Larry Bird = GOAT Celtic?

[ImmortalD24]

According to Bob Cousy, K.C Jones and Red Auerbach: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Rto2_oYVs0I#t=157s

http://www.celticstown.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/red-auerbach-bill-russell2-500x258.jpg

:confusedshrug:

[CavaliersFTW]

According to Bob Cousy, K.C Jones and Red Auerbach: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Rto2_oYVs0I#t=157s

http://www.celticstown.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/red-auerbach-bill-russell2-500x258.jpg

:confusedshrug:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-5rFmKkmqhsY/T5T50gPWBAI/AAAAAAAAAps/Kif0EdK8xLs/s1600/what.gif
http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m9c52mUitf1r8jviwo2_250.gif
http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m9c4bsvYlU1r8jviwo1_250.gif
http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m9c4bsvYlU1r8jviwo2_400.gif

[Legends66NBA7]

They said also GOAT player too.

I can't really disagree with their statements, but IMO, it's clearly Bill Russell who is the GOAT Celtic.

[TheBigVeto]

It's Bill Russell.
Every other Celtic comes after him.

[Rekindled]

cant be the goat when you shoot below 50% from the field as a center.

[CavaliersFTW]

cant be the goat when you shoot below 50% from the field as a center.
11 rings as "the man", 2 as player-coach... he can shoot w/e the f*ck he wants and still be the greatest Celtic with that resume

[Bucket_Nakedz]

no. but white people will always gravitate towards their own

[Sarcastic]

cant be the goat when you shoot below 50% from the field as a center.

Except when you have the "NBA Finals MVP" named after you, then yes you can shoot below 50% from the field as a center.

[MiamiThrice]

11 rings as "the man", 2 as player-coach... he can shoot w/e the f*ck he wants and still be the greatest Celtic with that resume

Those are team accomplishments, not individual.

Larry Bird is definetly better. Russell averaged 13 PPG and 43% shooting as a ****ing center in an era where it was easy as hell to score.

I'll trust the opinion of Red Auerbach, who coached Russell and drafted Bird and Bob Cousy NBA MVP who PLAYED with russell over some random Russell jerkers on a website.

[CavaliersFTW]

Those are team accomplishments, not individual.

Larry Bird is definetly better. Russell averaged 13 PPG and 43% shooting as a ****ing center in an era where it was easy as hell to score.

I'll trust the opinion of Red Auerbach, who coached Russell and drafted Bird and Bob Cousy NBA MVP who PLAYED with russell over some random Russell jerkers on a website.
whatever floats your boat

[ThaRegul8r]

I'll trust the opinion of Red Auerbach, who coached Russell and drafted Bird and Bob Cousy NBA MVP who PLAYED with russell over some random Russell jerkers on a website.

Okay.

Red Auerbach: "If I'm starting a team, the first player I'd pick is Russell."
- February 6, 1998

Note the date. All the hype had come and gone, and with the book closed on both their careers, this was Auerbach's verdict.

[MiamiThrice]

Okay.

Red Auerbach: "If I'm starting a team, the first player I'd pick is Russell."
- February 6, 1998

Note the date. All the hype had come and gone, and with the book closed on both their careers, this was Auerbach's verdict.

1998.

How old was this ****er then? Oh he was over ****ing 80! Yeah pretty sure this guy couldn't even wipe his ass in 1998 and I'm supposed to trust his basketball opinion?

He was still managing the Celtics in the 80s and functioning perfectly

Red Auerbach was once asked if he had to pick a player to start a team, would he choose Bill Russell or Larry Bird? Auerbach thought it over and said he'd take Russell. Then, he quickly added, "Then I'd trade for Bird."

Next

[bdreason]

Larry may have been a superior player, but that doesn't make him the superior Celtic.

[CavaliersFTW]

1998.

How old was this ****er then? Oh he was over ****ing 80! Yeah pretty sure this guy couldn't even wipe his ass in 1998 and I'm supposed to trust his basketball opinion?

He was still managing the Celtics in the 80s and functioning perfectly

Red Auerbach was once asked if he had to pick a player to start a team, would he choose Bill Russell or Larry Bird? Auerbach thought it over and said he'd take Russell. Then, he quickly added, "Then I'd trade for Bird."

Next
Right, he'd setup some sort of trade to acquire Bird after drafting and guaranteeing he gets the most important piece first (Russell) - you do realize he doesn't mean he'd trade Bill Russell for Bird, right? Tell me your not that stupid that you thought that's what he meant :oldlol:

[ThaRegul8r]

1998.

How old was this ****er then? Oh he was over ****ing 80! Yeah pretty sure this guy couldn't even wipe his ass in 1998 and I'm supposed to trust his basketball opinion?

He was still managing the Celtics in the 80s and functioning perfectly

Red Auerbach was once asked if he had to pick a player to start a team, would he choose Bill Russell or Larry Bird? Auerbach thought it over and said he'd take Russell. Then, he quickly added, "Then I'd trade for Bird."

Next

So you can trust his opinion when it suits you, but not once he weighs in after both their careers are said and done.

And then you proceed to quote Auerbach saying he'd choose Russell over Bird to start a team, which is the exact same opinion he gave in '98, which I quoted.

:facepalm

[MiamiThrice]

Right, he'd setup some sort of trade to acquire Bird after drafting and guaranteeing he gets the most important piece first (Russell) - you do realize he doesn't mean he'd trade Bill Russell for Bird, right? Tell me your not that stupid that you thought that's what he meant :oldlol:

If he only has one piece(Russell) on his team, then hes going to have to give up that piece to trade for Bird.

I suggest you take some english courses at the local community college in your neighborhood so that you can accurately form these conclusions by yourself.

[ThaRegul8r]

Right, he'd setup some sort of trade to acquire Bird after drafting and guaranteeing he gets the most important piece first (Russell) - you do realize he doesn't mean he'd trade Bill Russell for Bird, right? Tell me your not that stupid that you thought that's what he meant :oldlol:

Obviously he is.

[ThaRegul8r]

If he only has one piece(Russell) on his team, then hes going to have to give up that piece to trade for Bird.

If he wanted Bird over Russell, he could have just picked him, as they were both on the board.

But somehow it makes sense to you to, with the #1 pick, pick a guy, then trade him for another guy you could have chosen with that pick to begin with.

:biggums:

[MiamiThrice]

If he wanted Bird over Russell, he could have just picked him, as they were both on the board.

But somehow it makes sense to you to, with the #1 pick, pick a guy, then trade him for another guy you could have chosen with that pick to begin with.

:biggums:

Tell me ********, who is he going to trade to acquire Bird when his roster is as follows
A) Bill Russell
B) Nobody else

So I guess you think hes going to trade some chinese food for Bird or his porn collection? Cool story bro.

Red was being a cheeky kunt with his response and he knows bird is superior.
[I]
Boston's Larry Bird, in what may be his finest season, gets Red Auerbach's vote

[CavaliersFTW]

[QUOTE=MiamiThrice]Tell me ********, who is he going to trade to acquire Bird when his roster is as follows
A) Bill Russell
B) Nobody else

So I guess you think hes going to trade some chinese food for Bird or his porn collection? Cool story bro.

Red was being a cheeky kunt with his response and he knows bird is superior.
[I]
Boston's Larry Bird, in what may be his finest season, gets Red Auerbach's vote

[MiamiThrice]

:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: you are drowning in your own argument man, your just destroying yourself - quit now while u still can :oldlol:

No response other than smileys?

Thats what I ****ing thought kid.

Lets see if the boyfriend can think of a better response. If hes done your out of luck.

[DatAsh]

1998.

How old was this ****er then? Oh he was over ****ing 80! Yeah pretty sure this guy couldn't even wipe his ass in 1998 and I'm supposed to trust his basketball opinion?

He was still managing the Celtics in the 80s and functioning perfectly

Red Auerbach was once asked if he had to pick a player to start a team, would he choose Bill Russell or Larry Bird? Auerbach thought it over and said he'd take Russell. Then, he quickly added, "Then I'd trade for Bird."

Next

So you counter his Auerbach quote by posting another Auerbach quote in which he says the exact same thing...color me confused.

[Sakkreth]

If you give franchise 11rings, you can't be second.

[Rubio2Gasol]

Cousy , Jones and Auerbach are bitter that Russel gets too much credit for the 11 rings.

[CavaliersFTW]

So you counter his Auerbach quote by posting another Auerbach quote in which he says the exact same thing...color me confused.
:roll: the poor child thinks that Aurbach meant he would get rid of BILL RUSSELL after drafting him #1 (over Larry Bird) in order to acquire Larry Bird after the draft via trade... :wtf: :oldlol: :roll: :lol :oldlol: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: gotta be the dumbest sh*t I've ever heard on ISH

[LeBird]

To be fair to him, it is not a very illuminating statement and can be interpreted several ways. For instance, he could have meant that he'd pick Russell and trade for Bird in a way to give both players due credit but say that one was just a bit better than the other. It's like Riley's statement that he'd choose Jordan to shoot the last shot for the game win, but pick Larry to shoot for his life. Well, logically, you'd just pick Larry for both.

It's debatable. They're both GOAT candidates as well. Since I didn't see Russell and have a hard time justifying how much more his defence could compensate for his relatively weak offense I tend to rate someone like Wilt higher than him, amongst his contemporaries.

Knowing more about Bird, if I ever had to choose I'd certainly pick him. I definitely know what I am getting and I think his fundamentals/game translates across every era of basketball.

[KOBE143]

If you factor that Bill played in a weak era then yes, Bird is the GOAT Celtics..

[Papaya Petee]

Bird is the GOAT Celtic.

[Champ]

It comes down to how one defines GOAT.

Talent-wise, Bird is in the conversation as a GOAT player, but Russell had the GOAT career.

[Psileas]

If he only has one piece(Russell) on his team, then hes going to have to give up that piece to trade for Bird.

I suggest you take some english courses at the local community college in your neighborhood so that you can accurately form these conclusions by yourself.

Just because the quote was "to start a team" does NOT mean that he would trade for Bird the very first player he'd choose or that he'd make the trade at that exact moment.

[jlip]

The comments regarding Bird in 1985 were part of the larger conversation in the sports media concerning Bird. He was the current superstar and the best player at the time, and the discussion amongst people was what his place was in the history of the game. I even did a thread (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=241244) on this very topic some time ago. Too often, because of its freshness, the present or most recent is more impressive to people than the distant past.

As Regul8r mentioned, it's better to make assessments after players have retired and you're able to put their careers into perpspective as opposed to being caught up in the moment.

[Punpun]

Come on guys, both interpretations are more or less correct. One's simply makes more sense.

[jlitt]

Russell is the greatest celtic,

Bird was the best basketball player to ever put on a celtic uniform

Russell may be the most overrated player in sports history. As great as he was people time and time again fail to recognize the other great hof players he had on his team.

Dont say russell was the greatest. Say that celtics dynasty was the greatest. Choosing one player out of the pack does such a disservice to that whole team that whole dynasty. Those teams were unbelievably stacked compared to the rest of the league.

[CavaliersFTW]

Russell is the greatest celtic,

Bird was the best basketball player to ever put on a celtic uniform

Russell may be the most overrated player in sports history. As great as he was people time and time again fail to recognize the other great hof players he had on his team.

Dont say russell was the greatest. Say that celtics dynasty was the greatest. Choosing one player out of the pack does such a disservice to that whole team that whole dynasty. Those teams were unbelievably stacked compared to the rest of the league.
Most of those "HOF'ers" on his team you speak of were never perennial all-stars and if I'm not mistaken some never even made an all star team... they are HOF'ers because he carried them to a ridiculous amount of titles and by virtue of being part of a Dynasty team they were guaranteed spots in the HOF. Aside from Cousy in the early part of his career, and Havlicek in the latter, his team wasn't ever some extremely unfair lineup of perennial superstars. Some of those Celtic "HOF'ers" would be analgous to todays Kendrick Perkins, Jason Terry, and Derrick Fisher type molds - hardworking players who contributed to a championship line up, but they were not necessarily a lineup of unfairly stacked talent.

[pauk]

In terms of accomplishments = Russell
In terms of talent/skill = Bird

Championships are overvalued that way unfortunately.... If we had a top 10 all-time list based on simply overall talent/skill and on court productions it would look very different...

[jlitt]

Most of those "HOF'ers" on his team you speak of never even made an all-star team... they are HOF'ers because he carried them to a ridiculous amount of titles not because they were superstars in the NBA of that era, far from it. Aside from Cousy in the early part of his career, and Havlicek in the latter, his team wasn't a team of superstars.


so all star team > hof?

sam jones
tommy heinson
frank ramsay
bill sharman
all hof's on those early celtic teams.

[jlip]

Russell is the greatest celtic,

Bird was the best basketball player to ever put on a celtic uniform

Russell may be the most overrated player in sports history. As great as he was people time and time again fail to recognize the other great hof players he had on his team.
Dont say russell was the greatest. Say that celtics dynasty was the greatest. Choosing one player out of the pack does such a disservice to that whole team that whole dynasty. Those teams were unbelievably stacked compared to the rest of the league.

The truth is every dynasty has great players and usually tends to have more hall of famers than the majority of the rest of the league. It's just that Russell detractors seek to single him out as having the "most loaded rosters". Also I would suggest taking a glimpse into what the players, coaches, and media were saying about Russell's unique and irreplaceable importance to the Celtics during his era.

Showtime Lakers-
Kareem, Magic, Worthy, MacAdoo, Wilkes

80's Celtics
Bird, McHale, Parish, Johnson, Walton

2nd Bull 3 peat-
Jordan, Pippen, Rodman

During their respective eras those dynasties tended to have, if not the most, very close to the most Hall of Famers on their teams relative to the rest of the league. So I guess we should stop calling Magic, Bird, and MJ the greatest. It does a serious disservice to their entire teams.

[jlitt]

The truth is every dynasty has great players and usually tends to have more hall of famers than the majority of the rest of the league. It's just that Russell detractors seek to single him out as having the "most loaded rosters". Also I would suggest taking a glimpse into what the players, coaches, and media were saying about Russell's unique and irreplaceable importance to the Celtics during his era.

Showtime Lakers-
Kareem, Magic, Worthy, MacAdoo, Wilkes

80's Celtics
Bird, McHale, Parish, Johnson, Walton

2nd Bull 3 peat-
Jordan, Pippen, Rodman

During their respective eras those dynasties tended to have, if not the most, very close to the most Hall of Famers on their teams relative to the rest of the league. So I guess we should stop calling Magic, Bird, and MJ the greatest. It does a serious disservice to their entire teams.

Yeah , nothing was like the celtics though.

bailey howell
kc jones
sam jones
tom heinshon
bob cousy
havlicek
bill sharman
frank ramsay


thats at least 8 hof's russell played with, and i may be forgetting some others.

[CavaliersFTW]

Yeah , nothing was like the celtics though.

bailey howell
kc jones
sam jones
tom heinshon
bob cousy
havlicek
bill sharman
frank ramsay


thats at least 8 hof's russell played with, and i may be forgetting some others.
Were u alive back then, watched any footage or league documentaries about back then? That team was not treated as being anything spectacular (talent wise) on paper at that time. They didn't have the best scorers, they weren't the best athletes, they were almost an anomly in that they were a somewhat plain Jane looking roster on paper EXCEPT for Bill Russell. That team winning 11 titles is what made those players HOF'ers. You honestly think Tom Heinson of the Celtics was considered that much of a superior forward talent to say, Rudy LaRusso of the Lakers at that time? The only definitive matchup hell on those Celtics teams vs another title contender of that era like say, the Lakers, was BILL RUSSELL. The Lakers of that era could compete accross the board with the Celtics, but they could not get past Russell he was the core of that Celtics team, and he alone created the massive mismatch in the balance of powers between his team and other teams.

[Rubio2Gasol]

Bird's team was the most stacked I've ever seen in my life.

[jlip]

Yeah , nothing was like the celtics though.

bailey howell
kc jones
sam jones
tom heinshon
bob cousy
havlicek
bill sharman
frank ramsay


thats at least 8 hof's russell played with, and i may be forgetting some others.

Relative to league it was. With only 8-13 teams in the league it was not uncommon for multiple teams to have at least 4 or more hall of famers on it. Back then, even bad teams often had 2 hall of famers on them.

'57-'61 Hawks
Ed Macauley, Bob Pettit, Cliff Hagan, Slater Martin, Bob Pettit, Cliff Hagan, Clyde Lovellette, Lenny Wilkins
* Not all were there at the same time, but at least 4 were on the same team.

'67- '68 Sixers
Wilt Chamberlain, Billy Cunningham, Chet Walker, Hal Greer

'68-'69 Knicks
Walt Bellamy, Willis Reed, Bill Bradley, Walt Frazier, Dave DeBusschere

And as CavsFTW was saying, some of Russell's Hall of Fame teammates had their best seasons either when they were not Celtics or are in the Hall simply because they were part of a winning dynasty, not because of their own individual merits.

[jlitt]

Relative to league it was. With only 8-13 teams in the league it was not uncommon for multiple teams to have at least 4 or more hall of famers on it. Back then, even bad teams often had 2 hall of famers on them.

'57-'61 Hawks
Ed Macauley, Bob Pettit, Cliff Hagan, Slater Martin, Bob Pettit, Cliff Hagan, Clyde Lovellette, Lenny Wilkins
* Not all were there at the same time, but at least 4 were on the same team.

'67- '68 Sixers
Wilt Chamberlain, Billy Cunningham, Chet Walker, Hal Greer

'68-'69 Knicks
Walt Bellamy, Willis Reed, Bill Bradley, Walt Frazier, Dave DeBusschere

And as CavsFTW was saying, some of Russell's Hall of Fame teammates had their best seasons either when they were not Celtics or are in the Hall simply because they were part of a winning dynasty, not because of their own individual merits.

That is what im talking about. The celtics dynasty does not get the credit it deserves, rather russell does. While he was the face of the dynasty He did not play so far above his teammates like jordan did to warrant such praise.
Jordan was the most dominant 2 guard of his era, and the face of his dynasty.

Russell cant say that about himself.

[CavaliersFTW]

That is what im talking about. The celtics dynasty does not get the credit it deserves, rather russell does. While he was the face of the dynasty He did not play so far above his teammates like jordan did to warrant such praise.
Jordan was the most dominant 2 guard of his era, and the face of his dynasty.

Russell cant say that about himself.
Yes he did. Trust me, he was held in the highest kind of high of regard humanly possible by the league back then - in a 1965 Lakers film I have, Lakers coach Fred Schauss calls Bill Russell the most dominating player to have ever played the game of basketball. When he talks about the other contributers on that Celtics team he has nothing but ordinary things to say about them, and doesn't talk about them any differently than he talks about run of the mill players on his own roster (minus West and Baylor who both recieved almost as high a praise from him as he gave to Bill Russell)

[jlitt]

Yes he did. Trust me, he was held in the highest kind of high of regard humanly possible by the league back then - in a 1965 Lakers film I have, Lakers coach Fred Schauss calls Bill Russell the most dominating player to have ever played the game of basketball. When he talks about the other contributers on that Celtics team he has nothing but ordinary things to say about them, and doesn't talk about them any differently than he talks about run of the mill players on his own roster (minus West and Baylor who both recieved almost as high a praise from him as he gave to Bill Russell)


Fred Schauss would have a difficult time looking at the stats book and then trying to convince me he was the most dominating player ever, especially after wilt had just avg 50 pts not to long ago.


Lets be real here.

[G.O.A.T]

That is what im talking about. The celtics dynasty does not get the credit it deserves, rather russell does. While he was the face of the dynasty He did not play so far above his teammates like jordan did to warrant such praise.
Jordan was the most dominant 2 guard of his era, and the face of his dynasty.

Russell cant say that about himself.

After Russell retired he was voted the greatest player ever. He won the same number of MVP's as Jordan, the similarities don't stop there, but that is all you need to know to understand that they do deserve the same level of credit for their individual contributions to team achievements.


Fred Schauss would have a difficult time looking at the stats book and then trying to convince me he was the most dominating player ever, especially after wilt had just avg 50 pts not to long ago.


Lets be real here.

Well Fred Schauss was able to look at the stats and the game being played and like most in the league, he agreed Russell was the best.

[jlitt]

After Russell retired he was voted the greatest player ever. He won the same number of MVP's as Jordan, the similarities don't stop there, but that is all you need to know to understand that they do deserve the same level of credit for their individual contributions to team achievements.


No i could not disagree more with you.

Of all the dynasties of the nba, ( celtics, lakers, bulls, lakers, spurs?)

Russell the face of the franchise was not so far superior to his teammates that he is on par with other performers of these dynasties such as jordan, kareem and magic, duncan, and shaq.

I would put him as the most important defender for those celtics team, but not even close to the most important offensive options for those teams. His ability to just focus on defense enhanced that aspect of his game tremendously. Whereas Wilt was asked to be the best player on the court at both ends ( and was)

[jlitt]

Lets also put Russell's MVP's into perspective.

Compare those years with wilts and see how asinine it was.

Oscar avg 30 12 and 11 one year, same year wilt avg 50 and 25 and russell wins mvp? wtf?

[Duncan21formvp]

No Bird was not the GOAT Celtic, it is clearly Russell IMO. Now if it was who had a greater 3 year prime or so then you can possibly say Bird was greater.

[CavaliersFTW]

No i could not disagree more with you.

Of all the dynasties of the nba, ( celtics, lakers, bulls, lakers, spurs?)

Russell the face of the franchise was not so far superior to his teammates that he is on par with other performers of these dynasties such as jordan, kareem and magic, duncan, and shaq.

I would put him as the most important defender for those celtics team, but not even close to the most important offensive options for those teams. His ability to just focus on defense enhanced that aspect of his game tremendously. Whereas Wilt was asked to be the best player on the court at both ends ( and was)
Says the guy who clearly knows little to nothing about Bill Russells impact and abilities off the stat sheet, or any of his contemporaries of that era for that matter...

...here's the extent of your knowledge: www.basketballreference.com

it stops there, therefore you are extroardinarily handicapped this discussion.

http://cache.boston.com/bonzai-fba/Third_Party_Photo/2007/04/18/1176915785_0576.jpg

[jlitt]

Says the guy who clearly knows little to nothing about Bill Russells impact and abilities off the stat sheet, or any of his contemporaries of that era for that matter...

...here's the extent of your knowledge: www.basketballreference.com

it stops there, therefore you are extroardinarily handicapped this discussion.

http://cache.boston.com/bonzai-fba/Third_Party_Photo/2007/04/18/1176915785_0576.jpg


Wow thats pretty insensitive. I think you could have gotten your point across without making fun of a disease that prevents one from enjoying life to its fullest capacity.

You dont know me , so dont make it personal.

[CavaliersFTW]

Wow thats pretty insensitive. I think you could have gotten your point across without making fun of a disease that prevents one from enjoying life to its fullest capacity.

You dont know me , so dont make it personal.
No sense of humor? Lighten up if everyone puts a filter on every thing they typed this board would be boring as hell - it wasn't meant to be anything personal :lol

[MiamiThrice]

Wow thats pretty insensitive. I think you could have gotten your point across without making fun of a disease that prevents one from enjoying life to its fullest capacity.

You dont know me , so dont make it personal.

Yeah this guy can't make real arguments so he uses smileys and pictures. I've seen this shit last night.

Unless he's 60+ years old, the extent of his knowledge about Russell is from highlight videos and basketballreference as well. Thats the funny part. :oldlol:

[CavaliersFTW]

Yeah this guy can't make real arguments so he uses smileys and pictures. I've seen this shit last night.

Unless he's 60+ years old, the extent of his knowledge about Russell is from highlight videos and basketballreference as well. Thats the funny part. :oldlol:
Thrice, u still mad that you got ethered last night? :oldlol:

225+ gigs of league footage of that era, including complete games, partial games, documentaries, books, countless interviews and newspapers from that era... etc. I have a better idea of what Bill Russell was like that people who have only seen "highlights and basketball reference"

[jlitt]

Thrice, u still mad that you got ethered last night? :oldlol:

225+ gigs of league footage of that era, including complete games, partial games, documentaries, books, countless interviews and newspapers from that era... etc. I have a better idea of what Bill Russell was like that people who have only seen "highlights and basketball reference"


Are you confident in what you know about bill russell?

[MiamiThrice]

225+ gigs of league footage of that era, including complete games, partial games, documentaries, books, countless interviews and newspapers from that era... etc. I have a better idea of what Bill Russell was like that people who have only seen "highlights and basketball reference"

Lol @ thinking all of that shit makes you as knowledgable as someone who lived through it.

Chances are all of the "league footage" you've seen are ESPN Classic games or videos from a "Russells greatest moments" documentary. :oldlol: :oldlol: :oldlol: Lets be real you've seen 5 games of him tops and they were all ESPN Classic bullshit. You think your a ****ing expert? You didn't even know that the guy who coached Russell himself said Bird was the best. :oldlol: :oldlol: :oldlol:

Interviews and books? Yeah I'm sure it really gives you some insight into what it was like in that era reading quotes of people just sucking him off. Noone ever says anything negative about anyone publically, especially in the 1960s, that is up to the viewers to conclude for themselves.

ITT: Dude thinks hes an old school basketball guru because he read some books and watched some ESPN Classic games.

[G.O.A.T]

Lets also put Russell's MVP's into perspective.

Compare those years with wilts and see how asinine it was.

Oscar avg 30 12 and 11 one year, same year wilt avg 50 and 25 and russell wins mvp? wtf?

So two options...

Option A: Most of the players in the NBA were idiots and without having watched those players actually play you are better able to judge each players value.

or

Option B: The stats don't tell the story.

[Legends66NBA7]

So two options...

Option A: Most of the players in the NBA were idiots and without having watched those players actually play you are better able to judge each players value.

or

Option B: The stats don't tell the story.

I've actually even heard Elgin Baylor was more deserving of MVP over Wilt and Oscar (perhaps not over Russell) that season because of what he had to go through that season... with being a part-time player and not being able to practice, yet still being able to put up close to 40/20 numbers.

Not to mention, he followed it up with an amazing playoff run and came so close for winning his first title. IMO, the greatest player never to win an NBA title, quiet easily.

[DatAsh]

So two options...

Option A: Most of the players in the NBA were idiots and without having watched those players actually play you are better able to judge each players value.

or

Option B: The stats don't tell the story.

Pretty much.

Anyone who thinks you can accurately measure Russell's impact on box score statistics alone obviously knows very little about the man.

[Psileas]

I've actually even heard Elgin Baylor was more deserving of MVP over Wilt and Oscar (perhaps not over Russell) that season because of what he had to go through that season... with being a part-time player and not being able to practice, yet still being able to put up close to 40/20 numbers.

Not to mention, he followed it up with an amazing playoff run and came so close for winning his first title. IMO, the greatest player never to win an NBA title, quiet easily.

He had a great season (and he's possibly the GOAT player without a title), but no shot for the MVP. The whole military story is blown out of proportion, as well, since he only played in 6 games after his service started. Of course, his stats were not dramatically different before his service started.

[TheAesirsFinest]

Yeah , nothing was like the celtics though.

bailey howell
kc jones
sam jones
tom heinshon
bob cousy
havlicek
bill sharman
frank ramsay


thats at least 8 hof's russell played with, and i may be forgetting some others.

The Russell-led Celtics were never more than average offensively though. For all the other HOFs on that team...never above average...that shows you how much they relied on defense to win so many titles. Guess who was that team's defensive anchor and captain? Bill Russell.

[sipitri]

Larry may have been a superior player, but that doesn't make him the superior Celtic.
This.
He brought 11 ****ing rings to his franchise. He gotta be the best ever..

[JohnnySic]

Bill Russell is the Celtics grandaddy.

[LeBird]

Pretty much.

Anyone who thinks you can accurately measure Russell's impact on box score statistics alone obviously knows very little about the man.

But the onus is on those disputing stats to provide enough evidence to prove that assertion.

It still baffles me how in a team game people still single out team titles and accord almost full credit to individuals. Russell's Celtics won those titles. Russell was just a huge part of it.

The problem with contemporary testimony is that people have notoriously bad memories and often put more credence on what looks more effective than what actually is more effective. That's why I can't take seriously those who dismiss Wilt's 50+ppg season just like that. There is only so much defence matters and Wilt himself is not that far off Russell when it comes to defending. But their offensive output are in different solar systems.

Having said that, I wouldn't just rely on stats either which is why I temper those facts with contemporary opinion.

[LeBird]

So two options...

Option A: Most of the players in the NBA were idiots and without having watched those players actually play you are better able to judge each players value.

or

Option B: The stats don't tell the story.

or Option C: It is a subjective assessment and they did an all-time balls-up of a choice.

[unknowns8]

11 rings as "the man", 2 as player-coach... he can shoot w/e the f*ck he wants and still be the greatest Celtic with that resume


:lol :lol :lol i read that in a samuel l jackson accent too, hilarious :roll: :cheers:

[ILLsmak]

But the onus is on those disputing stats to provide enough evidence to prove that assertion.

It still baffles me how in a team game people still single out team titles and accord almost full credit to individuals. Russell's Celtics won those titles. Russell was just a huge part of it.

The problem with contemporary testimony is that people have notoriously bad memories and often put more credence on what looks more effective than what actually is more effective. That's why I can't take seriously those who dismiss Wilt's 50+ppg season just like that. There is only so much defence matters and Wilt himself is not that far off Russell when it comes to defending. But their offensive output are in different solar systems.

Having said that, I wouldn't just rely on stats either which is why I temper those facts with contemporary opinion.

Bird's impact was beyond stats, too. As was every great player.

-Smak

[DCL]

all the old-old guys will say russell's clearly better.

all the old guys will say bird's cleary better.

but the guys with the biggest opinions are the young ones who never saw either of them. :oldlol:

[oolalaa]

So two options...

Option A: Most of the players in the NBA were idiots and without having watched those players actually play you are better able to judge each players value.

or

Option B: The stats don't tell the story.

A false dichotomy. Wilt got flat out ROBBED of that '62 MVP.

[oolalaa]

He had a great season (and he's possibly the GOAT player without a title), but no shot for the MVP. The whole military story is blown out of proportion, as well, since he only played in 6 games after his service started. Of course, his stats were not dramatically different before his service started.

Source?

[G.O.A.T]

Wilt got flat out ROBBED of that '62 MVP.

In your opinion. But according to the players, coaches and media...Russell was most deserving.

Let's say the votes were split, or even that they were close, I could entertain your opinion that he was robbed, but with things as they actually are, he wasn't robbed, he just wasn't as good as Russell their head to head series in the 1962 playoffs demonstrated it further.

[eliteballer]

"Until six or seven years ago, I thought Larry Bird was the best player I had ever seen," Cousy, who works as a broadcaster for his old team, said. "Now there is no question in anyone's mind that Jordan is the best.

Well Cousy definitely thinks Bird is the best.

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/7555753/david-remnick-classic-new-yorker-story-michael-jordan-first-return-basketball

[LeBird]

Bird's impact was beyond stats, too. As was every great player.

-Smak

Well said. :cheers:

[DatAsh]

**Edit - double post

[DatAsh]

A false dichotomy. Wilt got flat out ROBBED of that '62 MVP.

Not at all. The award exists to reward the most valuable player, not the player who puts up the best stats. 50ppg is meaningless if your team is just as good with you as it is without you(not saying that was the case with Wilt). A player can put up 80ppg on 54% TS, but if he's not helping his team what does it matter.

People are blinded by box-score statistics and don't seem to care, or just don't bother to consider the impact that those statistics are having. Now days we have things like RAPM that does a fairly decent job of measuring impact, but most people ignore it all together, or value it less than traditional ppg, rpg, apg, which is just silly.

The bottom line is that the players, coaches, and media all thought that Russell was the more impactful player - despite the 50ppg. Who are we to say otherwise 60 years later in light of box score statistics that were already considered at the time, and which have shown to measure a players role much more-so than his value?

[LeBird]

That's a ridiculous post. If a player is putting up 80ppg on 54% TS he is doing more than what any other player in basketball history is capable of doing and by a huge margin. The fact that his team loses is no reflection on how he is doing individually. And that is what MVP awards are - individual awards.

That's why the vote of Russell over Wilt was so ridiculous - people used another yard-stick which ultimately says little about how much output a certain player had. This is what bothers me about those who push Russell; they not only want to completely disregard stats; but they want to hold subjective and biased opinions as holy at the same time.

It's one thing to hold Russell as better than Wilt...it is another thing altogether to deny Wilt in that season. Its ridiculousness is unparalleled in sports.

[Whoah10115]

I think Larry Bird is definitely the better player.


If we're considering other intangibles, I take Russell. That's fine with me.

[fpliii]

Russ is the better player and Celtic by far

[DatAsh]

That's a ridiculous post. If a player is putting up 80ppg on 54% TS he is doing more than what any other player in basketball history is capable of doing and by a huge margin.


Just because he's doing more doesn't mean he's more valuable.

It's perfectly possibly - and in fact probable - that a player averaging 30ppg on 50% TS is more valuable to his team's offense than a player averaging 80ppg on 50% TS. To anyone who understands the game of basketball, it should be intuitively obvious as to why this is the case. Likewise, I would assert that a player averaging 50ppg on 50% TS could, and most likely is, more valuable than a player averaging 100ppg on 50% TS.


The fact that his team loses is no reflection on how he is doing individually.

Completely untrue. I'd argue just the opposite. Most teams in the NBA would probably be sub-par with one player averaging 80ppg on 50% TS. You could probably make the case that the player in question was doing more harm than good.


That's why the vote of Russell over Wilt was so ridiculous - people used another yard-stick which ultimately says little about how much output a certain player had.

And you think pure box score statistics alone do a good job of measuring a player's value? Because what impact statistics we have of the time, along with the peer and media perception at the time, favor Russell. Are we only to consider box score statistics and ignore the other two aspects?



This is what bothers me about those who push Russell; they not only want to completely disregard stats; but they want to hold subjective and biased opinions as holy at the same time.

No one is saying that. What we are saying is that while statistics are one form of measurement, they can be misleading, and should not be the end all be all for determining a player's worth. Such is the reason why many of Wilt's best statistical seasons don't coincide with his most impactful seasons.

Bird is another good example of someone for which I feel that his impact goes beyond his box score stats. I have Bird as the second best offensive player in history, ahead of Jordan, Wilt, Shaq, Kobe, Lebron and others.

The real problem I have with player's being compared to Russell on purely box score statistics is that Russell's strength was his defense, and box score statistics - particular in his time - don't really measure defense at all. If for some reason the NBA only kept defensive statistics, I would defend Bird the same way in which I'm defending Russell in these statistical comparisons.


It's one thing to hold Russell as better than Wilt...it is another thing altogether to deny Wilt in that season. Its ridiculousness is unparalleled in sports.

Why? Because he averaged 50ppg?

If Wilt averaged 70ppg on equal efficiency, yet his team did even worse, would you consider him to be more valuable? Why?

Wilt definitely had a very strong case that year, but so did Russell. People go bonkers when they see those 62' stats; they lose all forms of common sense and throw the case for anyone other than Wilt out the window. I'll point out that for all Wilt's offensive domination that year, the Warriors were just slightly above average offensively.



1. Royals 98.7
2. Hawks 95.0
3. Lakers 94.8
4. Warriors 94.5
5. Nationals 92.5
6. Pistons 92.2
7. Celtics 91.6
8. Knicks 90.5
9. Packers 89.3
Average = 93.3


And it's not like he was playing with scrubs that year like he was in other years. Now don't get me wrong, Russell definitely had the better supporting cast, and I do think it would be unfair to expect Wilt's team to do as well as Russell's, but Russell's team was beyond legendary that year on the defensive end. They were 8.7(9.8 not counting themselves) points above league average and 6.4 points above the second best team.



1. Celtics 84.6
2. Nationals 91.0
3. Warriors 92.5
4. Lakers 93.0
5. Pistons 93.6
6. Knicks 94.4
7. Packers 96.1
8. Royals 97.2
9. Hawks 97.5


Now how much of that Rockstar defense was due to Russell's presence is wherein the contention lies, but I think most would agree that Russell was it's biggest and most important benefactor by a considerable margin. Consider the fact that Russell missed 4 games that season and the Celtics - for all their greatness - went 0-4 in his absence.

The reality is that both Wilt and Russell had a solid case that year as the most valuable player in the league, and I just can't agree with statements such as "Wilt was robbed" or Russell winning is "ridiculous".

The Celtics(8.25) and the Warriors(2.63) were arguably the two best teams in the league that year. The fact that Wilt was working with less overall help should be noted and accounted for, but I think a solid case can be made for either guy.

The reason I go with Russell this year is that once again, the players and coaches at the time felt that Russell was the better and more valuable player.

Here are some quotes from that year


"There is still no one on the horizon who can counteract the things Bill Russell can do to you. The Celts will be strong until they lose him." - Fred Schaus


"We can win without me. We can win without Tommy Heinsohn. We can win without (departed) Bill Sharman. But without big Bill we don't win." - Bob Cousy


If anyone doubts the value of Bill Russell to the Boston Celtics, the performance of the three-time National Basketball Association champs in the last four games may change their mind.

Russell, considered the best defensive player in the game, has missed the last four games because of a foot injury and the Celtics have lost every one.

Their four game losing streak matches their longest since March, 1957, and has cut their Eastern Division lead from 10 to six games.


Injuries never appear in the standings, but they often affect them. The Boston Celtics have just played four games without Bill Russell, including a backto-back series with Philadelphia, and lost them all. When will the Celtics slump end?


This now is the land of the bean, the cod, and Bill Russell. For the uninitiated, goateed Bill Russell is the difference between winning and losing for the Boston Celtics basketball team. It has been like that for six years now

[QUOTE]Bill Russell, 6-10 defensive and rebounding wizard of the Boston Celtics, was named the most valuable player in the National Basketball Association for the second straight year yesterday.

Russell received 19 first place votes and a total of 283 points on the basis of 12 points for first, 7 for second, 6 for third, 5 for fourth, etc. He finished more than 100 points ahead of Philadelphia

[jlip]

That's a ridiculous post. If a player is putting up 80ppg on 54% TS he is doing more than what any other player in basketball history is capable of doing and by a huge margin. The fact that his team loses is no reflection on how he is doing individually. And that is what MVP awards are - individual awards.

That's why the vote of Russell over Wilt was so ridiculous - people used another yard-stick which ultimately says little about how much output a certain player had. This is what bothers me about those who push Russell; they not only want to completely disregard stats; but they want to hold subjective and biased opinions as holy at the same time.

It's one thing to hold Russell as better than Wilt...it is another thing altogether to deny Wilt in that season. Its ridiculousness is unparalleled in sports.

^To add to DatAsh^

I'm assuming that we're talking about the 1962 season in particular. As others have said, it's so important to keep in mind that the players who faced Wilt and Russell 8-13 times alone that season voted Russell MVP in a landslide. They personally experienced the impact of both players and came to their decision. There was an unofficial media poll that also convincingly voted Russell MVP by a sizable margin. Everybody had access to the same basic stats back then that we have today, but yet they felt that Russell was more valuable.

Also it wasn't simply the act of "completely disregard[ing] stats; and hold[ing] subjective and biased opinions as holy" as you state it. The people, players, coaches, and media had concrete evidence as to how the Celtics performed without Russell that season. As DatAsh included in his post. Russell went down with an Achilles injury in Jan. of 1962 causing him to miss 4 consecutive games. The Celtics were left with five hall of fame players on the roster and a hall of fame coach. Without Russell, those five “hall of famers” proceeded to LOSE EVERY GAME that Russell didn’t play in. Not only did this include back to back losses to Wilt's Warriors but also losses to two bottom feeding teams, Knicks and Hawks who both finished at 29-51.

It wasn't just losing, but it was how they loss. The Celtics were 1st in ppg allowed that season at 111.8ppg. In those 4 losses without Russell, they gave up 135, 129, 131, and 133 respectively. Only one of those games went to OT. Without Russell their defense was shot, even against horrible teams. I wish I could find the quote ThaRegul8r posted from Wilt, but Wilt himself admitted that in those games without Russell, the Celtics were lost and confused on defense.

Finally these were the reports of the media and coaches from 1962 about Russell's value that season.

“From a coach’s viewpoint, Bill’s the most valuable player in the history of the game.”
--Syracuse Nationals head coach, Alex Hannum, 1962

"If anyone doubts the value of big Bill Russell to the Boston Celtics, the three-time defending Champions performance in the last four games should serve as an example. Russell acknowledged as the best defensive player in the game has missed the last four games because of an injury to his Achilles tendon. And the proud Celtics haven't won since."
--Associated Press 1/29/62

Link Thanks to G.O.A.T. (http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=X9dQAAAAIBAJ&sjid=6ucDAAAAIBAJ&pg=4647,1748326&dq=wilt+chamberlain+bill+russell+lose&hl=en)

"Not even a team as great as the professional basketball Celtics can get along without Bill Russell. This was thoroughly demonstrated when the Boston club lost four straight games (with Russell out) for the first time since Russell joined the team."

Link Thanks to G.O.A.T. (http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=57MrAAAAIBAJ&sjid=yP4FAAAAIBAJ&pg=4504,2683934&dq=not+even+a+team+as+great+as+the+professional+ba sketball+celtics+can+get+along+without+bill+russel l&hl=en)

Again those players, coaches, and media personalities had access to the same statistical information that we do today. As a matter of fact they were well aware of the stats as seen in this article (http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=2oclAAAAIBAJ&sjid=yPQFAAAAIBAJ&pg=4216%2C1103270) from 03/20/62. Read what it says.

“Wilt Chamberlain, 100 points in a single game and 50 plus average and all, is just the second best center in basketball, according to the men who should know.
The National Basketball Association’s 1962 all-star team, selected by a poll of players in the league, places Bill Russell of the Boston Celtics ahead of Chamberlain. And the rivalry wasn’t even close.”


IMO for those who feel that Wilt was robbed or it was a disgrace that he didn't win the 1962 MVP, the logical question which follows should be, what did those who actually faced and coached against him and Russell see in Russell's game that those of us 50 years after later can't perceive from simply looking at impersonal statistical profiles?

[DatAsh]

Championships are overvalued that way unfortunately.... If we had a top 10 all-time list based on simply overall talent/skill and on court productions it would look very different...

Who would you say are the top 10 most talented/skilled players ever?

[LeBird]

Just because he's doing more doesn't mean he's more valuable.

It's perfectly possibly - and in fact probable - that a player averaging 30ppg on 50% TS is more valuable to his team's offense than a player averaging 80ppg on 50% TS. To anyone who understands the game of basketball, it should be intuitively obvious as to why this is the case. Likewise, I would assert that a player averaging 50ppg on 50% TS could, and most likely is, more valuable than a player averaging 100ppg on 50% TS.

Sorry but that is utter nonsense. If you have two players effectively with the same efficiency, the one with more output is definitively better. It is not an argument. It is merely that one's other teammates are inferior to another.

If you want to argue for Russell you can't argue in that fashion. You have to argue that he has output in other areas which help his team win which effectively raise the value of him as a player for his team. But to do that you have to prove it, like I said before. The fallacy of people who rate Russell over Wilt is that they rely on an argument that can't be proven false or true because nobody can exactly determine the 'intangibles' that rely/deny that claim. It's akin to religion.

Now, I can buy the intangibles argument for certain differences. For example, a player who is 2-3 points better than another in ppg or some other facet can rely on the intangibles argument because the difference isn't that huge to overcome. You're essentially arguing that we ignore arguably the most important facet of the game - scoring - because Russell was not only a better defender than Wilt (who himself is amongst the all-time great defensive players) ...you're saying that he was so much better that he effectively washed over Wilt's offensive impact which is arguably the greatest the game has ever seen.

To call it a leap of faith would be kind.



Completely untrue. I'd argue just the opposite. Most teams in the NBA would probably be sub-par with one player averaging 80ppg on 50% TS. You could probably make the case that the player in question was doing more harm than good.


It really depends on the other players' efficiency to make that argument. Here, we are assuming that we are comparing two players with each other with all-else-equal components where one is massively better than the other at scoring whereas the other is only slightly better at defence (and to be truthful, even that is arguable).



And you think pure box score statistics alone do a good job of measuring a player's value? Because what impact statistics we have of the time, along with the peer and media perception at the time, favor Russell. Are we only to consider box score statistics and ignore the other two aspects?


If you read the rest of my post you'd see that I temper stats with contemporary opinion. Having said that, stats are facts and box-score stats compile the most important facets of the game. I use contemporary opinion to gain context but there is only so much you can stretch subjective assessments.



No one is saying that. What we are saying is that while statistics are one form of measurement, they can be misleading, and should not be the end all be all for determining a player's worth. Such is the reason why many of Wilt's best statistical seasons don't coincide with his most impactful seasons.

Bird is another good example of someone for which I feel that his impact goes beyond his box score stats. I have Bird as the second best offensive player in history, ahead of Jordan, Wilt, Shaq, Kobe, Lebron and others.

The real problem I have with player's being compared to Russell on purely box score statistics is that Russell's strength was his defense, and box score statistics - particular in his time - don't really measure defense at all. If for some reason the NBA only kept defensive statistics, I would defend Bird the same way in which I'm defending Russell in these statistical comparisons.

That's fine, that's valid...but again...the onus is on you to outweigh the arguments with facts. I'd rather solely rely on facts than solely relying on subjective opinion, although both by themselves are flawed.

The real question you have to ask is: was Russell that much better than Wilt on defence to ignore by far the best offensive season by a player ever? When you look at it like that it's quite ridiculous. IIRC Wilt's team was not only 2nd to the Celtics in the regular season they only lost 4-3 in the division finals - coming an 'eyelash' (credit: jlauber) to beating them. And Russell had by far the better team.


Why? Because he averaged 50ppg?

If Wilt averaged 70ppg on equal efficiency, yet his team did even worse, would you consider him to be more valuable? Why?

As I said elsewhere, you have to talk about the efficiency of other players to answer that. But this isn't an argument...Wilt's team relied on him to score like that because they had no others. Your argument in general terms is fine...it's not in this instance.


Wilt definitely had a very strong case that year, but so did Russell. People go bonkers when they see those 62' stats; they lose all forms of common sense and throw the case for anyone other than Wilt out the window. I'll point out that for all Wilt's offensive domination that year, the Warriors were just slightly above average offensively.


Russell had a much better team, we both know it and acknowledge it.


And it's not like he was playing with scrubs that year like he was in other years. Now don't get me wrong, Russell definitely had the better supporting cast, and I do think it would be unfair to expect Wilt's team to do as well as Russell's, but Russell's team was beyond legendary that year on the defensive end. They were 8.7(9.8 not counting themselves) points above league average and 6.4 points above the second best team.

Russell's team was fantastic defensively, no arguments.


Now how much of that Rockstar defense was due to Russell's presence is wherein the contention lies, but I think most would agree that Russell was it's biggest and most important benefactor by a considerable margin. Consider the fact that Russell missed 4 games that season and the Celtics - for all their greatness - went 0-4 in his absence.


No serious statistician would rely on such a small sample - 4 games. This is not a talking point at all.


The reality is that both Wilt and Russell had a solid case that year as the most valuable player in the league, and I just can't agree with statements such as "Wilt was robbed" or Russell winning is "ridiculous".


Russell had a great season...but Wilt had arguably the greatest season of all time. When people talk about great seasons they don't mention Russell in 62 as they mention Wilt...and we know damn well why.


The Celtics(8.25) and the Warriors(2.63) were arguably the two best teams in the league that year. The fact that Wilt was working with less overall help should be noted and accounted for, but I think a solid case can be made for either guy.


You're talking about teams again. I am talking about players. Wilt had far less to work with and far more responsibility at both ends of the court. It's inarguable.


The reason I go with Russell this year is that once again, the players and coaches at the time felt that Russell was the better and more valuable player.

Here are some quotes from that year

And yet...despite the fact that Russell had a great season...he wasn't picked for the All-NBA first team. That's a red flag right there.

[LeBird]

^To add to DatAsh^

I'm assuming that we're talking about the 1962 season in particular. As others have said, it's so important to keep in mind that the players who faced Wilt and Russell 8-13 times alone that season voted Russell MVP in a landslide. They personally experienced the impact of both players and came to their decision. There was an unofficial media poll that also convincingly voted Russell MVP by a sizable margin. Everybody had access to the same basic stats back then that we have today, but yet they felt that Russell was more valuable.

The fact that Wilt trounced on Russell regularly, led a weaker side, and had arguably the greatest season by a player ever is what makes the decision a travesty. That everyone thought Russell was so good yet he didn't even make All-NBA first team shows that the award was somewhat political that year.

Let's be frank...Wilt wasn't liked; he was the bad guy to Russell's good guy. This is why contemporary opinion is notoriously bad without real stats to back it. I keep bringing facts...you tell me to put my faith on people.

There are more than a few examples of atrociously misdirected praises towards players in certain sports which disregard facts. I am not going to believe in them just because people didn't know better.


Also it wasn't simply the act of "completely disregard[ing] stats; and hold[ing] subjective and biased opinions as holy" as you state it. The people, players, coaches, and media had concrete evidence as to how the Celtics performed without Russell that season. As DatAsh included in his post. Russell went down with an Achilles injury in Jan. of 1962 causing him to miss 4 consecutive games. The Celtics were left with five hall of fame players on the roster and a hall of fame coach. Without Russell, those five “hall of famers” proceeded to LOSE EVERY GAME that Russell didn’t play in. Not only did this include back to back losses to Wilt's Warriors but also losses to two bottom feeding teams, Knicks and Hawks who both finished at 29-51.


It's 4 games. That's not a serious sample. Anyone suggesting so doesn't know basic statistical methodology.


It wasn't just losing, but it was how they loss. The Celtics were 1st in ppg allowed that season at 111.8ppg. In those 4 losses without Russell, they gave up 135, 129, 131, and 133 respectively. Only one of those games went to OT. Without Russell their defense was shot, even against horrible teams. I wish I could find the quote ThaRegul8r posted from Wilt, but Wilt himself admitted that in those games without Russell, the Celtics were lost and confused on defense.


It's 4 games. That's not a serious sample. Anyone suggesting so doesn't know basic statistical methodology.

Moreover, I am sure it's quite easy to show the Celtics losing 4 with Russell as well. It's a very weak argument.


Finally these were the reports of the media and coaches from 1962 about Russell's value that season.

“From a coach’s viewpoint, Bill’s the most valuable player in the history of the game.”
--Syracuse Nationals head coach, Alex Hannum, 1962

"If anyone doubts the value of big Bill Russell to the Boston Celtics, the three-time defending Champions performance in the last four games should serve as an example. Russell acknowledged as the best defensive player in the game has missed the last four games because of an injury to his Achilles tendon. And the proud Celtics haven't won since."
--Associated Press 1/29/62

Link Thanks to G.O.A.T. (http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=X9dQAAAAIBAJ&sjid=6ucDAAAAIBAJ&pg=4647,1748326&dq=wilt+chamberlain+bill+russell+lose&hl=en)

"Not even a team as great as the professional basketball Celtics can get along without Bill Russell. This was thoroughly demonstrated when the Boston club lost four straight games (with Russell out) for the first time since Russell joined the team."

Link Thanks to G.O.A.T. (http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=57MrAAAAIBAJ&sjid=yP4FAAAAIBAJ&pg=4504,2683934&dq=not+even+a+team+as+great+as+the+professional+ba sketball+celtics+can+get+along+without+bill+russel l&hl=en)

Again those players, coaches, and media personalities had access to the same statistical information that we do today. As a matter of fact they were well aware of the stats as seen in this article (http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=2oclAAAAIBAJ&sjid=yPQFAAAAIBAJ&pg=4216%2C1103270) from 03/20/62. Read what it says.

“Wilt Chamberlain, 100 points in a single game and 50 plus average and all, is just the second best center in basketball, according to the men who should know.
The National Basketball Association’s 1962 all-star team, selected by a poll of players in the league, places Bill Russell of the Boston Celtics ahead of Chamberlain. And the rivalry wasn’t even close.”


IMO for those who feel that Wilt was robbed or it was a disgrace that he didn't win the 1962 MVP, the logical question which follows should be, what did those who actually faced and coached against him and Russell see in Russell's game that those of us 50 years after later can't perceive from simply looking at impersonal statistical profiles?

You continuously refer to subjective - and often biased - opinions to supersede facts. Russell, if better than Wilt at all, was only somewhat better than Wilt defensively. Wilt was a few orders of magnitude superior to Russell offensively.

As I said, sport is littered with examples of players getting praises that retrospectively do not hold much weight. In those days, team wins accounted for more than individual output. It's more a modern consideration where players are scrutinised to the nth level to discern their true value. That is where the whole moneyball phenomena has come from.

In another sport - something you probably don't know about - like Cricket...someone like Garfield Sobers is called the greatest all-rounder of all time. Like baseball there are two facets - pitching (bowling) and batting. Sobers only for a small period in his 20 year career actually bowled anywhere near what you would call 'very good' with respect to his contemporaries and comparable bowlers throughout history. But the fact that he won, was a great batsman, was somewhat adaptable means he got praise that he simply should not have gotten. In those days, getting wickets was the most important thing. Only later did the ratios of average and strike-rate get more attention - how much he cost his team to actually get those wickets. And his ratios are poor. Yet, because of old, contemporary, opinion the fallacy that he was a very good bowler still exists. He wasn't...he was mediocre at best. And the 'intangibles' argument in his case can only make up for so much ground but not enough to label him a "very good bowler".

[Euroleague]

I guess Russell is the greatest Celtic ever just because of all the championships and wins. Probably Havlicek is next.

But regardless, Larry Bird was clearly the best player that ever wore a Celtics uniform.

[G.O.A.T]

@LeBird

Are you really that dumb or are you ****ing with us?

[LeBird]

Great retort. Got me on the ropes there. Like last time...oh, er, oops. I'm not interested in slanging matches. Make an argument or **** up.

[DatAsh]

If you have two players effectively with the same efficiency, the one with more output is definitively better. It is not an argument. It is merely that one's other teammates are inferior to another.

Statements like this just show a fundamental lack of understanding as to the nature of basketball statistics and what they mean. That statement you made is absolutely false, that is unless you want to argue that Adrian Dantley is a better scorer than Michael Jordan, Larry Bird, Kobe Bryant, Shaq and many others; if that is your intention, then be my guest, but I doubt it's going to help your case.

I had imagined that it was intuitively obvious as to why the statement I made was correct, but it appears as though that's not the case. If you need a more concrete reasoning, I suggest you look into game theory - particularly things like Braess's paradox(Dietrich Braess) and the Nash equilibrium(John Nash).


The fallacy of people who rate Russell over Wilt is that they rely on an argument that can't be proven false or true

That's a fallacy that applies to any subjective argument, and isn't limited to Russell vs Wilt by any means.

If your complaint is against the veracity of the statements themselves, then you don't really have a point at all. The goal is to determine who is more valuable to their team, not who put up the better stats. You're seemingly under the (false)assumption that better stats = more value, intangibles aside.


one is massively better than the other at scoring whereas the other is only slightly better at defence (and to be truthful, even that is arguable).

This statement tells me all I need to know. You're obviously fairly knowledgeable about a number of things, but it's clear that you know very little about Russell/Wilt if you think that Wilt was defensively anywhere near Russell in 62', much less arguably better. I get the impression that you're just regurgitating information you've heard from other knowledgeable posters in the past. The problem stems from the fact that you haven't researched this particular topic enough to understand that you're using that information out of context.

When myself or others talk about Russell/Wilt being close defensively, it's usually in reference to 67' and 68', and by no means does it apply to 62'.



If you read the rest of my post you'd see that I temper stats with contemporary opinion. Having said that, stats are facts and box-score stats compile the most important facets of the game. I use contemporary opinion to gain context but there is only so much you can stretch subjective assessments.

Perhaps in previous posts that is the case, but your entire Wilt over Russell in 62' argument thus far is based on box score statistics.



That's fine, that's valid...but again...the onus is on you to outweigh the arguments with facts. I'd rather solely rely on facts than solely relying on subjective opinion, although both by themselves are flawed.

The "facts" that you've provided - that everyone already knew - are meaningless with regards to the actual debate. All you've "proven" is that Wilt put up a lot more ppg than Russell. In no way have you proven that Wilt was more valuable that year.


The real question you have to ask is: was Russell that much better than Wilt on defence to ignore by far the best offensive season by a player ever?
The question is ridiculous because the premise - that Wilt's 62' season is by far the best offensive performance by any player ever - is ridiculous. Perhaps in the googly eye's of casual fans who only care about ppg/rpg/apg, that may be the case, but to anyone who's done any sort of research on the matter, that statement is not even close to being true.

Wilt's 62' season isn't even his own best offensive performance. Hell, it's not even the best offensive performance of 1962. That honor belongs to Oscar Robertson, and given that Oscar led a similar supporting cast(pre Lucas), to a drastically more potent offense, I don't even see that point as being arguable.

Just off the top of my head, unarguably better offensive showings include

67' Wilt
61',62',63' Oscar
majority of Bird's career
majority of Magic's career
many of Jordan's seasons
many of Nash's seasons

Adjusting your question so that the premise isn't flawed - Was Russell that much better than Wilt on defense to overcome Wilt's advantage on offense? - my answer would be yes, I believe that Russell was having a bigger impact on his 8.25 SRS team than Wilt was having on his 2.63 SRS team. That's just an opinion, but it's an opinion shared by most of the players and coaches at the time, as well as many of the people on this board who've done considerable research on that era.



IIRC Wilt's team was not only 2nd to the Celtics in the regular season they only lost 4-3 in the division finals - coming an 'eyelash' (credit: jlauber) to beating them.

Valid point, but it doesn't really pertain to the regular season MVP award.

The Warriors pushed the Celtics to the brink that year in the Eastern Division Finals for a few reasons

1)Chamberlain thoroughly outplayed Russell in games 2,4(Russell got himself into foul trouble), and arguably outplayed him in game 6
2)Boston was sub par offensively
3)Paul Arizin, Tom Meschery and Guy Rodgers played brilliantly in game 6 to force a force a game 7
4)Tom Meschery once again played brilliantly in game 7



As I said elsewhere, you have to talk about the efficiency of other players to answer that. But this isn't an argument...Wilt's team relied on him to score like that because they had no others. Your argument in general terms is fine...it's not in this instance.

It's a simple question. You're hesitant to answer it because you've realized your mistake, and you're afraid to admit it.

The answer is equally simple. His teammates are exactly the same in both scenarios. Their efficiency may rise from one scenario to the other, but only because Wilt works harder to involve them in the offense, and not by their own merit.

Given the same teammates, if a player can help his team's offense more by shooting less, and thereby scoring less - even if his personal efficiency drops - then he's a better offensive player for doing so, it's really as simple as that, but that flies directly in the face of "If you have two players effectively with the same efficiency, the one with more output is definitively better".

Basketball is a team game; as an offensive player, the goal should be to help the team's offense as much as possible. Given equal teammates, if one player does more to improve his team's offense than another player, then he's the better offensive player, even if he scores less on worse efficiency.


Russell had a much better team, we both know it and acknowledge it.

Russell's team was fantastic defensively, no arguments.

You're talking about teams again. I am talking about players. Wilt had far less to work with and far more responsibility at both ends of the court. It's inarguable.

You continually wanting to dismiss any sort of impact stat because it doesn't suit your agenda won't change the fact they've shown on numerous occasions to be more valuable in both a historical and predictive sense.

Russell's team strength in comparison with Wilt's team strength in an absolute manner is meaningless, but you're missing the point. I didn't come to my conclusion based on the fact that Russell's team was better, that's expected; I came to my conclusion because I don't think Russell's superior supporting cast can completely account for the 5.62 SRS difference between the two teams. Russell had better teammates that year, I've no qualms there, but I don't think they were 5.62 SRS points better, and neither did most at the time.

I'll take contextualized team impact stats over simple box score stats any day of the week.


but Wilt had arguably the greatest season of all time.

Again, this statement is downright laughable to anyone who's done considerable research into that era. If we were talking about his 67' season, I'd agree with you, but Wilt's 62' season can't hold a candle to his 67' season, offensively or defensively.



And yet...despite the fact that Russell had a great season...he wasn't picked for the All-NBA first team. That's a red flag right there.

This is your only other somewhat valid point in this post.


Also, I'll acknowledge that it's perfectly possible for people at the time to have been biased, but I find it highly unlikely that virtually everyone at the time was a biased Wilt "hater". I can only assume that sentiment was started by Jlauber, who, although knowledgeable, was extremely biased.

All other things held constant, the simplest explanation is usually the correct explanation.

I find it far more likely that most people at the time really did see Russell as the more valuable player - especially when you consider that they voted Wilt as MVP just two years prior, and would do so again 4,5, and 6 years later. Are we to accept that all the players and coaches suddenly acquired this biased hatred for Wilt, and then lost it, all within the span of a few years?

Regardless, this is my last post in regards to 62' Wilt vs 62' Russell as it is doesn't at all pertain to the real discussion - Russell vs Bird. I've put considerable time and effort into researching the 50s and 60s, and in doing so, I've come to view the 62' MVP race as one of the more interesting debates. I don't think either player "clearly" deserved it - ala 91' Jordan - but I lean towards the players and coaches getting it right at the time, and unless you can show me something that I don't already know, you're not going to change my mind.

[LeBird]

Statements like this just show a fundamental lack of understanding as to the nature of basketball statistics and what they mean. That statement you made is absolutely false, that is unless you want to argue that Adrian Dantley is a better scorer than Michael Jordan, Larry Bird, Kobe Bryant, Shaq and many others; if that is your intention, then be my guest, but I doubt it's going to help your case.

I had imagined that it was intuitively obvious as to why the statement I made was correct, but it appears as though that's not the case. If you need a more concrete reasoning, I suggest you look into game theory - particularly things like Braess's paradox(Dietrich Braess) and the Nash equilibrium(John Nash).

See, you're almost there but not quite. It's one thing to talk about Dantley v Bird it is another thing altogether to create a hypothetical situation where you hold certain things equal and then state that one is slightly better than another in output of one facet. In that regard, it is a definitive reckoning that one will be better than another.

Whether you want to agree or not, Dantley can be considered a fantastic scorer. He may not be as effective as his statistics suggest and that is what I meant by intangibles or certain contexts being taken into account. Dantley may look slightly better than a Bird for example on a purely statistical basis...but with context and the the intangibles we can argue for him we can sway the debate in his favour. And that is fine. That's what I mean by stats being tempered with contemporary opinion.

But such considerations only go so far. They do not argue away a difference where one player has almost 3 times more offensive output than another player.



That's a fallacy that applies to any subjective argument, and isn't limited to Russell vs Wilt by any means.

If your complaint is against the veracity of the statements themselves, then you don't really have a point at all. The goal is to determine who is more valuable to their team, not who put up the better stats. You're seemingly under the (false)assumption that better stats = more value, intangibles aside.

That is a true statement, however in Russell's case it is uniquely faithful/religious. It's one thing to say, as exemplified in the above, that Bird is a better scorer than Dantley. It is a huge leap of faith to say that a player (Russell) who is only somewhat better in one facet (defence) yet is far inferior in another (offence) to another player (Wilt) because then you are placing an inordinate amount of importance on opinions. Stats, as flawed as they can be in certain instances, are facts and even with context considered don't jump so much - especially when you are comparing contemporaries.



This statement tells me all I need to know. You're obviously fairly knowledgeable about a number of things, but it's clear that you know very little about Russell/Wilt if you think that Wilt was defensively anywhere near Russell in 62', much less arguably better. I get the impression that you're just regurgitating information you've heard from other knowledgeable posters in the past. The problem stems from the fact that you haven't researched this particular topic enough to understand that you're using that information out of context.

When myself or others talk about Russell/Wilt being close defensively, it's usually in reference to 67' and 68', and by no means does it apply to 62'.

I think Wilt's defence early on is very underrated and when you look at it overall not so behind Russell. For the sake of discussion, we'll say it was distinctly inferior. Better? It still doesn't account for just how better Wilt was on offense to Russell. The difference is far in his favour.



Perhaps in previous posts that is the case, but your entire Wilt over Russell in 62' argument thus far is based on box score statistics.


No, it isn't. People consider Wilt's 62 season the greatest of all time. He was even picked over Russell for All-NBA first team. Clearly, contemporary opinion is there to support his gargantuan statistical season.




The "facts" that you've provided - that everyone already knew - are meaningless with regards to the actual debate. All you've "proven" is that Wilt put up a lot more ppg than Russell. In no way have you proven that Wilt was more valuable that year.



Your value = how much output you have for your team. It's hard to 'prove' something because the comparison is subjective although one can argue that on the balance of probabilities Russell's case is poor. Your whole argument is: "well x said Russell was better" and you list team stats - not Russell's personal output.


The question is ridiculous because the premise - that Wilt's 62' season is by far the best offensive performance by any player ever - is ridiculous. Perhaps in the googly eye's of casual fans who only care about ppg/rpg/apg, that may be the case, but to anyone who's done any sort of research on the matter, that statement is not even close to being true.

Wilt's 62' season isn't even his own best offensive performance. Hell, it's not even the best offensive performance of 1962. That honor belongs to Oscar Robertson, and given that Oscar led a similar supporting cast(pre Lucas), to a drastically more potent offense, I don't even see that point as being arguable.

Robertson and Baylor had great seasons but not near Wilt's in terms of offense. The amount of records he broke were ridiculous. Even if you were to account for era differences - stats normalised for the present - they're still ridiculous.


Just off the top of my head, unarguably better offensive showings include

67' Wilt
61',62',63' Oscar
majority of Bird's career
majority of Magic's career
many of Jordan's seasons
many of Nash's seasons

Rubbish. I'm willing to hear you argue it, but as it stands I highly doubt you can come up with a convincing argument.

[LeBird]

Adjusting your question so that the premise isn't flawed - Was Russell that much better than Wilt on defense to overcome Wilt's advantage on offense? - my answer would be yes, I believe that Russell was having a bigger impact on his 8.25 SRS team than Wilt was having on his 2.63 SRS team. That's just an opinion, but it's an opinion shared by most of the players and coaches at the time, as well as many of the people on this board who've done considerable research on that era.


The problem is you cannot account for how Russell affected his team. You cannot argue any personal stats reflecting his individual output. Therefore your argument is flimsy. You use correlative statistics which reflect team output. You know this, I know this; yet I keep having to repeat it.


Valid point, but it doesn't really pertain to the regular season MVP award.

The Warriors pushed the Celtics to the brink that year in the Eastern Division Finals for a few reasons

1)Chamberlain thoroughly outplayed Russell in games 2,4(Russell got himself into foul trouble), and arguably outplayed him in game 6
2)Boston was sub par offensively
3)Paul Arizin, Tom Meschery and Guy Rodgers played brilliantly in game 6 to force a force a game 7
4)Tom Meschery once again played brilliantly in game 7

You mean except for the fact that I mentioned their regular season record. They were second to the Celtics, with Wilt carrying them. It wasn't as if Wilt was having the lion's share of output to the team's detriment. IIRC no one in the team other than Wilt shot above .399. So the arguments you made prior about how a player who can have so much output can harm his team doesn't apply here. In that year it was clear that Wilt was Atlas and shouldering the world. While doing so, he amassed an incredible record.



It's a simple question. You're hesitant to answer it because you've realized your mistake, and you're afraid to admit it.

The answer is equally simple. His teammates are exactly the same in both scenarios. Their efficiency may rise from one scenario to the other, but only because Wilt works harder to involve them in the offense, and not by their own merit.

Given the same teammates, if a player can help his team's offense more by shooting less, and thereby scoring less - even if his personal efficiency drops - then he's a better offensive player for doing so, it's really as simple as that, but that flies directly in the face of "If you have two players effectively with the same efficiency, the one with more output is definitively better".

Basketball is a team game; as an offensive player, the goal should be to help the team's offense as much as possible. Given equal teammates, if one player does more to improve his team's offense than another player, then he's the better offensive player, even if he scores less on worse efficiency.

Nope, I did answer it. I said if you are talking about a general example (not Wilt) then you can make the argument that a player scoring so much on whatever TS can be bad for his team. I said, however, and illustrated just in the above, that Wilt's situation doesn't align with such a situation. Him having to have such a large output was the only reason they did so well. So your hypothetical is irrelevant in this instance. It may be true in another - and that is why I say you gotta know the efficiency of other players to actually answer - but in Wilt's case it is not so.



You continually wanting to dismiss any sort of impact stat because it doesn't suit your agenda won't change the fact they've shown on numerous occasions to be more valuable in both a historical and predictive sense.


Because Russell had the better team. By far. That they perform better a team is not only irrelevant, it's not surprising. We are trying to measure the influence of the individual player. I am not saying you can't rely on certain stats to get an idea of Russell's game but it is an incredible leap of faith to assume - knowing what we know about the skillset of both players - that Russell was that difference and not the other players. If they were close statistically, I'd make that consideration like you. However, it's not...so the onus on you is far more grave and such correlative evidence does not suffice. The leap of faith is still too large IMO.


Russell's team strength in comparison with Wilt's team strength in an absolute manner is meaningless, but you're missing the point. I didn't come to my conclusion based on the fact that Russell's team was better, that's expected; I came to my conclusion because I don't think Russell's superior supporting cast can completely account for the 5.62 SRS difference between the two teams. Russell had better teammates that year, I've no qualms there, but I don't think they were 5.62 SRS points better, and neither did most at the time.

I'll take contextualized team impact stats over simple box score stats any day of the week.

That's because it suits you to opine that way. I have no dog in this fight - I respect both players but neither are my personal favourites because they're before my time - but on a statistical basis your case is just very flimsy. In my opinion you take both players out of their teams and across a season it's pretty obvious that the SRS difference will be even larger. It's Wilt that makes it even comparable.



Again, this statement is downright laughable to anyone who's done considerable research into that era. If we were talking about his 67' season, I'd agree with you, but Wilt's 62' season can't hold a candle to his 67' season, offensively or defensively.

I said he had arguably the greatest season of all time - it doesn't mean he did. Russell's 62 season is rarely in the conversation. I remember jlauber comparing a previous year where Russell had basically the same output, Wilt far less...and Wilt won the MVP that year. To put it a team context, Russell's team was only 2 games better, as well. So for 2 games to outweigh such a drastic increase in Wilt's output is quite ridiculous.

Although, the above is what is laughable. Wilt as an offensive force basically scored twice as much per game that he did in 67. That he was much better defensively makes it a good comparison. But saying 'it doesn't hold a candle' is nonsense/hyperbole.



This is your only other somewhat valid point in this post.


Also, I'll acknowledge that it's perfectly possible for people at the time to have been biased, but I find it highly unlikely that virtually everyone at the time was a biased Wilt "hater". I can only assume that sentiment was started by Jlauber, who, although knowledgeable, was extremely biased.

All other things held constant, the simplest explanation is usually the correct explanation.

I find it far more likely that most people at the time really did see Russell as the more valuable player - especially when you consider that they voted Wilt as MVP just two years prior, and would do so again 4,5, and 6 years later. Are we to accept that all the players and coaches suddenly acquired this biased hatred for Wilt, and then lost it, all within the span of a few years?

Regardless, this is my last post in regards to 62' Wilt vs 62' Russell as it is doesn't at all pertain to the real discussion - Russell vs Bird. I've put considerable time and effort into researching the 50s and 60s, and in doing so, I've come to view the 62' MVP race as one of the more interesting debates. I don't think either player "clearly" deserved it - ala 91' Jordan - but I lean towards the players and coaches getting it right at the time, and unless you can show me something that I don't already know, you're not going to change my mind.

The problem is, which simple explanation do you believe? That one guy comes in, dominates the sport to a level few do in ANY sport...to a degree which embarrasses his contemporaries that they vote a wishy-washy-subjective award in favour of Russell, yet still have to begrudge Wilt credit and name him in the All-NBA first team?

Or that the same phenom who only came 2nd to a team that went on an unparalleled dynasty, wasn't given his credit because people identified more with the less talented - but harder working - center who really only excelled at one end of the floor?


To be frank, I am not interested in changing your mind. I am not going to do that. I am just illustrating, when people ally context with stats usually such measures are slight. They do not explain away someone who is an order of a magnitude and more higher in half the game (offence). That this obsession with Russell's intangibles cannot be statistically reconciled so it requires a leap of faith in contemporary opinion to agree.

I mean, really, only Jordan comes close to Wilt in terms of relentless scoring and a great package on both ends of the floor. Yet he is widely considered the GOAT. Yet if we were to believe that someone like Russell was so much better at defence than Wilt was overall it still shouldn't be a discussion amongst those same opinion makers. Russell also has the titles Jordan never got close to. So why has the mass of opinions changed? And in that, you'll see why opinions are notoriously unreliable.

[G.O.A.T]

I'm going to keep this pithy to try and help LeBird understand what he clearly doesn't right now and what a lot of us previously didn't.


Because Russell had the better team. By far.

Why did Russell's team win than when Wilt had the better team, by far?



I am not saying you can't rely on certain stats to get an idea of Russell's game but it is an incredible leap of faith to assume - knowing what we know about the skillset of both players - that Russell was that difference and not the other players.

Why is it a leap of faith when you've already been provided dozens of links from his coach, his teammates, media at the time and his opponents saying that he was the difference?


People consider Wilt's 62 season the greatest of all time. He was even picked over Russell for All-NBA first team. Clearly, contemporary opinion is there to support his gargantuan statistical season.

So making the all-NBA team is evidence to suggest that Wilt's 1962 season was the best of all-time, but winning MVP from three different outlets doesn't count as evidence to suggest that Russell was better that year?



I said he had arguably the greatest season of all time - it doesn't mean he did. Russell's 62 season is rarely in the conversation.

Wilt's '62 season is never in the conversation, there isn't a single person whose opinion I respect that even thinks it Wilt's best season, including Wilt.



The problem is, which simple explanation do you believe? That one guy comes in, dominates the sport to a level few do in ANY sport...to a degree which embarrasses his contemporaries that they vote a wishy-washy-subjective award in favour of Russell, yet still have to begrudge Wilt credit and name him in the All-NBA first team?

This is why I am not currently taking you seriously. This is all 100% wrong based on the facts and shows how little time (relative to a lot of other people on this board) you've spent researching this topic.

1) The players voted Wilt MVP when he was a rookie, so your whole subjective award thing angle doesn't hold up at all. It is further demonstrated as hogwash by the three consecutive MVP's he did when (as voted by the players) when he played a defense first team game.

2) The media and coaches also voted Russell MVP in '61, '62, '63 and '65. So again, not just the players.

3) The players didn't pick the all-NBA team, a small committee of writers (separate from those who voted for MVP) so obviously there was no begrudging concession of Wilt's superiority as you've plucked from thin air.


center who really only excelled at one end of the floor?

Do you understand Russell was the Celtics best offensive player during the 1962 playoffs, even by the stats?


Finally I challenge to really think critically about this: During their 1962 playoff series, Wilt's scoring went down by over 20 ppg from the regular season and yet the Warriors did better against Boston than they did during the regular season. How do you explain that if you believe Wilt's 50 ppg are definitively more valuable than a comparably efficient 20-30 ppg?

Why were the Warriors better when Wilt scored less and players shooting at a lower efficiency scored more?

Once you figure out the answer to that question, you'll understand why Russell was better.

[LeBird]

Why did Russell's team win than when Wilt had the better team, by far?

He didn't. This is 1962 we're talking about. Stay on topic. That Wilt was worse in another series/didn't play well is irrelevant. The best team doesn't always win. What is not debatable is that throughout their careers it was Russell that had the better teams.



Why is it a leap of faith when you've already been provided dozens of links from his coach, his teammates, media at the time and his opponents saying that he was the difference?


Because subjective assessments can only explain away a certain difference in stats. Which has been explained ad nauseam in this thread.


So making the all-NBA team is evidence to suggest that Wilt's 1962 season was the best of all-time, but winning MVP from three different outlets doesn't count as evidence to suggest that Russell was better that year?


Wrong. Making the All-NBA first team illustrates that I am not totally looking at the numbers and ignoring contemporary opinion. But that the opinions of contemporaries in another vote said Wilt was the best. Read what your responding to, take a breath, then type, then press post.



Wilt's '62 season is never in the conversation, there isn't a single person whose opinion I respect that even thinks it Wilt's best season, including Wilt.


I don't care what you care about. I care about what you can prove/argue.




This is why I am not currently taking you seriously. This is all 100% wrong based on the facts and shows how little time (relative to a lot of other people on this board) you've spent researching this topic.

1) The players voted Wilt MVP when he was a rookie, so your whole subjective award thing angle doesn't hold up at all. It is further demonstrated as hogwash by the three consecutive MVP's he did when (as voted by the players) when he played a defense first team game.

Irrelevant insofar as my point goes. I am talking about his 62 season, not his rookie season.


2) The media and coaches also voted Russell MVP in '61, '62, '63 and '65. So again, not just the players.


That's fine, except you're not addressing my point re the stats matching up to contemporary opinion. Again. An appeal to pure opinion is a losing argument.


3) The players didn't pick the all-NBA team, a small committee of writers (separate from those who voted for MVP) so obviously there was no begrudging concession of Wilt's superiority as you've plucked from thin air.


Who voted for the MVP then? Oh yeah, oops. :facepalm


Do you understand Russell was the Celtics best offensive player during the 1962 playoffs, even by the stats?


MVP award is voted when again? :facepalm

And when they faced up Wilt owned Russell.


Finally I challenge to really think critically about this: During their 1962 playoff series, Wilt's scoring went down by over 20 ppg from the regular season and yet the Warriors did better against Boston than they did during the regular season. How do you explain that if you believe Wilt's 50 ppg are definitively more valuable than a comparably efficient 20-30 ppg?

Why were the Warriors better when Wilt scored less and players shooting at a lower efficiency scored more?

Once you figure out the answer to that question, you'll understand why Russell was better.

The first para has nothing to do with the conclusion you're trying to bring. Try harder. Take the time to actually read what your responding to. Otherwise I'll stop taking you seriously because the minimum I expect from someone is that they have average reading comprehension.

[G.O.A.T]

Someone help me out. I am an idiot/insane or is LeBird?

[LeBird]

And again, an appeal to opinion. Getting a bit predictable, aren't we?

[tontoz]

I never saw Russell play so it is hard for me to judge him. However Red Auerbach coached Russell and said Bird was the best.


"If I had to start a team, the one guy in all history I would take would be Larry Bird. This is the greatest ballplayer who ever played the game." To say this took an extraordinary amount of "soul-searching" on Auerbach's part. It meant that Bill Russell was No. 2.



http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1067127/2/index.htm

[G.O.A.T]

I never saw Russell play so it is hard for me to judge him. However Red Auerbach coached Russell and said Bird was the best.




http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1067127/2/index.htm

As mentioned and cited in this thread, Auerbach later said Russell was the greatest.

He said both were the greatest ever when they were playing and Russell once both were done.

[SHAQisGOAT]

Russ got 11 rings as a Celtics, so it's hard to deny him as the best Celtic, however Bird was the better player and also did his thing.

[DatAsh]

Why did Russell's team win than when Wilt had the better team, by far?


This is the point that originally swayed me in favor of Russell over Wilt. Up until a few years ago, I was convinced that Wilt was the greatest player to ever live - though I'm still of the opinion that 67' Wilt is the greatest version of any player ever.



Why is it a leap of faith when you've already been provided dozens of links from his coach, his teammates, media at the time and his opponents saying that he was the difference?

That's what I don't get. I find it highly unlikely that virtually everyone at the time was a biased Wilt "hater".


Finally I challenge to really think critically about this: During their 1962 playoff series, Wilt's scoring went down by over 20 ppg from the regular season and yet the Warriors did better against Boston than they did during the regular season. How do you explain that if you believe Wilt's 50 ppg are definitively more valuable than a comparably efficient 20-30 ppg?

Why were the Warriors better when Wilt scored less and players shooting at a lower efficiency scored more?

Once you figure out the answer to that question, you'll understand why Russell was better.

Exactly my point.

[DatAsh]

The problem is you cannot account for how Russell affected his team. You cannot argue any personal stats reflecting his individual output. Therefore your argument is flimsy. You use correlative statistics which reflect team output. You know this, I know this; yet I keep having to repeat it.

In an absolute sense, you're correct, but I can get the gist, or the general idea - much more-so than I can by simply looking at Wilt's box score statistics and trying to determine how much they affect his team's performance.



You mean except for the fact that I mentioned their regular season record. They were second to the Celtics, with Wilt carrying them. In that year it was clear that Wilt was Atlas and shouldering the world. While doing so, he amassed an incredible record.

I should have left that first part - "IIRC Wilt's team was not only 2nd to the Celtics in the regular season" - out of what I quoted. I was responding strictly to the second part of that quote since the first part had already been mentioned.


It wasn't as if Wilt was having the lion's share of output to the team's detriment. IIRC no one in the team other than Wilt shot above .399. So the arguments you made prior about how a player who can have so much output can harm his team doesn't apply here.

Interesting that you should bring this up

If we compare Wilt's main help that was carried over from the year before, we can see that all three of them saw their efficiency dip from 61' to 62' - despite adding Tom Meschery as a solid 3rd option to relieve some of the defensive pressure.

1961
Paul Arizin - 51%
Tom Gola - 49%
Guy Rodgers - 43%

1962
Paul Arizin - 49%
Tom Gola - 47%
Guy Rodger - 39%

This correlates with my feeling that Wilt was indeed somewhat "freezing" his teammates out on offense that year. They probably would have been a better offensive team with Wilt scoring 40 ppg instead of 50. Unfortunately for Wilt, casual fans would probably then see it as a lesser offensive performance, just because he's scoring 10 less ppg, despite the fact that he's doing MORE to help his team's offense.

To be fair, I don't actually blame Wilt for all of this. I place more of the blame on Wilt's Coach, Frank McGuire. Having that much of your offensive game plan run through one person just isn't a good schema, especially come playoff time when half your offense is directly affected by Bill Russell's defense. I get the sense that coaches in the early 60's didn't really know how to properly utilize someone of Wilt's talent.


I said he had arguably the greatest season of all time - it doesn't mean he did.
How is it even arguable though when his own 67' season is unarguably better?



Wilt as an offensive force basically scored twice as much per game that he did in 67. That he was much better defensively makes it a good comparison. But saying 'it doesn't hold a candle' is nonsense/hyperbole.

Wilt was not a better offensive player in 62' than he was in 67'; the fact that you think he was - just because he scored 26 more ppg - proves my point.



I think Wilt's defence early on is very underrated and when you look at it overall not so behind Russell.

Agreed, but I also think his offense is overrated in those same years, mainly because of his high ppg. I see no evidence to support the claim that his offense was on the level of Oscar Roberton's. Oscar was consistently leading equal or lesser supporting casts to vastly superior offenses.


People consider Wilt's 62 season the greatest of all time.
No one who knows what they're talking about considers Wilt's 62' season as the greatest of all time. Even Wilt will tell you that it's not.


Robertson and Baylor had great seasons but not near Wilt's in terms of offense
How do you figure? Robertson led an equal supporting cast to a vastly superior offense. To disregard that and say that Wilt was better offensively, just because he scored 20 more ppg is downright silly.

It's close, but not that close. Oscar was clearly the better offensive player in 62', casual fans just can't get past the 50ppg.


Rubbish. I'm willing to hear you argue it, but as it stands I highly doubt you can come up with a convincing argument.

I shouldn't need to, and I won't - as it doesn't at all pertain to this thread - but every player I mentioned has had seasons that were unarguably better offensive performances than Wilt's 62' season, at least to anyone who's researched the matter in depth.


And when they faced up Wilt owned Russell.
Not sure what you're referencing here, but if it's the 1962 playoffs, that's simply not true.

Chamberlain clearly outplayed Russell in games 2 and 4, and slightly outplayed him in game 6. Russell clearly outplayed Wilt in games 3, 5, and 7, and slightly outplayed him in game 1. I'd hardly refer to that as Wilt "owning" Russell.

Curiously, the 4 games in which Russell outplayed Chamberlain, Boston won, and the 3 games in which Chamberlain outplayed Russell, Philly won.

[LeBird]

In an absolute sense, you're correct, but I can get the gist, or the general idea - much more-so than I can by simply looking at Wilt's box score statistics and trying to determine how much they affect his team's performance.

As I said, that's fine when you're comparing a player and his contemporary who are a few points within each other. That general idea - that extra context - can plausibly be included to sway the favour. However, in this case it is a non-starter. No difference in sport history has been argued away due to 'intangibles' the way Wilt and Russell's offensive difference were. If I were to represent the chance that you could be right and the stats could be misleading, I'd put that probability under 1%.



Interesting that you should bring this up

If we compare Wilt's main help that was carried over from the year before, we can see that all three of them saw their efficiency dip from 61' to 62' - despite adding Tom Meschery as a solid 3rd option to relieve some of the defensive pressure.

1961
Paul Arizin - 51%
Tom Gola - 49%
Guy Rodgers - 43%

1962
Paul Arizin - 49%
Tom Gola - 47%
Guy Rodger - 39%

This correlates with my feeling that Wilt was indeed somewhat "freezing" his teammates out on offense that year. They probably would have been a better offensive team with Wilt scoring 40 ppg instead of 50. Unfortunately for Wilt, casual fans would probably then see it as a lesser offensive performance, just because he's scoring 10 less ppg, despite the fact that he's doing MORE to help his team's offense.

To be fair, I don't actually blame Wilt for all of this. I place more of the blame on Wilt's Coach, Frank McGuire. Having that much of your offensive game plan run through one person just isn't a good schema, especially come playoff time when half your offense is directly affected by Bill Russell's defense. I get the sense that coaches in the early 60's didn't really know how to properly utilize someone of Wilt's talent.

I tend to agree with you and I think Wilt would have had a far greater career under Red. However, the above is conjecture and I am concerned with 62. Even if he may have been slighly more effective played another way; they went within 1 last minute shot at beating the Celtics that year. So the insinuation that Wilt's stats are misleading in their efficacy is a non-starter because people tend to universally agree that he had the worse team and they overachieved.



How is it even arguable though when his own 67' season is unarguably better?


It's not unarguably better. It depends how you weight your variables. I'm playing devil's advocate and would agree with you that a 67' Wilt was better but one can argue that on certain teams, in certain situations (and they're not entirely limited) that an offensive phenom is better than a lesser offensive phenom with a well-rounded play. That's what makes it arguable - it is subjective.


Wilt was not a better offensive player in 62' than he was in 67'; the fact that you think he was - just because he scored 26 more ppg - proves my point.


It's not a fact, it is an opinion. Something, unfortunately, on this board people have a hard time at grasping the difference.



Agreed, but I also think his offense is overrated in those same years, mainly because of his high ppg. I see no evidence to support the claim that his offense was on the level of Oscar Roberton's. Oscar was consistently leading equal or lesser supporting casts to vastly superior offenses.


Debatable and a digression.


No one who knows what they're talking about considers Wilt's 62' season as the greatest of all time. Even Wilt will tell you that it's not.


Just google and you will see it mentioned. "People who know what they're talking about" is just another term for "people who just accept other people's opinions blindly".


How do you figure? Robertson led an equal supporting cast to a vastly superior offense. To disregard that and say that Wilt was better offensively, just because he scored 20 more ppg is downright silly.

It's close, but not that close. Oscar was clearly the better offensive player in 62', casual fans just can't get past the 50ppg.

More importantly, how do you figure? Arguments like "Oscar was clearly the better offensive player" disqualifies you as a rational thinker. I tend to think you're a good poster but such statements - like many others you've made about Russell - are poor especially because your proof is hearsay and subjective. If you can't definitively mark out a player's personal output that at least should create doubt for you - as any logical thinker would - and if the player you're comparing him to has had arguably the greatest statistical season ever it should lend to even more doubt. Especially since you weren't around to watch all those matches.



I shouldn't need to, and I won't - as it doesn't at all pertain to this thread - but every player I mentioned has had seasons that were unarguably better offensive performances than Wilt's 62' season, at least to anyone who's researched the matter in depth.

Having watched some of the players you've named and one of them (Bird) being my favourite I still disagree with you. But good, I don't want a digression.


Not sure what you're referencing here, but if it's the 1962 playoffs, that's simply not true.

Chamberlain clearly outplayed Russell in games 2 and 4, and slightly outplayed him in game 6. Russell clearly outplayed Wilt in games 3, 5, and 7, and slightly outplayed him in game 1. I'd hardly refer to that as Wilt "owning" Russell.

Curiously, the 4 games in which Russell outplayed Chamberlain, Boston won, and the 3 games in which Chamberlain outplayed Russell, Philly won.

Really? Post their stats, game by game and the whole series.

The last paragraph is lolworthy, again. Don't you ever get tired of having to make correlative arguments based on team performance to trump up a player whose individual output you have to put faith on to have had a hand in those?

It's really quite silly and borders on idolworship. I can accept people think Russell is better...what I can't take is people pretending that they're not using a leap of faith. If you want to place an inordinate amount of importance on subjective assessments...that's fine...but at least have the decency to admit you're doing so.

[LeBird]

This is the point that originally swayed me in favor of Russell over Wilt. Up until a few years ago, I was convinced that Wilt was the greatest player to ever live - though I'm still of the opinion that 67' Wilt is the greatest version of any player ever.

But it's irrelevant. We can say Wilt choked, the Celtics stepped up (including Russ) and that's to their credit. Often players of a lower level will do incredible stuff that not even players who are generally regarded better can do. Take football/soccer and Deco's carrying Porto the Champions League final. It doesn't mean he is better than a Xavi, for example.



That's what I don't get. I find it highly unlikely that virtually everyone at the time was a biased Wilt "hater".


It's not only that they were a hater, but that Wilt's standard was a double standard. He could play the way he played and people expected it. If he didn't they were disappointed. The fact that it was an incredibly high level didn't seem to dawn on them at the time.

Moreover, there was an inordinate amount of importance placed on hearsay. Back then box-scores weren't always mentioned; and others (players and pundits alike) did not watch every game and were nowhere near as knowledgable about the ongoings of play like even the average fan is now. They relied on others telling them what happened.

[DatAsh]

Even if he may have been slighly more effective played another way; they went within 1 last minute shot at beating the Celtics that year.
That kind of proves my point. Philly was noticeably better - taking the best team in the league to 7 games - with Wilt averaging 33 ppg than they were with him averaging 50ppg.


It's not unarguably better. It depends how you weight your variables.
It's only arguable in the same way that current Kobe over current Lebron is arguable - that is it comes down to completely (often uninformed)subjective opinions.


one can argue that on certain teams, in certain situations (and they're not entirely limited) that an offensive phenom is better than a lesser offensive phenom with a well-rounded play. That's what makes it arguable - it is subjective.

True, but 67' was also a better "offensive phenom" than 62' Wilt was, so that doesn't really apply here. Wilt could have averaged 50ppg(probably with better efficiency than he did in 62') in 67', had he wanted to, but it might have cost them the championship, and they certainly wouldn't have been anywhere near as prolific as they were.

Then again, casual fans would probably have considered him a better offensive player for doing so.


More importantly, how do you figure? Arguments like "Oscar was clearly the better offensive player" disqualifies you as a rational thinker.
Tell me, if Wilt was indeed the better offensive player, why were his offenses so much worse, despite having just as much - if not more - to work with. Wilt crushes Oscar on the defensive end, and was clearly the better player overall, but I've seen literally zero evidence to support the claim that Wilt was the better offensive player, other than in 1967.


Especially since you weren't around to watch all those matches.
You don't know that.


Having watched some of the players you've named and one of them (Bird) being my favourite I still disagree with you.
Only because you put far too much stock into ppg, without bothering to try and figure out what affect that ppg is having on the team. I rank Wilt over Bird for his defense, but Bird was easily the better offensive player, as was Magic, Jordan, and Oscar.


Really? Post their stats, game by game and the whole series.
Sure

Game 1

Stats:
Russell: 16pts, 30reb
Wilt: 33pts, 31reb

Recap:
"The brilliant Boston Celtics, led by Bill Russell and Bob Cousy, humiliated cold-shooting Philadelphia 117-89 Saturday in the opener of the National Basketball Association Eastern Division playoff finals. With Russell doing a defensive masterpiece on Wilt Chamberlain ..., Boston settled the contest early". [I]

[DatAsh]

We can say Wilt choked

I actually don't think Wilt choked at all. I've seen people on this board claim that from time to time, usually foolishly, but I attribute Wilt's drop in scoring to two factors, neither of which involve any sort of choking.

1) Wilt's averages always dipped against Russell. He may have averaged 50.4ppg on 54% TS in the regular season, but against Russ he had 39.7 ppg on 49% TS.

2) Wilt's coach, Frank McGuire made a coaching decision to play a more team oriented game that would have Wilt playing out of the pivot at the top of the key.

"In the playoffs McGuire asked for more balanced team scoring, and Chamberlain responded agreeably, going over 40 points in only three of 12 playoff games to help bring the Philadelphia team to within a bounce of the ball of beating the Celtics." - Alex Hannum