Bill Russell vs. Wilt Chamberlain

[QUOTE=KG215]It's also been pointed out by people from that time, that Chamberlain changed his game so often for selfish reasons. He wanted to score X amount of points, or average X amount of rebounds, or lead the league in assists, for himself. Not to make his team better. Like G.O.A.T. said, Chamberlain got his 1 ring and was satisfied with that, he then wanted to move on to accomplishing more individual goals. Aren't a lot of players greatness (regardless of sport) measured by level of team success and titles won? Russell set aside personal achievement and success for team success.

[/quote]

I admit he was selfish at times. But no one can just go out and do what he did when he wanted to do it. No one could go in and average 50ppg (while still winning games) because they want to. No big man can lead the league in assists (and win games) just because they want to.

He was a Top 3 center are all the major individual categories. Scoring, rebounds, passing, and defense. Good argument for all 4. :applause:
[QUOTE]
Here's a question (and I'm seriously wanting your point of view on this) shouldn't a player as statistically dominant as Wilt won more than 2 rings in that era? I mean, shouldn't someone who dominated statistically at as high of a level as Wilt did, made his teams quite a bit better than any other team in the league on more than 2 occassions? While Shaq had some very impressive statistcal seasons in a much tougher era for big men to put up as gaudy of numbers as they did in the Wilt/Russell era, he has still won 4 rings, and 3 as option A, while never putting up Wiltesque numbers.[/QUOTE]

Well yes. Maybe he should have won more. And thats why he is not the GOAT for me. That's why he is not even the GOAT center for me. Because despite his individual domination, he only has 2 rings.

[quote]

You've made it clear that in a case when comparing one player's historical greatness to another player's historical greatness, the individual statistics mean much more to you. But again, when athletes are heavily judged on the amount of success their teams had, and how many titles he won, how can you not see Russell was better?[/QUOTE]

Not necessarily statistics. But more anything related to just yourself. Individual accomplishments/skill/game, etc.

But individual domination is more important than how your team functioned when arguing players. I've given you plenty of analogies to see that. The best student from the classes on an exam, is not the best one in the class that wins, but just the best overall scorer.

If we were comparing teams/classes, yes winning is very important and more important than talent and individual player ability. But we are not comparing teams here.

And we aren't playing tennis or golf here either, where whether you win or lose, it's all on you.


This is about comparing individual players. And when this is being done, their individual accomplishments should matter more. Though team accomplishments are also very important. But individual ability comes first when comparing individuals.

[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]
I don't respect or understand your opinion because your opinion is based mostly on other opinions you have a lot of which are factually untrue and\or lack much basis based on everything I've read and seen about the issue. When I point out these flaws you ignore it and continue to make an argument based on stats and opinions that exclusively highlight the good in Chamberlain and the "luck" or "good fortune" of Russell.[/QUOTE]


I've said things factually untrue? :oldlol:
My opinions? What like Wilt is better individually? Russell is better team-success wise? Those opinions? Or Wilt was a dominant scorer and rebounder? Those opinions?

Yeah man I need to check myself. What was I thinking, Wilt a great scorer? :hammerhead:




Please, I've been very objective in my analysis. You are just delusional.

[quote]
Originally Posted by [B]KG215[/B]
It's also been pointed out by people from that time, that Chamberlain changed his game so often for selfish reasons. He wanted to score X amount of points, or average X amount of rebounds, or lead the league in assists, for himself. Not to make his team better. Like G.O.A.T. said, Chamberlain got his 1 ring and was satisfied with that, he then wanted to move on to accomplishing more individual goals. Aren't a lot of players greatness (regardless of sport) measured by level of team success and titles won? Russell set aside personal achievement and success for team success.[/quote]
Wilt may have been selfish during some part of his career but he lead the league in assists during his latter stretch of his career. Plus that fact doesn't take away from that accomplishment one bit. AI lead the league in scoring for 7+ leagues and he did it for a selfish purpose but how many other SGs tried to do the same and failed? The fact that he could change his game and lead the league in assists as a center, no matter what the circumstance, is extremely impressive.

Wilt lead in the league in assists because he had the talent capacity to do so, no other center can say that. Your talent and skill level are not dependent on how selfish you are. Jordan was/is labeled as one of the most selfish players in history, look where that got him and look at how many players failed at trying to be just as selfish.

[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]Debunking the Myth: Russell came into a great situation and Chamberlain a poor one.

Russell drafted by Celtics in 1957
[B]Celtics four seasons prior:[/B] 163-124
[B]Best Season:[/B] 46-25 Lost in Division Finals
[B]Team Mates[/B] (accomplishments prior to Star's arrival)
F: Tom Hiensohn 22 (rookie) ; rookie averaged 16-10-2
F: Jim Loscutoff 25 (13-14-2);averaged carer highs 13 and 14 in rookie season 1956
G: Bill Sharman 29 (20-4-5); 4 time all-star three time all-nba (he'd double those)
G: Bob Cousy 27 (19-7-9); 6 time all-star 5 time all-NBA


Chamberlain acquired by Warriors in 1960.
[B]Warriors four prior seasons:[/B]151-137
[B]Best Season: [/B]45-27 NBA Champs
[B]Team Mates[/B] (accomplishments prior to Star's arrival)
F: Tom Gola 26 (14-11-4); three-time all-star, (five total) all-NBA in '58, NBA Champ '55
F: Woody Sailsbury 24 (15-12-1); averaged career highs 15 and 12 in his 2nd season 1959
G: Paul Arizin 30 (26-9-2); 7 time all-star; 4-time all-NBA selection NBA Champ '55
G: Guy Rodgers 23 (11-6-6); 2nd year future five time all-star two time league leader assists


Cousy and Arizin are a wash. Both have 11 combined all-NBA+all-star selections when their big man arrives and both put up great numbers the year before. Cousy is three years younger a slight edge to Russ.

The second best player for each team was Tom Gola for Philly a defensive whiz and all-around player who excelled most as a rebounder. Boston had Sharman a defensive whiz and all-around player who excelled most as a shooter. Sharman was the better player, but Gola having the title experience and still as an all-NBA\all-star player helps. He is 26 when Wilt gets there, Sharman 29 when Russ arrives.

The other two players are young for both teams, the PF's both fade quickly after the dominant big men arrive.

Hiensohn gets better with Russell, Rodgers gets better when he leaves Wilt.

So while I think Boston was clearly a better situation overall, not by much. Also factor in that While Philly kept it's core in tact from the 1955 title when they drafted Wilt, Boston lost all-NBA center Ed MacCauley from a team that couldn't even get to the finals to get Russell.[/QUOTE]



Interesting how you used last 4 years. Working hard to include that championship? :rolleyes:

Pathetic. If we are going to start using 4-5 years prior, then might as well say Celtics were still successful after Russell left as they won the title in 74.

It's lame G.O.A.T.



The Warriors were a non-playoff team when Wilt arrived. And he singlehandedly turned them to being the 2nd best team in the NBA record wise. Enough said. Russell arrived already in a playoff team and turned them into the best team. Wilt didn't do too bad turning a non-playoff team to the 2nd best team. I say their rookie impacts were about even. Wilt also won MVP in his rookie season. Which is also pretty amazing.



So at the end of the day


Russell joins

4 HOFs
Next Year's league MVP
GOAT Caliber Coach
Playoff Team


Wilt Joins

2 HOFs
Non-Playoff Team






No comparison.

One important thing to note:Russell had the same coach coaching him his entire NBA career, Wilt had to play for 3 different coaches if not more during his career. That coach that was around Russell his entire career was Red, which didn't hurt either. Sure Wilt played with great teammates, hell he played with Baylor and West, but every time he seemed to have great chemistry flowing with a certain unit something drastic happens which complicated a lot of things. The coach Wilt respected the most (WWII vet, forgot his name) retired halfway during his career, he also had a coach before that he didn't meet eye to eye with, which is an understatement. You could say that the fact that Russell had the same consistent HOF coaches and players around him his entire career is what drove his amazing championship accomplishments.

If you look at the rivarly from a strictly 1 on 1 matchup, Russell averaged 13/27 a game and Chamberlin averaged 27/27. Those numbers are a little skewed actually, since Chamberlin dropped 50 on Russell 4 times and once dropped 60 on him(during the finals I believe), his game changed enormously during the end of his career as he became amazingly more rounded. A lot of statisticians during that time claim that Wilt would have 100+ quadriple-doubles if blocks and steals were a stat during that time.

Kblaze raped this thread, Russell was the superior 5 on 5 player, Wilt was the superior 1 on 1 player.

[QUOTE=ArizaAttack24]Kblaze raped this thread, Russell was the superior 5 on 5 player, Wilt was the superior 1 on 1 player.[/QUOTE]
Obviously you didn't get what he was saying. Because last time I asked him, KBlaze said he would rank Wilt over Russell.

[QUOTE=CB4GOATPF][QUOTE=KG215]That's because Wilt wore out his welcome with two teams and was traded two different times. The caoches and players didn't like playing with him. Not in a million years would the Celtics have even considered trading Russell.

[B][COLOR="Blue"]Well their fault for not beinbg able to build teams well. [U]THEY WHERE NOT THE BEST COACH OF ALL TIME IN RED.[/U]

A MASTER EYE FOR PICKING MISSING LINKS-PIECES, BULDING A TEAM DEEPLY AND ORQUESATING A SYSTEM FROM POINT A TO Z

That

[QUOTE=GP_20]Obviously you didn't get what he was saying. Because last time I asked him, KBlaze said he would rank Wilt over Russell.[/QUOTE]
I saw that part and it's reasonable even if he thought so, He just raped the part where all of you usually discredit Russell for not putting up dominant stats.

Russell pooped on Wilt.

kobe

[QUOTE=GP_20]Great Post Psileas :applause:


It was me who mentioned about Wilt outrebounding and outscoring in every playoff and regular season series. Though I remember hearing that from you...

But your whole post was just a more detailed version of my original post





And it's the truth. Wilt outplayed Russell all the time. It's just that Wilt's teammates didn't come through like Russell's did. And your post helped explain that better.[/QUOTE]

I actually saw many games between them live, I can tell you that back then there was very little argument that Wilt was by far the better player.
Russell was a great defensive player and rebounder but not the all around player that Wilt was. Boston had better players who played together longer under the same coaching system....better coaching than Wilt had.
The Lakers should've won more titles with Wilt but the Celtics organization was a well oiled machine like the Yankees, and they knew every trick in the book, including dirty tricks. Russell in the modern game would be comparable to prime Theo Ratliff....not an All-Star but a very solid player. Wilt would be a cross between Hakeem and Dwight Howard, an every year All-Star.

Threads like this make me wonder.........20-30 years from now will some idiots really try to claim that Robert Horry was better than Shaq? Kobe?.........MJ?......WTF!!!!!!!!

RocketGreatness, why are you posting in the same thread under 2 accounts?

[QUOTE=GP_20]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)[/QUOTE]

Why is Wilt "clearly" the better rebounder, though Russell was the better defender, though you interject that "Wilt was also good?" So evidently Russell wasn't "also good" either?

[QUOTE=GP_20]Seriously, Wilt's offensive advantage is far greater than Russell's defensive advantage.[/QUOTE]

Hmmm. Who would you say had a greater offensive impact? Wilt or Jordan?

[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

Russell.

[QUOTE=Dresta]So how come Russell still won in 69, despite a vastly inferior team?[/QUOTE]

[B]Russell won? :no: No his Team won :rolleyes:

Well Experience. You play a Decade Wth the Same Players and the Best Coach Ever you have alot of advantages. And also u must account for Bench.[/B]

[QUOTE=ThaRegul8r]Why is Wilt "clearly" the better rebounder, though Russell was the better defender, though you interject that "Wilt was also good?" So evidently Russell wasn't "also good" either?
[/quote]

Wilt outrebounded him every season and playoff series meeting they've had all their careers. Enough said.

[quote]
Hmmm. Who would you say had a greater offensive impact? Wilt or Jordan?[/QUOTE]

Close. Wilt.

[QUOTE=GP_20][QUOTE=ThaRegul8r]Why is Wilt "clearly" the better rebounder, though Russell was the better defender, though you interject that "Wilt was also good?" So evidently Russell wasn't "also good" either?[/QUOTE]

Wilt outrebounded him every season and playoff series meeting they've had all their careers. Enough said.[/QUOTE]

Though when you look at what the people who were there at the time and both saw both and played against both, you find statements such as:

[B]Wilt Chamberlain:[/B]

Yeah, I can really see Bill Russell taking Wilt's Philly teams to 10 titles. You're right GOAT. It is absolutely a fact that Russell would have taken the Philadelphia Warriors and 76ers to multiple titles.:oldlol: :oldlol: It is absolutely obvious that Wilt would have only won two titles with Bill's Celtics teams. Please! Stop the madness.:mad:


Wilt would have won more titles with Russell's Celtics teams than Bill would have won titles with Wilt's Philadelphia teams. Do we honestly need to debate this? GOAT, since the only statistics you seem to think are important are titles, I present the above as evidence of Bill Russell

[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]If you understood basketball you'd know. Russell's goals weren't to out-score or out-rebound Chamberlain, they were to win. Everyone from the era takes Russell, you're the crazy one here not them. [/quote]
Goat that is the goal of many athletes. Do you honestly believe Wilt was NOT trying to win. Give me a break.



[Quote]Right Team arguments are stupid, just because it's a five man game and Russell made every player better according to the players themselves and those who observed them doesn't mean that should be considered when evaluating players.[/quote]
That's nice GOAT but the bottom line is that a lot of hall of fame and good players that make players better.:cheers: Steve Nash makes players better. Rondo makes players better.

The bottom line is this Bill Russells ability to make players better could not help Wilt's Philly's teams win more than 2 titles. However, if Wilt was on the Russell's Celtics teams, Wilt's ability to make players better by asissts and his overwhelming offensive arsenal would give the Celtics 8 titles. See, I'll give Russell credit on making players better but the bottom line is that he had Hall of Fame caliber players before he arrived. What do you not understand? Wilt is a far superior center than Bill Russell. Honestly, GOAT do you really think Wilt would not win multiple titles if he were on Russell's Celtics teams and Bill would only win two titles if he were on Chamberlain's Philly's teams? :confusedshrug:

[QUOTE=ArizaAttack24]Kblaze raped this thread, Russell was the superior 5 on 5 player, Wilt was the superior 1 on 1 player.[/QUOTE]

Wilt was the best overall player. It is absolutely ridiculous to think that Wilt did not make his players better.

[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]More amazing than 11 NBA titles, 2 NCAA titles and a Gold Medal in 15 years?

More amazing having the most Championships in the history all American team sports, winning the only title ever as a player coach and doing it again the next year?

More amazing than being undefeated in game sevens and averagin more points, rebounds and assists in those games than you did during any season of your career?[/QUOTE]

GOAT for someone who rips others for using individual stats, you are addicted to title stats. I guess you think that Rajon Rondo is equal to Oscar Robertson. Pretty soon, you will be arguing Robert Horry is better than Karl Malone. :roll:

Russell was one of the major contributors on those Celts team. Yes, he was often the best player. However, I find a man who individual dominates and takes a scrubby non-play off team to the 2nd best record in the NBA, more impressive. I find a man who takes vastly inferior Philly teams within a few points of the Boston Cetlics, more impressive. Wilt scored becuase he had to freaking score. Bill Russell to me is a level below Magic.

In many ways, he is no different than Troy Aikman. The difference is Rusell was fortunate to be on a championship level team which won seven more titles than Aikman.

This has been debated a gadzillion times. Wilt was a better player individually while Bill Russell was a better team player. Both sides will constantly argue the same things. One side will talk about Wilt's statistic, other about Russell's accomplishments.

I would rather have Wilt, but you can't go wrong with either one.

This thread is resurrected after three months?

[QUOTE=ThaRegul8r]This thread is resurrected after three months?[/QUOTE]
Are you surprised?:oldlol: :oldlol: :oldlol:

Looks like someone created a second account to rehash the argument.

Russell is tough to rank. I mean at first, looking at his offensive game, I couldn't see how some thought he was the best ever, but then I looked at it a different way. He's won more championships than anyone, he's arguably the best defender of all time and he's the best player-coach in NBA history. So I can see a case, but it's really tough to say with there being so little footage available.

[QUOTE=Papaya Petee]This has been debated a gadzillion times. Wilt was a better player individually while Bill Russell was a better team player. Both sides will constantly argue the same things. One side will talk about Wilt's statistic, other about Russell's accomplishments.

[/QUOTE]
Actually, I argue that Wilt's impact caused most of his teams to over achieve. I believe that I might have stated in a previous post that Bill may have won no more than two rings with Wilt's teams. After pondering it, I have decided to change my position:

[B][I]Bill Russell would have made Wilt's teams into consistently competitive playoff teams. There is ONLY a slight chance that Bill would have won one ring!! :roll: However, if Wilt was on Russell's teams he would win at least nine titles. :roll: :roll:[/I][/B]

[QUOTE=ShaqAttack3234]Russell is tough to rank. I mean at first, looking at his offensive game, I couldn't see how some thought he was the best ever, but then I looked at it a different way. He's won more championships than anyone, he's arguably the best defender of all time and he's the best player-coach in NBA history. So I can see a case, but it's really tough to say with there being so little footage available.[/QUOTE]

It's a shame that Bill Russell is compared to Wilt. Bill Russell is one of the top defenders of all time and arguably one of the most all-around defensive players of all time. However, I just don't see how Bill's impact made the Celtics overachieve more than Wilt's on inferior Sixers teams. Bill had a Hall of Fame backcourt and other HOFers. If you put Moses Malone on those Celtics teams, you would have at least 8 titles. Wilt would have made those Celtics teams far more dominant in head to head team matches.

Why is Russell considered the greatest winner of all-time in the NBA? Cousy was often as instrumental as Russell in those Celtic titles.

[QUOTE=Justice44]It's a shame that Bill Russell is compared to Wilt. Bill Russell is one of the top defenders of all time and arguably one of the most all-around defensive players of all time. However, I just don't see how Bill's impact made the Celtics overachieve more than Wilt's on inferior Sixers teams. Bill had a Hall of Fame backcourt and other HOFers. If you put Moses Malone on those Celtics teams, you would have at least 8 titles. Wilt would have made those Celtics teams far more dominant in head to head team matches.

Why is Russell considered the greatest winner of all-time in the NBA? Cousy was often as instrumental as Russell in those Celtic titles.[/QUOTE]

You're an idiot. Funny that you start posing all this nonsense under a gimmick/sock. P*ssy :oldlol:

For those of you who are looking for evidence of Russell's intangibles showing up on the stat sheet.

Here's why he is the ultimate clutch player:

Bill's stat line's in closeout games of the NBA Finals


(points, rebounds,assists,FG,FT)

1957 19 32 2 7-17 5-10
1959 15 32 5 5-8 5-10
1960 22 35 4 7-15 8-10
1961 30 38 7 9-17 12-19
1962 30 40 5 10-17 10-15
1963 12 24 9 5-12 2-5
1964 14 24 11 5-6 4-5
1965 22 30 4 6-9 10-12
1966 25 32 1 10-22 5-5
1968 18 19 6 5-7 8-9
1969 6 21 6 2-7 2-4

averages of 19.6 points 29.7 rebounds 5.7 assists per game and a field goal percentage of 52 and free throw percentage of 68. Both significantly higher than any numbers he posted for his career. Two 30-30 games, a triple-double and another game one assist away. factor in his reported 13 blocks against Wilt's Sixers in 1964 and you have a closeout game quadruple double in the NBA Finals.

Wilt in do or die games....

[url]http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=165643[/url]

I bet his "close out" games are even better considering your team wins those. And he had some of the most incredible performances to save his teams from elimination too.

While I have come to marvel at Russell's impact on the game of basketball, I still think Bill Simmons is a complete idiot...as I posted a while back...

[url]http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=160893[/url]

I'll save myself some time and copy-and-paste my take on the Simmon's PERCEPTION that Wilt and Russell played on evenly matched teams...

Simmons states that Russell's perceived superior surrounding talent difference was not all that great, on pages 61-66 (unfortunately pages 62-63 were deleted from that link...but they are unnecessary to the discussion.)

Simmons concedes that Russell had considerably more talented teams in '61, '62, '63, and '64. He somehow comes up with Russell only having a slight edge in '60 (Wilt's rookie year), and in '65, when Wilt was traded to Philly. Let's examine the last two, though. How in the world does he honestly believe that by Wilt coming to a last place before the beginning of his rookie year, in the '59-'60 season, that Russell only had a marginal edge? Wilt took that 32-40 team to a 49-26 record. Meanwhile Boston continued to improve, going from a 52-20 team in '58-'59 to a 59-16 mark in the '59-'60 season.

Let's examine the rosters: In that '59-'60 season, Wilt played with HOFer Paul Arizin, HOFer Tom Gola (who has much business being in the HOF as I do), Guy Rodgers (a quailt passing guard, but one of the worst shooters in NBA history), and a bunch of no-names. How about Russell? He combined with SIX other HOFers (SEVEN total)...Cousey, Heinsohn, Jones and Jones, Ramsey, and Heinsohn. Granted KC Jones and Frank Ramsey are probably not deserving of the HOF either, but Ramsey was certainly better than Gola.

In the '64-'65 season, Wilt was traded to the Sixers, and along with HOFer Hal Greer, and an under-rated Chet Walker, they improved from 34-46 to 40-40. Not only that, but they easily dispatched with the 48-32 Royals in the playoffs, 3-1. However, to claim that that Sixer team was only "marginally" better than Russell's Celtics, is completely ridiculous. Boston had their best record ever that year, going 62-18. Not only did Russell have Jones and Jones, Cousey, and Heinsohn, but John Havlicek as well. And, as always, Auerbach had a much deeper roster than Wilt's Sixers, with John Thompson, Mel Counts, Satch Sanders, Willie Naulls, and Larry Siegfried.

So, after we re-examine the first six years of the Russell-Wilt rivalry, it is CLEAR that Russell had FAR superior teams in ALL six of them. Yet, Wilt guided two of those mediocre rosters to game seven defeats, one by ONE point, and the other by TWO points.

Continuing, Simmons states that Wilt had superior rosters from the '65-'66 season thru the '68-'69 seasons (four years), and yet, Russell's TEAMs still went 3-1 in that span. Let's examine that statement further, shall we...

Yes, Wilt's '65-'66 76ers added HOFer Billy Cunningham, and went 55-25, while Boston dropped to 54-26. Still, the Celtics were only a year removed from their best-ever season, while the Sixers were a young, rising power. Wilt now had HOFers Greer, and Cunningham (in his rookie year), along with Walker and Luke Jackson. Player-for-player, Philly's top-four players were probably better than Boston's top-four (Russell, Havlicek, Sam Jones, and Don Nelson), but after that the Celtics had a huge edge, with players like Naulls, Counts, Sanders, and Siegfried. And, yes, Boston easily whipped the 76ers in the playoffs, 4-1. However, it was certainly not Chamberlain's fault, as he outscored Russell, per game, 28-14, and outrebounded him 30-26. In the clinching game five loss, Wilt had a maginificent game, scoring 46 points, with 34 rebounds (Russell was at 18-31 BTW.) However, the rest of the Celtics thoroughly outplayed Chamberlain's supporting cast.

How about the '68-'69 season (Russell's last year in the NBA), in which the 48-34 Celtics stunned the favored 55-27 Lakers, 4-3? I have mentioned it many times, but when LA acquired Wilt in a trade, they gave up THREE players (and a boatload of cash), including all-star guard Archie Clark, and a decent journeyman center, Darrell Imhoff...which really hurt the Lakers depth. Not only that, but Elgin Baylor was on a severe down-slide. And, finally, the Lakers had one of the worst coaches, EVER, in Butch Van Breda Kolf. I have documented that series many times, but clearly, Van Breda Kolf COST LA a title that year. His determination to have Chamberlain sacrifice his offense (and even play the high-post, as well as benching him in some games), to allow Baylor to shoot blanks (particularly in the playoffs, where he shot .385 from the field...while Wilt shot .545)...AND to keep Wilt on the bench in the last five-plus minutes of that game seven TWO-point loss, was THE reason that Boston was able to eke out a game seven win. In terms of rosters, Boston had a MUCH deeper roster...Russell, Havlicek, Howell, Sam Jones, Nelson, Sanders, Siegfried, and even rookie Don Chaney. True, they were an aging team, and on the decline, but they were deep, and experienced. Combine that with TWO miracle shots in that series (Jones hit a game-winning shot, while falling down, that banked in in game four...and Nelson hit the game-winning shot in game seven, that hit the back of the rim...bounced eight feet in the air, and came straight down thru the basket), with Van Breda Kolf's stupidity, and it was really no surprise that Boston won that series in seven games.

Incidently, Simmons later mentions how "clutch" Russell was, and how Wilt "choked" later on in that chapter, but the seventh game of those '69 Finals was an example to the contrary. While Russell was on the floor the entire fourth quarter, he was nowhere to be found. And, as always, Wilt outplayed him, despite missing the last five minutes of the game. More on that later, though.

So, we have covered eight of the ten seasons in which Russell and Wilt went H2H, and by MY tally, Russell had a HUGE edge in six of them, a slight edge in the '66 season, and probably a slightly less talented roster in '69...but much deeper, and with Russell outcoaching the idiotic Van Breda Kolf, and Boston getting TWO miraculous game-winning shots...they overcame the slight edge of talent. In any case, Wilt had THREE teams that lost game seven's by TWO, ONE, and TWO points in those eight years. He also thoroughly outplayed Russell in the other five. I have covered those years before, though, and if Simmons, or anyone else would want to challenge me on that, I would welcome the debate.

That leaves two other seasons. I will agree with Simmons that Wilt had stronger supporting casts, although, I would contend that it was not dramatic. On page 64 Simmons makes the comment that Wilt's '67 team had the "perfect storm"...his BEST team, and Russell's WORST. Here again, let's take a closer look: Yes, Philly went an astonishing 68-13, shattering almost every known team record that year. And yes, Wilt had a quality supporting cast, with Greer, Cunningham, Walker, Wali Jones, and Luke Jackson, along with Bill Melchionni. However, to say that Boston had their weakest team was somewhat ridiculous. That Celtic team went 60-21, and featured Russell, Havlicek, Howell, Jones and Jones...all in the HOF (Wilt had Greer and Cunningham as his fellow HOFers), AND the Celtics once again had a very deep bench that included Jim Barnett, Nelson, Sanders, Wayne Embry, and Siegfried. And, still despite that quality roster, Wilt crushed Russell and his teammates negated Russell's usual edge, and Chamberlain's Sixers blew out the Celtics, 4-1 (with only a 121-117 game four win preventing a sweep.)

For the umpteenth time, the '67-'68 season was well on it's way to a duplication of the previous season. Philly once again romped away with the best record league, by a wide margin, going 62-20, while Boston came in at 54-28. But, unlike the '66-'67 season, the Sixers were decimated by injuries in the post-season (all of which Simmons fails to mention BTW.) They lost Cunningham before that Eastern Finals, and he missed the rest of the season. And, despite his absence, the Sixers still jumped out to a 3-1 series lead. However, Luke Jackson was injured in game five, and was worthless the rest of the series. Those two injuries killed Philly's solid edge at the forward position, and with no real depth, the Sixers were now heavily outgunned. On top of that, Wilt's remaining teammates shot an awful 33% in the seventh game...a 100-96 loss. So, in review, the Sixers were without HOFer Cunningham, lost Jackson to injury in game five, shot a miserable percentage in game seven...and Russell's Celtics managed to edge Wilt's Sixers by FOUR points...in a seven game series. CLEARLY, had the Sixers been healthy, it would have been another easy series win for Philly.

So, Russell's 7-1 H2H post-season margin was achieved with six heavily more talented teams, one marginally more talented, one slightly less talented, and two considerably less talented (although Wilt's H2H edge makes them more talented.) And in one, his slightly less talented team, his TEAM ekes out a TWO-point game seven win, with Wilt shackled with a boob for a coach. In another, his solidly less talented team wins a game seven, by FOUR points, when Wilt loses TWO quality players to injury...therefore negating the edge that he had. The REALITY was, Russell's 7-1 edge, with a TOTAL of a nine-point swing (and without injuries, horrible coaching, and miracle shots), could just have easily have been a 5-3 edge for Wilt.

Simmons breaks down the HOF players as well, saying that Russell had a slight 10-9 total edge (and 8-8 during their H2H seasons)...but I will address that next...

On pages 65 and 66 Simmons states that Russell only played with four of the 1996 NBA's Top-50 all-time players list, (Havlicek, Cousey, Sharman, and Sam Jones), while Wilt played with six (Baylor, West, Greer, Cunningham, Arizin and Thurmond.)

"Russell played with four members of the NBA's Top 50 at 50 (Havlicek, Cousy, Sharman, and Sam Jones); Wilt played with six members (Baylor, West, Greer, Cunningham, Arizin, and Thurmond). And Russell's teammates from 1957 to 1969 were selected to twenty-six All-Star games, while Wilt's teammates from 1960 to 1973 were selected to twenty-four. Let's never mention the supporting-cast card again with Russell and Chamberlain. Thank you."

I will give you my take on this in my next post, but here is an interesting link...



[url]http://www.basketball-reference.com/blog/?p=4229[/url]

You can read the numbers for yourself, but after breaking down the minutes, these were his conclusions:

"Now you can see Russell's "score" is more than twice that of Wilt,"

"Obviously this is just a fun exercise, and far from scientific, but you can still see that Chamberlain's teammates were in fact significantly less talented than Russell's, by both our Quality of Teammates metric and even by Bill Simmons' own ranking method. So I don't think it's quite fair to say, "let's never mention the supporting-cast card again with Russell and Chamberlain," because it's still pretty obvious that Wilt's supporting cast was inferior to Russell's by a good margin."

Continuing on about the quality of play between Russell's cast, and Wilt's, here was my take from another post on a similar topic:

Well, for the record, from the '59-'60 season thru the '68-'69 season, Bill Russell played with 19 other teammates in the All-Star game, while Wilt played alongside 16 all-star teammates. Both Russell and Wilt made the All-Star game every year in those ten years, making Russell and teammates with 29 appearances, while Wilt and his teammates made 26 appearances.

I didn't research any all-star teams before, or after, those ten years, because those were the 10 years in which Russell and Wilt went H2H.

Here we go:

1959-60:
Russell, Cousey, Sharman
Wilt, Gola, Arizin

1960-61:
Russell, Cousey, Heinsohn
Wilt, Gola, Arizin

1961-62:
Russell, Cousey, Heinsohn, S. Jones
Wilt, Arizin

1962-63:
Russell, Cousey, Heinsohn
Wilt, Rodgers, Meschery

1963-64:
Russell, Heinsohn, S. Jones
Wilt, Rodgers

1964-65:
Russell, S. Jones
Wilt, Thurmond

1965-66:
Russell, Havlicek, S. Jones
Wilt, Walker, Greer

1966-67:
Russell, Havlicek, Howell
Wilt, Greer, Walker

1967-68:
Russell, Havlicek, S. Jones
Wilt, Greer

1968-69:
Russell, Havlicek
Wilt, Baylor, West

Furthermore, Tom Meschery and Tom Gola were very questionable in their appearances. Some might question Bailey Howell, but in his 66-67 season appearance, he averaged 20 ppg on .512 shooting, which was considerably better than what Meschery or Gola had in their all-star seasons.

Wilt did play with nine different teammates in that 10 year span, while Russell only played with six, so if that is what Simmons meant when he said that Wilt played with more all-stars, then he was correct. HOWEVER, Russell's teammates had more APPEARANCES.

And further still...

Both Wilt and Russell are credited with playing with eight other HOFers. There are some discernable differences, however. At some points in his career, Chamberlain played with Paul Arizin, Tom Gola, Nate Thurmond, Hal Greer, Billy Cunningham, Elgin Baylor, Jerry West, and Gail Goodrich. Meanwhile, Russell played alongside Bob Cousey, Frank Ramsey, Bill Sharman, KC Jones, Sam Jones, Tom Heinsohn, John Havlicek, and Bailey Howell.

For the sake of the Russell-Wilt debate, though, let's break them down. Chamberlain played with Goodrich, but that was AFTER Russell retired. He also played with Elgin Baylor, but contrary to popular opinion, he only actually played with Baylor for ONE semi-full season, in the '68-'69 season, and only TWO post-seasons. Wilt most missed of the '69-'70 season, while Baylor missed almost the entire '70-'71 season (and post-season, as well), and Baylor retired after the first nine games of the '71-'72 season (and not coincidently, LA IMMEDIATELY went on their record-breaking 33 game winning streak BTW.) And, as I mentioned, Baylor played in two post-seasons with Wilt, and he was awful in both of them. In fact, his idiotic coach preferred Baylor's offense over Wilt's, and asked Chamberlain to sacrifice his scoring for Baylor's. Not only that, but Baylor was a baseline-to-baseline player, and Van Breda Kolf actually had Chamberlain playing a high post for the first half of the '68-'69 season. The greatest low-post scorer in NBA history was asked to play a high-post??? The FACT was, Baylor was already on a downward slide by the time Chamberlain joined LA, and I have always maintained that Baylor actually DETRACTED from the Lakers from that point on. In any case, Baylor and Wilt hardly played together at all.

Continuing...

Chamberlain also played with Nate Thurmond, for ONE year...Thurmond's rookie year, in which Nate was asked to play at forward, and not his natural center position (where he would become a HOF player.) Wilt also played alongside Paul Arizin, a legitimate HOFer, who was nearing the end of his career by the time Wilt came along. And, Wilt played with Tom Gola. Now, Gola was a four time All-Star, and is in the HOF. However, he was hardly deserving of either. In his BEST season, he averaged 16 ppg. Over the course of his entire career, he averaged 11.3 ppg, 7.8 rpg, and shot .431 from the field.

Chamberlain was traded to the 76ers in the '64-'65 season, and played there until the end of the '67-'68 season. They were a bottom-dwelling team when he arrived, though, and even with Wilt, they only had a 40-40 season in his first year (they were 34-46 the year before.) However, in the playoffs that season, Chamberlain led them to a crushing 3-1 series win over the 48-32 Royals, and then a game seven, one point loss to the 62-18 Celtics. Philly added Billy Cunningham to the roster in the '65-'66 season, and they edged the Celtics by one game in that season (55-25 to Boston's 54-26.) Still, the Sixers were a young team, and while Boston declined slightly from the year before, they were still only a year removed from their best-ever record during their "Dynasty." A case could be made that while the 76ers had a better record, they were probably not a better team. In any case, Wilt thoroughly outplayed Russell in the post-season that year (as he always did BTW), averaging 28 ppg, and 31 rpg, to Russell's 14 ppg and 26 rpg. But, Russell's teammates easily outplayed Wilt's, and Boston won the series, 4-1.

In the following season, the 76ers finally meshed, and they went on to a then-record 68-13 mark, easily outdistancing the Celtics, who had one of their best records during the "Dynasty", at 60-21. That Celtic team was LOADED, too. They had FIVE HOFers (Russell, Havlicek, Sam Jones, KC Jones, and Howell), along with Wayne Embry, Don Nelson, Larry Siegfried, and Jim Barnett. Despite that talented roster, the 76ers, with HOFers Wilt, Greer, and Cunningham, as well as Luke Jackson, Chet Walker (who should be in the HOF), and Wali Jones,...BURIED the Celtics, 4-1. And, once again, Chamberlain just crushed Russell in every statistical category in that post-season.

And the following season, '67-'68, the Sixers were well on their way to a duplication. They again ran away with the best record in the league, at 62-20, while Boston was a distant second at 54-28. Before the Eastern Finals, though, the Sixers lost Billy Cunningham to a wrist injury, and he would not return the rest of the year. Still, they managed to take a 3-1 series lead over Boston without him. Then, Luke Jackson went down with a leg injury in game five. On top of that, Wilt was nursing a variety of injuries, including two arthritic knees. The Celtics roared back to tie the series, 3-3, and in game seven Chamberlain only TOUCHED the ball TWICE on the offensive end in 4th quarter (and those were on offensive rebounds), and his teammates fired blanks all game long (they shot 33% in that game)...and Boston edged Philly 100-96 to win that series. There were several suspicious events that happened in that game seven, but I won't take the time to address them now. In any case, Wilt's Sixers lost that game seven, by FOUR points, DESPITE not having Cunningham at all, with Jackson basically worthless from game five on, Wilt himself under 100%, and his team shooting an ungodly horrible percentage in that last game. I have long argued that the BEST team did NOT win the title that year.

But, back to my original point...which was basically this...

Take away Chamberlain's stint with the Sixers, and here is what we had: Throw out Goodrich, who never played with Wilt during the Russell-era. Throw out Thurmond, who was a rookie playing out of position. Throw out a washed Baylor, who was more of a hindrance during his time with Wilt (especially in the playoffs.) Throw out Gola, who was no more of a HOFer than myself. What does that leave? Wilt basically played with West and Arizin...and not together. So, aside from the Sixers, Wilt played with two quality players, and not at the same time. That was it. And Arizin was nearing the end of his career, and West suffered injuries in the '70-'71 season, and missed the post-season.

Granted, Chamberlain played with talented rosters in Philly, at least from '66-'68 (Cunningham did not arrive until '66.) And, his team's only won one title in those three years. However, his teammates played poorly in the '66 playoffs, and his team was decimated with injuries in the '68 season.

Now, how about Russell's supporting cast? Unlike Wilt, who was drafted by a last-place team (that he immediately turned into a 48-32 team...and a close six game series loss to Boston in the playoffs), ...Russell came to a playoff team. Yes, he was the final piece of the puzzle that took them over the hump. But, Auerbach also added more quality players each year. I have mentioned it many times, but Russell played alongside FIVE other HOFers in the '61-'62 season, while Wilt basically carried a last-place roster, with Arizin in his last year, and an over-rated Gola, to a game seven, two-point loss to the Celtics in the playoffs. There was simply no comparison in talent levels on those two teams...yet Wilt almost single-handedly led that team to an upset over a vaunted Celtic team.

Here is a breakdown of Russell's supporting cast in the decade in which he battled Wilt:

Two of his HOFers were questionable HOFers to be sure. Frank Ramsey was a career 13.4 scorer. And KC Jones was never even an all-star (although he was acknowledged as a good defender.) But, the rest of Russell's HOF teammates were very good, to say the least. Cousey had four 20+ ppg seasons in his career (and another six 18 ppg seasons.) Sharman had three 20+ ppg seasons (and two more 19+ ppg seasons.) Heinsohn had three 20+ ppg seasons in a relatively short nine year career (and all with Russell BTW.) Howell was an under-rated player who played with Russell for three years, and had 20.0, 19.8, and 19.7 ppg averages in those three years (he also had three other 20+ ppg and two other 19+ ppg seasons in his career.) Sam Jones played with Russell for 12 years, and had 10 rings. He had four 20+ ppg seasons while there (as well as three other 18+ ppg seasons.) Not only that, but he one year in which he averaged 25.9 ppg.

And then there was Havlicek. Havlicek played with Russell for seven years, and came away with six rings. He played with Boston another nine years, and won two more rings. What is interesting, though, is that he had three 20+ ppg seasons (and three 18+ ppg seasons) with Russell. His high seasonal average with Russell, was 21.6 ppg. However, after Russell retired,
Hondo had five more 20+ ppg game seasons (and one more 19 ppg), with ALL five of them better than any of his during the Russell-era. In fact, he had a 28.9 and a 27.5 ppg season, which are Jerry West-like years.

For those that argue that Russell made his teammates better, Havlicek is an example to the contrary. He was clearly a better player AFTER Russell. Even more interesting, however, is that you have to wonder how those other Celtic players, particularly Sam Jones, would have fared had they played somewhere else? My point is that most all of them were probably capable of scoring more with other teams in which they would have been the primary focus of the offense. Why is that important? Because I think it clearly proves that Russell was every bit the beneficiary of great teammates, as they were of playing with him. The FACT was, Russell played with not only talented rosters, but usually very DEEP rosters, as well. Wilt, on the other hand, aside from his years with the Sixers, not only had less talented teammates, he had less quantity, as well.

I have posted this link before, which is termed WIN SHARES, but here it is again...

[url]http://www.basketball-reference.com/...ws_yearly.html[/url]

Here is the explanation of that stat...

[url]http://www.basketball-reference.com/about/ws.html[/url]

And, using that WIN SHARES stat, here is the yearly breakdown between Russell and Wilt, in their 10 years in the league together...

'59-60: Wilt 17.0 (1), Russell 13.8 (2)
'60-61: Wilt 18.8 (1), Russell 13.0 (5)
'61-62: Wilt 23.1 (1), Russell 15.5 (4)
'62-63: Wilt 20.9 (1), Russell 13.5 (6)
'63-64: Wilt 25.0 (1), Russell 17.3 (3)
'64-65: Wilt 15.1 (4), Russell 16.9 (2) Oscar with 17.0 was (1)
'65-66: Wilt 21.4 (1), Russell 11.7 (4)
'66-67: Wilt 21.9 (1), Russell 12.2 (4)
'67-68: Wilt 20.4 (1), Russell 8.2 (NR)
'68-69: Wilt 14.7 (1), Russell 10.9 (7) Reed tied with Wilt at (1), and as a sidenote, Baylor was NR at 8.5, and West (9), at 10.8.

I think these ratings are significant. Of course, the Russell supporters will argue that Russell didn't care about stats, and that they didn't diminish his 11 rings, but IMHO, it shows that Wilt HAD to play at a much higher level for his TEAM's to be competitive. Most Pro-Russell people will say that Russell was TEAM player, who made his teammates better. However, these numbers reflect the fact that Chamberlain contributed FAR more to his TEAM's success, than Russell did to his.

I wonder how Simmons would respond to that assertion?

It's certainly a good counterpoint and a more fair presentation of the argument,but a few quick thoughts:

1) I think you use too much revisionist history, saying things like how good the Celtics were besides Russell and how many HOFer's he played with. It's easy to say Russell played with seven HOFer's in his early Boston years, however Ramsay, Sam and KC Jones, Tom Hiensohn, those guys never make it if Russell doesn't lead them to titles.

2) Chamberlain's cast from '66 to '69 was clearly better ; some of the guys you cite as Boston's valuable depth like Don Nelson and Larry Seigfried were cast offs that were cut or released by their previous teams. Basically it was an aging Russell and Sam Jones along with Hondo that carried those teams. Even if we concede Baylor in '69, the Lakers still have a much more prolific roster, especially at the top.

3) Wilt's early team mates on the Warriors were very good. Yes they struggled in '59 but that's because they lost rookie PG Guy Rodgers for half the year and HOF center Neil Johnston broke down. The year before they were in the conference finals against the Celtics. Same with '57 and in '56 they were NBA Champions. Wilt arrives in essence they trade Johnston for him and never got any further in the postseason. In the four seasons prior to Wilt arriving in Philly, they won two five playoff series and one world championship. In Wilt's first four there, two playoff series and no world Championships.

4) Tons of great players have won titles with less around them than a superstar rival. Magic's Lakers in '91 were much more talented than Jordan's Bulls, Same with the Blazers and Suns the next two seasons. I've already cited what happened when the talent shifted in Wilt's favor over Russell.

Bottom line, you correctly point out the one-sidedness of Simmons argument, but that was his point, he doesn't see how someone can win 9 titles in 10 years against a rival and still have it debated who was better and either do I. It's like being at a HS basketball game and team A is up 50-30 and team B makes a blocked shot and their fans starting roaring, what des teams B's fans yell "scoreboard, scoreboard etc. Russ has scoreboard.