If I could pick any two players in NBA history to build a team around....

[Math2]

I would pick Larry Bird and Bill Russell without even hesitating. They are the two smartest, hardest working NBA players ever. And they know what it takes to win, and will do it.

[ThaSwagg3r]

Michael Jordan and Tim Duncan.

Duncan is unselfish and wouldn't have a problem deferring to Jordan and being the second banana to MJ. I always thought Duncan would have had no problem playing alongside any star wing player that existed in the 2000s decade, ex. Kobe, VC, Tmac, Iverson, Pierce, etc. I don't think Duncan would have had a hard time co-existing with any of those guys.

[Math2]

Michael Jordan and Tim Duncan.

Duncan is unselfish and wouldn't have a problem deferring to Jordan and being the second banana to MJ. I always thought Duncan would have had no problem playing alongside any star wing player that existed in the 2000s decade, ex. Kobe, VC, Tmac, Iverson, Pierce, etc. I don't think Duncan would have had a hard time co-existing with any of those guys.

Jordan might.

The only reason Bird wouldn't get along is if his team gave zero effort.

[ThaSwagg3r]

Jordan might.

The only reason Bird wouldn't get along is if his team gave zero effort.
Jordan might what? What would Jordan have a problem with? I would have picked MJ and KG but since Duncan has a similar but better personality than KG and a better talent than KG, I would take Duncan instead.

[RRR3]

Jordan might what? What would Jordan have a problem with? I would have picked MJ and KG but since Duncan has a similar but better personality than KG and a better talent than KG, I would take Duncan instead.
Duncan doesn't have more talent than KG. He got better results from his talent, there's a difference.

[ThaSwagg3r]

Duncan doesn't have more talent than KG. He got better results from his talent, there's a difference.
Tell me exactly what KG was better than Duncan at.

He was more versatile and that was about it. KG was never better than Duncan for the majority of both of their careers.

*waits for you to dance around the subject soon*

[RRR3]

Tell me exactly what KG was better than Duncan at.

He was more versatile and that was about it. KG was never better than Duncan for the majority of both of their careers.

*waits for you to dance around the subject soon*
I never said he was better, I said he was more talented. In their respective primes, KG was a better shooter, passer, athlete and as you said more versatile. Both are great defenders and rebounders. Duncan was much more consistent and had better efficiency. Duncan is the bette player for sure, but KG had more raw talent IMO.

[Math2]

Jordan might what? What would Jordan have a problem with? I would have picked MJ and KG but since Duncan has a similar but better personality than KG and a better talent than KG, I would take Duncan instead.

Nevermind.....I meant that Jordan would have problems if the team was built more, but Bird/Russell will have problems only if someone doesn't try.

[ThaSwagg3r]

I never said he was better, I said he was more talented. In their respective primes, KG was a better shooter, passer, athlete and as you said more versatile. Both are great defenders and rebounders. Duncan was much more consistent and had better efficiency. Duncan is the bette player for sure, but KG had more raw talent IMO.
Cool, thanks for arguing about something as pointless as semantics. :rolleyes:

[ThaSwagg3r]

Nevermind.....I meant that Jordan would have problems if the team was built more, but Bird/Russell will have problems only if someone doesn't try.
:confusedshrug: You make no sense, is English not your first language?

[Math2]

Cool, thanks for arguing about something as pointless as semantics. :rolleyes:
:roll:

[RRR3]

Cool, thanks for arguing about something as pointless as semantics. :rolleyes:
:facepalm Typical swagg3r bullshit. Read my original post again: "Duncan doesn't have more talent than KG. He got better results from his talent, there's a difference."

[Math2]

:confusedshrug: You make no sense, is English not your first language?

lol no...If you built the team around Jordan and Duncan, as you add more players, Jordan may have alpha-dog issues with others, while Bird/Russell won't have any issues with players unless the players don't try...

Better?

[ThaSwagg3r]

:facepalm Typical swagg3r bullshit. Read my original post again: "Duncan doesn't have more talent than KG. He got better results from his talent, there's a difference."
Like I said thanks for arguing about something as pointless as semantics. Nobody cares. Duncan is better and that is all that matters.

[ThaSwagg3r]

lol no...If you built the team around Jordan and Duncan, as you add more players, Jordan may have alpha-dog issues with others, while Bird/Russell won't have any issues with players unless the players don't try...

Better?
You really think they would be able to get somebody would be as good as those two? :oldlol: It wouldn't even make sense in a financial standpoint unless they play for the NY Knicks in a league where salary cap doesn't exist. Give Jordan and Duncan a bunch of role players and it is an automatic dynasty because those two are dominant themselves and could make anybody else better.

[Math2]

You really think they would be able to get somebody would be as good as those two? :oldlol: It wouldn't even make sense in a financial standpoint unless they play for the NY Knicks in a league where salary cap doesn't exist. Give Jordan and Duncan a bunch of role players and it is an automatic dynasty because those two are dominant themselves and could make anybody else better.

when jordan gets beat ONCE in practice by a lesser team, whether because of slacking or something else, he'll destroy the player next time, and destroy his moral...

[swi7ch]

Jordan and Hakeem

[Math2]

Jordan and Hakeem

Coulda happened too, if the Ralph Sampson-for 2nd pick in 1984 and Drexler trade had happened...

[ThaSwagg3r]

when jordan gets beat ONCE in practice by a lesser team, whether because of slacking or something else, he'll destroy the player next time, and destroy his moral...
Too bad it doesn't destroy his team's ability to win championships. I couldn't careless as long as they win, after all that is the main objective of the game.

[BlackJoker23]

dwight and lebron. both better than yao and wade

[magnax1]

Russell and Jordan. Easily. You could put any assortment of scrubs around those two and they'd be a top 3 record in any year of the league.

[with malice]

Jordan/Kareem.

[jlauber]

Too bad Chamberlain didn't get 10 seasons playing alongside a prime Magic.

[catch24]

Russell/Jordan. That's a no brainier for me.

[with malice]

Too bad Chamberlain didn't get 10 seasons playing alongside a prime Magic.
Except Chamberlain didn't play nice with other people...

[ThaSwagg3r]

Too bad Chamberlain didn't get 10 seasons playing alongside a prime Magic.
Too bad Chamberlain never understood team concept aside from two seasons and his production and play always dipped come post-season.

[jlauber]

Except Chamberlain didn't play nice with other people...

Hmmm...give me some examples. Did he limit Jerry West when he was paired up with him. How about Hal Greer? Did Greer have better seasons without Chamberlain? And how many titles did those two win without Wilt?

The FACT was, Wilt played with putrid rosters in his first six seasons. And Arizin was the only player that ever averaged over 20 ppg withOUT Wilt of those players that were paired up with Chamberlain in those six seasons (other than a washed up Willie Naulls, who played WORSE with Russell...and rookie Thurmond, who was playing part-time and out of position with Wilt.) So it was not like Wilt was holding them back. In fact, players like Gola and Meschery had their best seasons WITH Wilt.

And it was not like Wilt was just throwing up meaningless stats on losing teams, either. The man played 14 seasons, and had twelve winning seasons (and in his two losing seasons, he absolutely dominated the league in one season...and nearly carried a 40-40 team over the 62-18 Celtics in the seventh game of the '65 playoffs in the other.) He also went to TWELVE Conference Finals, and Six Finals. Along the way he led his team to the best record in the league four times; won 60+ games four times; and anchored two of the greatest title teams in history.

He also did whatever his COACHES asked. In addition, how many other great centers led the NBA in ASSISTS (or came in THIRD in another season)?

I think Magic would have been the PERFECT teammate for Chamberlain.

[jlauber]

Too bad Chamberlain never understood team concept aside from two seasons and his production and play always dipped come post-season.

His production sure dropped. In his first six post-seasons, and in his scoring prime, he averaged 33 ppg, 27 rpg, and shot .510 from the field (in leagues that averaged about .430 shooting in that span.) In his first eight post-seasons, he averaged 29 ppg, 27 rpg, 5 apg, and shot .520 (in leagues that averaged about .435 in that span.)

Oh, and BTW, his opposig centers, MANY of them HOFers, shot FAR WORSE against Wilt than they did in their regular seasons, AND, he outrebounded ALL of them.

[jlauber]

Russell/Jordan. That's a no brainier for me.

Pretty hard to argue with this one.

[bagelred]

Jordan and Shaq

[Heavincent]

Like I said thanks for arguing about something as pointless as semantics. Nobody cares. Duncan is better and that is all that matters.

Arguing about semantics is RRR3's favorite past time.

[DMAVS41]

1. Jordan
2. Russell

Those are my top two players of all time.

After that for building a team around?

3. Magic
4. Wilt
5. Duncan

I have Kareem ranked over Duncan all time on my list using the accepted criteria, but I'd rather build around Duncan.

[noob cake]

Magic and The Dream

[RRR3]

Arguing about semantics is RRR3's 15th favorite past time.
Fixed

[with malice]

Dude... no-one dissed the guy, no-one stated that he didn't achieve. But from what I've read/seen, he wasn't the greatest of teammates.

Hmmm...give me some examples. Did he limit Jerry West when he was paired up with him. How about Hal Greer? Did Greer have better seasons without Chamberlain? And how many titles did those two win without Wilt?
Jerry West on Wilt (from Goliath): I don't want to rap Wilt because I believe only Russell was better, and I really respect what Wilt did. But I have to say that he wouldn't adjust to you, you had to adjust to him."
Not quite as bad as Jerry Lucas who basically accused Wilt of stat/record accumulation while Russell just won... but still damning with faint praise.

Even Wilt on himself:
"I threw away the first seven years of my career and everyone hated playing with me..." (from his autobiography).



The FACT was, Wilt played with putrid rosters in his first six seasons. And Arizin was the only player that ever averaged over 20 ppg withOUT Wilt of those players that were paired up with Chamberlain in those six seasons (other than a washed up Willie Naulls, who played WORSE with Russell...and rookie Thurmond, who was playing part-time and out of position with Wilt.) So it was not like Wilt was holding them back. In fact, players like Gola and Meschery had their best seasons WITH Wilt.
No, that's a fallacy. Pretty much every team Wilt played on had All-Stars and Hall of Famers. Hardly putrid. No-one stated that Wilt was holding anyone back, and I'll agree that the Celtics were clearly better in '61-64. But even then - you're overstating the quality of the teams. Or lack thereof.




He also did whatever his COACHES asked. In addition, how many other great centers led the NBA in ASSISTS (or came in THIRD in another season)?

Really? I think Butch van Breda Kolff would disagree with you...
And the assists thing: for me, that just goes to highlight his pursuit of statistical excellence that wasn't necessarily to the benefit of the team.



I think Magic would have been the PERFECT teammate for Chamberlain.
Perhaps so, but not as good as Kareem was. Or Kareem would have been in his prime.

Look, I think Wilt Chamberlain was one of the most extraordinary and amazing athletes to ever play basketball, but if I'm picking two guys to build a team around, he's not one.

And what's with the caps thing? Are you worried I might miss the import of certain words???

[Stuckey]

wilt + Jordan

[pauk]

Wilt Chamberlain.
Oscar Robertson.

most productive big man and most productive perimeter man.... :bowdown:

[senelcoolidge]

Wilt Chamberlain.
Oscar Robertson.

most productive big man and most productive perimeter man.... :bowdown:

Those were the two I thought off. An older Oscar with a young Kareem made a very strong Bucks team in the early 70's. So, imagine a prime Oscar with a prime Wilt. It would be out of sight.

[with malice]

Those were the two I thought off. An older Oscar with a young Kareem made a very strong Bucks team in the early 70's. So, imagine a prime Oscar with a prime Wilt. It would be out of sight.
Why not a prime Oscar with a prime Kareem?

[Ken_Masters]

Michael Jordan and Shaquille O'neal.

[SuperPippen]

MJ and TD.

Consistency, dedication to the game, spectacular offense, spectacular defense, rebounding, and anywhere from a decade to 15 years of serious championship contention is what you get from those two together.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and Karl Malone

[bballnoob1192]

umm... jordan and shaq, and **** the haters that always use the deferring BS becuz when they win every title for ten years straight it wont ****ing matter.

[Sarcastic]

Very easily Jordan and Wilt. Nobody has ever produced at their level.

[jlauber]

Very easily Jordan and Wilt. Nobody has ever produced at their level.

Even I didn't think of those two. The two greatest offensive players of all-time, and two of the greatest defensive players, too. And both proved that they were very good passers in their careers, as well.

And Wilt proved he could play with great players. In fact, Wilt sacrificed his offense more than any of the other great players who played the game (with perhaps the exception of Magic.)

[andgar923]

Not sure if mentioned, but I'd really like to see the Dream and MJ play together.

[with malice]

And Wilt proved he could play with great players. In fact, Wilt sacrificed his offense more than any of the other great players who played the game (with perhaps the exception of Magic.)
Kinda getting used to everyone - huge Wilt fan, right?

[Hondo]

Len Bias and Reggie Lewis.

[alenleomessi]

jordan and bird

[D-Wade316]

Wilt/Russell & MJ/Wade/Oscar

[blazerjimmy]

Michael Jordan and Karl Malone

Derrick Rose and Kevin Durant

[Go Getter]

Prime Jordan and Prime Wilt. (All-Time)

Derrick Rose and Kevin Durant. (Current)

[colts19]

Bird and Magic, just for the passing.

[Math2]

Dude... no-one dissed the guy, no-one stated that he didn't achieve. But from what I've read/seen, he wasn't the greatest of teammates.

Jerry West on Wilt (from Goliath): I don't want to rap Wilt because I believe only Russell was better, and I really respect what Wilt did. But I have to say that he wouldn't adjust to you, you had to adjust to him."
Not quite as bad as Jerry Lucas who basically accused Wilt of stat/record accumulation while Russell just won... but still damning with faint praise.

Even Wilt on himself:
"I threw away the first seven years of my career and everyone hated playing with me..." (from his autobiography).


No, that's a fallacy. Pretty much every team Wilt played on had All-Stars and Hall of Famers. Hardly putrid. No-one stated that Wilt was holding anyone back, and I'll agree that the Celtics were clearly better in '61-64. But even then - you're overstating the quality of the teams. Or lack thereof.


Really? I think Butch van Breda Kolff would disagree with you...
And the assists thing: for me, that just goes to highlight his pursuit of statistical excellence that wasn't necessarily to the benefit of the team.


Perhaps so, but not as good as Kareem was. Or Kareem would have been in his prime.

Look, I think Wilt Chamberlain was one of the most extraordinary and amazing athletes to ever play basketball, but if I'm picking two guys to build a team around, he's not one.

And what's with the caps thing? Are you worried I might miss the import of certain words???

:applause: Well played.

[DJ Leon Smith]

jordan and bird

I was going to say this as well. Both can play multiple positions and can shoot, pass, defend, rebound and are clutch. Fill in the other positions with even slightly below average starters/quality role players and you're still winning.

And the fact that they're hard on their teammates is a big plus.

[iamgine]

Dude... no-one dissed the guy, no-one stated that he didn't achieve. But from what I've read/seen, he wasn't the greatest of teammates.

Jerry West on Wilt (from Goliath): I don't want to rap Wilt because I believe only Russell was better, and I really respect what Wilt did. But I have to say that he wouldn't adjust to you, you had to adjust to him."
Not quite as bad as Jerry Lucas who basically accused Wilt of stat/record accumulation while Russell just won... but still damning with faint praise.

Even Wilt on himself:
"I threw away the first seven years of my career and everyone hated playing with me..." (from his autobiography).

Really? I think Butch van Breda Kolff would disagree with you...
And the assists thing: for me, that just goes to highlight his pursuit of statistical excellence that wasn't necessarily to the benefit of the team.


Check and mate

[Math2]

Check and mate

lol...can't wait to see jlauber's response...

[PHILA]

Even Wilt on himself:
"I threw away the first seven years of my career and everyone hated playing with me..." (from his autobiography).



Do you have proof of this, or are you just citing the "Book Of Basketball"? I find it hard to believe these are Dipper's words. :no:




This is what Wilt said:

http://i.imgur.com/U6G2B.png

http://i.imgur.com/b68ZO.png

http://i.imgur.com/HM0s0.png



And this (which you improperly cited as Wilt's words) is what idiot Bill Simmons said:

http://i.imgur.com/n2PKD.png

http://i.imgur.com/qivd3.png

[PHILA]

Not quite as bad as Jerry Lucas who basically accused Wilt of stat/record accumulation while Russell just won... but still damning with faint praise.

The inside game: race, power, and politics in the NBA - Wayne Embry

http://i.imgur.com/AK6LI.png

[nycelt84]

I agree with the OP's 2 picks. The 2 best Celtics ever and the 2 guys I'd want to build my team around.

[jlauber]

Quote:
Jerry West on Wilt (from Goliath): I don't want to rap Wilt because I believe only Russell was better, and I really respect what Wilt did. But I have to say that he wouldn't adjust to you, you had to adjust to him."
Not quite as bad as Jerry Lucas who basically accused Wilt of stat/record accumulation while Russell just won... but still damning with faint praise.

Even Wilt on himself:
"I threw away the first seven years of my career and everyone hated playing with me..." (from his autobiography).





In 2002, in an interview with Robert Cherry, (and this is in Cherry's book), West recanted his comments, claiming they were on the spur of the moment.

And, while this link has since been removed for some reason, West made these comments in 1999...

http://www.nba.com/history/wilt_appreciation.html


]""You just don't think things like this are going to happen to people of his stature," echoed Jerry West, the Lakers executive who played against Chamberlain for many years, then with him on the great '72 Lakers squad.

"He was the most unbelievable center to ever play the game in terms of domination and intimidation. There's no one that's ever played the game better than Wilt Chamberlain. This was a man for all ages." "[/COLOR]


As for Lucas' comments...I have always considered Lucas one of the most under-rated players in NBA history, but HE was considered a "stats-padder" FAR more than Wilt...

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1087875/4/index.htm


]"Lucas gets the easy defensive rebounds," Boston Coach Tom Heinsohn scoffed two years ago. "He cheats by sloughing off his man. He gets 18 rebounds but his man gets 35 points." And Los Angeles' Jerry West said, "Lucas can't move and plays no defense. Forget the statistics[/COLOR]."



PHILA already challenged you on Wilt's supposed comment that he was "hated by his teammates." I have all of Wilt's books, and I am not going to sift through all of them, but please give me the page so that I can see the context of those comments. AND, if it was a quote from Simmons' book, then you can pretty much consider it a flat out LIE.




No, that's a fallacy. Pretty much every team Wilt played on had All-Stars and Hall of Famers. Hardly putrid. No-one stated that Wilt was holding anyone back, and I'll agree that the Celtics were clearly better in '61-64. But even then - you're overstating the quality of the teams. Or lack thereof.


Wilt came to a LAST PLACE team in his rookie season (and IMMEDIATELY led them to a then best-ever team record of 49-26.) And the roster got WORSE as the years went by. He did play with ONE Legitimate HOF player in his first six seasons, Paul Arizin, with whom he played with in Arizin's last three seasons. Tom Gola? You have to be kidding, right? The man has as much business being in the HOF as I do. He was a career 11.3 ppg, 7.8 rpg, .425 shooter. AND, I am reasonably certain he has to be WORST HOF post-season shooter in NBA history (.336 in his five playoff series....three with Wilt...and he was awful with and without Chamberlain.)

All-stars? You mean Tom Meschery and Guy Rodgers? Meschery was a ONE-TIME All-star, and even that was suspicious. He missed 16 games that season, and his 16.0 ppg, 9.8 rpg, and .425 shooting were hardly "all-star" like. BTW, that was Meschery's BEST season of his career.

Rodgers. I am not a huge fan of PER, but he was among the WORST guards, includning backups, of his era. Yes, he was a brilliant passer, BUT, he was also probably the WORST shooter in NBA HISTORY. Had he only passed the ball, he would have been far more valuable. Unfortunately, he thought he could shoot, and he severely hurt his team's in the process.

BTW, BOTH of those guys would have been at the very end of Boston's bench in the '63 season (their all-star seasons), on a Celtic team that had NINE HOFers.




Really? I think Butch van Breda Kolff would disagree with you...
And the assists thing: for me, that just goes to highlight his pursuit of statistical excellence that wasn't necessarily to the benefit of the team.



This is REALLY laughable. Van Breda Kolf was as incompetent a coach who mever coached in the NBA. To bench WILT, in favor of Mel Counts in the last five minutes of a game seven is all you need to know. Furthermore, Wilt DID comply with that idiot, and dramatically cut back his own shooting so that Baylor could fire blanks all season long...and then shoot worse in the playoffs (.385, while Wilt shot .545 in that post-season.)

BTW, PHILA dug up one of the the most hilarious quotes I have ever read on the subject of Wilt. Van Breda Kolf: "When we pass the ball to Wilt, yes, he will score. But it is an ugly offense to watch." So, once again, Van Breda Kolf preferred Baylor's erratic gunning to Chamberlain's ultra efficiency.

Van Breda Kolf was quite possibly the worst coach in NBA history, and after that game seven debacle, he was fired, and was out of the NBA in a couple of seasons.


As for Wilt leading the league in assists as "stats-padding"...his TEAM ran away with the BEST RECORD in the league that season. That's really "stats-padding" isn't it?


Perhaps so, but not as good as Kareem was. Or Kareem would have been in his prime.

Look, I think Wilt Chamberlain was one of the most extraordinary and amazing athletes to ever play basketball, but if I'm picking two guys to build a team around, he's not one.



Here again, you have to be kidding, right? Wilt was better at EVERY aspect of the game than Kareem (except for FT shooting, and even then Wilt averaged far more MADE FTs per season than Kareem did in his career.) And, with Wilt's speed, he would have really benefitted from Magic in the open court. Wilt probably would have scored several MORE baskets per game just on fast breaks alone. Not to mention that Magic's DRIVING would have led to many more easy dunks, as well. Wilt was a better offensive, better defensive, better passing, and better rebounding center than Kareem. And, had Kareem not been fortunate enough to have had TEN seasons with Magic, he would have retired with ONE ring, and would have been considered a "stats-padding" disappointment in his career.

Now, IF only Wilt could have had TEN seasons with a PRIME Magic....

[Math2]

Do you have proof of this, or are you just citing the "Book Of Basketball"? I find it hard to believe these are Dipper's words. :no:




This is what Wilt said:

http://i.imgur.com/U6G2B.png

http://i.imgur.com/b68ZO.png

http://i.imgur.com/HM0s0.png



And this (which you improperly cited as Wilt's words) is what idiot Bill Simmons said:

http://i.imgur.com/n2PKD.png

http://i.imgur.com/qivd3.png

It always goes back to stats with Wilt...

[Math2]

As for Wilt leading the league in assists as "stats-padding"...his TEAM ran away with the BEST RECORD in the league that season. That's really "stats-padding" isn't it?





Yes it is. Just because he won doesn't mean it wasn't stat padding. He was PASSING FOR STATS. That's what he basically cared about. STATS.

[jlauber]

Yes it is. Just because he won doesn't mean it wasn't stat padding. He was PASSING FOR STATS. That's what he basically cared about. STATS.

Utter and complete NONSENSE. He came in THIRD in ASSISTS in '67, and his team not only went 68-13, they annihilated the greatest dynasty in major professional sports history en route to a dominating world title.

And, then in '68, while Wilt was LEADING the league in ASSISTS, his team again RAN AWAY with the best record in the league, at 62-20. Do you think that was by design, or just on Wilt's whim alone?

BTW, had HOFer Cunningham not missed the ENTIRE '68 ECF's (and even without him, Philly STILL had a 3-1 series lead), AND, had Jackson and Jones not been injured in game five, AND, had Wilt not been nursing SEVERAL injuries (and was NOTICEABLY LIMPING from game's three thru seven), the Sixers would have destroyed Boston yet again in that post-season. With all of that, Boston won a game seven by four points!

Incidently, Simmons made this ridiculous claim that Russell and Wilt played with roughly the same number of HOFers. What he didn't tell you was that Russell played collectively, 73 FULL seasons with HIS HOF teammates, while Wilt got 20 FULL SEASONS from HIS HOF teammates. BTW, Wilt and Baylor only played ONE FULL SEASON together (and West and Wilt only played in THREE.) And do you think Simmons' included Thurmond in his numbers? Nate played with Wilt, in his rookie season, part-time (26 mpg), out of position (he was playing forward instead of his natural center position)...and shot .395 in that season.)

So, while Russell was playing with Cousy, Havlicek, Sam and KC Jones, Heinsohn, and Sharman, EACH, for 5-12 seasons, Wilt was playing with HIS HOF teamamtes for no more than three years, and most for much less.

[jlauber]

BTW, West won his ONLY ring in a post-season in which he was mired in the worst shooting slump of his career (.376 in the post-season, and an even worse .325 in the Finals)...all thanks to WILT. Wilt mowed down Kareem in the WCF's, and took over the clinching game six win of that series. Then he won the Finals MVP (while playing with BOTH wrists severely injured) with a monster Finals, including a clinching game five performance of 24 points, on 10-14 shooting, 29 rebounds (the ENTIRE Knick team had 39 BTW), and NINE blocked shots. As for West in that game... 23 points on 10-28 shooting.

West credited Wilt as the "linchpin" of that great '72 Laker team. Here again, Wilt adapted HIS game to what his COACH asked.

[eppelp]

Larry Bird and Tim Duncan. I just think it would be relatively easy to build from there. Granted, there might be better duos out there, but this one would be mine and let's be honest: You can barely go wrong with most pairings.

[jlauber]

Larry Bird and Tim Duncan. I just think it would be relatively easy to build from there. Granted, there might be better duos out there, but this one would be mine and let's be honest: You can barely go wrong with most pairings.

I agree. I just shake my head at those that claim that Wilt would somehow be a bad teammate. Do you think Jordan or Kobe would have cut their shots in HALF had their coaches asked them too?

And it amazes me that Wilt gets knocked for "stats-padding" in his 62-63 season (when he LED the NBA in scoring, rebounding, and set a then FG% record)...and yet he played the SAME EXACT way in '66 (leading the league in scoring, rebounding, and again setting a FG% record), en route to leading his team to the BEST RECORD in the league.

On top of that, Kareem is never ripped for "stats-padding", but in his '72 season he averaged 44 mpg, scored 34.8 ppg, and shot .574, on a team that went 63-19 and had a +11.1 ppg differential. THEN, when he plays for an average roster, as in '76 (40-42 record), he could only play 41.2 mpg, score 27.7 ppg, and shoot .529. How come? Why couldn't he elevate his play like Wilt did when it was obvious his TEAM needed him to do so?

[MasterDurant24]

Larry Bird and Tim Duncan. I just think it would be relatively easy to build from there. Granted, there might be better duos out there, but this one would be mine and let's be honest: You can barely go wrong with most pairings.
This is the two I would go with as well.

[jlauber]

BTW, can we no longer allow the quotes from the notorious LIAR Bill Simmons in these Russell-Wilt discussions? He has been proven to be of no value as any kind of resource. In fact, he NEVER even saw the two play. He was born in 1969...the same year that Russell retired.

[Kurosawa0]

Jordan and Shaq would be interesting. Kinda doubt Shaq is half as lazy with having the answer to MJ every practice.

[senelcoolidge]

Could you imagine Wilt's numbers if he only cared about stats..they would be even better that what his real numbers were..unreal.
Pat Riley who was a bench player and a teammate on that Lakers 72 Championship team was interviewed once. From that interview I just got the impression he didn't like Wilt too much. His body language said most of it. He also called Wilt a "man-child", which could be a complement I guess, but for a mature Chamberlain at that point of his career..it sounded more like a verbal jab.

[jlauber]

Could you imagine Wilt's numbers if he only cared about stats..they would be even better that what his real numbers were..unreal.
Pat Riley who was a bench player and a teammate on that Lakers 72 Championship team was interviewed once. From that interview I just got the impression he didn't like Wilt too much. His body language said most of it. He also called Wilt a "man-child", which could be a complement I guess, but for a mature Chamberlain at that point of his career..it sounded more like a verbal jab.

CLEARLY, Wilt could scored FAR more in his career.

[WillC]

Russell and Jordan. Easily. You could put any assortment of scrubs around those two and they'd be a top 3 record in any year of the league.

Agreed.

The two greatest winners in NBA history. They would compliment each other perfectly. Jordan doesn't need a scorer next to him. He can do it all on his own. But he needs a great teammate like Pippen... but even better. Russell is arguably the greatest defender in NBA history and certainly the most inspirational teammate.

It's scary to think how amazing these two would be on the same team.

[WillC]

Larry Bird and Tim Duncan. I just think it would be relatively easy to build from there. Granted, there might be better duos out there, but this one would be mine and let's be honest: You can barely go wrong with most pairings.

This would be probably my second option (after Jordan and Russell).

It would also be interesting to see Bird and Magic on the same team.

[winwin]

BTW, can we no longer allow the quotes from the notorious LIAR Bill Simmons in these Russell-Wilt discussions? He has been proven to be of no value as any kind of resource. In fact, he NEVER even saw the two play. He was born in 1969...the same year that Russell retired.
+1

[delmar]

Jordan and Hakeem
:applause: :applause: :applause: :bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown: :rockon:

[SteveNashMVPcro]

What about Duncan and Hakeem

[Math2]

Utter and complete NONSENSE. He came in THIRD in ASSISTS in '67, and his team not only went 68-13, they annihilated the greatest dynasty in major professional sports history en route to a dominating world title.

And, then in '68, while Wilt was LEADING the league in ASSISTS, his team again RAN AWAY with the best record in the league, at 62-20. Do you think that was by design, or just on Wilt's whim alone?

BTW, had HOFer Cunningham not missed the ENTIRE '68 ECF's (and even without him, Philly STILL had a 3-1 series lead), AND, had Jackson and Jones not been injured in game five, AND, had Wilt not been nursing SEVERAL injuries (and was NOTICEABLY LIMPING from game's three thru seven), the Sixers would have destroyed Boston yet again in that post-season. With all of that, Boston won a game seven by four points!

Incidently, Simmons made this ridiculous claim that Russell and Wilt played with roughly the same number of HOFers. What he didn't tell you was that Russell played collectively, 73 FULL seasons with HIS HOF teammates, while Wilt got 20 FULL SEASONS from HIS HOF teammates. BTW, Wilt and Baylor only played ONE FULL SEASON together (and West and Wilt only played in THREE.) And do you think Simmons' included Thurmond in his numbers? Nate played with Wilt, in his rookie season, part-time (26 mpg), out of position (he was playing forward instead of his natural center position)...and shot .395 in that season.)

So, while Russell was playing with Cousy, Havlicek, Sam and KC Jones, Heinsohn, and Sharman, EACH, for 5-12 seasons, Wilt was playing with HIS HOF teamamtes for no more than three years, and most for much less.

Yes, I think he led the league in assists because he wanted to prove he was unselfish. Again, MOST OF RUSSELLS HOF TEAMMATES WOULDN'T BE IN THE HOF IF IT WASN'T FOR HIM. Wilt was unwanted by TWO teams, so much they TRADE this supposed "Winner". Do you ever wonder about that? Why teams wanted to get rid of him?

[gcvbcat]

1. tim duncan
2. magic johnson or michael jordan

[DJ Leon Smith]

Shoutout to jlauber for ruining this thread. You must be one of Wilt's kids.

[chips93]

2004 garnett and pre baseball/early 90s jordan. all time greats at both ends, kg would be a great facilitator to build around, and jordan is a good enough scorer to carry you by himself when required. with those two guys, i have elite defenders for all 5 positions as well.

[jlauber]

Yes, I think he led the league in assists because he wanted to prove he was unselfish. Again, MOST OF RUSSELLS HOF TEAMMATES WOULDN'T BE IN THE HOF IF IT WASN'T FOR HIM. Wilt was unwanted by TWO teams, so much they TRADE this supposed "Winner". Do you ever wonder about that? Why teams wanted to get rid of him?

More Bill Simmons nonsense I see. Wilt was NOT traded because he was "unwanted." He was traded the first time because it was feared he had a heart problem (and BTW, the Warriors received THREE players and cash for Wilt.) And the second "trade?" WILT engineered THAT deal.

BTW, San Francisco paid a RECORD sum for the Philadelphia franchise BECAUSE of Wilt.

Please...do some actual research before making these ridiculous claims. AND, once again, do NOT use ANYTHING that Simmons' writes as a legitimate source. The man was a blatant liar and obviously he had an "anti-Wilt" agenda.

As for Russell's HOF teammates. Cousy, Havlicek, Heinsohn, Sharman, and Sam Jones...were legitimate HOFers. AND, Boston would not have won ANY titles without them. Havlicek was a legitimate 29 ppg scorer, and Sam Jones had seasons of 26 ppg with Russell. And Russell had those players for 40 FULL SEASONS. KC Jones, Bailey Howell, Arnie Risen, Frank Ramsey, and Satch Sanders were VERY GOOD players. All-in-all, Russell had FAR more help than Chamberlain did in his career.

And yes, Wilt was a WINNER. EVERY team he joined set TEAM W-L records (and both the Sixers and Lakers records are STILL his), and EVERY team he left became much worse.

[jlauber]

Shoutout to jlauber for ruining this thread. You must be one of Wilt's kids.

Why don't blame some of the other's here who challenged MY take that Wilt would have made a GREAT teammate with ANY other player?

And, QUIT READING my posts while you are at it.:facepalm

[Math2]

More Bill Simmons nonsense I see. Wilt was NOT traded because he was "unwanted." He was traded the first time because it was feared he had a heart problem (and BTW, the Warriors received THREE players and cash for Wilt.) And the second "trade?" WILT engineered THAT deal.

Please...do some actual research before making these ridiculous claims. AND, once again, do NOT use ANYTHING that Simmons' writes as a legitimate source. The man was a blatant liar and obviously he had an "anti-Wilt" agenda.

As for Russell's HOF teammates. Cousy, Havlicek, Heinsohn, Sharman, and Sam Jones...were legitimate HOFers. AND, Boston would not have won ANY titles without them. Havlicek was a legitimate 29 ppg scorer, and Sam Jones had seasons of 26 ppg with Russell. And Russell had those players for 40 FULL SEASONS. KC Jones, Bailey Howell, Arnie Risen, Frank Ramsey, and Satch Sanders were VERY GOOD players. All-in-all, Russell had FAR more help than Chamberlain did in his career.

And yes, Wilt was a WINNER. EVERY team he joined set TEAM W-L records (and both the Sixers and Lakers records are STILL his), and EVERY team he left became much worse.

Wow! Three players? Incredible!

I love how you claim Havlicek was a legit 29 ppg scorer...he was...after Russell. His high with Russell is 22.6...

I find nothing that says Wilt had a suspected heart condition...Link?

"Wilt understood the game of basketball. He had an opinion about the game and was bright about it. He wanted to use his size in close proximity to the basket. But he didn't develop his skills beyond that. If he wanted to, he could have been a significant playmaker. Wilt had demonstrated he could have shot the ball and been an effective passer."

Dick Harp

Chamberlain forced a trade, yes that is true.

On a bad team, Jones/Heinsohn don't make the HOF.

He played with VERY GOOD players. But so did WIlt. and Russell used his talents to the max, while WIlt didn't.

[senelcoolidge]

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

A brief interview. Wilt mentions that he may have to retire and on losing to the Celts in the playoffs. Wilt looks emotional.

[chips93]

im trying not to engage in this repetitive wilt jabber, but i cant resist . . .

the notion that wilt not trying hard enough, or not getting the most out of his talents, proves that he is worse than somebody who tries harder is foolish. players are judged on what they did, not what they could have done. its ridiculous to handicap players because they had more natural talents than others.

the fact that wilt didnt get as much from his talents as russell should have no part in a debate between the two. we are discussing who was the better player, these incidental facts hold no weight.

is shaq worse than garnett, just because garnett got the most from his talents? of course not, but somehow this logic holds in a wilt-russell argument.

[jlauber]

Wow! Three players? Incredible!

I love how you claim Havlicek was a legit 29 ppg scorer...he was...after Russell. His high with Russell is 22.6...

I find nothing that says Wilt had a suspected heart condition...Link?

"Wilt understood the game of basketball. He had an opinion about the game and was bright about it. He wanted to use his size in close proximity to the basket. But he didn't develop his skills beyond that. If he wanted to, he could have been a significant playmaker. Wilt had demonstrated he could have shot the ball and been an effective passer."

Dick Harp

Chamberlain forced a trade, yes that is true.

On a bad team, Jones/Heinsohn don't make the HOF.

He played with VERY GOOD players. But so did WIlt. and Russell used his talents to the max, while WIlt didn't.

Here again, you are showing me that you know NOTHING about the Wilt-Russell rivalry.

Chamberlain died from congestive heart failure, and there were those that believed it could be traced back to his being slugged in the mouth by Clyde Lovellette early in his career, which caused a serious infection which nearly KILLED him.

As for the link...read John Taylor's book on "the Rivalry."

On page 132 of Cherry's book...


Even though they had gone to the NBA championship the previous year, the Warriors had lost money, according to Mieuli, the owner. Of even more importance, the Warriors could not afford to keep Wilt, whose salary was more than the rest of the team combined. Besides, Wilt's return forced Thurmond, a natural center, to play forward, retarding his development. In addition, in spite of Dr. Lorber's diagnosis of pancreatitis, the San Francisco doctors stuck by their opinion---Wilt had heart trouble, Years later Mieuli recalled that the team doctor insisted that no insurance company would cover Wilt because of his bad heart. The doctor said, "I'll bet my job on it---he won't last a year."

Yes...Havlicek had seasons of 27.5 ppg and 28.9 ppg AFTER Russell. THAT should tell you just how talented the man was. BTW, he won TWO more rings AFTER Russell. As for Jones, he probably would have been a 25-30 ppg his entire career had he not played with Auerbach's Celtics. And, he SAVED Boston on NUMEROUS occasions in the post-season.

Russell played with more talented rosters, and much longer, than Wilt ever had.

None other than the great John Wooden claimed that had Wilt had Russell's rosters, he likely would have won all those rings, too.

[Math2]

Here again, you are showing me that you know NOTHING about the Wilt-Russell rivalry.

Chamberlain died from congestive heart failure, and there were those that believed it could be traced back to his being slugged in the mouth by Clyde Lovellette early in his career, which caused a serious infection which nearly KILLED him.

As for the link...read John Taylor's book on "the Rivalry."

On page 132 of Cherry's book...

I read the book. I didn't remember that part. I knew he died from a heart condition.

[jlauber]

I read the book. I didn't remember that part. I knew he died from a heart condition.

I apologize for responding the way I did. I KNOW that you are a very good poster, and I do respect you. I just get so tired of the same "Bill Simmons" quotes that I have read here so much in the last year.

As for Russell...I suppose that come across as "anti-Russell", which is not true. I have come to respect what he accomplished, and I have no problem with those that rank him #1 all-time. My problems are with those that disparage Wilt's career, and what he accomplished.

[MasterDurant24]

I think Sam Jones is one of the most underrated players on here. Sam Jones wasn't just very good, the man was great. From the 64-65 season to 67-68, Sam Jones was the leading scorer per game for Celtics. In those years, he averaged 28.6, 25, 26.7, and 20.5 in the playoffs. He always came up big in crunch time, John Havlicek called him a great defender and even said if he hadn't played for the Celtics he'd be considered in the same leauge with Oscar Robertson and Jerry West. Sam Jones also shared scoring duties with John Havlicek and Bailey Howell. Bailey Howell is also not given enough credit, he was a six time All Star, made the All-NBA second team before he got to Boston, and averaged around twenty points for the Celtics for 3 of the 4 years he was there along with 8-9 boards. I really don't get why most people don't rank Sam Jones at least in the top 40 since Russell is usually put anywhere from 2-4. He only has one less ring. Alot of the HOFs who played on Russell's Celtics were actually very good players, not just scrubs who got in because they rode Russell to a handful of rings.

[jlauber]

I think Sam Jones is one of the most underrated players on here. Sam Jones wasn't just very good, the man was great. From the 64-65 season to 67-68, Sam Jones was the leading scorer per game for Celtics. In those years, he averaged 28.6, 25, 26.7, and 20.5 in the playoffs. He always came up big in crunch time, John Havlicek called him a great defender and even said if he hadn't played for the Celtics he'd be considered in the same leauge with Oscar Robertson and Jerry West. Sam Jones also shared scoring duties with John Havlicek and Bailey Howell. Bailey Howell is also not given enough credit, he was a six time All Star, made the All-NBA second team before he got to Boston, and averaged around twenty points for the Celtics for 3 of the 4 years he was there along with 8-9 boards. I really don't get why most people don't rank Sam Jones at least in the top 40 since Russell is usually put anywhere from 2-4. He only has one less ring. Alot of the HOFs who played on Russell's Celtics were actually very good players, not just scrubs who got in because they rode Russell to a handful of rings.

Very good post. And I agree. Sam Jones and John Havlicek were two of the greatest to ever play the game.

I also agree, though, that SEVERAL of Russell's teammates would not have made the HOF without him. My god, KC Jones was never even an all-star. The reality was, Russell made guys like Ramsey, KC, Sanders, Howell, and other's into much better players than they actually were. And none of those guys would have sniffed the HOF without him.

[Math2]

I think Sam Jones is one of the most underrated players on here. Sam Jones wasn't just very good, the man was great. From the 64-65 season to 67-68, Sam Jones was the leading scorer per game for Celtics. In those years, he averaged 28.6, 25, 26.7, and 20.5 in the playoffs. He always came up big in crunch time, John Havlicek called him a great defender and even said if he hadn't played for the Celtics he'd be considered in the same leauge with Oscar Robertson and Jerry West. Sam Jones also shared scoring duties with John Havlicek and Bailey Howell. Bailey Howell is also not given enough credit, he was a six time All Star, made the All-NBA second team before he got to Boston, and averaged around twenty points for the Celtics for 3 of the 4 years he was there along with 8-9 boards. I really don't get why most people don't rank Sam Jones at least in the top 40 since Russell is usually put anywhere from 2-4. He only has one less ring. Alot of the HOFs who played on Russell's Celtics were actually very good players, not just scrubs who got in because they rode Russell to a handful of rings.

I totally agree, but the reason I said he wouldn't be HOF...is because he WOULDN't without Russell. He's a top 40 (maybe 30)player all-time, but he'd be a forgotten great without Russell. By no means at all are Russell's teammates "bad". They rode him to the HOF, rather than forgotten great, that true basketball junkies love. Because that's what he is without rings. Unfortunately as it is.

[ThaRegul8r]

I think Sam Jones is one of the most underrated players on here. Sam Jones wasn't just very good, the man was great. From the 64-65 season to 67-68, Sam Jones was the leading scorer per game for Celtics. In those years, he averaged 28.6, 25, 26.7, and 20.5 in the playoffs. He always came up big in crunch time, John Havlicek called him a great defender and even said if he hadn't played for the Celtics he'd be considered in the same leauge with Oscar Robertson and Jerry West.

Anyone who knows anything about Sam Jones is aware of the fact that he didn't want the responsibility that came with "being in the same league with Oscar Robertson and Jerry West." The Celtics was the perfect situation for him, because the pressure and responsibility was on Russell and not on him. He didn't have to be "The Man." If he had played on another team, he would have, and things would have been completely different. He was already "the reluctant hero" as it was. Russell put him in the most comfortable situation to allow him to flourish, but another team would have forced him into a role he wasn't comfortable taking.


I really don't get why most people don't rank Sam Jones at least in the top 40 since Russell is usually put anywhere from 2-4. He only has one less ring.

In 1957-58, Jones averaged 10.6 minutes per game (9.4 MPG in the playoffs). In 1958-59, 20.6 minutes per game (17.5 in the playoffs). In 1959-60, 20.4 minutes per game (15.2 in the playoffs). In 1960-61 his playing time increased to 26.0 minutes per game (25.8 in the playoffs), and then it was in 1961-62 when he came into his own, becoming an All-Star for the first time, averaging 30.6 minutes per game (36.0 in the playoffs) and hit the EDF series-winning shot in Game 7, the first of his clutch shots.

For once I wish people would do some actual research into something if they don't know, instead of making statements which reveal they haven't taken anything more than a cursory, superficial look at the subject. If one had done this, one would have known that Sam Jones wasn't a major contributor until the fourth of those aforementioned 10 rings, prior to which he was a bench player, and not in the Frank Ramsey, John Havlicek sense.

[Math2]

Anyone who knows anything about Sam Jones is aware of the fact that he didn't want the responsibility that came with "being in the same league with Oscar Robertson and Jerry West." The Celtics was the perfect situation for him, because the pressure and responsibility was on Russell and not on him. He didn't have to be "The Man." If he had played on another team, he would have, and things would have been completely different. He was already "the reluctant hero" as it was. Russell put him in the most comfortable situation to allow him to flourish, but another team would have forced him into a role he wasn't comfortable taking.



In 1957-58, Jones averaged 10.6 minutes per game (9.4 MPG in the playoffs). In 1958-59, 20.6 minutes per game (17.5 in the playoffs). In 1959-60, 20.4 minutes per game (15.2 in the playoffs). In 1960-61 his playing time increased to 26.0 minutes per game (25.8 in the playoffs), and then it was in 1961-62 when he came into his own, becoming an All-Star for the first time, averaging 30.6 minutes per game (36.0 in the playoffs) and hit the EDF series-winning shot in Game 7, the first of his clutch shots.

For once I wish people would do some actual research into something if they don't know, instead of making statements which reveal they haven't taken anything more than a cursory, superficial look at the subject. If one had done this, one would have known that Sam Jones wasn't a major contributor until the fourth of those aforementioned 10 rings, prior to which he was a bench player, and not in the Frank Ramsey, John Havlicek sense.

But he never shied away from the spotlight. He was there in crunch time, and yes, he didn't play much early, but that doesn't detract from 6 rings that he was HUGE in.

[senelcoolidge]

Sam Jones was a great shooter. He had that patented bank shot. Of course he was on a roster with many other HoFer's, so it's kind of easy to be overlooked. My Dad met him back in the 60's..I guess during their dynasty run. My dad told me he was impressed with him. Not just that he couldn't miss a shot, but he was a nice guy. Jones was doing a clinic at my father's school.

[ThaRegul8r]

But he never shied away from the spotlight.

Don Nelson: He'd go into hiding in the corner, if he could. We had to force him to take the shot


He was there in crunch time, and yes, he didn't play much early, but that doesn't detract from 6 rings that he was HUGE in.

I'm not detracting from the championships he was a major contributor to, which began in 1961-62, as I said. I'm against people acting like he played an equal part in all 10. The poster I replied to made a point of saying he had one less ring than Russell, which should be a monumental statement. But he didn't even play much for the first three, so I fail to see how that's a reflection of him as a player. (It's like people saying Mitch Richmond is an NBA champion.) 1961-62 on? He deserves full credit for the part he played in those rings. Before then? No.

[Math2]

Don Nelson: He'd go into hiding in the corner, if he could. We had to force him to take the shot


What I meant is that he never failed to execute.

[ThaRegul8r]

Don Nelson: He'd go into hiding in the corner, if he could. We had to force him to take the shot

What I meant is that he never failed to execute.

I don't know what you "meant." I'm not a mind-reader. All I have to go on are the printed words that you typed. And what you posted was incorrect.

[Math2]

I don't know what you "meant." I'm not a mind-reader. All I have to go on are the printed words that you typed. And what you posted was incorrect.

Sorry I said the wrong thing.

[with malice]

Here again, you have to be kidding, right? Wilt was better at EVERY aspect of the game than Kareem (except for FT shooting, and even then Wilt averaged far more MADE FTs per season than Kareem did in his career.) And, with Wilt's speed, he would have really benefitted from Magic in the open court. Wilt probably would have scored several MORE baskets per game just on fast breaks alone. Not to mention that Magic's DRIVING would have led to many more easy dunks, as well. Wilt was a better offensive, better defensive, better passing, and better rebounding center than Kareem. And, had Kareem not been fortunate enough to have had TEN seasons with Magic, he would have retired with ONE ring, and would have been considered a "stats-padding" disappointment in his career.

It would be pretty much irrelevant if Magic played with Wilt, as Wilt dominated the ball so entirely. It definitely wouldn't have benefited Magic, that's a certainty.

I cannot believe that a Wilt-fan would bring up FTs. Ok, he made more. How many more did he attempt?

And if he was so deserving of deification, explain a few things to me:
- How come he only has 2 rings, when his direct competition had 11?
- How come head-to-head Russell beat him soundly?
- How come on nearly every "Greatest Centers" list you can find, Kareem's listed at #1, and not Wilt?

No doubt, Wilt was an amazing player... on an individual basis. But basketball's a team game. And I wrote it all without the necessity of capitalizing a single word...

[Math2]

So, if I use capitals on certain words, that makes them actually *more true*? But I digress...
It would be pretty much irrelevant if Magic played with Wilt, as Wilt dominated the ball so entirely. It definitely wouldn't have benefited Magic, that's a certainty.

I cannot believe that a Wilt-fan would bring up FTs. Ok, he made more. How many more did he attempt?

And if he was so deserving of deification, explain a few things to me:
- How come he only has 2 rings, when his direct competition had 11?
- How come head-to-head Russell beat him soundly?
- How come on nearly every "Greatest Centers" list you can find, Kareem's listed at #1, and not Wilt?

No doubt, Wilt was an amazing player... on an individual basis. But basketball's a team game. And I wrote it all without the necessity of capitalizing a single word...

Russell is #1.

[with malice]

Russell is #1.
Not on any list that matters...

[jlauber]

It would be pretty much irrelevant if Magic played with Wilt, as Wilt dominated the ball so entirely. It definitely wouldn't have benefited Magic, that's a certainty.

I cannot believe that a Wilt-fan would bring up FTs. Ok, he made more. How many more did he attempt?

And if he was so deserving of deification, explain a few things to me:
- How come he only has 2 rings, when his direct competition had 11?
- How come head-to-head Russell beat him soundly?
- How come on nearly every "Greatest Centers" list you can find, Kareem's listed at #1, and not Wilt?

No doubt, Wilt was an amazing player... on an individual basis. But basketball's a team game. And I wrote it all without the necessity of capitalizing a single word...

Well, the main reason that Wilt didn't win more rings was Russell. BUT, how many posters here bring up Russell's greatness when they discuss Wilt's rings? They almost always claim Wilt was a selfish "stats-padding" loser who choked.

How many other great players won rings in the Russell era? I seldom see anyone bashing West or Baylor, and yet the two played TOGETHER for the entire decade, and couldn't beat Russell.

As for Kareem as the #1 center. Personally, I don't believe he was a better player than Wilt. Nor do I think he had the IMPACT that Russell had, either. BUT, having said that, he has a CASE.

Wilt won two rings. He didn't lose ANY. Until someone here can prove that Wilt's team's would have fared better without him, then I just won't accept that Chamberlain LOST any of them.

[Math2]

Not on any list that matters...

Best Center/Best NBA Player/Biggest Winner

Don't care about any of them?

[jlauber]

Not on any list that matters...

So, if there is a list that doesn't have MJ, or perhaps Kareem, as the GOAT, then they are meaningless?

[with malice]

Best Center/Best NBA Player/Biggest Winner

Don't care about any of them?
Not what I meant - the majority of "Best Center" lists have Kareem at #1. Same with best NBA players - Kareem's usually ranked ahead of Russell.
Biggest Winner? That's a rather vague concept - but if in terms of rings, yes: Russell wins that one clearly (and the thing I like about that in regard to Russell is for each he was the primary reason the ring was won).
Don't get me wrong: I like Russell (as much as any Lakerfan can)... but I don't believe he was as good as Kareem.

[Kobe 4 The Win]

Magic Johnson and Shaquille O'Neal. That would be scary.

[Math2]

Not what I meant - the majority of "Best Center" lists have Kareem at #1. Same with best NBA players - Kareem's usually ranked ahead of Russell.
Biggest Winner? That's a rather vague concept - but if in terms of rings, yes: Russell wins that one clearly (and the thing I like about that in regard to Russell is for each he was the primary reason the ring was won).
Don't get me wrong: I like Russell (as much as any Lakerfan can)... but I don't believe he was as good as Kareem.

11 rings....I think Kareem is a really, really good center....not the best though (Celtic fan opinion though...)