If Wilt Chamberlain and Bill Russell had switched teams throughout the '60s which

[coastalmarker99]

So Wilt chamberlain starts his career with the Celtics in 1959 and Russell starts with the Warriors in 1957. I can see Russell winning rings in 1957 plus 1958 and 1959 but that's where I think it stops there I think Wilt once he comes in and joins the Celtics wins titles up to 1966.

However, With Russell joining the sixers from the Warriors in 1965 I can see the sixers winning in 1968 provided injuries don't happen in 1968 as they did to the sixers in real life if that still happens then the Celtics win in 1968. I think that with Russell now being a laker in 1969 that the Lakers win a title that year as the team chemistry would have been a lot better for the laker's that year with Russell instead of Wilt. Therefore I think Wilt would have 7 rings at the very least with the Celtics in the 1960s and Russell playing on all of Wilt's team's wins 5 to 6 rings in 12 years.

The biggest question I have with Russell on those Warriors team past 1959 is where would their offence come from vs the Celtics who have Wilt?. Russell may have to become more of a scorer like Wilt was in his early years on those Warrior's teams. I think Russell would have done a great job with the sixers past 1966 as the other sixer's players like Luke Jackson and Billy enter their primes along with Walker plus Hal Greer so they would pick up the offence for those late 60's sixer's teams. In 1969 I say that the lakers with Russell would have beat the Celtics in the finals.

[GimmeThat]

I think that with Wilt's sexual practices, even if he was on the Celtics, we're probably still looking at 5 rings.

I currently don't have Russell being the better rebounder statistically, and I think people might be underrating the impact of his assists without the 3 point line.

[DoctorP]

Wilt would have died in a car accident in his rookie year. Russell would go on to stay with the Warriors his entire career, finally winning a ring his final year before retiring.

[Axe]

Also depends on how auerbach would have groomed chamberlain if he had him instead of russell.

[andgar923]

We can't always transpose players from different eras and teams and expect the same or similar output. There's certain traits a player has that can't be measure on a stat sheet. There's traits that can't be transferred from team to team. The sports world is filled with instances of players failing in one team but succeeding on another and vice versa.

[Jasper]

look at the Laker teams , with players that have 5 rings and could never carry a team....
Russell was a role player , and played Defense... that is why Wilt had issues with Celtics.

[FKAri]

Russell would have most likely have 1 or no rings. He'd be an under appreciated player. I think he'd still play great defense w/o Red but not sure he'd be utilized as well by a team. Wilt would be thought of as the GOAT.

[Horatio33]

Auerbach says he couldn't have coached Chamberlain as he was too spoiled by his high school and college coaches. Russell's Celtic's teammates say they wouldn't have won as many titles if the two players switch.

Wilt played with some pretty good players on those Warrior teams, and Russell made his team mates better whereas Chamberlain just put up numbers. I still think Russell wins more rings, but its closer. 7-4 Russell.

[bizil]

Russell would have most likely have 1 or no rings. He'd be an under appreciated player. I think he'd still play great defense w/o Red but not sure he'd be utilized as well by a team. Wilt would be thought of as the GOAT.

DAMN RIGHT!!! Some people OVERTHINK this Wilt vs. Russ thing. Wilt was EASILY the better player! The only thing Russ could do better was play defense. BUT Wilt was a great defender himself. If u put Wilt on Boston, Auerbach would have TOTALLY changed the offense. And dump down to Wilt to let The Stilt dominate. Cousy being the ultimate pass first floor general would have been hooking up Wilt! Wilt wouldn't need to put up 50 PPG on those Boston teams. Wilt on those Boston teams means he could be seen ARGUABLY as the GOAT today. Nobody considers Wilt the GOAT because he only won two rings.

If u put Russ on those teams Wilt played on, I'm not sure he ever wins a ring. And might not have even won an MVP! Russ was a GREAT PLAYER in general! Who redefined the C spot with his great athletic ability, floor game, and IQ. BUT his lack of GREAT scoring prowess brings him back to the pack among the other great centers peak-prime wise. It's not just is PPG. It's more about his FG%! Who u look at those two factors, I would take Wilt, Big O, Baylor, West, and Bob P over Russ in that era peak-prime wise. And peak prime wise among centers, I would take Wilt, Shaq, Cap, Dream, Admiral, Moses, McAdoo, and Ewing over Russ. If u are talking PURE FLOOR GAME (boards, dimes, defense) as a package,then sure Russ takes a backseat to NOBODY!! But

[FKAri]

Auerbach says he couldn't have coached Chamberlain as he was too spoiled by his high school and college coaches. Russell's Celtic's teammates say they wouldn't have won as many titles if the two players switch.

Wilt played with some pretty good players on those Warrior teams, and Russell made his team mates better whereas Chamberlain just put up numbers. I still think Russell wins more rings, but its closer. 7-4 Russell.

This is what Disney movies would have you believe. Reality is that history is written by the victors. If you win, people will say "you were a winner. you made people better". If you lose: They don't. Did he really make his teammates better or did he just have great synergy with them under a GOAT coach? We don't really know.

[iamgine]

Auerbach says he couldn't have coached Chamberlain as he was too spoiled by his high school and college coaches. Russell's Celtic's teammates say they wouldn't have won as many titles if the two players switch.

Wilt played with some pretty good players on those Warrior teams, and Russell made his team mates better whereas Chamberlain just put up numbers. I still think Russell wins more rings, but its closer. 7-4 Russell.

It's hard to know if they're not just being biased and/or politically correct.

[Horatio33]

It's hard to know if they're not just being biased and/or politically correct.

Hard to know if you're the worst poster on this board, or one of the worst posters on this board.

[Horatio33]

This is what Disney movies would have you believe. Reality is that history is written by the victors. If you win, people will say "you were a winner. you made people better". If you lose: They don't. Did he really make his teammates better or did he just have great synergy with them under a GOAT coach? We don't really know.

Fair point. We will never know. That's why its fun to think about things that will never happen.

[Horatio33]

DAMN RIGHT!!! Some people OVERTHINK this Wilt vs. Russ thing. Wilt was EASILY the better player! The only thing Russ could do better was play defense. BUT Wilt was a great defender himself. If u put Wilt on Boston, Auerbach would have TOTALLY changed the offense. And dump down to Wilt to let The Stilt dominate. Cousy being the ultimate pass first floor general would have been hooking up Wilt! Wilt wouldn't need to put up 50 PPG on those Boston teams. Wilt on those Boston teams means he could be seen ARGUABLY as the GOAT today. Nobody considers Wilt the GOAT because he only won two rings.

If u put Russ on those teams Wilt played on, I'm not sure he ever wins a ring. And might not have even won an MVP! Russ was a GREAT PLAYER in general! Who redefined the C spot with his great athletic ability, floor game, and IQ. BUT his lack of GREAT scoring prowess brings him back to the pack among the other great centers peak-prime wise. It's not just is PPG. It's more about his FG%! Who u look at those two factors, I would take Wilt, Big O, Baylor, West, and Bob P over Russ in that era peak-prime wise. And peak prime wise among centers, I would take Wilt, Shaq, Cap, Dream, Admiral, Moses, McAdoo, and Ewing over Russ. If u are talking PURE FLOOR GAME (boards, dimes, defense) as a package,then sure Russ takes a backseat to NOBODY!! But

Hahahahaha!

[bizil]

SUCH BS when it comes to the narrative on Wilt. Wilt TAILORED his game according to the teams he played on. TO THIS DAY, the only center to lead the league in assists. Is the ONLY PLAYER to lead in the league in PPG, RPG, and APG at some point in his career. Those guys on Boston that say they would rather have Russ SHOULD SAY THAT!! Because of the success they had. BUT if u don't think they would have been JUST AS SUCCESSFUL with Wilt, u need to stop smoking crack. Plus Red was a genius! He would have made FOR DAMN SURE that Wilt dominated in paint scoring wise. He and Cousy would have catered to Wilt IN WAYS that they didn't Russ. Hoops was DESIGNED back then to be played inside-outside when u had dominant interior bigs. When u had the BEST PLAYER ON THE EARTH in Wilt the Stilt, u DAMN RIGHT Red would have built that Boston team around Wilt's strengths! GOAT wise, Russ is on the Mt. Rushmore of the NBA. And that's the MOST IMPORTANT LIST! But when it gets into his peak-prime status, Wilt is easily the better player. And Boston would have been EVEN MORE DOMINANT with Wilt on that squad!!

[dankok8]

Not sure if Russell would have won more chips than Wilt if their teams were swapped every year of their careers but Russell won more rings with the Celtics than Wilt would win with the Celtics and Russell would win more rings with Wilt's teams than Wilt won with Wilt's teams. Russell was all about winning. Wilt was about stats, personal accolades, women etc. and about winning of course but not to the same fanatical extent that Russell was. And acting like Wilt was head and shoulders the better player isn't a fact. Russell was a better defensive player in terms of overall impact, equal rebounder, probably a slightly better passer and a team player first and foremost and that last one is hard to see on the stat sheet. In the clutch too Russell was the one who would always show up, always inspire his team, always find a way. I know it's a sports cliché to talk about clutch but Wilt's choked in 68, 69, and 70 Finals. He underperformed for three straight years. This debate has been revisited in recent times because people see their numbers and say "Come on. Wilt is better..." but if you look at publications back then everyone would rather have Russell on their team. The goal of basketball is to win games and if teams in the league would rather have Russell than Wilt that proves Russell is better.

[coastalmarker99]

You point out the losses in 1968, 69, and 70. While it is true Chamberlain could have done more, it is uncertain how much more another player would have done in his place. Chamberlain was nursing an assortment of injuries to his right leg in the 1968 East Finals that he "couldn't turn around to shoot" according to team statistician Harvey Pollack. In the deciding game of the 1969 Finals, he left after hurting his right knee in the middle of a fourth-quarter rally but still demanded to go back in. In 1970 he went against doctor's orders after major knee surgery and returned early in time for the postseason, even though another break may have ended his career.

In all three cases, all I saw was someone who just wanted to play and win despite risking greater injury to himself. Chamberlain averaged 17.7 points, 28.3 rebounds, 4.0 assists, and shot .636 from the field across those three Game 7 losses while his teammates collectively shot averages of .343, .360, and .418. And he also held Russell across those two games 7's to 18 points on 33 per cent shooting. and outrebounded him by 8 and 6 rebounds in 1968 and 1969. and was more efficient despite being injured in 1968.

[1987_Lakers]

I don't want to hear it, Wilt's teams from '66-'69 were just at talented as the Celtics and he managed to go 1-3 vs Russell in that time.

[Axe]

If chamberlain actually played for the celtics instead of russell, would he have been appointed as player-coach in 1966 as well, the year auerbach retired from coaching? And under that position, win their last two titles in 1968 and 1969? 🤔

We can never know.

[coastalmarker99]

You should hear this 1969 I say was a choke but in 1968 the sixers were very injured Wilt was hurt billy cunningham was out for the series luke Jackson got hurt as well it is incredible that with all the sixer's injuries that game 7 was so close they only lost by 4 points. The only teams that Wilt played on that had the chance to Beat Russell were from 67 to 69. In 1966 no one besides Wilt played well on the sixer's and they only had homecourt that year because the Celtics had dealt with injuries throughout the regular season.

[coastalmarker99]

It would have been Bill Sharman after Alex Hannum left in the 1968 offseason before Wilt requested a trade to the lakers he wanted the sixers to hire Bill Sherman that was one of the coaches he wanted to play under the most.

[AirFederer]

One was the Goat teamleader and defender, doing the stuff on and off court that helps the team

The other had more physical ability but had a weak mind and was a stat padder and out there for himself.

Soooo...

[Axe]

Lol bill sharman was also part of the great 60s celtics dynasty. Just count the championships he won with them. Meanwhile, it's also worth noting that the lakers have never won any championships for more than 15 years until he came to the said team and took over as their hc there. When that happened, he groomed chamberlain to play like russell, scoring with lesser points but focusing on defense and rebounds.

[coastalmarker99]

I don't want to hear it, Wilt's teams from '66-'69 were just at talented as the Celtics and he managed to go 1-3 vs Russell in that time.

And in those three seasons ('67, '68, and to a lessor extent, '69), his '69 team was horribly coached (and lost a game seven by two points); his '68 team was decimated by injuries in the post-season (and lost a game seven by four points); and his '67 team just annihilated Russell's 60-21 Celtics. Clearly, had the '68 team been healthy, and it would have been a repeat blowout of the Celtics. And, at least IMO, had he had Sharman coaching the '69 team, instead of Butch "the Butcher" Van Breda Kolff, the Lakers would have rolled to a title. And to be honest, that '69 team was ONE PLAY away from a 4-1 series romp over Boston. Had Johnny Egan not been stripped of the ball in the waning seconds of game four (again, what coach in their right mind would have had Egan handling the ball in that situation, on a team with Jerry West), and LA would have won that game, going up 3-1 in the series. And given their easy win in game five, they would have won a convincing title.

In his seven other seasons against Russell it was a miracle that they battled Boston to near upsets in '62 and '65. And had Chamberlain not been injured late in game two of the '60 EDF's, in a series in which his team lost a game six by two points, who knows how that series would have played out. Even his '64 team's 4-1 Finals lost against Russell's overwhelmingly favored Boston team was deceptive. The last two games of that series were decided in the waning seconds.

In any case, I don't believe anyone in their right mind would have favored Russell over Wilt had they swapped rosters in their first six seasons. My god, Russell's '63 and '64 teams had EIGHT, and even NINE HOFers. And it was a testament to Chamberlain that he took a 34-46 Sixer team in '64, to a 40-40 record (21-20 after a mid-season trade) and then an easy first round knockout of Oscar's stacked 48-32 Royals, and then to a game seven, one point loss to Russell's 62-18 Celtics.

He then led the Sixers to the best record in the league in the next three seasons. BUT, his '66 team was still nowhere near as talented as Russell's. Thy had to win their last 11 straight games to edge the seven-time defending champs by one game. And even that was deceptive, since the core of that Celtic team missed a ton of games that year. In any case, while Chamberlain played brilliantly in the '66 EDF's, his teammates collectively shot .352 from the field in that series.

Again...a TEAM game.

[Horatio33]

You should hear this 1969 I say was a choke but in 1968 the sixers were very injured Wilt was hurt billy cunningham was out for the series luke Jackson got hurt as well it is incredible that with all the sixer's injuries that game 7 was so close they only lost by 4 points. The only teams that Wilt played on that had the chance to Beat Russell were from 67 to 69. In 1966 no one besides Wilt played well on the sixer's and they only had homecourt that year because the Celtics had dealt with injuries throughout the regular season.

I think the thing you forget on those last two title teams was Bill Russell was the COACH. He played and coached the team.

[Horatio33]

Bottom line, Russell cared about the final score, Chamberlain cared about his statistics.

[dankok8]

You point out the losses in 1968, 69, and 70. While it is true Chamberlain could have done more, it is uncertain how much more another player would have done in his place. Chamberlain was nursing an assortment of injuries to his right leg in the 1968 East Finals that he "couldn't turn around to shoot" according to team statistician Harvey Pollack. In the deciding game of the 1969 Finals, he left after hurting his right knee in the middle of a fourth-quarter rally but still demanded to go back in. In 1970 he went against doctor's orders after major knee surgery and returned early in time for the postseason, even though another break may have ended his career.

In all three cases, all I saw was someone who just wanted to play and win despite risking greater injury to himself. Chamberlain averaged 17.7 points, 28.3 rebounds, 4.0 assists, and shot .636 from the field across those three Game 7 losses while his teammates collectively shot averages of .343, .360, and .418. And he also held Russell across those two games 7's to 18 points on 33 per cent shooting. and outrebounded him by 8 and 6 rebounds in 1968 and 1969. and was more efficient despite being injured in 1968.

Injuries are not an excuse. If Wilt really cost his team three championships because he was injured, then that should be held against him.

[Stephonit]

Bill Russell has 11 rings and people still doubt him? During his years with the Celtics the roster changed significantly over time yet they kept winning. He leaves and they lose. Russell's Celtics beat a superteam with with Baylor, West and Chamberlain. Russell is all about winning. He'd find a way.

[Axe]

Bill Russell has 11 rings and people still doubt him? During his years with the Celtics the roster changed significantly over time yet they kept winning. He leaves and they lose. Russell's Celtics beat a superteam with with Baylor, West and Chamberlain. Russell is all about winning. He'd find a way.
Today's league is about losing. You see, someone who never or doesn't lose in the finals that much ain't a goat and will never be called one. That's why a lot of stans here berate mj for never losing in the finals whilst they cheer lbj at the same time for having made the finals nine times while having a 3-6 record.

Yup, that is the true definition of a goat.

[Psileas]

Wilt and Russell exchanging teams obviously leads to Wilt far outperforming Russell ring-wise. People try to make it look like he was some uncoachable headcase, while Russell was the "smart one". In reality, Russell was just as big of an egoist and hard to coach and was lucky enough to find the only coach who could match his high level of thinking and ego and earned his respect. Wilt was similarly smart and challenging, but has had the bad luck of being coached by some horrible or very inexperienced coaches, who have never achieved the slightest distinction without him. There's no chance Russell gets along with coaches who knew less on basketball smarts and tactics than he already knew.
Let's be realistic here though, Wilt winning more rings would actually harm him and his era more than benefit them, since it's pretty obvious that the marketing machine of the Stern era wanted nothing to do with the black and white, big man-centered eras with the limited footage, that predated them, they wanted to promote the newer, more exciting type of game of the 80's-90's, so, Wilt winning more rings, along with him still posting godly numbers would further lead people into promoting the "weak era/competition" BS and his rings would be discredited anyway, regardless of how many he might win. I'd even say, the more, the worse. The only way for him to get promoted as the GOAT would be to be an exciting small man and/or to play after the early 80's, not winning more rings in older eras. Russell was won almost any ring available and still gets zero respect, so, learn from his example.

[AirFederer]

Wilt and Russell exchanging teams obviously leads to Wilt far outperforming Russell ring-wise. People try to make it look like he was some uncoachable headcase, while Russell was the "smart one". In reality, Russell was just as big of an egoist and hard to coach and was lucky enough to find the only coach who could match his high level of thinking and ego and earned his respect. Wilt was similarly smart and challenging, but has had the bad luck of being coached by some horrible or very inexperienced coaches, who have never achieved the slightest distinction without him. There's no chance Russell gets along with coaches who knew less on basketball smarts and tactics than he already knew.
Let's be realistic here though, Wilt winning more rings would actually harm him and his era more than benefit them, since it's pretty obvious that the marketing machine of the Stern era wanted nothing to do with the black and white, big man-centered eras with the limited footage, that predated them, they wanted to promote the newer, more exciting type of game of the 80's-90's, so, Wilt winning more rings, along with him still posting godly numbers would further lead people into promoting the "weak era/competition" BS and his rings would be discredited anyway, regardless of how many he might win. I'd even say, the more, the worse. The only way for him to get promoted as the GOAT would be to be an exciting small man and/or to play after the early 80's, not winning more rings in older eras. Russell was won almost any ring available and still gets zero respect, so, learn from his example.
You have any credible sources for this: Russell was just as big of an egoist and hard to coach

[coastalmarker99]

only bring this up because so much is made of Russell's "killer Instinct", and Wilt's "loser mentality." Russell was the victim of horrible racial discrimination for much of his life. It got so bad that he, himself, became a racist. He hated the city of Boston, and didn't even show up for his first retirement ceremony.

Meanwhile, Wilt grew up in a mixed neighborhood, and while he faced some racism in his life, it was far less than what Russell (and many other's like Oscar dealt with.)

Russell made bad financial decisions, and at one time was nearly broke. He once refused to sign autograph's, even for teammates, but after he retired, he sold much of his memoribila for a large sum. On the other hand, Wilt was a very successful businessman, and was very wealthy when he died.

I always found it perplexing too, that Wilt was ripped so often by the media, and conversely, Russell was seen as "heroic", and yet those in the media, almost to a man (or woman) would tell you that Wilt treated them much better in their interviews.

I could post quotes, but it is not necessary. You can google Russell and you can google Wilt, and you will see them for yourself.

And once again, it is not my intention to bash Russell here. I think that much of his upbringing influenced his play on the court. He did have an assassin's mentality. And he was a deeply intelligent man. He STUDIED the game as much as anyone whoever played or coached.

Wilt, on the other hand, was a "gentle giant." Here again, there are many quotes from peers, along the lines such as (and I am paraphrasing because I don't want to take the time to look them up), "thankfully he was a nice guy, or he would killed players", or "if he would have had jus one-third the intensity that Russell had", or "if he had dunked as hard as he could have, he would have broken opponents' arms and wrists." There are hundreds, and probably thousands of quotes out there that basically claim that Wilt was a "nice guy"...probably too "nice."

Not only that, but Wilt took a horrible beating in his career, particularly early, but he seldom retaliated. As he became bigger and stronger, the less it bothered him, but there was always a double standard. There were fouls on other players, and then there were the fouls that called guarding Wilt. Needless to say, even those that officiated Wilt's games admitted that they didn't call everything (or else it would have been an endless parade to the FT line for Chamberlain.)

As far as Wilt's "loser mentality" goes,..I really don't think he "accepted" losing. But, to him, it was not "life and death." He didn't throw up before games like Russell, and he didn't dwell on his losses. Furthermore, I really believe that he endured so many close calls in his career, that he became very defensive about his "loser" label.

[Jasper]

the argument that Chamberlain if scored more points could of beat the Celtics.

How Absurd

One player even playing better , could never beat a whole team. The Celtics as so many have stated had Russell a low scoring
average , but played within the Celtics concept.

Granted if Billy Cuningham would of played for the 6'ers , it could of made the series interesting , for the Celtics had to much fire power.

What pissed me off at the time was how Russell pumped his chest out , beating Chamberlain.

Lets put it this way if one on one who would of won ??? Chamberlain of course.

[coastalmarker99]

Even at KU, he lost a title game in triple OT. And BTW, there was very little talent on that team, either. In his junior year, he missed three games with a serious infection, and his team lost all three. He was "drafted" while in high school in a territorial draft, and unfortunately for him, it would be a last-place team by the time he arrived.

In his first year, he was just abused by entire opposing teams, and as I mentioned earlier, he took a horrible beating. In his first post-season, he injured his hand taking a swing at Heinsohn, and the injury was so severe that it affected his shooting. His team lost the next two games. He did come back in a must-win game five with a monumental 50-35 game against Russell, but, despite a good game in game six, his team lost.

In his second year, he was the ONLY player on his team to play well in the playoffs, (which would become a common theme), and his team was upset by Syracuse.

In his third year, his immortal 50 ppg season, he carried his team to a game seven, two-point loss against the 60-20 Celtics and their SIX HOFers. In that last game, there was a controversial goal-tend, and then the time-keeper let the time run out instead of giving Philly about 3-4 seconds at the end of the game.

He languished on just pathetic rosters for the next two-and-half seasons, but he still guided one of them to the Finals in '64, where, by all accounts, he played magnificently...but his overmatched teammates were just too much to overcome, and his TEAM was beaten, 4-1.

He was traded midway thru the 64-65 season, and in the post-season, he led the 40-40 Sixers to a 3-1 romp over the 48-32 Royals. And, against the 62-18 Celtics, he amazingly got his team to a game seven. In that game, he scored six of the last eight points and brought his team back from a 110-101 deficit to 110-109 with only a few seconds left. "Clutch" Russell hit a guidewire with his inbounds pass, and Philly had a chance to win. However, "Havlicek stole the ball."

In the '65-66 season, he finally had quality teammates, and the Sixers finished with the best record in the league. BUT, while he played well, his teammates were absolutely pathetic, and his team was easily beaten by Boston, 4-1.

[coastalmarker99]

He finally won a title the following season. And it looked like the Sixers were poised to start a "mini-dynasty" of their own. However, injuries just decimated them in the '68 playoffs, and then Wilt mysteriously hardly saw the ball in game seven, and his teammates once again fired blanks, and once again...another close game seven loss.

He was traded to the Lakers before the 68-69 season, and everyone was expecting another title. But, LA was coached by Butch Van Breda Kolf, and he and Wilt butted heads almost immediately. And while the Lakers finished with a 55-27 record, they were not a cohesive team. They were favoured over the 48-34 Celtics and had Egan held onto the ball in game four, they would have won that series, 4-1. Instead, he lost it, and Sam Jones hit a miraculous shot at the buzzer to win the game. In-game seven, Wilt injured his knee and he had to come out. He sat out for a couple of minutes and then asked to go back in. Van Breda Kolf refused, and the Lakers lost game seven by two points.

He was injured early on in the 69-70 season, and his season was written off by the medical experts. He rehabbed on his own and miraculously returned late in the season. He took the Lakers to the Finals, where they faced the 60-22 Knicks and their FOUR HOFers. Even at far less than 100%, he battled MVP Reed to a draw in the first four games, and the series was tied 2-2. And he was crushing Reed in game five when Reed went down with a thigh injury. The Lakers were leading by ten points when Reed was injured, and they extended it to 13 at the half. BUT, as NY Times writer Leonard Koppett would write the next day...the officials allowed the Knicks to commit near manslaughter on Wilt and West in the second half, and NY came away with a stunning 107-100 win. The series went back to LA, and with Reed out, Wilt put up a massive 45-27 game, and the Lakers tied the series with a 135-13 win. However, as everyone knows by now, Reed hobbled out just before the opening tip, and the fired-up Knicks hit 15 of their first 21 shots en route to a 27 point halftime lead. Wilt played well, but Frazier went nuts with a 36 point, 19 assist game, and he also hounded West numerous first-half turnovers. Reed, with his 4-3 game was the labelled the "hero", while Wilt, only four months removed from major knee surgery, and with his 21-24 game, was tagged as the ''choker.

So MANY frustrating losses. Is it no wonder that Wilt was defensive about "losing"?

Still, that Reed series was an example of the difference between Russell and Wilt. Veteran writer Dick Shaap observed that Wilt may have, subconsciously at least, let up on Reed in that game seven. Wilt had a "Goliath Complex", and was a "gentle giant." Perhaps he was afraid of really injuring Reed.

Russell, IMHO, would have seized the opportunity. He probably would have blocked Reed's first two shots to send a message to the Knicks that there would be no miracle tonight. And, I am certain that Russell would have gone at Reed at every opportunity.

So, if you want to use that as an example...then yes, Russell was a "winner", and Wilt was a "loser." But, the reality was, with just a few points here-or-there, and Wilt could have won another FIVE rings. And had injuries not killed his team's in '71 and '73, he might have won yet another TWO more.

In any case, it was not like Wilt "choked" in the post-season. And it was not as if his TEAM's were blown out, either.

[coastalmarker99]

You have any credible sources for this: Russell was just as big of an egoist and hard to coach


• Bill took offence to be slighted with regards to accolades, particularly MVPs at the hand of Wilt; he felt he was the best in the game from 57 (start of the 57-58 season, though he feels he was big in the 57 playoffs) to 65 (he felt he would no longer be the best player at that point, as his knees felt "like those of a 300-year-old" man as opposed to a 31-year-old); he also was admittedly envious of Cousy's place as captain, and wanted to take that stake (though after Cooz retired, he was self-conscious about being named co-captain) Bill Russell's "Go Up For Glory" (1965

[FKAri]

Not sure if Russell would have won more chips than Wilt if their teams were swapped every year of their careers but Russell won more rings with the Celtics than Wilt would win with the Celtics and Russell would win more rings with Wilt's teams than Wilt won with Wilt's teams. Russell was all about winning. Wilt was about stats, personal accolades, women etc. and about winning of course but not to the same fanatical extent that Russell was. And acting like Wilt was head and shoulders the better player isn't a fact. Russell was a better defensive player in terms of overall impact, equal rebounder, probably a slightly better passer and a team player first and foremost and that last one is hard to see on the stat sheet. In the clutch too Russell was the one who would always show up, always inspire his team, always find a way. I know it's a sports cliché to talk about clutch but Wilt's choked in 68, 69, and 70 Finals. He underperformed for three straight years. This debate has been revisited in recent times because people see their numbers and say "Come on. Wilt is better..." but if you look at publications back then everyone would rather have Russell on their team. The goal of basketball is to win games and if teams in the league would rather have Russell than Wilt that proves Russell is better.


Bottom line, Russell cared about the final score, Chamberlain cared about his statistics.


Bill Russell has 11 rings and people still doubt him? During his years with the Celtics the roster changed significantly over time yet they kept winning. He leaves and they lose. Russell's Celtics beat a superteam with with Baylor, West and Chamberlain. Russell is all about winning. He'd find a way.

Confident statements. NBA propaganda is successful.

[Horatio33]

Confident statements. NBA propaganda is successful.

ItS OnLy PrOpAGaNdA wHeN tHeY dOnT aGrEe WiTh YoU

[FKAri]

ItS OnLy PrOpAGaNdA wHeN tHeY dOnT aGrEe WiTh YoU

If you had agreed with me I would have called you a gentleman and scholar. No, but seriously the difference is my statements are "we may never know" as there are conflicting statements from that time period from various people as to how the two really were personality wise. Though most all of them agree Wilt was the superior player.

We know the NBA wanted to promote Bill Russell in retrospect after the ABA-NBA merger and did everything they could to do so. Just like in his playing days Wilt was the bigger star and everything was done to promote him. Any story you read from that time period paints Wilt as larger than life and any story since promotes Bill using modern narratives like
"he just wanted to win, man!"
"he didn't care about numbers"
"he had a killer instinct that set him apart"
"he always found a way"
"he was so smart"
All these statements just happen to appear well after he retired. Odd.
Maybe he was an athletically gifted big with great defensive instinct (as well as feel for the game in general) who anchored a talented team which was running schemes way ahead of their time (Red).

[ClipperRevival]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1KsYB0Jsew

[Stephonit]

All these statements just happen to appear well after he retired. Odd.


Actually it's not odd. That generation had to explain to later generations why it was 11 rings to Russell and only 2 for Chamberlain. They had to reassess their previous narratives and come up with new ones because the facts didn't fit.

[FKAri]

Actually it's not odd. That generation had to explain to later generations why it was 11 rings to Russell and only 2 for Chamberlain. They had to reassess their previous narratives and come up with new ones because the facts didn't fit.

Reality wasn't as sexy as the narratives the NBA wanted to create. Basketball's a team sport but it's always been marketed by its individual stars. The narratives are formed accordingly.

[Vino24]

When it comes down to it Russell has the bigger will to WIN. You can’t coach that. Russell has the street hunger to win at all costs. Let’s stop pretending that Russell’s teams were far better than Wilt’s. Almost every chip was closely contended. Russell on Wilt’s team would still produce at least 6-7 chips.

[bizil]

When it comes down to it Russell has the bigger will to WIN. You can’t coach that. Russell has the street hunger to win at all costs. Let’s stop pretending that Russell’s teams were far better than Wilt’s. Almost every chip was closely contended. Russell on Wilt’s team would still produce at least 6-7 chips.


LMAO!!!!!! Do you REALIZE how many HOFers Russ played with in his prime??? So I guess Elgin, West, Big o, and Bob P DIDN'T have the will to win either!!! There's A DAMN REASON Boston ran off all those rings! So if you are gonna knock Wilt, YOU BETTER BE damn ready to knock the other legends of that era. Plus plain and simple, Russ had NO ALPHA DOG CRED in terms of scoring the rock! No way Russ gets 6-7 rings if he and Wilt swapped teams!

[Vino24]

LMAO!!!!!! Do you REALIZE how many HOFers Russ played with in his prime??? So I guess Elgin, West, Big o, and Bob P DIDN'T have the will to win either!!! There's A DAMN REASON Boston ran off all those rings! So if you are gonna knock Wilt, YOU BETTER BE damn ready to knock the other legends of that era. Plus plain and simple, Russ had NO ALPHA DOG CRED in terms of scoring the rock! No way Russ gets 6-7 rings if he and Wilt swapped teams!
They were HOFers because they played with Russell. No Russell no chips, no hall of fame

[bizil]

They were HOFers because they played with Russell. No Russell no chips, no hall of fame

Bob Cousy was an HOFer because of Russ??? LMAO Hondo became an HOFer because of Russ?? LMAO Sam Jones became an HOFer because of Russ?? LMAO!!!! Russ was NEVER the best scorer of those Boston teams!!!! BUT Russ was nonetheless the best player BECAUSE he was the most complete player. Wilt was THE BEST SCORER and MOST COMPLETE player on his teams in his prime!!! Legit great at scoring, passing, rebounding, and defending his position.

[Overdrive]

They were HOFers because they played with Russell. No Russell no chips, no hall of fame

Like Hondo?

The Celtics were the Durant Warriors of their era.

[ClipperRevival]

LMAO!!!!!! Do you REALIZE how many HOFers Russ played with in his prime??? So I guess Elgin, West, Big o, and Bob P DIDN'T have the will to win either!!! There's A DAMN REASON Boston ran off all those rings! So if you are gonna knock Wilt, YOU BETTER BE damn ready to knock the other legends of that era. Plus plain and simple, Russ had NO ALPHA DOG CRED in terms of scoring the rock! No way Russ gets 6-7 rings if he and Wilt swapped teams!


How many legit HOFers did Russ play with based on ON-COURT merit? Cousy, Havlicek and Jones for sure. Who else? Heinsohn? Sharman? The fact is, several of the guys who got voted in are there BECAUSE of Russ.

It's also a fact that Russ won rings with different sets of teammates. First it was Cousy. In the back end of his career, it was Havlicek. Jones was in there for the most part. But the one constant was Russ.

Russ was just a winner. He won 13 championships in 15 seasons when you count his 2 final seasons in the NCAA and 13 as a pro. Wilt was better in a vacuum but he had a beta mentality and didn't try to kill you and played an inferior brand of ball.

[ClipperRevival]

Bob Cousy was an HOFer because of Russ??? LMAO Hondo became an HOFer because of Russ?? LMAO Sam Jones became an HOFer because of Russ?? LMAO!!!! Russ was NEVER the best scorer of those Boston teams!!!! BUT Russ was nonetheless the best player BECAUSE he was the most complete player. Wilt was THE BEST SCORER and MOST COMPLETE player on his teams in his prime!!! Legit great at scoring, passing, rebounding, and defending his position.

If you are arguing that in a vacuum, Wilt was the superior player, i don't think ANYONE would disagree. But winning and team bball isn't just about that. It's about chemistry. Would Wilt have bought into taking a lesser role for better team flow? And did Wilt have that killer mentality? The former, you can teach. The latter, i don't think you can. You're either a killer on the court or you're not. You either want to take souls and crush your opponent or you don't. I uploaded a video about Wilt's mentality in this thread. Hear the people in that era talk about this for yourself.

[ClipperRevival]

Another tidbit while we are on the subject.

Russell is 10-0 in game 7's with (18.6 PPG, 29.3 RPG)

And 9 of them were in different seasons. Meaning he could've very well had 2 rings instead of 11 if he had lost all of those game 7s! Ponder that for a second.

[bizil]

How many legit HOFers did Russ play with based on ON-COURT merit? Cousy, Havlicek and Jones for sure. Who else? Heinsohn? Sharman? The fact is, several of the guys who got voted in are there BECAUSE of Russ.

It's also a fact that Russ won rings with different sets of teammates. First it was Cousy. In the back end of his career, it was Havlicek. Jones was in there for the most part. But the one constant was Russ.

Russ was just a winner. He won 13 championships in 15 seasons when you count his 2 final seasons in the NCAA and 13 as a pro. Wilt was better in a vacuum but he had a beta mentality and didn't try to kill you and played an inferior brand of ball.


Learn how to comprehend stuff. That poster said THOSE GUYS were HOFers because of Russ. He never made THE PROPER DISTINCTION! Secondly, Heinsohn and Sharman WERE STILL very good players. NO SCRUBS get into the HOF!!!

So you are telling that Russ's BETA SCORING ASS was BY FAR the main reason Boston won all those rings???? What about the scoring help that COVERED UP THE FLAWS in Russ's scoring ability. Just like Russ' floor game masked weakness, the guys OFFENISVELY around him MADE HIS LIFE EASIER TOO! I'm getting tired of posters PUMPING UP Russ's peak-prime status. GOAT status, he's on the Mt. Rushmore.

BUT peak-prime wise, I can name at least 7-8 guys centers or PF-C types i'd rather have. I'm ALSO tired of posters not giving Russ's teammates their proper credit! And the notion that Wilt is a BETA is laughable!!! As a BETA he was HANDS DOWN the best player on the planet in that era. And playing an inferior brand of ball he put up 100 in a game, averaged 50 in a season, lead the league in boards, lead the league in dimes, etc. GTFOH!!!!

[dankok8]

Learn how to comprehend stuff. That poster said THOSE GUYS were HOFers because of Russ. He never made THE PROPER DISTINCTION! Secondly, Heinsohn and Sharman WERE STILL very good players. NO SCRUBS get into the HOF!!!

So you are telling that Russ's BETA SCORING ASS was BY FAR the main reason Boston won all those rings???? What about the scoring help that COVERED UP THE FLAWS in Russ's scoring ability. Just like Russ' floor game masked weakness, the guys OFFENISVELY around him MADE HIS LIFE EASIER TOO! I'm getting tired of posters PUMPING UP Russ's peak-prime status. GOAT status, he's on the Mt. Rushmore.

BUT peak-prime wise, I can name at least 7-8 guys centers or PF-C types i'd rather have. I'm ALSO tired of posters not giving Russ's teammates their proper credit! And the notion that Wilt is a BETA is laughable!!! As a BETA he was HANDS DOWN the best player on the planet in that era. And playing an inferior brand of ball he put up 100 in a game, averaged 50 in a season, lead the league in boards, lead the league in dimes, etc. GTFOH!!!!

It wasn't Russell's BETA SCORING ASS that made the Celtics the best team but it was his ALPHA DEFENSIVE ASS. If you believe literally any metrics out there, Russell is by far the greatest defensive player of all time relative to his era. One common misconception is that Wilt who unofficially blocked as many and probably more shots than Russell was just as good a defender. He wasn't. Not even close. Russell was significantly better on the defensive end than Wilt over the course of their careers. And when Wilt played amazing defense in 1967 and 1972 (though still not on Russell's level of impact) his own scoring numbers weren't particularly impressive either. And it wasn't just Wilt who couldn't touch Russell's impact on defense. Neither could Thurmond, Kareem, Unseld all of whom are all time great defensive big men.

Here is a quick link I could find on Russell's defensive dominance:

https://elgee35.wordpress.com/2010/12/31/bill-russells-defensive-impact/

Another misconception with Wilt is that he always played like a good teammate, focused on finding his teammates good shots etc. like he did in 1967. He didn't. In fact that year was an aberration. In 1968 and 1969 he was too passive and early in his career he was focused on scoring, scoring, and more scoring even at the expense of others. The way late career Wilt played was nothing like his early years and yet his fans try to conflate the best of both worlds. That Wilt was a GOAT scorer and great teammate at the same time. He never was.

You can pick 7-8 better bigs than Russell using the time machine argument. Of course Russell teleported to today wouldn't be how he was then. But a guy of Russell's talent, basically Anthony Davis' size and athleticism, but with better basketball IQ, being born today and benefitting from today's training methods, nutrition etc. would be an absolute force of nature. And at the end of the day we judge players based on their own era.

[Axe]

Another tidbit while we are on the subject.

Russell is 10-0 in game 7's with (18.6 PPG, 29.3 RPG)

And 9 of them were in different seasons. Meaning he could've very well had 2 rings instead of 11 if he had lost all of those game 7s! Ponder that for a second.
In the finals he had game 7s that also included some comebacks from 3-2 deficits and also some almost blown leads.