Bill Russell vs. Wilt Chamberlain

[QUOTE=theguru]I wouldn't consider these individual stats.

What about Wilt averaging [B]15[/B] more points than Russell for his career. Or Wilt shooting [B]10%[/B] better than Russell from the field even though he took nearly twice as many shots? It's like [B]comparing Ben Wallace to Patrick Ewing[/B].[/QUOTE]

If you really think that's a valid comparison there is no sense having this discussion.

Russell scored 30 in game seven of the NBA finals. How many times has Wallace scored 20? Also Wallace was not one of the three greatest passing centers of all-time. Nor did he ever finish in the top in the league in FG%. Nor did his FT% rise significantly in the postseason.

Wilt averaging 15 points per game more is irrelevant because Russell's teams won anyway. They didn't NEED him to score more. When they did, he did, every time without fail except 1967 when Chamberlain played as both he and Bill have said "Like Russell".

So let's start with that, Russell was an above average offensive player. His points per game and assists as well as offensive rebounds were all above the average for starters at his position and all positions. This is not debatable, none of Russell's teammates or opponents have ever said otherwise. I defy you to find a single quote or article or book talking about Bill's limitations of offense. Saying otherwise shows you've done nothing more than evaluate him on statistics without context.

Second as for those not being individual stats, it's not an individual game. Look at how Russell's stats go up in those playoff games, up higher in conference finals games and even higher in Finals games. Look at how high they are in game sevens. Look at them in elimination games. Across the board with very few exceptions his numbers go up based on how important the game is.

We can both agree (I hope) that is a trait synonymous with the GREATEST of the Great players and that there is a high likelihood of a correlation between Russell's elevated play and the Celtics record in those games.

Add to that how pretty much every Celtic gushes over how it was Russell that made everything possible and it's really hard not to see him as a clearly superior player to Wilt for the course of his career. Wilt's numbers went down more often than not, Russell's up. Wilt's team lost as much as they won and almost always to Russell, Bill's only lost once when he was healthy from 1955-1969.

If you want to believe that's a coincidence, fine. If you want to believe it happened because of how much better Russell's teammates were, you're ignoring facts and opinions of those very same players, but fine.

However if you want to say Russell was an average or worse offensive player, you're wrong. If you compare him to an offensive liability like Wallace you're nuts. If you think his teams were always better than Wilt's you need to look at the rosters and win-loss records of both teams from 1965-1969 and then look at what happened in the playoffs.

Basketball is a team game dominated by transcendent individual performances within the context of team. You need to be your absolute best while allowing space for all of your teammates to be their best. Go play pickup basketball and tell me how many guys are "scorers" (in their mind or reality) and how many are defensive anchors, communicators and leaders. Then learn a few things about supply and demand and decide which guy is more valuable.

[QUOTE=jlauber]Guru,
Having said that, though. G.O.A.T. made the best comment I have read on the Russell-Wilt rivalry. Had Russell not played in Wilt's time...we would probably all be saying that Wilt was the greatest ever.

And that, is good enough for me.[/QUOTE]

That's what a marvel at most about both.

Russell was so good he stopped Wilt Chamberlain from being the undisputed Greatest Player of All-Time.

Look at these numbers, in the 10 years Russell and Wilt shared, here's Wilt's record in playoff series vs. specific opponents.

Dolph Schayes and the Syracuse Nationals: 2-1
Oscar Robertson\Jerry Lucas and the Royals: 2-0
Bob Pettit and the Hawks: 1-0
Rick Barry and the Warriors: 2-0
Willis Reed and the Knicks: 1-0
Atlanta Hawks: 1-0
Bill Russell & the Celtics: 1-7

Imagine if Russell played in the 50's or the 70's. Wilt wins 4-7 more titles and is very likely the undisputed greatest ever.

[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]That's what a marvel at most about both.

Russell was so good he stopped Wilt Chamberlain from being the undisputed Greatest Player of All-Time.

Look at these numbers, in the 10 years Russell and Wilt shared, here's Wilt's record in playoff series vs. specific opponents.

Dolph Schayes and the Syracuse Nationals: 2-1
Oscar Robertson\Jerry Lucas and the Royals: 2-0
Bob Pettit and the Hawks: 1-0
Rick Barry and the Warriors: 2-0
Willis Reed and the Knicks: 1-0
Atlanta Hawks: 1-0
Bill Russell & the Celtics: 1-7

Imagine if Russell played in the 50's or the 70's. Wilt wins 4-7 more titles and is very likely the undisputed greatest ever.[/QUOTE]

G.O.A.T.,

I am a relative newcomer to this forum...and I remember butting heads with you when I first joined. BUT, you (and a few others here) have changed many of my opinions.

Continuing...I have come across some of your posts before I came onboard...and I must say, you have really matured as a writer, and as a valuable resource. There will be some that will disagree with some of your posts, but I certainly think most all here respect them.

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

I am a relative newcomer to this forum...and I remember butting heads with you when I first joined. BUT, you (and a few others here) have changed many of my opinions.

Continuing...I have come across some of your posts before I came onboard...and I must say, you have really matured as a writer, and as a valuable resource. There will be some that will disagree with some of your posts, but I certainly think most all here respect them.[/QUOTE]

You caught me at a bad time and I showed you little respect. As you're learned I'm sure a lot of folks can really frustrate you here if your goal is to learn and teach varying opinions. When I seen another Wilt vs. Russell thread with a brand new account arguing Wilt, I assumed the worst (another multiple account from a poster with a bizarre agenda). Appreciate your patience in getting to understand my opinions and the reasoning behind them. The more people we have here who appreciate the entire history of the game the better.

[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]You caught me at a bad time and I showed you little respect. As you're learned I'm sure a lot of folks can really frustrate you here if your goal is to learn and teach varying opinions. When I seen another Wilt vs. Russell thread with a brand new account arguing Wilt, I assumed the worst (another multiple account from a poster with a bizarre agenda). Appreciate your patience in getting to understand my opinions and the reasoning behind them. The more people we have here who appreciate the entire history of the game the better.[/QUOTE]

No, it was a mutual misunderstanding.

And having said that...your GOAT list is a fountain of information. It is one thing to quote some stats...quite another to put them all in perspective. And then you add so many little-known tidbits...just a great body of work. Like I said, I'm sure there are those will disagree with some of your opinions, just as they would mine, or anyone else's...but they will also respect them.

The important thing is that we are all getting an education here. And for all the meaningless drivel that I see on this forum...it is refreshing to read the valuable contributions of quite a few here. Whether we agree or not.

[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]

Amazing post :applause: .

[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]When he retired in 1969 Sporting News ran a feature on why Russell was the Greatest Player Ever. It cited the opinions of over 25 all-star players and NBA head coaches from the era.

In 1971 when the NBA voted for it's Silver Anniversary team, only Russell was a unanimous selection.

In 1980 when they selected the 35th Anniversary team, Russell was voted the greatest player ever.

Why is there a debate now?[/QUOTE]

This is really interesting.

[QUOTE=feyki]Amazing post :applause: .[/QUOTE]

However, according to my data, Russell didn't have a triple double in that 1964 game. His line was 14/26/[B]6[/B], not 11.

[QUOTE=Psileas]However, according to my data, Russell didn't have a triple double in that 1964 game. His line was 14/26/[B]6[/B], not 11.[/QUOTE]

His Assist number has probably been six . But maybe , he meant blocks as 11 :confusedshrug: .

[QUOTE=feyki]His Assist number has probably been six . But maybe , he meant blocks as 11 :confusedshrug: .[/QUOTE]

Maybe he mistook his blocks number for assists. He did think this was his assists' number, though, because he wrote the following:

[I]factor in his reported 13 blocks against Wilt's Sixers in 1964 and you have a closeout game quadruple double in the NBA Finals. [/I]