Why is MJ considered better than Bill Russell?

[QUOTE=jlip]
My question is... If the players who played against him, the media who watched him, and the coaches that coached against him considered him the rightful MVP in 1962, under what credible authority do you claim that he should not have been the MVP that season?[/QUOTE]

It had more to do with who Wilt was dating. Wilt was 5th in the voting the next year, with an equally monstrous offensive year. Elgin Baylor, who was close to being defensively challenged at that time, was ahead of him. Petite and O were also ahead of him while Russell won. Wilt was at 44.8ppg 24.3regs with a record FG% efficeincy. Baylor was at 34ppg and 14 rebs and inferior on the boards. Baylor was 10ppg and 10rebounds below Wilt far less defensively and far less efficient. It wasn't about basketball.

[QUOTE=L.Kizzle]I know he only lost one game seven in the Finals, that was in his second season to the Hawks. The Celtics lost the division Finals to the Sixers in 5 games in 1967 I believe.[/QUOTE]the loss to the st louis hawks was a 6 game series

russell never lost a game 7 playoff game 21 and 0...

Again..... was he a better player than MJ?

[QUOTE=andgar923]Again..... was he a better player than MJ?[/QUOTE]
If all you want to talk about is individual talent, then we mind as well call Wilt Chamberlain the greatest ever. Seriously, can anyone think of a more talented individual player than Wilt Chamberlain?

Team Accomplishments over Individual stats and accomplishments all day every day. That was what made Russell so successful.

[QUOTE=NoEasy9]If all you want to talk about is individual talent, then we mind as well call Wilt Chamberlain the greatest ever. Seriously, can anyone think of a more talented individual player than Wilt Chamberlain?

Team Accomplishments over Individual stats and accomplishments all day every day. That was what made Russell so successful.[/QUOTE]

Wilt isn't better than MJ either, sorry.

And if we wanted to accept that, then MJ had more rings than Wilt and more talent than Bill, so......

Again.... as somebody mentioned earlier, the other player that has a more legit argument is Kareem.

[QUOTE=andgar923]Wilt isn't better than MJ either, sorry.

And if we wanted to accept that, then MJ had more rings than Wilt and more talent than Bill, so......

Again.... as somebody mentioned earlier, the other player that has a more legit argument is Kareem.[/QUOTE]
Going on numbers and play wilt dominated his era more than jordan did and was a more dominant player in general.

[QUOTE=andgar923]Wilt isn't better than MJ either, sorry.

And if we wanted to accept that, then MJ had more rings than Wilt and more talent than Bill, so......

Again.... as somebody mentioned earlier, the other player that has a more legit argument is Kareem.[/QUOTE]
Based off of what? I love MJ, but he wasnt the more talented individual player than Wilt was. The only real thing that MJ did better than Wilt was shoot FTs. He wasnt a better passer, not a better scorer, not a better defender, and not a better rebounder...nor did he have the same impact as Wilt did...since MJ wasnt a big.

MJ revolutionized the game in the 80s and 90s, but he wasnt more individually talented than Wilt was.

[QUOTE=Pointguard]It had more to do with who Wilt was dating. Wilt was 5th in the voting the next year, with an equally monstrous offensive year. Elgin Baylor, who was close to being defensively challenged at that time, was ahead of him. Petite and O were also ahead of him while Russell won. Wilt was at 44.8ppg 24.3regs with a record FG% efficeincy. Baylor was at 34ppg and 14 rebs and inferior on the boards. Baylor was 10ppg and 10rebounds below Wilt far less defensively and far less efficient. It wasn't about basketball.[/QUOTE]

exactly. Wilt just was not liked (and i can see why). This does not mean that Russel was a better or more valuable player or deserved to win an MVP. Again, if you just want to look at honors, Chamberlain was selected as NBA
1st team that year while Russel was 2nd team.

[QUOTE=tpols]Going on numbers and play wilt dominated his era more than jordan did and was a more dominant player in general.[/QUOTE]

Agreed.

Wilt is simply more dominating. While Jordan fans are quick to point out Wilt's flaw (free throws), I can equally point out that Jordan was not that great of a 3 point shooter, unless the line is moved in (the league's attempt to help inferior players score more).

Jordan averaged 1 mores assist per game than Wilt during his career, and this is while he has been enjoying the luxury of looser rules governing assists. Had the rulebook been the same back then as it now, governing assists, this number would be even.

Jordan took more shots than Wilt, yet both averaged 30.1 ppg during their careers. As far as who was the better scorer, there is no question: During Wilt's first 7 years, he scored like no man in history. Jordan never had a 70+ point game. Wilt had 4. Jordan never averaged 38+ ppg for a season. Wilt did it 3 times.

Jordan was also much more selfish. When Wilt's coaches asked him to score, he did. When they asked him to sacrificed his scoring titles, he did. Jordan fought any attempt to cut back his shot attempts and led the league in field goal attempts a record 9 times (would be 10 if he played the entire '95 season.) Read about Jordan's spats with Phil Jackson and Doug Collins. Read about how he put down Tex Winter and the triangle! Even his own teammate Horace Grant said that Jordan cared more about his points than the team. If Wilt had that selfish attitude, there is no telling how many more points he would have. Also, if you take Wilt's scoring through the same number of career games, his scoring average is higher.

Wilt is a vastly superior rebounder, and while Jordan fans will point out that "Wilt should have more, since he is a center", I counter that Jordan should have a lot more assists, since he is a guard, but the numbers do not support him. Wilt is one of the greatest passers ever at center, but Jordan isn't as dominating at his position with respect to rebounds (Oscar and Magic, for instance, are both better rebounders). And while Jordan does have more 1st team all defensive selections, keep in mind that #1) the team wasn't created until Wilt's 10th year in the league and #2) Only one center is selected vs. 2 guards. If Jordan were the greatest defensive guard ever, there would be a point, but as long as Walt Frazier is remembered, Jordan could never be better than #2.

Jordan has also received the benefit of rules changes that have been implemented to help offensive players, such as well-defined rules concerning zones, rules against hand checking, and flagrant fouls. He's been spoiled by the luxuries given to the modern player, such as chartered planes, first class hotels, superior athletic shoes, and modern sports medicine (and he still hasn't approached Wilt's minutes per game!). Jordan has benefited from the joke that has become NBA officiating, in which superstars receive preferential treatment, and Jordan has probably received more than any player in history. The steps and the fouls he gets away with are ridiculous!

Consider also that Jordan benefited from the dilution of talent in the 1990s that came from expansion, giving him inferior talent to play against, compared to the 1980s. It is no coincidence that Jordan's teammate, Dennis Rodman, said that the 1996 Bulls could not have won 70 games playing against 1980s teams. While Jordan has many accomplishments, they cannot compare to Wilt's, and while the press and the Jordan radicals try to rationalize Wilt's numbers, as you can see, it's equally easy to rationalize Jordan's, and when it comes down to it, Wilt is still the most dominating player in history, and Jordan has never came close to threatening Wilt's 100 point game or 50.4 PPG average, and scoring is supposed to be Jordan's specialty, let alone Wilt's 8.6 APG in a season, or his rebounding numbers, or his 72.7% field goal percentage.

Finally, consider each player's ability to carry a team. Wilt came into the league and carried a bad team to immediate contention. He took the 1962 Warriors, not a great team, to the 7th game of the conference finals, where they lost by 2 points on a controversial call, to the champion Celtics. Jordan, on the other hand, came into the league and joined a losing team and after 3 years, they were STILL a losing team. He was 1-9 in the playoffs and posted 3 consecutive losing seasons. The truth is, Jordan played 5 seasons without Scottie Pippen and in each of those 5 seasons, he could not win more games than he lost, and in the final 2 years, he failed to get Washington to the playoffs. Yes, he was older than Wilt when Wilt retired, but Wilt played MANY more minutes, because Jordan retired 3 times. The fact is, without great teammates, Jordan was a loser. Wilt, on the other hand, could carry a poor team much farther than Jordan, showing just how much more dominant he was.

[QUOTE=NoEasy9]Based off of what? I love MJ, but he wasnt the more talented individual player than Wilt was. The only real thing that MJ did better than Wilt was shoot FTs. He wasnt a better passer, not a better scorer, not a better defender, and not a better rebounder...nor did he have the same impact as Wilt did...since MJ wasnt a big.

MJ revolutionized the game in the 80s and 90s, but he wasnt more individually talented than Wilt was.[/QUOTE]

I disagree regarding Jordan vs Wilt.

I think Jordan was a better scorer, I don't think it's a coincidence that despite playing in an era with far fewer shots that MJ's career playoff scoring average is 10.9 ppg higher than Wilt's, his highest scoring series are easily better than Wilt's, same with his highest scoring playoff runs.

Prime Wilt had a bigger impact defensively, IMO, but I think Jordan was the better offensive player.

And I also think that he impacted games at least as much, if not more, even with poor teammates, 3rd year MJ(who wasn't the player he was in his prime), carried his team to a 40-42 record. In one of his best individual years, Wilt's team was 31-49 and they missed the playoffs, and in '65, before he was traded to Philadelphia, I believe his Warriors were 11-33. I can't imagine prime Jordan leading teams to such poor records.


[QUOTE=Ne 1]Agreed.

Wilt is simply more dominating. While Jordan fans are quick to point out Wilt's flaw (free throws), I can equally point out that Jordan was not that great of a 3 point shooter, unless the line is moved in (the league's attempt to help inferior players score more).[/QUOTE]

I think that by 1990 Jordan was a capable 3 point shooter. The only years that he took a significant amount with the normal line, he shot 35 and 38%, respectively. In 1990, he was 12th in 3s made and only 7 of the players who made more 3s than Jordan that year shot a better %. His mid-range shot was also visibly better in '92 than '90, so I wonder how good of a season he could've had shooting 3s had he taken them regularly that year.

[QUOTE=Pointguard][B]It had more to do with who Wilt was dating[/B]. Wilt was 5th in the voting the next year, with an equally monstrous offensive year. Elgin Baylor, who was close to being defensively challenged at that time, was ahead of him. Petite and O were also ahead of him while Russell won. Wilt was at 44.8ppg 24.3regs with a record FG% efficeincy. Baylor was at 34ppg and 14 rebs and inferior on the boards. Baylor was 10ppg and 10rebounds below Wilt far less defensively and far less efficient. It wasn't about basketball.[/QUOTE]

I'm talking about 1962 exclusively though. I can't believe that the players, the media, and the coaches considered Russell the MVP over Wilt in '62 just because he was dating Kim Novak (I presume), especially given that Russell seemed not to have that good of a relationship with the media considering he would never sign autographs and was often considered too angry and militant. Also, the Celtics had their 2nd longest losing streak of Russell's career in 1962. It was a four game skid. Russell missed all four games with an Achilles tendon injury. (Ironically the longest losing streak of Russell's career was a five game skid during the 1969 season. Again Russell missed those five games with an injury.)

[QUOTE=jlip]@ the bolded part...
The players who actually faced Russell anywhere from 10-13 times each that season voted him MVP in a landslide. Not only that, the media who watched him play did an unofficial vote that season and again voted him the league's MVP in a landslide.

In that very year, 1962, Syracuse Nationals head coach, Alex Hannum, had the following to say about Russell, [I]“From a coach’s viewpoint, Bill’s the most valuable player in the history of the game.”[/I]

My question is... If the players who played against him, the media who watched him, and the coaches that coached against him considered him the rightful MVP in 1962, under what credible authority do you claim that he should not have been the MVP that season?[/QUOTE]

My problem with this "voting" was this...

Take a look at Wilt's and Russell's numbers in the 59-60 season (Chamberlain's rookie year.) And then, take a look at their TEAM's W-L records. Wilt won the MVP award that year.

Now, do the same thing for the 61-62 season. Virtually every number was the same...EXCEPT...Chamberlain put up an even more staggering offensive season. Russell's stats and TEAM record were about the same, as was Chamberlain's TEAM record.

Furthermore, while I guess the voting was done before the post-season, how can anyone argue against Chamberlain in the playoffs, either. He took a FAR inferior roster (basically the same last place team he joined in his rookie season), to a game seven, two-point loss against a 60-20 Celtic team that had a 6-3 edge in HOFers.

There was an ESPN article last year (I believe) that not only ranked Wilt's 61-62 season as the greatest in NBA history...they claimed that it was the greatest EVER in ALL of major professional team sports HISTORY.


But let's carry this even further. Wilt led the NBA in rebounding and FG% in his 71-72 season, and was voted first team all-defense. He also took a team that had gone 48-34 the year before, to a 69-13 record, which was the best ever at the time...and a world title. Meanwhile, Kareem, played on a team that actually dropped from their record of the year before (going from 66-16 down to 63-19), but he did lead the NBA in scoring. Who won the MVP award that year? Of course, it was Kareem. Wilt did get some measure of revenge by winning the Finals MVP, but still, it sure seems like a double-standard to me.

And, as Pointguard pointed out. How does Wilt finish SEVENTH in the MVP balloting in his 62-63 season? All he did that year was LEAD the league in 15 of the 22 statistical categories (67%!), and by a huge margin in several. And, even though he played on an awful team, he still led the NBA in Win Shares, and here again, by a wide margin. On top of all of that, he set a PER mark of 31.8, which is still the highest in NBA history.

Now, for those that argue that Wilt played on a losing team in that 62-63 season...one, Kareem won the award on a losing team in his 75-76 season...and in a year that he was nowhere near as dominant as Wilt was in 62-63. And two, Wilt then took that same basic roster of 62-63 (along with rookie Nate Thurmond, who was playing part-time, out of position, and who shot .395) to the Finals the very next year. Did Wilt win the award that year, after taking a last-place team to the Finals the very next year? Nope...Russell wins it again.

Take a look at his 69-69 season...and keep in mind that not only did Unseld win the MVP award with FAR inferior stats (and who was abused by Chamberlain H2H)...but Wilt was NOWHERE to be found in the MVP balloting. How was that possible, in a year in which he averaged 20.5 ppg, led the NBA in rebounding, and led the NBA in FG%. On top of all of that, how good was his defense that year? In a game on Christmas day that year, he blocked 23 shots.

I'm sorry, but I am convinced that there was anti-Wilt bias in his entire career.

[QUOTE=ShaqAttack3234]This is something I don't understand, if we view his FG% differently because of the league average, then shouldn't we also view a 30 point game different because of the extra 30-35 possessions per game? And I'd think a great scorer holding back his offense for the team would have a high FG% like Wilt in the late 60's/early 70's. It didn't prevent his teams from winning obviously, but scoring simply doesn't seem like it was one of Russell's strengths.[/QUOTE]

You have to view everything in context I think.

The scoring numbers sort of find their middle with the faster pace equaling lower percentages, but also it's important to note that that same faster pace allotted for statistical anomalies and exceptions (like Wilt). However for the most part if you compare the league's top scorer's, they are pretty level with most of the NBA's post-shot clock history.

The era Russell played in and the field goal percentage of the league is also why you have to take his rebounding numbers with a grain of salt.

Just like 20 rebounds in 1962 isn't 20 rebounds in 2011, 45% from the field in 1962 isn't 45% in 2011.

Russell was not a great scorer, and had he been asked to do it every night he and his team would have failed, but he understood that and channeled his efforts towards things that not every guy on his team could do.

And no, scoring was not Russell's strength, but he was above average at it by any era's standards. And he has some postseason numbers that stack up with just about any center in any era.

My problem is people saying he was limited offensively or an average or poor offensive player. How can a guy have the highest apg of any center all-time and have multiple Championship playoff runs and NBA finals where he topped 20 ppg and be an average offensive player?

How can he be called "the key to our offense after Cousy" by John Havlicek his teammate for five post-Cousy titles and be average?

It's just dumb and it bothers me a little that people don't admit their ignorance online, because if you confronted someone in person the same way they'd have no choice but to back down.

career - its between russel and jordan for me

talent - oscar robertson easily

[QUOTE=ShaqAttack3234]I disagree regarding Jordan vs Wilt.

[B]I think Jordan was a better scorer, I don't think it's a coincidence that despite playing in an era with far fewer shots that MJ's career playoff scoring average is 10.9 ppg higher than Wilt's[/B], his highest scoring series are easily better than Wilt's, same with his highest scoring playoff runs.

Prime Wilt had a bigger impact defensively, IMO, but I think Jordan was the better offensive player.

And I also think that he impacted games at least as much, if not more, even with poor teammates, 3rd year MJ(who wasn't the player he was in his prime), carried his team to a 40-42 record. In one of his best individual years, Wilt's team was 31-49 and they missed the playoffs, and in '65, before he was traded to Philadelphia, I believe his Warriors were 11-33. I can't imagine prime Jordan leading teams to such poor records.[/QUOTE]

This is where I find that individual scoring volume is less a function of pace and more a function of role, system, but more specifically, [U][B]number of shots taken by the player[/B][/U]. It's perfectly understood that Wilt's era was a far faster era than Jordan's as far as pace is concerned. During Wilt's first 6 seasons he shot more than anybody in league history, but things changed after that. As a result, Wilt, again playing in a much faster era, and averaging over 7 more minutes of playing time attempted "only" 22.5 fg per game for his career. Jordan managed to attempt 22.9 fg per game for his career during the regular season in fewer minutes and in a slower pace.

In the playoffs Wilt attempted 17.1 shots per game while playing 47.2 mpg. In Jordan's slower era with fewer shots available he attempted 25.1 shots per game in just 41.8 mpg. Wilt did attempt more fts per game than Jordan though. It appears that pace and number of possessions was not a factor here. It's more or less a players' willingness to take shots. I found the same thing when I compared Kobe's shots per game with Oscar Robertson's.

[QUOTE=jlauber]My problem with this "voting" was this...

Take a look at Wilt's and Russell's numbers in the 59-60 season (Chamberlain's rookie year.) And then, take a look at their TEAM's W-L records. Wilt won the MVP award that year.[/QUOTE]

Yes he did, but then the playoffs happened and people remembered that Russell was the real MVP and thus he won it the nest three years. I would have voted for Wilt after the 1959-60 season too, his numbers were like nothing the league had ever seen, and previously when a center dominated the league statistically he won titles, so people assumed Wilt would in titles, but he didn't and Russell did, pretty simple to figure out if you eliminate your love for Wilt.

Wilt could have and should have been better than Russell, but he wasn't.


[QUOTE=jlauber]There was an ESPN article last year (I believe) that not only ranked Wilt's 61-62 season as the greatest in NBA history...they claimed that it was the greatest EVER in ALL of major professional team sports HISTORY.[/QUOTE]

If they mean in terms of stats, then yes. But it wasn't even his best season, so you know the person writing that is not very informed or passionate about the subject.


[QUOTE=jlauber]But let's carry this even further. Wilt led the NBA in rebounding and FG% in his 71-72 season, and was voted first team all-defense. He also took a team that had gone 48-34 the year before, to a 69-13 record, which was the best ever at the time...and a world title. Meanwhile, Kareem, played on a team that actually dropped from their record of the year before (going from 66-16 down to 63-19), but he did lead the NBA in scoring. Who won the MVP award that year? Of course, it was Kareem. Wilt did get some measure of revenge by winning the Finals MVP, but still, it sure seems like a double-standard to me. [/QUOTE]

A big part of the reason was because Wilt and West split votes. (West got more btw, so that tells you who the players viewed as the team leader, a major factor among players when voting for an MVP)

[QUOTE=jlauber]And, as Pointguard pointed out. How does Wilt finish SEVENTH in the MVP balloting in his 62-63 season? [/QUOTE]

Maybe because his team finished 20 games under .500 and last in attendance. Where is the value?

Was he dominant? was it an all-time great statisitical season? Of course, but it was not an MVP worthy season as the team went no where and lost money, they could have done that without him, and lost less money.

[QUOTE=jlauber]Now, for those that argue that Wilt played on a losing team in that 62-63 season...one, Kareem won the award on a losing team in his 75-76 season...and in a year that he was nowhere near as dominant as Wilt was in 62-63. And two, Wilt then took that same basic roster of 62-63 (along with rookie Nate Thurmond, who was playing part-time, out of position, and who shot .395) to the Finals the very next year. Did Wilt win the award that year, after taking a last-place team to the Finals the very next year? Nope...Russell wins it again. [/QUOTE]

Nope, Oscar got it that year.

[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]You have to view everything in context I think.

The scoring numbers sort of find their middle with the faster pace equaling lower percentages, but also it's important to note that that same faster pace allotted for statistical anomalies and exceptions (like Wilt). However for the most part if you compare the league's top scorer's, they are pretty level with most of the NBA's post-shot clock history.

The era Russell played in and the field goal percentage of the league is also why you have to take his rebounding numbers with a grain of salt.

Just like 20 rebounds in 1962 isn't 20 rebounds in 2011, 45% from the field in 1962 isn't 45% in 2011.

Russell was not a great scorer, and had he been asked to do it every night he and his team would have failed, but he understood that and channeled his efforts towards things that not every guy on his team could do.

And no, scoring was not Russell's strength, but he was above average at it by any era's standards. And he has some postseason numbers that stack up with just about any center in any era.

My problem is people saying he was limited offensively or an average or poor offensive player. How can a guy have the highest apg of any center all-time and have multiple Championship playoff runs and NBA finals where he topped 20 ppg and be an average offensive player?

How can he be called "the key to our offense after Cousy" by John Havlicek his teammate for five post-Cousy titles and be average?

It's just dumb and it bothers me a little that people don't admit their ignorance online, because if you confronted someone in person the same way they'd have no choice but to back down.[/QUOTE]

Well, I think that Russell's ability to run the floor, set picks and get offensive rebounds ensured that he'd be able to score points, so I agree that he wasn't below average. My best description of him would be an opportunistic scorer. Not a dominant scorer, but a guy who could get points in a variety of ways, just not as far as I've seen by throwing the ball to him in the post and having him consistently create his own offense. But in that era with all of the fast breaks and missed shots, a guy who ran the floor so well and got so many offensive rebounds could be a scoring threat. And sometimes, you can get will your team to victory that way. I saw a bit of that with Dwight Howard in game 6 vs Cleveland when he had 40. He did score in the post, but a lot of his points were from outworking Varejao and Ilgauskas on the offensive glass, setting picks and rolling to the basket and running the floor.

Regarding assists, well, I think there were alot more "easy" assists back then such as this one. [URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJjBDUhbBcs#t=0m29s"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJjBDUhbBcs#t=0m29s[/URL]

Very simple pass and a defensive mistake, to Russell's credit, he spotted it, and he looked for the cutter first and saw that the cutter wasn't open, so you can see his IQ, but that's why I don't really view assist numbers the same.

Here's a nice pass though, and the type of play that I've always loved. [URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qiVAFBZzTac&feature=related#t=4m54s"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qiVAFBZzTac&feature=related#t=4m54s[/URL]

That's an example of why I liked the early 2000s Kings so much, or why I like watching Pau Gasol, and why Bill Walton is one of my favorite players. But I haven't seen that many passes like that, and it's not a pass that I haven't seen other big men make.

If you have specific examples of Russell's passing then feel free to post them, but I'm a skeptic by nature, so I do have to see things for myself.

I think it'd be foolish to question whether he was a good passer, but it's different for me to compare him specifically to others who I've seen make enough great passes to list as some of the greatest passing big men of all time. I mean I've seen some phenomenal passes from Wilt in some early 70's Laker games, and not much footage of him exists.

[QUOTE=ShaqAttack3234]I disagree regarding Jordan vs Wilt.

I think Jordan was a better scorer, I don't think it's a coincidence that despite playing in an era with far fewer shots that MJ's career playoff scoring average is 10.9 ppg higher than Wilt's, his highest scoring series are easily better than Wilt's, same with his highest scoring playoff runs.

Prime Wilt had a bigger impact defensively, IMO, but I think Jordan was the better offensive player.

And I also think that he impacted games at least as much, if not more, even with poor teammates, 3rd year MJ(who wasn't the player he was in his prime), carried his team to a 40-42 record. In one of his best individual years, Wilt's team was 31-49 and they missed the playoffs, and in '65, before he was traded to Philadelphia, I believe his Warriors were 11-33. I can't imagine prime Jordan leading teams to such poor records.




I think that by 1990 Jordan was a capable 3 point shooter. The only years that he took a significant amount with the normal line, he shot 35 and 38%, respectively. In 1990, he was 12th in 3s made and only 7 of the players who made more 3s than Jordan that year shot a better %. His mid-range shot was also visibly better in '92 than '90, so I wonder how good of a season he could've had shooting 3s had he taken them regularly that year.[/QUOTE]


Jordan never played on a roster as bad as Wilt's 62-63 team. Jordan had the NBA's best rebounder on his 86-87 team. Wilt had a roster that collectively shot .412 without using his .528...which would have been well below the worst team in the league. BTW, did MJ ever take a 40-40 team to a game seven, ONE-POINT loss against a 62-18 team? Did he ever take a 49-31 team, that was outgunned by HOFers 6-3, to a game seven, two-point loss against a 60-20 team?

As far as Wilt's post-season scoring, I have addressed in MANY times. Wilt's TEAM was so bad in his 62-63 (his 45 ppg season) that they missed the playoffs. Wilt also faced a HOF center in nearly 67% of his 160 post-season games, as well as All-Star centers in several others. Not only that, but Wilt's TEAMS were outgunned by HOFers EVERY post-season, but one. In some of them by as much as a 7-2 margin (his 63-64 season...and his HOF teammate was rookie Nate Thurmond, who was playing part-time, out of position, and shooting .395 in the process.)

Furthermore, in Wilt's "scoring" seasons, from 59-60, he averaged 33 ppg and 26 rpg, on about 49% shooting, in league's that shot from .410 to .441, in the post-season. Meanwhile Jordan played in league's that nearly shot 50%...and his career post-season FG% at .487, was still well below Wilt's .522. Wilt not only had his share of HUGE playoff games, he had a 50-35 game against Russell (as well as several 40+ point games against him.) He had FOUR 50+ point games in the post-season, as well.

As far as regular season SCORING, SHOOTING, REBOUNDING, PASSING (yes Wilt LED the NBA one year), and probably DEFENSE (Wilt also probably blocked more shots in one season, than Jordan did in his career), Wilt was FAR greater than MJ. 70+ point games...Wilt has a 6-0 edge over MJ. 60+ point games? Wilt with a 32-5 edge. 50+ point games? Wilt with a 118-39 margin.

FG%? Wilt with a NINE-TO-ZERO edge in that category, including the two highest in NBA history.

Rebounding? This is truly laughable. Wilt was THE greatest rebounder in NBA history (and ESPECIALLY in the post-season, when he pounded even Russell.)

MJ was a better FT shooter, and a better 3 pt shooter (although, if you take away the year's when the NBA moved in the line, he only shot .288), and that was IT.

[QUOTE=zizozain]Wilt and Russell don't count because they played before the advent of ESPN.

[B]Muhammad Ali Was a Rebel. Michael Jordan Is a Brand Name.[/B]

[I]In celebrating Jordan as a hero, are we merely worshipping capitalism?[/I]

[B]By Michael Crowley[/B]

[url]http://www.nieman.harvard.edu/reports/article/102181/Muhammad-Ali-Was-a-Rebel-Michael-Jordan-Is-a-Brand-Name.aspx[/url][/QUOTE]


Thanks for sharing that article. Very interesting.

I especially liked the comparison between MJ and Ali, and how as much as they are champions of their respective sports, they also represent what that meant to fans in different eras.

[QUOTE=jlauber]Jordan never played on a roster as bad as Wilt's 62-63 team. Jordan had the NBA's best rebounder on his 86-87 team. Wilt had a roster that collectively shot .412 without using his .528...which would have been well below the worst team in the league. BTW, did MJ ever take a 40-40 team to a game seven, ONE-POINT loss against a 62-18 team? Did he ever take a 49-31 team, that was outgunned by HOFers 6-3, to a game seven, two-point loss against a 60-20 team?

As far as Wilt's post-season scoring, I have addressed in MANY times. Wilt's TEAM was so bad in his 62-63 (his 45 ppg season) that they missed the playoffs. Wilt also faced a HOF center in nearly 67% of his 160 post-season games, as well as All-Star centers in several others. Not only that, but Wilt's TEAMS were outgunned by HOFers EVERY post-season, but one. In some of them by as much as a 7-2 margin (his 63-64 season...and his HOF teammate was rookie Nate Thurmond, who was playing part-time, out of position, and shooting .395 in the process.)

Furthermore, in Wilt's "scoring" seasons, from 59-60, he averaged 33 ppg and 26 rpg, on about 49% shooting, in league's that shot from .410 to .441, in the post-season. Meanwhile Jordan played in league's that nearly shot 50%...and his career post-season FG% at .487, was still well below Wilt's .522. Wilt not only had his share of HUGE playoff games, he had a 50-35 game against Russell (as well as several 40+ point games against him.) He had FOUR 50+ point games in the post-season, as well.

As far as regular season SCORING, SHOOTING, REBOUNDING, PASSING (yes Wilt LED the NBA one year), and probably DEFENSE (Wilt also probably blocked more shots in one season, than Jordan did in his career), Wilt was FAR greater than MJ. 70+ point games...Wilt has a 6-0 edge over MJ. 60+ point games? Wilt with a 32-5 edge. 50+ point games? Wilt with a 118-39 margin.

FG%? Wilt with a NINE-TO-ZERO edge in that category, including the two highest in NBA history.

Rebounding? This is truly laughable. Wilt was THE greatest rebounder in NBA history (and ESPECIALLY in the post-season, when he pounded even Russell.)

MJ was a better FT shooter, and a better 3 pt shooter (although, if you take away the year's when the NBA moved in the line, he only shot .288), and that was IT.[/QUOTE]

I don't know how you can just compare their scoring numbers without mentioning that Wilt took more shots.

Jordan attempted over 25 shots per game twice, his highest being 27.8, Wilt topped Jordan's 27.8 in each of his first 5 seasons with as much as 39.5 shots per game in his 3rd season.

As far as FG%? Jordan is a guard, when was the last time a high scoring guard led the NBA in FG%? Prime Jordan consistently shot between 51-54% from the field and 83-85% at the line. Wilt in his scoring years shot around the same percentage from the field, but closer to 50% from the line, 61% in his best season.

As far as scoring titles, Jordan has the record which is 10, while Wilt has 7. Now you could argue that Wilt may have been able to win scoring titles from '67-'69 had he been asked to and possibly '70 had he been healthy. But then you could say that had Jordan not retired in '94, and had he not been injured in '86 that he'd have 3 more himself. So Jordan has more scoring titles in reality and if you play the hypothetical game.

[QUOTE=Rose]like 6-8, and no one because they didn't really have a cable deal yet.[/QUOTE]


Yeah, probably most people who saw Russell play on TV did it by adjusting the bunny ears on top of their sets.

[QUOTE=ShaqAttack3234]I don't know how you can just compare their scoring numbers without mentioning that Wilt took more shots.

Jordan attempted over 25 shots per game twice, his highest being 27.8, Wilt topped Jordan's 27.8 in each of his first 5 seasons with as much as 39.5 shots per game in his 3rd season.

As far as FG%? Jordan is a guard, when was the last time a high scoring guard led the NBA in FG%? Prime Jordan consistently shot between 51-54% from the field and 83-85% at the line. Wilt in his scoring years shot around the same percentage from the field, but closer to 50% from the line, 61% in his best season.

As far as scoring titles, Jordan has the record which is 10, while Wilt has 7. Now you could argue that Wilt may have been able to win scoring titles from '67-'69 had he been asked to and possibly '70 had he been healthy. But then you could say that had Jordan not retired in '94, and had he not been injured in '86 that he'd have 3 more himself. So Jordan has more scoring titles in reality and if you play the hypothetical game.[/QUOTE]

Once again, Wilt's FG% numbers were attained in league's that shot FAR worse than Jordan's. As far as scoring goes, Jordan took more shots per game in his career. Furthermore, when Wilt won his scoring titles, he won them by as much as 18.8 ppg (and another at 10 ppg.)

Wilt led the NBA in scoring, seven times. He led the NBA in FG%, nine times, He led the in rebounding, 11 times. And, he even led the NBA in assists one year, which is one more than MJ, a guard, did.

Not only that, but Wilt led the NBA in scoring and rebounding in the same season, FIVE times. He led the NBA in scoring AND FG%, in the same season, FOUR times. He led the NBA in rebounding and FG%, in the same season, EIGHT times. And, he led the NBA in scoring, rebounding, and FG%, in the same season, THREE times.

[QUOTE]Yes he did, but then the playoffs happened and people remembered that Russell was the real MVP and thus he won it the nest three years. I would have voted for Wilt after the 1959-60 season too, his numbers were like nothing the league had ever seen, and previously when a center dominated the league statistically he won titles, so people assumed Wilt would in titles, but he didn't and Russell did, pretty simple to figure out if you eliminate your love for Wilt.

Wilt could have and should have been better than Russell, but he wasn't.

[/QUOTE]

So, from that 59-60 season thru that 63-64 season, here was Wilt statistically outplaying Russell in almost every facet of the game...and in many cases, by HUGE margins...and doing so on team's that were outgunned by HOFers by margins of 7-3, 7-3, 6-3, 8-1, and 7-2...and NEARLY beating two of those heavily-favored Celtic teams TWICE (losing game seven's by two and one point)...Russell was the better player?????

[QUOTE]If they mean in terms of stats, then yes. But it wasn't even his best season, so you know the person writing that is not very informed or passionate about the subject.

[/QUOTE]

Agreed. Wilt was even more dominant in his 66-67 season. And, a case could be made that Wilt's 62-63 was even greater than his 61-62 season. Of course, there has NEVER been an NBA player, in the HISTORY of the game, that could rival Wilt's 61-62 and 62-63 seasons, either.

[QUOTE]A big part of the reason was because Wilt and West split votes. (West got more btw, so that tells you who the players viewed as the team leader, a major factor among players when voting for an MVP)

[/QUOTE]

No, it was flat out anti-Wilt bias. Virtually everyone that watched the Lakers play that year KNEW that it was WILT leading that team. And, of course, while West really struggled in the post-season, Wilt took over in the playoffs.

[QUOTE]Maybe because his team finished 20 games under .500 and last in attendance. Where is the value?

Was he dominant? was it an all-time great statisitical season? [B]Of course, but it was not an MVP worthy season as the team went no where and lost money, they could have done that without him, and lost less money[/B].

[/QUOTE]

BUT, then Wilt takes that same crappy roster to the Finals the very next year, and a HUGE improvement over the year before...and Oscar wins the MVP (despite a MUCH better roster...and a far less improvement in team success.)

As far as the Warriors saving money without Wilt...well, they did trade Wilt. What happened next? Wilt took his Sixer team, a crappy team the year before, to a game seven, one point loss against the 62-18 Celtics. THEN, Chamberlain led the Sixers to the best record in the league over the course of the next three years, and a world championship...which included thumping those Warriors in the Finals.



Once again...I am CONVINCED that there was an anti-Wilt bias in his entire career in the NBA. Furthermore, many players resented the fact that he could so easily dominate them, and the entire league. Let's face reality...Wilt SHREDDED the NBA record book...in virtually everu category. It was so bad, that opposing centers were getting standing ovations when they would hold Wilt to 54 points (just as Darrell Imhoff.)

[QUOTE=jlauber]
Once again...I am CONVINCED that there was an anti-Wilt bias in his entire career in the NBA. Furthermore, many players resented the fact that he could so easily dominate them, and the entire league. Let's face reality...Wilt SHREDDED the NBA record book...in virtually everu category. It was so bad, that opposing centers were getting standing ovations when they would hold Wilt to 54 points (just as Darrell Imhoff.)[/QUOTE]

I skipped everything else because we've already debated it.

I do wonder if you;ve ever considered the rnoy of you're two arguments being

a) Russell had better teammates
b) Wilt had better stats

Wouldn't A suggest that B was likely?

Regardless, my greater point is that you are wrong (in my opinion of course) to suggest their was an anti-Wilt bias, at least if you mean personally. Players liked Wilt (except his early teammates who resented him), if there was an anti-Wilt bias, it would have also shown in 1966, 67 and 68.

What there actually was, was an anti-not winning the title bias against him.

Right or wrong, the way NBA players think is that he who has the most talent should have the title. In over 100 NBA biographies I've researched that's the most common theme among players who were once elite or on an elite team.

As soon as Wilt's team started really winning consistently and he started playing a team game (which him not playing was not his fault, but his coaches request, we agree.) he was an MVP lock.

Once he got to LA and wasted a sure title season by feuding with a stubborn coach, he had to dodge that stigma again.

If someone never watched, or read about those seasons and just viewed the stats, it would seem ludicrous that Wilt wasn't the MVP, but when you consider the context overall, it makes perfect sense.

You like Wilt, so you give him the benefit of the doubt, others who were less talent, but believed they worked harder and understood how to play the game the right way better resented him. And his team's losing, though not primarily his fault as sometimes presented to be sure, was excuse enough to justify their resentment.

Let's remember too that from '61 to '63, not just the players, but the media and a private Sport Magazine poll selected Russell as MVP. I do think it's pretty disrespectful to diminish that by suggesting it was a conspiracy against Dippy.

[QUOTE=ShaqAttack3234]Well, I think that Russell's ability to run the floor, set picks and get offensive rebounds ensured that he'd be able to score points, so I agree that he wasn't below average. M[B]y best description of him would be an opportunistic scorer[/B].[/QUOTE]

That's about perfect. If the opposing team was weak at center he'd go for 30, if he was playing Wilt, he'd shoot only enough to make Wilt keep going for his ball fakes and to force him to expend some energy on the defensive end.

[QUOTE=ShaqAttack3234]Not a dominant scorer, but a guy who could get points in a variety of ways, just not as far as I've seen by throwing the ball to him in the post and having him consistently create his own offense. But in that era with all of the fast breaks and missed shots, a guy who ran the floor so well and got so many offensive rebounds could be a scoring threat. And sometimes, you can get will your team to victory that way. [/QUOTE]

Again, I think you're spot on. He was not a guy you could throw the ball into every other possession and say get me 30, he was a guy who could score 20 without you noticing.

Early on he was like Ben Wallace in that no plays were ever run for him (though Ben and Rip Hamilton did an alley oop screen and roll off an elbow curl) but unlike Wallace, Russell would find ways to score 10-20 consistently because he understood the timing and spacing of the game so well. Russell would constantly find ways to help others score while simultaneously looking for opportunities for an easy two of his won.

[QUOTE=ShaqAttack3234]Regarding assists, well, I think there were alot more "easy" assists back then such as this one. [URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJjBDUhbBcs#t=0m29s"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJjBDUhbBcs#t=0m29s[/URL]

Very simple pass and a defensive mistake, to Russell's credit, he spotted it, and he looked for the cutter first and saw that the cutter wasn't open, so you can see his IQ, but that's why I don't really view assist numbers the same.[/quote]

If there were so many though, how come in a game with more made field goals, fewer were assisted on?

Assists weren't given out the same way either. Regardless, Russell was putting up numbers that near and sometimes above half the league leader. How many centers have ever done that?

[QUOTE=ShaqAttack3234]If you have specific examples of Russell's passing then feel free to post them, but I'm a skeptic by nature, so I do have to see things for myself.[/quote]

I wish I had more examples, but honestly there are like 20 Russell games floating out their and though I've seen a handful more, I don't personally own any nor can a cite a specific play from the games I have seen.

Most of my opinion on Russell is formed based on what his peers and contemporaries have had to say about him. I feel they are more qualified to judge than I. That goes the same for today's players. I have my opinions, but I also know how little I really know about the players.

[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]I skipped everything else because we've already debated it.

I do wonder if you;ve ever considered the rnoy of you're two arguments being

a) Russell had better teammates
b) Wilt had better stats

Wouldn't A suggest that B was likely?

Regardless, my greater point is that you are wrong (in my opinion of course) to suggest their was an anti-Wilt bias, at least if you mean personally. Players liked Wilt (except his early teammates who resented him), if there was an anti-Wilt bias, it would have also shown in 1966, 67 and 68. [/quote]

There definitely was a hughe anti Wilt bias. Are you seriously saying that is not the case??? Everybody hates goliath wasn't applied to earlier big people. You really think Wilt was 7th in MVP voting in '63??? Where Wilt was nearly shut out? Players back then might have saw game tape here and there of other games but they were voting basically on what they saw in boxscores. In a natural world, players hate the dynasties that prevent them from winning, getting notoriety, HOF votes and championships.

Wilt's out of mind statistical years came shortly after the nation was transfixed on Maris and Mantle chasing 61 homers. Like I said before the Nation was obsessed with offense. This race for 61 was stealing headlines for weeks - while there was a real threat of atomic war - we wanted to be on the offensive end of that as well. We wanted to be the first to the moon. Sports numbers was the way of the nation. 714 was as american as apple pie. Pele was showing the value of skill and scoring in soccer as well. Yet Wilt's numbers which were more of a deviation of great output than we witness in any other sport (the race to 61 would have been broken in the area of 100) is worth an incredible void of support. One year with six guys that were far inferior defensively as well getting more support. [quote]

What there actually was, was an anti-not winning the title bias against him. [/quote]They voted before the playoffs ('61). And they weren't win crazy in their voting in other years.
[quote]
If someone never watched, or read about those seasons and just viewed the stats, it would seem ludicrous that Wilt wasn't the MVP, but when you consider the context overall, it makes perfect sense. [/quote] I could believe that in one of the years but defintely not two, and him finishing seventh provides more context than the context you speak of.
[quote]
You like Wilt, so you give him the benefit of the doubt, [B]others who were less talent, but believed they worked harder[/B] and understood how to play the game the right way better resented him. And his team's losing, though not primarily his fault as sometimes presented to be sure, was excuse enough to justify their resentment. [/quote] Wouldn't these people resent Russell who didn't develop his offense and was blessed with a great situation, more so than Wilt??? Players are competitors they want to secure the advantages they have on superior talents. No way does a player resent MJ not playing the game right. That would be their dream and him loosing! Icing on the cake.

[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]
My problem is people saying he was limited offensively or an average or poor offensive player. How can a guy have the highest apg of any center all-time and have multiple Championship playoff runs and NBA finals where he topped 20 ppg and be an average offensive player?

How can he be called "the key to our offense after Cousy" by John Havlicek his teammate for five post-Cousy titles and be average?

It's just dumb and it bothers me a little that people don't admit their ignorance online, because if you confronted someone in person the same way they'd have no choice but to back down.[/QUOTE]

Don't know if this was a reference to me, so I will reiterate.
I said he was limited offensivley in comparison to GOATS - all of which I named. AND in every sport the Great Ones are creative and proficient with the instrument in use - except Russell. I also said Russell was GWOAT.

[QUOTE=2010splash]Celtics fans crack me up. Bill Russell's skillset resembled a Deke Mutombo at best. He played in a weak era and won a lot... who cares?[/QUOTE]

That is nonsense.

[QUOTE=Pointguard]There definitely was a hughe anti Wilt bias. Are you seriously saying that is not the case??? Everybody hates goliath wasn't applied to earlier big people. You really think Wilt was 7th in MVP voting in '63??? Where Wilt was nearly shut out? Players back then might have saw game tape here and there of other games but they were voting basically on what they saw in boxscores. In a natural world, players hate the dynasties that prevent them from winning, getting notoriety, HOF votes and championships. [/quote]

Once again Wilt was seventh because his team missed the playoffs in a league where 67% of the teams qualify for the postseason. I would have left him off my ballot all together. Finishing 7th of 9 teams and last in attendence means no one was valuable.

Now Wilt's season is historically very significant from an individual and statistical perspective.

And unless you have some evidence to suggest players voted based on something besides the 10 times they played each team and 5-10 they watched them play then you're just making stuff up.

I am disgusted by people in this thread trying to act like they individually are more qualified to determine the MVP of a basketball season than the actual players who played that season.

[QUOTE=Pointguard] I could believe that in one of the years but defintely not two, and him finishing seventh provides more context than the context you speak of.[/quote]

What? The context of him finishing seventh is that his team finished seventh.

Why does it surprise you that he finished so low, that's how that works historically.


[QUOTE=Pointguard] Wouldn't these people resent Russell who didn't develop his offense and was blessed with a great situation, more so than Wilt???[/QUOTE]

No, because that's not how people viewed it at the time. Going to Boston wasn't viewed as some great situation. In addition Russell played a team first game 100%, so players loved him, especially his teammates, whereas Wilt's teammates early on did not like his style of play or the way he was treated by coaches.

The especially didn't like him after he claimed to be quitting after the 1960 playoffs. At that point it was start winning or shut up about Wilt.



[QUOTE=Pointguard] Don't know if this was a reference to me, so I will reiterate.
I said he was limited offensivley in comparison to GOATS - all of which I named. I also said Russell was GWOAT.[/quote]

Comparatively to Russell, Jordan was limited on defense then too right? After all Jordan did not have the capability to impact games with his shot blocking.

What about Bird or Magic's defense? Are you going to tell me that they were as good defensively as Russell was offensively? Because if you do, I think you're a liar. No one ever hid Russell on offense, in fact after 1963, they ran the offense through him. A limited player could not be the focal point of a team's offense that wins five titles in six years.

As far as you calling Russell the greatest winner, a lot of people do that, but not as a compliment, but as a way of dismissing him from the company of other less accomplished and respected player who they feel have a more complete skill set.

Winning is the point of the game, and all sports. If Russell is the greatest winner then he is the greatest player and the debate ends. If you don't think that way than something besides winning must be most important to you.

I've said this before, but we are not scouting players on potential or what they could do based on our opinions. We are evaluating careers, things that happened and things that didn't.

[QUOTE=Pointguard]AND in every sport the Great Ones are creative and proficient with the instrument in use - except Russell.[/quote]

Really, do you want to stand by this as your opinion. Because that sounds fu[COLOR="Black"]c[/COLOR]king ridiculous to me.

[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]Once again Wilt was seventh because his team missed the playoffs in a league where 67% of the teams qualify for the postseason. I would have left him off my ballot all together. Finishing 7th of 9 teams and last in attendence means no one was valuable.

Now Wilt's season is historically very significant from an individual and statistical perspective.

And unless you have some evidence to suggest players voted based on something besides the 10 times they played each team and 5-10 they watched them play then you're just making stuff up.

I am disgusted by people in this thread trying to act like they individually are more qualified to determine the MVP of a basketball season than the actual players who played that season.



What? The context of him finishing seventh is that his team finished seventh.

Why does it surprise you that he finished so low, that's how that works historically.




No, because that's not how people viewed it at the time. Going to Boston wasn't viewed as some great situation. In addition Russell played a team first game 100%, so players loved him, especially his teammates, whereas Wilt's teammates early on did not like his style of play or the way he was treated by coaches.

The especially didn't like him after he claimed to be quitting after the 1960 playoffs. At that point it was start winning or shut up about Wilt.





Comparatively to Russell, Jordan was limited on defense then too right? After all Jordan did not have the capability to impact games with his shot blocking.

What about Bird or Magic's defense? Are you going to tell me that they were as good defensively as Russell was offensively? Because if you do, I think you're a liar. No one ever hid Russell on offense, in fact after 1963, they ran the offense through him. A limited player could not be the focal point of a team's offense that wins five titles in six years.

As far as you calling Russell the greatest winner, a lot of people do that, but not as a compliment, but as a way of dismissing him from the company of other less accomplished and respected player who they feel have a more complete skill set.

Winning is the point of the game, and all sports. If Russell is the greatest winner then he is the greatest player and the debate ends. If you don't think that way than something besides winning must be most important to you.

I've said this before, but we are not scouting players on potential or what they could do based on our opinions. We are evaluating careers, things that happened and things that didn't.



Really, do you want to stand by this as your opinion. Because that sounds fu[COLOR="Black"]c[/COLOR]king ridiculous to me.[/QUOTE]
Im 80% with you G.O.A.T. however I think you put way too much emphasis on a player being on a winning "TEAM".Everything i have read and heard is enough for me to know Russell is the greatest "TEAM" leader of all time.I wouldn't call him the Greatest player of all time.IS it that simple that Russ would have won 11 titles if he had played with the Hawks? how many of those titles did Sam Jones and Hondo ect... have at least 3/4 th the impact Russell had ? How much of a impact did Red have who many have called the Greatest leader of men of all time?Being the focal player of a "TEAM" winning 11 titles is phenomenal,however that alone doesn't make him a better individual player than Wilt,Elgin,Oscar,Magic,Bird,KAJ.I like leadership in players thats why I love Russ,Magic,Oscar,Isiah MJ,Kobe.I think Wilt was much like Lebron is today outstanding skill set,but questionable leadership.

[QUOTE=Niquesports]Im 80% with you G.O.A.T. however I think you put way too much emphasis on a player being on a winning "TEAM".Everything i have read and heard is enough for me to know Russell is the greatest "TEAM" leader of all time.I wouldn't call him the Greatest player of all time.IS it that simple that Russ would have won 11 titles if he had played with the Hawks? how many of those titles did Sam Jones and Hondo ect... have at least 3/4 th the impact Russell had ? How much of a impact did Red have who many have called the Greatest leader of men of all time?[/QUOTE]

I know what you mean and I imagine it comes off that way to some, but the facts are the facts.

Red was a coach for ten years and never won a title before Russell. Cousy and Sharman six years together no rings with a HOF center in Ed Maccauley playing with them. Hondo and the Celtics finished in last place the year after Russell left and won just two titles in seven seasons with a HOF center in Cowens. Sam Jones was the man, but he was never nearly as valuable as Russell and he'd be the first to tell you.

As for Russell going to the Hawks...

I think the Dynasty is even more dominant. Russell, Pettit and Lovellette on the same team? Remember the Hawks got to the Finals in '57, '58, '60 and '61...they went 1-3, all vs. Boston. Now if we were to replay those series with Russell and Cliff Hagan switching places, don't you think the Hawks win all four?

What about if Russell went #1 in the draft to the Royals?

Russell and Maurice Stokes together pre-Wilt...DOMINATION.

Later on you could see a roster with Oscar, Russell, Jerry Lucas and Jack Twyman...WOW! (remember Oscar and Luc were territorial selections)

Put him on the Warriors or Pistons or Nats (all title contenders the previous seasons) and he is a sure title with those teams.

The only teams he might struggle with initially were the Lakers (who had a plan to get him but it flopped) and the Knicks.

Even then, he won everywhere he went and I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

[QUOTE=Niquesports]Being the focal player of a "TEAM" winning 11 titles is phenomenal,however that alone doesn't make him a better individual player than Wilt,Elgin,Oscar,Magic,Bird,KAJ.I like leadership in players thats why I love Russ,Magic,Oscar,Isiah MJ,Kobe.I think Wilt was much like Lebron is today outstanding skill set,but questionable leadership.[/QUOTE]

11 titles in 13 years is so freaking amazing.

Consider that it started and ended with his arrival and departure from the league and it gets more impressive.

Factor in that the team he came to had no history of winning (only NBA franchise that had not won a title or made the finals in one league or another) and it gets even more astounding.

Throw in that he was the first black superstar, the first black MVP, the first black player to lead a team to a title, the first black coach in any sport, the first black coach to win a title in any sport and still the only black coach to win back-to-back titles in the NBA and you're mind is sufficiently blown I assume.

21-0 in do or die games for his career
10-0 in game sevens
11-1 in the Finals with his one loss coinciding with the only major injury of his career.

At some point it all stops being coincidence.

[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]You have to view everything in context I think.

The scoring numbers sort of find their middle with the faster pace equaling lower percentages, but also it's important to note that that same faster pace allotted for statistical anomalies and exceptions (like Wilt). However for the most part if you compare the league's top scorer's, they are pretty level with most of the NBA's post-shot clock history.

The era Russell played in and the field goal percentage of the league is also why you have to take his rebounding numbers with a grain of salt.

Just like 20 rebounds in 1962 isn't 20 rebounds in 2011, 45% from the field in 1962 isn't 45% in 2011.

Russell was not a great scorer, and had he been asked to do it every night he and his team would have failed, but he understood that and channeled his efforts towards things that not every guy on his team could do.

And no, scoring was not Russell's strength, but he was above average at it by any era's standards. And he has some postseason numbers that stack up with just about any center in any era.

My problem is people saying he was limited offensively or an average or poor offensive player. How can a guy have the highest apg of any center all-time and have multiple Championship playoff runs and NBA finals where he topped 20 ppg and be an average offensive player?

How can he be called "the key to our offense after Cousy" by John Havlicek his teammate for five post-Cousy titles and be average?

It's just dumb and it bothers me a little that people don't admit their ignorance online, because if you confronted someone in person the same way they'd have no choice but to back down.[/QUOTE]

I never said Russel was an average offensive player - only that he was not a great offensive player. You did not answer my previous question - what was the league FG% during that time - i am genuinely curious. I do agree that Russel did have some couple years where he put up good offensive numbers in playoffs, namely in 62 and 63, even though again they are still not near Chamberlain or KAJ category. What were the NBA finals where he tooped 20ppg per game? I am pretty sure 1962 was one of them? Any other ones?

[QUOTE=kizut1659]I never said Russel was an average offensive player - only that he was not a great offensive player. You did not answer my previous question - what was the league FG% during that time - i am genuinely curious. I do agree that Russel did have some couple years where he put up good offensive numbers in playoffs, namely in 62 and 63, even though again they are still not near Chamberlain or KAJ category. What were the NBA finals where he tooped 20ppg per game? I am pretty sure 1962 was one of them? Any other ones?[/QUOTE]

Russel[B]l[/B]

When Russell entered the league the league's FG% was 38%, by the early 60's it had moved to 42% and by the late 60's 44%.

I know he topped 20 a game for the Finals in '62, '63 and '66 and I think maybe '68, if not he was close.

In '65 he scored 18 a game on 75% shooting from the field and had two-triple doubles (potential quadruple doubles if we had block numbers) in a five game series.

[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]Russel[B]l[/B]

When Russell entered the league the league's FG% was 38%, by the early 60's it had moved to 42% and by the late 60's 44%.

I know he topped 20 a game for the Finals in '62, '63 and '66 and I think maybe '68, if not he was close.

In '65 he scored 18 a game on 75% shooting from the field and had two-triple doubles (potential quadruple doubles if we had block numbers) in a five game series.[/QUOTE]

Russel's career fg% is 44% (43% for playoffs) so sounds like he was a couple percentage point better than the league average average over the span of his career. Is there a website where the stats for 60s games are available - i have had a hard time finding them.

[B]Russell is great: best defender and 2nd best rebounder of his era but MJ played bothe ends and dominated both at his spot.[/B]

The same reason Wayne Gretzky is considered the greatest Hockey player all time despite only having 4 rings. Or should Henri Richard who won 11 Stanley Cups be the GOAT for Hockey?

Babe Ruth won 7 championships in Baseball and is considered the GOAT, however Yogi Berra won 10 championships in Baseball and is not considered the GOAT.

While I put Russell in the top 3 with MJ and Kareem, as you can see from those examples, why just having the most titles doesn't make you GOAT. And Yogi Berra was damn good.

[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]Once again Wilt was seventh because his team missed the playoffs in a league where 67% of the teams qualify for the postseason. I would have left him off my ballot all together. Finishing 7th of 9 teams and last in attendence means no one was valuable. [/quote]
Players vote as players and fans of the game. They don't vote as GM's. They prefer fewer fans on the road, there is a quiet auditorium feel that has a practice feel without any added pressure. Now if you are suggesting that their crowds were fewer for home games then you would have to understand the anti Wilt stand people were taking. Knick and Philadelphia fans would go to Jersey to see a guy average 50ppg and who has the capacity to get 100 on a night. They do it now for Lebron and Blake Griffin. Besides didn't the franchise just move that year?

This dynamic of winning as being an override on assessing MVP's wasn't true when Petite set up how this MVP thing would work in 1956 (5 years prior) - He was on a team with a loosing record. Nor was winning an overriding dynamic in the more established sports. Any gigantic deviation in stat's was recognized in all of the sports. As I said before Musial wasn't on the level of Mickey Mantle but he won MVP because of the numberical number of home runs. This was the year before Wilt's domination. The winning thing wasn't phenom it was then.

Russell was part of Wilt's get dominated party. He got his cake just like everybody else. Players know when a guy is better than the other. Russell had unbreakable records broke on him just like the others. And Wilt did it where one of Russells claim to fame were. Without looking I know that Russell, supposedly Wilt's defensive equal to Chamberlain's offense, was holding Wilt to half his average in anything. Wilt had a hughe number of games above his average against Russell during the first 5 years. And 12 games (this is a cumulative number) where he doubled Russell's scoring along with more than a double digit rebounding edge. That's domination.
[quote]
And unless you have some evidence to suggest players voted based on something besides the 10 times they played each team and 5-10 they watched them play then you're just making stuff up. [/quote]
LOL, you're telling me in all the books you read, that the players on numerous occassions don't say "then I looked at the boxscores." - you think they're playing Suduko??? You aren't playing me stupid with that comment.
[quote]
I am disgusted by people in this thread trying to act like they individually are more qualified to determine the MVP of a basketball season than the actual players who played that season. [/quote]
I'm saying that there is politics, a dislike of Wilt's dating practices, Red Aurabach and people who were more swayed by those things more than basketball.
[quote]

What? The context of him finishing seventh is that his team finished seventh.
[/quote]
When he outscored Russell by 31ppg and three rebounds his teams record was 49 and 31. And were in 2nd place in the East. [quote]

Why does it surprise you that he finished so low, that's how that works historically. [/quote] The greatest statistical year (I'm talking 1961 here which was a 2nd place finish in wins). Is good enough in every sport to win MVP unaminously across the board. It wasn't like Wilt's defense was bad either. His statistical proportions in baseball would have been at least a 7 homerun game with 21 RBI's single game and a 90 homerun 200 RBI season.
[quote]
No, because that's not how people viewed it at the time. Going to Boston wasn't viewed as some great situation. [/quote] So now you're telling me they don't want to win or value winning? You can't have it both ways.
[quote]
In addition Russell played a team first game 100%, so players loved him, especially his teammates, whereas Wilt's teammates early on did not like his style of play or the way he was treated by coaches. [/quote]
I would jump for joy knowing that the guy who got 60 points on me and took the finest girl intown would have coaching problems! Oh and Russell wasn't some Magic Johnson. He passed a lot because Cousy and Heinsohn were better at scoring. [quote]

The especially didn't like him after he claimed to be quitting after the 1960 playoffs. At that point it was start winning or shut up about Wilt.
[/quote] So it wasn't about his play??? I personally like a guy that considered quitting and then sets the bar much higher than anybody else. You also way overestimate the number of people who have this win at all cost attitude that Russell had. Some people play for money, some play because they enjoy the game, some because of the fame. I really believe that the obssessive winners are few. Perhaps more in that day than now. But I only have Duncan, KG, Ginobli, Lebron, Dwade and a few others in this group. And I don't think they are overwhelmingly respected for this trait. [quote]

Comparatively to Russell, Jordan was limited on defense then too right? After all Jordan did not have the capability to impact games with his shot blocking.
[/quote]
In all fairness to Jordan, teams didn't pass the ball on his side of the court because they feared his defense. Teams feared the double down on his side because he would steal or knock the ball off of the offensibe players leg out of bounds. So they feared the turnover like they feared a great shot blocker.
[quote]
What about Bird or Magic's defense? Are you going to tell me that they were as good defensively as Russell was offensively? Because if you do, I think you're a liar. No one ever hid Russell on offense, in fact after 1963, they ran the offense through him. A limited player could not be the focal point of a team's offense that wins five titles in six years.[/quote] Magic controlled the pace of the game and got steals. People did not think clearly because Magic had them playing his game. Bird's Celtics was one of the most disciplined teams the league had in the 80's. When Magic controlled the pace, Boston was highly inefficient on offense across the board Parrish and McHale excluded as they weren't under the same pressure. The guards and SF were out of their element. Magic had his tenticles in defense thru his control of tempo and the deception that the game was a free for all. Bird talked trash at such high levels players got crosseyed and they saw two rims. LOL, but true. But your question is too hard for me to answer. If I seen Russell play more I could see how he was interwined in the offense better.
[quote]
As far as you calling Russell the greatest winner, a lot of people do that, but not as a compliment, but as a way of dismissing him from the company of other less accomplished and respected player who they feel have a more complete skill set. [/quote]
No. If Russell wanted to be GOAT he should have gotten to the gym and worked on his low post game. If Wilt wanted to be GOAT he should have played his heart out in the playoffs. KAJ and Shaq needed more energy and hustle. Magic and Bird improved themselves in every way but didn't have the defensive end tight. Jordan is the only one I can't find an angle on. He worked hard, he dominated, he improved, his hunger wasn't surpassed.
[quote]
Winning is the point of the game, and all sports. If Russell is the greatest winner then he is the greatest player and the debate ends. If you don't think that way than something besides winning must be most important to you. [/quote] He was never totally responsible for his wins - no one is in team sports. Red Aurabach was very key as he put together a very structured team. They played united. They played with a scoring unit. They played, defense, they played in a winning way. Russell wasn't responsible for scoring. He wasn't responsible for the pieces. He wasn't even responsible for consistent inside scoring. You don't win without that. You need a lot of pieces and Russell was a few but you need a lot.

Isn't there this maxim that good offense beats good defense... . If I outscore you I win... Russell was great on the reactive side of the ball not the proactive. I think he was good offensively but not great.

Greatness comes to us when we are confident, proficient, creative, skilled, and resourceful with whatever instrument we use. Please, let me know of the exceptions. With a ball in his hand Russell is not the greatest ever.

IMO, He didn't even work toward that end.

In the Russell-Wilt debate, people tend to overlook, or do not know, that Wilt was drafted in HIGH SCHOOL, and the year before his rookie season, his Warrior team finished in LAST PLACE.

How about Russell? He came to a Boston team (via a trade) that had finished 39-33 the year before. Not only that, but the Celtics ALSO drafted Tom Heinsohn. So Boston replaced Ed McCauley with Russell AND added Heinsohn to an already quality team. On top of all of that, the Celtics drafted Sam Jones the very next year. So, it was NOT just Russell who turned the Celts into champs, but SEVERAL quality players...along with a HOF coach (something Wilt did not have for many years.)

BTW, for all of Auerbach's anti-Wilt comments throughout his career, he DESPERATELY wanted Wilt while Chamberlain was still in High School.

And while Wilt, himself stated that Russell blended better with his HOF teammates, than perhaps he (Wilt) would have, the fact was, once Chamberlain was surrounded with a decent supporting cast, they were a powerhouse EVERY year from '66 thru '68 with the Sixers (they had the best record in the league each year, and won a dominating title in '67.) AND, his Laker teams went to FOUR Finals in FIVE years, and again, won a title in record-breaking fashion in '72. So, in Wilt's last eight years he was knocking at a title every year but one. And, there were a variety of reasons why six of the eight did not win rings. Poor coaching (especially in '69), poor play by teammates (especially in the post-season...like '66, '68, and '69), horribly officiated games (game five cost LA a title in '70), and devastating injuries (with SEVERAL of them in '68.) BUT, while Wilt languished on some horrible teams, Russell always had a handful of HOFers to fall back on. Russell NEVER had to play with rosters that Wilt had in his first six seasons (and his 62-63 teammates were probably the worst in NBA history.)

Furthermore, there are those that look at Russell's 7-1 TEAM edge in the post-season against Wilt's TEAM's, and somehow believe that Russell dominated Wilt. The fact was, Wilt's TEAM's lost FOUR game seven's to Russell's TEAM's, by a TOTAL of NINE points. And two of those teams were vastly inferior to Russell's TEAM's ('62 and '65.) And, in the '64 Finals, Russell's Celtic's enjoyed a 7-2 edge in HOFers, too.

In their ten years in the league, Russell's Celtics had a SIGNIFICANT edge in talent in six of them. In their first six years, Russell's TEAM's had an edge in HOFers by 7-3, 7-3, 6-3, 8-1, 7-2, and 5-2 margins. In their last four years, when Chamberlain finally had quality supporting casts, Wilt's TEAM's all finished ahead of Russell's in the regular season. BUT, Russell STILL had an edge in HOF teammates EVERY year...as well as much deeper rosters.

Of course, there will be those that argue that Russell's TEAM's still beat Wilt's TEAM's, 3-1 in that span. First of all, Wilt's '66 76ers won their last 11 games to edge Russell's Celtics by ONE game. Boston was STILL the seven-time defending champs, as well, and once again, were much deeper. On top of that, Wilt averaged 28 ppg, 30 rpg, and shot .509 in the ECF's against Russell that year, but Chamberlain's teammates were AWFUL. Jackson shot .429; Walker shot .375; Jones shot .325; Greer shot .325; and Cunningham shot .161. So, CLEARLY, it was NOT Chamberlain's fault that his TEAM did not win the title that year.

How about the '67-68 season, then, when Wilt's TEAM ran roughshod over the NBA and outdistanced Boston by eight games...and then lost a game seven to Boston, by four points in the ECF's? Well, for those that may not have read this before...the Sixers played that entire series without HOFer Cunningham, who broke his wrist in the previous round. And, even without him, Philly still had a 3-1 series lead. However, in game five, BOTH Jackson and Jones suffered leg injuries, and were worthless the last three games. Even more devastasting, was that Chamberlain was injured in game THREE of that series, and was noticeably hobbled the REST of the series. Even Russell acknowledged that a lessor player would not have played. On top of all of that, in game seven, the Sixer players did NOT pass the ball to Chamberlain the second half of that game (he only TOUCHED the ball a handful of times in the entire second half), AND, they collectively shot 33%...in a four point loss.

How about the '68-69 season, then, when Wilt's Lakers had a 55-27 record, to Boston's 48-34...and STILL lost a game seven, by TWO points in the Finals to the Celts? I have documented that series MANY times, but here is a quick recap:

Boston players hit TWO miraculous game-winning shots in that seven game series. Wilt's TEAMMATE, Elgin Baylor did absolutely nothing in games three thru five ( a TOTAL of 24 points), and two of those games were close losses. And then there was Johnny Egan...who basically replaced HOFer Gail Goodrich from the year before. Had Egan not lost the ball in the waning moments of game four, when LA had the lead, and the ball, in a series that they led 2-1, the Lakers would have won that game four to go up 3-1. And after easily beating Boston in game five, 117-104, they would have won the title, 4-1. Instead, he lost the ball, and Sam Jones hit one of those two miraculous game-winners, at the buzzer, and while falling down. And finally, there was Chamberlain's incompetent coach...who had no idea how to use Wilt, but who preferred Baylor shooting blanks to Wilt's offense. The idiot even made the comment that while the Lakers would score when they passed the ball into Wily, the offense looked "ugly." Of course, his biggest gaffe was in leaving Wilt on the bench in the last five minutes of that game seven...a two-point loss. His excuse? Wilt's teammate, Mel Counts, was playing well in Chamberlain's absence. Hmmm...Chamberlain shot 7-8 from the floor in that game...while Counts shot 4-13. Had Wilt been lucky enough to have even Carrot-Top as his coach, the Lakers probably would have won the title.

All of which brings us to Wilt's 66-67 TEAM. That team romped to the best record in NBA history (at the time), and ran away from the 60-21 Celtics (one of Boston's best records during their Dynasty BTW), with a 68-13 record. In their H2H matchup in the ECF's, Chamberlain's TEAMMATES neutalized Russell's usual edge, and with Wilt just crushing Russell in EVERY facet of the game, the Sixers routed Boston, 4-1 (and had they not lost a close game four in Boston, they would have swept them.)

Now, for those that argue that Russell COULD have scored more against Wilt...why DIDN'T he in that '67 series? In fact, in the clinching game five loss, Russell scored FOUR points on 2-5 shooting...while Wilt poured in 29 points on 10-16 shooting. Furthermore, in the clinching game five loss of the '66 ECF's, when Chamberlain's TEAMMATES were just pathetic, Wilt put up a 46-34 game against Russell. If Russell were truly a better player than Wilt, why didn't he reciprocate in the '67 ECF's?

And, the really interesting fact about those '67 ECF's, was that Wilt dominated Russell in the SAME fashion that he did in nearly every H2H post-season series encounter. The difference, obviously, was that, for once, Wilt's TEAMMATES were just as good as Russell's, and they were healthy, as well. The fact was, Wilt routinely outscored Russell by HUGE margins in their post-season margins, as well as outrebounding Russell in EVERY H2H post-season series (and in some, by HUGE margins.) And, given the known FG% numbers in their 142 H2H games, Chamberlain probably outshot Russell in EVERY post-season series, and we do KNOW that he outshot him by a .556 to .358 margin in '67.

As I have stated many times now, Russell may have slightly outplayed Wilt in a small number of their 142 H2H games, but Wilt not only outplayed him in the vast majority of them, he absolutely buried him in some 40 of those games.

Now, hopefully that will give the readers here a little better perspective on the Russell-Wilt rivalry.

[QUOTE=jlauber]In the Russell-Wilt debate, people tend to overlook, or do not know, that Wilt was drafted in HIGH SCHOOL, and the year before his rookie season, his Warrior team finished in LAST PLACE.[/quote]

You tend to overlook why they finished in last place.

Do you need me to remind you or are you going to acknowledge the obvious reason and also point out that Wilt came to a team with 2 HOFers in their prime (same number as Russell did).

[QUOTE=Pointguard]
No. If Russell wanted to be GOAT he should have gotten to the gym and worked on his low post game. [/quote]

A lot of our disagree is over semantics, but this is where you lose me completely.

For Russell to be considered the greatest you believe he would have had to do something that he proved he didn't need to do for his team to win?

He should have not done what he did do, which always worked, and instead done something arbitrary to meet your standard?

All the other players whose weaknesses you listed cost them and their teams title's, Russell's did not. Only an injury and the Greatest Single Season performance by a player in NBA history did.

[QUOTE=Pointguard]Greatness comes to us when we are confident, proficient, creative, skilled, and resourceful with whatever instrument we use. Please, let me know of the exceptions. With a ball in his hand Russell is not the greatest ever.

IMO, He didn't even work toward that end.[/QUOTE]

Luckily for Russell, he figured out that as a center in the 1950's and 60's about 95% of the time he'd be playing the game without the ball in hand, I'd say he had the right approach.

ur a ****in dumb ass...Robert Horry has 7 rings....Is he better than shaq, duncan, jordan kobe??? gtfo with that logic... u must be no older than 12 years old.