Bill Russell vs. Wilt Chamberlain

[QUOTE=GP_20]Wilt Chamberlain. Both were Top 10 Players of All-Time, but
And before someone brings up "who won?

Wilt Chamberlain says
[I]
"When my teams played against Boston," Chamberlain has said, "I'd play my heart out against Russell, and someone else on my team would blow the game."[/I]

In other words, winning or losing is decided by teams. We are comparing 2 individual players here. Winning/losing should count too, but that should not be the basis for the argument about individual players.[/QUOTE]


That has to be one of the stupidest arguments I've ever seen on this board. First, it tells you that Wilt was quick to place blame on anyone other than himself. Secondly, it tells you that Russell was able to get more out of his teammates than Wilt because Russell was a better team player, and was able to not only elevate his level of play in the playoffs, but also elevated the level of his teammate's play. Winning and losing is a team thing, but when you are the best player on your team, and in this case have two players who went head-to-head as often as Wilt and Russell did, and they did so with almost equal talent, than who won more is a VERY telling stat in my opinion. And in regards to W-L, Russell dominated Wilt.

[QUOTE=KG215]That has to be one of the stupidest arguments I've ever seen on this board. First, it tells you that Wilt was quick to place blame on anyone other than himself. Secondly, it tells you that Russell was able to get more out of his teammates than Wilt because Russell was a better team player, and was able to not only elevate his level of play in the playoffs, but also elevated the level of his teammate's play. Winning and losing is a team thing, but when you are the best player on your team, and in this case have two players who went head-to-head as often as Wilt and Russell did, and they did so with almost equal talent, than who won more is a VERY telling stat in my opinion. And in regards to W-L, Russell dominated Wilt.[/QUOTE]

Except the evidence points to exactly what I said dumbass.

His teammates DID actually blow the game for him.

Here is a quote from an earlier post
[QUOTE]
Billy Cunningham was one of the best rookies of the 1966 season. Then, he completely blew it in the playoffs. Hal Greer, a 44.5% FG shooter, dove to 35.2% against the Celtics (and his overall scoring went way down, as well). Chet Walker, a 45.2% FG shooter, went 37.5% in that series. These guys sucked way more than Wilt did, yet nobody remembers this. Add to this an inexperienced coach (Schayes) who never managed to even begin controling the egos of his players and his career practically was over before it even began (compare this to Russell having arguably the GOAT coach) and you have a recipe for disaster.
Ironically, the game when Wilt trusted his teammates more than any other time (7th ECF in 1968) was also a game for which Wilt takes almost all the blame, and was another game when his teammates flopped badly. Because, if Greer, Jones and Walker could hit just a respectable % of their FG's instead of once against being in the low-mid 30's, the Sixers would be the NBA Finalists (and probably champions, as well) and nobody would now know that Wilt barely even shot in that second half. Instead, he might very well have a 3rd ring, increasing his GOAT case among fans.
1969? It was Wilt's least productive series against Russell. Also, it was Baylor's least productive series against the Celtics, as well, and Baylor actually played even worse. If Wilt couldn't do a bit more (while guarded by Russell), why couldn't Baylor? It could be enough to give the Lakers the ring, which would increase Wilt's resume even more. Wilt, with 3 rings in a row (and 4 overall, along with 1972) would now be considered as having solved the Celtics' mystique and a legit winner, while doing nothing more than he did. All it takes would be a little more help from some teammates who are now simply branded "too good to lose a title with them". Just like it took a little more help from Jordan's teammates and a great coach to earn him rings in the 90's, despite Jordan not being really better individually in his title seasons than, say, the 1988-90 ones, so we don't have strange debates like "who was greater, Jordan or Isiah Thomas".
(Baylor, btw, also had an equally mediocre 1970 Finals series, and Wilt in both series took a low number of FGA's, so it's not as if their roles collided).[/QUOTE]


What more do you want? His teammates blew it, while Russell's didn't. Enough said. Stupid Celtic fans.

Why don't you breakdown their games individually?


Wilt a far superior scorer. (This is a major understatement)
Wilt a better rebounder (clearly)
Russell a better defender (Though Wilt was also good)
Passing they are about even (Both have their arguments)


Seriously, Wilt's offensive advantage is far greater than Russell's defensive advantage. Individually it wasn't even close. No wonder Wilt always outplayed Russell individually head to head. Because he was a superior player.


Now I know Russell has great team impact, but I don't think it's enough to overcome Wilt's individual impact.

My being a Celtics fan has nothing to do with me taking Russell's side. Wilt shrunk away from the spotlight in big games. Russell didn't. I'll take the great player who elevated his level of play in big games over the player who's production decreased in big games. You don't think Wilt's teammates decrease in productivity in playoff games had nothing to do with feeding off Wilt's tenedency to shy away from the spotlight in big games?

You have already proven that winning doesn't mean that much to you by vehemently arguing that Kevin Johnson is better than certain PG's who most believe are clearly better than Johnson. Some people look at numbers as far as points, assists, rebounds, etc. and that is their determining factor on how great a player was. Others look at not only numbers but how successful said player was in the postseason and his team's success in the playoffs.

If Wilt's individual impact was so much greater than Russell's team impact, than how come Russell's teams have such a good head-to-head record against Wilt's teams?

I can also pull out quotes of Russell's teammates saying he held back a little defensively against Wilt until the fourth quarter. Again, I'm getting most of this from the Bill Simmons book, which I don't have with me right now, but I will get some of those quotes on here when I do.

Bottom line: Individual success and numbers mean more to you in determining a player's greatness, and team success goes a lot further in my assessment in a player's greatness.

[QUOTE=KG215]My being a Celtics fan has nothing to do with me taking Russell's side. Wilt shrunk away from the spotlight in big games. Russell didn't. I'll take the great player who elevated his level of play in big games over the player who's production decreased in big games. You don't think Wilt's teammates decrease in productivity in playoff games had nothing to do with feeding off Wilt's tenedency to shy away from the spotlight in big games?
[/quote]

In all the "big games" (playoffs), Wilt still outscored and outrebounded Russell in every meeting. It's not like he choked and lost everytime. Sometimes he had great series against Russell, but his team ended up losing. And why would his teammates shy away from the spotlight because of Wilt? Are they playing for themselves or for him? "Oh our leader is not doing well, lets bring our game down too?" wtf? A lot of these players were All-Stars already, they should be able to take over games by themselves, but they ended up choking.

[QUOTE]
You have already proven that winning doesn't mean that much to you by vehemently arguing that Kevin Johnson is better than certain PG's who most believe are clearly better than Johnson. Some people look at numbers as far as points, assists, rebounds, etc. and that is their determining factor on how great a player was. Others look at not only numbers but how successful said player was in the postseason and his team's success in the playoffs.[/QUOTE]

Like who? Kevin Johnson has been one of the best playoff PGs in NBA history. He's Top 5 All-Time in Points and Assists in Game 7s in the playoffs. Top 5. He's the only PG ever to outplay Magic (at his peak) in the playoffs (according to Magic and Individual Stats AND the win/loss). He's been a prime time performer. Not sure why you are bringing him in this.

[QUOTE]

If Wilt's individual impact was so much greater than Russell's team impact, than how come Russell's teams have such a good head-to-head record against Wilt's teams?[/QUOTE]

Because it's a TEAM GAME not 1on1. Russell's teammates routinely outplayed Wilt's.


[quote]

Bottom line: Individual success and numbers mean more to you in determining a player's greatness, and team success goes a lot further in my assessment in a player's greatness.[/QUOTE]


Which is funny.
Because last time I checked, when comparing [U]individual [/U]players,[U] individual[/U] success/skill/accomplishments should mean more than team success/skill/accomplishments. I figured that one out by common sense.

It's like having a competition between 2 classes to see who gets the overall best score on an exam. And for you, the best student in the class that wins is the best student from both classes. Even though he might have had gotten a 95, while the best student from the losing class had a 99.

Yeah keep comparing individual players based on how their team does and not how good they are individually. :rolleyes:

If there is one player I think people should throw out the stats totally on its Bill Russell. A guy whos primary value is defense/leadership/clutch play who was on a team that traded better scorers for him? And we have people talking about him getting outscored? And even if the numbers are what people want...not like he wasnt doing his thing.

Didnt feel like writing this out again so I found something I said a while back:


[QUOTE]He got 30 rebounds or more the last 3 games of the 59 finals. In game 7 of the 60 finals he had 22 points and 35 rebounds. He had 30 points and 38 rebounds to close out the 61 finals. He had 30 points and 40(yes...40) rebounds in the OT game 7 win vs the Lakers in the 62 finals. He was just under a triple double to close out the 63 finals with 12/24/9 assists. In 65 he had 22 points and 30 rebounds to win the title also setting the finals record for shooting percentage over 70%. Next year? Game 7....2 point win...25 points...32 rebounds. He had 26 rebounds/6 assists in the last game of his career. A game 7 win on the road. In 1968 he was playing 49 minutes a game in the finals because he played virtually every second plus over times. They only got to the finals in the first place because he led them back from being down 1-3 in the ECF and in the last 30 seconds of game 7? The celtics were up 2. He made fts, blocked a shot, and got an assist on the shot to seal it. In 11 win or go home final games of a tied series of any kind...hes 11-0. the guy only lost two playoff series of any kind from age 15 to 35 and he was injured and out in one of them(second season in the finals). HS titles. 2 NCAA titles. Gold medal. 11 NBA titles. **** he even COACHED two of the teams to NBA titles.[/QUOTE]


Russell never had wilt numbers but that doesnt really mean he was helping less. He never had Baylor numbers either. He never did 30/20 like Petitt. Or 30/19 like Bellamy. He had worse numbers than an awful lot of people yet the players themselves gave him 5 MVPs(players voted back then).

Hes probably the worst player ever to judge on his production.

I generally support Wilt and will continue to do so. I just dont see that him outscoring Bill or getting more rebounds automatically means he did more for his team. Its relevant. And when people say things like Bill shut Wilt down...it shows it to be untrue. But if anyone proved themselves to be beyond the numbers its Bill.

I will keep on doing so, because it's my OPINION!!! How many titles did Kevin Johnson win? What was Wilt's record vs. Russell? Who's numbers improved from regular season to postseason, Russell's or Wilt's? Arguing with you is pointless. You have your opinion, facts to back them up, but they are still facts only supporting your side. Just as my facts support my side. Fallacies aside, you're not going to convince me one way or the other, and even if Wilt himself admitted to you that Russell was better, you still wouldn't be convinced.

Wilt was the better player statistcally, was much more physically gifted than Russell, and dominated the game like we've never seen before. I'm not denying that. However, Russell was also a pretty good player stats wise (better than most give him credit for) AND his teams won. His teammates enjoyed playing with him much more than Wilt's enjoyed playing with him.

[QUOTE=Kblaze8855]If there is one player I think people should throw out the stats totally on its Bill Russell. A guy whos primary value is defense/leadership/clutch play who was on a team that traded better scorers for him? And we have people talking about him getting outscored? And even if the numbers are what people want...not like he wasnt doing his thing.

Didnt feel like writing this out again so I found something I said a while back:





Russell never had wilt numbers but that doesnt really mean he was helping less. He never had Baylor numbers either. He never did 30/20 like Petitt. Or 30/19 like Bellamy. He had worse numbers than an awful lot of people yet the players themselves gave him 5 MVPs(players voted back then).

Hes probably the worst player ever to judge on his production.

I generally support Wilt and will continue to do so. I just dont see that him outscoring Bill or getting more rebounds automatically means he did more for his team. If anyone proved themselves to be beyond the numbers its Bill.[/QUOTE]

Yeah and I agree. I would take Russell over Pettit, Bellamy and all those Centers as well despite his numbers being much lower. However, there is a huge difference Between Wilt and Bellamy/Pettit. Both on the offensive end, and defensive. And this difference drives Wilt above all. Like I said, Bill Russell has great team impact, that is enough to make up the difference between him and Pettit/Bellamy's numbers, but not Wilt's individual game.


Though KBlaze8855, why do you support Wilt over Russell?

[QUOTE=KG215]I will keep on doing so, because it's my OPINION!!! How many titles did Kevin Johnson win? What was Wilt's record vs. Russell? Who's numbers improved from regular season to postseason, Russell's or Wilt's? Arguing with you is pointless. You have your opinion, facts to back them up, but they are still facts only supporting your side. Just as my facts support my side. Fallacies aside, you're not going to convince me one way or the other, and even if Wilt himself admitted to you that Russell was better, you still wouldn't be convinced.

Wilt was the better player statistcally, was much more physically gifted than Russell, and dominated the game like we've never seen before. I'm not denying that. However, Russell was also a pretty good player stats wise (better than most give him credit for) AND his teams won. His teammates enjoyed playing with him much more than Wilt's enjoyed playing with him.[/QUOTE]

You know to be honest, if Wilt kept playing like he did Pre-76ers, put up great stats, great numbers, individual dominance, but never won a title, I would also have Russell over Wilt.

But I think 66-73 Wilt's "new style" of play really puts him over the top. And to be honest, he played like a winner. He was more team orientated and less about himself (though still cared a lot about himself). But especially late in his career, he was almost all team orientated.

I just wanted to point out Wilt won 2 championships as well and isn't some big loser who never won anything and just had great stats. The winning Wilt did along with his individual dominance separates Russell and Wilt for me.

[QUOTE=CB4GOATPF][B]Baylor was in the downside of his career when he playing with Wilt age 34 plus. Was still great but he wasn

[QUOTE]Yeah and I agree. I would take Russell over Pettit, Bellamy and all those Centers as well despite his numbers being much lower. However, there is a huge difference Between Wilt and Bellamy/Pettit. Both on the offensive end, and defensive. And this difference drives Wilt above all. Like I said, Bill Russell has great team impact, that is enough to make up the difference between him and Pettit/Bellamy's numbers, but not Wilt's individual game.


Though KBlaze8855, why do you support Wilt over Russell?[/QUOTE]

Wilt might be the only player ever who proved capable of being the best...at everything. Outside shooting aside I mean. But he could be called the best scorer, defender, playmaker, or rebounder depending on when. He had games with 100 points...games over 20 assists....55 rebounds. He was far more unselfish than his reputation considering he totally gave up his scoring to play the old Russell role o nthe Lakers. And not like he lost scoring ability. He had 66 the week after SI said he had.

I think he was far more "Me first" than Bill and because of it I dont believe his teammates wanted to go hard to win for him like they did Bill. You hear Bills old teammates talk and they seem like they just wanted to win at all costs because they knew Bill would kill for it. he didnt care who got the credit. HE just wanted to win. Hear wilts talk its far more of a disconnect. Talk about him being great but I never get the feeling they loved him like Bills teammates.

Bill was probably a bigger positive team wise if only for being so team first. Icant see Bill saying "I dominate and my teammates lose the game for me" even if they did.

I love Wilt...have a couple of his books...find him often underrated. But **** like that is why he will never be respected like Bill.

Bill was the Celtics. People talk about all his HOF teammates....half of them he got to the HOF. like KC jones and his 7/4 on 30 something percent shooting is in the HOF as a player without playing with Russell in college and the NBA. Sam Jones was no doubt great but a lot of guard back then scored a lot and didnt have such a career because they didnt have Russell. He won 5-6 titles without Cousy. Sharman wasnt always there.

They had good players but many of them...their whole legacy is built off being on that dynasty. The dynasty that began the moment Bill got there and ended the second he left. Luckily they were so bad without him they were able to draft HOF players in back to back drafts and rebuild quickly.

But really....Russell was the Celtics. Heh ad good teams but a lot of those players wouldnt be considered what they are without him. Maybe you can say the same of him...but he was in college winning 56 games in a row and back to back titles with a team that has never won since. He was in college keeping superst Heinson(later the ROY over Bill) scoreless in an entire second half and getting called out for his poor play in games he had 6 points and the other team only got 42...and his team won a blowout. He gets to the L and his own city was full of people who hated him. Breaking into his house and ****ing things up because he was black in a good neighborhood. He powers them to rings and everyone gives Cousy the credit.

He never seemed to get credit for what he did because it wasnt as flashy as a huge scoring night bue he was getting the job done for 20 years.

And the same **** happens today. His box scores called out in comparison to people he was beating. Bugs me at times that 50 years later so many people still have the same kind of opinions that him winning 16 various titles should have wiped out.

He could go and have 10 points and 35 rebounds probably block 15 shots and win and the fans would cheer Tommy, Cousy, and so on scoring more and looking flashy. And here we are with 50 years of seeing what wins games. Teamwork, defense, rebounding, chemistry, passing, and so on....and we still wont give the man his due credit because other people were scoring mroe than him.

[QUOTE=Kblaze8855]Wilt might be the only player ever who proved capable of being the best...at everything. Outside shooting aside I mean. But he could be called the best scorer, defender, playmaker, or rebounder depending on when. He had games with 100 points...games over 20 assists....55 rebounds. He was far more unselfish than his reputation considering he totally gave up his scoring to play the old Russell role o nthe Lakers. And not like he lost scoring ability. He had 66 the week after SI said he had.

I think he was far more "Me first" than Bill and because of it I dont believe his teammates wanted to go hard to win for him like they did Bill. You hear Bills old teammates talk and they seem like they just wanted to win at all costs because they knew Bill would kill for it. he didnt care who got the credit. HE just wanted to win. Hear wilts talk its far more of a disconnect. Talk about him being great but I never get the feeling they loved him like Bills teammates.

Bill was probably a bigger positive team wise if only for being so team first. Icant see Bill saying "I dominate and my teammates lose the game for me" even if they did.

I love Wilt...have a couple of his books...find him often underrated. But **** like that is why he will never be respected like Bill.

Bill was the Celtics. People talk about all his HOF teammates....half of them he got to the HOF. like KC jones and his 7/4 on 30 something percent shooting is in the HOF as a player without playing with Russell in college and the NBA. Sam Jones was no doubt great but a lot of guard back then scored a lot and didnt have such a career because they didnt have Russell. He won 5-6 titles without Cousy. Sharman wasnt always there.

They had good players but many of them...their whole legacy is built off being on that dynasty. The dynasty that began the moment Bill got there and ended the second he left. Luckily they were so bad without him they were able to draft HOF players in back to back drafts and rebuild quickly.

But really....Russell was the Celtics. Heh ad good teams but a lot of those players wouldnt be considered what they are without him. Maybe you can say the same of him...but he was in college winning 56 games in a row and back to back titles with a team that has never won since. He was in college keeping superst Heinson(later the ROY over Bill) scoreless in an entire second half and getting called out for his poor play in games he had 6 points and the other team only got 42...and his team won a blowout. He gets to the L and his own city was full of people who hated him. Breaking into his house and ****ing things up because he was black in a good neighborhood. He powers them to rings and everyone gives Cousy the credit.

He never seemed to get credit for what he did because it wasnt as flashy as a huge scoring night bue he was getting the job done for 20 years.

And the same **** happens today. His box scores called out in comparison to people he was beating. Bugs me at times that 50 years later so many people still have the same kind of opinions that him winning 16 various titles should have wiped out.

He could go and have 10 points and 35 rebounds probably block 15 shots and win and the fans would cheer Tommy, Cousy, and so on scoring more and looking flashy. And here we are with 50 years of seeing what wins games. Teamwork, defense, rebounding, chemistry, passing, and so on....and we still wont give the man his due credit because other people were scoring mroe than him.[/QUOTE]

Said beautifully family....

Taking Wilt over Russell is like taking Goliath over David after the later slayed the former.

Despite all of Goliath's (Wilt) physical advantages it was David (Russell) who outsmarted, outworked and eventually PROVED superior.

When Russell retired in 1969 there was no debate as to who was the Greatest Player of All time, NONE.

Only in the time gone by have people too stubborn to admit their own ignorance of the topic started picking Wilt.

Wilt's goal was to put up huge stats and break records.

Russell's was to win.

Even if we assume that Wilt's goal was as noble and should be held in as high regard as Russell's (preposterous) Bill was still more successful at accomplishing what he wanted to do.

[QUOTE=Kblaze8855]Wilt might be the only player ever who proved capable of being the best...at everything. Outside shooting aside I mean. But he could be called the best scorer, defender, playmaker, or rebounder depending on when. He had games with 100 points...games over 20 assists....55 rebounds. He was far more unselfish than his reputation considering he totally gave up his scoring to play the old Russell role o nthe Lakers. And not like he lost scoring ability. He had 66 the week after SI said he had.

I think he was far more "Me first" than Bill and because of it I dont believe his teammates wanted to go hard to win for him like they did Bill. You hear Bills old teammates talk and they seem like they just wanted to win at all costs because they knew Bill would kill for it. he didnt care who got the credit. HE just wanted to win. Hear wilts talk its far more of a disconnect. Talk about him being great but I never get the feeling they loved him like Bills teammates.

Bill was probably a bigger positive team wise if only for being so team first. Icant see Bill saying "I dominate and my teammates lose the game for me" even if they did.

I love Wilt...have a couple of his books...find him often underrated. But **** like that is why he will never be respected like Bill.

Bill was the Celtics. People talk about all his HOF teammates....half of them he got to the HOF. like KC jones and his 7/4 on 30 something percent shooting is in the HOF as a player without playing with Russell in college and the NBA. Sam Jones was no doubt great but a lot of guard back then scored a lot and didnt have such a career because they didnt have Russell. He won 5-6 titles without Cousy. Sharman wasnt always there.

They had good players but many of them...their whole legacy is built off being on that dynasty. The dynasty that began the moment Bill got there and ended the second he left. Luckily they were so bad without him they were able to draft HOF players in back to back drafts and rebuild quickly.

But really....Russell was the Celtics. Heh ad good teams but a lot of those players wouldnt be considered what they are without him. Maybe you can say the same of him...but he was in college winning 56 games in a row and back to back titles with a team that has never won since. He was in college keeping superst Heinson(later the ROY over Bill) scoreless in an entire second half and getting called out for his poor play in games he had 6 points and the other team only got 42...and his team won a blowout. He gets to the L and his own city was full of people who hated him. Breaking into his house and ****ing things up because he was black in a good neighborhood. He powers them to rings and everyone gives Cousy the credit.

He never seemed to get credit for what he did because it wasnt as flashy as a huge scoring night bue he was getting the job done for 20 years.

And the same **** happens today. His box scores called out in comparison to people he was beating. Bugs me at times that 50 years later so many people still have the same kind of opinions that him winning 16 various titles should have wiped out.

He could go and have 10 points and 35 rebounds probably block 15 shots and win and the fans would cheer Tommy, Cousy, and so on scoring more and looking flashy. And here we are with 50 years of seeing what wins games. Teamwork, defense, rebounding, chemistry, passing, and so on....and we still wont give the man his due credit because other people were scoring mroe than him.[/QUOTE]

I almost want to cry...preach on brother.

[QUOTE=Kblaze8855]Wilt might be the only player ever who proved capable of being the best...at everything. Outside shooting aside I mean. But he could be called the best scorer, defender, playmaker, or rebounder depending on when. He had games with 100 points...games over 20 assists....55 rebounds. He was far more unselfish than his reputation considering he totally gave up his scoring to play the old Russell role o nthe Lakers. And not like he lost scoring ability. He had 66 the week after SI said he had.

I think he was far more "Me first" than Bill and because of it I dont believe his teammates wanted to go hard to win for him like they did Bill. You hear Bills old teammates talk and they seem like they just wanted to win at all costs because they knew Bill would kill for it. he didnt care who got the credit. HE just wanted to win. Hear wilts talk its far more of a disconnect. Talk about him being great but I never get the feeling they loved him like Bills teammates.

Bill was probably a bigger positive team wise if only for being so team first. Icant see Bill saying "I dominate and my teammates lose the game for me" even if they did.

I love Wilt...have a couple of his books...find him often underrated. But **** like that is why he will never be respected like Bill.

Bill was the Celtics. People talk about all his HOF teammates....half of them he got to the HOF. like KC jones and his 7/4 on 30 something percent shooting is in the HOF as a player without playing with Russell in college and the NBA. Sam Jones was no doubt great but a lot of guard back then scored a lot and didnt have such a career because they didnt have Russell. He won 5-6 titles without Cousy. Sharman wasnt always there.

They had good players but many of them...their whole legacy is built off being on that dynasty. The dynasty that began the moment Bill got there and ended the second he left. Luckily they were so bad without him they were able to draft HOF players in back to back drafts and rebuild quickly.

But really....Russell was the Celtics. Heh ad good teams but a lot of those players wouldnt be considered what they are without him. Maybe you can say the same of him...but he was in college winning 56 games in a row and back to back titles with a team that has never won since. He was in college keeping superst Heinson(later the ROY over Bill) scoreless in an entire second half and getting called out for his poor play in games he had 6 points and the other team only got 42...and his team won a blowout. He gets to the L and his own city was full of people who hated him. Breaking into his house and ****ing things up because he was black in a good neighborhood. He powers them to rings and everyone gives Cousy the credit.

He never seemed to get credit for what he did because it wasnt as flashy as a huge scoring night bue he was getting the job done for 20 years.

And the same **** happens today. His box scores called out in comparison to people he was beating. Bugs me at times that 50 years later so many people still have the same kind of opinions that him winning 16 various titles should have wiped out.

He could go and have 10 points and 35 rebounds probably block 15 shots and win and the fans would cheer Tommy, Cousy, and so on scoring more and looking flashy. And here we are with 50 years of seeing what wins games. Teamwork, defense, rebounding, chemistry, passing, and so on....and we still wont give the man his due credit because other people were scoring mroe than him.[/QUOTE]

KBlaze I asked you why you support Wilt over Russell, and you go on talking about Bill Russell and why he was so great in your post. :confusedshrug:


Um, what about Wilt? He's the one being underrated in this thread.