[QUOTE=Big#50]Both would be average in today's league. Wilt was strong but so is Bynum, Oden, Shaq, Roberts, Dikembe, Robinson and many others.[/QUOTE]
So you're an idiot?
Printable View
[QUOTE=Big#50]Both would be average in today's league. Wilt was strong but so is Bynum, Oden, Shaq, Roberts, Dikembe, Robinson and many others.[/QUOTE]
So you're an idiot?
[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):[/QUOTE]
Great Post Psileas :applause:
It was me who mentioned about Wilt outrebounding and outscoring in every playoff and regular season series. Though I remember hearing that from you...
But your whole post was just a more detailed version of my original post
[QUOTE]
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.
: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]
And it's the truth. Wilt outplayed Russell all the time. It's just that Wilt's teammates didn't come through like Russell's did. And your post helped explain that better.
At what age will you people learn that stats do not indicate who outplays who?
[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]At what age will you people learn that stats do not indicate who outplays who?[/QUOTE]
When it is head to head? It usually does.
And it's not like it was close either. When you [I]always[/I] get outplayed statistically, you're just worse period.
And as Psileas pointed out, sometimes it was pure domination, yet Wilt's team would lose. And many times it was because his teammates just choked. That's also what Wilt had to point out. He'd play great, but his teammates would let him down. Russell was fortunate his teammates didn't.
[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]
THANK YOU!!
Bill Simmons really puts this argument to rest in his book. He debunks all of the major myths that.
Here are some more numbers from Simmons' book.
[I]Russell's record in conference finals and NBA Finals: 90-53 .629[/I]
[I]Wilt's record in conference finals and NBA Finals: 48-44 .522[/I]
[I]Russell's record in game 7's: 10-0[/I]
[I]Wilt's record in game 7's: 4-5[/I]
[I]Russell's record in elmination games for his team: 11-2[/I]
[I]Chamberlain's record in elimination games for his team: 10-11[/I]
[I]Russell's record against Wilt: 84-58[/I]
He also states that Russell's stats always were better in the postseason than in the regular season. Wilt's numbers dipped in the postseason.
I'm not going into detail because Simmons does a great job of doing so in his book. I used to be on the Wilt side of the fence, then I read the chapter on Wilt vs. Russell and am now on the Russell side. Reason being, is because I feel winning is more important than putting up big numbers. Russell still put up great rebounding numbers, shot a high % from the field, and if blocks were a stat back then, who knows how many he actually averaged per game.
Simmons has first hand accounts from teammates and writers who were around in that era who said Russell was a much better teammate to play with and players weren't ever particularly fond of playing with Wilt. Wilt had the crazy streak of never fouling out in a game, he had too much pride in that asinine streak, and after he picked up his 4th foul he became a HUGE liability on the defensive end for his teams.
People keep saying even though Wilt statistically dominated Russell in the head-to-head matchups, Wilt's teammates would blow the game, and cause Wilt to lose. Wilt was notorious for placing blame on others when his team lost. [B]HELLO![/B] That alone should be enough to tell you that Wilt was nowhere nearly as good as getting the most out of the talent around him, DESPITE playing with almost as many talented players throughout his career than Russell.
[QUOTE=GP_20]Wilt Chamberlain. Both were Top 10 Players of All-Time, but
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]
That has to be one of the stupidest arguments I've ever seen on this board. First, it tells you that Wilt was quick to place blame on anyone other than himself. Secondly, it tells you that Russell was able to get more out of his teammates than Wilt because Russell was a better team player, and was able to not only elevate his level of play in the playoffs, but also elevated the level of his teammate's play. Winning and losing is a team thing, but when you are the best player on your team, and in this case have two players who went head-to-head as often as Wilt and Russell did, and they did so with almost equal talent, than who won more is a VERY telling stat in my opinion. And in regards to W-L, Russell dominated Wilt.
[QUOTE=KG215]That has to be one of the stupidest arguments I've ever seen on this board. First, it tells you that Wilt was quick to place blame on anyone other than himself. Secondly, it tells you that Russell was able to get more out of his teammates than Wilt because Russell was a better team player, and was able to not only elevate his level of play in the playoffs, but also elevated the level of his teammate's play. Winning and losing is a team thing, but when you are the best player on your team, and in this case have two players who went head-to-head as often as Wilt and Russell did, and they did so with almost equal talent, than who won more is a VERY telling stat in my opinion. And in regards to W-L, Russell dominated Wilt.[/QUOTE]
Except the evidence points to exactly what I said dumbass.
His teammates DID actually blow the game for him.
Here is a quote from an earlier post
[QUOTE]
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 35.2% against the Celtics (and his overall scoring went way down, as well). Chet Walker, a 45.2% FG shooter, went 37.5% 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, while doing nothing more than he did. 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]
What more do you want? His teammates blew it, while Russell's didn't. Enough said. Stupid Celtic fans.
Why don't you breakdown their games individually?
Wilt a far superior scorer. (This is a major understatement)
Wilt a better rebounder (clearly)
Russell a better defender (Though Wilt was also good)
Passing they are about even (Both have their arguments)
Seriously, Wilt's offensive advantage is far greater than Russell's defensive advantage. Individually it wasn't even close. No wonder Wilt always outplayed Russell individually head to head. Because he was a superior player.
Now I know Russell has great team impact, but I don't think it's enough to overcome Wilt's individual impact.
My being a Celtics fan has nothing to do with me taking Russell's side. Wilt shrunk away from the spotlight in big games. Russell didn't. I'll take the great player who elevated his level of play in big games over the player who's production decreased in big games. You don't think Wilt's teammates decrease in productivity in playoff games had nothing to do with feeding off Wilt's tenedency to shy away from the spotlight in big games?
You have already proven that winning doesn't mean that much to you by vehemently arguing that Kevin Johnson is better than certain PG's who most believe are clearly better than Johnson. Some people look at numbers as far as points, assists, rebounds, etc. and that is their determining factor on how great a player was. Others look at not only numbers but how successful said player was in the postseason and his team's success in the playoffs.
If Wilt's individual impact was so much greater than Russell's team impact, than how come Russell's teams have such a good head-to-head record against Wilt's teams?
I can also pull out quotes of Russell's teammates saying he held back a little defensively against Wilt until the fourth quarter. Again, I'm getting most of this from the Bill Simmons book, which I don't have with me right now, but I will get some of those quotes on here when I do.
Bottom line: Individual success and numbers mean more to you in determining a player's greatness, and team success goes a lot further in my assessment in a player's greatness.
[QUOTE=KG215]My being a Celtics fan has nothing to do with me taking Russell's side. Wilt shrunk away from the spotlight in big games. Russell didn't. I'll take the great player who elevated his level of play in big games over the player who's production decreased in big games. You don't think Wilt's teammates decrease in productivity in playoff games had nothing to do with feeding off Wilt's tenedency to shy away from the spotlight in big games?
[/quote]
In all the "big games" (playoffs), Wilt still outscored and outrebounded Russell in every meeting. It's not like he choked and lost everytime. Sometimes he had great series against Russell, but his team ended up losing. And why would his teammates shy away from the spotlight because of Wilt? Are they playing for themselves or for him? "Oh our leader is not doing well, lets bring our game down too?" wtf? A lot of these players were All-Stars already, they should be able to take over games by themselves, but they ended up choking.
[QUOTE]
You have already proven that winning doesn't mean that much to you by vehemently arguing that Kevin Johnson is better than certain PG's who most believe are clearly better than Johnson. Some people look at numbers as far as points, assists, rebounds, etc. and that is their determining factor on how great a player was. Others look at not only numbers but how successful said player was in the postseason and his team's success in the playoffs.[/QUOTE]
Like who? Kevin Johnson has been one of the best playoff PGs in NBA history. He's Top 5 All-Time in Points and Assists in Game 7s in the playoffs. Top 5. He's the only PG ever to outplay Magic (at his peak) in the playoffs (according to Magic and Individual Stats AND the win/loss). He's been a prime time performer. Not sure why you are bringing him in this.
[QUOTE]
If Wilt's individual impact was so much greater than Russell's team impact, than how come Russell's teams have such a good head-to-head record against Wilt's teams?[/QUOTE]
Because it's a TEAM GAME not 1on1. Russell's teammates routinely outplayed Wilt's.
[quote]
Bottom line: Individual success and numbers mean more to you in determining a player's greatness, and team success goes a lot further in my assessment in a player's greatness.[/QUOTE]
Which is funny.
Because last time I checked, when comparing [U]individual [/U]players,[U] individual[/U] success/skill/accomplishments should mean more than team success/skill/accomplishments. I figured that one out by common sense.
It's like having a competition between 2 classes to see who gets the overall best score on an exam. And for you, the best student in the class that wins is the best student from both classes. Even though he might have had gotten a 95, while the best student from the losing class had a 99.
Yeah keep comparing individual players based on how their team does and not how good they are individually. :rolleyes:
If there is one player I think people should throw out the stats totally on its Bill Russell. A guy whos primary value is defense/leadership/clutch play who was on a team that traded better scorers for him? And we have people talking about him getting outscored? And even if the numbers are what people want...not like he wasnt doing his thing.
Didnt feel like writing this out again so I found something I said a while back:
[QUOTE]He got 30 rebounds or more the last 3 games of the 59 finals. In game 7 of the 60 finals he had 22 points and 35 rebounds. He had 30 points and 38 rebounds to close out the 61 finals. He had 30 points and 40(yes...40) rebounds in the OT game 7 win vs the Lakers in the 62 finals. He was just under a triple double to close out the 63 finals with 12/24/9 assists. In 65 he had 22 points and 30 rebounds to win the title also setting the finals record for shooting percentage over 70%. Next year? Game 7....2 point win...25 points...32 rebounds. He had 26 rebounds/6 assists in the last game of his career. A game 7 win on the road. In 1968 he was playing 49 minutes a game in the finals because he played virtually every second plus over times. They only got to the finals in the first place because he led them back from being down 1-3 in the ECF and in the last 30 seconds of game 7? The celtics were up 2. He made fts, blocked a shot, and got an assist on the shot to seal it. In 11 win or go home final games of a tied series of any kind...hes 11-0. the guy only lost two playoff series of any kind from age 15 to 35 and he was injured and out in one of them(second season in the finals). HS titles. 2 NCAA titles. Gold medal. 11 NBA titles. **** he even COACHED two of the teams to NBA titles.[/QUOTE]
Russell never had wilt numbers but that doesnt really mean he was helping less. He never had Baylor numbers either. He never did 30/20 like Petitt. Or 30/19 like Bellamy. He had worse numbers than an awful lot of people yet the players themselves gave him 5 MVPs(players voted back then).
Hes probably the worst player ever to judge on his production.
I generally support Wilt and will continue to do so. I just dont see that him outscoring Bill or getting more rebounds automatically means he did more for his team. Its relevant. And when people say things like Bill shut Wilt down...it shows it to be untrue. But if anyone proved themselves to be beyond the numbers its Bill.
I will keep on doing so, because it's my OPINION!!! How many titles did Kevin Johnson win? What was Wilt's record vs. Russell? Who's numbers improved from regular season to postseason, Russell's or Wilt's? Arguing with you is pointless. You have your opinion, facts to back them up, but they are still facts only supporting your side. Just as my facts support my side. Fallacies aside, you're not going to convince me one way or the other, and even if Wilt himself admitted to you that Russell was better, you still wouldn't be convinced.
Wilt was the better player statistcally, was much more physically gifted than Russell, and dominated the game like we've never seen before. I'm not denying that. However, Russell was also a pretty good player stats wise (better than most give him credit for) AND his teams won. His teammates enjoyed playing with him much more than Wilt's enjoyed playing with him.
[QUOTE=Kblaze8855]If there is one player I think people should throw out the stats totally on its Bill Russell. A guy whos primary value is defense/leadership/clutch play who was on a team that traded better scorers for him? And we have people talking about him getting outscored? And even if the numbers are what people want...not like he wasnt doing his thing.
Didnt feel like writing this out again so I found something I said a while back:
Russell never had wilt numbers but that doesnt really mean he was helping less. He never had Baylor numbers either. He never did 30/20 like Petitt. Or 30/19 like Bellamy. He had worse numbers than an awful lot of people yet the players themselves gave him 5 MVPs(players voted back then).
Hes probably the worst player ever to judge on his production.
I generally support Wilt and will continue to do so. I just dont see that him outscoring Bill or getting more rebounds automatically means he did more for his team. If anyone proved themselves to be beyond the numbers its Bill.[/QUOTE]
Yeah and I agree. I would take Russell over Pettit, Bellamy and all those Centers as well despite his numbers being much lower. However, there is a huge difference Between Wilt and Bellamy/Pettit. Both on the offensive end, and defensive. And this difference drives Wilt above all. Like I said, Bill Russell has great team impact, that is enough to make up the difference between him and Pettit/Bellamy's numbers, but not Wilt's individual game.
Though KBlaze8855, why do you support Wilt over Russell?
[QUOTE=KG215]I will keep on doing so, because it's my OPINION!!! How many titles did Kevin Johnson win? What was Wilt's record vs. Russell? Who's numbers improved from regular season to postseason, Russell's or Wilt's? Arguing with you is pointless. You have your opinion, facts to back them up, but they are still facts only supporting your side. Just as my facts support my side. Fallacies aside, you're not going to convince me one way or the other, and even if Wilt himself admitted to you that Russell was better, you still wouldn't be convinced.
Wilt was the better player statistcally, was much more physically gifted than Russell, and dominated the game like we've never seen before. I'm not denying that. However, Russell was also a pretty good player stats wise (better than most give him credit for) AND his teams won. His teammates enjoyed playing with him much more than Wilt's enjoyed playing with him.[/QUOTE]
You know to be honest, if Wilt kept playing like he did Pre-76ers, put up great stats, great numbers, individual dominance, but never won a title, I would also have Russell over Wilt.
But I think 66-73 Wilt's "new style" of play really puts him over the top. And to be honest, he played like a winner. He was more team orientated and less about himself (though still cared a lot about himself). But especially late in his career, he was almost all team orientated.
I just wanted to point out Wilt won 2 championships as well and isn't some big loser who never won anything and just had great stats. The winning Wilt did along with his individual dominance separates Russell and Wilt for me.
[QUOTE=CB4GOATPF][B]Baylor was in the downside of his career when he playing with Wilt age 34 plus. Was still great but he wasn
[QUOTE]Yeah and I agree. I would take Russell over Pettit, Bellamy and all those Centers as well despite his numbers being much lower. However, there is a huge difference Between Wilt and Bellamy/Pettit. Both on the offensive end, and defensive. And this difference drives Wilt above all. Like I said, Bill Russell has great team impact, that is enough to make up the difference between him and Pettit/Bellamy's numbers, but not Wilt's individual game.
Though KBlaze8855, why do you support Wilt over Russell?[/QUOTE]
Wilt might be the only player ever who proved capable of being the best...at everything. Outside shooting aside I mean. But he could be called the best scorer, defender, playmaker, or rebounder depending on when. He had games with 100 points...games over 20 assists....55 rebounds. He was far more unselfish than his reputation considering he totally gave up his scoring to play the old Russell role o nthe Lakers. And not like he lost scoring ability. He had 66 the week after SI said he had.
I think he was far more "Me first" than Bill and because of it I dont believe his teammates wanted to go hard to win for him like they did Bill. You hear Bills old teammates talk and they seem like they just wanted to win at all costs because they knew Bill would kill for it. he didnt care who got the credit. HE just wanted to win. Hear wilts talk its far more of a disconnect. Talk about him being great but I never get the feeling they loved him like Bills teammates.
Bill was probably a bigger positive team wise if only for being so team first. Icant see Bill saying "I dominate and my teammates lose the game for me" even if they did.
I love Wilt...have a couple of his books...find him often underrated. But **** like that is why he will never be respected like Bill.
Bill was the Celtics. People talk about all his HOF teammates....half of them he got to the HOF. like KC jones and his 7/4 on 30 something percent shooting is in the HOF as a player without playing with Russell in college and the NBA. Sam Jones was no doubt great but a lot of guard back then scored a lot and didnt have such a career because they didnt have Russell. He won 5-6 titles without Cousy. Sharman wasnt always there.
They had good players but many of them...their whole legacy is built off being on that dynasty. The dynasty that began the moment Bill got there and ended the second he left. Luckily they were so bad without him they were able to draft HOF players in back to back drafts and rebuild quickly.
But really....Russell was the Celtics. Heh ad good teams but a lot of those players wouldnt be considered what they are without him. Maybe you can say the same of him...but he was in college winning 56 games in a row and back to back titles with a team that has never won since. He was in college keeping superst Heinson(later the ROY over Bill) scoreless in an entire second half and getting called out for his poor play in games he had 6 points and the other team only got 42...and his team won a blowout. He gets to the L and his own city was full of people who hated him. Breaking into his house and ****ing things up because he was black in a good neighborhood. He powers them to rings and everyone gives Cousy the credit.
He never seemed to get credit for what he did because it wasnt as flashy as a huge scoring night bue he was getting the job done for 20 years.
And the same **** happens today. His box scores called out in comparison to people he was beating. Bugs me at times that 50 years later so many people still have the same kind of opinions that him winning 16 various titles should have wiped out.
He could go and have 10 points and 35 rebounds probably block 15 shots and win and the fans would cheer Tommy, Cousy, and so on scoring more and looking flashy. And here we are with 50 years of seeing what wins games. Teamwork, defense, rebounding, chemistry, passing, and so on....and we still wont give the man his due credit because other people were scoring mroe than him.
[QUOTE=Kblaze8855]Wilt might be the only player ever who proved capable of being the best...at everything. Outside shooting aside I mean. But he could be called the best scorer, defender, playmaker, or rebounder depending on when. He had games with 100 points...games over 20 assists....55 rebounds. He was far more unselfish than his reputation considering he totally gave up his scoring to play the old Russell role o nthe Lakers. And not like he lost scoring ability. He had 66 the week after SI said he had.
I think he was far more "Me first" than Bill and because of it I dont believe his teammates wanted to go hard to win for him like they did Bill. You hear Bills old teammates talk and they seem like they just wanted to win at all costs because they knew Bill would kill for it. he didnt care who got the credit. HE just wanted to win. Hear wilts talk its far more of a disconnect. Talk about him being great but I never get the feeling they loved him like Bills teammates.
Bill was probably a bigger positive team wise if only for being so team first. Icant see Bill saying "I dominate and my teammates lose the game for me" even if they did.
I love Wilt...have a couple of his books...find him often underrated. But **** like that is why he will never be respected like Bill.
Bill was the Celtics. People talk about all his HOF teammates....half of them he got to the HOF. like KC jones and his 7/4 on 30 something percent shooting is in the HOF as a player without playing with Russell in college and the NBA. Sam Jones was no doubt great but a lot of guard back then scored a lot and didnt have such a career because they didnt have Russell. He won 5-6 titles without Cousy. Sharman wasnt always there.
They had good players but many of them...their whole legacy is built off being on that dynasty. The dynasty that began the moment Bill got there and ended the second he left. Luckily they were so bad without him they were able to draft HOF players in back to back drafts and rebuild quickly.
But really....Russell was the Celtics. Heh ad good teams but a lot of those players wouldnt be considered what they are without him. Maybe you can say the same of him...but he was in college winning 56 games in a row and back to back titles with a team that has never won since. He was in college keeping superst Heinson(later the ROY over Bill) scoreless in an entire second half and getting called out for his poor play in games he had 6 points and the other team only got 42...and his team won a blowout. He gets to the L and his own city was full of people who hated him. Breaking into his house and ****ing things up because he was black in a good neighborhood. He powers them to rings and everyone gives Cousy the credit.
He never seemed to get credit for what he did because it wasnt as flashy as a huge scoring night bue he was getting the job done for 20 years.
And the same **** happens today. His box scores called out in comparison to people he was beating. Bugs me at times that 50 years later so many people still have the same kind of opinions that him winning 16 various titles should have wiped out.
He could go and have 10 points and 35 rebounds probably block 15 shots and win and the fans would cheer Tommy, Cousy, and so on scoring more and looking flashy. And here we are with 50 years of seeing what wins games. Teamwork, defense, rebounding, chemistry, passing, and so on....and we still wont give the man his due credit because other people were scoring mroe than him.[/QUOTE]
Said beautifully family....
Taking Wilt over Russell is like taking Goliath over David after the later slayed the former.
Despite all of Goliath's (Wilt) physical advantages it was David (Russell) who outsmarted, outworked and eventually PROVED superior.
When Russell retired in 1969 there was no debate as to who was the Greatest Player of All time, NONE.
Only in the time gone by have people too stubborn to admit their own ignorance of the topic started picking Wilt.
Wilt's goal was to put up huge stats and break records.
Russell's was to win.
Even if we assume that Wilt's goal was as noble and should be held in as high regard as Russell's (preposterous) Bill was still more successful at accomplishing what he wanted to do.
[QUOTE=Kblaze8855]Wilt might be the only player ever who proved capable of being the best...at everything. Outside shooting aside I mean. But he could be called the best scorer, defender, playmaker, or rebounder depending on when. He had games with 100 points...games over 20 assists....55 rebounds. He was far more unselfish than his reputation considering he totally gave up his scoring to play the old Russell role o nthe Lakers. And not like he lost scoring ability. He had 66 the week after SI said he had.
I think he was far more "Me first" than Bill and because of it I dont believe his teammates wanted to go hard to win for him like they did Bill. You hear Bills old teammates talk and they seem like they just wanted to win at all costs because they knew Bill would kill for it. he didnt care who got the credit. HE just wanted to win. Hear wilts talk its far more of a disconnect. Talk about him being great but I never get the feeling they loved him like Bills teammates.
Bill was probably a bigger positive team wise if only for being so team first. Icant see Bill saying "I dominate and my teammates lose the game for me" even if they did.
I love Wilt...have a couple of his books...find him often underrated. But **** like that is why he will never be respected like Bill.
Bill was the Celtics. People talk about all his HOF teammates....half of them he got to the HOF. like KC jones and his 7/4 on 30 something percent shooting is in the HOF as a player without playing with Russell in college and the NBA. Sam Jones was no doubt great but a lot of guard back then scored a lot and didnt have such a career because they didnt have Russell. He won 5-6 titles without Cousy. Sharman wasnt always there.
They had good players but many of them...their whole legacy is built off being on that dynasty. The dynasty that began the moment Bill got there and ended the second he left. Luckily they were so bad without him they were able to draft HOF players in back to back drafts and rebuild quickly.
But really....Russell was the Celtics. Heh ad good teams but a lot of those players wouldnt be considered what they are without him. Maybe you can say the same of him...but he was in college winning 56 games in a row and back to back titles with a team that has never won since. He was in college keeping superst Heinson(later the ROY over Bill) scoreless in an entire second half and getting called out for his poor play in games he had 6 points and the other team only got 42...and his team won a blowout. He gets to the L and his own city was full of people who hated him. Breaking into his house and ****ing things up because he was black in a good neighborhood. He powers them to rings and everyone gives Cousy the credit.
He never seemed to get credit for what he did because it wasnt as flashy as a huge scoring night bue he was getting the job done for 20 years.
And the same **** happens today. His box scores called out in comparison to people he was beating. Bugs me at times that 50 years later so many people still have the same kind of opinions that him winning 16 various titles should have wiped out.
He could go and have 10 points and 35 rebounds probably block 15 shots and win and the fans would cheer Tommy, Cousy, and so on scoring more and looking flashy. And here we are with 50 years of seeing what wins games. Teamwork, defense, rebounding, chemistry, passing, and so on....and we still wont give the man his due credit because other people were scoring mroe than him.[/QUOTE]
I almost want to cry...preach on brother.
[QUOTE=Kblaze8855]Wilt might be the only player ever who proved capable of being the best...at everything. Outside shooting aside I mean. But he could be called the best scorer, defender, playmaker, or rebounder depending on when. He had games with 100 points...games over 20 assists....55 rebounds. He was far more unselfish than his reputation considering he totally gave up his scoring to play the old Russell role o nthe Lakers. And not like he lost scoring ability. He had 66 the week after SI said he had.
I think he was far more "Me first" than Bill and because of it I dont believe his teammates wanted to go hard to win for him like they did Bill. You hear Bills old teammates talk and they seem like they just wanted to win at all costs because they knew Bill would kill for it. he didnt care who got the credit. HE just wanted to win. Hear wilts talk its far more of a disconnect. Talk about him being great but I never get the feeling they loved him like Bills teammates.
Bill was probably a bigger positive team wise if only for being so team first. Icant see Bill saying "I dominate and my teammates lose the game for me" even if they did.
I love Wilt...have a couple of his books...find him often underrated. But **** like that is why he will never be respected like Bill.
Bill was the Celtics. People talk about all his HOF teammates....half of them he got to the HOF. like KC jones and his 7/4 on 30 something percent shooting is in the HOF as a player without playing with Russell in college and the NBA. Sam Jones was no doubt great but a lot of guard back then scored a lot and didnt have such a career because they didnt have Russell. He won 5-6 titles without Cousy. Sharman wasnt always there.
They had good players but many of them...their whole legacy is built off being on that dynasty. The dynasty that began the moment Bill got there and ended the second he left. Luckily they were so bad without him they were able to draft HOF players in back to back drafts and rebuild quickly.
But really....Russell was the Celtics. Heh ad good teams but a lot of those players wouldnt be considered what they are without him. Maybe you can say the same of him...but he was in college winning 56 games in a row and back to back titles with a team that has never won since. He was in college keeping superst Heinson(later the ROY over Bill) scoreless in an entire second half and getting called out for his poor play in games he had 6 points and the other team only got 42...and his team won a blowout. He gets to the L and his own city was full of people who hated him. Breaking into his house and ****ing things up because he was black in a good neighborhood. He powers them to rings and everyone gives Cousy the credit.
He never seemed to get credit for what he did because it wasnt as flashy as a huge scoring night bue he was getting the job done for 20 years.
And the same **** happens today. His box scores called out in comparison to people he was beating. Bugs me at times that 50 years later so many people still have the same kind of opinions that him winning 16 various titles should have wiped out.
He could go and have 10 points and 35 rebounds probably block 15 shots and win and the fans would cheer Tommy, Cousy, and so on scoring more and looking flashy. And here we are with 50 years of seeing what wins games. Teamwork, defense, rebounding, chemistry, passing, and so on....and we still wont give the man his due credit because other people were scoring mroe than him.[/QUOTE]
KBlaze I asked you why you support Wilt over Russell, and you go on talking about Bill Russell and why he was so great in your post. :confusedshrug:
Um, what about Wilt? He's the one being underrated in this thread.
Of course like I said, individual domination of Wilt Chamberlain alone doesn't put him over Bill Russell the great winner. It's Chamberlain's career from 66-73 that puts him over Bill. He had what you could call a winning career from 66 on.
It's the winning he was able to do, the sacrifices he was able to make, the new dimensions he was able to show, that put him over Russell.
I mean let's be honest, what has Wilt not done? He was the leading scorer by far on his teams, the leading rebounding on his teams, the leading playmaker, and the defensive anchor on his team. He's done it all.
Bill? Could Bill Russell EVER have done all of that? Could he have scored at will if his team needed him too for the whole season? I'm talking at least 30ppg. No. He was never that great of a scorer.
But really, Wilt's career from 66-73, his 2 rings, those things put him on Top of Russell. He did it all.
[QUOTE][B]Butch van Breda Kolff:[/B] Russell would ask 'What do I need to do to make my teammates better?' Wilt would ask, 'What's the best situation for me?'[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE][B]John Havlicek:[/B] You couldn't begin to count the ways we missed [him]. People think about him in terms of defense and rebounding, but he had been the key to our offense. He made the best pass more than anyone I have ever played with. That mattered to people like Nelson, Howell, Siegfried, Sanders, and myself. None of us were one on one players...Russell made us better offensive players. His ability as a passer, pick-setter, and general surmiser of offense has always been overlooked[/QUOTE]
A quote from Havlicek's book [I]Hondo[/I] He is basically saying Russell was not only the force behind their defense but also the key to making their offense click. He orchestrated things on offense from the center position and his teammates thrived off of him on both ends of the court.
Simmons states that Wilt finally had an epiphany in the '66-'67 season, became a more unselfish player, and his team won a title. The very next season, though, he set out to accomplish another individual goal: leading the league in assists. This all came from Wilt's own autobiography.
[QUOTE][B]Bill Libby:[/B] A couple of times he went to a teammate with a hot hand and told him he was going to give him the ball exclusively because the other guys were wasting his passes and he wouldn't win the assists title this way.[/Quote]
Even when Wilt was trying to be unselfish and help his team, he was doing so in a harmful and selfish manner.
There are countless stories out there of Wilt demeaning his own teammates, opponents, and coaches, and many accounts of players saying they did not want to play with him. Wilt played with Willie Naulls, Naulls didn't particularly enjoy playing with Wilt, landed on the Celtics one year later, and won two championships playing with Russell.
[QUOTE][B]Rick Barry:[/B] I'll say what most players feel, which is that Wilt is a loser...He is terrible in big games. He knows he is going to lose and be blamed for the loss, so he drads it, and you can see it in his eyes, and anyone whoever played with him will agree with me, regardless of whether they would admit it publicly. When it comes down to the closing minutes of a tough game, an important game, he doesn't want the ball, he doesn't want any part of the pressure. It is at these times that greatness is determined, and Wilt doesn't have it. There is no way you can compare him to a pro like Bill Russell or Jerry West...these are clutch competitors.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE][B]Bill Simmons:[/B] Russell in a 1968 game 7: In '68 Wilt took two shots after halftime and steadfastly kept passing to his ice-cold teammates, then blamed them afteward because because they couldn't make the shot.[/QUOTE]
Maybe his teammates could have made some of the shots, but Wilt being as great as he was, should have stepped up and taken the shots himself.
[QUOTE][B]Jerry West:[/B] I don't want to rap Wilt because I believe only Russell was better, and I really respect what Wilt did. But I have to say he wouldn't adjust to you, you had to adjust to him.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE][B]Bill Russell:[/B] It did seem to me that [Wilt] was often ambivalent about what he wanted to get out of basketball. Anyone who changes the character and style of his play several times over a career is bound to be uncertain about which of the many potential accomplishments he wants to pursue. It's perfectly possible for a player not to make victory his first priority against all the others-money, records, personal fame, and an undivided claim to his achievements-and I often felt Wilt made some deliberate choices in his ambitions.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE][B]Wilt Chamberlain:[/B]...I wish I had won all those championships, but I really think I grew more as a man in defeat that Russell did in victory.[/QUOTE]
In the rest of that Chamberlain quote, he talks about how he felt he got more from life and enjoyed the other aspects of life outside of basketball. He said Russell only cared about winning and basketball and was in the locker room before every big game throwing up. Since we aren't arguing who had a better life outside of basketball or who enjoyed life more outside of basketball, tell me this, would you rather have Russell - the player throwing up in the locker room before a big game, not shying away in crunch time, and elevating his game in the playoffs - or would you rather have a more care free Wilt who was afraid to have the ball in crunch time and shied away from the spotlight in big games?
^Nice summation; I've been meaning to do that, but loaned the book to a friend.
As Simmons himself says and I've said for years now, it's not really a debate.
Bill Russell in Game Seven or other series clinching games Games in the NBA Finals
1957 Game 7 - 19 points, 32 rebounds; Boston Wins 125-123 in double overtime
1959 Game 4 - 15 points 34 rebounds; Boston Wins 118-113
1960 Game 7 - 22 points 35 rebounds 4 assists; Boston wins 122-103
1961 Game 5 - 30 points (on 17 FGA) 38 rebounds; Boston wins 121-112
1962 Game 7 - 30 points 40 rebounds 9 assists reported 14 blocks; Boston wins 110-107 in (OT)
1963 Game 6 - 12 points 24 rebounds 9 assists; Boston wins 112-109
1964 Game 5 - (vs. Wilt [30-25 reported 6 blocks]) 12 points 27 rebounds (reported 11 blocks); Boston wins 105-99
1965 Game 5 - 6-9 FG 10-12 FT 22 points 30 rebounds 4 assists; Boston wins 129-96
1966 Game 7 - 25 points 32 rebounds; Boston wins 95-93
1968 Game 6 - 5-7 FG 8-9 FT 12 points 19 rebounds 6 assists; Boston wins 124-109 with Russell as coach
1969 Game 7 - (vs. Wilt [18 points 27 rebounds]) 6 points 21 rebounds 6 assists; Boston wins 108-106 with Russell as coach
Factor in that in the three games of these games there is video of he averages 12.7 blocks and who knows how great those stat lines would have looked.
Most of it is nothing but guesses, but people have ventured to guess that he probably averaged anywhere from 8-12 blocks per game during his career.
As Simmons states in his book; why in the hell did they not keep up with blocked shots in that era?
[QUOTE=KG215]A quote from Havlicek's book [I]Hondo[/I] He is basically saying Russell was not only the force behind their defense but also the key to making their offense click. He orchestrated things on offense from the center position and his teammates thrived off of him on both ends of the court.
Simmons states that Wilt finally had an epiphany in the '66-'67 season, became a more unselfish player, and his team won a title. The very next season, though, he set out to accomplish another individual goal: leading the league in assists. This all came from Wilt's own autobiography.
Even when Wilt was trying to be unselfish and help his team, he was doing so in a harmful and selfish manner.
There are countless stories out there of Wilt demeaning his own teammates, opponents, and coaches, and many accounts of players saying they did not want to play with him. Wilt played with Willie Naulls, Naulls didn't particularly enjoy playing with Wilt, landed on the Celtics one year later, and won two championships playing with Russell.
Maybe his teammates could have made some of the shots, but Wilt being as great as he was, should have stepped up and taken the shots himself.
In the rest of that Chamberlain quote, he talks about how he felt he got more from life and enjoyed the other aspects of life outside of basketball. He said Russell only cared about winning and basketball and was in the locker room before every big game throwing up. Since we aren't arguing who had a better life outside of basketball or who enjoyed life more outside of basketball, tell me this, would you rather have Russell - the player throwing up in the locker room before a big game, not shying away in crunch time, and elevating his game in the playoffs - or would you rather have a more care free Wilt who was afraid to have the ball in crunch time and shied away from the spotlight in big games?[/QUOTE]
Quotes are all nice to consider but shouldn't be held so highly. Especially when you have a player like Wilt who had a personality most wouldn't like versus Russell who was a great guy.
[QUOTE=GP_20]Quotes are all nice to consider but shouldn't be held so highly. Especially when you have a player like Wilt who had a personality most wouldn't like versus Russell who was a great guy.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, that's why Rick Barry isn't regarded higher as well.
I still think Russell was very fortunate all his career. Was he still the best player on his title teams? Yes. Was he the main reason they won? Yes.
But Russell was fortunate enough to come right into the league and into the hands of arguably the GOAT coach. The GOAT coach. And on top of that, arguably the GOAT backcourt (even today). And another HOF. That was how his career started. What luck. :applause:
Wilt did not get anything like that at the beginning of his career, and it was later did he start playing with HOF coaches and teammates. I think this has a lot to with Russell being the winner he is. Russell even once said that he doesn't think he'd be able to play with another coach other than Red. Red knew how to maximize his player's talents and how to handle them. Russell got the correct treatment all the way. Imagine if he came into the league with a garbage coach, who didn't even care about defense, how would Russell's career fared? Maybe a ring? Trade here and there?
I'm just saying he's incredibly lucky to be welcomed into the NBA with a arguable GOAT coach and arguably the GOAT backcourt of all-time, and another HOF. wow.
[B]
Can anyone name me another NBA superstar who has had better luck than Bill Russell upon entrance in the NBA?
[/B]
Most have him at Top 10 at worst.
What happens when you put a Top 10 player of all-time, with the GOAT coach, arguable GOAT backcourt, and more HOF(s).
I expect a lot of winning to occur. A lot.
Russell was pretty tall. Wilt was really tall.
Russell wouldn't sign autographs for children.
Wilt tried to concieve 10,000 children.
[QUOTE=GP_20]I still think Russell was very fortunate all his career. Was he still the best player on his title teams? Yes. Was he the main reason they won? Yes.
But Russell was fortunate enough to come right into the league and into the hands of arguably the GOAT coach. The GOAT coach. And on top of that, arguably the GOAT backcourt (even today). And another HOF. That was how his career started. What luck. :applause:
Wilt did not get anything like that at the beginning of his career, and it was later did he start playing with HOF coaches and teammates. I think this has a lot to with Russell being the winner he is. Russell even once said that he doesn't think he'd be able to play with another coach other than Red. Red knew how to maximize his player's talents and how to handle them. Russell got the correct treatment all the way. Imagine if he came into the league with a garbage coach, who didn't even care about defense, how would Russell's career fared? Maybe a ring? Trade here and there?
I'm just saying he's incredibly lucky to be welcomed into the NBA with a arguable GOAT coach and arguably the GOAT backcourt of all-time, and another HOF. wow.
[B]
Can anyone name me another NBA superstar who has had better luck than Bill Russell upon entrance in the NBA?
[/B]
Most have him at Top 10 at worst.
What happens when you put a Top 10 player of all-time, with the GOAT coach, arguable GOAT backcourt, and more HOF(s).
I expect a lot of winning to occur. A lot.[/QUOTE]
Never thought of Cousy and Sherman as the GOAT back court. Not even top 5
Yeah, i can't agree on the GOAT backcourt comment. These are some backcourts I'd take over them off the top of my head.
Jerry West/Gail Goodrich(particularly in '72)
Magic/Byron Scott(around '87 or '88)
Magic/Norm Nixon(especially in '82)
Isiah Thomas/Joe Dumars
[QUOTE]I still think Russell was very fortunate all his career. Was he still the best player on his title teams? Yes. Was he the main reason they won? Yes.
But Russell was fortunate enough to come right into the league and into the hands of arguably the GOAT coach. The GOAT coach. And on top of that, arguably the GOAT backcourt (even today). And another HOF. That was how his career started. What luck.
Wilt did not get anything like that at the beginning of his career, and it was later did he start playing with HOF coaches and teammates. I think this has a lot to with Russell being the winner he is. Russell even once said that he doesn't think he'd be able to play with another coach other than Red. Red knew how to maximize his player's talents and how to handle them. Russell got the correct treatment all the way. Imagine if he came into the league with a garbage coach, who didn't even care about defense, how would Russell's career fared? Maybe a ring? Trade here and there?
I'm just saying he's incredibly lucky to be welcomed into the NBA with a arguable GOAT coach and arguably the GOAT backcourt of all-time, and another HOF. wow.
Can anyone name me another NBA superstar who has had better luck than Bill Russell upon entrance in the NBA?[/quote]
There are at least 2 on the Lakers alone. Magic Johnson and Kobe joined teams with the best bigmen in the NBA and multiple stars along with them. Give me Kareem/Shaq and those early 80s/mid 90s Lakers team over what Bill got. They were carried by superior players. Russell was not.
And Wilt was one of 5 current/recent/soon to be all stars on his rookie team including Paul arizin who won that team the title a couple years earlier with their coach Neil. Paul was the NBAs second leading scorer when Wilt joined the team. Also Guy Rodgers who ive heard called better than Cousy by some who saw him. Led the L in assists. Had a 28 assist game before they relaxed the rules. He probably had games with 30-35 by our standards. had 20 in Wilts 100 point game. Broke Cousys single season assist record in fact. Tom Gola was an all star the first 5 seasons of Wilts career. Woody Sauldsberry was an all star the year before Wilt got there. Lets not at like Wilt was drafted to a team of scrubs and Russells owned the league. The Celtics with all this talent were a .500 team 2 years before Russell and won 1 playoff game the following year with a 39-33 record. They never did better than a 1-3 loss in the second round in 5-6 years with that backcourt AND Easy Ed who was an all nba first team hall of famer and the guy that Russell was traded for.
What did that team actually do without Russell? 3 hall of famers pre Russell. Did they accomplish anything at all?
And as for the coaching....
Russell coached the Celtics to more titles than Red did without him on the team. Just a fact. The entire Celtics dynasty and the legacy of those players and coaches is tied into if not simply built on the back of Bill Russell. When the coach retires and you coach the team to 2 titles yourself.....
Whats left to say? Who else can get the credit?
He played and coached the team....to 2 titles.
Red deserves a lot of credit for building good teams. But yyou can only give him so much when he retires and Russell just takes over the team himself. Imagine something like that today. Pop retires and Duncan coaches them to more rings?
Bill did it all.
[QUOTE=Kblaze8855]There are at least 2 on the Lakers alone. Magic Johnson and Kobe joined teams with the best bigmen in the NBA and multiple stars along with them. Give me Kareem/Shaq and those early 80s/mid 90s Lakers team over what Bill got. They were carried by superior players. Russell was not.
[/QUOTE]
Russell did have the luxuary of playing with the league MVP in his rookie season.
[QUOTE=ShaqAttack3234]Yeah, i can't agree on the GOAT backcourt comment. These are some backcourts I'd take over them off the top of my head.
Jerry West/Gail Goodrich(particularly in '72)
Magic/Byron Scott(around '87 or '88)
Magic/Norm Nixon(especially in '82)
Isiah Thomas/Joe Dumars[/QUOTE]
Add
Frazier and Monore
[QUOTE=GP_20]I still think Russell was very fortunate all his career. Was he still the best player on his title teams? Yes. Was he the main reason they won? Yes.
But Russell was fortunate enough to come right into the league and into the hands of arguably the GOAT coach. The GOAT coach. And on top of that, arguably the GOAT backcourt (even today). And another HOF. That was how his career started. What luck. :applause:
Excdept calling it lucky is ignorant. The Celtics and thos great players (plus an all-NBA center) never won before Russell and Bill kept winning after they were gone.
Even if you believe in "luck" Russell's greatness proved able to transcend it.
[QUOTE=GP_20]Wilt did not get anything like that at the beginning of his career, and it was later did he start playing with HOF coaches and teammates. I think this has a lot to with Russell being the winner he is. Russell even once said that he doesn't think he'd be able to play with another coach other than Red. Red knew how to maximize his player's talents and how to handle them. Russell got the correct treatment all the way. Imagine if he came into the league with a garbage coach, who didn't even care about defense, how would Russell's career fared? Maybe a ring? Trade here and there? [/quote]
What about College where Wilt won 0 titles with far superior team mates at Kansas than Russell had while winning two at San Fransisco? What about Russell's gold Medal in '56? Russell was already a proven winner before he even got to the NBA.
Read Red's biography and get back to us. Everything you're saying about Red, Red said about Russell. No one would ever trade Russell; that's a proven fact.
That entire argument was hypotheticals based on subjective opinion; grasping for straws GP?
[QUOTE=GP_20]I'm just saying he's incredibly lucky to be welcomed into the NBA with a arguable GOAT coach and arguably the GOAT backcourt of all-time, and another HOF. wow.[/QUOTE]
All who had never won anything prior to Russell.
[QUOTE=GP_20][B]
Can anyone name me another NBA superstar who has had better luck than Bill Russell upon entrance in the NBA?
[/B]
[/QUOTE]
Chamberlain for one. If he was born into another era his stats would have been a lot lower and he would not have been as physically dominant. Magic, Bird, Jordan also had more "luck" than Russell in my opinion.
Had Russell won 7 of 13 titles, maybe I'd say he was lucky, but 11 of 13 is just to great a sample size to dismiss as luck.
[QUOTE=GP_20]Most have him at Top 10 at worst.
What happens when you put a Top 10 player of all-time, with the GOAT coach, arguable GOAT backcourt, and more HOF(s).
I expect a lot of winning to occur. A lot. [/QUOTE]
We already know what happens. He all those things plus Elgin Baylor in '69 and he lost to a greatly inferior aging Celtics team led and coached by you know who.
[QUOTE=GP_20]Quotes are all nice to consider but shouldn't be held so highly. Especially when you have a player like Wilt who had a personality most wouldn't like versus Russell who was a great guy.[/QUOTED]
Do you think their subjective opinions are more valid than yours though?
[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]Magic, Bird, Jordan also had more "luck" than Russell in my opinion.[/QUOTE]
Get real, Bird? He joined a 29 win tema that had made no other major additions. In fact the team had lost leading scorer Bob McAdoo from the previous year, yet Bird turned them into a 61 win team as a rookie.
Jordan had more luck? He was drafted by a 27 win team and didn't have a good supporting cast until atleast his 5th NBA season.
I'd love to see you try to justify those statements.
[QUOTE=ShaqAttack3234]Yeah, that's why Rick Barry isn't regarded higher as well.[/QUOTE]
Rick Barry was considered a prick as well and a lot of that stemmed from his contract fallout and going to the NBA. He essentially lost 3 years of his NBA prime.
And GP, on eof hte "myths" Simmons debunked in his book was "Wilt was a Great Guy". Apparently, even though he constantly threw teammates and coaches under the bus, he was still perceived as a likeable guy by the fans and outsiders. Or at least that's what I got from the book. It didn't really say or not if Russell was liked or not. In fact I thought it said something about him not being very fan and media friendly.
[QUOTE=CB4GOATPF][B]Baylor was in the downside of his career when he playing with Wilt age 34 plus. Was still great but he wasn
[B]PEOPLE MUST BE BLIND NOT SEE THIS. :hammerhead: :rolleyes: :confusedshrug:
RUSSELL FOR 95% OF HIS CAREER HAD CONSTANTLY TOP 4 OF THE TOP 10-20 PLAYERS IN THE LEAGUE FOR MOST EVERY SEASON (IF YOU INCLUDE HIMSELF: 5).
NOT TO MENTION = THE CELTICS BENCH: FOR ALL PRODUCTIONS DONE BY STARTERS, IN THE CASE OF BOSTON "SUPERSTAR STARTERS" WHERE BACKED UP BY SOLID BENCH PLAY, THEREBY ALSO MORE REST FOR THE STARTING "SUPERSTAR CELTICS"
WILT HAD GOOD PLAYERS BUT FOR EVERY GOO ONE THE CELTICS HAD 1-2 MORE PLUS THE BENCH. AND THIS WAS ALSO LATER IN HIS CAREER. ONE MUST ALSO REMEMBER HE HAD TO ADAPT TO OTHER TEAMS 3 DIFFERENT TIMES, SO THERE WASN
[QUOTE]Do you think their subjective opinions are more valid than yours though?[/QUOTE]
Sadly enough, I really think he does.
How in the hell is using quotes from actual teammates, coaches, oppposing coaches, opponents, and media members who were around in the Wilt/Russell era not a good way to back up your argument?
GP, were you around in the 50's and 60's? I wasn't so all I have to go on is first hand accounts based on quotes from people who experienced that era firsthand. I feel 100000 times better using that in my argument than making brash, opinionated statements, on an era of basketball that happened 25 years before I was born.
Another quote from Simmons himself in his book:
[QUOTE]You have to believe me: I read every NBA book possible to prepare to write this one. No stone was left unturned - during the summers of '07 and '08 I spent more time on [url]www.abebooks.com[/url] than Abe did. While poring over these books, I searched for insight on the Russell-Chamberlain debate and kept a tally of every player, coach, and media member willing to go on the record. And I'm not sure what was more amazing - how many of them praised Russell, or how many of them crushed Wilt (including people who played with him and coached him). Since we could fill this entire book with quotes from people praising Russell's unselfishness, competitiveness, and clutchness...[/QUOTE]
So as you can see, the general consensus in that era - from people that were close to the situation and actually there during that time - preferred Russell to Wilt. You can have Chamberlain and his gaudy numbers all day long. I'll take Russell because with inferior talent, equal talent, or superior talent, he was going to beat Chamberlain many more times than not.
Look at 1969. Chamberlain was teamed up with Elgin Baylor and Jerry West. Russell and K.C. Jones are on the tailend of their careers, running on fumes, finish 4th in the East that year. And don't forget, the Lakers (far superior to the Celtics talent that year) had a 3-1 series lead, and Chamberlain and the Lakers STILL lost the series, despite having game 7 in LA. Russell stepped up one last time when it mattered most while Wilt was unable to overcome Russell when Russell's Celtics might have been at their lowest during Russell's entire career.