What exactly makes Bill Russel better than Wilt?

[Mr Exlax]

Was it only because of the championship rings? That's a team award correct? Anybody know what their head to head matchups looked like? Anybody old enough to have watched them play each other? I see the argument on here all the time.

[Umad101]

Nothing really the dudes overrated. The only thing that makes him stand out Campared to others is his 11 rings

[Owl]

The usual argument (in a simplified form) is:

Greatest defender of all time
Elevated teammates
Won Titles

Personally I'd take Wilt though.

[KG215]

Because, as cliche-ish as it sounds, he is the poster boy for "stats don't do him justice." Not to mention there's not any stats that can truly show how great he was and impactful he was on defense.

Not saying he's hands down better than Wilt but you can't just compare their numbers and draw your conclusion.

[jlip]

Nothing really the dudes overrated. The only thing that makes him stand out Campared to others is his 11 rings

I guess the fact that he has more MVPs (the highest individual award) than anybody not named *Kareem didn't happen?:confusedshrug:

*He's tied with MJ.

[goldenryan]

If Duncan is the modern Russell, Wilt would be Lebron. Except Wilt was a much tougher matchup back than Lebron is now.

[Kblaze8855]

If hes better its because he generates a winning atmosphere. You can call it cliche...I call it personally taking the leagues worst defense and making it #1 for like 12 years in a row...I call it playing hard all game every game and it rubbing off on teammates....I call it starting fast breaks to get guys who otherwise cant contribute involved in the game and having fun...I call it being ap layer/coach who runs plays chosen by his teammates and lets everyone have his say just to show them he respects them as men...I call it making your teammates respect you and your will to win so much they play harder as not to let you down.

Bill russell makes a team play better than it could otherwise and his contribution goes well beyond what you can measure.

[Mr Know It All]

Because most people are ignorant to the fact that basketball is actually a team sport. It's a crazy concept, I know, but many of the posters here are still learning that fact. It takes time to figure out I assume, so we should probably cut them some slack.

In all seriousness, as another poster mentioned: elevates teammates, great defensive player, great leader, blah blah blah. Wilt has him beat as an individual basketball player in almost every single way, and he has the monster statistics to prove it.

For some reason in the NBA and in other sports great players with very talented rosters are ranked above transcendent and more individually dominant players who have mediocre rosters (because of the fiction that sports romantics love to spin).

[lilgodfather1]

I didn't see Russ play becaus i'm not in my 60's, but I would loved to have seen him play based on what I have heard of him. He sounds to me like he is the perfect player. Defense, rebounding, passing, and I would imagine he would have blocked 4 shots per game or more. Type of player I would love to have on my team.

With Wilt he had great stats, but great stats don't translate to wins. For the record though I have Wilt above Russell despite the monsterous gap between the title count.

[Legends66NBA7]

I guess the fact that he has more MVPs (the highest individual award) than anybody not named *Kareem didn't happen?:confusedshrug:

*He's tied with MJ.

And if Finals MVP existed since the beginning of the league's inception, he would have had like 8-10 of them.

So were looking at a guy with 11 rings (which most would argue that he was the best on all championship teams), 5 MVP's, and 8-10 Finals MVP's.

Also, this:

- In 1969 Sporting News ran a feature on why Russell was the Greatest Player Ever. It cited the opinions of over 25 all-star players and NBA head coaches from the era.

- In 1971 when the NBA voted for it's Silver Anniversary team, only Russell was a unanimous selection.

- In 1980 when they selected the 35th Anniversary team, Russell was voted the greatest player ever.

If they were voting Russell over Wilt back then, I don't see what's going to make anyone put Wilt over Russell now, at least from view.

[Mr Know It All]

I didn't see Russ play becaus i'm not in my 60's, but I would loved to have seen him play based on what I have heard of him. He sounds to me like he is the perfect player. Defense, rebounding, passing, and I would imagine he would have blocked 4 shots per game or more. Type of player I would love to have on my team.

With Wilt he had great stats, but great stats don't translate to wins. For the record though I have Wilt above Russell despite the monsterous gap between the title count.

:facepalm

[DatAsh]

:facepalm

He has a point though. Greats stats don't always correlate with winning basketball.

Wilt was at his best and improving his team's offense the most when he was putting up 24/24, not 50/25.

[Kblaze8855]

I dont think its by chance that Wilt won the most when he played more like Russell. But even then...even as a playmaker...he did it selfishly. Ive heard his teammates say he would get mad if you didnt shoot it off his pass on an offensive rebound so he got the assists. Ive watched him pass out after a rebound 2-3 times in a row when he could have just dunked it. Wilt was great...but he had too much to prove. Too much concern about numbers.

[Pointguard]

There is a poster here claiming he got the statistical evidence that Bill's defense was more than the 31.4 ppg difference Wilt had on him. I highly doubt it and don't believe it. His defense would be the daily equal of totally shutting down most of the scoring champions in history is a bit wild to me.

[lilgodfather1]

:facepalm
There are more examples than just Wilt's great stats not translating to wins. Look at David Lee who put up great numbers on a garbage team. Good players get more touches on bad teams, and can put up better stats.

Not saying Wilt was on garbage teams like the Knicks, but good stats don't = wins.

[CavaliersFTW]

I dont think its by chance that Wilt won the most when he played more like Russell. But even then...even as a playmaker...he did it selfishly. Ive heard his teammates say he would get mad if you didnt shoot it off his pass on an offensive rebound so he got the assists. Ive watched him pass out after a rebound 2-3 times in a row when he could have just dunked it. Wilt was great...but he had too much to prove. Too much concern about numbers.
According to the book "The Rivalry" this behavior was exclusively part of the 68 season when he aimed at getting the assist title. He didn't complain about this during any of his other seasons - just to make that clear.

[Kblaze8855]

I know when it was. It kinda sickens me.

[bdreason]

I don't think people claim Russell was a better player than Wilt, they just rank him higher on their GOAT list, because of his accomplishments.



The real question is, how does Wilt, arguably the most dominant force in the history of the sport, only manage to win 2 titles, and only 1 title as the main man?


If Wilt had managed to win more, he would surely be ranked ahead of Russell. And Wilt isn't the only player whose all-time ranking suffers because of their lack of success; see Barkley, Ewing, Malone, etc.

[Mr Know It All]

He has a point though. Greats stats don't always correlate with winning basketball.

Wilt was at his best and improving his team's offense the most when he was putting up 24/24, not 50/25.

ALWAYS? No. But great stats translates to being a great player, especially with the efficiency that Wilt scored at. Still, Wilt improved his team dramatically when he came and started putting up the legendary numbers we all know very well. His teams were always quality and battled Russell's Celtics several times in the playoffs to game 7 (a remarkable feat considering how much talent those Celtics teams had).

I concede that Wilt's teams had more success when his scoring numbers went down (though they were still very impressive, and much more impressive than Russell's ever were). I was not referring to his dip however. The fact is, those stats were still great, and his great stats and great play still led his teams to great records and playoff success.

Sorry but saying that great stats and great individual talent isn't absolutely key to a multitude of successful teams (it has been proven again and again throughout NBA history) is asinine.

[CavaliersFTW]

I know when it was. It kinda sickens me.
Wilt's only real weaknesses were his free throws, and his ego. He was aware of how good he was, and thus extremely difficult to handle from the perspective of a coach. From what I understand through reading and research there were 3 distinct seasons he meshed perfectly with his coaches and teammates and not surprisingly those 3 seasons showed what Wilt was really capable of doing. 1962 with coach McGuire, 1967 with Hannum, and 1972 with Sharmon. He was better than Russell ever was (on the floor) during those seasons save for maybe 72 when age had caught up to him. And as an overall talent, he was always better than Russell.

[oolalaa]

Why do so many dumbasses mis-spell Russell's surname?

[DatAsh]

There is a poster here claiming he got the statistical evidence that Bill's defense was more than the 31.4 ppg difference Wilt had on him. I highly doubt it and don't believe it. His defense would be the daily equal of totally shutting down most of the scoring champions in history is a bit wild to me.

That poster was me. The argument stems from the perspective of how much Bill Russell's defense was improving his team's overall defense in comparison to how much Wilt's offense was improving his team's overall offense. Monster stats are useless with respect to the one goal of the game if those stats don't get you any closer to accomplishing that goal.

At his best(67), Wilt Chamberlain was the best basketball player that ever lived in my opinion, but Wilt wasn't at his best, nor better than Russell, when he was putting up his best stats.

And when I define "best" I'm referring to the player that does more to help his team win games.

[Figlo]

people like winners, you play sports to win

[Mr Exlax]

I appreciate all the feedback guys. I'm mainly looking at their career numbers. Championships are a team accomplishment and I never use them when I'm comparing two players. Anybody got some head to head stats from their games or hell I'll settle for career averages lol.

[Mr Exlax]

That poster was me. The argument stems from the perspective of how much Bill Russell's defense was improving his team's overall defense in comparison to how much Wilt's offense was improving his team's overall offense. Monster stats are useless with respect to the one goal of the game if those stats don't get you any closer to accomplishing that goal.

At his best(67), Wilt Chamberlain was the best basketball player that ever lived in my opinion, but Wilt wasn't at his best, nor better than Russell, when he was putting up his best stats.

And when I define "best" I'm referring to the player that does more to help his team win games.

See the only thing is that didn't Russell have like 6 other HOF players on his teams? That's why I'm not asking about rings cause those are team accomplishments.

[fpliii]

I appreciate all the feedback guys. I'm mainly looking at their career numbers. Championships are a team accomplishment and I never use them when I'm comparing two players. Anybody got some head to head stats from their games or hell I'll settle for career averages lol.

here you go, sir (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Aoy3YD7IdypTdEpOeFRwY29NRTUtWVlFWVJ5TkFDY 3c)

it's incomplete though, we still have some work to do

[Kblaze8855]

Wilt was one of 3 hall of famers and 4 all stars on his rookie team and 2 of them helped the team win a title before Wilt got there. Wilt having no help is just a myth people dont look into. Several celtics HOF players are only in for being Celtics during that era.

Wilt had talented teams though. Not every season. But plenty of years he had great teams and lost. At least...7 years. At least.

[Psileas]

I don't think people claim Russell was a better player than Wilt, they just rank him higher on their GOAT list, because of his accomplishments.



The real question is, how does Wilt, arguably the most dominant force in the history of the sport, only manage to win 2 titles, and only 1 title as the main man?


If Wilt had managed to win more, he would surely be ranked ahead of Russell. And Wilt isn't the only player whose all-time ranking suffers because of their lack of success; see Barkley, Ewing, Malone, etc.

Why do so many people maintain that Wilt won "1 title as the main man"? Wilt in 1972 played Bill Russell's role with a few differences, like still being less inclined than Russell to guard outside the paint, but still being the more efficient scorer and, unlike West, this time, in the playoffs, Wilt retained his level of play, while West experienced an uncharacteristic slump. In the 1972 Finals, there was little question who would be the Finals' MVP.
If the average Russell was ranked above the average West, I don't see why this Wilt would be ranked below him.

[CavaliersFTW]

Why do so many people maintain that Wilt won "1 title as the main man"? Wilt in 1972 played Bill Russell's role with a few differences, like still being less inclined than Russell to guard outside the paint, but still being the more efficient scorer and, unlike West, this time, in the playoffs, Wilt retained his level of play, while West experienced an uncharacteristic slump. In the 1972 Finals, there was little question who would be the Finals' MVP.
If the average Russell was ranked above the average West, I don't see why this Wilt would be ranked below him.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmBzyI_yxRs

Yah, both of Wilt's titles were definitely won as "The Man". Wilt was unanimously the best - and most important - player on the 1972 team. 1972 game documantaries, interviews with players, and the coach all describe the Lakers success as being attributed to Wilt. I mean, he was FMVP and even earned regular season MVP votes the only people who think Wilt wasn't "the man" that season are people who glance at his reduced scoring and make hasty assumptions.

[DatAsh]

Why do so many people maintain that Wilt won "1 title as the main man"? Wilt in 1972 played Bill Russell's role with a few differences, like still being less inclined than Russell to guard outside the paint, but still being the more efficient scorer and, unlike West, this time, in the playoffs, Wilt retained his level of play, while West experienced an uncharacteristic slump. In the 1972 Finals, there was little question who would be the Finals' MVP.
If the average Russell was ranked above the average West, I don't see why this Wilt would be ranked below him.

I imagine the majority of individuals who witnessed the 1972 finals would attest to the fact that Wilt Chamberlain was the most important piece of that Laker team.

[Mr Exlax]

here you go, sir (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Aoy3YD7IdypTdEpOeFRwY29NRTUtWVlFWVJ5TkFDY 3c)

it's incomplete though, we still have some work to do


Thanks!!!!!!!

[Pointguard]

While I think if Wilt was on Boston he's GOAT without question. And that was close to happening... with Russell still on the team. Red Aurabach was more of a visionary than other owners and Red had a great player in Russell to build off of with that vision. Basketball is the most dynastic of all sports, better organizations win the majority of the time in collosal proportions to other sports. Its seems like the Dynasties win 80% of the time while the majority of the league has never won it. Most great players can sneak in two championships if the organization really tries. And it rarely goes beyond that. And its consistent with the top rank players.

Compare Ewing/Karl Malone teammates to Kobe/Shaq's and you can see some teams either have more resources and more vision than other teams. If you are not on Miami/LA or OKC you aren't going to win. It rarely breaks out to player vs player. It didn't even feel like that to me when Lebron and Durant guarded each other, for some strange reason to me. However let one have a tendency to dominate the other like Shaq did Mutombo... then we draw distinctions. But most of the time its organization vs. organization and the more organized will usually win. Of course an organization still needs outstanding players and pieces. Russell interacted with the pieces and players extremely well.

I have long said people really need to draw distinctions between GOAT player and GOAT, which are two different things. GOAT is the all inclusive which counts achievements (team and individual), off the court stuff (changing rules) awards, etc. . Player is what happens on the 90 by 45 court:

Wilt could and did dominate Russell even when Russell had a a better and great defensive team.
Wilt could shut Russell down.
Wilt could break records and create unbreakable records on Russell (55 rebounds).
Wilt could dominate Russell in his only measurable greatness (rebounds).
Wilt averaged 28 and 28 on Russell and 30 and 23 in general.

Russell rarely outplayed Wilt in 143 games.
Russell did not shut Wilt down (there were a few bad games but no one ever claims it was Russell alone).
Russell did not approach any records on Wilt.
Russell rarely out rebounded or outscored Wilt.
Russell averaged 15 and 22 on the league and likely less on Chamberlain.

On the same court the comparison's aren't equal by measurable numbers at all. On different courts they get really wild. But domination numbers rarely lie, but sometimes they do. 28/28 over 143 games is phenomenal. I couldn't see another player having all of these advantages being better than the other on intangibles and what have you. Plus Russell wasn't a scorer in the sport that is most geared toward scoring success. Baseball and Football don't honor their defensive players in remotely the same measure and their game is waaaaaay more defensively oriented.

[TheBigVeto]

Was it only because of the championship rings? That's a team award correct? Anybody know what their head to head matchups looked like? Anybody old enough to have watched them play each other? I see the argument on here all the time.

Russell doesn't have an annoying 'tard defender in this board. Wilt does. That's why Russell is greater than Wilt.

Oh yeah Russell also never played for the Lakers. That's another reason.

[KOBE143]

I rather choose Poor Mans Javale Mcgee than Poor Mans Joel Anthony..

Both overrated tho..

[Heavincent]

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-a8lnAwwDeJk/TfDMGGmy0oI/AAAAAAAAFaM/M3mWVENcqBg/s1600/bill-russell.jpg

[Mr Exlax]

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-a8lnAwwDeJk/TfDMGGmy0oI/AAAAAAAAFaM/M3mWVENcqBg/s1600/bill-russell.jpg

You might've missed my first post. I don't look at rings when I compare 2 players because championship rings are a team award. Adam Morrison has more rings than Lebron James. I need something more than just rings.

[fpliii]

You might've missed my first post. I don't look at rings when I compare 2 players because championship rings are a team award. Adam Morrison has more rings than Lebron James. I need something more than just rings.

not that you asked, but I've given up at ranking players at all (in terms of overall greatness, etc.)

if I'm forced to compare two guys, I'd rather compare them within more objective constraints (i.e. best defensive anchors, best peaks, best championship playoff runs)...we've had so many great players in this league, and it's impossible to give them all fair placement on one list of arbitrary greatness (but that's just me)

[LEFT4DEAD]

I would never pick Russell over Wilt, even not in my dreams. Guy is like the most overrated player of all time. He would be Ben Wallace today, nothing more.

[Mr Exlax]

not that you asked, but I've given up at ranking players at all (in terms of overall greatness, etc.)

if I'm forced to compare two guys, I'd rather compare them within more objective constraints (i.e. best defensive anchors, best peaks, best championship playoff runs)...we've had so many great players in this league, and it's impossible to give them all fair placement on one list of arbitrary greatness (but that's just me)

I feel ya! I can't do a list or anything like that. I just compare 2 players. That's about the most I'll do lol.

[Mr Exlax]

I would never pick Russell over Wilt, even not in my dreams. Guy is like the most overrated player of all time. He would be Ben Wallace today, nothing more.

I've heard that so many times. About being Ben Wallace today.

[guy]

While I think if Wilt was on Boston he's GOAT without question. And that was close to happening... with Russell still on the team.

Details?

[G.O.A.T]

Details?

He's got the story wrong. A little bit anyway.

Auerbach was after Wilt from the time he was in High School. Auerbach's approach to get Wilt was to try and persuade him to go to an East Coast College (specifically in the Boston area) so that Boston could gain territorial rights to him. Once he announced he was going to Kansas it seemed it would come down to the 1959 draft, but during the 1955 draft, Philadelphia Basketball Mogul Eddie Gottlieb pulled a fast one on the rest of the league.

Gottlieb used the Warriors territorial pick on then High School Senior Wilt Chamberlain. Gottlieb argued, successfully, that regardless of where Wilt went to college he was from Philadelphia and thus should play in Philadelphia.

Auerbach cried foul to no avail, but he got the better of the deal when he traded MaCauley and Hagan for Russell a year later.

The Warriors had to use their 1955 and 1959 territorial picks on Wilt, but it's hard to say it wasn't worth it.

[BlueandGold]

Was it only because of the championship rings? That's a team award correct? Anybody know what their head to head matchups looked like? Anybody old enough to have watched them play each other? I see the argument on here all the time.
Too lazy to look it up but i believe it's on the wiki page. It's ridiculously one-sided towards Russell too, just in the Finals alone Russell is like 7-1 or 7-0 vs Wilt.

[Mr Exlax]

Too lazy to look it up but i believe it's on the wiki page. It's ridiculously one-sided towards Russell too, just in the Finals alone Russell is like 7-1 or 7-0 vs Wilt.

Nah I was looking for their stats against each other. I'll check out wiki today though. I forget about that page often lol.

[pauk]

Nothing makes him better, he was probably a better defender but that doesnt make him better.... he was not better... but he "accomplished" more (championships), team accomplishments are overrated that way...

[Pushxx]

Do people not realize how remarkable it is to be a coach and player at the same time?

[Alan Shore]

You should read Mr. Russell's book, Red and Me. There you can find out just how Mr. Russell dealt with Wilt.

In a nutshell, it came down to a battle of the mind. Mr. Russell always won those battles of the mind. You see, in a team game there must be a subsumption of the ego in oneself, while exploiting the outsized ego of the opponent. Russell's ego was healthy. Chamberlain's was not healthy. Russell was all about winning games. Chamberlain was all about winning individual matchups. Russell, knowing this, always "allowed" Chamberlain to "get his," which in turn had a negative impact on his teammates.

Mr. Russell was asked what it meant to be a great leader, and his reply was that to be a great leader a man must be a good servant. That was the core of Mr. Russell's value system, and it was the reason why he made others around him better and was so excellent at creating synergy and a culture of winning. Lets not forget he won 2 NCAA titles and an Olympic medal as well as 11 NBA titles in 13 seasons.

Wilt once admitted to Russell that the reason why he didn't win more often was because his ego demanded that the offense go through him while Russell had no such demands. (In fact, if you look up Russell's assist numbers he was always second on the team in assists.) But really this statement by Chamberlain is just another way of saying that he needed others to serve HIM and not the other way around.

Russell was all about winning games through chemistry, and he was the greatest basketball chemist in the history of the sport. Chamberlain may have all the great stats but he flunked chemistry.

Your desire to compare them head-to-head statistically is a misguided pursuit.

Russell may not be considered the greatest player but he certainly is the greatest winner, and there is good reason for that, little of which will show up on his statline.

[Mr Exlax]

You should read Mr. Russell's book, Red and Me. There you can find out just how Mr. Russell dealt with Wilt.

In a nutshell, it came down to a battle of the mind. Mr. Russell always won those battles of the mind. You see, in a team game there must be a subsumption of the ego in oneself, while exploiting the outsized ego of the opponent. Russell's ego was healthy. Chamberlain's was not healthy. Russell was all about winning games. Chamberlain was all about winning individual matchups. Russell, knowing this, always "allowed" Chamberlain to "get his," which in turn had a negative impact on his teammates.

Mr. Russell was asked what it meant to be a great leader, and his reply was that to be a great leader a man must be a good servant. That was the core of Mr. Russell's value system, and it was the reason why he made others around him better and was so excellent at creating synergy and a culture of winning. Lets not forget he won 2 NCAA titles and an Olympic medal as well as 11 NBA titles in 13 seasons.

Wilt once admitted to Russell that the reason why he didn't win more often was because his ego demanded that the offense go through him while Russell had no such demands. (In fact, if you look up Russell's assist numbers he was always second on the team in assists.) But really this statement by Chamberlain is just another way of saying that he needed others to serve HIM and not the other way around.

Russell was all about winning games through chemistry, and he was the greatest basketball chemist in the history of the sport. Chamberlain may have all the great stats but he flunked chemistry.

Your desire to compare them head-to-head statistically is a misguided pursuit.

Russell may not be considered the greatest player but he certainly is the greatest winner, and there is good reason for that, little of which will show up on his statline.

Very insightful. Who do you think was the better player of the two in terms of skills?

[G.O.A.T]

What made Russell better than Wilt was that he understood what most of the people who think Wilt was better don't.

Basketball is a team game where an individual can have an impact on all nine other players at nearly any given moment.

Winning a Championship is a team accomplishment, but the amount of credit is not evenly distributed, it should reflect the individual players level of impact. The value of an individual player should be measured by how great of an impact they can have on their team's objective. T

That being said, it is not a coincidence that the ten players that most here cite as being the ten greatest in the shot clock era have won between them 39 of the 58 NBA Championships as their teams best player. In Basketball more than any other sport, a single great individual player increases your chances of achieving great team success.

Why is Russell great, specifically greater than Wilt?

Russell looked to score when his match-up dictated he should look to score, an example is when the Celtics faced the Lakers. He usually was the teams leading scorer and shot well over 50% from the field. This was because the Lakers weakness was at center and Russell always aimed to exploit a teams weakness first. He looked to block shots when he had the advantage and when he did not have the advantage to he tried to convince the shooter he was going to block it anyway. When he did block shots he would control tip them if possible, Thus they were often rebounds and outlet passes in one. There is no stat for this, but it's impact is the same as a rebound every time and a hockey assist 50-75% of the time, both in one play which also creates the opponents missed field goal. He passed not to get assists (as prime Wilt did), or because he didn't want to lower his field goal percentage (as old Wilt did) but so that a teammate in a better offensive position or with a more favorable match-up could look to score. Russell was often second on his team in assists throughout every stage of his career and still holds the highest playoff assist per game average all-time for any center.

When a young Wilt and Russell met it was important to Wilt that he outscored and out-rebounded Russell and he almost always did. It was important to Russell than the Celtics beat the Warriors and they almost always did. Both men achieved their goal, I find Russell's goal better serves the team purpose.

In 1967 Wilt's main goal was to win games, he averaged a lot of points, but not the most he ever averaged. A ton of rebounds, but he'd put up larger numbers before. He passed for a remarkable number of assists, but not as many as the next season when he set out to lead the league and passed sometimes to the detriment of his team. The one thing Wilt did do better in 1967 than he did at any other stage of his career was play team defense. I'm not even close to the first one to say this but, he basically played like Russell in 1967 and Russell later said, he did it even better than Russell could.

The problem with that. That attitude only lasted one season. The next year Wilt's team blew a 3-1 lead with HCA to the Celtics. Wilt demanded a trade. This was a team with the best front court in the league and all were in their prime. Wilt was traded to the only team with more star power than the 76ers, the Lakers. They blow a 2-0 lead in the Finals, Wilt feuds with the coach.

My reasoning for always taking Russell over Wilt is that every year of Russell's career his goal and focus was the same: Win. He made sure that was his teammates focus and played his heart out to make sure they always had at least a chance. With Wilt you don't know what you're getting. You know what he's capable of but he's the only one who can decide to play up to that level. If his focus is somewhere else, you're probably not going to win, even if you have the most talent.

[DatAsh]

Do people not realize how remarkable it is to be a coach and player at the same time?

This.

Think of all the things a coach needs to be thinking about at all times on the sidelines, now imagine having to keep track of all that while also playing 46 minutes a game and anchoring one of the best defenses ever.

[Alan Shore]

Very insightful. Who do you think was the better player of the two in terms of skills?

yes lets look at the skills each possessed as opposed to looking at the stats. i think this is a much more fascinating question.

first, though, russell was 6'9". but russell in his heyday could snatch a quarter off the top of the backboard and was almost always the best sprinter in any group of athletes. to say that he was the ideal athlete for basketball is an understatement. he gave up 5" and probably over 40 pounds to chamberlain.

honestly i can't say much about either because i really never got to watch russell play live, and chamberlain also retired within a year of my starting to watch the sport. i have seen plenty of both on re-broadcasts and youtube of course. the problem with the passage of time is that we tend to distill our memories to their bare essentials, which run the risk of being a bit "prismatic."

that said, wilt had a great finger roll for sure. both players had decent hook shots but chamberlain's was probably better.

russell was the superior rebounder in my opinion, if by rebounder we mean also a great outlet passer.

russell was the superior defender by far. he studied all of the players on the other team to see what their tendencies were and how to make them uncomfortable. he knew that getting them out of their comfort zone just enough would cause their efficiency to plummet.

[CavaliersFTW]

yes lets look at the skills each possessed as opposed to looking at the stats. i think this is a much more fascinating question.

first, though, russell was 6'9". but russell in his heyday could snatch a quarter off the top of the backboard and was almost always the best sprinter in any group of athletes. to say that he was the ideal athlete for basketball is an understatement. he gave up 5" and probably over 40 pounds to chamberlain.

honestly i can't say much about either because i really never got to watch russell play live, and chamberlain also retired within a year of my starting to watch the sport. i have seen plenty of both on re-broadcasts and youtube of course. the problem with the passage of time is that we tend to distill our memories to their bare essentials, which run the risk of being a bit "prismatic."

that said, wilt had a great finger roll for sure. both players had decent hook shots but chamberlain's was probably better.

russell was the superior rebounder in my opinion, if by rebounder we mean also a great outlet passer.

russell was the superior defender by far. he studied all of the players on the other team to see what their tendencies were and how to make them uncomfortable. he knew that getting them out of their comfort zone just enough would cause their efficiency to plummet.

*Russell is 6-9 and 5/8ths in his bare feet according to sports illustrated 1955. This is 5/8ths of an inch taller than Dwight Howard, and about 2 and a half inches taller than Ben Wallace.
*Russell has a 7-4" wingspan, an inch more than Tyson Chandler
*Russell weighed 215lbs as a rookie, and up to 240 "overweight". He played 222-228 in his prime.

*Wilt was 7-1 1/16th in his bare feet, almost 1/4" taller than Shaq (7-0 7/8ths)
*Wilt had a 7-8" wingspan, an inch more than Shaq's
*Wilt weighed 258lbs as a rookie, and up to 320 "overweight" or near the end of his career. He played 265-290 in his prime.

The taking change off the backboard stories are likely just that. Stories. Russell was an elite leaper though.

Wilt had a horrible right-hand-only hook shot, he rarely used it because he refused to develop it and detested it - his shots were finger rolls, bulling his way in, and fadeaway or turnaround jumpers including off the glass. Russell's hook shot was shot superior to Wilt's hook shot and could be used with both hands, but it was inferior to Wilt's fadeaways and fingerrolls. Wilt's skill and raw talent as a scorer >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Russell as a scorer.

Wilt has 11 rebound titles, he slightly edges out Russell in rebounding though it is close enough that it almost makes little difference. Wilt is just as good at outlet passing as Russell especially on the 76ers or particularly the 1972 Lakers.

Wilt is at the very least, just as good of a 1 on 1 post defender and low-post basket protector as Russell particularly during his two championship runs the 2nd half of his career, and he blocked more shots according to Harvey Pollack. Russell was a more mobile, and versatile, and scientific defender - but Wilt is at the very least, close if not equal during his defensive peaks especially as a 76er and Laker. All around Russell has more team defensive impact. But Wilt isn't far inferior to Russell at all on defense, their defense is much closer than people think.

[Pushxx]

Russell altered more shots than Wilt. Wilt had more blocked shots because he was determined to get his finger on the ball.

Russell understood how to make a player miss a shot in more ways than blocking.

This characteristic is what makes Bill Russell the best defender to ever play basketball.

[CavaliersFTW]

Russell altered more shots than Wilt. Wilt had more blocked shots because he was determined to get his finger on the ball.

Russell understood how to make a player miss a shot in more ways than blocking.

This characteristic is what makes Bill Russell the best defender to ever play basketball.
From the limited full-game footage I have available of the two, trust me, any difference between their shot altering ability (not just blocking ability) appears to be exaggerated, perhaps even non-existent. When Wilt was firing on all cylendars defensively he impacts the game perhaps just as much as Russell and I mean everything from preventing shots from being taken to blocking to teammates / in bounds etc - everything that Russell usually get's credit for Wilt appears just as proficient at least when he wants to be:

Bill Russell displaying his defensive impact:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuOUENP2xqk

Wilt displaying no less defensive impact:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmBzyI_yxRs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaXHYlPECcc

Honestly, (looking at defense only) you could almost mistake them for the exact same player if you break down their impact and tactics in those games. I think the real difference is (and I'm only assuming) that Russell played defense like that more consistently throughout his entire career. Where as I have at least 1 complete game where Wilt isn't playing D like that. Wilt shifted his style of play several times, and early in his career, defense (of that consistency and magnitude) was perhaps not one of those styles of play - but later in his career it was and the footage I have of him later in his career shows Russell-like defense.

[caliman]

See the only thing is that didn't Russell have like 6 other HOF players on his teams? That's why I'm not asking about rings cause those are team accomplishments.


Please stop the myth that Russell only played on stacked teams, while Wilt played with a bunch of scrubs. Wilt played with plenty of all time greats, all stars and the like.

[Legends66NBA7]

Please stop the myth that Russell only played on stacked teams, while Wilt played with a bunch of scrubs. Wilt played with plenty of all time greats, all stars and the like.

This.

Not only that, the only "HOF's" from the Celtics dynasty that didn't require the fact they were on the 8-peat team/9-10 ring teams... is Cousy and Hondo.

The rest actually have to be thankful they played along side Russell. There were also other future "HOF's" that were in the twilight of their careers on the Celtics teams winning titles. I hope that people would put the context about those "HOF's" in perspective. Infact, later on in his career, it was Wilt that played with greater HOF players than Russell did.

[Bigsmoke]

Wilt better.

[EricForman]

http://174.120.97.215/catalog/images/autographed/memorabilia/sports/collectibles/authentic/Basketball/Russell/Russell_11_Rings.jpg

[nycelt84]

Do people not realize how remarkable it is to be a coach and player at the same time?

A lot of people in Boston that was the only reason the Celtics didn't win in '67. Some of his own teammates thought the responsibilities of both coaching and being the team's best player affected his playing.

[DatAsh]

A lot of people in Boston that was the only reason the Celtics didn't win in '67. Some of his own teammates thought the responsibilities of both coaching and being the team's best player affected his playing.

That and having to face one of the greatest teams ever assembled in the easter ndivision finals.

[Pointguard]

If two equal people face each other 143 times there should be a sizeable portion of games where there is a measure of both players getting the better of each other. There should be between 80 to 60 games where the pendulum switches between the two. Mathematically, that is a comfort zone for equals. It should never be something like 130 to 13. That's more like domination numbers than they are equals. In the history of sports, stats have never told such a lie.

Speaking of domination, Jlauder posted here many times there are 40 games where Wilt statistically dominated Russell. http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=7442277&postcount=31 The domination games more than double the games where measure, gives Russell some redemption. Wilt in general was the better more efficient with the rock, a better rebounder and obviously a much better scorer. If you use mathematical symbols from given equations there is no way you can confuse these symbols "< = >" between the two.

While we have to take it for granted that Russell had to defend better its not a given that Wilt blocked less shots per game than Russell or that he held opposing centers to lower percentages. If you read Simmons, you kinda know he already did the calculations AND because they weren't in his favor, he likely didn't publish them (I say this because he approaches the subject a couple of time and just didn't pursue it). In chance encounters, I notice that Wilt was holding good centers, in his scoring years, to low percentages. It wouldn't surprise me at all if Wilt had more blocks and held his man down better than Russell did in at least one of his scoring years.

[SHAQisGOAT]

Better or above on the all time list? Because in terms of talent, Wilt is above.

Well Russ is the greatest winner, the GOAT defensive player, also a fierce rebounder, really good passer, clutch and left it all on the court, not really the best or near when it came to offense but he came through many times, talking about all his ridiculous intangibles is impossible, his mentality, focus and will is almost unmatched, did what he had to do in order to win. Plus he worked with teammates, made sure they focused on their strengths that he would make up for their weaknesses, you can say all you want about his teams and such but the guy was just a winner.

With that said Wilt's talent can't also be overlooked though, the man was a beast.

[Kblaze8855]

Mathematically, that is a comfort zone for equals.

What makes you think you could use math to determine Russells impact on the outcome of a game in the first place?

You think the players who voted him MVP 5 times didnt see the numbers?

[Pointguard]

1)What makes you think you could use math to determine Russells impact on the outcome of a game in the first place?

2)You think the players who voted him MVP 5 times didnt see the numbers?

1) Cause we can use math for everything in the universe without exception. The outcome of a game is predicated on many factors beyond the individual. And in basketball the number story doesn't tell lies of unbelievable proportions.

2) The players voting, most of the time voted based on what they seen in the boxscores. Actually with a little less information than we have from basketball reference.

[Freedom Kid7]

I dont think its by chance that Wilt won the most when he played more like Russell. But even then...even as a playmaker...he did it selfishly. Ive heard his teammates say he would get mad if you didnt shoot it off his pass on an offensive rebound so he got the assists. Ive watched him pass out after a rebound 2-3 times in a row when he could have just dunked it. Wilt was great...but he had too much to prove. Too much concern about numbers.
:applause: :applause: :applause:

Russell made his teammates better and elevated his play come playoff time, along with his teammates level of play. I doubt Havlicek develops without Russ.

[CavaliersFTW]

:applause: :applause: :applause:

Russell made his teammates better and elevated his play come playoff time, along with his teammates level of play. I doubt Havlicek develops without Russ.
... I don't

[DatAsh]

1) Cause we can use math for everything in the universe without exception. The outcome of a game is predicated on many factors beyond the individual. And in basketball the number story doesn't tell lies of unbelievable proportions.

2) The players voting, most of the time voted based on what they seen in the boxscores. Actually with a little less information than we have from basketball reference.

The first part of your first statement is absolutely false. The second part can be true, but is often times false as well, especially in reference to box-score statistics or non advanced statistics.

[G.O.A.T]

2) The players voting, most of the time voted based on what they seen in the boxscores. Actually with a little less information than we have from basketball reference.

I highly doubt it since:

1) Most papers didn't post box scores then and Russell, who won the most MVP's during the early sixties, did not dominate the stats.

2) With only eight teams then, most players saw each team 8-12 times at least in person. They'd be much more likely to vote based on that than anything.

[Pointguard]

The first part of your first statement is absolutely false.

OK we definitely know that you know absolutely nothing about physics - Cause we can use math for everything in the universe without exception. We know that you don't know basketball is a team sport -The outcome of a game is predicated on many factors beyond the individual. And lastly please tell use when basketball stats told a lie of this proportion - And in basketball the number story doesn't tell lies of unbelievable proportions.



The second part can be true, but is often times false as well, especially in reference to box-score statistics or non advanced statistics.
They weren't watching games on TV or going to other player's games.

[DatAsh]

OK we definitely know that you know absolutely nothing about physics - Cause we can use math for everything in the universe without exception.

No need to get angry and attempt to insult my intelligence(I probably know more about physics than you would think ;) ) , I was really just playing devil's advocate there for the sake of being critical. Don't take it personally.

My statement is still true though, and your statement is still false. There are plenty of things that math can't do. It's actually a somewhat interesting mathematical question, though it's certainly beyond the scope of this thread so I'll refrain from going in to too much depth, but for example,

Math can't build a machine that would tell you for every statement if that statement is true or false.

There are a multitude of other things that math can't do, but that's neither here nor there.


We know that you don't know basketball is a team sport -The outcome of a game is predicated on many factors beyond the individual.
Agreed, I have no qualms with this statement.


And lastly please tell use when basketball stats told a lie of this proportion - And in basketball the number story doesn't tell lies of unbelievable proportions.

I never made any sort of reference as to the magnitude of a lie, or if I did, that was not my intention. My point was that statistics, and even more specifically box score statistics, often don't paint an accurate picuture of a players worth. A good example would be Adrian Dantley.


***Edit : I see where some of the confusion stemmed from. My second point that you quoted was in reference to the second part of your first point, not your second point. Sorry for the mix-up.

[Gotterdammerung]

Datash is correct - mathematics is limited by its quantification.

An enormous slice of life is not amenable to quantification, such as duration, and many intangibles in basketball are qualities that cannot be numerable. :hammerhead:

[Mr Exlax]

in terms of talent, Wilt is above.

Ok I guess I should've explained the question better. Yeah I was talking about talent.

[Pointguard]

No need to get angry and attempt to insult my intelligence(I probably know more about physics than you would think ;) ) , I was really just playing devil's advocate there for the sake of being critical. Don't take it personally.

My statement is still true though, and your statement is still false. There are plenty of things that math can't do. It's actually a somewhat interesting mathematical question, though it's certainly beyond the scope of this thread so I'll refrain from going in to too much depth, but for example,

Math can't build a machine that would tell you for every statement if that statement is true or false.

Technology, the application of science, can't do that. Math can. Math provides the reality for infinity, the presence of things unseen - quantum physics, its omnipresent (a number can be assigned to everything even in the spectrums we can't experience directly) and provides order for all reality we know.



I never made any sort of reference as to the magnitude of a lie, or if I did, that was not my intention. My point was that statistics, and even more specifically box score statistics, often don't paint an accurate picuture of a players worth. A good example would be Adrian Dantley.

***Edit : I see where some of the confusion stemmed from. My second point that you quoted was in reference to the second part of your first point, not your second point. Sorry for the mix-up.
Hey DatAsh, you're all good by me. If you make blanket statements in response to me, I will call you out most of the time. Its not personal but a way of getting you to say the things on your mind. And you always have something good going on but you don't always fully explain yourself.

Adrian Dantley is a good example. I'm sure there are others who are somewhat inflated by their numbers. One dimensional players are easier to call out. Wilt wasn't one dimensional and was with good chance of being the second best defensive player in the league, nevermind being the best rebounder. But still a comparator has to be made to Dantley for even the statement to be true. And who would you say is his equal that is scoring 31 less points per game? OK that's unfair, but lets say 12ppg which is about the 60% less scoring that Russell relates to Wilt. This is still incorrect in proportion because Wilt was a dominant, great scorer, while Dantley was an exceptional scorer. A definite difference.

The best I can come up with would be Deke and Ben Wallace trasnported into the 80's, however, both of whom, I would take over Dantley in a raw state. But it all falls apart when we make Dantley taller than them, a superior rebounder to them, a top five defensive player and the greatest scorer ever by a wide margin. Not to mention, Cavsfan who has more than likely seen more footage than anybody here and he's saying the difference defensively wasn't a wide margin, and he's posted footage of one of Russell's greatest defensive years in this thread. In that scenario Deke and Ben Wallace would be a joke in comparison to Dantley. Anybody would be.

[DatAsh]

Technology, the application of science, can't do that. Math can. Math provides the reality for infinity, the presence of things unseen - quantum physics, its omnipresent (a number can be assigned to everything even in the spectrums we can't experience directly) and provides order for all reality we know.


You've somewhat missed the point here, but that's my fault. The example I provided was off the top of my head, and wasn't adequate for the point I was trying to make. I was trying to show that there exists some things that are mathematically impossible, and in fact mathematics can prove that they are impossible.

My previous example would be better stated as "mathematics cannot for every statement assert whether that statement is true or false". It's a well known example in computer science that I mistakenly used the computer science revision of which tends to include the "build a machine" phrase.





Hey DatAsh, you're all good by me. If you make blanket statements in response to me, I will call you out most of the time. Its not personal but a way of getting you to say the things on your mind. And you always have something good going on but you don't always fully explain yourself.

Adrian Dantley is a good example. I'm sure there are others who are somewhat inflated by their numbers. One dimensional players are easier to call out. Wilt wasn't one dimensional and was with good chance of being the second best defensive player in the league, nevermind being the best rebounder. But still a comparator has to be made to Dantley for even the statement to be true. And who would you say is his equal that is scoring 31 less points per game? OK that's unfair, but lets say 12ppg which is about the 60% less scoring that Russell relates to Wilt. This is still incorrect in proportion because Wilt was a dominant, great scorer, while Dantley was an exceptional scorer. A definite difference.

The best I can come up with would be Deke and Ben Wallace trasnported into the 80's, however, both of whom, I would take over Dantley in a raw state. But it all falls apart when we make Dantley taller than them, a superior rebounder to them, a top five defensive player and the greatest scorer ever by a wide margin. Not to mention, Cavsfan who has more than likely seen more footage than anybody here and he's saying the difference defensively wasn't a wide margin, and he's posted footage of one of Russell's greatest defensive years in this thread. In that scenario Deke and Ben Wallace would be a joke in comparison to Dantley. Anybody would be.


I agree that Wilt is by no means a one dimensional player. At his best, he is in my mind the second greatest defender of all time after Russell. In no way should he be compared to Adrian Dantley in a strict sense of overall value, but advanced statistics do show that scoring Wilt(60-64) is no where near as valuable to an offense as his scoring statistics would have you believe(they also show that his scoring was at its best later in his career when he was taking far less shots and scoring far fewer ppg), just like Adrian Dantley.

When you say that Wilt was 31 ppg more valuable on offense than Bill, what does that really mean? 31ppg is just a box score statistic, which can by itself be very deceiving. A better measure of value would be to look at just how much Wilt's extra scoring was improving his team's offense in comparison with Russell.

Going purely by box score statistics, a player that averages 80ppg on 50% TS would be the best scorer that's ever lived, but is he really a better scorer than someone like Jordan who averages 34 on 61% TS if Jordan's scoring improves his team's offense more? If winning is the absolute goal, then this should be pretty fundamental question.

[Pointguard]

I agree that Wilt is by no means a one dimensional player. At his best, he is in my mind the second greatest defender of all time after Russell. In no way should he be compared to Adrian Dantley in a strict sense of overall value, but advanced statistics do show that scoring Wilt(60-64) is no where near as valuable to an offense as his scoring statistics would have you believe(they also show that his scoring was at its best later in his career when he was taking far less shots and scoring far fewer ppg), just like Adrian Dantley.

When you say that Wilt was 31 ppg more valuable on offense than Bill, what does that really mean? 31ppg is just a box score statistic, which can by itself be very deceiving. A better measure of value would be to look at just how much Wilt's extra scoring was improving his team's offense in comparison with Russell.

Going purely by box score statistics, a player that averages 80ppg on 50% TS would be the best scorer that's ever lived, but is he really a better scorer than someone like Jordan who averages 34 on 61% TS if Jordan's scoring improves his team's offense more? If winning is the absolute goal, then this should be pretty fundamental question.

Ha, when you get to explaining yourself there is solid ryhme and reason.

I think if you persued that you can definitely bring to light Russell's impact in a way I haven't seen presented.

I think in a player vs player scenario you can't bring in team accomplishments as the ultimate say so. Ben Wallace could have very well meant more to Detroit's defense than Shaq did to LA's offense. No way does Detroit win without Ben Wallace - afterall they would have never tried going one on one against Shaq. The leap of turning Wallace to a better player is just too much to take seriously. One could make an argument that Big Ben meant as much to Detroit as Shaq meant to LA but you can't make a case that Ben was a better player. Player vs player is a comparison of individual vs individual. We evaluate primarily from where the individual expresses himself thru talent, skill and production categories. While I value other intangibles like leadership, motivation and team interaction most don't put those things over the primary three (talent, skill and production).

[BoutPractice]

The key is that Bill Russell never set out to outplay Wilt individually in the first place. As a great tactician, he quickly understood it to be pointless.

He only focused on making his team win against Wilt's team... which happened most of the time, those wins being mostly attributable to Russell's play.

[Pointguard]

The key is that Bill Russell never set out to outplay Wilt individually in the first place. As a great tactician, he quickly understood it to be pointless.

He only focused on making his team win against Wilt's team... which happened most of the time, those wins being mostly attributable to Russell's play.

Those wins were mostly attributable to the Celtic's team play. Russell was part of that. He was there best player but part of well constructed team that scored very well.