Bill Russell vs. Wilt Chamberlain

[QUOTE=jlauber]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.[/QUOTE]
Lauber. The bottom line is that Wilt would have been percieved as making his teammates better if he were on the Celtics instead of Russell. I'll give Rusell the edge on making teammates better, however I think this is overstated. Russell homers act as if Rusell made his HOF players 10 points better when in fact he probably made them two points better. Lastly, great point guards make teammates better.

This is why atheletes such as Ray Lewis are overrated.

Again Wilt wins 9 titles with Rusell's celtics teams while Bill may just win one title with any of chamberlain's teams.

[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]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.[/QUOTE]
Wow, I can name Non-Hall of famers who are clutch players as well. I am not disputing Bill being clutch. I am disputing this as evidence to put him above Wilt. Robert Horry is an all-time clutch shooter. Is he better than Karl Malone? Reggie Miller is one of the best playoff shooters in NBA history. Should I put him above Clyde Drexler. BTW Jerrry West was considered a clutch scorer as well. Is he above Jordan? Please. :oldlol:

[QUOTE=catch24]You're an idiot. Funny that you start posing all this nonsense under a gimmick/sock. P*ssy :oldlol:[/QUOTE]
Yeah it is a gimmick that Wilt brutally outplayed Russell. What I find a gimmick is that Russell homers love to flash out rings as evidence of Rusell's undisputed superiority. Okay, I guess you think James Worthy is better than Larry Bird.:oldlol: :oldlol: Pretty soon, you will try to convince me John Paxson is better than Steve Nash. Now who is the real idiot!:oldlol: :oldlol:

[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]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.[/QUOTE]
Intangibles can not count more than tangibles. For instance, Joe Montanna is better than Peyton Manning in the post season because Montanna's numbers reflect it. Montanna had outstanding superbowl stats.

[QUOTE=Justice44]Lauber. The bottom line is that Wilt would have been percieved as making his teammates better if he were on the Celtics instead of Russell. I'll give Rusell the edge on making teammates better, however I think this is overstated. Russell homers act as if Rusell made his HOF players 10 points better when in fact he probably made them two points better. Lastly, great point guards make teammates better.

This is why atheletes such as Ray Lewis are overrated.

Again Wilt wins 9 titles with Rusell's celtics teams while Bill may just win one title with any of chamberlain's teams.[/QUOTE]

I don't think that there is any question that Russell played with more talented teams throughout his career. But even Wilt, himself, said that Russell blended better with those teammates than he would have.

Look, G.O.A.T. made a comment in another topic, that had Russell not played during Wilt's career, that Chamberlain likely would have won 6-10 titles. I think that is a fair assessment. I don't want to diminish Russell's accomplishments, because to do so, does the same to Wilt's. IMHO, Wilt's close seven game losses with inferior teams was a testament to his greatness, instead of the opinions of many other's that Wilt was a failure.

just add justice44 to your ignore list, it's a duplicate account of someone else, after it was created he joined a bunch of threads that were already buried. Whoever he is he doesn't understand the discussion nor does he have any desire to.

[QUOTE]Quote:
Originally Posted by GP_20
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThaRegul8r
Why is Wilt "clearly" the better rebounder, though Russell was the better defender, though you interject that "Wilt was also good?" So evidently Russell wasn't "also good" either?


Wilt outrebounded him every season and playoff series meeting they've had all their careers. Enough said.


Though when you look at what the people who were there at the time and both saw both and played against both, you find statements such as:

Wilt Chamberlain: “Where I see him as the tremendous player is as a rebounder. He was the only guy who could rebound along with me, and sometimes I thought he was a better rebounder than I was. He used more things to get to the ball than I had to use. I always had the highest respect for his rebounding."

Johnny Kerr: "[T]here is a side of basketball that can’t be measured in numbers. Often, it is not how many rebounds a player gets, but when does he get them? Does it happen in the middle of the second quarter when no one else is under the basket or does it happen late in the game when everyone is jumping over your back and trying to tear your head off to get to the ball? [...] Russell appealed to those with an artist’s sense of the game. His baskets, his rebounds, his blocks all seemed to come when it really meant something."

Jerry West: "When it counts, Bill Russell is the best rebounder of all. “Wilt and Nate Thurmond are great rebounding centers, [...] but Russell is far and away the best the game has ever known."

I would like to point out that West said this while he was a teammate of Wilt on the Lakers.

Ben Kerner, St. Louis Hawks owner, whose team faced Russell and the Celtics in 1957, '58, '60 and '61: "In big games, no one was better. In the fourth quarter, he’d get every defensive rebound. How are you supposed to win when you get only one shot and there’s Russell sweeping the backboards?"

Wilt Chamberlain: "Russell was the best clutch rebounder this game has ever seen."

So it isn't that simple as being "clearly better" when so many people who were there at the time—even people who were playing with Wilt every night—say otherwise.


Quote:
Originally Posted by GP_20
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThaRegul8r
Hmmm. Who would you say had a greater offensive impact? Wilt or Jordan?


Close. Wilt.


Ah. There was a reason I asked. Had you said Jordan, I would have then whipped out the fact that five years ago Dean Oliver revealed that statistical analysis showed that Bill Russell had the same impact through his defense that a prime Jordan did. Thus if Jordan's offensive impact > Wilt's, and Russell's defensive impact = Jordan's offensive impact, then it wouldn't be true that Wilt's offensive advantage was far greater than Russell's defensive advantage. Unfortunately though, you didn't take the bait.[/QUOTE]

great post. anyone can put numbers up anyone can grab 6 rebounds in a quarter against New Jersey in December. Not everybody can grab 6 rebounds in the 4th quarter of game 7 of the NBA finals. It's either in you or it isn't. Russell had the testicular fortitide to come through in the clutch repeatedly. just like Jordan. Bird. Magic. Kareem.

Chamberlain didn't have this. he could score a bunch of points in the first 2 or 3 quarters but when the game was on the line he shrank from it.

[QUOTE=Horatio33]great post. anyone can put numbers up anyone can grab 6 rebounds in a quarter against New Jersey in December. Not everybody can grab 6 rebounds in the 4th quarter of game 7 of the NBA finals. It's either in you or it isn't. Russell had the testicular fortitide to come through in the clutch repeatedly. just like Jordan. Bird. Magic. Kareem.

[B]Chamberlain didn't have this. he could score a bunch of points in the first 2 or 3 quarters but when the game was on the line he shrank from it.[/[/B]QUOTE]

Another fallacy. There are MANY examples of Chamberlain dominating at clutch times, and in big games. In the 64-65 ECF game seven, Wilt scored the last eight points, (including going 2-2 from the FT line)...and he brought his Sixers back from a 110-101 deficit to within 110-109. AND, "clutch" Russell hit a guidewire with the inbounds pass, allowing Philly a chance to win the game. However, "Havlicek stole the ball!" In that game, Chamberlain scored 30 points, on 12-15 shooting, with 32 rebounds (Russell had a solid game, as well, scoring 15 points, on 7-16 shooting, with 29 rebounds.)

AND, in the clinching game six win over Milwaukee in the 71-72 WCF's, Chamberlain SINGLE-HANDEDLY carried LA in the 4th quarter, thoroughly outplaying Kareem down the stretch, bringing the Lakers all the way back from a 10 deficit with ten minutes to play, and a win.

Russell was a clutch player, too, but take a look at the video footage in game seven of the 68-69 Finals. That was the game in which Wilt injured his knee, and had to come out, with a little over five minutes left. In that 4th quarter, Wilt had as many rebounds, on his injured leg (he stayed in for two possessions), as Russell did for the entire quarter. And while that post-season was one of Wilt's worst, he still outscored Russell, 18-6, outshot Russell, 7-8 to 2-7, and outrebounded him, 27-21...despite Russell playing all 48 minutes to Wilt's 43.

Fatal9 pointed out Wilt's performances in must-win games...and he was brilliant in nearly all of them.

[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]just add justice44 to your ignore list, it's a duplicate account of someone else, after it was created he joined a bunch of threads that were already buried. Whoever he is he doesn't understand the discussion nor does he have any desire to.[/QUOTE]
Oh please. The bottom line is that you are pathetically arrogant to think that you have an airtight case for Bill R. How can you have that type of audacity!:lol :lol

[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]just add justice44 to your ignore list, it's a duplicate account of someone else, after it was created he joined a bunch of threads that were already buried. Whoever he is he doesn't understand the discussion nor does he have any desire to.[/QUOTE]
It's funny how you ignore the fact that Wilt would have won 9 titles with those celtics teams without Russell. :oldlol: :oldlol:

[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]just add justice44 to your ignore list, it's a duplicate account of someone else, after it was created he joined a bunch of threads that were already buried. Whoever he is he doesn't understand the discussion nor does he have any desire to.[/QUOTE]
Now how do you know I am a duplicate account? You confuse not comprehending the discussion with rejecting your asinine arguments.

Russell's IMPACT cannot be measured by stats alone (although he had his share of them.) Regul8r posted an analysis which credited Russell's defensive IMPACT, as the equivalent of Jordan's offensive impact. How many more points was Russell's mere presence worth, on the defensive end? The fact is, his IMPACT was enough to make his teammates worth more points on the offensive end (by his outlet passes, his brilliant passing from the post, and his relentless offensive rebounding), AND, his defense minimized opposing offenses, just in INTIMIDATION alone...much less his actual shot-blocking, his exceptional "help" defense, and his outstanding rebounding (less second chance attempts by opponents.)

And, believe it, or not, it was not about Wilt's stats. It was about his IMPACT on the game. Look, there have been quite a few VERY GOOD players who averaged 30+ ppg in a season...Barry, Iverson, Maravich, Archibald, B. King, McAdoo, and others. But, what their true IMPACT. Most of them played on average to perhaps good teams, at best.

Take for instance, Walt Bellamy in the 61-62 season. 31.6 ppg, 19 rpg, and led the league in FG% at .519. AND, he played on a last place team. I have long maintained that Wilt's surrounding cast in that 61-62 season was no better than Bellamy's. Yet, Wilt almost single-handedly carried that Warrior team to within an eyelash of beating the vaunted Celtics in the playoffs. I contend that had Wilt swapped teams with Bellamy, that it would have been Chicago battling Boston in the playoffs, while Philadelphia would have languished in last place.

Wilt's IMPACT was actually greater in the middle to end of his career. While he was "only" putting up 24-24-.600 seasons, the FACT was, EVERYONE in the league KNEW he could easily score 40-50 points in a game. At his PEAK, even Russell could not match his overall IMPACT. However, what separated Russell from Wilt, was that Russell was OBSESSED with winning. As amazing as this sounds, I really think that Wilt underachieved throughout his career (much like Kareem BTW), and it seemed that he just did not sustain the intensity that Russell did.

In any case, Russell's IMPACT has to be considered, at the very least, among the most dominant ever.

[QUOTE=Justice44]Lauber. The bottom line is that Wilt would have been percieved as making his teammates better if he were on the Celtics instead of Russell. I'll give Rusell the edge on making teammates better, however I think this is overstated. Russell homers act as if Rusell made his HOF players 10 points better when in fact he probably made them two points better. Lastly, great point guards make teammates better.
[/QUOTE]

:cheers: I totally agree.

[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]just add justice44 to your ignore list, it's a duplicate account of someone else, after it was created he joined a bunch of threads that were already buried. Whoever he is he doesn't understand the discussion nor does he have any desire to.[/QUOTE]

That's a bit harsh. Even if you don't agree with the man, that's far from a troll post.

[QUOTE=theguru]
That's a bit harsh. Even if you don't agree with the man, that's far from a troll post.[/QUOTE]


Look at the first few posts the guy made and tell me that's how someone acts when they first create an account in a forum. Also note that the only thread he chose to post in was buried several pages deep.

You'll come to see that this forum is not well moderated and that you have to do your own legwork. I've found in my time on the internet that it's not worthwhile having a discussion within anyone who needs to create multiple accounts for any reason.

He probably has lots of good points (maybe, not probably on second thought) but he also has an agenda, I'm not interested in that at all.

Jerimiah Tax recounts there first battle in 1959.,,

[I]The personal duel in American professional team sports is largely a thing of the past. This is true because athletes have learned that victory most often follows the subordination of individual talent to a cooperative effort. In basketball, a highly fluid game in which players constantly exchange assignments, it is perhaps truest of all. And yet, occasionally, two players appear whose skills are so similar and on whom their teammates count so greatly that a meeting of the teams becomes the occasion for a man-to-man battle.

Two such are the Boston Celtics' Bill Russell and the Philadelphia Warriors' Wilt Chamberlain, whose teams met last Saturday night in the Boston Garden before a tense, chattering crowd in a game that commanded the interest of basketball buffs all over the nation.

Russell is a lithe, graceful athlete who stands a shade under 6 feet 10 inches tall and moves with the ease of a man a foot shorter. He has been a professional for three years now, after leading the University of San Francisco to two national collegiate titles, the U.S. to victory in the Olympic Games in Melbourne and the Celtics to two world championships. On the Celtics, surrounded by many of the finest shooters ( Bill Sharman, Tom Heinsohn, Frank Ramsey) and playmakers ( Bob Cousy, Sam Jones, K.C. Jones) in basketball, he has two chief functions: first, to harass the opposition by blocking their shots and intimidating them by his presence when they think of shooting, and, second, to capture rebounds off the backboards to start Boston's fast-breaking attack. He has filled this difficult role so well since his arrival that Boston has become the best team ever assembled.

Chamberlain, slender of leg and thigh but powerfully muscled in arms and shoulders, is about three inches taller than Russell. After three highly successful years of basketball at Kansas University, he became impatient to capitalize on his deserved reputation and quit school for an extremely lucrative season with the Harlem Globetrotters. This is his first year with the Warriors, where his is an even more demanding assignment than Russell's. Aside from the fine shooting of Paul Arizin and the excellent playmaking of Guy Rodgers, the Warriors cannot support him in the style to which Russell is accustomed. If Philadelphia is to beat the better teams in the pro league, he must do both of Russell's jobs, on defense and rebounding, and also score a great many points himself. In the first few games of the season, against other teams, he did just that, and Philadelphia won. And as the hour approached for the game with Boston there were experts who were certain he would also score enough points against Russell to turn the trick again.

The experts were wrong. What the duel proved, chiefly, is that against Russell, Chamberlain cannot get away with the few simple offensive moves he has found so effective against lesser men. Every time he tried to use his chief weapon, a fall-away jump shot, Russell went up with him; Russell's large hand flicked away at his vision, slapped at the ball, once blocked it outright