Bill Russell vs. Wilt Chamberlain

[QUOTE=Papaya Petee]This has been debated a gadzillion times. Wilt was a better player individually while Bill Russell was a better team player. Both sides will constantly argue the same things. One side will talk about Wilt's statistic, other about Russell's accomplishments.

[/QUOTE]
Actually, I argue that Wilt's impact caused most of his teams to over achieve. I believe that I might have stated in a previous post that Bill may have won no more than two rings with Wilt's teams. After pondering it, I have decided to change my position:

[B][I]Bill Russell would have made Wilt's teams into consistently competitive playoff teams. There is ONLY a slight chance that Bill would have won one ring!! :roll: However, if Wilt was on Russell's teams he would win at least nine titles. :roll: :roll:[/I][/B]

[QUOTE=ShaqAttack3234]Russell is tough to rank. I mean at first, looking at his offensive game, I couldn't see how some thought he was the best ever, but then I looked at it a different way. He's won more championships than anyone, he's arguably the best defender of all time and he's the best player-coach in NBA history. So I can see a case, but it's really tough to say with there being so little footage available.[/QUOTE]

It's a shame that Bill Russell is compared to Wilt. Bill Russell is one of the top defenders of all time and arguably one of the most all-around defensive players of all time. However, I just don't see how Bill's impact made the Celtics overachieve more than Wilt's on inferior Sixers teams. Bill had a Hall of Fame backcourt and other HOFers. If you put Moses Malone on those Celtics teams, you would have at least 8 titles. Wilt would have made those Celtics teams far more dominant in head to head team matches.

Why is Russell considered the greatest winner of all-time in the NBA? Cousy was often as instrumental as Russell in those Celtic titles.

[QUOTE=Justice44]It's a shame that Bill Russell is compared to Wilt. Bill Russell is one of the top defenders of all time and arguably one of the most all-around defensive players of all time. However, I just don't see how Bill's impact made the Celtics overachieve more than Wilt's on inferior Sixers teams. Bill had a Hall of Fame backcourt and other HOFers. If you put Moses Malone on those Celtics teams, you would have at least 8 titles. Wilt would have made those Celtics teams far more dominant in head to head team matches.

Why is Russell considered the greatest winner of all-time in the NBA? Cousy was often as instrumental as Russell in those Celtic titles.[/QUOTE]

You're an idiot. Funny that you start posing all this nonsense under a gimmick/sock. P*ssy :oldlol:

For those of you who are looking for evidence of Russell's intangibles showing up on the stat sheet.

Here's why he is the ultimate clutch player:

Bill's stat line's in closeout games of the NBA Finals


(points, rebounds,assists,FG,FT)

1957 19 32 2 7-17 5-10
1959 15 32 5 5-8 5-10
1960 22 35 4 7-15 8-10
1961 30 38 7 9-17 12-19
1962 30 40 5 10-17 10-15
1963 12 24 9 5-12 2-5
1964 14 24 11 5-6 4-5
1965 22 30 4 6-9 10-12
1966 25 32 1 10-22 5-5
1968 18 19 6 5-7 8-9
1969 6 21 6 2-7 2-4

averages of 19.6 points 29.7 rebounds 5.7 assists per game and a field goal percentage of 52 and free throw percentage of 68. Both significantly higher than any numbers he posted for his career. Two 30-30 games, a triple-double and another game one assist away. factor in his reported 13 blocks against Wilt's Sixers in 1964 and you have a closeout game quadruple double in the NBA Finals.

Wilt in do or die games....

[url]http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=165643[/url]

I bet his "close out" games are even better considering your team wins those. And he had some of the most incredible performances to save his teams from elimination too.

While I have come to marvel at Russell's impact on the game of basketball, I still think Bill Simmons is a complete idiot...as I posted a while back...

[url]http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=160893[/url]

I'll save myself some time and copy-and-paste my take on the Simmon's PERCEPTION that Wilt and Russell played on evenly matched teams...

Simmons states that Russell's perceived superior surrounding talent difference was not all that great, on pages 61-66 (unfortunately pages 62-63 were deleted from that link...but they are unnecessary to the discussion.)

Simmons concedes that Russell had considerably more talented teams in '61, '62, '63, and '64. He somehow comes up with Russell only having a slight edge in '60 (Wilt's rookie year), and in '65, when Wilt was traded to Philly. Let's examine the last two, though. How in the world does he honestly believe that by Wilt coming to a last place before the beginning of his rookie year, in the '59-'60 season, that Russell only had a marginal edge? Wilt took that 32-40 team to a 49-26 record. Meanwhile Boston continued to improve, going from a 52-20 team in '58-'59 to a 59-16 mark in the '59-'60 season.

Let's examine the rosters: In that '59-'60 season, Wilt played with HOFer Paul Arizin, HOFer Tom Gola (who has much business being in the HOF as I do), Guy Rodgers (a quailt passing guard, but one of the worst shooters in NBA history), and a bunch of no-names. How about Russell? He combined with SIX other HOFers (SEVEN total)...Cousey, Heinsohn, Jones and Jones, Ramsey, and Heinsohn. Granted KC Jones and Frank Ramsey are probably not deserving of the HOF either, but Ramsey was certainly better than Gola.

In the '64-'65 season, Wilt was traded to the Sixers, and along with HOFer Hal Greer, and an under-rated Chet Walker, they improved from 34-46 to 40-40. Not only that, but they easily dispatched with the 48-32 Royals in the playoffs, 3-1. However, to claim that that Sixer team was only "marginally" better than Russell's Celtics, is completely ridiculous. Boston had their best record ever that year, going 62-18. Not only did Russell have Jones and Jones, Cousey, and Heinsohn, but John Havlicek as well. And, as always, Auerbach had a much deeper roster than Wilt's Sixers, with John Thompson, Mel Counts, Satch Sanders, Willie Naulls, and Larry Siegfried.

So, after we re-examine the first six years of the Russell-Wilt rivalry, it is CLEAR that Russell had FAR superior teams in ALL six of them. Yet, Wilt guided two of those mediocre rosters to game seven defeats, one by ONE point, and the other by TWO points.

Continuing, Simmons states that Wilt had superior rosters from the '65-'66 season thru the '68-'69 seasons (four years), and yet, Russell's TEAMs still went 3-1 in that span. Let's examine that statement further, shall we...

Yes, Wilt's '65-'66 76ers added HOFer Billy Cunningham, and went 55-25, while Boston dropped to 54-26. Still, the Celtics were only a year removed from their best-ever season, while the Sixers were a young, rising power. Wilt now had HOFers Greer, and Cunningham (in his rookie year), along with Walker and Luke Jackson. Player-for-player, Philly's top-four players were probably better than Boston's top-four (Russell, Havlicek, Sam Jones, and Don Nelson), but after that the Celtics had a huge edge, with players like Naulls, Counts, Sanders, and Siegfried. And, yes, Boston easily whipped the 76ers in the playoffs, 4-1. However, it was certainly not Chamberlain's fault, as he outscored Russell, per game, 28-14, and outrebounded him 30-26. In the clinching game five loss, Wilt had a maginificent game, scoring 46 points, with 34 rebounds (Russell was at 18-31 BTW.) However, the rest of the Celtics thoroughly outplayed Chamberlain's supporting cast.

How about the '68-'69 season (Russell's last year in the NBA), in which the 48-34 Celtics stunned the favored 55-27 Lakers, 4-3? I have mentioned it many times, but when LA acquired Wilt in a trade, they gave up THREE players (and a boatload of cash), including all-star guard Archie Clark, and a decent journeyman center, Darrell Imhoff...which really hurt the Lakers depth. Not only that, but Elgin Baylor was on a severe down-slide. And, finally, the Lakers had one of the worst coaches, EVER, in Butch Van Breda Kolf. I have documented that series many times, but clearly, Van Breda Kolf COST LA a title that year. His determination to have Chamberlain sacrifice his offense (and even play the high-post, as well as benching him in some games), to allow Baylor to shoot blanks (particularly in the playoffs, where he shot .385 from the field...while Wilt shot .545)...AND to keep Wilt on the bench in the last five-plus minutes of that game seven TWO-point loss, was THE reason that Boston was able to eke out a game seven win. In terms of rosters, Boston had a MUCH deeper roster...Russell, Havlicek, Howell, Sam Jones, Nelson, Sanders, Siegfried, and even rookie Don Chaney. True, they were an aging team, and on the decline, but they were deep, and experienced. Combine that with TWO miracle shots in that series (Jones hit a game-winning shot, while falling down, that banked in in game four...and Nelson hit the game-winning shot in game seven, that hit the back of the rim...bounced eight feet in the air, and came straight down thru the basket), with Van Breda Kolf's stupidity, and it was really no surprise that Boston won that series in seven games.

Incidently, Simmons later mentions how "clutch" Russell was, and how Wilt "choked" later on in that chapter, but the seventh game of those '69 Finals was an example to the contrary. While Russell was on the floor the entire fourth quarter, he was nowhere to be found. And, as always, Wilt outplayed him, despite missing the last five minutes of the game. More on that later, though.

So, we have covered eight of the ten seasons in which Russell and Wilt went H2H, and by MY tally, Russell had a HUGE edge in six of them, a slight edge in the '66 season, and probably a slightly less talented roster in '69...but much deeper, and with Russell outcoaching the idiotic Van Breda Kolf, and Boston getting TWO miraculous game-winning shots...they overcame the slight edge of talent. In any case, Wilt had THREE teams that lost game seven's by TWO, ONE, and TWO points in those eight years. He also thoroughly outplayed Russell in the other five. I have covered those years before, though, and if Simmons, or anyone else would want to challenge me on that, I would welcome the debate.

That leaves two other seasons. I will agree with Simmons that Wilt had stronger supporting casts, although, I would contend that it was not dramatic. On page 64 Simmons makes the comment that Wilt's '67 team had the "perfect storm"...his BEST team, and Russell's WORST. Here again, let's take a closer look: Yes, Philly went an astonishing 68-13, shattering almost every known team record that year. And yes, Wilt had a quality supporting cast, with Greer, Cunningham, Walker, Wali Jones, and Luke Jackson, along with Bill Melchionni. However, to say that Boston had their weakest team was somewhat ridiculous. That Celtic team went 60-21, and featured Russell, Havlicek, Howell, Jones and Jones...all in the HOF (Wilt had Greer and Cunningham as his fellow HOFers), AND the Celtics once again had a very deep bench that included Jim Barnett, Nelson, Sanders, Wayne Embry, and Siegfried. And, still despite that quality roster, Wilt crushed Russell and his teammates negated Russell's usual edge, and Chamberlain's Sixers blew out the Celtics, 4-1 (with only a 121-117 game four win preventing a sweep.)

For the umpteenth time, the '67-'68 season was well on it's way to a duplication of the previous season. Philly once again romped away with the best record league, by a wide margin, going 62-20, while Boston came in at 54-28. But, unlike the '66-'67 season, the Sixers were decimated by injuries in the post-season (all of which Simmons fails to mention BTW.) They lost Cunningham before that Eastern Finals, and he missed the rest of the season. And, despite his absence, the Sixers still jumped out to a 3-1 series lead. However, Luke Jackson was injured in game five, and was worthless the rest of the series. Those two injuries killed Philly's solid edge at the forward position, and with no real depth, the Sixers were now heavily outgunned. On top of that, Wilt's remaining teammates shot an awful 33% in the seventh game...a 100-96 loss. So, in review, the Sixers were without HOFer Cunningham, lost Jackson to injury in game five, shot a miserable percentage in game seven...and Russell's Celtics managed to edge Wilt's Sixers by FOUR points...in a seven game series. CLEARLY, had the Sixers been healthy, it would have been another easy series win for Philly.

So, Russell's 7-1 H2H post-season margin was achieved with six heavily more talented teams, one marginally more talented, one slightly less talented, and two considerably less talented (although Wilt's H2H edge makes them more talented.) And in one, his slightly less talented team, his TEAM ekes out a TWO-point game seven win, with Wilt shackled with a boob for a coach. In another, his solidly less talented team wins a game seven, by FOUR points, when Wilt loses TWO quality players to injury...therefore negating the edge that he had. The REALITY was, Russell's 7-1 edge, with a TOTAL of a nine-point swing (and without injuries, horrible coaching, and miracle shots), could just have easily have been a 5-3 edge for Wilt.

Simmons breaks down the HOF players as well, saying that Russell had a slight 10-9 total edge (and 8-8 during their H2H seasons)...but I will address that next...

On pages 65 and 66 Simmons states that Russell only played with four of the 1996 NBA's Top-50 all-time players list, (Havlicek, Cousey, Sharman, and Sam Jones), while Wilt played with six (Baylor, West, Greer, Cunningham, Arizin and Thurmond.)

"Russell played with four members of the NBA's Top 50 at 50 (Havlicek, Cousy, Sharman, and Sam Jones); Wilt played with six members (Baylor, West, Greer, Cunningham, Arizin, and Thurmond). And Russell's teammates from 1957 to 1969 were selected to twenty-six All-Star games, while Wilt's teammates from 1960 to 1973 were selected to twenty-four. Let's never mention the supporting-cast card again with Russell and Chamberlain. Thank you."

I will give you my take on this in my next post, but here is an interesting link...



[url]http://www.basketball-reference.com/blog/?p=4229[/url]

You can read the numbers for yourself, but after breaking down the minutes, these were his conclusions:

"Now you can see Russell's "score" is more than twice that of Wilt,"

"Obviously this is just a fun exercise, and far from scientific, but you can still see that Chamberlain's teammates were in fact significantly less talented than Russell's, by both our Quality of Teammates metric and even by Bill Simmons' own ranking method. So I don't think it's quite fair to say, "let's never mention the supporting-cast card again with Russell and Chamberlain," because it's still pretty obvious that Wilt's supporting cast was inferior to Russell's by a good margin."

Continuing on about the quality of play between Russell's cast, and Wilt's, here was my take from another post on a similar topic:

Well, for the record, from the '59-'60 season thru the '68-'69 season, Bill Russell played with 19 other teammates in the All-Star game, while Wilt played alongside 16 all-star teammates. Both Russell and Wilt made the All-Star game every year in those ten years, making Russell and teammates with 29 appearances, while Wilt and his teammates made 26 appearances.

I didn't research any all-star teams before, or after, those ten years, because those were the 10 years in which Russell and Wilt went H2H.

Here we go:

1959-60:
Russell, Cousey, Sharman
Wilt, Gola, Arizin

1960-61:
Russell, Cousey, Heinsohn
Wilt, Gola, Arizin

1961-62:
Russell, Cousey, Heinsohn, S. Jones
Wilt, Arizin

1962-63:
Russell, Cousey, Heinsohn
Wilt, Rodgers, Meschery

1963-64:
Russell, Heinsohn, S. Jones
Wilt, Rodgers

1964-65:
Russell, S. Jones
Wilt, Thurmond

1965-66:
Russell, Havlicek, S. Jones
Wilt, Walker, Greer

1966-67:
Russell, Havlicek, Howell
Wilt, Greer, Walker

1967-68:
Russell, Havlicek, S. Jones
Wilt, Greer

1968-69:
Russell, Havlicek
Wilt, Baylor, West

Furthermore, Tom Meschery and Tom Gola were very questionable in their appearances. Some might question Bailey Howell, but in his 66-67 season appearance, he averaged 20 ppg on .512 shooting, which was considerably better than what Meschery or Gola had in their all-star seasons.

Wilt did play with nine different teammates in that 10 year span, while Russell only played with six, so if that is what Simmons meant when he said that Wilt played with more all-stars, then he was correct. HOWEVER, Russell's teammates had more APPEARANCES.

And further still...

Both Wilt and Russell are credited with playing with eight other HOFers. There are some discernable differences, however. At some points in his career, Chamberlain played with Paul Arizin, Tom Gola, Nate Thurmond, Hal Greer, Billy Cunningham, Elgin Baylor, Jerry West, and Gail Goodrich. Meanwhile, Russell played alongside Bob Cousey, Frank Ramsey, Bill Sharman, KC Jones, Sam Jones, Tom Heinsohn, John Havlicek, and Bailey Howell.

For the sake of the Russell-Wilt debate, though, let's break them down. Chamberlain played with Goodrich, but that was AFTER Russell retired. He also played with Elgin Baylor, but contrary to popular opinion, he only actually played with Baylor for ONE semi-full season, in the '68-'69 season, and only TWO post-seasons. Wilt most missed of the '69-'70 season, while Baylor missed almost the entire '70-'71 season (and post-season, as well), and Baylor retired after the first nine games of the '71-'72 season (and not coincidently, LA IMMEDIATELY went on their record-breaking 33 game winning streak BTW.) And, as I mentioned, Baylor played in two post-seasons with Wilt, and he was awful in both of them. In fact, his idiotic coach preferred Baylor's offense over Wilt's, and asked Chamberlain to sacrifice his scoring for Baylor's. Not only that, but Baylor was a baseline-to-baseline player, and Van Breda Kolf actually had Chamberlain playing a high post for the first half of the '68-'69 season. The greatest low-post scorer in NBA history was asked to play a high-post??? The FACT was, Baylor was already on a downward slide by the time Chamberlain joined LA, and I have always maintained that Baylor actually DETRACTED from the Lakers from that point on. In any case, Baylor and Wilt hardly played together at all.

Continuing...

Chamberlain also played with Nate Thurmond, for ONE year...Thurmond's rookie year, in which Nate was asked to play at forward, and not his natural center position (where he would become a HOF player.) Wilt also played alongside Paul Arizin, a legitimate HOFer, who was nearing the end of his career by the time Wilt came along. And, Wilt played with Tom Gola. Now, Gola was a four time All-Star, and is in the HOF. However, he was hardly deserving of either. In his BEST season, he averaged 16 ppg. Over the course of his entire career, he averaged 11.3 ppg, 7.8 rpg, and shot .431 from the field.

Chamberlain was traded to the 76ers in the '64-'65 season, and played there until the end of the '67-'68 season. They were a bottom-dwelling team when he arrived, though, and even with Wilt, they only had a 40-40 season in his first year (they were 34-46 the year before.) However, in the playoffs that season, Chamberlain led them to a crushing 3-1 series win over the 48-32 Royals, and then a game seven, one point loss to the 62-18 Celtics. Philly added Billy Cunningham to the roster in the '65-'66 season, and they edged the Celtics by one game in that season (55-25 to Boston's 54-26.) Still, the Sixers were a young team, and while Boston declined slightly from the year before, they were still only a year removed from their best-ever record during their "Dynasty." A case could be made that while the 76ers had a better record, they were probably not a better team. In any case, Wilt thoroughly outplayed Russell in the post-season that year (as he always did BTW), averaging 28 ppg, and 31 rpg, to Russell's 14 ppg and 26 rpg. But, Russell's teammates easily outplayed Wilt's, and Boston won the series, 4-1.

In the following season, the 76ers finally meshed, and they went on to a then-record 68-13 mark, easily outdistancing the Celtics, who had one of their best records during the "Dynasty", at 60-21. That Celtic team was LOADED, too. They had FIVE HOFers (Russell, Havlicek, Sam Jones, KC Jones, and Howell), along with Wayne Embry, Don Nelson, Larry Siegfried, and Jim Barnett. Despite that talented roster, the 76ers, with HOFers Wilt, Greer, and Cunningham, as well as Luke Jackson, Chet Walker (who should be in the HOF), and Wali Jones,...BURIED the Celtics, 4-1. And, once again, Chamberlain just crushed Russell in every statistical category in that post-season.

And the following season, '67-'68, the Sixers were well on their way to a duplication. They again ran away with the best record in the league, at 62-20, while Boston was a distant second at 54-28. Before the Eastern Finals, though, the Sixers lost Billy Cunningham to a wrist injury, and he would not return the rest of the year. Still, they managed to take a 3-1 series lead over Boston without him. Then, Luke Jackson went down with a leg injury in game five. On top of that, Wilt was nursing a variety of injuries, including two arthritic knees. The Celtics roared back to tie the series, 3-3, and in game seven Chamberlain only TOUCHED the ball TWICE on the offensive end in 4th quarter (and those were on offensive rebounds), and his teammates fired blanks all game long (they shot 33% in that game)...and Boston edged Philly 100-96 to win that series. There were several suspicious events that happened in that game seven, but I won't take the time to address them now. In any case, Wilt's Sixers lost that game seven, by FOUR points, DESPITE not having Cunningham at all, with Jackson basically worthless from game five on, Wilt himself under 100%, and his team shooting an ungodly horrible percentage in that last game. I have long argued that the BEST team did NOT win the title that year.

But, back to my original point...which was basically this...

Take away Chamberlain's stint with the Sixers, and here is what we had: Throw out Goodrich, who never played with Wilt during the Russell-era. Throw out Thurmond, who was a rookie playing out of position. Throw out a washed Baylor, who was more of a hindrance during his time with Wilt (especially in the playoffs.) Throw out Gola, who was no more of a HOFer than myself. What does that leave? Wilt basically played with West and Arizin...and not together. So, aside from the Sixers, Wilt played with two quality players, and not at the same time. That was it. And Arizin was nearing the end of his career, and West suffered injuries in the '70-'71 season, and missed the post-season.

Granted, Chamberlain played with talented rosters in Philly, at least from '66-'68 (Cunningham did not arrive until '66.) And, his team's only won one title in those three years. However, his teammates played poorly in the '66 playoffs, and his team was decimated with injuries in the '68 season.

Now, how about Russell's supporting cast? Unlike Wilt, who was drafted by a last-place team (that he immediately turned into a 48-32 team...and a close six game series loss to Boston in the playoffs), ...Russell came to a playoff team. Yes, he was the final piece of the puzzle that took them over the hump. But, Auerbach also added more quality players each year. I have mentioned it many times, but Russell played alongside FIVE other HOFers in the '61-'62 season, while Wilt basically carried a last-place roster, with Arizin in his last year, and an over-rated Gola, to a game seven, two-point loss to the Celtics in the playoffs. There was simply no comparison in talent levels on those two teams...yet Wilt almost single-handedly led that team to an upset over a vaunted Celtic team.

Here is a breakdown of Russell's supporting cast in the decade in which he battled Wilt:

Two of his HOFers were questionable HOFers to be sure. Frank Ramsey was a career 13.4 scorer. And KC Jones was never even an all-star (although he was acknowledged as a good defender.) But, the rest of Russell's HOF teammates were very good, to say the least. Cousey had four 20+ ppg seasons in his career (and another six 18 ppg seasons.) Sharman had three 20+ ppg seasons (and two more 19+ ppg seasons.) Heinsohn had three 20+ ppg seasons in a relatively short nine year career (and all with Russell BTW.) Howell was an under-rated player who played with Russell for three years, and had 20.0, 19.8, and 19.7 ppg averages in those three years (he also had three other 20+ ppg and two other 19+ ppg seasons in his career.) Sam Jones played with Russell for 12 years, and had 10 rings. He had four 20+ ppg seasons while there (as well as three other 18+ ppg seasons.) Not only that, but he one year in which he averaged 25.9 ppg.

And then there was Havlicek. Havlicek played with Russell for seven years, and came away with six rings. He played with Boston another nine years, and won two more rings. What is interesting, though, is that he had three 20+ ppg seasons (and three 18+ ppg seasons) with Russell. His high seasonal average with Russell, was 21.6 ppg. However, after Russell retired,
Hondo had five more 20+ ppg game seasons (and one more 19 ppg), with ALL five of them better than any of his during the Russell-era. In fact, he had a 28.9 and a 27.5 ppg season, which are Jerry West-like years.

For those that argue that Russell made his teammates better, Havlicek is an example to the contrary. He was clearly a better player AFTER Russell. Even more interesting, however, is that you have to wonder how those other Celtic players, particularly Sam Jones, would have fared had they played somewhere else? My point is that most all of them were probably capable of scoring more with other teams in which they would have been the primary focus of the offense. Why is that important? Because I think it clearly proves that Russell was every bit the beneficiary of great teammates, as they were of playing with him. The FACT was, Russell played with not only talented rosters, but usually very DEEP rosters, as well. Wilt, on the other hand, aside from his years with the Sixers, not only had less talented teammates, he had less quantity, as well.

I have posted this link before, which is termed WIN SHARES, but here it is again...

[url]http://www.basketball-reference.com/...ws_yearly.html[/url]

Here is the explanation of that stat...

[url]http://www.basketball-reference.com/about/ws.html[/url]

And, using that WIN SHARES stat, here is the yearly breakdown between Russell and Wilt, in their 10 years in the league together...

'59-60: Wilt 17.0 (1), Russell 13.8 (2)
'60-61: Wilt 18.8 (1), Russell 13.0 (5)
'61-62: Wilt 23.1 (1), Russell 15.5 (4)
'62-63: Wilt 20.9 (1), Russell 13.5 (6)
'63-64: Wilt 25.0 (1), Russell 17.3 (3)
'64-65: Wilt 15.1 (4), Russell 16.9 (2) Oscar with 17.0 was (1)
'65-66: Wilt 21.4 (1), Russell 11.7 (4)
'66-67: Wilt 21.9 (1), Russell 12.2 (4)
'67-68: Wilt 20.4 (1), Russell 8.2 (NR)
'68-69: Wilt 14.7 (1), Russell 10.9 (7) Reed tied with Wilt at (1), and as a sidenote, Baylor was NR at 8.5, and West (9), at 10.8.

I think these ratings are significant. Of course, the Russell supporters will argue that Russell didn't care about stats, and that they didn't diminish his 11 rings, but IMHO, it shows that Wilt HAD to play at a much higher level for his TEAM's to be competitive. Most Pro-Russell people will say that Russell was TEAM player, who made his teammates better. However, these numbers reflect the fact that Chamberlain contributed FAR more to his TEAM's success, than Russell did to his.

I wonder how Simmons would respond to that assertion?

It's certainly a good counterpoint and a more fair presentation of the argument,but a few quick thoughts:

1) I think you use too much revisionist history, saying things like how good the Celtics were besides Russell and how many HOFer's he played with. It's easy to say Russell played with seven HOFer's in his early Boston years, however Ramsay, Sam and KC Jones, Tom Hiensohn, those guys never make it if Russell doesn't lead them to titles.

2) Chamberlain's cast from '66 to '69 was clearly better ; some of the guys you cite as Boston's valuable depth like Don Nelson and Larry Seigfried were cast offs that were cut or released by their previous teams. Basically it was an aging Russell and Sam Jones along with Hondo that carried those teams. Even if we concede Baylor in '69, the Lakers still have a much more prolific roster, especially at the top.

3) Wilt's early team mates on the Warriors were very good. Yes they struggled in '59 but that's because they lost rookie PG Guy Rodgers for half the year and HOF center Neil Johnston broke down. The year before they were in the conference finals against the Celtics. Same with '57 and in '56 they were NBA Champions. Wilt arrives in essence they trade Johnston for him and never got any further in the postseason. In the four seasons prior to Wilt arriving in Philly, they won two five playoff series and one world championship. In Wilt's first four there, two playoff series and no world Championships.

4) Tons of great players have won titles with less around them than a superstar rival. Magic's Lakers in '91 were much more talented than Jordan's Bulls, Same with the Blazers and Suns the next two seasons. I've already cited what happened when the talent shifted in Wilt's favor over Russell.

Bottom line, you correctly point out the one-sidedness of Simmons argument, but that was his point, he doesn't see how someone can win 9 titles in 10 years against a rival and still have it debated who was better and either do I. It's like being at a HS basketball game and team A is up 50-30 and team B makes a blocked shot and their fans starting roaring, what des teams B's fans yell "scoreboard, scoreboard etc. Russ has scoreboard.

G.O.A.T.

I will agree with you about Ramsey and KC Jones. Heinsohn's numbers were pretty solid, even if not HOF worthy, though. And, as I pointed out, how would guys like Heinsohn, Sharman, and particularly Sam Jones have done on other teams, where they might not have shared the ball as much.

IMHO, Wilt only played on two teams that were better than Russell's supporting cast, 66-67 and 67-68 Philly, and if the 68 team had not suffered a rash of injuries, I am convinced they would have easily won that season.

The only other two teams that were remotely close to Russell's were the 65-66 Sixers, and the 68-69 Lakers. While the '66 76ers had a one game edge over Boston in the regular season, I don't believe they were favored. That Sixer team was an up-and-coming team, to be sure, but they had gone 40-40 the year before, while Boston had just won their seventh straight title, and had had their best record during their Dynasty of 62-18. So, when the 54-26 Celts beat the 55-25 Sixers, I don't think that was a great shock. True, the 65 76ers had given Boston all they could handle, just the year before, but instead of Simmons marvelling at THAT fact (when a 40-40 team lost a game seven, by one point to a 62-18 team), he rips Wilt for his "superior" '66 team losing. In any case, to blame Chamberlain for that series loss in '66 was ridiculous. Chamberlain outscored Russell 28-14, outrebounded him 30-26, and probably outshot him (Wilt shot .509 during that series...but I don't have Russell's numbers.) AND, in the clinching game five loss, Chamberlain put up a 46-34 game (to Russell's 18-31.) So much for the "choking" theory.

As for the 68-69 Lakers...one more time. Their incompetent COACH cost them that series. LA would have been better off with Soupy Sales as their head coach. AND, when you take into account that Boston had TWO miraculous shots to win TWO games in that series...well, just another case of the bad luck that followed Wilt throughout his career.

Look, Russell did whatever it took to win. There is no question in my mind that Russell made his teammates better than Wilt did his. I don't think it was a coincidence that Russell's teammates almost always outplayed Chamberlain's. Russell put his players in their optimum positions, and took opponents' out of their's. But for Simmons to suggest that Wilt and Russell played with equal talent throughout their careers is ludicrous. As was pointed out by that one poster...Russell basically had better talent ON THE FLOOR with him, TWICE as often as Wilt did, during their 10 years of H2H play.

To the greatest of Russell, his team's went 7-1 (really 9-1) against Chamberlain's. But, IMHO, Wilt really only two superior rosters in those ten years, and had one of them been decimated by injuries (and horrible shooting at the worst possible time), Wilt would have been 2-0 with those two teams. You can argue that Russell went 2-0 against Wilt with about even teams (65-66 and 68-69), but I have given you some reasons why Wilt's TEAM lost.

BUT, what about the six seasons? Russell had FAR superior surrounding talent...and Chamberlain nearly led those mediocre teams to stunning upsets. One more time...with a shot here, or there (or a miss by a Boston player on one their "miraculous shots), or a play here, or there, and Wilt could easily have gone 5-3 against Russell. FOUR game seven losses by a TOTAL of NINE points is not a DOMINANT victory by Russell over Wilt.

My main point is that I truly believe Russell was the greatest player to ever play the game. BUT, Simmons' almost makes it seem like Wilt was some "choker" or "failure" who collapsed against Russell. NONE of his numbers, or statements, back that up. His arguments were so one-sided that he can't be taken seriously.

This is not a debate Wilt own Russell ass.

[QUOTE=Bandito]This is not a debate Wilt own Russell ass.[/QUOTE]

Chamberlain statistically outplayed Russell, but Russell made his team's better. I would not say that either one "owned" the other. It is a testament to their greatness, that this topic is still being hotly debated some 40 years after they last went H2H.

Jlauber,

As always i appreciate the thoughtfulness of your responses and while I doubt we'll ever wholly agre, I enjoy the discussion every time.

I'd like your response to my point about Wilt's supporting cast from '60-'64. (Bullet 3 in my last post)

Also would point out that as easy as it is to dismiss the last second shots, steals etc. for the Celtics as good luck and Wilt's teammates struggles in big situations as bad luck, at some point it stops being just a coincidence.

Guys like Russell, MJ, Bird and Magic made their own luck a lot of the time. Same goes for guys like Wilt. As great as Wilt was he never made people better, at least not mentally. That's what his coaches, teammates and opponents all say and even he himself has admitted as much.

I've played on good teams, you always felt like you were going to win no matter what and I've played on teams with bad chemistry and you're just waiting for something to go wrong. I feel like WIlt and his teammates were often in the later mindset waiting for something to go wrong.

[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]Jlauber,

As always i appreciate the thoughtfulness of your responses and while I doubt we'll ever wholly agre, I enjoy the discussion every time.

I'd like your response to my point about Wilt's supporting cast from '60-'64. (Bullet 3 in my last post)

Also would point out that as easy as it is to dismiss the last second shots, steals etc. for the Celtics as good luck and Wilt's teammates struggles in big situations as bad luck, at some point it stops being just a coincidence.

Guys like Russell, MJ, Bird and Magic made their own luck a lot of the time. Same goes for guys like Wilt. As great as Wilt was he never made people better, at least not mentally. That's what his coaches, teammates and opponents all say and even he himself has admitted as much.

I've played on good teams, you always felt like you were going to win no matter what and I've played on teams with bad chemistry and you're just waiting for something to go wrong. I feel like WIlt and his teammates were often in the later mindset waiting for something to go wrong.[/QUOTE]

I can't argue those points. For all of his individual dominance, Wilt's TEAMMATES seldom outplayed Russell's. And I agree, it is hard to believe that it could be coincidence in seven out of eight post-season series' between the two.

It is interesting, that I debated Wilt's side of the Russell-Wilt discussions for many years (and still do, although, thanks to your insightful posts, I have changed my opinions)...and it was a losing battle. For decades, most observers ranked Russell over Wilt. Now, in the last decade, or so, it seems that Wilt has overtaken Russell in many of these "polls."

Now, I find myself having to defend Russell's brilliance, despite the fact that he was the game's greatest "winner." The fact is, while Wilt had all of the records, Russell won more MVPs (although I still don't know how Russell beat Wilt out in that 61-62 season.) Russell's PEERS generally rated Russell ahead of Wilt. I never could understand it, either, until just recently.

Fatal9 posted some spectacular footage of Russell, in his prime, and while the average viewer would probably just look at his performances as "ho hum"...if you take a REAL CLOSE look, you see Russell doing all the right things. AND, it seems that in every single play, he has a purpose. You just can't overlook his intimidation, his determination for entire games, his relentless defense, his brilliant outlet passes, his specatular help defense, the way gets the ball to the teammates that have an advantage over their opposing players..the list is endless.

IMHO, no player made his TEAMS better, and his opposing TEAMS worse, than Russell.