Bill Russell vs. Wilt Chamberlain

Of course like I said, individual domination of Wilt Chamberlain alone doesn't put him over Bill Russell the great winner. It's Chamberlain's career from 66-73 that puts him over Bill. He had what you could call a winning career from 66 on.

It's the winning he was able to do, the sacrifices he was able to make, the new dimensions he was able to show, that put him over Russell.
I mean let's be honest, what has Wilt not done? He was the leading scorer by far on his teams, the leading rebounding on his teams, the leading playmaker, and the defensive anchor on his team. He's done it all.

Bill? Could Bill Russell EVER have done all of that? Could he have scored at will if his team needed him too for the whole season? I'm talking at least 30ppg. No. He was never that great of a scorer.




But really, Wilt's career from 66-73, his 2 rings, those things put him on Top of Russell. He did it all.

[QUOTE][B]Butch van Breda Kolff:[/B] Russell would ask 'What do I need to do to make my teammates better?' Wilt would ask, 'What's the best situation for me?'[/QUOTE]




[QUOTE][B]John Havlicek:[/B] You couldn't begin to count the ways we missed [him]. People think about him in terms of defense and rebounding, but he had been the key to our offense. He made the best pass more than anyone I have ever played with. That mattered to people like Nelson, Howell, Siegfried, Sanders, and myself. None of us were one on one players...Russell made us better offensive players. His ability as a passer, pick-setter, and general surmiser of offense has always been overlooked[/QUOTE]

A quote from Havlicek's book [I]Hondo[/I] He is basically saying Russell was not only the force behind their defense but also the key to making their offense click. He orchestrated things on offense from the center position and his teammates thrived off of him on both ends of the court.

Simmons states that Wilt finally had an epiphany in the '66-'67 season, became a more unselfish player, and his team won a title. The very next season, though, he set out to accomplish another individual goal: leading the league in assists. This all came from Wilt's own autobiography.




[QUOTE][B]Bill Libby:[/B] A couple of times he went to a teammate with a hot hand and told him he was going to give him the ball exclusively because the other guys were wasting his passes and he wouldn't win the assists title this way.[/Quote]
Even when Wilt was trying to be unselfish and help his team, he was doing so in a harmful and selfish manner.

There are countless stories out there of Wilt demeaning his own teammates, opponents, and coaches, and many accounts of players saying they did not want to play with him. Wilt played with Willie Naulls, Naulls didn't particularly enjoy playing with Wilt, landed on the Celtics one year later, and won two championships playing with Russell.



[QUOTE][B]Rick Barry:[/B] I'll say what most players feel, which is that Wilt is a loser...He is terrible in big games. He knows he is going to lose and be blamed for the loss, so he drads it, and you can see it in his eyes, and anyone whoever played with him will agree with me, regardless of whether they would admit it publicly. When it comes down to the closing minutes of a tough game, an important game, he doesn't want the ball, he doesn't want any part of the pressure. It is at these times that greatness is determined, and Wilt doesn't have it. There is no way you can compare him to a pro like Bill Russell or Jerry West...these are clutch competitors.[/QUOTE]



[QUOTE][B]Bill Simmons:[/B] Russell in a 1968 game 7: In '68 Wilt took two shots after halftime and steadfastly kept passing to his ice-cold teammates, then blamed them afteward because because they couldn't make the shot.[/QUOTE]
Maybe his teammates could have made some of the shots, but Wilt being as great as he was, should have stepped up and taken the shots himself.



[QUOTE][B]Jerry West:[/B] I don't want to rap Wilt because I believe only Russell was better, and I really respect what Wilt did. But I have to say he wouldn't adjust to you, you had to adjust to him.[/QUOTE]



[QUOTE][B]Bill Russell:[/B] It did seem to me that [Wilt] was often ambivalent about what he wanted to get out of basketball. Anyone who changes the character and style of his play several times over a career is bound to be uncertain about which of the many potential accomplishments he wants to pursue. It's perfectly possible for a player not to make victory his first priority against all the others-money, records, personal fame, and an undivided claim to his achievements-and I often felt Wilt made some deliberate choices in his ambitions.[/QUOTE]



[QUOTE][B]Wilt Chamberlain:[/B]...I wish I had won all those championships, but I really think I grew more as a man in defeat that Russell did in victory.[/QUOTE]
In the rest of that Chamberlain quote, he talks about how he felt he got more from life and enjoyed the other aspects of life outside of basketball. He said Russell only cared about winning and basketball and was in the locker room before every big game throwing up. Since we aren't arguing who had a better life outside of basketball or who enjoyed life more outside of basketball, tell me this, would you rather have Russell - the player throwing up in the locker room before a big game, not shying away in crunch time, and elevating his game in the playoffs - or would you rather have a more care free Wilt who was afraid to have the ball in crunch time and shied away from the spotlight in big games?

^Nice summation; I've been meaning to do that, but loaned the book to a friend.

As Simmons himself says and I've said for years now, it's not really a debate.

Bill Russell in Game Seven or other series clinching games Games in the NBA Finals

1957 Game 7 - 19 points, 32 rebounds; Boston Wins 125-123 in double overtime

1959 Game 4 - 15 points 34 rebounds; Boston Wins 118-113

1960 Game 7 - 22 points 35 rebounds 4 assists; Boston wins 122-103

1961 Game 5 - 30 points (on 17 FGA) 38 rebounds; Boston wins 121-112

1962 Game 7 - 30 points 40 rebounds 9 assists reported 14 blocks; Boston wins 110-107 in (OT)

1963 Game 6 - 12 points 24 rebounds 9 assists; Boston wins 112-109

1964 Game 5 - (vs. Wilt [30-25 reported 6 blocks]) 12 points 27 rebounds (reported 11 blocks); Boston wins 105-99

1965 Game 5 - 6-9 FG 10-12 FT 22 points 30 rebounds 4 assists; Boston wins 129-96

1966 Game 7 - 25 points 32 rebounds; Boston wins 95-93

1968 Game 6 - 5-7 FG 8-9 FT 12 points 19 rebounds 6 assists; Boston wins 124-109 with Russell as coach

1969 Game 7 - (vs. Wilt [18 points 27 rebounds]) 6 points 21 rebounds 6 assists; Boston wins 108-106 with Russell as coach

Factor in that in the three games of these games there is video of he averages 12.7 blocks and who knows how great those stat lines would have looked.

Most of it is nothing but guesses, but people have ventured to guess that he probably averaged anywhere from 8-12 blocks per game during his career.

As Simmons states in his book; why in the hell did they not keep up with blocked shots in that era?

[QUOTE=KG215]A quote from Havlicek's book [I]Hondo[/I] He is basically saying Russell was not only the force behind their defense but also the key to making their offense click. He orchestrated things on offense from the center position and his teammates thrived off of him on both ends of the court.

Simmons states that Wilt finally had an epiphany in the '66-'67 season, became a more unselfish player, and his team won a title. The very next season, though, he set out to accomplish another individual goal: leading the league in assists. This all came from Wilt's own autobiography.





Even when Wilt was trying to be unselfish and help his team, he was doing so in a harmful and selfish manner.

There are countless stories out there of Wilt demeaning his own teammates, opponents, and coaches, and many accounts of players saying they did not want to play with him. Wilt played with Willie Naulls, Naulls didn't particularly enjoy playing with Wilt, landed on the Celtics one year later, and won two championships playing with Russell.








Maybe his teammates could have made some of the shots, but Wilt being as great as he was, should have stepped up and taken the shots himself.












In the rest of that Chamberlain quote, he talks about how he felt he got more from life and enjoyed the other aspects of life outside of basketball. He said Russell only cared about winning and basketball and was in the locker room before every big game throwing up. Since we aren't arguing who had a better life outside of basketball or who enjoyed life more outside of basketball, tell me this, would you rather have Russell - the player throwing up in the locker room before a big game, not shying away in crunch time, and elevating his game in the playoffs - or would you rather have a more care free Wilt who was afraid to have the ball in crunch time and shied away from the spotlight in big games?[/QUOTE]


Quotes are all nice to consider but shouldn't be held so highly. Especially when you have a player like Wilt who had a personality most wouldn't like versus Russell who was a great guy.

[QUOTE=GP_20]Quotes are all nice to consider but shouldn't be held so highly. Especially when you have a player like Wilt who had a personality most wouldn't like versus Russell who was a great guy.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, that's why Rick Barry isn't regarded higher as well.

I still think Russell was very fortunate all his career. Was he still the best player on his title teams? Yes. Was he the main reason they won? Yes.

But Russell was fortunate enough to come right into the league and into the hands of arguably the GOAT coach. The GOAT coach. And on top of that, arguably the GOAT backcourt (even today). And another HOF. That was how his career started. What luck. :applause:

Wilt did not get anything like that at the beginning of his career, and it was later did he start playing with HOF coaches and teammates. I think this has a lot to with Russell being the winner he is. Russell even once said that he doesn't think he'd be able to play with another coach other than Red. Red knew how to maximize his player's talents and how to handle them. Russell got the correct treatment all the way. Imagine if he came into the league with a garbage coach, who didn't even care about defense, how would Russell's career fared? Maybe a ring? Trade here and there?

I'm just saying he's incredibly lucky to be welcomed into the NBA with a arguable GOAT coach and arguably the GOAT backcourt of all-time, and another HOF. wow.

[B]


Can anyone name me another NBA superstar who has had better luck than Bill Russell upon entrance in the NBA?

[/B]


Most have him at Top 10 at worst.

What happens when you put a Top 10 player of all-time, with the GOAT coach, arguable GOAT backcourt, and more HOF(s).

I expect a lot of winning to occur. A lot.

Russell was pretty tall. Wilt was really tall.
Russell wouldn't sign autographs for children.
Wilt tried to concieve 10,000 children.

[QUOTE=GP_20]I still think Russell was very fortunate all his career. Was he still the best player on his title teams? Yes. Was he the main reason they won? Yes.

But Russell was fortunate enough to come right into the league and into the hands of arguably the GOAT coach. The GOAT coach. And on top of that, arguably the GOAT backcourt (even today). And another HOF. That was how his career started. What luck. :applause:

Wilt did not get anything like that at the beginning of his career, and it was later did he start playing with HOF coaches and teammates. I think this has a lot to with Russell being the winner he is. Russell even once said that he doesn't think he'd be able to play with another coach other than Red. Red knew how to maximize his player's talents and how to handle them. Russell got the correct treatment all the way. Imagine if he came into the league with a garbage coach, who didn't even care about defense, how would Russell's career fared? Maybe a ring? Trade here and there?

I'm just saying he's incredibly lucky to be welcomed into the NBA with a arguable GOAT coach and arguably the GOAT backcourt of all-time, and another HOF. wow.

[B]


Can anyone name me another NBA superstar who has had better luck than Bill Russell upon entrance in the NBA?

[/B]


Most have him at Top 10 at worst.

What happens when you put a Top 10 player of all-time, with the GOAT coach, arguable GOAT backcourt, and more HOF(s).

I expect a lot of winning to occur. A lot.[/QUOTE]


Never thought of Cousy and Sherman as the GOAT back court. Not even top 5

Yeah, i can't agree on the GOAT backcourt comment. These are some backcourts I'd take over them off the top of my head.

Jerry West/Gail Goodrich(particularly in '72)
Magic/Byron Scott(around '87 or '88)
Magic/Norm Nixon(especially in '82)
Isiah Thomas/Joe Dumars

[QUOTE]I still think Russell was very fortunate all his career. Was he still the best player on his title teams? Yes. Was he the main reason they won? Yes.

But Russell was fortunate enough to come right into the league and into the hands of arguably the GOAT coach. The GOAT coach. And on top of that, arguably the GOAT backcourt (even today). And another HOF. That was how his career started. What luck.

Wilt did not get anything like that at the beginning of his career, and it was later did he start playing with HOF coaches and teammates. I think this has a lot to with Russell being the winner he is. Russell even once said that he doesn't think he'd be able to play with another coach other than Red. Red knew how to maximize his player's talents and how to handle them. Russell got the correct treatment all the way. Imagine if he came into the league with a garbage coach, who didn't even care about defense, how would Russell's career fared? Maybe a ring? Trade here and there?

I'm just saying he's incredibly lucky to be welcomed into the NBA with a arguable GOAT coach and arguably the GOAT backcourt of all-time, and another HOF. wow.

Can anyone name me another NBA superstar who has had better luck than Bill Russell upon entrance in the NBA?[/quote]

There are at least 2 on the Lakers alone. Magic Johnson and Kobe joined teams with the best bigmen in the NBA and multiple stars along with them. Give me Kareem/Shaq and those early 80s/mid 90s Lakers team over what Bill got. They were carried by superior players. Russell was not.



And Wilt was one of 5 current/recent/soon to be all stars on his rookie team including Paul arizin who won that team the title a couple years earlier with their coach Neil. Paul was the NBAs second leading scorer when Wilt joined the team. Also Guy Rodgers who ive heard called better than Cousy by some who saw him. Led the L in assists. Had a 28 assist game before they relaxed the rules. He probably had games with 30-35 by our standards. had 20 in Wilts 100 point game. Broke Cousys single season assist record in fact. Tom Gola was an all star the first 5 seasons of Wilts career. Woody Sauldsberry was an all star the year before Wilt got there. Lets not at like Wilt was drafted to a team of scrubs and Russells owned the league. The Celtics with all this talent were a .500 team 2 years before Russell and won 1 playoff game the following year with a 39-33 record. They never did better than a 1-3 loss in the second round in 5-6 years with that backcourt AND Easy Ed who was an all nba first team hall of famer and the guy that Russell was traded for.

What did that team actually do without Russell? 3 hall of famers pre Russell. Did they accomplish anything at all?

And as for the coaching....

Russell coached the Celtics to more titles than Red did without him on the team. Just a fact. The entire Celtics dynasty and the legacy of those players and coaches is tied into if not simply built on the back of Bill Russell. When the coach retires and you coach the team to 2 titles yourself.....

Whats left to say? Who else can get the credit?

He played and coached the team....to 2 titles.

Red deserves a lot of credit for building good teams. But yyou can only give him so much when he retires and Russell just takes over the team himself. Imagine something like that today. Pop retires and Duncan coaches them to more rings?

Bill did it all.

[QUOTE=Kblaze8855]There are at least 2 on the Lakers alone. Magic Johnson and Kobe joined teams with the best bigmen in the NBA and multiple stars along with them. Give me Kareem/Shaq and those early 80s/mid 90s Lakers team over what Bill got. They were carried by superior players. Russell was not.
[/QUOTE]

Russell did have the luxuary of playing with the league MVP in his rookie season.

[QUOTE=ShaqAttack3234]Yeah, i can't agree on the GOAT backcourt comment. These are some backcourts I'd take over them off the top of my head.

Jerry West/Gail Goodrich(particularly in '72)
Magic/Byron Scott(around '87 or '88)
Magic/Norm Nixon(especially in '82)
Isiah Thomas/Joe Dumars[/QUOTE]


Add
Frazier and Monore

[QUOTE=GP_20]I still think Russell was very fortunate all his career. Was he still the best player on his title teams? Yes. Was he the main reason they won? Yes.

But Russell was fortunate enough to come right into the league and into the hands of arguably the GOAT coach. The GOAT coach. And on top of that, arguably the GOAT backcourt (even today). And another HOF. That was how his career started. What luck. :applause:

Excdept calling it lucky is ignorant. The Celtics and thos great players (plus an all-NBA center) never won before Russell and Bill kept winning after they were gone.

Even if you believe in "luck" Russell's greatness proved able to transcend it.

[QUOTE=GP_20]Wilt did not get anything like that at the beginning of his career, and it was later did he start playing with HOF coaches and teammates. I think this has a lot to with Russell being the winner he is. Russell even once said that he doesn't think he'd be able to play with another coach other than Red. Red knew how to maximize his player's talents and how to handle them. Russell got the correct treatment all the way. Imagine if he came into the league with a garbage coach, who didn't even care about defense, how would Russell's career fared? Maybe a ring? Trade here and there? [/quote]

What about College where Wilt won 0 titles with far superior team mates at Kansas than Russell had while winning two at San Fransisco? What about Russell's gold Medal in '56? Russell was already a proven winner before he even got to the NBA.

Read Red's biography and get back to us. Everything you're saying about Red, Red said about Russell. No one would ever trade Russell; that's a proven fact.

That entire argument was hypotheticals based on subjective opinion; grasping for straws GP?

[QUOTE=GP_20]I'm just saying he's incredibly lucky to be welcomed into the NBA with a arguable GOAT coach and arguably the GOAT backcourt of all-time, and another HOF. wow.[/QUOTE]

All who had never won anything prior to Russell.

[QUOTE=GP_20][B]


Can anyone name me another NBA superstar who has had better luck than Bill Russell upon entrance in the NBA?

[/B]
[/QUOTE]

Chamberlain for one. If he was born into another era his stats would have been a lot lower and he would not have been as physically dominant. Magic, Bird, Jordan also had more "luck" than Russell in my opinion.

Had Russell won 7 of 13 titles, maybe I'd say he was lucky, but 11 of 13 is just to great a sample size to dismiss as luck.

[QUOTE=GP_20]Most have him at Top 10 at worst.

What happens when you put a Top 10 player of all-time, with the GOAT coach, arguable GOAT backcourt, and more HOF(s).

I expect a lot of winning to occur. A lot. [/QUOTE]

We already know what happens. He all those things plus Elgin Baylor in '69 and he lost to a greatly inferior aging Celtics team led and coached by you know who.

[QUOTE=GP_20]Quotes are all nice to consider but shouldn't be held so highly. Especially when you have a player like Wilt who had a personality most wouldn't like versus Russell who was a great guy.[/QUOTED]

Do you think their subjective opinions are more valid than yours though?