and 11 NBA championships within 16 years would be his calling card. Or not.

Where's the stat we keep for intelligence? For knowing how to win. For intensity and clutch performance. For those of us you never got to seem him play, I read somewhere, that Russell's defensive impact was the same as Jordan's offensive impact. I don't remember if they had any stats to back that up. John Wooden said he was the most complete defensive player he ever saw.

How much higher would his reputation be if the video highlights of the "Coleman play" were rerun as much as Jordan's winning shots over Cleveland or Utah. Russell.

[jlauber]

I would have thought that being the best player on 2 NCAA championships, an Olympic championship and 11 NBA championships within 16 years would be his calling card. Or not.

Where's the stat we keep for intelligence? For knowing how to win. For intensity and clutch performance. For those of us you never got to seem him play, I read somewhere, that Russell's defensive impact was the same as Jordan's offensive impact. I don't remember if they had any stats to back that up. John Wooden said he was the most complete defensive player he ever saw.

How much higher would his reputation be if the video highlights of the "Coleman play" were rerun as much as Jordan's winning shots over Cleveland or Utah. Russell.

First of all, I NEVER made that comment. That was Pointguard.

Secondly, Russell WAS a great player. I don't have a problem with those that rank him as the GOAT. In fact, I have him #1 on MY list. What I DO have a problem with, are those that disparage Chamberlain in the Russell-Wilt debates. I am so sck-and-tired of reading that Wilt was a "failure", a "loser" and a "choker." Or that Russell dominated him. The facts were, Wilt got TWELVE teams to at least the Conference Finals, in his 14 seasons, as well as SIX Finals. His TEAM's, despite being outgunned by HOFers in almost every post-season, narrowly missed FIVE more titles (losing five game seven's, and four of them to Boston, by a combined nine points.)

Furthermore, Chamberlain was BRILLIANT in his post-season career. I could only find ONE post-season playoff series, out of 29, in which he was outshot from the field by an opposing center (and in that series, he only missed 20 shots, while Kareem missed 107.) AND, Chamberlain was NEVER outrebounded by an opposing center in ANY of those 29 series. And he faced a HOF center in nearly two-thirds of his 160 post-season games, too (as well as All-Star centers in a couple as well.) In fact, he was seldom outplayed in those 160 games, and in MANY cases he just crushed the opposing center (including even Russell on more than one occasion.)

As for "clutch" play...how about these numbers? In his NINE game sevens in his post-season career, he averaged 24.4 ppg, 26.5 rpg, and shot .626 from the floor (which, BTW, is the highest FG% by a "great" player in NBA history.) And, that does not include a game five in a best-of-five playoff series, in which he put up a 56 point, 35 rebound game, either!

In his four game seven's against Russell, he outscored Russell by 21.3 ppg to 13.2 ppg; he outrebounded Russell, in those four games, by a 28.5 rpg to 24.5 rpg; and he shot a staggering .652 against Russell in those four games, as well (and while we only have two of Russell's FG% numbers in those four games, Russell only shot .391 in those two games.)

Yep...that was Wilt the "choker."

[G-Funk]

ur a ****in dumb ass...Robert Horry has 7 rings....Is he better than shaq, duncan, jordan kobe??? gtfo with that logic... u must be no older than 12 years old.


:lol Im a dumbass??? And ur the one comparing Robert Horry's role to Kobe's, Shaq's, Jordans, Magic's and Duncans??? LMFAO :facepalm Fuking idiot, sit ur ass down

[G.O.A.T]

Huh????

Let's take a look at their respective rosters in Wilt's rookie season...

Wilt did have ONE legitimate great teammate, Paul Arizin, but to say that he was in his prime is to say that almost all of Russell's HOF teammates were in their prime. Arizin was 31 in Wilt's rookie season, and was done by age 33.

You always bring up Wilt's HOF teammates, much like Bill Simmons, but you never put them in proper context. Wilt's other "HOF" teammate in that 59-60 season? The "great" Tom Gola. As I have stated many times, Gola was a CAREER 11.3 ppg, 7.8 rpg, .431 shooter. In his BEST season, he averaged 15.0 ppg, 10.4 rpg, and shot .433. I don't care how good a teammate he was, he was NOT a HOFer.

That reminds of those posters who point out the "fact" that Wilt had two All-Star teammates on his horribel 62-63 roster. Tom Meschery and Guy Rodgers. C'mon! Meschery was a ONE-TIME all-star, who DID play his BEST with Wilt...but 16.0 ppg, 9.8 rpg, and .425 shooting is NOT all-star level. As for Rodgers...quite possibly the WORST shooter in NBA history (a career .378 shooter, who NEVER once shot 40% in a season.) And before someone compares his shooting with Cousy...Cousy shot considerably better against the NBA league average, than Rodgers did. How bad a shooter was Rodgers? He had one season in which the league average was .446...and he shot .347!

So, we now KNOW that Chamberlain played with only ONE quality player in his rookie season. How about Russell in that 59-60 season? Sharman, Cousy, Heinsohn, Ramsey, Sam Jones, and KC Jones...ALL in the HOF. Two of those players were over 30...Cousy at 31, and Sharman at 33. So, here again, if Arizin was in his "prime" then so was Cousy. Now, if you want to argue that Ramsey and KC Jones are as questionable as Gola, fine. I will say that Ramsey was a better offensive player than Gola, and KC Jones was probably a better defensive player.

And of those seven players, only KC Jones averaged less 10 ppg in that 59-60 season. And along with Russell,...Ramsey, Sharman, Cousy, and Heinsohn all averaged over 15 ppg.

And, as bad as Wilt's teammates were, even those two "stars", Arizin and Gola, played horribly in their three post-seasons with Wilt. In Arizin's last two playoff seasons, he shot .328 and .375. In Gola's last three post-seasons with Wilt, he shot .412, .206, and .271. Yep, he was a HOFer alright.

So, as you can plainly see, Russell had a HUGE edge in surrounding talent. And that trend would continue until the mid-60's, when Wilt was traded to the Sixers. BUT, even THEN, Russell had more HOF teammates EVERY season until he retired.

And YOU know, as well as I, that, not only did Russell have more HOF teammates, he played with them MUCH longer. For those that have never read this before, Russell played alongside quailty teammates, TWICE as many minutes in his career, than Chamberlain...

http://www.basketball-reference.com/blog/?p=4229



Furthermore, the idiotic Simmons says that Wilt played with nearly as many HOF teammates as Russell in his career. That is such a stretch of the truth. While Russell played alongside HIS HOF teammates for anywhere from six to 12 years, how about Wilt? Let's see...Chamberlain played with the great Nate Thurmond...ONE season...Thurmond's rookie year. AND, Nate was playing 26 mpg, and mostly out of position (he played PF that year...and he was a HOF center). Not only that, but he shot .395 from the field.

Then there was Gail Goodrich. OK,...except that Russell had retired by the time Goodrich played with Wilt. Furthermore, Wilt played with Goodrich for TWO seasons.

Simmons also loves to bring up Baylor. After all, Elgin played on Wilt's teams for four seasons. EXCEPT, that Wilt was injured for nearly all of one of them (69-70), while Baylor played in TWO early season games in 70-71, and then "retired" after nine games in the 71-72 season (and not surprisingly, the Lakers immediately won 33 straight games, en route to a title.) And even in the season that Wilt missed 70 games, Baylor missed 28. On top of all of that, Baylor was well past his prime...and like Arizin and Gola, he was AWFUL in his post-seasons in the seasons he played with Wilt. In their ONE "full" season together, 68-69, Baylor averaged 15.3 ppg on .385 shooting in the post-season.

Then there was Jerry West. Wilt and West played together for five seasons. While West missed a ton of games in those years, he at least played considerably more than Baylor. Still, West missed the entire last fourth of the 70-71 season, including the playoffs...which left Chamberlain without BOTH West and Baylor in the playoffs that year. He also missed 21 games in their inaugural season together (68-69), eight games in the year in which Wilt missed 70, and 13 games in Wilt's last season (72-73.) The only year in which West was reasonably healthy, the 71-72 season, the Lakers won the title. Of course, West had the worst shooting slump of his entire post-season career that year...but, fortunately for LA, Wilt dominated in the playoffs, and won the Finals MVP.

But, even if you are going to use West and Baylor in the Russell-Wilt debates...those two only played with Wilt, and against Russell, for ONE season (that 68-69 year.)

So that leaves Wilt's HOF teammates in his 3 1/2 years with the Sixers (from halfway thru the 64-65 season thru the 67-68 season.) Cunningham did not join Philly until the 65-66 season, and was awful in the post-season that year, shooting .161 in the playoffs. He also broke his wrist in the first round of the playoffs in the 67-68 season, and missed the ECF's, when Philly lost a game seven, by four points, to the Celtics.

The ONLY HOF teammate that Wilt could count on EVERY year he played with him, was Hal Greer, whom he played alongside for all three-and-half years in Philadelphia. BUT, even Greer had a meltdown in the '66 ECF's, when he shot .325. And, in game seven of the '68 ECF's, he shot 8-25 from the floor. Still, overall, Greer was a great player when he was paired with Wilt.

Chamberlain also played alongside both Chet Walker and Luke Jackson in those 3 1/2 years, and while both had injury or shooting slumps in the post-season, they were exceptionally good players. But, if you are going to include them in any discussion about quality teammates, then you can argue that Russell had Bailey Howell, a HOFer and a deadly 20 ppg scorer in his Celtic years, and Satch Sanders, whom many regarded as one of the best defensive forwards of his era.

And, of course, Russell had those others. Cousy, Heinsohn, Sharman, Jones, Jones, Ramsey, and Havlicek...and for MANY years. Furthermore, Sam Jones and Havlicek were legitimate 25-30 ppg scorers in their careers, and in fact, Havlicke had a season AFTER Russell, in which he averaged 28.9 ppg.

On top of those players, Russell also had Lovelette and Embry...both in the HOF...as well as players like Don Nelson, Larry Siegfried, and even Don Chaney.

Once again, Russell enjoyed an edge in HOFers, in Wilt's first six years, by margins of 7-3, 7-3, 6-3, 8-1, 7-2, and 5-2. Even in his last four years he had margins of 4-3, 6-3 (in a year in which Philly destroyed them in the ECF's, 4-1), 5-3 (and it was 5-2 in the ECF's, as Cunningham missed the entire series), and 4-3 (and as always, a much deeper bench.)

Now, do you still want to say that Wilt played with the same number of "prime" HOFers as Chamberlain? That was completely ridiculous. Russell had an overwhelming edge in talent in the vast majority of his H2H seasons with Wilt, and an edge in EVERY season.

No I'm sorry that's all wrong.

The correct answer, was Neil Johnston suffered a career ending injury.

That's Neil Johnston, career ending injury.

Better luck next time.

[jlauber]

No I'm sorry that's all wrong.

The correct answer, was Neil Johnston suffered a career ending injury.

That's Neil Johnston, career ending injury.

Better luck next time.

So you are claiming that Wilt's Warriors were NOT a LAST-PLACE team before he arrived???? Because YOU are dead wrong. Meanwhile Russell not only went to a playoff contender, he joined ROY teammate Tom Heinsohn in HIS rooke year.

[G.O.A.T]

So you are claiming that Wilt's Warriors were NOT a LAST-PLACE team before he arrived???? Because YOU are dead wrong. Meanwhile Russell not only went to a playoff contender, he joined ROY teammate Tom Heinsohn in HIS rooke year.

I repeat they were a last place team because their franchise center suffered a career ending injury during that season.

Never once have you even acknowledged that this happened let alone mention it unprovoked.

I can also tell you that the EXACT SAME core of players Arizin, Gola, Graboski and a healthy Johnston plus Jack George won the NBA title in '56 and were in the Eastern Finals in '58.

Can also tell you that Gola actually received votes in the 1970 poll for greatest player of all time, but you'll still foolishly believe and try to convince others to believe that he was a undeserving or borderline Hall of Famer like KC Jones and Frank Ramsey.

You don't care though, your mind is made up, I'm wasting as little time as possible.

[Semi]

You forget that this is a team game. And also no one here can really tell if Russell was greater. They haven't seen Rusell play and even if they would, he is a center and more defensive minded and jordan is a sg and more offensive minded. You can hardly compare guys like that, that's because I'm really not a fan of the whole goat list, because comparing is even harder between diffrent postitions, let alone era. All of you guys in this thread who think they can say who the better player was are just have an opinion with not much based on.

[Pointguard]

A lot of our disagree is over semantics, but this is where you lose me completely.

For Russell to be considered the greatest you believe he would have had to do something that he proved he didn't need to do for his team to win?

He should have not done what he did do, which always worked, and instead done something arbitrary to meet your standard?

I hear what you are saying. But why rest on your laurels. He could have gotten better to insure his team would be in the best possible place to win the championship. After Jordan figured out the winning thing he developed a jump shot. He improved himself to make sure there would be no chance to doubt. Russell's neglecting to develop his game left several titles up for grabs - sure he won in the end but he could have made sure it wasn't close. There were a couple of titles where if Sam Jones or Tommy Heinsohn got into foul trouble, the team could look at the option of having more skilled offense. Those guys were key to outscoring a lot teams in game sevens. Jordan wasn't in too many game sevens but he made sure that he would be in the best position possible for his team to win.


All the other players whose weaknesses you listed cost them and their teams title's, Russell's did not. Only an injury and the Greatest Single Season performance by a player in NBA history did.
A true-ism. But it can also be interpreted as to how much of a good situation he was in. He didn't have to shoot the 10,000 a year the other great players did. He didn't have to dribble for hours at night. That onus was never on him. With great responsibility comes greatness. I just happen to think that you have to risk for greatness. Put yourself out there and develop yourself to be in a great situation. It might be my interpretation of greatness. I see your point and I have him 4th on my list which is great.


Luckily for Russell, he figured out that as a center in the 1950's and 60's about 95% of the time he'd be playing the game without the ball in hand, I'd say he had the right approach.
Yes, for winning... for greatness you work with the 5%.

[Pointguard]

I would have thought that being the best player on 2 NCAA championships, an Olympic championship and 11 NBA championships within 16 years would be his calling card. Or not.

Where's the stat we keep for intelligence? For knowing how to win. For intensity and clutch performance. For those of us you never got to seem him play, I read somewhere, that Russell's defensive impact was the same as Jordan's offensive impact. I don't remember if they had any stats to back that up. John Wooden said he was the most complete defensive player he ever saw.

How much higher would his reputation be if the video highlights of the "Coleman play" were rerun as much as Jordan's winning shots over Cleveland or Utah. Russell.
Actually that was me Kevin, who said that not Jluaber.

Russell was a great defensive player, an intelligent team player, a true winner, a ferocious competitor, one of the greatest winners in team sports. He's definitive top five with me and GWOAT. When the critical side of me goes at GOAT work, I find little wrong with Jordan's resume. Chamberlain's resume speaks the language of greatness - setting the bar in a fantasy place and doing it in several ways.

I do not believe that Russell's defensive impact was worth Chamberlain's 31 ppg, 3 rebounds advantage on Bill along with Wilt's very good defense in the equation: To me the difference should never be on the level of adding a Kevin Durant to a player. Russell came into the league a defensive player and his impact was immediate - but he wasn't so great that everybody started paying attention to defense - in fact the opposite is true - the league went bananas offensively.

If Wilt played today - he's still great. With Russell that's not a given. If anything, greatness lingers. It inspires others. Other players don't cite Russell as a player to aspire to. They aspire to the rings he wears but you don't hear players saying I asked for the Russelll tapes. Part of my nature is that I don't like to be blindsided by anything. There are videos of Russell in his greatest years on youtube. You can see the greatness in Chamberlain after his peak physical condition on youtube.

You say:


Where's the stat we keep for intelligence? For knowing how to win. For intensity and clutch performance.
I do have a pet peeve with you if Magic or Bird isn't top five on your GOAT list. I have a pet peeve when people who have Russell as their GOAT and then you catch them arguing that Barkley is greater than KG. Then I know its just a ring thing and no other sophistication has gone into it. Ben Wallace could have been part of a 4 year dynasty (Possibly two years as the best player) if Dumar's drafts Wade instead of Darko. If SA doesn't luck up in the lottery David Robinson doesn't sniff a ring. Ben Wallace greater than David Robinson. No sophistication needed. Its a cop out.

Just the way I see things. I'm not claiming an ultimate truth either

[Kellogs4toniee]

:lol Im a dumbass??? And ur the one comparing Robert Horry's role to Kobe's, Shaq's, Jordans, Magic's and Duncans??? LMFAO :facepalm Fuking idiot, sit ur ass down

Did you not understand his post at all, he's not seriously comparing them. He's using it as an example to show the flaw in your original post.

*Just been a victim of trolling*

I know it, you know it, we all know it. But still, had to say it.

[PHILA]

Wilt isn't better than MJ either, sorry.

And if we wanted to accept that, then MJ had more rings than Wilt and more talent than Bill, so......

Again.... as somebody mentioned earlier, the other player that has a more legit argument is Kareem.[I]

"Wilt was big on stats. One time he called me up and said, 'You know, Harvey, Michael Jordan can't hit a shot beyond 15 feet?'

I said, 'How do you know that?'

He said to me, 'Don't you watch the games?'

I said, 'I don't watch stuff like that. How do you know?'

He said, 'I watch it.'

So, during the height of Michael's career, I got the play-by-play of the first 20 Bulls games and I checked the distance of every shot Jordan took during the season and sure enough, he was shooting 38 percent from 15 feet back. So, I did 20 more and came up with the same result. So then I said, if I did 40, I might as well do 82. Wilt

[KevinNYC]

First of all, I NEVER made that comment. That was Pointguard.


My bad. I think I got logged out and then when I came back in, I must have replied to the wrong post.

[KevinNYC]

Does anyone else read all those Wilt quotes as a guy who is jealous that other people are being praised? Probably the same instinct that led him to brag about the number of women he has slept with.

[-23-]

[QUOTE=PHILA][I]

"Wilt was big on stats. One time he called me up and said, 'You know, Harvey, Michael Jordan can't hit a shot beyond 15 feet?'

I said, 'How do you know that?'

He said to me, 'Don't you watch the games?'

I said, 'I don't watch stuff like that. How do you know?'

He said, 'I watch it.'

So, during the height of Michael's career, I got the play-by-play of the first 20 Bulls games and I checked the distance of every shot Jordan took during the season and sure enough, he was shooting 38 percent from 15 feet back. So, I did 20 more and came up with the same result. So then I said, if I did 40, I might as well do 82. Wilt

[Pointguard]

Does anyone else read all those Wilt quotes as a guy who is jealous that other people are being praised? Probably the same instinct that led him to brag about the number of women he has slept with.

All of them are very competitive in their talks. Russell and Kareem have said some viscous things about Wilt and he didn't go back at them with the same venom. Wilt and Jordan had the big argument at the 50 greatest celebration (Jordan saying that he was like Shaq - and yea Shaq was there) and Wilt saying they created rules to slow me down and created them to help you out. The other people in attendance said this is the norm and one journalist told me these arguments are frequently 5 years long. Wilt far out praises other greats than the others do - the exception would be Magic. You rarely hear praise much from the others. Wilt said Shaq could be greater than him because of his abandon at going to the rim. Later on, he criticized Shaq for just being a brute.

[Kellogs4toniee]

[QUOTE=PHILA][I]

"Wilt was big on stats. One time he called me up and said, 'You know, Harvey, Michael Jordan can't hit a shot beyond 15 feet?'

I said, 'How do you know that?'

He said to me, 'Don't you watch the games?'

I said, 'I don't watch stuff like that. How do you know?'

He said, 'I watch it.'

So, during the height of Michael's career, I got the play-by-play of the first 20 Bulls games and I checked the distance of every shot Jordan took during the season and sure enough, he was shooting 38 percent from 15 feet back. So, I did 20 more and came up with the same result. So then I said, if I did 40, I might as well do 82. Wilt

[PHILA]

Does anyone else read all those Wilt quotes as a guy who is jealous that other people are being praised? Probably the same instinct that led him to brag about the number of women he has slept with.Chamberlain was asked if he or Michael Jordan was the best player ever. "I watched a couple of years ago when they were talking about two other guys as being the greatest and that was Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and Dr. J (Julius Erving)," Chamberlain said. " Then they had the one-on-one competition. You know who won that competition? It was not even a contest. Kareem killed him. "What you may think is the best, it's always subjective. What Michael does on the court for his team is the greatest. He's playing his position as well as anybody has. He has something going in his favor, and that's the flair with which he plays the game. People love that. His baskets are more than just two or three points. "I'm not so sure that Oscar Robertson might not have been the greatest basketball player to have ever played. However, there was nothing really sensational about his game."

-1997

[jlauber]

I repeat they were a last place team because their franchise center suffered a career ending injury during that season.

Never once have you even acknowledged that this happened let alone mention it unprovoked.

I can also tell you that the EXACT SAME core of players Arizin, Gola, Graboski and a healthy Johnston plus Jack George won the NBA title in '56 and were in the Eastern Finals in '58.

Can also tell you that Gola actually received votes in the 1970 poll for greatest player of all time, but you'll still foolishly believe and try to convince others to believe that he was a undeserving or borderline Hall of Famer like KC Jones and Frank Ramsey.

You don't care though, your mind is made up, I'm wasting as little time as possible.

I just couldn't let this one pass. Some IDIOT voted Gola as the G.O.A.T in the 1970???? Must have been the same guy that did NOT vote for Willie Mays in his first year of eligibilty in the baseball HOF. Gola was never even the best player on his own team's, and his career numbers of 11.3 ppg, 7.8 rpg, and .431 FG% are among the worst by any NBA player in the HOF. In fact I could list a TON of players who are far more deserving of the HOF than Gola. Chet Walker was a MUCH better player his entire career, and for some reason Artis Gilmore, who was FAR more of a force in his professional career, as well as Bernard King, who led the NBA in scoring and who some MONSTER post-season games, are just a few of the many were head-and-shoulders above Gola...and are NOT in the HOF.

Please, don't embarrass yourself with these ridiculous posts.

[G.O.A.T]

I just couldn't let this one pass. Some IDIOT voted Gola as the G.O.A.T in the 1970???? Must have been the same guy that did NOT vote for Willie Mays in his first year of eligibilty in the baseball HOF. Gola was never even the best player on his own team's, and his career numbers of 11.3 ppg, 7.8 rpg, and .431 FG% are among the worst by any NBA player in the HOF. In fact I could list a TON of players who are far more deserving of the HOF than Gola. Chet Walker was a MUCH better player his entire career, and for some reason Artis Gilmore, who was FAR more of a force in his professional career, as well as Bernard King, who led the NBA in scoring and who some MONSTER post-season games, are just a few of the many were head-and-shoulders above Gola...and are NOT in the HOF.

Please, don't embarrass yourself with these ridiculous posts.

I'm curious, was Neil Johnston hurt during the 58-59 season?

How about Gola?

How was Gola doing during the 1962 playoffs?

[jlauber]

I'm curious, was Neil Johnston hurt during the 58-59 season?

How about Gola?

How was Gola doing during the 1962 playoffs?

Huh???

Not sure what your point is/was. The 58-59 Warriors were a LAST-PLACE team, and then Johnston retired. And, in the 56-57 and 57-58 seasons, with their core players in their primes, they went 37-35...basically a .500 team. In Wilt's first season, he led them to a then best-ever record team record of 49-26. So, yes, Chamberlain made a HUGE difference on an average-at-best, team (and one that finished in LAST-PLACE the year before he came onboard.)

And please, don't bring up the fact that they won a title in 55-56. That was pre-Russell and Heinsohn, and far removed from the team that came in LAST-PLACE in 58-59, or the year before Wilt arrived. If you are going use that ridiculous argument, then I could say that the Celtics didn't miss a beat after Russell retired, either. Three years after he retired, they went 56-26. Four years afterwards they went 68-14 (still their best team record ever), and five years after his retirement they won a title (and would win again in another couple of years.)

As for Gola...so what? He missed some games in 58-59, and clearly his 14 ppg and 11 rpg were missed. But let's not make him out as some kind of superstar.

As for his play in the '62 playoffs. He was AWFUL. 6.3 ppg on .271 shooting. And STILL, Chamberlain was able to overcome Gola's inept play and take that vastly inferior Warrior roster to a game seven, two-point loss against the 60-20 Celtics and their 6-3 edge in HOFers (one of those being Gola BTW.)

[G.O.A.T]

Huh???

Not sure what your point is/was. The 58-59 Warriors were a LAST-PLACE team, and then Johnston retired. And, in the 56-57 and 57-58 seasons, with their core players in their primes, they went 37-35...basically a .500 team. In Wilt's first season, he led them to a then best-ever record team record of 49-26. So, yes, Chamberlain made a HUGE difference on an average-at-best, team (and one that finished in LAST-PLACE the year before he came onboard.)

And please, don't bring up the fact that they won a title in 55-56. That was pre-Russell and Heinsohn, and far removed from the team that came in LAST-PLACE in 58-59, or the year before Wilt arrived. If you are going use that ridiculous argument, then I could say that the Celtics didn't miss a beat after Russell retired, either. Three years after he retired, they went 56-26. Four years afterwards they went 68-14 (still their best team record ever), and five years after his retirement they won a title (and would win again in another couple of years.)

As for Gola...so what? He missed some games in 58-59, and clearly his 14 ppg and 11 rpg were missed. But let's not make him out as some kind of superstar.

As for his play in the '62 playoffs. He was AWFUL. 6.3 ppg on .271 shooting. And STILL, Chamberlain was able to overcome Gola's inept play and take that vastly inferior Warrior roster to a game seven, two-point loss against the 60-20 Celtics and their 6-3 edge in HOFers (one of those being Gola BTW.)

So did Neil Johnston's career ending injury have anything to do with why the Warriors finished in last place?

Was Gola healthy during the 1962 playoffs?

[jlauber]

So did Neil Johnston's career ending injury have anything to do with why the Warriors finished in last place?

Was Gola healthy during the 1962 playoffs?

Here again, I am perplexed. The Warriors finished in LAST PLACE in 58-59. Was Johnston's injury a factor. Probably. BUT, they were basically a .500 team in the two years before that. So, once again, Wilt came to that LAST-PLACE roster, and elevated them to a then best-ever record of 49-26 in his very first season.

And, even if Gola was injured in the '62 post-season, Chamberlain still CARRIED that crappy roster to a near upset of the 60-20 Celtics and their SIX HOFers, DESPITE Gola contributing absolutely NOTHING. One of the greatest miracles in NBA history...along with Wilt taking the 40-40 76ers (who had been 34-46 the year before he arrived) to a game seven, one point loss against the 62-18 Celtics in the 64-65 ECF's.

But, yes, had Gola just scored THREE more lousy points in the '62 ECF's, and Wilt very likely would have shattered every post-season scoring record set by MJ, and probably led the Warriors to a title that year.

[G.O.A.T]

Here again, I am perplexed. The Warriors finished in LAST PLACE in 58-59. Was Johnston's injury a factor. Probably. BUT, they were basically a .500 team in the two years before that. So, once again, Wilt came to that LAST-PLACE roster, and elevated them to a then best-ever record of 49-26 in his very first season.

And, even if Gola was injured in the '62 post-season, Chamberlain still CARRIED that crappy roster to a near upset of the 60-20 Celtics and their SIX HOFers, DESPITE Gola contributing absolutely NOTHING. One of the greatest miracles in NBA history...along with Wilt taking the 40-40 76ers (who had been 34-46 the year before he arrived) to a game seven, one point loss against the 62-18 Celtics in the 64-65 ECF's.

This is super interesting. I would have thought losing a franchise center like Johnston would be crippling.

Good thing we have you to set us straight and proclaim the miracles of Wilt.

Tell me, why is it that you, with all this knowledge of the '62 series, don't even know about Gola's injury's which were a major story line. I mean not only was he battling a bad back (which plagued him his entire career after a fall as a high schooler) but he also had a severely sprained ankle during game four. It shocks me that you, clearly so knowledgeable about Gola and the rest of Wilt's teammates didn't know this.

Of course Gola was such an awful player that it probably helped the Warriors. I am sure glad you've taught me how bad Gola was, but it does make me a little confused.

I mean this article actually seems to suggest that losing Gola hurt the Warriors in 1963...and that...you won't believe this, Wilt actually misses Gola.

Here's an equally suspicious article that suggests that coach McGuire might actually have thought losing Gola and his zero production would hurt the Warriors too.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=JfUiAAAAIBAJ&sjid=P80FAAAAIBAJ&pg=923,210701&dq=tom+gola+star&hl=en


Here's a news clipping you might find interesting, discussing the chest surgery Gola had to have in 1958 that forced him to play at half speed and eventually temporarily retire in 1958. Obviously though, that didn't have anything to do with why the Warriors finished in last in 1958-59.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=U3soAAAAIBAJ&sjid=GsoEAAAAIBAJ&pg=4611,663141&dq=tom+gola+injury&hl=en

You really need to build a time machine travel back and set all these people right.

[jlauber]

This is super interesting. I would have thought losing a franchise center like Johnston would be crippling.

Good thing we have you to set us straight and proclaim the miracles of Wilt.

Tell me, why is it that you, with all this knowledge of the '62 series, don't even know about Gola's injury's which were a major story line. I mean not only was he battling a bad back (which plagued him his entire career after a fall as a high schooler) but he also had a severely sprained ankle during game four. It shocks me that you, clearly so knowledgeable about Gola and the rest of Wilt's teammates didn't know this.

Of course Gola was such an awful player that it probably helped the Warriors. I am sure glad you've taught me how bad Gola was, but it does make me a little confused.

I mean this article actually seems to suggest that losing Gola hurt the Warriors in 1963...and that...you won't believe this, Wilt actually misses Gola.

Here's an equally suspicious article that suggests that coach McGuire might actually have thought losing Gola and his zero production would hurt the Warriors too.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=JfUiAAAAIBAJ&sjid=P80FAAAAIBAJ&pg=923,210701&dq=tom+gola+star&hl=en


Here's a news clipping you might find interesting, discussing the chest surgery Gola had to have in 1958 that forced him to play at half speed and eventually temporarily retire in 1958. Obviously though, that didn't have anything to do with why the Warriors finished in last in 1958-59.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=U3soAAAAIBAJ&sjid=GsoEAAAAIBAJ&pg=4611,663141&dq=tom+gola+injury&hl=en

You really need to build a time machine travel back and set all these people right.

YOU are trying to build Gola up as a legendary superstar. Hell, Happy Hairston contributed more to his team's than Gola did his.

And, Wilt not only lost Gola in that '63 season, Arizin, who was a LEGITIMATE HOFer, retired as well. And how bad was Wilt's roster in '63. Chamberlain shot .528 from the field (in addition to leading the league in 15 of the 22 statistical categories), while his teammates collectively shot .412...or WAY less than the WORST team in the league (.427.) Jeez, the only mistake Wilt made in that '63 season was passing the ball at all (3.0 apg.) And his coach should have had him taking EVERY shot. They would have had a better chance.

And, you can post all the garbage you want. You expect me to believe that Johnston, Gola, Arizin et.al were some great team before Wilt arrived? Once again, throw out their injury-plagued 58-59 season, and go with their previous two years. They went 37-35 in both, and were basically a .500 team. Furthermore, it is not as if Johnston PLAYED in Wilt's rookie year. So, the fact was, Wilt replaced Johnston, and carried what had been an average-at-BEST team, AND a LAST-PLACE team in the year before Wilt, to a BEST-EVER record of 49-26 in his very FIRST season.

It seems that you are attempting to disparage Chamberlain here by somehow suggesting that his surrounding players, were some great dynasty before he arrived. They were, AT BEST, a .500 team. And then, they LOST Johnston.

Wilt didn't have the luxury that Russell had. Russell came to a 39-33 playoff team...along with ROY Tom Heinsohn in HIS first year. And a year later they added HOFer Sam Jones.

Chamberlain went to a LAST-PLACE team, that really only had one QUALITY player, in Arizin, and a decent, but nothing more, Gola, and very little else. Not only that, but Gola was absolutely AWFUL in ALL three post-seasons in which he was paired up with Chamberlain. Too bad he couldn't have contributed a few more points in the '62 ECF's, because I am convinced that Wilt, despite an average roster, would have won his first title.

But, if YOU honestly believe that Gola was the NBA's Greatest Player of All-Time, as YOU suggested in a previous post, then I'm sorry, but YOU, along with the idiot that voted him as such, have to be the ONLY two in the entire world that have ever felt that way. I'm sure even Gola himself must have been laughing at that one.

[nycelt84]

YOU are trying to build Gola up as a legendary superstar. Hell, Happy Hairston contributed more to his team's than Gola did his.

And, Wilt not only lost Gola in that '63 season, Arizin, who was a LEGITIMATE HOFer, retired as well.

And, you can post all the garbage you want. You expect me to believe that Johnston, Gola, Arizin et.al were some great team before Wilt arrived? Once again, throw out their injury-plagued 58-59 season, and go with their previous two years. They went 37-35 in both, and were basically a .500 team. Furthermore, it is not as if Johnston PLAYED in Wilt's rookie year. So, the fact was, Wilt replaced Johnston, and carried what had been an average-at-BEST team, AND a LAST-PLACE team in the year before Wilt, to a BEST-EVER record of 49-26 in his very FIRST season.

It seems that you are attempting to disparage Chamberlain here by somehow suggesting that his surrounding players, were some great dynasty before he arrived. They were, AT BEST, a .500 team. And then, they LOST Johnston.

Wilt didn't have the luxury that Russell had. Russell came to a 39-33 playoff team...along with ROY Tom Heinsohn in HIS first year. And a year later they added HOFer Sam Jones.

Chamberlain went to a LAST-PLACE team, that really only had one QUALITY player, in Arizin, and a decent, but nothing more, Gola, and very little else. Not only that, but Gola was absolutely AWFUL in ALL three post-seasons in which he was paired up with Chamberlain. Too bad he couldn't have contributed a few more points in the '62 ECF's, because I am convinced that Wilt, despite an average roster, would have won his first title.

But, if YOU honestly believe that Gola was the NBA's Greatest Player of All-Time, as YOU suggested in a previous post, then I'm sorry, but YOU, along with the idiot that voted him as such, have to be the ONLY two in the entire world that have ever felt that way. I'm sure even Gola himself must have been laughing at that one.

Neil Johnston is 9th all-time in PER and led his team to the 1956 NBA title and they were in the conference finals in his last full year of 1958. It's clearly obvious that losing a player of his caliber would be detrimental to any team.

And it's okay to have your thoughts on Tom Gola no matter how misguided they are. Tom Gola was highly regarded by his contemporaries and all journalists of his era. Since you were not around to experience his play and have provided no evidence that the experts of Gola's time were wrong I'll have to go with their analysis of him.

[jlauber]

Neil Johnston is 9th all-time in PER and led his team to the 1956 NBA title and they were in the conference finals in his last full year of 1958. It's clearly obvious that losing a player of his caliber would be detrimental to any team.

And it's okay to have your thoughts on Tom Gola no matter how misguided they are. Tom Gola was highly regarded by his contemporaries and all journalists of his era. Since you were not around to experience his play and have provided no evidence that the experts of Gola's time were wrong I'll have to go with their analysis of him.

I don't need the journalists of that era to explain to me why Wilt didn't beat Russell's teams more often. In Wilt's first six years in the NBA, Russell enjoyed an edge in HOF teammates of, 7-3, 7-3, 6-3, 8-1, 7-2, and 5-2. Even in the last four, when Chamberlain led his team's to better records, he had margins of 5-3, 6-3 (and Wilt's Sixers obliterated Boston that year), 5-3 and 4-3.

[nycelt84]

I don't need the journalists of that era to explain to me why Wilt didn't beat Russell's teams more often. In Wilt's first six years in the NBA, Russell enjoyed an edge in HOF teammates of, 7-3, 7-3, 6-3, 8-1, 7-2, and 5-2. Even in the last four, when Chamberlain led his team's to better records, he had margins of 5-3, 6-3, 5-3 and 4-3.

That's not what I posted at all, I don't understand why you ignored my post or posted numbers of HOF teammates with no context. Again since you completely ignored my post.

Neil Johnston is 9th all-time in PER and led his team to the 1956 NBA title along with Arizin and Gola and in his last full season they went to the 1958 Eastern Conference Finals.

Tom Gola was highly regarded in his time and was a 5 time All-Star as well as one of if not the best defensive Forward of his day. I'll have to go along with the expert analysis of Gola during his era who all considered him one of the best players in the league than to go along with the analysis of someone who was not around to experience it nor provided any evidence that those who saw Gola were actually wrong.

[juju151111]

[QUOTE=PHILA][I]

"Wilt was big on stats. One time he called me up and said, 'You know, Harvey, Michael Jordan can't hit a shot beyond 15 feet?'

I said, 'How do you know that?'

He said to me, 'Don't you watch the games?'

I said, 'I don't watch stuff like that. How do you know?'

He said, 'I watch it.'

So, during the height of Michael's career, I got the play-by-play of the first 20 Bulls games and I checked the distance of every shot Jordan took during the season and sure enough, he was shooting 38 percent from 15 feet back. So, I did 20 more and came up with the same result. So then I said, if I did 40, I might as well do 82. Wilt

[jlauber]

That's not what I posted at all, I don't understand why you ignored my post or posted numbers of HOF teammates with no context. Again since you completely ignored my post.

Neil Johnston is 9th all-time in PER and led his team to the 1956 NBA title along with Arizin and Gola and in his last full season they went to the 1958 Eastern Conference Finals.

Tom Gola was highly regarded in his time and was a 5 time All-Star as well as one of if not the best defensive Forward of his day. I'll have to go along with the expert analysis of Gola during his era who all considered him one of the best players in the league than to go along with the analysis of someone who was not around to experience it nor provided any evidence that those who saw Gola were actually wrong.

Here again, I am perplexed. What is it with you and GOAT? The Warriors won a title in the 55-56 season, which was pre-Russell AND Heinsohn. They then went 37-35, 37-35, and 32-40 over the next three seasons. Yes, in a limited league, they went to the ECF's in 57-58, and were blown out by Boston, 4-1. So what?

And, Johnston was injured in 58-59, and the Warriors, basically a .500 team the year before, dropped to LAST-PLACE. Now, did Johnston return in Wilt's rookie year? Hell no. He was done. YET, Chamberlain took what had been a .500 team, that perhaps had lost their best player to injury and retirement, and had fallen to LAST-PLACE, to a then BEST-EVER record in Chamberlain's rookie year of 49-26 (which was even better than their 45-27 championship team in 55-56.)

And why do guys continually bring up that 55-56 season? That was FOUR years before Wilt arrived. Once again, using the same ridiculous analogy, I could argue that Boston was even BETTER after Russell retired. Three years after he retired, they went 56-26 (Russell's Celtics were 48-34 in his last year.) Foru years after he retired they went 68-14 (which is STILL the best ever in their HISTORY), and five years after he retired they won an NBA title (and would win another two years after that.)

As for Gola...maybe I am missing something here. The man was a CAREER 11.3 ppg, 7.8 rpg, .431 shooter, and his BEST season (in a year in which he played WITH Wilt BTW) was 15.0 ppg, 10 rpg, and .433. Not only that, but he was no more than average in his limited post-season career, and was absolutely AWFUL in his three years with Chamberlain. Once again, I would aargue that Happy Hairston contributed more to his team's than Gola did to his.

BTW, the great Gola shot a CAREER .336 in his FIVE post-seasons. And, yes, he is somehow in the HOF.

[Niquesports]

YOU are trying to build Gola up as a legendary superstar. Hell, Happy Hairston contributed more to his team's than Gola did his.

And, Wilt not only lost Gola in that '63 season, Arizin, who was a LEGITIMATE HOFer, retired as well. And how bad was Wilt's roster in '63. Chamberlain shot .528 from the field (in addition to leading the league in 15 of the 22 statistical categories), while his teammates collectively shot .412...or WAY less than the WORST team in the league (.427.) Jeez, the only mistake Wilt made in that '63 season was passing the ball at all (3.0 apg.) And his coach should have had him taking EVERY shot. They would have had a better chance.

And, you can post all the garbage you want. You expect me to believe that Johnston, Gola, Arizin et.al were some great team before Wilt arrived? Once again, throw out their injury-plagued 58-59 season, and go with their previous two years. They went 37-35 in both, and were basically a .500 team. Furthermore, it is not as if Johnston PLAYED in Wilt's rookie year. So, the fact was, Wilt replaced Johnston, and carried what had been an average-at-BEST team, AND a LAST-PLACE team in the year before Wilt, to a BEST-EVER record of 49-26 in his very FIRST season.

It seems that you are attempting to disparage Chamberlain here by somehow suggesting that his surrounding players, were some great dynasty before he arrived. They were, AT BEST, a .500 team. And then, they LOST Johnston.

Wilt didn't have the luxury that Russell had. Russell came to a 39-33 playoff team...along with ROY Tom Heinsohn in HIS first year. And a year later they added HOFer Sam Jones.

Chamberlain went to a LAST-PLACE team, that really only had one QUALITY player, in Arizin, and a decent, but nothing more, Gola, and very little else. Not only that, but Gola was absolutely AWFUL in ALL three post-seasons in which he was paired up with Chamberlain. Too bad he couldn't have contributed a few more points in the '62 ECF's, because I am convinced that Wilt, despite an average roster, would have won his first title.

But, if YOU honestly believe that Gola was the NBA's Greatest Player of All-Time, as YOU suggested in a previous post, then I'm sorry, but YOU, along with the idiot that voted him as such, have to be the ONLY two in the entire world that have ever felt that way. I'm sure even Gola himself must have been laughing at that one.
J I think in your attempt to show that Russell had the stronger support cast you weaken your argument by down playing the support cast Wilt had.In stead of comparing Wilt's support to the Celtics compare them to the other teams in the league. This will show how weak avg or strong they really were.Its kinda of like saying Mello isn't better than Lebron so he's a scrub.Yet Mello is better than maybe 90% of the other players in the league.So saying that Wilt's support wasn't equal to the Celtics does little to show they were weak.
LEt me make a few points you talk about Guy's FG% how was KC's?Second you are the first person I ever heard down play Gola. Im not saying he is a Top 50 player but he was far from being weak.Lastly I have never read or heard of a Chamberlin teammate talk about hisleadership. Thats all you hear from Russell's. Now if you have some quote share it I just never seen one.
Leadership wins championships.That win at all cost mindset by Russell his teammates bought into it. Wilt's didnt.

[nycelt84]

Here again, I am perplexed. What is it with you and GOAT? The Warriors won a title in the 55-56 season, which was pre-Russell AND Heinsohn. They then went 37-35, 37-35, and 32-40 over the next three seasons. Yes, in a limited league, they went to the ECF's in 57-58, and were blown out by Boston, 4-1. So what?

And, Johnston was injured in 58-59, and the Warriors, basically a .500 team the year before, dropped to LAST-PLACE. Now, did Johnston return in Wilt's rookie year? Hell no. He was done. YET, Chamberlain took what had been a .500 team, that perhaps had lost their best player to injury and retirement, and had fallen to LAST-PLACE, to a then BEST-EVER record in Chamberlain's rookie year of 49-26 (which was even better than their 45-27 championship team in 55-56.)

And why do guys continually bring up that 55-56 season? That was FOUR years before Wilt arrived. Once again, using the same ridiculous analogy, I could argue that Boston was even BETTER after Russell retired. Three years after he retired, they went 56-26 (Russell's Celtics were 48-34 in his last year.) Foru years after he retired they went 68-14 (which is STILL the best ever in their HISTORY), and five years after he retired they won an NBA title (and would win another two years after that.)

As for Gola...maybe I am missing something here. The man was a CAREER 11.3 ppg, 7.8 rpg, .431 shooter, and his BEST season (in a year in which he played WITH Wilt BTW) was 15.0 ppg, 10 rpg, and .433. Not only that, but he was no more than average in his limited post-season career, and was absolutely AWFUL in his three years with Chamberlain. Once again, I would aargue that Happy Hairston contributed more to his team's than Gola did to his.

BTW, the great Gola shot a CAREER .336 in his FIVE post-seasons. And, yes, he is somehow in the HOF.

Are you that dense? The point that was being made with the '56 Warriors is that a team with a core of Arizin, Gola, and Johnston was good enough to win a championship. The '60 Warriors with the addition of Chamberlain suffered the same fate by the way of the '58 team which was a Conference Finals loss. You keep talking as though Wilt joined a team that was simply terrible which is far from the case. The '59 Warriors lost their best player to retirement who was also one of the best players in the league, and lost Tom Gola to injury.

You can keep believing Happy Hairston was better than Tom Gola, but you'll be the only guy to think that and if you suggested that during Gola's career you would have been laughed at as someone who knew nothing about basketball. Gola was one of the best defensive forwards in the game, finished among the league leaders in assists several years and was a 5 time all-star.

I find it funny by the way that the same 8 team league that others have bashed and you have praised is now considered by you to be limited when it doesn't mesh with your Wilt agenda.

[jlauber]

J I think in your attempt to show that Russell had the stronger support cast you weaken your argument by down playing the support cast Wilt had.In stead of comparing Wilt's support to the Celtics compare them to the other teams in the league. This will show how weak avg or strong they really were.Its kinda of like saying Mello isn't better than Lebron so he's a scrub.Yet Mello is better than maybe 90% of the other players in the league.So saying that Wilt's support wasn't equal to the Celtics does little to show they were weak.
LEt me make a few points you talk about Guy's FG% how was KC's?Second you are the first person I ever heard down play Gola. Im not saying he is a Top 50 player but he was far from being weak.Lastly I have never read or heard of a Chamberlin teammate talk about hisleadership. Thats all you hear from Russell's. Now if you have some quote share it I just never seen one.
Leadership wins championships.That win at all cost mindset by Russell his teammates bought into it. Wilt's didnt.

First of all, and once again, Wilt's teammates, in his first six years, were average-at-best...and CONSIDERABLY worse than Russell's. This not even debateable. Russell's Celtics enjoyed a 7-3, 7-3, 6-3, 8-1, 7-2, and 5-2 edge in those years, and they were also deeper.

As for leadership, take a look at their H2H playoff games. Chamberlain HAD to put enormous numbers for his TEAM's to have a prayer. Furthermore, Russell had some great post-season series, particularly in the Finals. However, compare his play, against the Lakers in those Finals, with his play in the previous rounds against Chamberlain. Where were his 30-40 game seven's against Wilt? Where were his .702 FG% numbers against Wilt? Where were his 29 rpg series against Wilt?

My god, in the '62 ECF's, in game two, Chamberlain outscored Russell, 42-9, and outrebounded him, 37-20...and his team BARELY eked out a seven point win. He had a 46-34 game against Russell in the '66 ECF's, while his teammates played miserably, in a clinching game five loss. Why is that important? Because the very next season, Russell, himself, was faced with those same circumstances. How did Russell perform when HIS team needed him to step up? He scored FOUR points, on 2-5 shooting (while Chamberlain poured in 29 points on 10-16 shooting.) Not only that, but as usual, Chamberlain pounded Russell on the glass in that game, 36-21.

And the "double-standard" continued in the '69 Finals, too. Most everyone here knows that Wilt's COACH left Chamberlain on the bench in that game seven loss (while Wilt's replacement, mel Counts shot 4-13.) BUT, very few here know that Russell was nowhere to be found in that last period. He, like his teammates, almost choked away a 17 point 4th quarter lead. And how did the "clutch" Russell play in that game? He scored SIX points, on 2-7 shooting, with 21 rebounds, in 48 minutes. Meanwhile, Chamberlain, in his 43 minutes, scored 18 points, on 7-8 shooting, with 27 rebounds.

Or Wilt's game seven in the '65 ECF's, when he guided a 40-40 team to a one-point loss to Russell's 62-18 Celtics. In that game, Chamberlain scored eight of Philly's last ten points, to cut a 110-101 deficit to 110-109. And, then the "clutch" Russell hit a guidewire with his inbound pass with five secs left. If "Havlicek steals the ball" doesn't happen, Wilt might very well have engineered the greatest upset in NBA history. For the game, Chamberlain scored 30 points, on 80% shooting, with 32 rebounds. For the series, he averaged a 30-31 game.

And, for those that bring up Chamberlain's '68 ECF's...he played the last FIVE games with an assortment of injuries, which had him with a noticeable limp. Even Russell claimed that a lessor man would not have played. Now, isn't that leadership?

Or how about Chamberlain in the clinching game six win over Kareem's Bucks in the '72 ECF's, when he dominated the last quarter, and in which West proclaimed that it was the "greatest ball-busting performance" he had ever seen. And, then in the clinching game five win over the Knicks in the '72 Finals, Wilt played with two badly swollen wrists, one badly sprained, and the other FRACTURED, and all he did was score 24 points, on 10-14 shooting, with 29 rebounds, and 10 blocks. All of which led to him winning the Finals MVP.

But, no, Wilt was not a leader. And he played with vastly better teammates, who, in fact, would have won many rings without him. Yep...just take a look at those team's records, before and after, Chamberlain played for them.

[jlauber]

Are you that dense? The point that was being made with the '56 Warriors is that a team with a core of Arizin, Gola, and Johnston was good enough to win a championship. The '60 Warriors with the addition of Chamberlain suffered the same fate by the way of the '58 team which was a Conference Finals loss. You keep talking as though Wilt joined a team that was simply terrible which is far from the case. The '59 Warriors lost their best player to retirement who was also one of the best players in the league, and lost Tom Gola to injury.

You can keep believing Happy Hairston was better than Tom Gola, but you'll be the only guy to think that and if you suggested that during Gola's career you would have been laughed at as someone who knew nothing about basketball. Gola was one of the best defensive forwards in the game, finished among the league leaders in assists several years and was a 5 time all-star.

I find it funny by the way that the same 8 team league that others have bashed and you have praised is now considered by you to be limited when it doesn't mesh with your Wilt agenda.

Are YOU dense???!!! How many times do I need to destroy this argument? The 55-56 Warriors won a title in the pre-Russell AND Heinsohn era (and Sam Jones as well.) And, they also went 45-27 that season...which, once again, I will get back to. BUT, that was FOUR years before Chamberlain arrived. Furthermore, the core of that 55-56 team went 37-35, 37-35, and then a last-place 32-40 in the year before Chamberlain arrived.

How many times do I have to make this analogy? Using that ridiculous analogy, I could argue that the Celtics were a BETTER team after Russell retired, too. Why? Because only three years after he was gone, Boston went 56-26 (which was better than Russell's last season opf 48-34.) Four years after he retired they went 68-14 (once again, the best record in Celtic history.) And five years following Russell's retirement, they won a title.

The 55-56 season was in a completely different season, and under a completely different set of circumstances than Chamberlain's rookie season. It was FOUR years before Chamberlain arrived. And once again, the core of that team had basically two consecutive .500 seasons afterwards, going 37-35, before dropping to LAST PLACE. Finally, Wilt then took what had been, at best, an average roster (and one that had slipped to last place), and replaced HOFer Johnston...and took that team to a then BEST-EVER record of 49-26. And, while the '58 Warriors were whipped, 4-1 by Boston, the '60 Warriors, despite a hand injury sustained by Wilt, lost to Boston, 4-2, including a 119-117 loss in game six. In game five of that series, Chamberlain put up a monumental 50 point, 35 rebound game on Russell, in leading the Warriors to a 128-107 win. How many of those games did Johnston have against Russell in the post-season?

[Niquesports]

First of all, and once again, Wilt's teammates, in his first six years, were average-at-best...and CONSIDERABLY worse than Russell's. This not even debateable. Russell's Celtics enjoyed a 7-3, 7-3, 6-3, 8-1, 7-2, and 5-2 edge in those years, and they were also deeper.

As for leadership, take a look at their H2H playoff games. Chamberlain HAD to put enormous numbers for his TEAM's to have a prayer. Furthermore, Russell had some great post-season series, particularly in the Finals. However, compare his play, against the Lakers in those Finals, with his play in the previous rounds against Chamberlain. Where were his 30-40 game seven's against Wilt? Where were his .702 FG% numbers against Wilt? Where were his 29 rpg series against Wilt?

My god, in the '62 ECF's, in game two, Chamberlain outscored Russell, 42-9, and outrebounded him, 37-20...and his team BARELY eked out a seven point win. He had a 46-34 game against Russell in the '66 ECF's, while his teammates played miserably, in a clinching game five loss. Why is that important? Because the very next season, Russell, himself, was faced with those same circumstances. How did Russell perform when HIS team needed him to step up? He scored FOUR points, on 2-5 shooting (while Chamberlain poured in 29 points on 10-16 shooting.) Not only that, but as usual, Chamberlain pounded Russell on the glass in that game, 36-21.

And the "double-standard" continued in the '69 Finals, too. Most everyone here knows that Wilt's COACH left Chamberlain on the bench in that game seven loss (while Wilt's replacement, mel Counts shot 4-13.) BUT, very few here know that Russell was nowhere to be found in that last period. He, like his teammates, almost choked away a 17 point 4th quarter lead. And how did the "clutch" Russell play in that game? He scored SIX points, on 2-7 shooting, with 21 rebounds, in 48 minutes. Meanwhile, Chamberlain, in his 43 minutes, scored 18 points, on 7-8 shooting, with 27 rebounds.

Or Wilt's game seven in the '65 ECF's, when he guided a 40-40 team to a one-point loss to Russell's 62-18 Celtics. In that game, Chamberlain scored eight of Philly's last ten points, to cut a 110-101 deficit to 110-109. And, then the "clutch" Russell hit a guidewire with his inbound pass with five secs left. If "Havlicek steals the ball" doesn't happen, Wilt might very well have engineered the greatest upset in NBA history. For the game, Chamberlain scored 30 points, on 80% shooting, with 32 rebounds. For the series, he averaged a 30-31 game.

And, for those that bring up Chamberlain's '68 ECF's...he played the last FIVE games with an assortment of injuries, which had him with a noticeable limp. Even Russell claimed that a lessor man would not have played. Now, isn't that leadership?

Or how about Chamberlain in the clinching game six win over Kareem's Bucks in the '72 ECF's, when he dominated the last quarter, and in which West proclaimed that it was the "greatest ball-busting performance" he had ever seen. And, then in the clinching game five win over the Knicks in the '72 Finals, Wilt played with two badly swollen wrists, one badly sprained, and the other FRACTURED, and all he did was score 24 points, on 10-14 shooting, with 29 rebounds, and 10 blocks. All of which led to him winning the Finals MVP.

But, no, Wilt was not a leader. And he played with vastly better teammates, who, in fact, would have won many rings without him. Yep...just take a look at those team's records, before and after, Chamberlain played for them.
Sometimes in your love affair with WIlt I wonder if you even read what you post. Time after time you gtalk about WIlt scored this here are his numbers. YEt you show nothing or give no support from teammates,media,coaches that talk about how his team rallied behind him. Yes Rusll made a bad inbounds pass. Did his team give up no guess what they came out and Hondo stole the ball.I think if you just tried to look at this without a bias you would see how bad a case you are making.I recall two stories that might help you better understand. Red tell this one. After a game the paper reads Wilt out duels Russell Celtics win.Another story told by Jarren Jackson of the Spurs " We let Kobe have the lane and give him his looks because we know then he will shut down his teammates by himself".Moral of both stories WIlt tried to out play Russ. Russ tried to get his team to out play the other team.This different in game approch is the reason Russ has 11 rings and has how many ? Your argument might have a little weight if it was Magic and Bird 5-3 But 11 to 2 give it up.

[jlauber]

Sometimes in your love affair with WIlt I wonder if you even read what you post. Time after time you gtalk about WIlt scored this here are his numbers. YEt you show nothing or give no support from teammates,media,coaches that talk about how his team rallied behind him. Yes Rusll made a bad inbounds pass. Did his team give up no guess what they came out and Hondo stole the ball.I think if you just tried to look at this without a bias you would see how bad a case you are making.I recall two stories that might help you better understand. Red tell this one. After a game the paper reads Wilt out duels Russell Celtics win.Another story told by Jarren Jackson of the Spurs " We let Kobe have the lane and give him his looks because we know then he will shut down his teammates by himself".Moral of both stories WIlt tried to out play Russ. Russ tried to get his team to out play the other team.This different in game approch is the reason Russ has 11 rings and has how many ? Your argument might have a little weight if it was Magic and Bird 5-3 But 11 to 2 give it up.

Russell has an 11-2 edge in rings because his TEAM's and TEAMMATES were better, and played BETTER. Was Jordan a "loser" because he played on FIVE losing teams? And how come MJ's 93-94 team won nearly as many games after his first retirement?

C'mon...basketball is a TEAM game. The best TEAM usually (yes usually, but not always) wins. If anything, Wilt proved that ONE man could nearly beat a Dynasty by himself...and with a quality supporting cast, that was healthy, they wiped out the Dynasty. I have to agree with John Wooden who said that Wilt very likely would have won all those rings with the same roster that Russell had. We do KNOW that Russell NEVER played with any that were even close to as bad as Chamberlain's early season teams.

A HUGE edge in HOF teammates almost every year. Better teammates; more of them; and played with them longer. I don't think it was any surprise that Russell enjoyed a 7-1 H2H edge over Chamberlain in titles. However, it was simply amazing that Wilt had FOUR of those teams lose game seven's by a combined NINE points. And, when given a comparable supporting cast, that was healthy, he proved that he could not only beat Russell's Celtics (crushing Russell in the process), but they absolutely buried them.

As for Bird...he "only" won three titles, with a HOF-laden team...yet you consider him a greater "winner" than Chamberlain, who not only won two overwhelming championships, but who guided vastly inferior teams to near upsets of the greatest dynasty in modern professional team sports history.

[Niquesports]

Russell has an 11-2 edge in rings because his TEAM's and TEAMMATES were better, and played BETTER. Was Jordan a "loser" because he played on FIVE losing teams? And how come MJ's 93-94 team won nearly as many games after his first retirement?

C'mon...basketball is a TEAM game. The best TEAM usually (yes usually, but not always) wins. If anything, Wilt proved that ONE man could nearly beat a Dynasty by himself...and with a quality supporting cast, that was healthy, they wiped out the Dynasty. I have to agree with John Wooden who said that Wilt very likely would have won all those rings with the same roster that Russell had. We do KNOW that Russell NEVER played with any that were even close to as bad as Chamberlain's early season teams.

A HUGE edge in HOF teammates almost every year. Better teammates; more of them; and played with them longer. I don't think it was any surprise that Russell enjoyed a 7-1 H2H edge over Chamberlain in titles. However, it was simply amazing that Wilt had FOUR of those teams lose game seven's by a combined NINE points. And, when given a comparable supporting cast, that was healthy, he proved that he could not only beat Russell's Celtics (crushing Russell in the process), but they absolutely buried them.

As for Bird...he "only" won three titles, with a HOF-laden team...yet you consider him a greater "winner" than Chamberlain, who not only won two overwhelming championships, but who guided vastly inferior teams to near upsets of the greatest dynasty in modern professional team sports history.


Sorry to inform you close only counts in horse shoes and slow dancing.I think most would agree with you. Russ had a edge in team support, his teams were more stable Russ had the advantage of playing in just 1 system ect.... But when you try and make Wilt's support cast "weak" you lose ground. When you try and say Wilt had strong leadership you look silly. There is just too much evidence that shows differently.Maybe your right if Wilt would had played with the Celtics they may have 13-15 titles.But Red would have never put up with Wilt obsession with his own personal need to carry a team,Red would have never put up with Wilt scoring 100pts.As you say its a team effort. The question isn't if Wilt played with the Celtics how many rings they would have won. But could Wilt had allowed the other players to have a big enough role to become HOFers? Most think not.

[jlauber]

Sorry to inform you close only counts in horse shoes and slow dancing.I think most would agree with you. Russ had a edge in team support, his teams were more stable Russ had the advantage of playing in just 1 system ect.... But when you try and make Wilt's support cast "weak" you lose ground. When you try and say Wilt had strong leadership you look silly. There is just too much evidence that shows differently.Maybe your right if Wilt would had played with the Celtics they may have 13-15 titles.But Red would have never put up with Wilt obsession with his own personal need to carry a team,Red would have never put up with Wilt scoring 100pts.As you say its a team effort. The question isn't if Wilt played with the Celtics how many rings they would have won. But could Wilt had allowed the other players to have a big enough role to become HOFers? Most think not.

Another myth. Many here believe that Wilt cared about were his personal stats. YET, when his COACH's asked him to either score 50 ppg (as in his '62 season), or being a balanced scorer-passer (as in his 66-67 and 67-68 seasons), or just to defer to another player (as in his '69 season, when Baylor was allowed to misfire all season long, and especially in the post-season), or to dominate defensively, grab rebounds, and start the break (as in his 71-72 and 72-73 seasons) he DID so.

Was Wilt a "loser?" He took 12 teams, in his 14 seasons, to the Conference Finals. He took SIX teams to the Finals. He took badly out manned teams to near wins over the "Dynasty". He played on SEVEN conference champions. He played on FOUR teams with the best record in the league. He played on FOUR 60+ win teams. AND, he anchored two of the greatest title teams in NBA history.

Was Wilt a "choker?" I have given you many of the games in which Wilt just crushed Russell. But how about this fact. In his nine game seven's, Wilt averaged 24.4 ppg, 26.3 rpg, and shot .626 from the field (which, I believe is the highest among the truly "great" player in NBA history.) AND, that does not include his 56-35 game five in a best-of-five series. Nor the many BIG games he had in "must-win" situations, like his 50-35 game against Russell in game five of the '60 ECF's.

The fact was, Wilt outplayed his opposing center in perhaps EVERY one of his 29 post-season series. I could only find ONE series, in which he was outshot from the floor, and in that series, he missed 20 shots, while Kareem missed over 100. AND, he was NEVER outrebounded in ANY of those 29 series, by ANY player.

But, still, there will be thoe that will call him a "loser" and a "choker."

[Pointguard]

This Gola thing is freaking me out. Yall are seriously comparing Gola of '61 and '62 to his counter part Sam Jones??? Am I missing something. Gola getting GOAT votes might have been for his college years. Yall keep lumping his career with 61 and 62 when his game had simply degenerated. He did not have it anymore. And Wilt didn't have a time machine. The guy was shooting worse than Kwame Brown on a bad day and Sam Jones seemed to step it up in the playoffs. Arizin retired because of the move, but maybe he saw that he wasn't keeping up.

Boston blitzes Chamberlain in a couple of games in the first half, they throw the kitchen sink at him, the rest of the Warrior's seemed amazed at the kitchen sink. The game is effectively over before adjustments can be made by the sink gazers. Russell gets credit for outplaying Wilt in the first half of a couple of games but in reality it was just at Heinsohn had said, that Boston as a team stopped Chamberlain. And simply no, the other Warriors played horrible and could not adjust to playing different. Wilt wasn't getting the fast break points and couldn't find ways to get his usual 15 more points. The coach couldn't turn to his team, and they couldn't help to free up Wilt. Arizin plays good but Ramsey, Sam Jones, Heinsohn, Cousey more than likely outscore the rest of the Warriors... yet it goes seven games.

[jlauber]

This Gola thing is freaking me out. Yall are seriously comparing Gola of '61 and '62 to his counter part Sam Jones??? Am I missing something. Gola getting GOAT votes might have been for his college years. Yall keep lumping his career with 61 and 62 when his game had simply degenerated. He did not have it anymore. And Wilt didn't have a time machine. The guy was shooting worse than Kwame Brown on a bad day and Sam Jones seemed to step it up in the playoffs. Arizin retired because of the move, but maybe he saw that he wasn't keeping up.

Boston blitzes Chamberlain in a couple of games in the first half, they throw the kitchen sink at him, the rest of the Warrior's seemed amazed at the kitchen sink. The game is effectively over before adjustments can be made by the sink gazers. Russell gets credit for outplaying Wilt in the first half of a couple of games but in reality it was just at Heinsohn had said, that Boston as a team stopped Chamberlain. And simply no, the other Warriors played horrible and could not adjust to playing different. Wilt wasn't getting the fast break points and couldn't find ways to get his usual 15 more points. The coach couldn't turn to his team, and they couldn't help to free up Wilt. Arizin plays good but Ramsey, Sam Jones, Heinsohn, Cousey more than likely outscore the rest of the Warriors... yet it goes seven games.

This "Gola thing" has become laughable. All of a sudden we have these "pro-Gola" posters popping up. Not because they actually believe Gola was any more than a decent player...but to find some way to disparage Wilt's career.

G.O.A.T even posted that in 1970, that Gola received votes as the Greatest NBA player ever! As I stated previously, Gola was never even the best player on any of his NBA teams. And, once again, his stats are among the WORST of a ANY NBA player in the HOF (yes, you can find a couple worse...but not many.)

And also once again...did Gola step it up in the playoffs? He shot .336 in his five post-season career, including two of .355 and .330 BEFORE he played with Chamberlain.

Yet, all of a sudden, there are those here claiming that HE was responsible for the Warriors narrowly losing a game seven to the 60-20 Celtics in '62ECF's...with his 6.3 ppg and .271 FG%. Granted, if he had been able to just score three more measley points in that game seven, perhaps Wilt would have won his first ring.

Gola better than Heinsohn, Sharman, Cousy, Havlicek, Sam Jones? I don't think so.

[Niquesports]

This "Gola thing" has become laughable. All of a sudden we have these "pro-Gola" posters popping up. Not because they actually believe Gola was any more than a decent player...but to find some way to disparage Wilt's career.

G.O.A.T even posted that in 1970, that Gola received votes as the Greatest NBA player ever! As I stated previously, Gola was never even the best player on any of his NBA teams. And, once again, his stats are among the WORST of a ANY NBA player in the HOF (yes, you can find a couple worse...but not many.)

And also once again...did Gola step it up in the playoffs? He shot .336 in his five post-season career, including two of .355 and .330 BEFORE he played with Chamberlain.

Yet, all of a sudden, there are those here claiming that HE was responsible for the Warriors narrowly losing a game seven to the 60-20 Celtics in '62ECF's...with his 6.3 ppg and .271 FG%. Granted, if he had been able to just score three more measley points in that game seven, perhaps Wilt would have won his first ring.

Gola better than Heinsohn, Sharman, Cousy, Havlicek, Sam Jones? I don't think so.
maybe The Great Wilt The Stilt should have scored the 3 measley points. I mean according to you he carried team by himself.Really I agree with you Russ had a better support cast but it wasn't like he had a weak support.That is where you are wrong.

[FKAri]

Because MJ is an icon. He changed basketball in the business sense and made it marketable and made everyone interested in it again.

Bill Russell didn't have his own huge nike shoe deal

It has nothing to do with stats, rings, etc. Those are all secondary. It's because we were exposed to MJ more than guys like Russell, Chamberlain, etc. It's that simple.

This.

MJ is the Ali of basketball. That doesn't neccesarily mean MJ is the Sugar Ray Robinson of basketball.

[LosBulls]

Because he was more recent than Russell. If Jordan had played in the 60s and Russell played in the 90s more people would consider Russell the greater player. It is just the way it works in the nba and in sports in general...

Russell would of been another above average PF. He would f been a Boozer-level PF. Nothing more.

[Niquesports]

Russell would of been another above average PF. He would f been a Boozer-level PF. Nothing more.
And when Boozer wins 11 titles as his team clear leader than he will be GOAT.

[madmax]

Russell would of been another above average PF. He would f been a Boozer-level PF. Nothing more.

sure - why not...if Boozer could lead his team to 11 rings as a best player I'm pretty sure he would be in contention as a GOAT:confusedshrug:

[Pointguard]

maybe The Great Wilt The Stilt should have scored the 3 measley points. I mean according to you he carried team by himself.Really I agree with you Russ had a better support cast but it wasn't like he had a weak support.That is where you are wrong.
I think the problem is that yall are hell bent on making it something it wasn't. Saying look at Gola, even referenced as getting GOAT votes, when he was sporting a 6.3 ppg and .271 FG% and, as you say Wilt should have still cut the slack? This was their third/2nd best player that year. He was on self check, meaning it didn't make sense to guard him. And Sam Jones wasn't being stopped either. So Wilt now has a freelanced defender on him.

The other best player was an elderstatesman whose game was declining so his reflexes might not have been what they used to be. The Fourth a rookie who did elevate his game but he was subject rookie mistakes against Boston. One was too young and inexperienced, the other past his prime, the other couldn't hit the side of a barn - yet it boiled down to two baskets. What you see as strength can easily be seen as ripe for exploitation.

[jlauber]

maybe The Great Wilt The Stilt should have scored the 3 measley points. I mean according to you he carried team by himself.Really I agree with you Russ had a better support cast but it wasn't like he had a weak support.That is where you are wrong.

Yep...it would have been too much to ask for a TEAMMATE of Chamberlain to hit a game-winning shot. Russell's TEAMMATES not only routinely hit game-winners, some of them were borderline miraculous.

As far as Wilt's support...let's completely ignore his 62-63 thru 64-65 Warrior teams, when he had virtually NO help, and concentrate on his 59-60 thru 61-62 teams. Once again, the Warriors were a LAST-PLACE team when he arrived. Even going back a couple of years, and with Neil Johnston, they had consecutive seasons of 37-35. Without Johnston, they were a last-place team, and with him they were basically a .500 team. Take Johnston away, and add Wilt, and then all of a sudden, they became a 49-26 team. Even in Chamberlain's monstrous 61-62 season, the Warriors "only" went 49-31. And, once again, his teammates, particularly HOFers Arizin and Gola...and especially Gola, played poorly in the those three post-seasons with Chamberlain. Arizin had two post-seasons of .328 and .375 shooting, while Gola couldn't hit the Pacific Ocean from a life-boat, shooting .412, .206, and .271.

So, here we have an already average-at-best roster (even WITH Johnston they were no better than .500)...and with their next two best players playing poorly, and with everyone of Wilt's other teammates shooting worse...and yet, somehow Wilt was able to get his team to a two-point loss in a game seven, and against SIX HOFers, with a deeper bench, and a HOF coach.

Look, I respect your's and even G.O.A.T's opinions, but the OVERWHELMING evidence illustrates that not only did Russell have better teammates, they were CONSIDERABLY better. Man-for-man it was just no contest. BUT, the Russell-supporters will suggest that somehow Russell outplayed Wilt. How was that possiblem, then, that Wilt could take a vastly outmatched crew to a game seven, two-point loss, especially when almost to a man they played poorly?

And I SAW many of the Russell-Wilt duels, and I can honestly say that I NEVER came away thinking that Russell was the better player. I WILL say, though, that in many instances, I came away thinking just how poorly Wilt's teammates played. I'm sure that Russell deserved some of the credit for that, and Wilt perhaps deserved some of the blame. BUT, just take a look at what Russell's teammates accomplished in their careers, most all of whom played with Russell for many years...and compare that to those that played with Chamberlain, and even without Wilt. It was just not close.

Now if you want to carry the argument into the second half of Chamberlain's career, yes, Wilt did play with some quality teammates. But even then you have to really analyze that. For those that say that Wilt played with Baylor....yes, BUT for really only ONE full season. And only TWO post-seasons (and Baylor was awful in one, and Chamberlain was playing on a knee that had major surgery just four months prior in another.) Wilt played with Goodrich for TWO seasons. And Chamberlain played with West for five, but West missed one complete post-season in one, and once again, Wilt played at nowhere near 100% in another. And West was hobbled with injuries in the two of the other three. Only in his three years in Philly did he play with quality teammates for any length of time...and they had the best record in the league in all three. And I won't get into the many reasons why they didn't win a title in two of them. Needless to say, when Chamberlain's Philly squad was healthy, and played well, they brutalized Russell and the Celtics.

Russell played alongside Sam Jones for 12 years, Heinsohn for nine, Cousy for five, Sharman for four, Havlicek for seven, etc, etc.

And, once again, take a look at Wilt's Warrior rosters from the 62-63 season thru the first half of the 64-65 season, and they were basically a laughing stock. Russell's Celtics had edges in HOFers in 62-63 of 8-1, and in 63-64 of 7-2.

[Niquesports]

Yep...it would have been too much to ask for a TEAMMATE of Chamberlain to hit a game-winning shot. Russell's TEAMMATES not only routinely hit game-winners, some of them were borderline miraculous.

As far as Wilt's support...let's completely ignore his 62-63 thru 64-65 Warrior teams, when he had virtually NO help, and concentrate on his 59-60 thru 61-62 teams. Once again, the Warriors were a LAST-PLACE team when he arrived. Even going back a couple of years, and with Neil Johnston, they had consecutive seasons of 37-35. Without Johnston, they were a last-place team, and with him they were basically a .500 team. Take Johnston away, and add Wilt, and then all of a sudden, they became a 49-26 team. Even in Chamberlain's monstrous 61-62 season, the Warriors "only" went 49-31. And, once again, his teammates, particularly HOFers Arizin and Gola...and especially Gola, played poorly in the those three post-seasons with Chamberlain. Arizin had two post-seasons of .328 and .375 shooting, while Gola couldn't hit the Pacific Ocean from a life-boat, shooting .412, .206, and .271.

So, here we have an already average-at-best roster (even WITH Johnston they were no better than .500)...and with their next two best players playing poorly, and with everyone of Wilt's other teammates shooting worse...and yet, somehow Wilt was able to get his team to a two-point loss in a game seven, and against SIX HOFers, with a deeper bench, and a HOF coach.

Look, I respect your's and even G.O.A.T's opinions, but the OVERWHELMING evidence illustrates that not only did Russell have better teammates, they were CONSIDERABLY better. Man-for-man it was just no contest. BUT, the Russell-supporters will suggest that somehow Russell outplayed Wilt. How was that possiblem, then, that Wilt could take a vastly outmatched crew to a game seven, two-point loss, especially when almost to a man they played poorly?

And I SAW many of the Russell-Wilt duels, and I can honestly say that I NEVER came away thinking that Russell was the better player. I WILL say, though, that in many instances, I came away thinking just how poorly Wilt's teammates played. I'm sure that Russell deserved some of the credit for that, and Wilt perhaps deserved some of the blame. BUT, just take a look at what Russell's teammates accomplished in their careers, most all of whom played with Russell for many years...and compare that to those that played with Chamberlain, and even without Wilt. It was just not close.

Now if you want to carry the argument into the second half of Chamberlain's career, yes, Wilt did play with some quality teammates. But even then you have to really analyze that. For those that say that Wilt played with Baylor....yes, BUT for really only ONE full season. And only TWO post-seasons (and Baylor was awful in one, and Chamberlain was playing on a knee that had major surgery just four months prior in another.) Wilt played with Goodrich for TWO seasons. And Chamberlain played with West for five, but West missed one complete post-season in one, and once again, Wilt played at nowhere near 100% in another. And West was hobbled with injuries in the two of the other three. Only in his three years in Philly did he play with quality teammates for any length of time...and they had the best record in the league in all three. And I won't get into the many reasons why they didn't win a title in two of them. Needless to say, when Chamberlain's Philly squad was healthy, and played well, they brutalized Russell and the Celtics.

Russell played alongside Sam Jones for 12 years, Heinsohn for nine, Cousy for five, Sharman for four, Havlicek for seven, etc, etc.

And, once again, take a look at Wilt's Warrior rosters from the 62-63 season thru the first half of the 64-65 season, and they were basically a laughing stock. Russell's Celtics had edges in HOFers in 62-63 of 8-1, and in 63-64 of 7-2.
YOur battle with G.O.A.T. is different from mine. I just differ from you in you saying that Wilt's support cast was "weak". I have never said Wilt was a loser or a choker I have just said that Wilt and Russ's approched the game was different. Russ made sure his cast had roles and they were able to fulfill them. NOt that Wilt didn't but there is a reason only 1 scoring champ has ever won a title the year they were scoring champs.Lets look at 61-62
Boston had 5 players take 1,000 or more FGA Philly only had 2 WIlt and Arizn.Now this has nothing to do with FG% just how many times a player shot was involved in the shot selection.LEts look at KC and Rogers in 2054 min. KC takes 724FGA yet Rodgers in 2650 min. he takes only 749 FGA. Thats only 25 more shots in almost 600 more min.
Now you write really long post sometimes so long your main point is missed. You made a great point SIr John W said if Wilt had played with that Celtic team he would have won just as many rings. I have asked to show quotes of teammates coahes media someone claim Wilt was a strong leader. I have never said or posted that Russ out played Wilt but i do believe in everything I have read that Russ was the better leader.I can be wrong but I have always felt Wilt thought he was bigger than the team. Which made many coaches do thinks like jan Van ect.. did in terms of benching him and the trades.AS I have said that you never responded to Wilt has never been the franchise of a team. Thats the sign of leadership.

[jlauber]

YOur battle with G.O.A.T. is different from mine. I just differ from you in you saying that Wilt's support cast was "weak". I have never said Wilt was a loser or a choker I have just said that Wilt and Russ's approched the game was different. Russ made sure his cast had roles and they were able to fulfill them. NOt that Wilt didn't but there is a reason only 1 scoring champ has ever won a title the year they were scoring champs.Lets look at 61-62
Boston had 5 players take 1,000 or more FGA Philly only had 2 WIlt and Arizn.Now this has nothing to do with FG% just how many times a player shot was involved in the shot selection.LEts look at KC and Rogers in 2054 min. KC takes 724FGA yet Rodgers in 2650 min. he takes only 749 FGA. Thats only 25 more shots in almost 600 more min.
Now you write really long post sometimes so long your main point is missed. You made a great point SIr John W said if Wilt had played with that Celtic team he would have won just as many rings. I have asked to show quotes of teammates coahes media someone claim Wilt was a strong leader. I have never said or posted that Russ out played Wilt but i do believe in everything I have read that Russ was the better leader.I can be wrong but I have always felt Wilt thought he was bigger than the team. Which made many coaches do thinks like jan Van ect.. did in terms of benching him and the trades.AS I have said that you never responded to Wilt has never been the franchise of a team. Thats the sign of leadership.

Good post, and I have to concede some of it. We do know that Russell was obsessed with winning, while Chamberlain found many other facets in his life. And ultimately, while Russell was a bitter man for much of his life, Chamberlain died a very contented man.

But here's my take...

Wilt was EXPECTED to win. He was usually the tallest player in the league; he was always the biggest; he was among the fastest, if not the fastest (just ask Chief's coach Hank Stram); he was not only the strongest, but perhaps the strongest athlete in all of the major team sports at the time; with his height, and his leaping ability, he probably jumped the highest; and was amazingly skilled for a seven-footer (especially in that era.) And, individually, he was a MUCH better player than Russell.

With all of that, he was EXPECTED to win title-after-title...even with inferior rosters. And, perhaps because he was so gifted, it ultimately hurt him. The coaches he had early on, came to the conclusion that, since Wilt could get his shot against anyone (or multiple players), and since he routinely shot nearly 100 points over the league average, that it was better to have Chamberlain take the shots, than say a Rodgers, who consistently shot well below the league average. However, Chamberlain's teammates became way to dependent upon him, and as Hannum noticed before the start of the 63-64 season, Wilt's teammates had basically forgotten how to play basketball.

And, in the second half of his career, Wilt's coaches had asked Wilt to change his game several times. And, for whatever reasons, his teammates, in almost every season, but two, played poorly in the post-season (with the exception of West in a couple.) But, in any case, unless his TEAM won, it was Wilt that received the blame. If he scored 30+ and his team lost...well, he shot too much. If he "only" scored 20, and his TEAM lost,...well, why didn't he shoot more?

Once again, IMHO, there were the expectations for everyone else whoever played the game...and then there were the expectations for WILT. And, unfortunately, he seldom could live up to them. And, in the vast majority of his career, the losses he suffered were not his fault.

[G.O.A.T]

I think the problem is that yall are hell bent on making it something it wasn't. Saying look at Gola, even referenced as getting GOAT votes, when he was sporting a 6.3 ppg and .271 FG%

Or maybe he had a severely sprained ankle and a major back injury...

[Pointguard]

Or maybe he had a severely sprained ankle and a major back injury...

Couldn't move freely and didn't like contact afterward, blaaah. Was never the same afterwards. But the NBA liked him. Was he the best defender before Russell came on the scene???

[Niquesports]

Good post, and I have to concede some of it. We do know that Russell was obsessed with winning, while Chamberlain found many other facets in his life. And ultimately, while Russell was a bitter man for much of his life, Chamberlain died a very contented man.

But here's my take...

Wilt was EXPECTED to win. He was usually the tallest player in the league; he was always the biggest; he was among the fastest, if not the fastest (just ask Chief's coach Hank Stram); he was not only the strongest, but perhaps the strongest athlete in all of the major team sports at the time; with his height, and his leaping ability, he probably jumped the highest; and was amazingly skilled for a seven-footer (especially in that era.) And, individually, he was a MUCH better player than Russell.

With all of that, he was EXPECTED to win title-after-title...even with inferior rosters. And, perhaps because he was so gifted, it ultimately hurt him. The coaches he had early on, came to the conclusion that, since Wilt could get his shot against anyone (or multiple players), and since he routinely shot nearly 100 points over the league average, that it was better to have Chamberlain take the shots, than say a Rodgers, who consistently shot well below the league average. However, Chamberlain's teammates became way to dependent upon him, and as Hannum noticed before the start of the 63-64 season, Wilt's teammates had basically forgotten how to play basketball.

And, in the second half of his career, Wilt's coaches had asked Wilt to change his game several times. And, for whatever reasons, his teammates, in almost every season, but two, played poorly in the post-season (with the exception of West in a couple.) But, in any case, unless his TEAM won, it was Wilt that received the blame. If he scored 30+ and his team lost...well, he shot too much. If he "only" scored 20, and his TEAM lost,...well, why didn't he shoot more?

Once again, IMHO, there were the expectations for everyone else whoever played the game...and then there were the expectations for WILT. And, unfortunately, he seldom could live up to them. And, in the vast majority of his career, the losses he suffered were not his fault.
I'm with you now. THe league ,the media, for the most part the fans never accepted Wilt.Here was this man that no one have ever seen as gifted. But too problems he was outspoken, and "BLACK" in the 1960's .Your right many people felt Wilt should have won if he played with 4 Nuns and a blind 6th man.IT drives me crazy when you see threads "The Most Dominant Player Ever" People have Wilt 3rd and 5th. :facepalm . That being said I don't think Wilt really learned how to be a teammate until he got to the Lakers.His skills had slowed down a little due to age and he was finally had some foundation.IT's really sad that more people don't appreciate Wilt's greatness.But some can say he brought it on him self when he left Kanas early.

[Lebron23]

Michael Jordan is the greatest player of all time. He won 6 NBA titles in the modern Era.

His team beat Utah Jazz (Karl Malone and John Stockton), New York Knicks ( Patrick Ewing) Orlando Magic (Shaquille O'Neal and Penny Hardaway), Phoenix Suns (Charles Barkley, Kevin Johnson), Los Angeles Lakers (Magic Johnson, James Worthy), Portland Trailblazers (Clyde Drexler), Seattle Supersonics (Gary Payton, Shawn Kemp), Cleveland Cavaliers ( Mark Price and Brad Daugherty), Detroit Pistons (Isiah Thomas, Joe Dumas and Bill Laimbeer), Indiana Pacers (Reggie Miller), and Miami Heat ( Alonzo Morning, and Tim Hardaway) in the playoffs.

[jlauber]

Michael Jordan is the greatest player of all time. He won 6 NBA titles in the modern Era.

His team beat Utah Jazz (Karl Malone and John Stockton), New York Knicks ( Patrick Ewing) Orlando Magic (Shaquille O'Neal and Penny Hardaway), Phoenix Suns (Charles Barkley, Kevin Johnson), Los Angeles Lakers (Magic Johnson, James Worthy), Portland Trailblazers (Clyde Drexler), Seattle Supersonics (Gary Payton, Shawn Kemp), Cleveland Cavaliers ( Mark Price and Brad Daugherty), Detroit Pistons (Isiah Thomas, Joe Dumas and Bill Laimbeer), Indiana Pacers (Reggie Miller), and Miami Heat ( Alonzo Morning, and Tim Hardaway) in the playoffs.

I am not as big an MJ fan, but this is a pretty good post. The knock against Jordan by some from MY generation was that his competition was somewhat watered down. However, as you have noted, he faced quite a number of great players...and was the best of the group. I would only argue that perhaps had he faced the Shaq-Kobe duo of say 2001, in his prime, and beaten them, then I would have been more impressed. IMHO, a PRIME Shaq might have been his equal.

As for All-Time...MJ's post-season play probably gives him a slight edge over almost all the greats, like Kareem, Magic, Bird, Wilt, Shaq, and Duncan...except for Russell and his 11 rings.

And individually, I really believe that Chamberlain was more dominant, and a more dominant all-around player. As Oscar once said, "The Record Book does not lie." Seven scoring titles, nine FG% titles, 11 rebounding titles, and even one assist title. And as great a defender as MJ was, Wilt's defense probably impacted games considerably more. And, not only did Chamberlain win statistical titles, he put many of them light-years away from the next guy (and often that was himself.) He does get diminished somewhat in the post-season, because his scoring dropped some, but there were reasons for that which I have covered before, and I don't want to waste the time rehashing it again. I will say this, though, about his post-season play...in his 29 post-season series, he was probably never outplayed by an opposing center, and in many of those series, he absolutely crushed them. And he faced a HOF center in nearly two-thirds of them.

And, I would also put a PRIME Shaq right there with MJ, as well...even in the post-season. I have maintained that Shaq's "three-peat" post-seasons, and particularly his Finals were the greatest in NBA history...with perhaps the only question being his opposing centers in those Finals.

And some would argue for Kareem. My only problem with Abdul-Jabbar was that, in his prime, and in a weaker period in the NBA (from '74 thru '79), he didn't lead his teams to titles. And, I have also maintained that he didn't put forth a maximum effort for much of his career, either. Still, he was among the best players in the league for some 17 seasons, and probably the best player for almost all of the 70's. And with six MVPs and six rings, he is right there with MJ.

And finally, I would say that Magic should also be in the conversation. He never came close to experiencing a losing season; his team's averaged nearly 60 wins per season over the course of his career (and excluding his comeback year in the mid-90's); he took his team's to nine Finals in 12 seasons, and won five rings. And he was an even better player in the post-season, than he was in the regular season. IMHO, he is the second greatest "winner" behind Russell.

Oh, and Duncan deserves a P.S., too. 50+ win seasons every year. Four rings. Winning titles with weaker casts. He is somewhat like Magic and Russell for me. He made his teammates better, and he made opposing teams worse.

Overall, though, MJ's resume probably has the best case for G.O.A.T. status. In any case, I don't have a problem with any of my top-seven (and perhaps even Bird at his peak)...being labeled as the greatest ever (Russell, MJ, Magic, Wilt, Kareem, Shaq, and Duncan.)

And, IF Kobe wins a ring this year, he too, should be in the conversation. BTW, Shaq and Duncan might be adding a fifth ring this year, as well...which would make for an interesting discussion on THEIR all-time place in NBA history.

[Niquesports]

I am not as big an MJ fan, but this is a pretty good post. The knock against Jordan by some from MY generation was that his competition was somewhat watered down. However, as you have noted, he faced quite a number of great players...and was the best of the group. I would only argue that perhaps had he faced the Shaq-Kobe duo of say 2001, in his prime, and beaten them, then I would have been more impressed. IMHO, a PRIME Shaq might have been his equal.

As for All-Time...MJ's post-season play probably gives him a slight edge over almost all the greats, like Kareem, Magic, Bird, Wilt, Shaq, and Duncan...except for Russell and his 11 rings.

And individually, I really believe that Chamberlain was more dominant, and a more dominant all-around player. As Oscar once said, "The Record Book does not lie." Seven scoring titles, nine FG% titles, 11 rebounding titles, and even one assist title. And as great a defender as MJ was, Wilt's defense probably impacted games considerably more. And, not only did Chamberlain win statistical titles, he put many of them light-years away from the next guy (and often that was himself.) He does get diminished somewhat in the post-season, because his scoring dropped some, but there were reasons for that which I have covered before, and I don't want to waste the time rehashing it again. I will say this, though, about his post-season play...in his 29 post-season series, he was probably never outplayed by an opposing center, and in many of those series, he absolutely crushed them. And he faced a HOF center in nearly two-thirds of them.

And, I would also put a PRIME Shaq right there with MJ, as well...even in the post-season. I have maintained that Shaq's "three-peat" post-seasons, and particularly his Finals were the greatest in NBA history...with perhaps the only question being his opposing centers in those Finals.

And some would argue for Kareem. My only problem with Abdul-Jabbar was that, in his prime, and in a weaker period in the NBA (from '74 thru '79), he didn't lead his teams to titles. And, I have also maintained that he didn't put forth a maximum effort for much of his career, either. Still, he was among the best players in the league for some 17 seasons, and probably the best player for almost all of the 70's. And with six MVPs and six rings, he is right there with MJ.

And finally, I would say that Magic should also be in the conversation. He never came close to experiencing a losing season; his team's averaged nearly 60 wins per season over the course of his career (and excluding his comeback year in the mid-90's); he took his team's to nine Finals in 12 seasons, and won five rings. And he was an even better player in the post-season, than he was in the regular season. IMHO, he is the second greatest "winner" behind Russell.

Oh, and Duncan deserves a P.S., too. 50+ win seasons every year. Four rings. Winning titles with weaker casts. He is somewhat like Magic and Russell for me. He made his teammates better, and he made opposing teams worse.

Overall, though, MJ's resume probably has the best case for G.O.A.T. status. In any case, I don't have a problem with any of my top-seven (and perhaps even Bird at his peak)...being labeled as the greatest ever (Russell, MJ, Magic, Wilt, Kareem, Shaq, and Duncan.)

And, IF Kobe wins a ring this year, he too, should be in the conversation. BTW, Shaq and Duncan might be adding a fifth ring this year, as well...which would make for an interesting discussion on THEIR all-time place in NBA history.
FOr Shaq and Duncan I think winning a ring this year will do little in impacting their legacy. Both have lesser roles with Shaq even a less role than Duncan.How ever if both were to have a monster playoff run both could be in that elite Top 5 player convo.
We trying to select a GOAT its almost impossible. ITs more based on your view of the era,style of play,impact of player.
You have scorers
Wilt, Jordan
Floor generals
Magic
Russ
Total overall player
Kareem
Oscar
Each player's dominance was in a different way. Each had fewe weakness and their few wasn't a liability just a weaker part of their game.
So Ifeel its just best to say a player has reached elite status. Shaq ,Duncan have reached that
with
Bird ,Baylor,Karl Malone,Barkley in the next tier.Super Stars

[Niquesports]

I am not as big an MJ fan, but this is a pretty good post. The knock against Jordan by some from MY generation was that his competition was somewhat watered down. However, as you have noted, he faced quite a number of great players...and was the best of the group. I would only argue that perhaps had he faced the Shaq-Kobe duo of say 2001, in his prime, and beaten them, then I would have been more impressed. IMHO, a PRIME Shaq might have been his equal.

As for All-Time...MJ's post-season play probably gives him a slight edge over almost all the greats, like Kareem, Magic, Bird, Wilt, Shaq, and Duncan...except for Russell and his 11 rings.

And individually, I really believe that Chamberlain was more dominant, and a more dominant all-around player. As Oscar once said, "The Record Book does not lie." Seven scoring titles, nine FG% titles, 11 rebounding titles, and even one assist title. And as great a defender as MJ was, Wilt's defense probably impacted games considerably more. And, not only did Chamberlain win statistical titles, he put many of them light-years away from the next guy (and often that was himself.) He does get diminished somewhat in the post-season, because his scoring dropped some, but there were reasons for that which I have covered before, and I don't want to waste the time rehashing it again. I will say this, though, about his post-season play...in his 29 post-season series, he was probably never outplayed by an opposing center, and in many of those series, he absolutely crushed them. And he faced a HOF center in nearly two-thirds of them.

And, I would also put a PRIME Shaq right there with MJ, as well...even in the post-season. I have maintained that Shaq's "three-peat" post-seasons, and particularly his Finals were the greatest in NBA history...with perhaps the only question being his opposing centers in those Finals.

And some would argue for Kareem. My only problem with Abdul-Jabbar was that, in his prime, and in a weaker period in the NBA (from '74 thru '79), he didn't lead his teams to titles. And, I have also maintained that he didn't put forth a maximum effort for much of his career, either. Still, he was among the best players in the league for some 17 seasons, and probably the best player for almost all of the 70's. And with six MVPs and six rings, he is right there with MJ.

And finally, I would say that Magic should also be in the conversation. He never came close to experiencing a losing season; his team's averaged nearly 60 wins per season over the course of his career (and excluding his comeback year in the mid-90's); he took his team's to nine Finals in 12 seasons, and won five rings. And he was an even better player in the post-season, than he was in the regular season. IMHO, he is the second greatest "winner" behind Russell.

Oh, and Duncan deserves a P.S., too. 50+ win seasons every year. Four rings. Winning titles with weaker casts. He is somewhat like Magic and Russell for me. He made his teammates better, and he made opposing teams worse.

Overall, though, MJ's resume probably has the best case for G.O.A.T. status. In any case, I don't have a problem with any of my top-seven (and perhaps even Bird at his peak)...being labeled as the greatest ever (Russell, MJ, Magic, Wilt, Kareem, Shaq, and Duncan.)

And, IF Kobe wins a ring this year, he too, should be in the conversation. BTW, Shaq and Duncan might be adding a fifth ring this year, as well...which would make for an interesting discussion on THEIR all-time place in NBA history.
FOr Shaq and Duncan I think winning a ring this year will do little in impacting their legacy. Both have lesser roles with Shaq even a less role than Duncan.How ever if both were to have a monster playoff run both could be in that elite Top 5 player convo.
We trying to select a GOAT its almost impossible. ITs more based on your view of the era,style of play,impact of player.
You have scorers
Wilt, Jordan
Floor generals
Magic
Russ
Total overall player
Kareem
Oscar
Each player's dominance was in a different way. Each had fewe weakness and their few wasn't a liability just a weaker part of their game.
So Ifeel its just best to say a player has reached elite status. Shaq ,Duncan have reached that
with
Bird ,Baylor,Karl Malone,Barkley in the next tier.Super Stars

[jlauber]

FOr Shaq and Duncan I think winning a ring this year will do little in impacting their legacy. Both have lesser roles with Shaq even a less role than Duncan.How ever if both were to have a monster playoff run both could be in that elite Top 5 player convo.
We trying to select a GOAT its almost impossible. ITs more based on your view of the era,style of play,impact of player.
You have scorers
Wilt, Jordan
Floor generals
Magic
Russ
Total overall player
Kareem
Oscar
Each player's dominance was in a different way. Each had fewe weakness and their few wasn't a liability just a weaker part of their game.
So Ifeel its just best to say a player has reached elite status. Shaq ,Duncan have reached that
with
Bird ,Baylor,Karl Malone,Barkley in the next tier.Super Stars

I agree. And the reality was/is, there have just been so MANY outstanding players since the 50's. Even I find myself forgetting Mikan's impact on the game, for instance.

The Top-9 is generally something along the lines of MJ, Russell, Kareem, Magic, Wilt, Shaq, Duncan, Bird, and Kobe.

Then it gets congested. Moses, Hakeem, Oscar, West, Robinson, Garnett, Havlicek, Barkley, K. Malone, Baylor, and probably a few other's I have forgotten...including Mikan. And I think a case could be made for Lebron in that group, as well.

[Niquesports]

I agree. And the reality was/is, there have just been so MANY outstanding players since the 50's. Even I find myself forgetting Mikan's impact on the game, for instance.

The Top-9 is generally something along the lines of MJ, Russell, Kareem, Magic, Wilt, Shaq, Duncan, Bird, and Kobe.

Then it gets congested. Moses, Hakeem, Oscar, West, Robinson, Garnett, Havlicek, Barkley, K. Malone, Baylor, and probably a few other's I have forgotten...including Mikan. And I think a case could be made for Lebron in that group, as well.


I would move oscar into the Top Elite group and drop Kobe down. The one problem I have with Kobe being in the Top elite is that one thing all the other 9 Top Elite Players have been dominanat from day 1.IT may have took some like Oscar and MJ a few years to win their title they were still dominant players.Lebron is just a monster finals away from moving into this group.Its not something I would argue but imho.

[SinJackal]

FOr Shaq and Duncan I think winning a ring this year will do little in impacting their legacy. Both have lesser roles with Shaq even a less role than Duncan.How ever if both were to have a monster playoff run both could be in that elite Top 5 player convo.
We trying to select a GOAT its almost impossible. ITs more based on your view of the era,style of play,impact of player.
You have scorers
Wilt, Jordan
Floor generals
Magic
Russ
Total overall player
Kareem
Oscar
Each player's dominance was in a different way. Each had fewe weakness and their few wasn't a liability just a weaker part of their game.
So Ifeel its just best to say a player has reached elite status. Shaq ,Duncan have reached that
with
Bird ,Baylor,Karl Malone,Barkley in the next tier.Super Stars

Duncan is still arguably the best/most important player on the team. He is the sole frontcourt player they have that is considered even above average. His defense is as good as it's been in years (I've watched nearly every Spurs game throughout his career), and everything about his game is exactly what it was last the last 4 years or better with the exception of a couple minutes played, and the volume of shots he's being allowed to take in the current system. That's it.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/d/duncati01.html

Compare his stats on a per minute basis to the last 4 years. You will see his rebounding and assists are almost the exact same as they've been the last 3-4 years. . .his shot blocking and steals are up to what they were during the last Spurs' championshop. His assists are the same. His rebounding is actually up from that year.

Only things that are down are his minutes, and FGAs (and by proxy his PPG). Duncan didn't disappear, fall off the table, or drop into the roleplayer category. He's playing the same he has for years. Don't confuse his lesser minutes and subsequently lowered overall per game stats due to it as Duncan being done. Look at what he's doing while he's on the floor. I'd say he's playing his best defensive ball since 2007. His offense is only down slightly due to getting less chances. And it's the regular season. I expect his touches to go up late, and in the playoffs where he is money.

If Duncan wins again, it will be as the 1a or 1b best player on the Spurs. Which imo, should count towards his legacy. He's no more done than Russell or Jabaar were for their later titles. And well-deserved credit goes to both of them for those titles.

[EricForman]

its a good question. but not very many people, and even less people online, can say they legitimately saw both of their careers play out and make their own unbiased opinion.

but yet many players and coaches who DID see Russell play agree Jordan is better.

there are GOAT arguments to be made for Jordan, Kareem, Russell, and to a lesser extent--Magic and Wilt. however, it's widely accepted by the majority of people working in or around basketball that Jordan has the best case overall.

Yet, some of you ISH people, rather due to hidden agenda (like Roundball) or just lack of understanding of things like context and the history of the league (Jordan's combo of winning/stats/dominance over peers/outright destroying opponents were well-documented long before the internet or espn era) continue to pretend like Jordan is ONLY considered to be the best because of:

A: ESPN's buttkissing
B: Nike's marketing
C: people only remember recent stars

:facepalm

[jlauber]

but yet many players and coaches who DID see Russell play agree Jordan is better.

there are GOAT arguments to be made for Jordan, Kareem, Russell, and to a lesser extent--Magic and Wilt. however, it's widely accepted by the majority of people working in or around basketball that Jordan has the best case overall.

Yet, some of you ISH people, rather due to hidden agenda (like Roundball) or just lack of understanding of things like context and the history of the league (Jordan's combo of winning/stats/dominance over peers/outright destroying opponents were well-documented long before the internet or espn era) continue to pretend like Jordan is ONLY considered to be the best because of:

A: ESPN's buttkissing
B: Nike's marketing
C: people only remember recent stars

:facepalm

My problem with MJ is this...

Those that say to a "lessor extent" for Wilt is why? If Wilt is supposed to be dropped in these rankings because of lack of titles, why doesn't Jordan's ranking drop due to playing on more losing teams, and with earlier playoff round exits, etc?

My point being that Wilt played on substantially worse rosters for about half of his career...AND, in an era of the greatest Dynasty, and most HOF-laden team in NBA history. My god, at one point Wilt played with virtually the worse roster in NBA history in his 62-63 season, and meanwhile Russell's Celtics had EIGHT HOFers on HIS team. Not only that, but Chamberlain put up what is arguably the greatest individual season in NBA history that year. He LED (not just among the leaders, but LED) the NBA in 70% of the statistical categories (15 of 22.) And in some he was WAY ahead of the next guy. And for those that value advanced stats, Wilt LED the NBA in Win Shares, on a team that only won 31 games, with 21 (or a whopping 67% of his team's wins.) AND, his PER was 31.8, which is an all-time record. Furthermore, he faced the MVP that season (Russell), nine times, and with six close games, he outrebounded him, and outscored him by a 38-14 margin, in those nine games.

Continuing, Wilt took vastly inferior rosters, like his 61-62 team (which was very close to the last place roster he joined two years earlier) to a game seven, two-point loss against Russell's 60-20 Celtics, and a team that had SIX HOFers. Or when Wilt took his 40-40 76ers, to a game seven, one point loss against Russell's 62-18 Celtics in 64-65, and outgunned 5-2 in HOFers.

Yet, MJ never came close to taking his mediocre rosters to within an eyelash of beating the great team's of his era. As well as Jordan played in the 85-86 playoffs against Bird's Celtics, he TEAM was swept (and MJ was awful in the clinching game loss BTW.) True that Celtic team had FIVE HOFers, but I would argue that Jordan had as much talent as Wilt on some of his early season teams. MJ had Woolridge, Paxson, and Oakley, who was among the league's best rebounders in the Jordan years.

Now, some will argue that MJ WON more rings than Chamberlain, even when Wilt was on strong teams. True, but even when Wilt was on his better teams, he was still generally outgunned by opposing teams with more HOFers. Russell's '66, '68, and '69 Celtics not only had more HOFers, they were much deeper teams, as well. The '70 Knicks had a 4-3 edge in HOFers, and Wilt was coming back from major surgery just four months before. The '71 Bucks had Kareem and Oscar, while BOTH of Wilt's best players, West and Baylor, missed the playoffs. And the '73 Knicks had SIX HOFers. Even in Chamberlain's championship years, his team beat a Celtic team that had a 6-3 edge in HOFers, and a Knick team that had a 5-3 edge in HOFers (and both of those teams were deeper, as well.)

Not only that, but from '66 to '73 (Wilt's last season), or the last eight years of his career, he took his team to eight conference Finals, and five Finals. AND, in all of those post-seasons, there were a variety of reasons why Wilt's TEAMs did not win. In fact, if you go back to Wilt's 61-62 and 64-65 team's, which lost to the great Celtic teams by the narrowest of margins, Chamberlain played on FIVE other teams that lost game sevens, and four of those were by a total of nine points (2, 1, 4, 2 points.) And in the game seven loss to the Knicks in '70, that series would never have gone to a 7th game had not the officials blantantly handed NY game five. So, while almost every great player can claim a couple of titles with a few points, here-or-there, Wilt nearly won FIVE more rings. And injuries to West and Baylor in '71 (neither of whom played in the post-season), and to West in '73 (he played, but was nowhere near 100%), and Wilt could have won TWO more...or quite possibly SEVEN more rings.

And, in his post-season career, Chamberlain was probably never outplayed by his opposing centers, in 29 post-season series. Not only that, but in many of them he crushed his opposing center. And, keep in mind that he faced a HOF center in nearly two-thirds of those series, as well as an All-Star center in a couple more.

Of course, if you consider the fact that Chamberlain OWNS the NBA Record Book, and had SEVERAL Rules put in place to curtail his dominance, I just can't understand those that say "to a lessor extent."

[PurpleChuck]

I always wondered how history will change if we exchange the position of Wilt and Russell, just swap them with each other. Will Russell still win 11 rings with Wilts team? Or will Wilt own the league with the Celtics? Might have a clearer case for GOAT.

[EricForman]

lauber, we've gone at this before. and we've agreed to disagree on this.

but to recap my stance, i--and apparently, MANY OTHERS former coaches/players--all saw something outside of the numbers.

everyone who played or coached in the NBA during Jordan's era had some sort of greatness tale of Jordan. you have Dream Team coaches going on about how Jordan killed Drexler and went at Magic during practice, you have stories about how coaches tell their players "don't ever talk trash to jordan", etc. by almost all accounts, jordan completely dominated his peers and had no equal when it came to playing basketball.

wilt, however, was trashed by several former teammates or peers (as collected in Bill Simmons' book), and is generally considered as someone who routinely came up short and under achieved.

look, you will argue this for sure and insist on proof, but there isn't numbers and figures to prove this, it just... is. for example, why does everyone consider Shaq an underachiever and "lazy" ? i mean if you pull JUST NUMBERS AND STATS, Shaq's career has been absolutely freaking amazing (how many conference finals has Shaq been to? 9? 11?), yet the general consensus was he underachieved and coulda been better.

that's the general feeling with Wilt. of course, i've never seen him play live so i can't, like, bet my life on this. but you can't dismiss the fact that rep came out of former players and coaches and sportswriters and NBA people, right?

again--and this is osmething i think many anti-Jordan guys on ISH conveniently ignore--it's not JUST 24 year old Air Jordan-wearing kids claiming Jordan is GOAT. we're talking about an overwhelming majority of players, coaches--OLD WHITE GUYS WHO'VE SEEN WILT AND RUSSELL PLAY--and NBA historians and sportswriters.

[jlauber]

I always wondered how history will change if we exchange the position of Wilt and Russell, just swap them with each other. Will Russell still win 11 rings with Wilts team? Or will Wilt own the league with the Celtics? Might have a clearer case for GOAT.

Well, John Wooden for one, believed that Chamberlain would have won as many rings as Russell had they swapped rosters. And Leonard Koppett, the great sports writer and historian, carried it even further, stating that had Wilt played on the exact team's that Russell had in his career (of course Russell played a couple of years before Wilt), that Chamberlain would have gone 13-0.

Having said that however, even Chamberlain stated that Russell probably blended better with his HOF teammates, than he, himself, would have. Still, I can't see Russell taking any of Wilt early teams NEARLY as far as Chamberlain...especially if Chamberlain had anywhere from five to seven more HOF teammates on HIS team.

And for those that argue that Wilt's "ball-hogging" would have hurt his teammates, Wilt really only scored 40-50 ppg because his teammates were generally inept, AND, even more importantly, his COACH's asked him to.

Take a look at Wilt in the last half of his career. He dramatically cut back his shooting, and in one year he led the NBA in assists, and in another he came in third. So, I really believe that Wilt could have adapted to those talent-laden Celtic teams of the early-to-mid 60's.

IMHO, the only year that Wilt might not have won a title, with Russell's teammates, in the Russell-Wilt era, would have been in the 68-69 season. Why? Quite simply, because Wilt's coach that season, didn't know how to use Chamberlain. However, I am quite certain that Russell would have fit his philosophy perfectly. Still, even that season would have been debateable. Russell would have had West and Baylor, and very little else. Meanwhile, Wilt would have had Havlicek, Sam Jones, as well as Howell (a HOFer and a very effiicient scorer), Nelson, Sanders, Siegfried, and a much deeper team overall. And the real question would be, who what kind of a coach would Chamberlain had in Boston that year? Because Chamberlain was still near his prime, and had he had a coach to unleash him offensively, he probably would have been able to contribute considerably more to Boston's attack than what Russell did. Keep in mind, that Wilt's incompetent coach, shackled Wilt in 68-69. However, Chamberlain's new coach in the following season, Joe Mullaney, asked Wilt to score...and Wilt averaged 32.2 ppg in his first nine games (with games of 33, 35, 37, 38, 52, and 43 points...and a 25 point game against Kareem, in which he outplayed Kareem in every facet of the game.) However, Wilt suffered his knee injury in game nine, and missed nearly the entire season. And, he was never the same dominating player offensively again.

It does make for interesting speculation...but one thing we DO know...Russell DID win 11 rings in 13 seasons. We can only wonder what his and Wilt's numbers would have looked like had they swapped rosters.

[jlauber]

lauber, we've gone at this before. and we've agreed to disagree on this.

but to recap my stance, i--and apparently, MANY OTHERS former coaches/players--all saw something outside of the numbers.

everyone who played or coached in the NBA during Jordan's era had some sort of greatness tale of Jordan. you have Dream Team coaches going on about how Jordan killed Drexler and went at Magic during practice, you have stories about how coaches tell their players "don't ever talk trash to jordan", etc. by almost all accounts, jordan completely dominated his peers and had no equal when it came to playing basketball.

wilt, however, was trashed by several former teammates or peers (as collected in Bill Simmons' book), and is generally considered as someone who routinely came up short and under achieved.

look, you will argue this for sure and insist on proof, but there isn't numbers and figures to prove this, it just... is. for example, why does everyone consider Shaq an underachiever and "lazy" ? i mean if you pull JUST NUMBERS AND STATS, Shaq's career has been absolutely freaking amazing (how many conference finals has Shaq been to? 9? 11?), yet the general consensus was he underachieved and coulda been better.

that's the general feeling with Wilt. of course, i've never seen him play live so i can't, like, bet my life on this. but you can't dismiss the fact that rep came out of former players and coaches and sportswriters and NBA people, right?

again--and this is osmething i think many anti-Jordan guys on ISH conveniently ignore--it's not JUST 24 year old Air Jordan-wearing kids claiming Jordan is GOAT. we're talking about an overwhelming majority of players, coaches--OLD WHITE GUYS WHO'VE SEEN WILT AND RUSSELL PLAY--and NBA historians and sportswriters.

You have a valid argument. IMHO, Chamberlain was never appreciated for his overwhelming dominance, even when he was playing. But, take a look at my previous post, on "what might have been" had Russell and Wilt swapped rosters in their careers. IMHO, there would be no question as to who the G.O.A.T was. Unfortunately, that is only speculation, but I think almost any of Wilt's contemporaries would also agree that Chamberlain would have won considerably more rings in his career.

[Niquesports]

You have a valid argument. IMHO, Chamberlain was never appreciated for his overwhelming dominance, even when he was playing. But, take a look at my previous post, on "what might have been" had Russell and Wilt swapped rosters in their careers. IMHO, there would be no question as to who the G.O.A.T was. Unfortunately, that is only speculation, but I think almost any of Wilt's contemporaries would also agree that Chamberlain would have won considerably more rings in his career.


I think the main thing you are missing is that Red was that teams leader. Russ was the floor leader but Red was Boston. WIlt had problems with most of his coaches for one reason or the other. THe Celtics were a Unit everyone had a role. Just not sure if such a dominant personality, and style player like Wilt would have fit into that team . Sure he adjusted to a different role almost every team he went to. But all the trades all the rumors about differences with coaches just make you wonder if he could have fell in line under Red for 13 years.

[Niquesports]

My problem with MJ is this...

Those that say to a "lessor extent" for Wilt is why? If Wilt is supposed to be dropped in these rankings because of lack of titles, why doesn't Jordan's ranking drop due to playing on more losing teams, and with earlier playoff round exits, etc?

My point being that Wilt played on substantially worse rosters for about half of his career...AND, in an era of the greatest Dynasty, and most HOF-laden team in NBA history. My god, at one point Wilt played with virtually the worse roster in NBA history in his 62-63 season, and meanwhile Russell's Celtics had EIGHT HOFers on HIS team. Not only that, but Chamberlain put up what is arguably the greatest individual season in NBA history that year. He LED (not just among the leaders, but LED) the NBA in 70% of the statistical categories (15 of 22.) And in some he was WAY ahead of the next guy. And for those that value advanced stats, Wilt LED the NBA in Win Shares, on a team that only won 31 games, with 21 (or a whopping 67% of his team's wins.) AND, his PER was 31.8, which is an all-time record. Furthermore, he faced the MVP that season (Russell), nine times, and with six close games, he outrebounded him, and outscored him by a 38-14 margin, in those nine games.

Continuing, Wilt took vastly inferior rosters, like his 61-62 team (which was very close to the last place roster he joined two years earlier) to a game seven, two-point loss against Russell's 60-20 Celtics, and a team that had SIX HOFers. Or when Wilt took his 40-40 76ers, to a game seven, one point loss against Russell's 62-18 Celtics in 64-65, and outgunned 5-2 in HOFers.

Yet, MJ never came close to taking his mediocre rosters to within an eyelash of beating the great team's of his era. As well as Jordan played in the 85-86 playoffs against Bird's Celtics, he TEAM was swept (and MJ was awful in the clinching game loss BTW.) True that Celtic team had FIVE HOFers, but I would argue that Jordan had as much talent as Wilt on some of his early season teams. MJ had Woolridge, Paxson, and Oakley, who was among the league's best rebounders in the Jordan years.

Now, some will argue that MJ WON more rings than Chamberlain, even when Wilt was on strong teams. True, but even when Wilt was on his better teams, he was still generally outgunned by opposing teams with more HOFers. Russell's '66, '68, and '69 Celtics not only had more HOFers, they were much deeper teams, as well. The '70 Knicks had a 4-3 edge in HOFers, and Wilt was coming back from major surgery just four months before. The '71 Bucks had Kareem and Oscar, while BOTH of Wilt's best players, West and Baylor, missed the playoffs. And the '73 Knicks had SIX HOFers. Even in Chamberlain's championship years, his team beat a Celtic team that had a 6-3 edge in HOFers, and a Knick team that had a 5-3 edge in HOFers (and both of those teams were deeper, as well.)

Not only that, but from '66 to '73 (Wilt's last season), or the last eight years of his career, he took his team to eight conference Finals, and five Finals. AND, in all of those post-seasons, there were a variety of reasons why Wilt's TEAMs did not win. In fact, if you go back to Wilt's 61-62 and 64-65 team's, which lost to the great Celtic teams by the narrowest of margins, Chamberlain played on FIVE other teams that lost game sevens, and four of those were by a total of nine points (2, 1, 4, 2 points.) And in the game seven loss to the Knicks in '70, that series would never have gone to a 7th game had not the officials blantantly handed NY game five. So, while almost every great player can claim a couple of titles with a few points, here-or-there, Wilt nearly won FIVE more rings. And injuries to West and Baylor in '71 (neither of whom played in the post-season), and to West in '73 (he played, but was nowhere near 100%), and Wilt could have won TWO more...or quite possibly SEVEN more rings.

And, in his post-season career, Chamberlain was probably never outplayed by his opposing centers, in 29 post-season series. Not only that, but in many of them he crushed his opposing center. And, keep in mind that he faced a HOF center in nearly two-thirds of those series, as well as an All-Star center in a couple more.

Of course, if you consider the fact that Chamberlain OWNS the NBA Record Book, and had SEVERAL Rules put in place to curtail his dominance, I just can't understand those that say "to a lessor extent."
You really need to stop with the exaggeration of The Sixeers being the worst team in the "History of The NBA"
List of Top 50 Worst teams.
Year Team W L WPct FG% 3P% FT% Reb Ast Stl Blk TO Pts
1 1973 Philadelphia 76ers 9 73 .110 .420 .750 50.9 20.6 104.1
2 1948 Providence Steam Rollers * 6 42 .125 .274 .613 7.2 69.1
3 1993 Dallas Mavericks 11 71 .134 .435 .338 .705 42.7 20.5 7.9 4.3 17.8 99.3
1998 Denver Nuggets 11 71 .134 .417 .323 .772 39.0 18.9 8.1 4.8 16.0 89.0
5 1987 Los Angeles Clippers 12 70 .146 .452 .224 .742 41.1 24.0 9.2 5.3 18.2 104.5
2010 New Jersey Nets 12 70 .146 .429 .318 .780 39.7 18.8 7.0 4.8 14.4 92.4
7 1994 Dallas Mavericks 13 69 .159 .432 .312 .747 41.7 19.9 9.4 3.6 17.0 95.1
2005 Atlanta Hawks 13 69 .159 .441 .312 .711 41.9 19.7 7.7 4.2 16.1 92.7
9 1999 Vancouver Grizzlies 8 42 .160 .428 .327 .717 40.2 19.3 8.4 4.0 17.0 88.9
10 1983 Houston Rockets 14 68 .171 .448 .247 .725 42.3 23.5 7.9 5.1 19.2 99.3
1997 Vancouver Grizzlies 14 68 .171 .437 .349 .709 38.8 22.7 8.0 5.7 15.9 89.2
12 1953 Philadelphia Warriors 12 57 .174 .358 .679 54.5 21.9 80.2
13 1950 Denver Nuggets 11 51 .177 .334 .678 16.8 77.7
14 1999 Los Angeles Clippers 9 41 .180 .427 .320 .721 39.2 16.4 8.5 4.7 15.9 90.4
15 1997 Boston Celtics 15 67 .183 .440 .351 .750 40.0 21.9 9.9 3.8 16.4 100.6
1971 Cleveland Cavaliers 15 67 .183 .424 .746 48.6 25.2 102.1
2001 Chicago Bulls 15 67 .183 .424 .346 .739 38.9 22.1 8.2 4.6 14.6 87.6
1996 Vancouver Grizzlies 15 67 .183 .428 .329 .724 38.1 20.8 8.9 4.1 16.4 89.8
1982 Cleveland Cavaliers 15 67 .183 .464 .182 .747 41.0 22.8 7.7 4.4 16.1 103.2
1968 San Diego Rockets 15 67 .183 .417 .711 66.1 22.4 112.4
2000 Los Angeles Clippers 15 67 .183 .426 .339 .746 40.6 18.0 7.0 6.0 16.2 92.0
1981 Dallas Mavericks 15 67 .183 .462 .279 .751 40.1 24.2 6.8 2.6 17.5 101.5
1992 Minnesota Timberwolves 15 67 .183 .458 .320 .743 40.7 24.7 7.5 6.4 14.1 100.5
2008 Miami Heat 15 67 .183 .443 ..358 .727 37.6 20.0 7.2 4.3 17.7 91.6
1989 Miami Heat 15 67 .183 .453 .326 .702 42.9 23.9 9.1 5.0 21.1 97.8
2010 Minnesota Timberwolves 15 67 .183 .449 .341 .746 42.9 19.8 7.3 3.7 16.3 92.2
27 1969 Phoenix Suns 16 66 .195 .430 .705 55.0 23.4 111.7
1998 Toronto Raptors 16 66 .195 .435 .343 .718 40.7 21.3 9.4 8.1 16.7 94.9
Year Team W L WPct FG% 3P% FT% Reb Ast Stl Blk TO Pts
1980 Detroit Pistons 16 66 .195 .480 .260 .740 44.4 23.8 9.5 6.9 21.2 108.9
30 1949 Providence Steam Rollers * 12 48 .200 .322 .693 17.1 78.4
31 1995 Los Angeles Clippers 17 65 .207 .444 .315 .710 38.3 22.0 9.6 5.3 16.3 96.7
2001 Golden State Warriors 17 65 .207 .409 .293 .706 45.5 21.8 9.0 5.0 15.3 92.5
2003 Cleveland Cavaliers 17 65 .207 .422 .327 .747 44.6 20.9 7.8 6.4 18.3 91.4
1982 San Diego Clippers 17 65 .207 .500 .293 .723 40.6 22.9 7.8 3.6 19.1 108.5
2000 Chicago Bulls 17 65 .207 .415 .330 .709 40.9 20.0 7.9 4.7 19.0 84.8
1988 Los Angeles Clippers 17 65 .207 .443 .249 .713 43.2 23.0 8.8 6.3 18.7 98.8
2003 Denver Nuggets 17 65 .207 .411 .278 .699 42.4 21.2 8.7 5.1 18.5 84.2
1998 Los Angeles Clippers 17 65 .207 .438 .358 .723 40.4 18.7 7.6 5.6 16.1 95.9
1990 New Jersey Nets 17 65 .207 .426 .277 .746 45.0 18.0 9.4 5.9 16.6 100.1
2009 Sacramento Kings 17 65 .207
41 1965 San Francisco Warriors 17 63 .212 .403 .640 71.4 20.7 105.8
42 2005 Charlotte Bobcats 18 64 .220 .432 .363 .709 41.7 21.9 8.5 5.4 14.5 94.3
1990 Orlando Magic 18 64 .220 .459 .295 .756 46.0 24.3 7.5 3.6 17.2 110.9
1996 Philadelphia 76ers 18 64 .220 .436 .342 .734 38.9 19.9 7.8 5.1 17.2 94.5
1990 Miami Heat 18 64 .220 .461 .293 .687 43.4 23.9 9.0 4.7 19.0 100.6
1972 Portland Trail Blazers 18 64 .220 .442 .736 48.7 25.5 106.8
2005 New Orleans Hornets 18 64 .220 .415 .315 .766 40.2 21.0 6.7 3.8 14.8 88.4
48 1954 Baltimore Bullets 16 56 .222 .368 .677 53.0 19.2 78.3
49 1962 Chicago Packers 18 62 .225 .412 .673 69.3 22.5 110.9
50 1953 Baltimore Bullets 16 54 .229 .371 .686 53.2 21.6 84.4
51 1988 New Jersey Nets 19 63 .232 .468 .301 .729 40.7 21.9 8.9 4.7 18.3 100.4
2000 Golden State Warriors 19 63 .232 .420 .323 .697 45.6 22.6 8.9 4.4 15.9 95.5
1998 Golden State Warriors 19 63 .232 .413 .272 .710 45.9 20.8 7.6 5.5 16.7 88.3
1990 Charlotte Hornets 19 63 .232 .455 .336 .756 38.7 25.4 9.5 3.2 15.0 100.4

* BAA

[jlauber]

You really need to stop with the exaggeration of The Sixeers being the worst team in the "History of The NBA"
List of Top 50 Worst teams.
Year Team W L WPct FG% 3P% FT% Reb Ast Stl Blk TO Pts
1 1973 Philadelphia 76ers 9 73 .110 .420 .750 50.9 20.6 104.1
2 1948 Providence Steam Rollers * 6 42 .125 .274 .613 7.2 69.1
3 1993 Dallas Mavericks 11 71 .134 .435 .338 .705 42.7 20.5 7.9 4.3 17.8 99.3
1998 Denver Nuggets 11 71 .134 .417 .323 .772 39.0 18.9 8.1 4.8 16.0 89.0
5 1987 Los Angeles Clippers 12 70 .146 .452 .224 .742 41.1 24.0 9.2 5.3 18.2 104.5
2010 New Jersey Nets 12 70 .146 .429 .318 .780 39.7 18.8 7.0 4.8 14.4 92.4
7 1994 Dallas Mavericks 13 69 .159 .432 .312 .747 41.7 19.9 9.4 3.6 17.0 95.1
2005 Atlanta Hawks 13 69 .159 .441 .312 .711 41.9 19.7 7.7 4.2 16.1 92.7
9 1999 Vancouver Grizzlies 8 42 .160 .428 .327 .717 40.2 19.3 8.4 4.0 17.0 88.9
10 1983 Houston Rockets 14 68 .171 .448 .247 .725 42.3 23.5 7.9 5.1 19.2 99.3
1997 Vancouver Grizzlies 14 68 .171 .437 .349 .709 38.8 22.7 8.0 5.7 15.9 89.2
12 1953 Philadelphia Warriors 12 57 .174 .358 .679 54.5 21.9 80.2
13 1950 Denver Nuggets 11 51 .177 .334 .678 16.8 77.7
14 1999 Los Angeles Clippers 9 41 .180 .427 .320 .721 39.2 16.4 8.5 4.7 15.9 90.4
15 1997 Boston Celtics 15 67 .183 .440 .351 .750 40.0 21.9 9.9 3.8 16.4 100.6
1971 Cleveland Cavaliers 15 67 .183 .424 .746 48.6 25.2 102.1
2001 Chicago Bulls 15 67 .183 .424 .346 .739 38.9 22.1 8.2 4.6 14.6 87.6
1996 Vancouver Grizzlies 15 67 .183 .428 .329 .724 38.1 20.8 8.9 4.1 16.4 89.8
1982 Cleveland Cavaliers 15 67 .183 .464 .182 .747 41.0 22.8 7.7 4.4 16.1 103.2
1968 San Diego Rockets 15 67 .183 .417 .711 66.1 22.4 112.4
2000 Los Angeles Clippers 15 67 .183 .426 .339 .746 40.6 18.0 7.0 6.0 16.2 92.0
1981 Dallas Mavericks 15 67 .183 .462 .279 .751 40.1 24.2 6.8 2.6 17.5 101.5
1992 Minnesota Timberwolves 15 67 .183 .458 .320 .743 40.7 24.7 7.5 6.4 14.1 100.5
2008 Miami Heat 15 67 .183 .443 ..358 .727 37.6 20.0 7.2 4.3 17.7 91.6
1989 Miami Heat 15 67 .183 .453 .326 .702 42.9 23.9 9.1 5.0 21.1 97.8
2010 Minnesota Timberwolves 15 67 .183 .449 .341 .746 42.9 19.8 7.3 3.7 16.3 92.2
27 1969 Phoenix Suns 16 66 .195 .430 .705 55.0 23.4 111.7
1998 Toronto Raptors 16 66 .195 .435 .343 .718 40.7 21.3 9.4 8.1 16.7 94.9
Year Team W L WPct FG% 3P% FT% Reb Ast Stl Blk TO Pts
1980 Detroit Pistons 16 66 .195 .480 .260 .740 44.4 23.8 9.5 6.9 21.2 108.9
30 1949 Providence Steam Rollers * 12 48 .200 .322 .693 17.1 78.4
31 1995 Los Angeles Clippers 17 65 .207 .444 .315 .710 38.3 22.0 9.6 5.3 16.3 96.7
2001 Golden State Warriors 17 65 .207 .409 .293 .706 45.5 21.8 9.0 5.0 15.3 92.5
2003 Cleveland Cavaliers 17 65 .207 .422 .327 .747 44.6 20.9 7.8 6.4 18.3 91.4
1982 San Diego Clippers 17 65 .207 .500 .293 .723 40.6 22.9 7.8 3.6 19.1 108.5
2000 Chicago Bulls 17 65 .207 .415 .330 .709 40.9 20.0 7.9 4.7 19.0 84.8
1988 Los Angeles Clippers 17 65 .207 .443 .249 .713 43.2 23.0 8.8 6.3 18.7 98.8
2003 Denver Nuggets 17 65 .207 .411 .278 .699 42.4 21.2 8.7 5.1 18.5 84.2
1998 Los Angeles Clippers 17 65 .207 .438 .358 .723 40.4 18.7 7.6 5.6 16.1 95.9
1990 New Jersey Nets 17 65 .207 .426 .277 .746 45.0 18.0 9.4 5.9 16.6 100.1
2009 Sacramento Kings 17 65 .207
41 1965 San Francisco Warriors 17 63 .212 .403 .640 71.4 20.7 105.8
42 2005 Charlotte Bobcats 18 64 .220 .432 .363 .709 41.7 21.9 8.5 5.4 14.5 94.3
1990 Orlando Magic 18 64 .220 .459 .295 .756 46.0 24.3 7.5 3.6 17.2 110.9
1996 Philadelphia 76ers 18 64 .220 .436 .342 .734 38.9 19.9 7.8 5.1 17.2 94.5
1990 Miami Heat 18 64 .220 .461 .293 .687 43.4 23.9 9.0 4.7 19.0 100.6
1972 Portland Trail Blazers 18 64 .220 .442 .736 48.7 25.5 106.8
2005 New Orleans Hornets 18 64 .220 .415 .315 .766 40.2 21.0 6.7 3.8 14.8 88.4
48 1954 Baltimore Bullets 16 56 .222 .368 .677 53.0 19.2 78.3
49 1962 Chicago Packers 18 62 .225 .412 .673 69.3 22.5 110.9
50 1953 Baltimore Bullets 16 54 .229 .371 .686 53.2 21.6 84.4
51 1988 New Jersey Nets 19 63 .232 .468 .301 .729 40.7 21.9 8.9 4.7 18.3 100.4
2000 Golden State Warriors 19 63 .232 .420 .323 .697 45.6 22.6 8.9 4.4 15.9 95.5
1998 Golden State Warriors 19 63 .232 .413 .272 .710 45.9 20.8 7.6 5.5 16.7 88.3
1990 Charlotte Hornets 19 63 .232 .455 .336 .756 38.7 25.4 9.5 3.2 15.0 100.4

* BAA

Well, take Chamberlain away from that 62-63 team, and I doubt they win 10 games. Wilt had a Win Share on 21 on a team that won 31 games. And, Chamberlain shot .528....while the rest of his team shot a combined .412. The worst team in the league (amazingly Boston) was at .427. And keep in mind that Chamberlain averaged 45 ppg and 25 rpg, as well. He played with FIFTEEN different players, most all either career bench-warmers, or washed up, and with only a couple that were decent. Some will argue that Meschery and Rodgers were all-stars, but Rodgers PER was horrible compared to the guards in the league that year, and Meschery was a ONE-TIME all-star who averaged 16 ppg, 9.8 rpg, and shot .425. That was it.

Still, that 31-49 record was deceptive. They only had a -2.1 ppg differential, and they lost 35 games by single digits.

How bad was that roster? Alex Hannum, their new coach the very next year, ran a scrimmage with those teammates, sans Wilt, against a bunch of scrubs and rookies who would not make an NBA roster, and the scrubs beat them.

Even more remarkable, was that with that same basic horrible roster, and the addition of rookie Nate Thurmond, who only played 26 mpg, and mostly out of position (and who only shot .395), that Chamberlain took them to a 48-32 record in 63-64, and the Finals, where his team, outgunned 7-2 by HOFers (and again, Thurmond was his lone HOF teammate), they lost to Boston, 4-1 (and despite Chamberlain outscoring Russell, per game, 29-11, and outrebounding Russell, per game, 27-25...and probably outshooting Russell by perhaps as much as 200 points.

[jlauber]

I think the main thing you are missing is that Red was that teams leader. Russ was the floor leader but Red was Boston. WIlt had problems with most of his coaches for one reason or the other. THe Celtics were a Unit everyone had a role. Just not sure if such a dominant personality, and style player like Wilt would have fit into that team . Sure he adjusted to a different role almost every team he went to. But all the trades all the rumors about differences with coaches just make you wonder if he could have fell in line under Red for 13 years.

Aside from Hannum, and later Sharman (who I think did a remarkable job with the 71-72 Lakers)...Chamberlain played for very poor coaches in his career. And early in his career, he was saddled with pretty poor-to-average rosters, and his coaches just felt that the best chance to win was for Wilt to shoot.

Van Breda Kolf, who had some success with the 67-68 Lakers (a very good team BTW, with West, Baylor, Clark, and Goodrich), had no idea what to do with Chamberlain. He even benched him early in the year (and of course, in the last five minutes of a game seven that his team would lose by two-points.) And talk about incompetent...he made the comment along these lines..."If we pass the ball into Wilt, yes, he will score...but it is an ugly offense to watch." So, instead he asked Wilt to defer to Baylor, who was on the decline, and who was awful in the post-season (15.4 ppg on .385 shooting.) IMHO, Krusty the Clown would have won a title coaching the 68-69 Lakers...but the idiotic Van Breda Kolf actually cost his team a championship.

[Niquesports]

Aside from Hannum, and later Sharman (who I think did a remarkable job with the 71-72 Lakers)...Chamberlain played for very poor coaches in his career. And early in his career, he was saddled with pretty poor-to-average rosters, and his coaches just felt that the best chance to win was for Wilt to shoot.

Van Breda Kolf, who had some success with the 67-68 Lakers (a very good team BTW, with West, Baylor, Clark, and Goodrich), had no idea what to do with Chamberlain. He even benched him early in the year (and of course, in the last five minutes of a game seven that his team would lose by two-points.) And talk about incompetent...he made the comment along these lines..."If we pass the ball into Wilt, yes, he will score...but it is an ugly offense to watch." So, instead he asked Wilt to defer to Baylor, who was on the decline, and who was awful in the post-season (15.4 ppg on .385 shooting.) IMHO, Krusty the Clown would have won a title coaching the 68-69 Lakers...but the idiotic Van Breda Kolf actually cost his team a championship.
imho any coach name Van can make a great coach opps sorry Stan. WHen I look at Wilt I kinda of compare him to Iverson. Just so much talent how do you get the 100% out of him yet still get the other 11 players involved. This is why I think Phil Jackson is such a great coach. He is ableto get the mostof each players skill. How great would Wilt had been if he had a coach like that. IT seems like WIlt was either at odds with the coach or the coach was Wilt carry us on your back we need 100 pts.You may call Van Breda Kolf idiotic but he did play the game and for some reason he felt the team was better without Wilt.RIght ,wrong,taken a stand or idiotic I cant see any coach doing that to Magic,Russ,Bird,MJ,Duncan.I just think Wilt sometimes put himself as being bigger than the team.But wow how great could he had been if he had ever played for a coach for a long period that he respected and had a strong support cast. 11 rings just maybe.

[jlauber]

imho any coach name Van can make a great coach opps sorry Stan. WHen I look at Wilt I kinda of compare him to Iverson. Just so much talent how do you get the 100% out of him yet still get the other 11 players involved. This is why I think Phil Jackson is such a great coach. He is ableto get the mostof each players skill. How great would Wilt had been if he had a coach like that. IT seems like WIlt was either at odds with the coach or the coach was Wilt carry us on your back we need 100 pts.You may call Van Breda Kolf idiotic but he did play the game and for some reason he felt the team was better without Wilt.RIght ,wrong,taken a stand or idiotic I cant see any coach doing that to Magic,Russ,Bird,MJ,Duncan.I just think Wilt sometimes put himself as being bigger than the team.But wow how great could he had been if he had ever played for a coach for a long period that he respected and had a strong support cast. 11 rings just maybe.

I forgot to address a previous comment you made...the one about Red Auerbach being his coach.

While I tend to think that Wilt would have adapted to whatever Red would have asked of him, I do believe that the NBA Record Book would look a lot different than it does today. I just don't believe that Chamberlain would have had a 100 point game, or a 50.4 ppg season average, or probably anything close to his scoring records. Wilt may have had a best season of 25-30 ppg, and probably an average around 20 ppg.

So, while most Wilt fans, (of which there are probably not many left) have played the same "what-if" many times..."what if it had been Wilt on the Celtic teams of the 60's?"...there were some personal advantages to Chamberlain's legacy that he was saddled with pathetic rosters and poor coach's.

Ultimately, the Chamberlain fans, (obviously I fall into that category) need to realize that he probably couldn't have it both ways. I just don't see Wilt, under Red, or any quality coach for that matter, winning titles while scoring 50 ppg. Maybe Wilt "the winner" doesn't cast as mythical a career as Wilt "the loser."

[Niquesports]

I forgot to address a previous comment you made...the one about Red Auerbach being his coach.

While I tend to think that Wilt would have adapted to whatever Red would have asked of him, I do believe that the NBA Record Book would look a lot different than it does today. I just don't believe that Chamberlain would have had a 100 point game, or a 50.4 ppg season average, or probably anything close to his scoring records. Wilt may have had a best season of 25-30 ppg, and probably an average around 20 ppg.

So, while most Wilt fans, (of which there are probably not many left) have played the same "what-if" many times..."what if it had been Wilt on the Celtic teams of the 60's?"...there were some personal advantages to Chamberlain's legacy that he was saddled with pathetic rosters and poor coach's.

Ultimately, the Chamberlain fans, (obviously I fall into that category) need to realize that he probably couldn't have it both ways. I just don't see Wilt, under Red, or any quality coach for that matter, winning titles while scoring 50 ppg. Maybe Wilt "the winner" doesn't cast as mythical a career as Wilt "the loser."
I have never thought of Wilt as a loser. IT that was the case and for people that call him that should also call West a loser.I think the best team for Wilt to have had success with long term would have been the Sixers with Chet,Hal Cunningham. This team would have given the Celtics a run for their money. As far as the Roster goes I should you 50 teams with weaker rosters. You will never get people to hear you making that your case. A much better case would be Wilt never had a stable system.The Roster issue just doesnt stand in water.

[jlauber]

I have never thought of Wilt as a loser. IT that was the case and for people that call him that should also call West a loser.I think the best team for Wilt to have had success with long term would have been the Sixers with Chet,Hal Cunningham. This team would have given the Celtics a run for their money. As far as the Roster goes I should you 50 teams with weaker rosters. You will never get people to hear you making that your case. A much better case would be Wilt never had a stable system.The Roster issue just doesnt stand in water.

One more time...

Wilt joined a LAST PLACE team in his rookie year. But let's back-track a couple of years. In the 56-57 season, the Warriors went 37-35 WITH Gola, Arizin, AND Johnston (HOFer.) In 57-58, the Warriors again went 37-35, WITH Gola, Arizin, AND Johnston. In 58-59, they were a LAST PLACE team, with Gola, Arizin, and WITHOUT Johnston, who was injured and who RETIRED.
So, they were basically a .500 team WITH Gola, Arizin, AND Johnston...and a LAST PLACE team, with Gola, Arizin, and withOUT Johnston.

The team Wilt joined in 59-60 was coming off of a LAST-PLACE finish. They still had Gola and Arizin, but as we know, those two were good enough for LAST PLACE. But Wilt did NOT have Johnston. So, what kind of a team did Wilt join in his rookie season? A LAST PLACE team. And, once again, even when Gola and Arizin had Johnston, they were a .500 team. However, how did the Warriors perform in his rookie season? They set an all-time team W-L record of 49-26, which shattered their championship team of 55-56, which went 45-27. So Wilt elevated a LAST PLACE team to their best ever record.

His 61-62 team added rookie Meschery, but Gola was on a severe decline (and he was never a superstar to begin with), and Arizin was in his last season. Furthermore, Arizin was awful in the playoffs in his last two years (he played with Wilt for three), and Gola was NEVER any good, at any time, in his post-season career, but he was downright embarrassing when he played alongside Chamberlain in his last three post-seasons with Wilt. In fact, he may have had the worst post-season career of any NBA HOF player in HISTORY.

And yet, Chamberlain, probably swarmed by 3-4 players every time he touched the ball, led that crappy roster to a 49-31 record, and then took them to a game seven, two-point loss against the 60-20 Celtics and their SIX HOFers. And not only did Boston have Wilt's teammates beat, player-for-player, and by a mile...they were considerably deeper. On top of all of that, not ONE of Chamberlain's teammates shot 40% in the playoffs that year, and Gola was at .271. Meanwhile, Russell not only had THREE players shoot over 40%, all three shot over the league average of .426. Now, you tell me just how that Warrior team was able to compete with that Celtic roster?

BUT, it gets even WORSE. In Wilt's 62-63 season, he lost Arizin to retirement, and Gola to a trade for a washed-up Willie Naulls. That roster had 16 different players, and several never amounted to anything. How about this list of names...Howie Montgomery, Hubie White, Fred LaCour, Ted Luckenbill, Dave Fedor, and Dave Gunther. Most of those guys were out of the league in a couple of years.

Yes, Meschery and Rodgers made the All-Star team...but neither of those two would have made Boston's top-seven (the Celtics had EIGHT HOFers that year.) Furthermore, Meschery averaged a career best 16 ppg, with 9.8 rpg, and shot .425. Is that an All-Star? And, don't get me started on Rodgers. All I can tell you is that, if he would never have taken a shot in his entire NBA career, he would have been a better player. I can't think of any other front-line player who so consistently shot between 50-100 points less than the league FG%, than Rodgers. He was just an AWFUL shooter.

The Warriors went 31-49 in that season. But, as bad as that roster was, that poor record was deceptive. They had a -2.1 ppg differential, and lost 35 games by single digits. So, they were nearly in every game, and with a few points, here-or-there, and they might have had a winning record. And virtually all of their success was due to Wilt. He LED the NBA in 15 of the 22 statisticaly categories...including a wide margin in Win Shares, with 21. I won't take the time to look it up, but I seriously doubt any other NBA players has ever been credited with 70% of a team's Win Shares. He scored 44.8 ppg, grabbed 24.6 rpg, and shot a then record .528 from the field. His PER rating of 31.8 is STILL the all-time record.

How bad were his teammates? Chamberlain shot .528 from the field...and his teammates collectively shot .412...which was considerably worse than the WORST team in the league (.427.) They were so bad, that before the start of the next season, coach Hannum scheduled a scrimmage, without Wilt, with the Warriors, against a group of scrubs that had no chance of making NBA rosters. Guess which team won?

Remarkably, Chamberlain then took THAT roster to a 48-32 record, and a Finals appearance, where Russell and his 7-2 edge in HOF teammates, beat Wilt's team, 4-1.

In any case, withOUT Chamberlain, those teams were last-place teams, and in the case of his 62-63 team, hell, they might not have won a game without Wilt.

[Niquesports]

One more time...

Wilt joined a LAST PLACE team in his rookie year. But let's back-track a couple of years. In the 56-57 season, the Warriors went 37-35 WITH Gola, Arizin, AND Johnston (HOFer.) In 57-58, the Warriors again went 37-35, WITH Gola, Arizin, AND Johnston. In 58-59, they were a LAST PLACE team, with Gola, Arizin, and WITHOUT Johnston, who was injured and who RETIRED.
So, they were basically a .500 team WITH Gola, Arizin, AND Johnston...and a LAST PLACE team, with Gola, Arizin, and withOUT Johnston.

The team Wilt joined in 59-60 was coming off of a LAST-PLACE finish. They still had Gola and Arizin, but as we know, those two were good enough for LAST PLACE. But Wilt did NOT have Johnston. So, what kind of a team did Wilt join in his rookie season? A LAST PLACE team. And, once again, even when Gola and Arizin had Johnston, they were a .500 team. However, how did the Warriors perform in his rookie season? They set an all-time team W-L record of 49-26, which shattered their championship team of 55-56, which went 45-27. So Wilt elevated a LAST PLACE team to their best ever record.

His 61-62 team added rookie Meschery, but Gola was on a severe decline (and he was never a superstar to begin with), and Arizin was in his last season. Furthermore, Arizin was awful in the playoffs in his last two years (he played with Wilt for three), and Gola was NEVER any good, at any time, in his post-season career, but he was downright embarrassing when he played alongside Chamberlain in his last three post-seasons with Wilt. In fact, he may have had the worst post-season career of any NBA HOF player in HISTORY.

And yet, Chamberlain, probably swarmed by 3-4 players every time he touched the ball, led that crappy roster to a 49-31 record, and then took them to a game seven, two-point loss against the 60-20 Celtics and their SIX HOFers. And not only did Boston have Wilt's teammates beat, player-for-player, and by a mile...they were considerably deeper. On top of all of that, not ONE of Chamberlain's teammates shot 40% in the playoffs that year, and Gola was at .271. Meanwhile, Russell not only had THREE players shoot over 40%, all three shot over the league average of .426. Now, you tell me just how that Warrior team was able to compete with that Celtic roster?

BUT, it gets even WORSE. In Wilt's 62-63 season, he lost Arizin to retirement, and Gola to a trade for a washed-up Willie Naulls. That roster had 16 different players, and several never amounted to anything. How about this list of names...Howie Montgomery, Hubie White, Fred LaCour, Ted Luckenbill, Dave Fedor, and Dave Gunther. Most of those guys were out of the league in a couple of years.

Yes, Meschery and Rodgers made the All-Star team...but neither of those two would have made Boston's top-seven (the Celtics had EIGHT HOFers that year.) Furthermore, Meschery averaged a career best 16 ppg, with 9.8 rpg, and shot .425. Is that an All-Star? And, don't get me started on Rodgers. All I can tell you is that, if he would never have taken a shot in his entire NBA career, he would have been a better player. I can't think of any other front-line player who so consistently shot between 50-100 points less than the league FG%, than Rodgers. He was just an AWFUL shooter.

The Warriors went 31-49 in that season. But, as bad as that roster was, that poor record was deceptive. They had a -2.1 ppg differential, and lost 35 games by single digits. So, they were nearly in every game, and with a few points, here-or-there, and they might have had a winning record. And virtually all of their success was due to Wilt. He LED the NBA in 15 of the 22 statisticaly categories...including a wide margin in Win Shares, with 21. I won't take the time to look it up, but I seriously doubt any other NBA players has ever been credited with 70% of a team's Win Shares. He scored 44.8 ppg, grabbed 24.6 rpg, and shot a then record .528 from the field. His PER rating of 31.8 is STILL the all-time record.

How bad were his teammates? Chamberlain shot .528 from the field...and his teammates collectively shot .412...which was considerably worse than the WORST team in the league (.427.) They were so bad, that before the start of the next season, coach Hannum scheduled a scrimmage, without Wilt, with the Warriors, against a group of scrubs that had no chance of making NBA rosters. Guess which team won?

Remarkably, Chamberlain then took THAT roster to a 48-32 record, and a Finals appearance, where Russell and his 7-2 edge in HOF teammates, beat Wilt's team, 4-1.

In any case, withOUT Chamberlain, those teams were last-place teams, and in the case of his 62-63 team, hell, they might not have won a game without Wilt.


What place were the Celtics in before Bird and within a year they win a title. How about Duncan.You throw names out and call them scrubs. It doesnt work you can post 3 page post all you try but it doesn't work.Was Wilt's support really worst than say the Zephyrs or the Knicks in 63? Ok Wilt lead a weak team to a winning record isn't that what a super star is supposed to do?You would have a point if you said Wilt lead a weak support team and they won.

How would it sould if Wilt had 50 ppg 25 rpg yet his team only won 30 gm.How good was iverson's team that lost to Shaq and the lakers 4-1 ? Rick Barry lead a team with no HOF'ers and beat a Bullets team with 2 HOFers 4-0.How about Ben Wallace and the Pistons how many HOfer s did he have with him ? Didnt pat Ewing lead of team with 2 former "CBA" players to a finals ?Wasn't DRob way past his prime when Duncan lead the Spurs to a title ? IF you don't put things in perspective sure it sounds good but for the people that have as much knowledge as you or maybe more it doesn't work. Saying the reason Wilt didn't win was because Guy Rodgers was a bun doesn't work. Guy was a fine PG in his day was Gola.

[Niquesports]

One more time...

Wilt joined a LAST PLACE team in his rookie year. But let's back-track a couple of years. In the 56-57 season, the Warriors went 37-35 WITH Gola, Arizin, AND Johnston (HOFer.) In 57-58, the Warriors again went 37-35, WITH Gola, Arizin, AND Johnston. In 58-59, they were a LAST PLACE team, with Gola, Arizin, and WITHOUT Johnston, who was injured and who RETIRED.
So, they were basically a .500 team WITH Gola, Arizin, AND Johnston...and a LAST PLACE team, with Gola, Arizin, and withOUT Johnston.

The team Wilt joined in 59-60 was coming off of a LAST-PLACE finish. They still had Gola and Arizin, but as we know, those two were good enough for LAST PLACE. But Wilt did NOT have Johnston. So, what kind of a team did Wilt join in his rookie season? A LAST PLACE team. And, once again, even when Gola and Arizin had Johnston, they were a .500 team. However, how did the Warriors perform in his rookie season? They set an all-time team W-L record of 49-26, which shattered their championship team of 55-56, which went 45-27. So Wilt elevated a LAST PLACE team to their best ever record.

His 61-62 team added rookie Meschery, but Gola was on a severe decline (and he was never a superstar to begin with), and Arizin was in his last season. Furthermore, Arizin was awful in the playoffs in his last two years (he played with Wilt for three), and Gola was NEVER any good, at any time, in his post-season career, but he was downright embarrassing when he played alongside Chamberlain in his last three post-seasons with Wilt. In fact, he may have had the worst post-season career of any NBA HOF player in HISTORY.

And yet, Chamberlain, probably swarmed by 3-4 players every time he touched the ball, led that crappy roster to a 49-31 record, and then took them to a game seven, two-point loss against the 60-20 Celtics and their SIX HOFers. And not only did Boston have Wilt's teammates beat, player-for-player, and by a mile...they were considerably deeper. On top of all of that, not ONE of Chamberlain's teammates shot 40% in the playoffs that year, and Gola was at .271. Meanwhile, Russell not only had THREE players shoot over 40%, all three shot over the league average of .426. Now, you tell me just how that Warrior team was able to compete with that Celtic roster?

BUT, it gets even WORSE. In Wilt's 62-63 season, he lost Arizin to retirement, and Gola to a trade for a washed-up Willie Naulls. That roster had 16 different players, and several never amounted to anything. How about this list of names...Howie Montgomery, Hubie White, Fred LaCour, Ted Luckenbill, Dave Fedor, and Dave Gunther. Most of those guys were out of the league in a couple of years.

Yes, Meschery and Rodgers made the All-Star team...but neither of those two would have made Boston's top-seven (the Celtics had EIGHT HOFers that year.) Furthermore, Meschery averaged a career best 16 ppg, with 9.8 rpg, and shot .425. Is that an All-Star? And, don't get me started on Rodgers. All I can tell you is that, if he would never have taken a shot in his entire NBA career, he would have been a better player. I can't think of any other front-line player who so consistently shot between 50-100 points less than the league FG%, than Rodgers. He was just an AWFUL shooter.

The Warriors went 31-49 in that season. But, as bad as that roster was, that poor record was deceptive. They had a -2.1 ppg differential, and lost 35 games by single digits. So, they were nearly in every game, and with a few points, here-or-there, and they might have had a winning record. And virtually all of their success was due to Wilt. He LED the NBA in 15 of the 22 statisticaly categories...including a wide margin in Win Shares, with 21. I won't take the time to look it up, but I seriously doubt any other NBA players has ever been credited with 70% of a team's Win Shares. He scored 44.8 ppg, grabbed 24.6 rpg, and shot a then record .528 from the field. His PER rating of 31.8 is STILL the all-time record.

How bad were his teammates? Chamberlain shot .528 from the field...and his teammates collectively shot .412...which was considerably worse than the WORST team in the league (.427.) They were so bad, that before the start of the next season, coach Hannum scheduled a scrimmage, without Wilt, with the Warriors, against a group of scrubs that had no chance of making NBA rosters. Guess which team won?

Remarkably, Chamberlain then took THAT roster to a 48-32 record, and a Finals appearance, where Russell and his 7-2 edge in HOF teammates, beat Wilt's team, 4-1.

In any case, withOUT Chamberlain, those teams were last-place teams, and in the case of his 62-63 team, hell, they might not have won a game without Wilt.
Bad support cast for Wilt how about in 75 Barry had players like Bill Bridges Steve Bracey,Frank Kendrick,Derrek Dickey,his Center was the great Cliff Ray and his Robin was a rookie Jammal Wilkes. Yet they beat a team with 2 TOp 50 players a top level PG in Kevin Porter and a All Star SG in Phil Chenier. Barry lead that weak roster to a sweep.His team WON!

[Nevaeh]

Bottom line is MJ was the best of both Wilt and Russell wrapped in a single package. He had the offensive approach of Wilt, with the defensive approach of Russell. He did what he had to do when it counted the most, period. Wilt had the same opportunities to get it done just like Jordan's contemporaries did. They couldn't get it done.

It's funny that I've yet to see the level of excuse making for Barkley, K. Malone and Ewing that I've seen for Wilt. Thread after thread of "yeah but see....... yeah but don't forget about.......". Bottom line is Wilt was a great player who racked up stats but still fell short of GOAT status. History can't change that.

[Pointguard]

Nique, here are some basic concepts for you to work with.

1)Basketball was still new when Chamberlain dominates. Coaching great talents is usually problematic in the beginning because 4 other players have to be in support formation.

2)Coaches are most important in this situation: They had to caoch to the spectacular talent in Chamberlain. They had to coach to the franchise surviving - or drawing up fan support (Warriors). They had to coach to keepin the other guys in the game. Then he had to coach to the differences in the playoffs. Coach to them steping their game up and becoming more forefront in playoffs.

3)Even to this day 34ppg and above seems problematic in wining it all

4)Chamberlain seems to be the most coachable great talent in the sport. Played dramatically in different functions according to coaches - 50ppg to 8assist and taking less a lot of single digits attempts.

Some Basic Championship Formula's or Laws
5)Championship formula mandates a reliable second option.
6)Superior coaching
7)PLayers that can rise to the occassion
8)Role Players
9)Chemistry

There are more but I will leave it as such.

You need to stop acting like you don't know.