[QUOTE=dankok8;14426031]Lots of good insightful posts here but we need actual votes in order to make a list. :lol
[B]Let's get some votes in here! [/B]We gotta close this thread soon and move on.[/QUOTE]
Wilt Chamberlain.
Printable View
[QUOTE=dankok8;14426031]Lots of good insightful posts here but we need actual votes in order to make a list. :lol
[B]Let's get some votes in here! [/B]We gotta close this thread soon and move on.[/QUOTE]
Wilt Chamberlain.
[QUOTE=Dbrog;14426038]Imagine thinking Russell was a "limited" player who had to "get lucky" to succeed :roll: or is just "Dwight Howard"... you can't write this stuff :lol
He's only the dude the NBA picked to have the fMVP award named after lmao
Edit: btw coastal, Kareem doesn't win shit in those time periods once Wilt enters cause wilt owned his ass. Also going off of ACTUAL HISTORY Kareems resume shows he doesn't necessarily win the chip in years he's supposed to. He had the easiest decade to win em in[/QUOTE]
If you were to pick a player in next year's draft. Would you take 20 year old Wilt or 20 year old Russell?
I am taking Wilt everytime. Throw a competent guard around him like Dru Holiday and a Middleton type player and that's a dominant championship contending team.
20 year old Russell, Dru Holiday, and Middleton are not winning the championship in 2021. Russell ain't walking through the door and dropping 50 to close a game out.
[QUOTE=8Ball;14426060]If you were to pick a player in next year's draft. Would you take 20 year old Wilt or 20 year old Russell?
I am taking Wilt everytime. Throw a competent guard around him like Dru Holiday and a Middleton type player and that's a dominant championship contending team.
20 year old Russell, Dru Holiday, and Middleton are not winning the championship in 2021. Russell ain't walking through the door and dropping 50 to close a game out.[/QUOTE]
If you are a GM in this era and you take Russell over Wilt in the draft you won't have a job by the next morning.
Russell averaged 15 points per game on 44 percent shooting for his entire career despite having a massive athletic advantage over his opponents not named Wilt Chamberlain.
His defence also wouldn't be as impactful as it was in the 1960s due to the three-point line and the rules of today favouring the offensive player over the defensive player.
With the way the game is played now, it’s not possible for one person to have the impact Russell did on the defensive end.
All shots during the 1960's and 1950's were two-pointers meaning Russell’s primary direct defensive impact against shots around the rim could be as effective and impactful as any defence in a game relative to shots taken away from the rim, i.e., perimeter shots
[QUOTE=8Ball;14426060]If you were to pick a player in next year's draft. Would you take 20 year old Wilt or 20 year old Russell?
I am taking Wilt everytime. Throw a competent guard around him like Dru Holiday and a Middleton type player and that's a dominant championship contending team.
20 year old Russell, Dru Holiday, and Middleton are not winning the championship in 2021. Russell ain't walking through the door and dropping 50 to close a game out.[/QUOTE]
Who is your GOAT?
[QUOTE=coastalmarker99;14426020]Russell found an ideal home on the Celtics. They were an up-tempo team with shooters and scorers, so he wasn't needed to carry any significant offensive load, but he could still contribute by scoring on offensive rebounds and running the break, which played to his strengths in rebounding and athleticism.
Defensively, the Celtics had been aching for someone who could block shots, control the paint, rebound, and start the fast break, and that again was exactly what Russell was best at.
Within the Celtics, Russell found a sanctuary where he could let down the walls he built to protect himself from the outside world, and he became part of a close-knit family that allowed him to express himself to his fullest potential on the court.
Auerbach appreciated his talents, needed exactly what he offered, and provided an ideal environment for him to succeed.
On top of all that, he had a personality that lent itself to being obsessed with team goals at the expense of individual achievement.
A perfect fit for Russell, a perfect fit for the Celtics.
If Russell had played somewhere else, we might still recognize him as one of the best to ever play the game, but I doubt we would to the extent that we do now.
How many other teams would be satisfied to let him contribute so little in a set offence?
How many coaches would recognize and encourage his revolutionary approach to defence?
How many coaches would have given Russell the freedom to do whatever he wanted on the court as Red did?
Maybe he would've done just as well if he'd joined the Hawks and been coached by Alex Hannum who was the second-best coach of that era but there's no possible way that he would have found a situation better than Auerbach's Celtics.[/QUOTE]
Wilt's problem was that he was so talented for his time he also had to play with a bunch of bums. Which pissed him off and was labelled a team cancer. He probably looked at his teammates funny because they weren't anywhere close to his ability. Like playing with kids. 50ppg?
If Wilt played in this era, he would have actual NBA level talent around him and he would fit in a lot better.
Jordan for me.thanks op.
[QUOTE=dankok8;14426064]Who is your GOAT?[/QUOTE]
LeBron.
Jordan close 2nd. I had Jordan #1 before 2020 finals.
[QUOTE=Dbrog;14426038]Imagine thinking Russell was a "limited" player who had to "get lucky" to succeed :roll: or is just "Dwight Howard"... you can't write this stuff :lol
He's only the dude the NBA picked to have the fMVP award named after lmao
Edit: btw coastal, Kareem doesn't win shit in those time periods once Wilt enters cause wilt owned his ass. Also going off of ACTUAL HISTORY Kareems resume shows he doesn't necessarily win the chip in years he's supposed to. He had the easiest decade to win em in[/QUOTE]
No trolling response from me.
If you could swap a top 15 player today with 21 year old Russell, does that team get better? Name me the team that gets better.
Would LeBron ever say yes to trading Anthony Davis for Bill Russell? Never.
Bucks would get worse with Russell vs Giannis.
Philly would not trade Embiid for Russell.
Denver would not trade Jokic for Russell.
Lakers would arguably be better if you swapped prime 24 year old Wilt for AD.
Now repeat this exercise going back the last 30 years, most of the time your answer would be Wilt.
Wilt is just a better basketball player than Russell. Wilt was much more moody but I can understand it.
[QUOTE=8Ball;14426066]Wilt's problem was that he was so talented for his time he also had to play with a bunch of bums. Which pissed him off and was labelled a team cancer. He probably looked at his teammates funny because they weren't anywhere close to his ability. Like playing with kids. 50ppg?
If Wilt played in this era, he would have actual NBA level talent around him and he would fit in a lot better.[/QUOTE]
In-game one of the 1965 ECF
Wilt destroyed Russell. He scored 33 points and blocked 11 shots while grabbing 31 rebounds on 13-25 FG/FGA or 63 TS%
while Russell had 16 points and 32 rebounds on 7-22 shooting.
Wilt's teammates? They collectively shot...get this... 20-85 from the field, or .23.5 percent.
Also here are Wilt's playoff FG%'s, his teammates (collectively and without Wilt), and the post-season league averages.
59-60:
Wilt: .49.6
Team: .38.0
League: .40.2
60-61:
Wilt: .46.9
Team: .33.2
League: .40.3
61-62:
Wilt: .46.7
Team: .35.4
League: .41.1
63-64:
Wilt: .54.3
Team: .38.3
League: .42.0
It should be noted that the Warrior's offensive rating relative to the league was 100% positively correlated with Wilt taking more shots during his six years there.
[QUOTE=coastalmarker99;14426063]If you are a GM in this era and you take Russell over Wilt in the draft you won't have a job by the next morning.
Russell averaged 15 points per game on 44 percent shooting for his entire career despite having a massive athletic advantage over his opponents not named Wilt Chamberlain.
His defence also wouldn't be as impactful as it was in the 1960s due to the three-point line and the rules of today favouring the offensive player over the defensive player.
With the way the game is played now, it’s not possible for one person to have the impact Russell did on the defensive end.
All shots during the 1960's and 1950's were two-pointers meaning Russell’s primary direct defensive impact against shots around the rim could be as effective and impactful as any defence in a game relative to shots taken away from the rim, i.e., perimeter shots[/QUOTE]
That's my point. Forget historical achievements and titles.
There is not 1 GM today that would take Wilt over Russell in a draft. Their job is to build the best competing team.
Not 1 GM today would trade a top 15 player for prime Russell.
Would you trade Tatum of Russell? No.
Would you trade Jaylen Brown for Russell? Maybe, I am leaning no.
In today's game, if you can't inflict damage as a center, you are marginalized and turned into a Dwight Howard role. Jokic and embiid are not great perimeter defenders off pick and rolls, but they brutalize the other team offensively. Same with Shaq, Wilt. They would have an immediate mismatch offensively against today's bigs.
Russell would not have 1 mismatch.
[QUOTE=8Ball;14426074]No trolling response from me.
If you could swap a top 15 player today with 21 year old Russell, does that team get better? Name me the team that gets better.
Would LeBron ever say yes to trading Anthony Davis for Bill Russell? Never.
Bucks would get worse with Russell vs Giannis.
Philly would not trade Embiid for Russell.
Denver would not trade Jokic for Russell.
Lakers would arguably be better if you swapped prime 24 year old Wilt for AD.
Now repeat this exercise going back the last 30 years, most of the time your answer would be Wilt.
Wilt is just a better basketball player than Russell. Wilt was much more moody but I can understand it.[/QUOTE]
Look at the terrible spacing and dumb teammates that Wilt had to deal with.
This incredibly dumb Warriors player decided to park himself and his defender right in front of Wilt.
People say that Wilt wouldn’t be good today when he was putting up 50 points a game and leading the NBA in FG% with this spacing around him.
[IMG]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ey4-1d-WUAkS6b4?format=jpg&name=900x900[/IMG]
If You want to know how talented Wilt was as a player? Take a look at the 63-64 Warriors.
Before the season even started, the Warrior's new coach, Alex Hannum, conducted a scrimmage, sans Wilt, between the veterans, and a team comprised of rookies and rejects. To his horror, the rejects won.
Wilt then took basically that same roster, which may have been the worst roster ever surrounding a GOAT player in his prime to the finals and while it might be true that his team lost in five games to the Celtics and their eight HOFers.
Wilt somehow managed to keep his team in most of the games with only one other player (Tom Meschery) shooting above 35 FG% in those finals.
As in those Finals, he finished with 29.2 PPG on a +2.4 rTS% against the greatest defense of all-time
There is no way in my mind people think that Wilt should’ve been passing it to these utter scrubs on his team instead of putting up 30 shots a game.
[url]https://twitter.com/StokesIsland/status/1381997079933882372[/url]
Don't judge the entire era based off this clip btw as most players weren't nearly as incompetent as Wilt's teammates.
[QUOTE=8Ball;14426074]No trolling response from me.
If you could swap a top 15 player today with 21 year old Russell, does that team get better? Name me the team that gets better.
Would LeBron ever say yes to trading Anthony Davis for Bill Russell? Never.
Bucks would get worse with Russell vs Giannis.
Philly would not trade Embiid for Russell.
Denver would not trade Jokic for Russell.
Lakers would arguably be better if you swapped prime 24 year old Wilt for AD.
Now repeat this exercise going back the last 30 years, most of the time your answer would be Wilt.
Wilt is just a better basketball player than Russell. Wilt was much more moody but I can understand it.[/QUOTE]
Even if we assume that's true that no team today gets better replacing a top 15 player for Russell, that still means nothing.
We are evaluating Russell and all other players according to what they did in THEIR ERA. Of course a defensive center that blocked 8-10 shots a game and closed down the paint in an era with almost no outside shooting where all efficient shots were at the rim would have his impact greatly diminished in an era of 3pt shooters. Obviously... but that does not take anything away from Russell. I can say that Curry playing in the 60's NBA being hit hard by defenders, not being allowed to palm the ball and with no 3pt line would struggle mightily. This talk is irrelevant over what the player in question actually did. Russell led his teams to 4 out of 5 best defenses in terms of rDRtg (defensive rating relative to league average) in NBA history. That's what he should be judged on. That's at least how I see it.
Imagine having Wilt, 7'2", 300 lbs. Strongest player in the league. With 4 shooters around him.
That's already a good modern team that any fanbase would be happy with.
Russell and 4 shooters doesn't go very far in today's league.
If I am wrong show me the arguments.
[QUOTE=dankok8;14426082]Even if we assume that's true that no team today gets better replacing a top 15 player for Russell, that still means nothing.
We are evaluating Russell and all other players according to what they did in THEIR ERA. Of course a defensive center that blocked 8-10 shots a game and closed down the paint in an era with almost no outside shooting where all efficient shots were at the rim would have his impact greatly diminished in an era of 3pt shooters. Obviously... but that does not take anything away from Russell. I can say that Curry playing in the 60's NBA being hit hard by defenders, not being allowed to palm the ball and with no 3pt line would struggle mightily. This talk is irrelevant over what the player in question actually did. Russell led his teams to 4 out of 5 best defenses in terms of rDRtg (defensive rating relative to league average) in NBA history. That's what he should be judged on. That's at least how I see it.[/QUOTE]
The 10 best playoff defenses in NBA history (Relative to Opponent) *7+ Games*
1. 1964 Celtics: -12.4
2. 2004 DET: -10.7
3. 1996 Knicks: -9.9
4. 1971 Bucks: -9.5
5. 2019 Bucks: -9.2
6. 1972 Bucks: -9.0
7. 2016 Spurs: -8.9
8. 2019 Raps: -8.6
9. 2000 Heat: -8.4
10. 1996 Bulls: -8.3
Kareem was a defensive monster from 1970 to 1974.
How those 1971 to 1974 Bucks teams came away with only one ring in those four years I will never know as they should have at least gotten two titles in that time fame.
[QUOTE=dankok8;14426082]Even if we assume that's true that no team today gets better replacing a top 15 player for Russell, that still means nothing.
We are evaluating Russell and all other players according to what they did in THEIR ERA. Of course a defensive center that blocked 8-10 shots a game and closed down the paint in an era with almost no outside shooting where all efficient shots were at the rim would have his impact greatly diminished in an era of 3pt shooters. Obviously... but that does not take anything away from Russell. I can say that Curry playing in the 60's NBA being hit hard by defenders, not being allowed to palm the ball and with no 3pt line would struggle mightily. This talk is irrelevant over what the player in question actually did. Russell led his teams to 4 out of 5 best defenses in terms of rDRtg (defensive rating relative to league average) in NBA history. That's what he should be judged on. That's at least how I see it.[/QUOTE]
I agree that GOAT talks include discussion with what they accomplished in their era. And Curry would not be as great in the 60s.
Russell still is in my top 10. But Wilt is ranked higher than him for me.
For GOAT talks being a better basketball player vs your other GOAT candidates matter to me.
[QUOTE=8Ball;14426089]I agree that GOAT talks include discussion with what they accomplished in their era. And Curry would not be as great in the 60s.
Russell still is in my top 10. But Wilt is ranked higher than him for me.
For GOAT talks being a better basketball player vs your other GOAT candidates matter to me.[/QUOTE]
Russell vs. Wilt full H2H stats against each other year-By-year.
1959-1960 regular season in 11 H2H's
Russell: 19.8 ppg, 23.7 rpg 3.5 APG 39.3 FG%
Wilt: 39.1 ppg, 29.7 rpg 46.5 FG%, 1.3 apg.
1960 ECF in six postseason H2H's
Russell: 20.7 ppg, 27.0 rpg, 44.6 FG%, and 2.8 APG.
Wilt: 30.5 ppg, 27.5 rpg,.50.0 FG% and 2.0 APG
1960-1961 in 13 H2H matchups
Russell: 18.8 ppg, 25.4 rpg, 39.8 FG%, and 3.6 APG
Wilt: 35.5 ppg, 30.6 rpg, 49.2 FG%, and 1.8 apg.
1961-62 in 10 regular season H2H's:
Russell: 18.5 ppg, 24.6 rpg, 38.3 FG%, and 4.4 APG.
Wilt: 39.7 ppg, 28.8 rpg, 46.8 FG%, and 2.1 apg.
1962 ECF in seven postseason H2H's
Russell: 22.0 ppg, 25.9 rpg, 39.9. FG%, and 4.6 APG.
Wilt: 33.6 ppg, 26.9 rpg, 46.8 FG%, and 2.9 apg.
1962 -1963 in 9 regular season H2H's:
Russell: 15.3 ppg, 27.8 rpg, 38.14 FG%
Wilt: 38.1 ppg, 28.9 rpg, 51.1 FG%
1963-1964 in 8 regular season H2H
Russell 14.3 ppg, 25.3 rpg , 5 APG 39.81 FG%
Wilt 29.1 ppg ,26.8 rpg, 3.6 APG 53.9 FG%
1964 finals in five postseason H2H's
Russell 11.2 ppg, 25.2 rpg, 5.0 APG 38.6 FG%
Wilt 29.2 ppg 27,6 rpg, 2.4 APG 51.7 FG%
1964 - 1965 in 11 regular season H2H
Russell 12.6 ppg, 22.2 rpg 4.6 APG, 28.1 FG%
Wilt 25.4 ppg, 26.5 rpg, 4.2 APG, 47.3 FG%
1965 ECF in seven postseason H2H's
Russell 15.6 ppg, 25.1 rpg, 6.7 APG,44.7 FG%.
Wilt 30.1 ppg, 31.4 rpg, 3.3 APG 55.5 FG%.
1965 -1966 in 9 regular season H2H
Russell vs Wilt in 9 regular season H2H's:
Russell: 9.4 ppg, 21.2 rpg, 4.9 APG, .30.1 FG%
Wilt: 28.3 ppg, 30.7 rpg, 4.1 APG 47.3 FG%
1966 ECF in five postseason H2H's
Russell: 14.0 ppg, 26.2 rpg, 5.6 APG, 42.4 FG%
Wilt: 28.0 ppg, 30.2 rpg, 3.0 APG 50.9 FG%
1966 -1967 in 9 regular season H2H
Russell: 12.2 ppg, 21.1 rpg, 4.1 APG .44.7 FG%
Wilt: 20.3 ppg, 26.7 rpg, 6.3 APG, .54.9 FG%
1967 ECF in five postseason H2H's
Russell: 11.4 ppg, 23.4 rpg, 6.0 APG, 35.8 FG%
Wilt: 21.6 ppg, 32.0 rpg, 10.0 apg, 55.6 FG%
1967-1968 in 8 regular season H2H
Russell: 7.8 ppg, 17.5 rpg, 5.1 APG 29.1 FG%
Wilt: 17.1 ppg, 26.1 rpg, 8.5 APG, .46.1 FG%
1968 ECF in seven postseason H2H's
Russell: 13.7 ppg, 23.9 rpg, 4.1 APG, 44.0 FG%.
Wilt: 22.1 ppg, 25.1 rpg, 6.7 APG, 48.7 FG%.
1968-69: in six regular-season H2H
Russell: 6.7 ppg, 15.8 rpg, 5.8 APG on 34.0 %FG
Wilt: 16.3 ppg, 24.0 rpg, 4.8 APG on 50.7 %FG
1969 finals in seven postseason H2H's
Russell: 9.1 ppg, 21.1 rpg, 5.1 apg on 39.7 %FG
Wilt: 11.7 ppg, 25.0 rpg, 3.0 apg on 50.0 %FG
Coastalmarker,
Jordan was the biggest asshole to players he felt couldn't contribute the way Jordan wanted them to. Would bully them off the team.
LeBron gets players traded ASAP if they can't contribute the way he feels they should.
Meanwhile Wilt is called a team cancer.
Who cares about winning? Stats is where it's really at.
[QUOTE=8Ball;14426093]Coastalmarker,
Jordan was the biggest asshole to players he felt couldn't contribute the way Jordan wanted them to. Would bully them off the team.
LeBron gets players traded ASAP if they can't contribute the way he feels they should.
Meanwhile Wilt is called a team cancer.[/QUOTE]
Wilt had every right to feel angry with his teammates.
"When my teams played against Boston," Chamberlain said, "I'd play my heart out against Russell, and someone else on my team would blow the game."
Here is an example of this statement being true.
In-game one of the 1965 ECF
Wilt destroyed Russell. He scored 33 points and blocked 11 shots while grabbing 31 rebounds on 13-25 FG/FGA or 63 TS%
while Russell had 16 points and 32 rebounds on 7-22 shooting.
Wilt's teammates? They collectively shot...get this... 20-85 from the field, or .23.5 percent and they ended up losing the game.
In-game 5 of the '65-66 EDF'
Wilt shelled Russell with a 46 point and 34 rebound game along with 8 blocks on 55 per cent shooting.
Wilt's teammates? They collectively shot...get this... 24 out of 79 from the field, or 30.38 percent and they ended up losing the game.
In other words, people should understand that winning or losing is decided by teams.
We are comparing 2 individual GOAT candidates here.
Winning/losing should count too, but that should not be the basis for the argument about who is better as individual players.
If you swap the rosters between Russell and Wilt we all know it would have been Wilt holding all those rings as the great John Wooden said.
[QUOTE=000;14426095]Who cares about winning? Stats is where it's really at.[/QUOTE]
Basketball is a team game and one player doesn't win and one player doesn't lose. In the end, the best team usually wins.
I think fans and media make too much of winning. The mere fact of winning doesn't make you great.
If you put Duncan in place of KG on those Wolves teams with bad management and horrible teammates.
Do you think he still gets viewed the same way as he does nowadays by fans and media?
[QUOTE=coastalmarker99;14426103]Basketball is a team game and one player doesn't win and one player doesn't lose. In the end, the best team usually wins.
I think fans and media make too much of winning. The mere fact of winning doesn't make you great.
If you put Duncan in place of KG on those Wolves teams with bad management and horrible teammates.
Do you think he still gets viewed the same way as he does nowadays by fans and media?[/QUOTE]
I agree, personally. Turning your mediocre team into an insane defensive dynasty is meaningless. It's much more important to get stats and then blame your teammates when you lose.
[QUOTE=000;14426095]Who cares about winning? Stats is where it's really at.[/QUOTE]
I look back at my career...and there were five 7th games in playoff series. Five times I lost four of them by a total of nine points.
Now think about that. Nine points going the other way, and I might have had four or five more championship rings.
So I sometimes get a little frustrated when I hear people talk about,
"Yeah, well you only won two Wilt." I could have won seven rings but I would have been the same player.
When (John) Paxson goes out and shoots a 3-point shot that wins the game for Chicago (in 1993).
No one takes anything away from Jordan because he just won the championship.
But if Paxson missed that shot, they would have lost that championship. Well, that has happened to me five times... and that's frustrating.
You know you're playing as well as those guys who won. I remember one series exactly: I scored the last ten points, we were behind, within one, with a few seconds to go.
And one of the other guys on my team threw the ball inbounds and it's the famous, "Havlicek stole the ball!"
It was just one of those things that happened. The ball slips out of his hand, he throws it right to Havlicek, and we lose a game that we could have won.
It was the seventh game so you know that you had the ability, but the end result was that we lost. And that's the way it goes.
The worst was in 1968 when I was playing with the 76ers and we lost to the Celtics in the famous 7th game and they blamed me for not shooting the ball because I only took two shots in the second half.
Well, during those years, I was passing off a lot. I won the assist title.
The Celtics were smart, they put all four guys on me and let the rest of the guys shoot.
Billy Cunningham, Hal Greer, Chet Walker and Wali Jones -- all fantastic shots -- had a bad, bad day. 8-for-24, 8-for-25 and 8-for-22 and I am giving them the ball.
So when the game is over people say, "Why didn't you shoot, Wilt?" Well, I got four guys on me and here are four of the best shooters in NBA history -- we had just won 62 games that year -- but they were missing that night.
I was accused of not doing my job, not putting the ball in the basket, even though I had 34 rebounds, 13 blocked shots to go along with 14 points for the game.
But because I only took two shots in the second half, I get blamed. I think that sometimes that's a little bit unfair.
[QUOTE=8Ball;14426093]Coastalmarker,
Jordan was the biggest asshole to players he felt couldn't contribute the way Jordan wanted them to. Would bully them off the team.
LeBron gets players traded ASAP if they can't contribute the way he feels they should.
Meanwhile Wilt is called a team cancer.[/QUOTE]
Examples of Wilt getting let down by his teammates in the playoffs.
Game 1, 1960 ECF vs Boston
Wilt scores 42 points and grabs 29 rebounds and disses out 1 assist on 17-35 FG/FGA.
While Russell had 19 points and 30 rebounds plus 1 assist on 9-17 shooting
The difference was for this game
Was that Woody Sauldsberry went 3-21 and Wilt's teammates shoot 30% from the field in a 6 point loss in a series they lost in 6 games.
Game 1, 1961 ECSF vs Syracuse
Wilts teammates shoot 28.8% from the field after Wilt drops 46 and 32
Wilts teammates shot 33.2% from the field this series (8.3% below league average) and they were swept
Game 1, 1962 ECF vs Boston
Wilt scores 33 points and grabs 31 rebounds and disses out 3 assists on 13-25 FG/FGA.
While Russell had 16 points and 30 rebounds plus 4 assists on 7-22 shooting
Yet the difference in this game was that Wilts teammates shoot 23.5% from the field.
Game 4, 1964 Finals vs Boston
Wilt scores 27 points and grabs 38 rebounds on 52 percent shooting.
While Russell had 8 points and 19 rebounds plus 3 assists on 33 percent shooting.
Yet the difference in this game was that Wilt's teammates shoot 27.7% from the field in a 3 point loss.
Game 1 1965 ECF
Wilt scores 33 points and blocked 11 shots while grabbing 31 rebounds on 13-25 FG/FGA or 63 TS%
While Russell had 16 points and 32 rebounds on 7-22 shooting.
Yet the difference in this game was that Wilt's teammates shoot 23.5% from the field in a 10 point loss.
Game 5 1966 ECF.
Wilt scores 46 points and grabbed 34 rebounds along with 8 blocks on 19-34 FG/FGA
While Russell had 18 points and 31 rebounds plus 6 assists on 4-7 FG/FGA
Yet the difference in this game was that Wilt's teammates shoot 30.8% from the field in a 6 point loss in a series they lost in 5 games.
[QUOTE=8Ball;14426074]No trolling response from me.
[B]If you could swap a top 15 player today with 21 year old Russell, does that team get better? Name me the team that gets better.[/B]
Would LeBron ever say yes to trading Anthony Davis for Bill Russell? Never.
Bucks would get worse with Russell vs Giannis.
Philly would not trade Embiid for Russell.
Denver would not trade Jokic for Russell.
Lakers would arguably be better if you swapped prime 24 year old Wilt for AD.
Now repeat this exercise going back the last 30 years, most of the time your answer would be Wilt.
Wilt is just a better basketball player than Russell. Wilt was much more moody but I can understand it.[/QUOTE]
I love how you say your response is not trolling and you proceed to clearly troll. I 100% guarantee you if you ask GMs about if they could trade embiid or jokic for russell, they would laugh at how ridiculously easy the answer is.
To answer the bold, literally every team would get better. Again, Russell showed he's a championship player even when his entire team around him changed to different players over the years. He's basically a richman's Tim Duncan which is saying something just like Wilt is a richman's Shaq. I also take Duncan over Shaq but again, that's based on what I've seen from their actual careers and what I personally value in what makes a player great. You can disagree and that's fine. Neither of us are wrong because there's no way to definitively prove any of it.
Anyway, I'm done commenting in this thread and think Dankock is probably going nuts. This thread's purpose is literally just to list your GOAT and your reasoning behind it. Not to debate other people or play out hypotheticals.
The greatest example I can use to say that basketball is a team game and that you shouldn't judge players on winning alone.
Is that in Lebron's three best postseasons of his career in 2009 2017 and 2018.
Lebron didn't come away with a single ring despite the fact that his play was GOAT tier in all three of those playoff runs.
In the two best postseasons of Kareem's career in 1977 and 1974, he also didn't end up with a single ring despite the fact that his play was GOAT tier.
Hell Hakeem Olajuwon put up (49 points, 25 rebounds, six blocks in a playoff game and yet he still lost the series against the Sonics in 1987.
That was only Hakeem's third season in the league at 24 years old and he averaged 29 ppg, 11 rpg, 1.3 spg, and 4.3 BPG for the 10 game playoff run in 1987
Just insane numbers and he kept doing that every single season and he kept losing in the first round because he had no help whatsoever around him.
has this become a wilt thread :lol
Alright, let's look at the voting so far.
L.Kizzle myself and Thenameless voted for Wilt.
That's 3 votes in Wilt's favour.
SouBeachTalents Bankaii Overdrive RRR3 nayte dankok8 voted for Jordan
That's 6 votes in Jordan's favour.
Dbrog voted for Russell.
That's one vote in Russell's favour.
8ball voted for Lebron.
That's one vote in Lebron's favour.
Zero people, so far I think have voted for Kareem.
Compare Bill Russell's offensive numbers in the playoffs to someone like Kevin Garnett...
Russell's best stretch was 1960-1966 so let's compare that to KG's best 7 postseasons:
1960-1966 Russell: 18.7 rpg, 26.2 rpg (? o), 4.8 apg on 49.8 %TS (+1.9 rTS)
1999-2008 Garnett: 22.3 ppg, 12.7 rpg (2.7 o), 4.5 apg on 52.3 %TS (-0.2 rTS)
Garnett scored 3.6 ppg more but Russell surely had a higher offensive rebound rate when correcting for pace and had better efficiency relative to league average. Plus this doesn't account for the fact that Russell elevated his production in the finals and other key games. Russell wasn't nearly as bad on offense as people make it sound sometimes.
Beginning with Russell's rookie season of 1956-'57 there were 8 teams in the league and teams only had to win 1 round to reach the NBA Finals. Compare that to this years champion Milwaukee Bucks where there are 30 teams and they had to go through 3 rounds before making the Finals. It is much harder to win a championship in todays game. Going back to the 60's, the league expanded to 9 teams in '62-'63, and 10 teams in '66-'67. Beginning with the 1966 playoffs, Boston had to win 2 rounds before making the Finals.
In 1967-'68 the league expanded to 12 teams.
And in Russell's final season the league expanded to 14 teams.
So when considering Russell's rings, he never played in a league with more than 14 teams with only 1 or 2 rounds to reach the Finals.
That is a much easier road to travel than what teams have to do today.
[QUOTE=RogueBorg;14426220]Beginning with Russell's rookie season of 1956-'57 there were 8 teams in the league and teams only had to win 1 round to reach the NBA Finals. Compare that to this years champion Milwaukee Bucks where there are 30 teams and they had to go through 3 rounds before making the Finals. It is much harder to win a championship in todays game. Going back to the 60's, the league expanded to 9 teams in '62-'63, and 10 teams in '66-'67. Beginning with the 1966 playoffs, Boston had to win 2 rounds before making the Finals.
In 1967-'68 the league expanded to 12 teams.
And in Russell's final season the league expanded to 14 teams.
So when considering Russell's rings, he never played in a league with more than 14 teams with only 1 or 2 rounds to reach the Finals.
That is a much easier road to travel than what teams have to do today.[/QUOTE]
Then why do all the sports who have 1 and done setups have much more parity than the NBA? It's clearly harder to win CONSISTENTLY with less games, hence all the "upsets" in those other sports. As far as less teams, that means every team has more great players. Condense current teams to 8 and you have dudes like Devin Booker as as 2nd stringer on them. That literally makes the competition insane which you would think only elevates being able to win in that environment. I don't even know why I see these two arguments when they are dismantled so easily with FACTS.
[QUOTE=Dbrog;14426224]Then why do all the sports who have 1 and done setups have much more parity than the NBA? It's clearly harder to win CONSISTENTLY with less games, hence all the "upsets" in those other sports. As far as less teams, that means every team has more great players. Condense current teams to 8 and you have dudes like Devin Booker as as 2nd stringer on them. That literally makes the competition insane which you would think only elevates being able to win in that environment. I don't even know why I see these two arguments when they are dismantled so easily with FACTS.[/QUOTE]
It's not less games that makes it easier, it's fewer rounds to play that make it easier. The more rounds a team go through the more chances for an upset. In 8 of Russell's 11 rings there were only 2 rounds Boston had to win to win the championship. The Bucks by comparison had to go through 4.
As far as your argument about great players, Boston EASILY had the most hall of famers on their team.
[QUOTE=RogueBorg;14426229]It's not less games that makes it easier, it's fewer rounds to play that make it easier. The more rounds a team go through the more chances for an upset. In 8 of Russell's 11 rings there were only 2 rounds Boston had to win to win the championship. The Bucks by comparison had to go through 4.
As far as your argument about great players, Boston EASILY had the most hall of famers on their team.[/QUOTE]
Who is your #1?
[QUOTE=coastalmarker99;14426164]Alright, let's look at the voting so far.
L.Kizzle myself and Thenameless voted for Wilt.
That's 3 votes in Wilt's favour.
SouBeachTalents Bankaii Overdrive RRR3 nayte dankok8 voted for Jordan
That's 6 votes in Jordan's favour.
Dbrog voted for Russell.
That's one vote in Russell's favour.
8ball voted for Lebron.
That's one vote in Lebron's favour.
Zero people, so far I think have voted for Kareem.[/QUOTE]
I voted for Jordan too...
[QUOTE=dankok8;14426193]Compare Bill Russell's offensive numbers in the playoffs to someone like Kevin Garnett...
Russell's best stretch was 1960-1966 so let's compare that to KG's best 7 postseasons:
1960-1966 Russell: 18.7 rpg, 26.2 rpg (? o), 4.8 apg on 49.8 %TS (+1.9 rTS)
1999-2008 Garnett: 22.3 ppg, 12.7 rpg (2.7 o), 4.5 apg on 52.3 %TS (-0.2 rTS)
Garnett scored 3.6 ppg more but Russell surely had a higher offensive rebound rate when correcting for pace and had better efficiency relative to league average. Plus this doesn't account for the fact that Russell elevated his production in the finals and other key games. Russell wasn't nearly as bad on offense as people make it sound sometimes.[/QUOTE]
No one is calling Russell a bad offensive player. But he was clearly not an elite one either, at least not on the level of the other people in top 10 status.
And it's perfectly fine that he's not. He and Magic are the two top ten all time greats who weren't great on one end of the floor (in Magic's case it was defense). Again, if you want to argue that Russell was a great offensive player, then fine, but he was nowhere near as good as what was needed for him to truly be considered the GOAT. And not to mention, I cannot justify making someone the GOAT when a legitimate argument exists that another guy who played in the same era as him was a better player.
[B]Official Vote Tally:[/B]
Michael Jordan - 7: dankok8, SouBeachTalents, Bankaii, Overdrive, SaintzFury13, RRR3, nayte
Wilt Chamberlain - 3: coastalmarker99, Thenameless, L. Kizzle
Bill Russell - 1: Dbrog
Lebron James - 1: 8ball
All the votes that weren't cast for Jordan are carried over to the #2 thread. It makes sense that everyone who voted Wilt or Russell or Lebron first for would also vote for him second. People can still change their mind and vote for someone else in the next thread of course.
The #2 thread is now open: [URL="http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?497093-Top-50-All-Time-List-Shot-Clock-Era-2&p=14426359#post14426359"]LINK[/URL]