Printable View
[CENTER][IMG]http://i2.cdn.turner.com/si/2009/writers/steve_aschburner/01/06/all.time/russell-chamberlain.jpg[/IMG][/CENTER]
This is becoming an increasingly popular topic on ISH. They had a great rivalry. Maybe the greatest.
So who should be ranked higher All-Time, and why. State your cases people.
[QUOTE=Doctor K][CENTER][IMG]http://i2.cdn.turner.com/si/2009/writers/steve_aschburner/01/06/all.time/russell-chamberlain.jpg[/IMG][/CENTER]
This is becoming an increasingly popular topic on ISH. They had a great rivalry. Maybe the greatest.
So who should be ranked higher All-Time, and why. State your cases people.[/QUOTE]
There is no argument for Chamberlain.
Russell beat him in 9 out of 10 common seasons despite having an equal or lesser supporting cast than Wilt more often than not.
Russell understood how to win, Wilt did not; end of story.
I never got to watch them during there time so I cannot say. But what I can say is even if Wilt did only play for stats, no other player has ever done the things he has done. So even if it wasn't for the right reasons, he still did things that were amazing.
[B]Wilt he was the Better Player in almost Every Aspect of the Game but Foor Defense.
Russell was lucky to play with Superior Teamates throughout his career[/B]
[QUOTE=hayden695]I never got to watch them during there time so I cannot say. But what I can say is even if Wilt did only play for stats, no other player has ever done the things he has done. So even if it wasn't for the right reasons, he still did things that were amazing.[/QUOTE]
More amazing than 11 NBA titles, 2 NCAA titles and a Gold Medal in 15 years?
More amazing having the most Championships in the history all American team sports, winning the only title ever as a player coach and doing it again the next year?
More amazing than being undefeated in game sevens and averagin more points, rebounds and assists in those games than you did during any season of your career?
So far the arguments for each side are pretty funny. Not really true.
Overall sustained dominance: Russell
Peak season dominance: Chamberlain
Was said best by a contemporary, [I]"Had Wilt played his entire career as he did in '67, he'd be regarded as a different player."[/I]
[QUOTE=CB4GOATPF][B]Wilt he was the Better Player in almost Every Aspect of the Game but Foor Defense.
Russell was lucky to play with Superior Teamates throughout his career[/B][/QUOTE]
Not true.
Russell played with four top 50 all-time players (Jones, Hondo, Cousy, Sharman) and Wilt six (Cunningham, Baylor, West, Greer, Arizin, Thurmond)
Russell team mates combined for 26 all-star games in his career; Wilt's for 24.
[QUOTE=Abraham Lincoln]Overall sustained dominance: Russell
Peak season dominance: Chamberlain
Was said best by a contemporary, [B]"Had Wilt played his entire career as he did in '67, he'd be regarded as a different player."[/B][/QUOTE]
The only legit case for Wilt.
Wilt Chamberlain. Both were Top 10 Players of All-Time, but Wilt was just plain better.
[SIZE="4"]He outrebounded and outscored Russell in [I][U]every[/U][/I] Head to Head series they've had whether it was the playoffs or regular season. [/SIZE]
:applause:
I mean, when you individually dominate a player like that, it's over. Nothing else needs to be said. I don't think even great big men like Hakeem, Duncan, O'Neal, etc. can say that over another great big man.
And before someone brings up "who won?"
Wilt Chamberlain says
[I]
"When my teams played against Boston," Chamberlain has said, "I'd play my heart out against Russell, and someone else on my team would blow the game."[/I]
In other words, winning or losing is decided by teams. We are comparing 2 individual players here. Winning/losing should count too, but that should not be the basis for the argument about individual players.
[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]More amazing than 11 NBA titles, 2 NCAA titles and a Gold Medal in 15 years?
More amazing having the most Championships in the history all American team sports, winning the only title ever as a player coach and doing it again the next year?
More amazing than being undefeated in game sevens and averagin more points, rebounds and assists in those games than you did during any season of your career?[/QUOTE]
I wasn't trying to diminish Russell, I was just saying that people like to point out how Wilt only played for stats, which I believe to be true, but no one else has done those things so we can't say they are moot because he did it for the wrong reasons. As for the arguement if I were making a team Russell would be my number 1 choice.
Russell said himself when he was a commentator for CBS that Wilt on the Lakers was playing his role better than he ever did.
I still think the stat difference is a lot greater than the difference in their impact though. I suspect that if Wilt were in a situation like Russell where he had thrown away the playoff game(russell throwing the ball off the wire and out of bounds) and he asked his teammates to bail him out hed get blank stares and not "Havlicek steals it....over to sam Jones...Havlicek stole the ball!"
I suspect russells teammates went a little harder because of him and that Wilts might have been a little less motivated to follow him.
[QUOTE=Kblaze8855]
I suspect russells teammates went a little harder because of him and that Wilts might have been a little less motivated to follow him.[/QUOTE]
Spot on. Exactly why it isn't even close.
[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]Not true.
Russell played with four top 50 all-time players (Jones, Hondo, Cousy, Sharman) and Wilt six (Cunningham, Baylor, West, Greer, Arizin, Thurmond)
Russell team mates combined for 26 all-star games in his career; Wilt's for 24.[/QUOTE]
[B]Baylor was in the downside of his career when he playing with Wilt age 34 plus. Was still great but he wasn
Bill Russel is just a Dikembe Mutombo type of player. He just happened to win many rings because he was on a great team in a league with only 8 or less other teams. Can you imagine if today's Boston celtics played in a league agaisnt teams like Nets, New York, Minnesota, Thunders, Raptors and Warriors all year long? They would win 11 championships too.
What the hell is PER gonna say here? Ignoring the inaccuracy of the number to begin with....you dont even have all numbers from those days.
And as for Russell being lucky....
What did the Celtics do without him exactly? You show 4 guys in the top 20 in PER in 58.....Russell being one of them. They had 3 of them...and an additional all star in Ed Macauley in 55 and 56...pre Russell. Went 500 and won 3 playoff games one year and went 39-33 the next and won just one playoff game. What did all that PER do to help?
[QUOTE=PistonsFan#21]Bill Russel is just a Dikembe Mutombo type of player. He just happened to win many rings because he was on a great team in a league with only 8 or less other teams. Can you imagine if today's Boston celtics played in a league agaisnt teams like Nets, New York, Minnesota, Thunders, Raptors and Warriors all year long? They would win 11 championships too.[/QUOTE]
[B]Disagree that he was only Dikembe type player. Russel had Great Floor Defense, Stealer, Pick Pocketer etc...more like Garnett with a weaker offensive arsenal compared to Othe Great Centers. He was good passer too.[/B]
Russell, because of his success and leadership. Individual stats can only get you so far. This is a team sport people.
[QUOTE=JustinJDW]Russell, because of his success and leadership. Individual stats can only get you so far. [U][B]This is a team sport people[/B][/U].[/QUOTE]
[B]That is why he won, HIS TEAM not Just Him. There where even some season where some of his temates had a Superior PER than Russell (although he was mostly their best player). He was blessed like no other Sports figure to Play Along Side SUPERSTARS THAT WHERE IN THEIR PRIME WHILE HE WAS IN HIS PRIME FOR OVER A DECADE.
Wilt was Better than Russell clearly as a player, he just didn
I'll go with Wilt. He could dominate a game at both ends. And starting in 1967, I cant think of one thing Russell did better than Chamberlain.
[QUOTE=ShaqAttack3234]I cant think of one thing Russell did better than Chamberlain.[/QUOTE]
Than you're a fu[COLOR="Black"]c[/COLOR]king idiot. No two ways about it.
[QUOTE=G.O.A.T][B]Than[/B] you're a fu[COLOR="Black"]c[/COLOR]king idiot. No two ways about it.[/QUOTE]
:roll: Says the moron who doesn't know the difference between than and then. What did Russell do better than Wilt in seasons like 1967 and 1972? Russell himself said that Wilt played his role better than he ever did.
I don't understand how people can be so absurd as to ignore all the evidence that shows how clearly superior in every aspect of competition Russell was to Wilt.
Wilt was taller, stronger, faster, (not a quicker jumper however), more naturally skilled and as he'd tell you better looking.
Still Russell made every player better by a significant margin and absolutley dominated the NBA.
Celtics: 0 titles before Russell
They Win the title his first year and every series he plays in completely (except one vs. Philly in '67) for the next thirteen years.
Every player that was on the team when Russell entered the league was gone before he retired, he kept on winning.
The year after he retires ('70) they miss the playoffs.
The next year they miss the playoffs.
'72 Wilt and the Lakers who Russell owned, win their first title and set an NBA record for wins.
In '73 they win more games than anyone ever except the Lakers the year prior, they get upset before the Finals by New York. The Celtics lose a game seven for the first time in franchise history on their home floor.
They win titles in '74 and '76 two of the three most diluted talent pool seasons in NBA history. The '76 team is widely considered by Boston fans their worst title team.
Important to note the one constant piece in all this for Boston is Red Auerbach who claimed that without Russell the Celtics would have never won a single title.
Here's the bottom line:
Russell is the single greatest winner in the history of Sports and the argument against him is for a guy he consistently whooped regardless of who had the better supporting cast.
Even worse it's based on stats which Wilt cared about more than anything and Russell less than anything.
It's like you've all (who pick Wilt) have been proven wrong by history and are still dumb enough to fall for it again.
It's not like it's close here folks, or that they played in different eras, or different positions, or that one guy had more talented team mates than the other.
Wilt was traded twice. If he was a better player than the guy that 11 Championships were built around, why would anyone trade him?
Ask yourself that, what GM is so fu[COLOR="Black"]c[/COLOR]king dumb that he trades someone as good as Wilt.
Why does Auerbach say he would have never coached Wilt if he was better than Russell.
Why does almost everyone who played with or against the two pick Russell?
Why? Why? Why?
[QUOTE=ShaqAttack3234]You're right I am a fu[COLOR="Black"]c[/COLOR]king idi[COLOR="Black"]o[/COLOR]t. Sorry, I'll check myself next time.[/QUOTE]
Finally we agree on something.
[QUOTE=CB4GOATPF][B]Wilt he was the Better Player in almost Every Aspect of the Game but Foor Defense.
Russell was lucky to play with Superior Teamates throughout his career[/B][/QUOTE]
bill simmons book easily debunks this theory.
there have been so many anti-wilt comments made by former teammates and opponents (as oppose to russell, whom everyone speaks highly of) that alone should end the debate.
wilt's "i can't foul out of a game" rule (that he imposed on himself) was so stupid he actually avoided contact after he had his 5th foul. think about this for a second--how much did he hurt his team by keeping this foolish record? he put his stats and records over his team always.
there is no argument for wilt over russell what so ever.
[QUOTE=EricForman]bill simmons book easily debunks this theory.
there have been so many anti-wilt comments made by former teammates and opponents (as oppose to russell, whom everyone speaks highly of) that alone should end the debate.
wilt's "never foul out" rule was so stupid he actually avoided contact after he had his 5th foul. he put his stats and records over his team always.
there is no argument for wilt over russell waht so ever.[/QUOTE]
Thank you for educating yourself and listening to those smarter (or at least more informed) than you. And as your usernames father would say (to those about to make a predictably misguided retort) "Not Bill Simmons dumbass"
[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]Finally we agree on something.[/QUOTE]
And you're how old, moron? That has to be the most childish thing you can do. Editing my posts. Seriously, what purpose does that even serve?
The funny thing is that your entire argument for Russell over Chamberlain is based on TEAM success. Russell was on a GREAT team. Team success only goes so far when comparing individual players.
And it's funny how you say that he made every player better by a significant margin. How do you have any way of knowing that? In fact John Havlicek had his best seasons after Russell retired, Bob Cousy was already Bob Cousy before Russell entered the league and most of the other key players( Sam Jones, Tom Heinsohn ect.) played their entire careers with Russell so it's impossible to know how much better Russell made them.
These guys were great players in their own right. Lets not act like you could put any 4 scrubs next to Russell and they'd win a title. In fact I'd bet on Chamberlain taking a team of scrubs farther because unlike Russell, he could carry a team offensively.
When Wilt played on stacked teams he had some pretty amazing success in his own right. 68-13 record and a title in '67, 62 wins and a game 7 loss in the Eastern Division Finals in '68 with Billy Cunningham injured and a 69-13 record, NBA championship and a record 33 game winning streak. That's also excluding another 60 win season and three other finals appearances.
You want to hear something amazing? In '67, Wilt's 76ers broke the record for most wins in a season and 5 years his Lakers broke that record while setting a record winning streak that still stands today.
And as far as Wilt being traded? Wilt demanded the second trade and the first trade was more because of off the court issues.
Go watch all of the footage available of Wilt and Russell and then tell me that Russell dominated games like Chamberlain did.
Wilt is the most insecure individual to ever step on the court. He could not praise another man without bringing him down. Even when speaking on Russel, the guy who constantly whooped his ass, he would say, that he could do it better if in that position.
[QUOTE=plowking]Wilt is the most insecure individual to ever step on the court. He could not praise another man without bringing him down. Even when speaking on Russel, the guy who constantly whooped his ass, he would say, that he could do it better if in that position.[/QUOTE]
His creedence differed over the course of time.
At 2:00 mark below
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTMfGVjfwbM[/url]
and two decades later at 1:22 mark below
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2CqQ4x3klT4[/url]
Part of the great Celtics dynasty goes to Red as well, for the greatest duo in league history Russell & Red had a relationship like few player/coaches have ever had in sport. Russell came into a great situation, & milked it for all it was worth whilst doing exactly what was needed to achieve the goal, beit no more no less. Chamberlain did not have the same sort of stability on a team until his 2nd go round with Coach Hannum in Philadelphia. Indeed they should have been a dynasty if not for a number of circumstances. Earlier in his career, the Warriors were struggling financially therefore encouraging Chamberlain to average as spectacular numbers as be possible.
Chamberlain's problem was not his ego, but rather his psychological versatility. He may very well have had some unknown problems. He was not a natural leader, nor was he a silent willing follower. All prior to the drill seargant Alex Hannum & later on the patient teacher Bill Sharman.
However, Russell vs. Chamberlain vs. O'Neal vs. Abdul-Jabbar is a matter of preference in what the evaluator puts the most stock into. Part of the reason why Russell has been disrespected on various boards be the lack of understanding the player evaluation process. Judge a player by how well he completes HIS objective's, not how well he completes the evaluator's creedence of his objective. [I]"Better to understand than to be understood."[/I] Despite the numbers, championships, etc, the wise man prefers to value players based on single season play. And Wilt in '67 was in my opinion the most dominant anybody has ever been. Right next to such other legendary center years as '00 O'Neal, '62 Russell, '71 Alcindor, '94 Olajuwon, & '83 Malone.
Russell was, among else, the greatest winner, defender, one of the greatest passers among big men and arguably also the greatest rebounder ever. Is this enough to put him over Wilt? Well, for one, it strikes me as curious and hypocritical that there are so many people who rank him above Wilt due to these values and yet almost nobody ranks him as the GOAT overall player, because when it comes to the Russell vs Jordan/Kareem discussions, then all this stuff suddenly takes the back seat and arise the matters of his HOF teammates, his mediocre scoring and shooting percentages and so on.
I myself rank these qualities pretty high, and that's why I'm not among the ones who rank Shaq or Hakeem ahead of Russell, but to take him over Wilt?
Someone posted before that Wilt outscored and outrebounded Russell in all their R.S + playoff series. That's true. Here are the numbers (points + rebounds):
1960 R.S
Wilt: 39.1/29.7
Russell: 19.8/23.7
1960 P.O
Wilt: 30.5/27.5
Russell: 20.7/27.0
1961 R.S
Wilt: 35.5/31.4
Russell: 18.8/25.9
1962 R.S
Wilt: 39.7/28.8
Russell: 18.5/24.6
1962 P.O
Wilt: 33.6/26.9
Russell: 22.0/25.9
1963 R.S
Wilt: 38.1/28.9
Russell: 14.6/27.8
1964 R.S
Wilt: 28.7/26.0
Russell: 14.1/24.3
1964 P.O
Wilt: 29.2/27.6
Russell: 11.2/25.2
1965 R.S
Wilt: 25.3/26.5
Russell: 12.6/22.2
1965 P.O
Wilt: 30.1/31.4
Russell: 15.6/25.3
1966 R.S
Wilt: 28.3/30.7
Russell: 10.5/20.5
1966 P.O
Wilt: 28.0/30.2
Russell: 14.0/26.2
1967 R.S
Wilt: 20.3/26.7
Russell: 12.2/21.1
1967 P.O
Wilt: 21.6/32.0 (also 10.0 apg and more than 6 bpg)
Russell: 11.4/23.4
1968 R.S
Wilt: 17.1/26.1
Russell: 7.8/17.5
1968 P.O
Wilt: 22.1/25.1
Russell: 13.7/23.9
1969 R.S
Wilt: 16.3/24.0
Russell: 6.7/17.0
1969 P.O
Wilt: 11.7/25.0 (Wilt's worst series against Russell)
Russell: 9.1/21.1
Honestly, if the playoff series wins were split (let alone in Wilt's favor) is there anyone at all who would even consider taking Russell?
Moving one step further and responding to the argument that Wilt also had great teammates after the early 60's, here are some lines of the two in selected games [B]that Boston won[/B]:
Wilt: 29/26, Russell: 3/27, with 0 FGM (1966)
Wilt: 46/34, Russell: 18/31 (1966 playoffs)
Wilt: 30/28, Russell: 10/29 (1967)
Wilt: 26/23, Russell: 4/26 (1967)
Wilt: 28/30, Russell: 8/24 (1968 playoffs)
Wilt: 35/19, Russell 5/16 (1969),
and these are seasons when Wilt had good teammates (I won't even mention some even more impressive lines by Wilt in older games that Boston won). Did he dominate the ball too much and trusted his teammates too little? Not really. That Wilt was a damn good passer, as well, posting 5+ apg in 4 different seasons.
Maybe it could be that, apart from the known blames of Wilt's playoff failures (and some mediocre, for his level, games), his otherwise "great" teammates didn't exactly do much to raise to the occasion, either:
Billy Cunningham was one of the best rookies of the 1966 season. Then, he completely blew it in the playoffs. Hal Greer, a 44.5% FG shooter, dove to [B]35.2%[/B] against the Celtics (and his overall scoring went way down, as well). Chet Walker, a 45.2% FG shooter, went [B]37.5%[/B] in that series. These guys sucked way more than Wilt did, yet nobody remembers this. Add to this an inexperienced coach (Schayes) who never managed to even begin controling the egos of his players and his career practically was over before it even began (compare this to Russell having arguably the GOAT coach) and you have a recipe for disaster.
Ironically, the game when Wilt trusted his teammates more than any other time (7th ECF in 1968) was also a game for which Wilt takes almost all the blame, and was another game when his teammates flopped badly. Because, if Greer, Jones and Walker could hit just a respectable % of their FG's instead of once against being in the low-mid 30's, the Sixers would be the NBA Finalists (and probably champions, as well) and nobody would now know that Wilt barely even shot in that second half. Instead, he might very well have a 3rd ring, increasing his GOAT case among fans.
1969? It was Wilt's least productive series against Russell. Also, it was Baylor's least productive series against the Celtics, as well, and Baylor actually played even worse. If Wilt couldn't do a bit more (while guarded by Russell), why couldn't Baylor? It could be enough to give the Lakers the ring, which would increase Wilt's resume even more. Wilt, with 3 rings in a row (and 4 overall, along with 1972) would now be considered as having solved the Celtics' mystique and a legit winner, [B]while doing nothing more than he did[/B]. All it takes would be a little more help from some teammates who are now simply branded "too good to lose a title with them". Just like it took a little more help from Jordan's teammates and a great coach to earn him rings in the 90's, despite Jordan not being really better individually in his title seasons than, say, the 1988-90 ones, so we don't have strange debates like "who was greater, Jordan or Isiah Thomas".
(Baylor, btw, also had an equally mediocre 1970 Finals series, and Wilt in both series took a low number of FGA's, so it's not as if their roles collided).
[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]Not true.
Russell played with four top 50 all-time players (Jones, Hondo, Cousy, Sharman) and Wilt six (Cunningham, Baylor, West, Greer, Arizin, Thurmond)
Russell team mates combined for 26 all-star games in his career; Wilt's for 24.[/QUOTE]
We must be fair now GOAT. Russ was lucky to have played with one team,one concept,and one coach. That makes a huge difference, so to say that Russ is better just because his team did better is somewhat misleading. With that being said I do believe Russ was the better lockeroom,bench,floor teammate which as the team leader makes a big difference in your team winning this is where i give Russ the edge.
[QUOTE=Niquesports]We must be fair now GOAT. Russ was lucky to have played with one team,one concept,and one coach. That makes a huge difference, so to say that Russ is better just because his team did better is somewhat misleading. With that being said I do believe Russ was the better lockeroom,bench,floor teammate which as the team leader makes a big difference in your team winning this is where i give Russ the edge.[/QUOTE]
I just don't think it's luck; ALL of Russell's team mates credit him with leading them. They all felt more confident because of what he was able to do and how confident he was.
Also great posts Abe and Psileas! Much respect for your opinions.
Red deserves a ton of credit, he realized he needed a guy like Russell and gave up a proven all-star to get him.
As I've said before Wilt in '67 was better than Russell ever was because he used all the skills he had to help the team win instead of to break records. Unfortunately in the 10 season their career paths crossed this was the only one Wilt was committed to team and thus it's a no brainer (or maybe I should call it a Shaqattack) that Russell had the superior career. 9 titles to one.
For those who don't understand why the titles argument matters so muchy and is not just a TEAM accomplishment. Basketball is of course a Team game and a players goals are to help his team win. No player had a greater impact on his team mates and led to them winning more than Russell. He spent the first few months before he joined the Celtics studying and evaluating every single player in the league, had a mental library of information and understood how to play the physiological game.
Russell would let Wilt get all the rebounds and take all the shots early (according to team mates) so that Wilt's team mates would not be able to get in the flow of the game and so he could conserve energy to shut him down late (which he did in nearly every must win game vs. Wilt. The Havlicek steals the ball game and game 5 of the '67 Division finals.
All of Russell's numbers went up in the playoffs and up again in the finals, all of Wilts numbers peaked in the regular season...
Could it be more obvious?
[QUOTE=Psileas]Russell was, among else, the greatest winner, defender, one of the greatest passers among big men and arguably also the greatest rebounder ever. Is this enough to put him over Wilt? Well, for one, it strikes me as curious and hypocritical that there are so many people who rank him above Wilt due to these values and yet almost nobody ranks him as the GOAT overall player, because when it comes to the Russell vs Jordan/Kareem discussions, then all this stuff suddenly takes the back seat and arise the matters of his HOF teammates, his mediocre scoring and shooting percentages and so on.
I myself rank these qualities pretty high, and that's why I'm not among the ones who rank Shaq or Hakeem ahead of Russell, but to take him over Wilt?
Someone posted before that Wilt outscored and outrebounded Russell in all their R.S + playoff series. That's true. Here are the numbers (points + rebounds):
1960 R.S
Wilt: 39.1/29.7
Russell: 19.8/23.7
1960 P.O
Wilt: 30.5/27.5
Russell: 20.7/27.0
1961 R.S
Wilt: 35.5/31.4
Russell: 18.8/25.9
1962 R.S
Wilt: 39.7/28.8
Russell: 18.5/24.6
1962 P.O
Wilt: 33.6/26.9
Russell: 22.0/25.9
1963 R.S
Wilt: 38.1/28.9
Russell: 14.6/27.8
1964 R.S
Wilt: 28.7/26.0
Russell: 14.1/24.3
1964 P.O
Wilt: 29.2/27.6
Russell: 11.2/25.2
1965 R.S
Wilt: 25.3/26.5
Russell: 12.6/22.2
1965 P.O
Wilt: 30.1/31.4
Russell: 15.6/25.3
1966 R.S
Wilt: 28.3/30.7
Russell: 10.5/20.5
1966 P.O
Wilt: 28.0/30.2
Russell: 14.0/26.2
1967 R.S
Wilt: 20.3/26.7
Russell: 12.2/21.1
1967 P.O
Wilt: 21.6/32.0 (also 10.0 apg and more than 6 bpg)
Russell: 11.4/23.4
1968 R.S
Wilt: 17.1/26.1
Russell: 7.8/17.5
1968 P.O
Wilt: 22.1/25.1
Russell: 13.7/23.9
1969 R.S
Wilt: 16.3/24.0
Russell: 6.7/17.0
1969 P.O
Wilt: 11.7/25.0 (Wilt's worst series against Russell)
Russell: 9.1/21.1
Honestly, if the playoff series wins were split (let alone in Wilt's favor) is there anyone at all who would even consider taking Russell?
Moving one step further and responding to the argument that Wilt also had great teammates after the early 60's, here are some lines of the two in selected games [B]that Boston won[/B]:
Wilt: 29/26, Russell: 3/27, with 0 FGM (1966)
Wilt: 46/34, Russell: 18/31 (1966 playoffs)
Wilt: 30/28, Russell: 10/29 (1967)
Wilt: 26/23, Russell: 4/26 (1967)
Wilt: 28/30, Russell: 8/24 (1968 playoffs)
Wilt: 35/19, Russell 5/16 (1969),
and these are seasons when Wilt had good teammates (I won't even mention some even more impressive lines by Wilt in older games that Boston won). Did he dominate the ball too much and trusted his teammates too little? Not really. That Wilt was a damn good passer, as well, posting 5+ apg in 4 different seasons.
Maybe it could be that, apart from the known blames of Wilt's playoff failures (and some mediocre, for his level, games), his otherwise "great" teammates didn't exactly do much to raise to the occasion, either:
Billy Cunningham was one of the best rookies of the 1966 season. Then, he completely blew it in the playoffs. Hal Greer, a 44.5% FG shooter, dove to [B]35.2%[/B] against the Celtics (and his overall scoring went way down, as well). Chet Walker, a 45.2% FG shooter, went [B]37.5%[/B] in that series. These guys sucked way more than Wilt did, yet nobody remembers this. Add to this an inexperienced coach (Schayes) who never managed to even begin controling the egos of his players and his career practically was over before it even began (compare this to Russell having arguably the GOAT coach) and you have a recipe for disaster.
Ironically, the game when Wilt trusted his teammates more than any other time (7th ECF in 1968) was also a game for which Wilt takes almost all the blame, and was another game when his teammates flopped badly. Because, if Greer, Jones and Walker could hit just a respectable % of their FG's instead of once against being in the low-mid 30's, the Sixers would be the NBA Finalists (and probably champions, as well) and nobody would now know that Wilt barely even shot in that second half. Instead, he might very well have a 3rd ring, increasing his GOAT case among fans.
1969? It was Wilt's least productive series against Russell. Also, it was Baylor's least productive series against the Celtics, as well, and Baylor actually played even worse. If Wilt couldn't do a bit more (while guarded by Russell), why couldn't Baylor? It could be enough to give the Lakers the ring, which would increase Wilt's resume even more. Wilt, with 3 rings in a row (and 4 overall, along with 1972) would now be considered as having solved the Celtics' mystique and a legit winner, [B]while doing nothing more than he did[/B]. All it takes would be a little more help from some teammates who are now simply branded "too good to lose a title with them". Just like it took a little more help from Jordan's teammates and a great coach to earn him rings in the 90's, despite Jordan not being really better individually in his title seasons than, say, the 1988-90 ones, so we don't have strange debates like "who was greater, Jordan or Isiah Thomas".
(Baylor, btw, also had an equally mediocre 1970 Finals series, and Wilt in both series took a low number of FGA's, so it's not as if their roles collided).[/QUOTE]
:applause: Great post. Well done with all of that research. I'm fascinated by 60's basketball myself because I'm too young to have watched it and such little footage is available so I have 2 questions.
1.How many games of Chamberlain and Russell are available that are basically in their entirety?
2.Where did you find all of those numbers?
Looking at those early years, in particular the 1960 and 1962 playoffs. Wilt was getting his team 10 more points per game offensively and narrowly winning the rebounding battle.
Now we have to ask ourselves, did Russell pick up that many more assists than Wilt even back then? No, probably 2-3 more per game in those series accounting for roughly half of those points. And while Russell's style did allow his teammates to play well offensively, lets not act like having the most dominant offensive player's presence didn't help Wilt's teammates either. Watch old footage and you'll often see Wilt getting doubled without the ball.
Did Russell prevent 5-6 or more ppg defensively than Wilt? That may be a little generous. Because of Wilt's offensive dominance, his defense is often forgotten. Most basketball historians would agree that if the stats were kept at the time, Wilt would probably hold the all time blocks record, his presence in the paint also intimidated nearly everyone(as most players at the time would agree with), his unmatched size and strength made him very hard to post up and he took up so much space in the lane. So we can't forget that Wilt was preventing a ton of baskets himself.
Another thing many forget. In the 1960 playoffs, Auerbach told Tom heinsohn to foul Chamberlain when the Warriors shot free throws so Chamberlain couldn't get back and block shots. Heinsohn frusturated Chamberlain so much that Chamberlain punched Heinsohn and injured his hand. The series had been split back in Boston, but Philadelphia lost the following 2 games after Chamberlain's injuries before winning again in game 5 with Chamberlain back at full strength scoring 50 points. Heinsohn won game 6 on a last second tip in. So really, Chamberlain's hand injury may have been the difference and Wilt was only a rookie. Even Heinsohn admitted that many of the plays against Chamberlain were dirty.
In 1962, The Eastern Division Finals came down to a game winning shot by Sam Jones that won game 7. With just 16 seconds remaining, the supposed choker Chamberlain had tied the game. Both Russell and Cousy called this Celtics team the greatest Celtics team ever. The team featured Russell in his best season, Heinsohn in his prime, Sam Jones coming into his own, Cousy still going strong and valuable role players such as Frank Ramsey, Tom Sanders and K.C. Jones. Yet, Chamberlain almost carried an inferior supporting cast past Russell's Celtics.
Even though Chamberlain's Warriors easily lost to Russell's Celtics in the 1964 Finals, Chamberlain outscored Russell by 18 points and grabbed an extra 2 rebounds per game. Does anyone honestly want to try to convince me that Russell somehow prevented 18 more points than Chamberlain defensively? Look at the cast Chamberlain had in the finals. His second leading corer had averaged just 13.5 ppg in the regular season and that was at 60's pace!
Philadelphia lost in a 7 game series to Russell's Celtics in 1965 with Chamberlain outscoring Russell by 14.5 points and outrebounding him by 6 boards a game. In game 7, Chamberlain had 30 and 32 to Russell's 16, 27 and 8. In the last minute, "the choker" Chamberlain had hit two clutch free throws and dunked on Russell to bring Philly within 1 point before Russell's errant inbounds pass. Of course we all know the rest. That was another time that Chamberlain nearly led an inferior cast passed an overmatched Celtics team that included Russell who was still easily in his prime, a peak Sam Jones who averaged 26 in the regular season and 29 in the playoffs on an unreal shooting percentage for the time, an emerging John Havlicek as well as Tom heinsohn, Tom Sanders and K.C. Jones.
Looking at their head to head playoff meetings I'll give a slight edge to Russell for winning the series. As far as 1962? Chamberlain was clearly the better player, IMO. Same with '64 although Russell's team won so easily that it's closer. In 1965 it was obvious that Chamberlain was the better player, particularly with the series being so close. 1966 was trickier because of Chamberlain doubling Russell's 14 ppg and grabbing 4 more boards per game while Russell won the series in 5 games. 1967 easily goes to Chamberlain and 1968? Once again Chamberlain's huge individual advantage and the fact that it was a close series make me think he was the better player, then again his team did choke away a 3-1 lead, but I think Psileas did a good job explaining that. 1969 does go to Russell because they weren't far apart statistically while Russell held Wilt well below his usual numbers while helping lead an inferior team as far as talent to the win.
The supporting cast argument simply can't be ignored, particularly when some of those series were so close with Chamberlain's obvious individual advantage, but equally obvious teammate disadvantage. I don't think anyone here is going to try to argue that Chamberlain had as much talent on those 1962 and 1965 teams as Russell's Celtics those years.
Russell was wayyyyy better.
I used to say Wilt, but after reading Bill Simmons' book (who I will point out is a biased Celtics fan), I don't really see how I can rank Wilt over him, in fact I don't see how I can rank him ahead of a few all-time greats that I had him ahead of before. From what I read, Wilt's priority to win was significantly less then other all-time greats such as Russell, Jordan, Kareem, Magic, Bird, and even someone like Shaq (the guy hasn't gotten along with all of his teammates and he's moved from team to team, but when he's on the court he's always played for the W not some irrelevant stat or record.)
Wilt cared too much about irrelevant stats and records. People point out that he was a great passer and averaged more assists then Russell, but they don't seem to realize he made it a point one season to get as many assists as possible so he can win an assist title. He had a ridiculous no-foul out record that he wanted to keep in tact which probably cost his teams many wins due to him playing less aggressive. There was a point in his career where he wanted the "unselfish" reputation of Russell, who didn't really care about that reputation and really just wanted to win, and as a result seemed to struggle at times between the balance of being passive and aggressive, hence game 7 of 1968 ECF where Wilt did not assert himself when his teammates weren't hitting their shots.
There's a few reasons he only has 2 titles, while Russell, Jordan, Kareem, Bird, Magic, Shaq, and Duncan have more. The biggest reason was he just didn't care as much. Knowing that, I don't think I could take him on my team over Russell, Jordan, Kareem, Bird, Magic, Shaq, and maybe even Duncan.
Now keep in mind I wasn't alive at the time, and I'm basing most of my opinions on what I already knew and the opinions of a biased Celtic fan who has a very well supported argument.
[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]I just don't think it's luck; ALL of Russell's team mates credit him with leading them. They all felt more confident because of what he was able to do and how confident he was.
Also great posts Abe and Psileas! Much respect for your opinions.
Red deserves a ton of credit, he realized he needed a guy like Russell and gave up a proven all-star to get him.
As I've said before Wilt in '67 was better than Russell ever was because he used all the skills he had to help the team win instead of to break records. Unfortunately in the 10 season their career paths crossed this was the only one Wilt was committed to team and thus it's a no brainer (or maybe I should call it a Shaqattack) that Russell had the superior career. 9 titles to one.
For those who don't understand why the titles argument matters so muchy and is not just a TEAM accomplishment. Basketball is of course a Team game and a players goals are to help his team win. No player had a greater impact on his team mates and led to them winning more than Russell. He spent the first few months before he joined the Celtics studying and evaluating every single player in the league, had a mental library of information and understood how to play the physiological game.
Russell would let Wilt get all the rebounds and take all the shots early (according to team mates) so that Wilt's team mates would not be able to get in the flow of the game and so he could conserve energy to shut him down late (which he did in nearly every must win game vs. Wilt. The Havlicek steals the ball game and game 5 of the '67 Division finals.
All of Russell's numbers went up in the playoffs and up again in the finals, all of Wilts numbers peaked in the regular season...
Could it be more obvious?[/QUOTE]
I think on this subject we agree but just look at it differently. I dont feel you can say Russ was better just because his team won more. many other players played a role in that So if Hondo didnt steal the ball would that mean Wilt was better? I believe if Wilt played for Red Red would have gotten in Wilts head and it would be Wilt with the 11 titles. Now true not sure if Wilt could be the player coach and win, but no telling how Wilt would have been if he had just 1 strong coach and support cast his whole career. Now to the who was better. As a player Wilt by far, who would I want to lead my team Russ without question.
[QUOTE=Niquesports]I think on this subject we agree but just look at it differently. I dont feel you can say Russ was better just because his team won more. many other players played a role in that So if Hondo didnt steal the ball would that mean Wilt was better? I believe if Wilt played for Red Red would have gotten in Wilts head and it would be Wilt with the 11 titles. Now true not sure if Wilt could be the player coach and win, but no telling how Wilt would have been if he had just 1 strong coach and support cast his whole career. Now to the who was better. As a player Wilt by far, who would I want to lead my team Russ without question.[/QUOTE]
If Hondo doesn't steal it the Celtics probably still win; they were ahead.
Even if Wilt and the Warriors win that year it's still 8 to 2 advantage Russell for the decade.
Red says he never woulkd or could have coached Wilt.
As I've said, Wilt played with as many all-stars and great players as Russell did except he made his team mates worse and Bill made them better.
[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]
As I've said, Wilt played with as many all-stars and great players as Russell did except he made his team mates worse and Bill made them better.[/QUOTE]
Who did Wilt make worse? Look at the 3 1/2 seasons Hal Greer played with Wilt. Do you notice any decline? I don't, in fact his greatest season statistical season came when he played with Wilt on the 62 win '68 Sixers. Jerry West had several seasons that could be argued as his best after Chamberlain joined the team. Gail Goodrich had the best season of his career playing with Chamberlain on the '72 Lakers. Point out some cases of Wilt making players worse. Your bias here is incredibly apparent.
Then there are players like Paul Arizin and Elgin Baylor who played with Chamberlain and showed no signs of getting worse because of Wilt. In fact their production was just about what you'd expect when you consider that they were in their final years and their team had added a big scorer.
Both would be average in today's league. Wilt was strong but so is Bynum, Oden, Shaq, Roberts, Dikembe, Robinson and many others.
Wilt Chamberlain