How can you be a top5 GOAT averaging 15ppg

[JZ600]

Yes i know 11 rings in 13 seasons, monster on defense

But an awful awful 15ppg
15ppg.
How are you almost consensus top 5 GOAT

Once again 15ppg

[Fallen Angel]

11 Rings
Defensive IQ ahead of his time
#2 in Career Total Rebounds

[sd3035]

There was only one other guy in the league that didn't have to sit on a phone book to drive, and he averaged 50 ppg for a season. Comical times those were indeed

[TheCorporation]

And he never had one season where his FG% was 47% or higher. I don't have him in the top 5 all-time. He had a great team, and while we can't "punish him" for this, he did play in a very weak era.

[Bankaii]

Never understood why people hold him to such high regards. If a current superstar won rings averaging less than 20 ppg they would get called carried. If Russell is in the Top 5 GOATs for his defense why is Pippen's 6/6 rings not held so highly?

[outbreak]

Never understood why people hold him to such high regards. If a current superstar won rings averaging less than 20 ppg they would get called carried. If Russell is in the Top 5 GOATs for his defense why is Pippen's 6/6 rings not held so highly?
because Pippen didn't have the defensive impact Bill had. If you haven't seen enough footage of him to know the impact he had then don't comment.

[JZ600]

Yes we all know his impact defensively

But, 15ppg.

[Ne 1]

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

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

[And1AllDay]

Bill wasn't much of a scorer, but his rebounding and defense were top notch. And we all know that defense/rebounding = wins Championships. Bill did play in an era that didn't have many teams and their version of the "playoffs" is nothing like what it's like in modern basketball, but we can't penalize him for that. He did what he could with what was presented to him. It's hard to argue against a guy with 11 freakin Championships, but the fact that he scored so little is interesting. I can't think of any other players in the top 30 that have scored 15 ppg aside from Bill Russell.

[Ne 1]

And he never had one season where his FG% was 47% or higher. I don't have him in the top 5 all-time. He had a great team, and while we can't "punish him" for this, he did play in a very weak era.

It's true that Russell had a poor FG% but you have to take into consideration the entire league back then had a poor FG%.

Why was this?

1. A high tempo offense. For example the average team in '65 (FGA's: 7987) shot about 1400 more shots than a team in '05 (FGA's: 6588)

2. There were less fouls calls. In '65 the average team had 2076 PF's per season. In '05, 1856 personal fouls were called. You have to keep in mind that 1400 more shots were attempted, yet only 200 less fouls called. The result? A lowering of the FG%.

In short, its tougher to score when the defender can hack you around without getting called for a foul.

Now that we got that out of the way, lets clear some things about Russell's lack of offensive skills.

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


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

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


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

Reason for Russell's low FG% in the NBA: The physical style of play of his era and the subsequent neglect of his offensive game to focus more on his defensive and rebounding role for the team.

[Midnite89]

Never understood why people hold him to such high regards. If a current superstar won rings averaging less than 20 ppg they would get called carried. If Russell is in the Top 5 GOATs for his defense why is Pippen's 6/6 rings not held so highly?

Bill Russell has 5 MVPs. How many MVPs does Pippen have? Bill Russell won MVP in a season where Wilt Chamberlain averaged 50/25. And these were players voting as well.

[Nuff Said]

What saves him for me is his 5 mvp's, totaling one more than the great Wilt Chamberlain. He obviously was good and renowned even with his 15 ppg. It's just too bad they didn't have finals mvp back then because I'm curious to know how many he would've actually won out of his 11 titles.

[SouBeachTalents]

What saves him for me is his 5 mvp's, totaling one more than the great Wilt Chamberlain. He obviously was good and renowned even with his 15 ppg. It's just too bad they didn't have finals mvp back then because I'm curious to know how many he would've actually won out of his 11 titles.

It's not just the Finals MVP's, it's the lack of DPOY's as well. Dude could have had a resume close to

11 rings, 5 MVP's, 7 Finals MVP's, 11 DPOY's

[Bankaii]

because Pippen didn't have the defensive impact Bill had. If you haven't seen enough footage of him to know the impact he had then don't comment.
There isn't enough footage for anyone to determine if he was consistently a GOAT defender, so your comment is invalid. To add on to that Wilt destroyed him and made more First All-NBA teams. Russell wasn't even the best center of his own era. And Pippen often guarded the opposing teams best player, I'd say that's pretty impactful. You still haven't explained how a player can average less than 20 ppg and still be held so highly?

[Bankaii]

Bill Russell has 5 MVPs. How many MVPs does Pippen have? Bill Russell won MVP in a season where Wilt Chamberlain averaged 50/25. And these were players voting as well.
Was Pippen supposed to win a MVP over the GOAT lol?

[Ne 1]

What saves him for me is his 5 mvp's, totaling one more than the great Wilt Chamberlain. He obviously was good and renowned even with his 15 ppg. It's just too bad they didn't have finals mvp back then because I'm curious to know how many he would've actually won out of his 11 titles.

There's a reason why Russell was voted MVP in Wilt's 50/26 season and a reason he was voted as the GOAT in 1980 for the NBA's 35th anniversary.

[jlip]

Never understood why people hold him to such high regards. If a current superstar won rings averaging less than 20 ppg they would get called carried. If Russell is in the Top 5 GOATs for his defense why is Pippen's 6/6 rings not held so highly?


Those two highlighted words speak to why this thread even exists. Fans of the current NBA are victims of the post MJ view of greatness which inextricably links greatness to individual volume scoring. In Russell's day and well into the 80's focusing on making your team better even at the sake of sacrificing individual scoring was a primary mark of greatness. Russell's former teammate, Don Nelson, said it best:

"There are two types of superstars. One makes himself look good at the expense of the other guys on the floor. But there's another type who makes the players around him look better than they are, and that's the type Russell was."

[JZ600]

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

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

[RoseCity07]

He was the same height as Ben Wallace. A defensive big averaging 15 PPG is pretty solid.

[bdreason]

Those two highlighted words speak to why this thread even exists. Fans of the current NBA are victims of the post MJ view of greatness which inextricably links greatness to individual volume scoring. In Russell's day and well into the 80's focusing on making your team better even at the sake of sacrificing individual scoring was a primary mark of greatness. Russell's former teammate, Don Nelson, said it best:

"There are two types of superstars. One makes himself look good at the expense of the other guys on the floor. But there's another type who makes the players around him look better than they are, and that's the type Russell was."


It's a lot easier to market a dunk or 3 pointer than it is proper floor positioning. :oldlol:


For me, Duncan is the modern day Bill Russell. Completely selfless and talented enough to help his team win in a multitude of ways.

[Nuff Said]

There's a reason why Russell was voted MVP in Wilt's 50/26 season and a reason he was voted as the GOAT in 1980 for the NBA's 35th anniversary.
I agree. I just don't know why he won it. It seems his impact truly goes beyond stats cause statistically it looks like wilt has him beat every time aside from wins.

[sd3035]

I agree. I just don't know why he won it. It seems his impact truly goes beyond stats cause statistically it looks like wilt has him beat every time aside from wins.

Wilt was the Lebald of his era, a stat padding fraud who shriveled under pressure

[Nuff Said]

Wilt was the Lebald of his era, a stat padding fraud who shriveled under pressure
Lol I hate to say it but it sounds true. Why wouldn't he continue his regular season dominance throughout the playoffs? Like why all of a sudden not shoot as much when it worked thus far? I can't just blame it on Russell having a better team because even wilt's stats declined in the playoffs.

[BigTicket]

It is a fair question, Russell was very weak on offense compared to other all-time greats.

How far down the GOAT list would you have to go to find someone with worse offense than Russell ? Certainly outside the top 20, probably outside the top 30 as well. Where do Rodman/Mutombo rank ?

However, there are also lots of great players that were weak on defense, and that is hardly ever mentioned. The metrics is total impact (offense + defense), and Russell's impact was clearly among the biggest ever, as proven by his 11 rings.

[warriorfan]

He didn't even score 15 ppg in modern day terms. He scored 15 ppg when teams played at a crazy pace with 30% more possessions. That is why he has absurd career rebounding numbers as well. 1960's basketball was just played at a different pace.


15 ppg in the 60's is equivalent to around 10 ppg today.

If Bill Russ played today he would be a souped up Ben Wallace with more leadership ability. (This isn't really a dis by the way).

[Asukal]

Russ held Wilt to 2 rings, he gets a pass for 15ppg imo. :applause::bowdown:

#2 GOAT!

[Soundwave]

because Pippen didn't have the defensive impact Bill had. If you haven't seen enough footage of him to know the impact he had then don't comment.

Put Pippen in the 1960s and he probably would intimidate the f**k out of a lot of players and put up ridiculous stats too (30/10/10 probably would be easy for him).

[iamgine]

It is a fair question, Russell was very weak on offense compared to other all-time greats.

How far down the GOAT list would you have to go to find someone with worse offense than Russell ? Certainly outside the top 20, probably outside the top 30 as well. Where do Rodman/Mutombo rank ?

However, there are also lots of great players that were weak on defense, and that is hardly ever mentioned. The metrics is total impact (offense + defense), and Russell's impact was clearly among the biggest ever, as proven by his 11 rings.
One might argue that he had the best supporting cast by far relative to the league. That any star worth his salt should win with that kind of roster.

[Timmy D for MVP]

Unfortunately the current basketball scene relies a little too heavily on statistics, mostly traditional ones. But when I read or hear about people talking about him back in the day it's pretty obvious he is one of the handful of greatest ballers ever.

This fascination with statistics sometimes blinds us to the fact that a basketball player's goal is to give his team a better chance of winning. And there are multiple ways of doing that.

[Timmy D for MVP]

One might argue that he had the best supporting cast by far relative to the league. That any star worth his salt should win with that kind of roster.

Mmmm... not on all 11 of those years. It would depend on how you're determining the best roster.

[iamgine]

Mmmm... not on all 11 of those years. It would depend on how you're determining the best roster.
Well, perhaps in your opinion which ones of those years it's not true?

[BigTicket]

One might argue that he had the best supporting cast by far relative to the league. That any star worth his salt should win with that kind of roster.

Possible I guess, I think Duncan or Hakeem could have won in his place, maybe lower tier players like David Robinson and Alonzo Mourning as well.

[Timmy D for MVP]

Well, perhaps in your opinion which ones of those years it's not true?

Well it;s hard for me to say because I can only look back on who was on the teams and I couldn't tell you how good they were playing at the time BUT:

I think his first title against the Hawks was pretty even. I think past about '66 you see Wilt on teams that at worst were equal. In between I think most years the Celtics were better, but only in a couple were they head and shoulders above the rest.

My main point is people like to overstate how good every Celtic team was during the run, and understate how good everyone else was. There were no doubt years in which his team was easily superior. There were years where it was not. So it's not any different than any superstar.

[Ne 1]

Lol I hate to say it but it sounds true. Why wouldn't he continue his regular season dominance throughout the playoffs? Like why all of a sudden not shoot as much when it worked thus far? I can't just blame it on Russell having a better team because even wilt's stats declined in the playoffs.

People look at Wilt's stats and rank him as a GOAT candidate without looking at pace and minutes and with a heavy emphasis on regular season stats. If you look at his career in detail, especially in the playoffs where you can break it down game by game, he is the least impressive top 10 player. You also need to have a decent perspective on some of these numbers, can't just look at 30 rebounds and say "mind blowing game" when games had 150+ rebounds available. The main argument for him being top 5 is regular season stats, but that's flawed. Aside from playing in blowouts, this is a guy who was known to check the stat sheet at halftime and he was even known to have passed up easy shots to prove he could lead the league in assists in 1968. I actually use to be a Wilt>Russell guy, but after seeing some of these playoff stats and recaps, I can't possibly justify that claim anymore, particularly after researching the 1962 series.

Yes, he's a legend, but very overrated once you look at his entire playoff career game by game and realize how much he stat-padded in blowouts. I don't consider him a top 5 player but there is no denying he is top 10 due to his impact on the evolution of the league and his peak (1967). which was phenomenal regardless of era.

[iamgine]

Well it;s hard for me to say because I can only look back on who was on the teams and I couldn't tell you how good they were playing at the time BUT:

I think his first title against the Hawks was pretty even. I think past about '66 you see Wilt on teams that at worst were equal. In between I think most years the Celtics were better, but only in a couple were they head and shoulders above the rest.

My main point is people like to overstate how good every Celtic team was during the run, and understate how good everyone else was. There were no doubt years in which his team was easily superior. There were years where it was not. So it's not any different than any superstar.
Well they were clearly ungodly good, how else would they win 11 championships? By the will of Bill Russell? Now does that make sense.

It's not isolated either, the 90s Bulls also had amazing supporting casts and depth. So did 80s Lakers and Celtics.

What has been overstated and a myth is how one person could carry a team to multiple championships. No, they always have great teammates.

[Timmy D for MVP]

Well they were clearly ungodly good, how else would they win 11 championships? By the will of Bill Russell? Now does that make sense.

It's not isolated either, the 90s Bulls also had amazing supporting casts and depth. So did 80s Lakers and Celtics.

What has been overstated and a myth is how one person could carry a team to multiple championships. No, they always have great teammates.

Yes but they are not, and were not clearly head and shoulders above the rest of the league. That's my point. You said you'd expect him to win so much because he's a superstar on a stacked team.

So? Any contending team was constructed that was. 11 rings is not a coincidence.

[Rose'sACL]

There's a reason why Russell was voted MVP in Wilt's 50/26 season and a reason he was voted as the GOAT in 1980 for the NBA's 35th anniversary.
the reason was that wilt was not well liked. wilt was clearly the better player.

players used to vote for mvp during those days.

[GimmeThat]

Let's say if Aaron Rodgers paired up with Frank Gore, and won 3 maybe 4 superbowls while Gore was still in his prime. (quite difficult now to win that many still as the unquestioned RB for the team)

Where would historians rank him?

Same could go for Brandon Jacobs.


What does this say?

[Quickening]

A less athletic, better free throw shooting Deandre Jordan on a stacked team in a chitty era. People have him top 5...

[Akrazotile]

There was only one other guy in the league that didn't have to sit on a phone book to drive, and he averaged 50 ppg for a season. Comical times those were indeed


:roll:

[julizaver]

It's true that Russell had a poor FG% but you have to take into consideration the entire league back then had a poor FG%.

Why was this?

1. A high tempo offense. For example the average team in '65 (FGA's: 7987) shot about 1400 more shots than a team in '05 (FGA's: 6588)

2. There were less fouls calls. In '65 the average team had 2076 PF's per season. In '05, 1856 personal fouls were called. You have to keep in mind that 1400 more shots were attempted, yet only 200 less fouls called. The result? A lowering of the FG%.

In short, its tougher to score when the defender can hack you around without getting called for a foul.

Now that we got that out of the way, lets clear some things about Russell's lack of offensive skills.

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


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

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


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

Reason for Russell's low FG% in the NBA: The physical style of play of his era and the subsequent neglect of his offensive game to focus more on his defensive and rebounding role for the team.

Bill Russell was never known for possesing offensive skills at an elite level, in fact he is far behind players like Wilt, Bellamy in terms of scoring. With that said Russell could average more than 20 ppg with great eff. vs teams without good centers (Lakers team during 60s) exploiting their weakness at center using his superior athletism (quickness and leaping). Against Wilt he had 14 ppg on less than 40 %, and in the mid 60s where Wilt concentrated more on a defense he had games like 2 from 11 or even 0 from 14.

Based on highlights I have seen he scored on tip-ins, lay ups, hooks closed to the basket and some dunks. A player with that physic and that reportaire, who could not power his way to the basket (Shaq) could not average more than 20 ppg for a career on good FG%. This is just out of his abilities. The more he try the less his FG% would be (not good for his team) and that's why he scored his 15 ppg, not 20 or 25.

Where Russell dominate and excels is the deffense and rebounding - and that's why he was voted by colleagues 5 times as league MVP.

[Genaro]

Not on my book. I understand he was important to the game but he's like DeAndre Jordan born in a weak era and in a stacked team.
Yes, he was great at his time but we're talking about top 10 all time you have to be almost perfect to be in.
Put Chamberlain his whole career in the Celtics with Cousy, Havlicek, Jones, etc. he wins a lot of titles as well.

[LAZERUSS]

People look at Wilt's stats and rank him as a GOAT candidate without looking at pace and minutes and with a heavy emphasis on regular season stats. If you look at his career in detail, especially in the playoffs where you can break it down game by game, he is the least impressive top 10 player. You also need to have a decent perspective on some of these numbers, can't just look at 30 rebounds and say "mind blowing game" when games had 150+ rebounds available. The main argument for him being top 5 is regular season stats, but that's flawed. Aside from playing in blowouts, this is a guy who was known to check the stat sheet at halftime and he was even known to have passed up easy shots to prove he could lead the league in assists in 1968. I actually use to be a Wilt>Russell guy, but after seeing some of these playoff stats and recaps, I can't possibly justify that claim anymore, particularly after researching the 1962 series.

Yes, he's a legend, but very overrated once you look at his entire playoff career game by game and realize how much he stat-padded in blowouts. I don't consider him a top 5 player but there is no denying he is top 10 due to his impact on the evolution of the league and his peak (1967). which was phenomenal regardless of era.

We have been thru a similar discussion before...

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=11491299&postcount=31

And I took the time to respond to EVERYONE of your points.

But, let's review your above take, shall we...


he is the least impressive top 10 player.

Yep...LEAST IMPRESSIVE. After all, you can probably name a many "GOATs" who led the league in scoring SEVEN times (and by as much as +18.8 ppg); led the league in FG% NINE times (and by as much as .162 over his nearest competitor); and led the league in rpg, ELEVEN times (and by as much as +4.8 rpg) right?

Not only that, but Chamberlain was DESTROYING his peers in the process. Wilt had entire H2H seasons, covering eight H2H's, when he averaged 30 ppg against Thurmond; entire seasons, covering 12 H2H's, in which he averaged 40 ppg against Reed; entire seasons, covering 10 H2H's, in which he averaged 40 ppg against Russell; and entire seasons, covering 10 H2H's, in which he averaged 50 ppg against Bellamy.


You also need to have a decent perspective on some of these numbers, can't just look at 30 rebounds and say "mind blowing game" when games had 150+ rebounds available

How about some examples...like this one...

1. Game four of the '64 NBA Finals, when Wilt outrebounded Russell by a 38-19 margin, in a game with 127 total rebounds.

2. Game two of the '65 EDF's, when Wilt outrbounded Russell by a 39-16 margin, in a game with a total of 124 rebounds.

3. Game one of the '67 EDF's, when Wilt outrebounded Russell by a 32-15 margin, in a game with a total of 120 rebounds.

4. Game five of the '67 EDF's, when Wilt outrebounded Russell by a 36-21 margin, in a game with a total of 128 rebounds.

5. Game three of the '67 EDF's, when Wilt outrebounded Russell by a 41-29 margin, in a game with a total of 134 rebounds.

How about a game in which there were 149 available rebounds? Chamberlain outrebounded Russell, by get this... a 55-19 margin.



he was even known to have passed up easy shots to prove he could lead the league in assists in 1968

Yep, and this "selfish" endeavor sure hurt his team didn't it? All they could do was run away with the best record in the league that year, with a mark of 62-20.



I actually use to be a Wilt>Russell guy, but after seeing some of these playoff stats and recaps, I can't possibly justify that claim anymore, particularly after researching the 1962 series

And, as I PROVED in the "discussion" in the other topic...it simply didn't happen. Chamberlain OBLITERATED Russell in the '62 EDF's. He not only went 4-2-1 in H2H "wins" in that series, in the games in which he "won", he murdered Russell. For instance, in two, (a team win BTW), he outscored Russell, 42-9; outrebounded Russell, 37-20; and outshot Russell from the field, 16-31 to 4-14.


BTW, I have broken down their eight playoff series, game-by-game, and here is their personal H2H record (in terms of outplaying one another):

'60: Wilt 4-1-1
'62: Wilt 4-2-1
'64: Wilt 5-0-0
'65: Wilt 6-1-0
'66: Wilt 4-0-1
'67: Wilt 4-0-1
'68: Wilt 4-1-2
'69: Wilt 3-2-2

And the reality was, in MANY of them, it wasn't just a H2H "win", but massive demolitions.

Overall, in their 49 career playoff H2H's, Wilt either outplayed, or downright carpet-bombed Russell, in 34 of them, or well over 67% of the time.

[GimmeThat]

Overall, in their 143 career playoff H2H's, Wilt either outplayed, or downright carpet-bombed Russell, in 34 of them, or well over 67% of the time.


you want the guy who can putt and drive
or the guy who can straight out out-drive, but can't putt

[LAZERUSS]

you want the guy who can putt and drive
or the guy who can straight out out-drive, but can't putt

Not sure what your point is. Golf is an individual sport, whereas basketball is a TEAM sport (albeit, individual performances contribute heavily to team success.)

Russell's TEAMS, most with far superior rosters, beat Wilt's TEAMs, 7-1, in their eight career H2H series. BUT, FOUR of them were game seven wins, and by margins of 2, 1, 4, and 2 points. A few points here-or-there, and Wilt's TEAMs would have held a 5-3 H2H edge over Russell's TEAMs.

However, in terms of their own H2H battles, I'm sorry to tell you, but it wasn't even close. Chamberlain was waxing Russell.

Swap rosters, and it would have been Wilt holding all those rings.

[LAZERUSS]

Not on my book. I understand he was important to the game but he's like DeAndre Jordan born in a weak era and in a stacked team.
Yes, he was great at his time but we're talking about top 10 all time you have to be almost perfect to be in.
Put Chamberlain his whole career in the Celtics with Cousy, Havlicek, Jones, etc. he wins a lot of titles as well.

John Wooden would agree with you.

[GimmeThat]

Not sure what your point is. Golf is an individual sport, whereas basketball is a TEAM sport (albeit, individual performances contribute heavily to team success.)

Russell's TEAMS, most with far superior rosters, beat Wilt's TEAMs, 7-1, in their eight career H2H series. BUT, FOUR of them were game seven wins, and by margins of 2, 1, 4, and 2 points. A few points here-or-there, and Wilt's TEAMs would have held a 5-3 H2H edge over Russell's TEAMs.

However, in terms of their own H2H battles, I'm sorry to tell you, but it wasn't even close. Chamberlain was waxing Russell.

Swap rosters, and it would have been Wilt holding all those rings.


player who swap franchises, and their career earnings could range for what. 40-90 mil over a 10 year span for all stars. and 30 mil for role players?

[Asukal]

Wilt really did live up to his name. Did it everytime he faced Russ. :oldlol:

[LAZERUSS]

Wilt really did live up to his name. Did it everytime he faced Russ. :oldlol:

Yep...to the tune of a 30 ppg, 30 rpg, EVERYTIME he stepped on the floor against Russell in their 143 career H2H's.

Lord Chamberlain.

[Psileas]

Lol I hate to say it but it sounds true. Why wouldn't he continue his regular season dominance throughout the playoffs? Like why all of a sudden not shoot as much when it worked thus far? I can't just blame it on Russell having a better team because even wilt's stats declined in the playoffs.

No, you can't blame it on him having a better team, because he was the GOAT defender and arguably leader, rebounder and smartest player to have ever played. So, having said this, why can't you connect this with Wilt "not continuing his regular season dominance" (which is false obviously, Wilt was usually the most dominant player in the league even in the playoffs), when it's known to everyone Wilt would be facing Russell in the playoffs year after year, without having the luxury of playing more playoff rounds, which would pad his playoff stats? Isn't it curious that, despite Wilt's playoff scoring decline, there's a lack of criticizing him for this on the part of the media of his day, despite some of them loving to criticize Wilt for trivial reasons (e.g, when he stopped scoring 30+ ppg, he was criticized by some as not being able to score any more)? Well, it isn't curious, because the ones watching him play knew there was a logical reason for this, and the reason isn't because Wilt was a choker, it was because in the playoffs, he always had to face the toughest defensive competition and he never had some weak frontline to feast on, unlike future greats in an expanded league who faced teams that happened to have scrubs play this position (e.g, Hakeem dominating playoff teams with centers like Donaldson, Foster and other nobodies, as starting centers). Do you think Wilt wouldn't feast on random guys just because it was the playoffs? Wrong. It just rarely happened to face random guys in the playoffs. Kareem had to face similarly tough competition in the early 70's and, guess what: His own numbers dipped year after year.

[LAZERUSS]

No, you can't blame it on him having a better team, because he was the GOAT defender and arguably leader, rebounder and smartest player to have ever played. So, having said this, why can't you connect this with Wilt "not continuing his regular season dominance" (which is false obviously, Wilt was usually the most dominant player in the league even in the playoffs), when it's known to everyone Wilt would be facing Russell in the playoffs year after year, without having the luxury of playing more playoff rounds, which would pad his playoff stats? Isn't it curious that, despite Wilt's playoff scoring decline, there's a lack of criticizing him for this on the part of the media of his day, despite some of them loving to criticize Wilt for trivial reasons (e.g, when he stopped scoring 30+ ppg, he was criticized by some as not being able to score any more)? Well, it isn't curious, because the ones watching him play knew there was a logical reason for this, and the reason isn't because Wilt was a choker, it was because in the playoffs, he always had to face the toughest defensive competition and he never had some weak frontline to feast on, unlike future greats in an expanded league who faced teams that happened to have scrubs play this position (e.g, Hakeem dominating playoff teams with centers like Donaldson, Foster and other nobodies, as starting centers). Do you think Wilt wouldn't feast on random guys just because it was the playoffs? Wrong. It just rarely happened to face random guys in the playoffs. Kareem had to face similarly tough competition in the early 70's and, guess what: His own numbers dipped year after year.

:applause: :applause: :applause:

As you and I both know...Russell FEASTED on the Laker teams in the Finals in the decade of the 60's (except for '69, when it was Wilt he was facing.) BUT, Wilt never had even ONE opportunity against those Laker squads. We do KNOW that Chamberlain just overwhelmed LA in the entire decade of the 60's, with seasons of 40 ppg, 44 ppg, 48 ppg, and 52 ppg. There is simply NO doubt that had Wilt faced them FIVE times, ala Russell, and Chamberlain would hold many post-season (and Finals) scoring records.

BTW, it's not like Wilt was rendered helpless by Russell in the post-season, either. He had post-season series against Russell of 28.0 ppg, 29.2 ppg, 30.1 ppg, 30.5 ppg, and 33.6 ppg. You would be hard-pressed to find any other center with five post-season series along those lines, much less against an all-world defensive center (and his swarming teammates.)

[hawke812]

Was Pippen supposed to win a MVP over the GOAT lol?

Pippen should have had 5 of the 6. He was robbed.

[Psileas]

:applause: :applause: :applause:

As you and I both know...Russell FEASTED on the Laker teams in the Finals in the decade of the 60's (except for '69, when it was Wilt he was facing.) BUT, Wilt never had even ONE opportunity against those Laker squads. We do KNOW that Chamberlain just overwhelmed LA in the entire decade of the 60's, with seasons of 40 ppg, 44 ppg, 48 ppg, and 52 ppg. There is simply NO doubt that had Wilt faced them FIVE times, ala Russell, and Chamberlain would hold many post-season (and Finals) scoring records.

BTW, it's not like Wilt was rendered helpless by Russell in the post-season, either. He had post-season series against Russell of 28.0 ppg, 29.2 ppg, 30.1 ppg, 30.5 ppg, and 33.6 ppg. You would be hard-pressed to find any other center with five post-season series along those lines, much less against an all-world defensive center (and his swarming teammates.)

I'm still unsure whether the bolded should make me happy (the Lakers benefitting and getting to lots of Finals) or not (Wilt not being more fortunate), lol.
Wilt in the West would be facing the Lakers about as often as he did the Celtics. And he'd probably have multiple 40+ ppg series against them.

[jlip]

There are certain things that you have to know to be an outstanding athlete in any sport. There's offense and defense and there are things that you can do as an individual to impact the game without having your hand or your foot on the ball.

I used to break it down. There are 48 minutes in a game. It takes a second -- a second-and-a-half, maybe two seconds -- for a three point shot. And if you add up all the shots taken in a game -- free throws don't count because the clock stops -- but if you take all the seconds added up shooting and rebounding it comes to about three minutes. Now out of a 48-minute game three minutes are concerned with shooting and rebounding. What is going on the other 45 minutes?

--Bill Russell

The stuff that doesn't show up in the scoring column of the box score

[Marchesk]

People look at Wilt's stats and rank him as a GOAT candidate without looking at pace and minutes and with a heavy emphasis on regular season stats. If you look at his career in detail, especially in the playoffs where you can break it down game by game, he is the least impressive top 10 player. You also need to have a decent perspective on some of these numbers, can't just look at 30 rebounds and say "mind blowing game" when games had 150+ rebounds available. The main argument for him being top 5 is regular season stats, but that's flawed. Aside from playing in blowouts, this is a guy who was known to check the stat sheet at halftime and he was even known to have passed up easy shots to prove he could lead the league in assists in 1968.

When Wilt led the league in assists, his team won 68 games and ended the Celtics dynasty. I doubt his teammates minded too much that he was passing a lot. They were capable scorers. Wilt didn't need to score a lot.

We don't have to look at the numbers themselves. We can note that Wilt led the league in scoring 7 times, rebounding 11 times, FG% 10 times, and assists once, which is the only time a center ever did that. He would have led the league in shot blocks multiple seasons also if that had been recorded.

Wilt was also a key part of two of the greatest teams ever in the 67 76ers and 72 Lakers. He was the finals MVP in 72.

He also has 4 MVPs. It's kind of hard to not rate a guy like that in the top 5 all-time.

[Marchesk]

A less athletic, better free throw shooting Deandre Jordan on a stacked team in a chitty era. People have him top 5...

When Deandre Jordan starts winning MVPs and leads his team to multiple titles, you can make that comparison.

Russell also average 4.3 assists a game, which is really good for a center. Assists are one stat that wasn't inflated due to pace because of the stricter rules for what counted as an assist.

[Quickening]

When Deandre Jordan starts winning MVPs and leads his team to multiple titles, you can make that comparison.

Russell also average 4.3 assists a game, which is really good for a center. Assists are one stat that wasn't inflated due to pace because of the stricter rules for what counted as an assist.

Stick Deandre Jordan in that peice of chit era and he would

[Marchesk]

Stick Deandre Jordan in that peice of chit era and he would

Sure, can we also time travel Wilt to this era? The Knicks are looking to move the 4th and I would be interested to see Wilt in the triangle.

Would also love to see Lebron drive with Wilt waiting for him at the rim.

[Marchesk]

Melo Wilt Love in the triangle.

[LAZERUSS]

Oscar: "The Record Book does not lie."

Bird: "Just open up the Record Book and you will know who the greatest is."


BTW, Chamberlain literally holds HUNDREDS, if not THOUSANDS, of NBA Records, and MANY of them are POST-SEASON records.