Bill Russell vs. Wilt Chamberlain

I've been arguing entrance. But over the course of his career, I don't think ANY other Top 10 NBA player has had as much luck with starcasts and more as much as Russell. Wilt has had some great ones, but not every year. Kareem was decaying for Magic, and even Kobe has had some bad starcasts (05-07).

Russell though? Best one? Most fortunate player of the Top 10?



Seriously can anyone name me another Top 10 player of all-time that has had better starcasts/coaches through out his WHOLE career than Russell? Not 1-2 seasons, not 10, but whole career.

There is no coincidence the Top 10 player with the most help has won the most titles. It should've been expected.


Once again, Russell lucks out.

I'm not going to copy down some great points made in Bill Simmons new book, but I was pretty even on the two before reading, and after reading (and thus learning a few things I didn't know before) I am now convinced Russell is the "greater" of the two, while Wilt was better as an individual player.

Too bad basketball isn't an individual game, though... so in my view Russell was the better, more influencial player.

I advise everyone to buy Simmons new book. It's great.

[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]
I disagree (sort of), they were a good coach and good team before Russell, Bill made them great.[/QUOTE]

That's pretty much what I meant. They were a good team on their own, but as far as a cast for a star player to have they were great because they had capable players at every position and another legit superstar(Cousy). Russell was what turned them into a great team.


[QUOTE]Is Tommy Heinsohn a HOFer if he doesn't play with Russell? He doesn't think so. [/QUOTE]

Hard to say. If he put up the same numbers he did, but didn't win any rings then I'd say no. But if he was on a team with less talent and he puts up better numbers then who knows?

All I know is that he was a capable player from the start since he won rookie of the year. He doesn't win the award if Russell is there for a full season, but it still tells you that he was a quality addition to the team. And as it turned out he was a key member of the team for years.

[QUOTE]No way Bailey Howell, Frank Ramsey or KC Jones get in without winning those titles and even Sam Jones is iffy. If he's not on the Celtics he might have to be the man on a team, he never wanted that.[/QUOTE]

You're definitely right as far as Ramsey and Jones. Howell? I won't comment on because his resume does look good regardless. 19/10 for a dozen NBA seasons while shooting a well above average(for the time) 48% for his career and missing virtually no games.

[QUOTE]Also I should I apologize to you for being an as[COLOR="Black"]s[/COLOR]hole; even though I think sometimes you're way too stubborn, you bring a lot to most discussions you are in.[/QUOTE]

Thanks and I owe you an apology as well because while I disagree with you have researched the game and watched it for a long time unlike a lot of posters here.

The Bailey Howell point is well taken; he was a fine offensive player for the Pistons and Bullets but he defensive reputation was so notoriously bad before Boston that he was traded for a back-up center who averaged 7 points and 6 rebounds.

Also his 20-12 numbers were put it in the most shots and free throw attempts per game era in NBA history. If guys like George McGinnis and Spencer Haywood can't get in or contemporaries like Larry Costello or Richie Guerin (career 17-5-5 with a peak of 30 ppg) , I can't see them putting Howell in without the Hardware.

[QUOTE=Carbine]I'm not going to copy down some great points made in Bill Simmons new book, but I was pretty even on the two before reading, and after reading (and thus learning a few things I didn't know before) I am now convinced Russell is the "greater" of the two, while Wilt was better as an individual player.

Too bad basketball isn't an individual game, though... so in my view Russell was the better, more influencial player.

I advise everyone to buy Simmons new book. It's great.[/QUOTE]

I just don't know how anyone can take Russell considering Wilt has outrebounded and outscored him in every regular season or playoff series they've ever had. Like how do you do that? That's just amazing. I wonder how many other superstar big men like Shaq or Duncan can say that about another good big man.


Like I said, what does it for me is what Wilt showed throughout his career. Which is everything. He was arguably the greatest scorer ever. He was arguably the greatest rebounder ever. If he had gone down without a ring and just displayed amazing individual domination, I would've picked Russell.

But later Wilt changed his game, and won 2 rings. He showed us that he is also one of the best playmaking centers ever as well. He showed us he can also play the "team game" and fit in perfectly on any type of team when he wants to.

He showed us that also he is a dominant defender. Top 5 at least defensive Centers of all-time.



I mean what am I missing here. [U]You could arguably say Wilt, was a Top 3 Center in each scoring, defense, passing, and rebounding[/U]. :applause:

I agree with that statement. And that's just amazing. That's what makes Wilt the better player.

Not "team arguments" which involve teammates and not the player themselves.

[QUOTE=GP_20]I just don't know how anyone can take Russell considering Wilt has outrebounded and outscored him in every regular season or playoff series they've ever had. Like how do you do that? That's just amazing. I wonder how many other superstar big men like Shaq or Duncan can say that about another good big man. [/QUOTE]

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=GP_20]Like I said, what does it for me is what Wilt showed throughout his career. Which is everything. He was arguably the greatest scorer ever. He was arguably the greatest rebounder ever. If he had gone down without a ring and just displayed amazing individual domination, I would've picked Russell. [/QUOTE]

You think like Chamberlain, one ring was enough for him too; until people started knocking him again than he wanted and finally after numerous tries got #2.

[QUOTE=GP_20]But later Wilt changed his game,[/QUOTE]

and then he changed it again and again; what are you basing your opinions off of, which book did you read or interviews\videos did you watch?


Here's my favorite part...

[QUOTE=GP_20]I mean what am I missing here. [U]You could arguably say Wilt, was a Top 3 Center in each scoring, defense, passing, and rebounding[/U]. :applause:

I agree with that statement. And that's just amazing. That's what makes Wilt the better player. [/QUOTE]

So you agree were yourself, are amazed at your opinion and think that because of that Wilt is better...are you Wilt Chamberlain?

Few people have been as arrogant and delusional...

[QUOTE=GP_20]Not "team arguments" which involve teammates and not the player themselves.[/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.

Even though you only rank Wilt above Russell because of his 2 rings...?

[QUOTE=GP_20]If he had gone down without a ring and just displayed amazing individual domination, I would've picked Russell. [/QUOTE]

So two rings plus individual and statistical dominance is greater than 11 rings plus individual dominance.

Explain to use how that makes any sense?

[QUOTE]Getting swept out of the Finals is not a major accomplishment. Shaq did not do a lot more than Cousy/Sharman. So I don't see the point of "What did Cousy/Sharman accomplish previous to Russell". Because just like Shaq, they had insignificant accomplishments. So at best, it's a really weak argument. [/QUOTE]

If losing in the finals isnt a major accomplishment not even getting there is what? Cousy/Sharman/Ed were 3 all stars....all nba first team players. Coached by Red. And combined to do nothing of relevance.


[QUOTE]Yes of course. But this is relative to era. Cousy was a Top 3 player in the league back then. So was O'Neal. Neither were the best (57 vs. 97). This isn't Shaq vs. Cousy as much as Shaq relative to the league vs. Cousy relative to the league. I hope you understand why. There is no time machine. Kobe joined Shaq in 97, and Russell joined Cousy in 57.[/QUOTE]

Shaq in 97 have proven more than Cousy ever did without a superior player on his team. and again...I just gotta point out the fact that shaq is better than this guy. we are talking Shaq here....prime Shaq. With 2 all stars next to him. This is not Cousy/Sharman vs some nobody.

[QUOTE]I'll give you that Magic was also very fortunate.

But it wasn't a dream entrance either. Funny how you don't mention Norm Nixon. He was also a great passer/playmaker who played Magic's game. Who played Bill's game in Boston? He immediately became the defensive anchor and was able to do what he did best, defend. On the other hand, Magic's playmaking ability was limited. So let's not ignore this.[/QUOTE]

I mentioned Norm before you did....

I mentioned him because his presence(as Magic will tell you) was a positive. Playmaking ability being limited? You dont stop playing basketball when it isnt in your hands. Magic had one of the best starts of his career ever. If Norrm hurt him he didnt do a good job of it.


[QUOTE]I'm saying at the entrance level. Kobe/Shaq did not immediately start winning. They needed Phil for that. But coming into the league, Kobe did not have Phil. So let's stick to 97.

You tell me. 97 Bulls (69-13), or 57 Hawks (34-38), who had the more fortunate opponent contending for title? This is also part of luck.[/QUOTE]

You said for your career. And as I said this isnt hypothetical. These things happened. Kobe joined a team of immense talent where he was not looked to dominate and ended up with 3 rings in his early 20s. If we are talking about rookie year only why is the word career even being thrown around? What this is if Kobe stayed a 18 yearold backup his whole career? You spoke of development. How they developed is relevant.

As for finals opponents...

Only relevant once you are in the finals. The 97 Lakers were not. The 80 Lakers were and they won. Im not sure why you are going to hypotheticals. Or why who they play in the finals is a matter of Russells luck when hes the reason they got there in the first place.

It wasnt luck that beat the Hawks. It was russell and Heinson stepping up while the all powerful HOF backcourt shot a combined 5-40 in game 7(Cousy 2-20 Sharman 3-20).

Bill russell won in HS because he was great. He won 56 in a row and 2 titles in college because he was great. He won the gold medal by 54 points a game because he was great. But he gets to the NBA and we gotta start looking for reasons it continued?

The reason is Bill Russell. All the luck and greatness the Celtics had just decided to show up the second he arrived and fly away the moment he left sending them to the lottery.

Guy won at least 15 titles and lost only 1 healthy elimination game on any level in his life.

But hes the lucky one. Not the teammates who won with him and not without him.

He is the lucky one. He needed THEM....

Have people saying he was nothing but Reds missing piece.

Still have people bringing up his HOF teammates as if him winning them 3-10 titles has nothing to do with them being in the HOF.

**** it. If Russell were gonna get the credit hes due hed have gotten it by now. Cousy/Sharman/Red mean hes lucky and not them even if they did nothing before he got there. KC Jones is a great HOF player who put up 7ppg on 35% shooting and played with russell to get rings in the NBA AND college. Wilt being one of 4 or 5 all stars on his first team(depending on if you count a guy who made it the year after or before) isnt enough. He should have had 7 all stars. Plus not all of them are in the hall of fame. And there arent dozens of 50s/60s players who were good but dont get credit as great due to not being on Russells team and therefore a winner. I mean....Guy rodgers...the guy who broke most of Cousys assist records..got to the finals....that guy isnt a 4-5 time ring winner on the Celtics and therefore a HOF player. so him being great doesnt count against Wilt. Makes sense. Paul Arizin didnt accomplish more than Cousy and Sharman even though he put up 29/8 on the way to the title he won without Wilt or Russell. Not like he retired with the highest career PPG anyone retired with until Bob Petitt. Tom Gola didnt also have a title and wasnt all NBA the season before Wilt arrived.

Bill joined a highly successfull team loaded with stars who had proven themselves winners on the highest level time and time again. Wilt joined some scrubs who stole the rings they had from Cousys ample pre russell collection, stuffed the ballots to make those all star games, and bribed the stat keepets into making them look productive.

Its all just so clear to me now.

Now that ive learned the error of my ways allow me to slink away and lick my wounds as I think over the depths of my idiocy.

Goodnight my worthy foe.

Even though you destroyed his everypoint, he'll ignore that and keep saying the same things. He's an idiot when he's wrong about something. He only sees the points that support his side as valid.

You can tell him that he has his history mixed up and he'll just continue to operate as if it's true.

KBlaze8855, why do you keep supporting Russell in this thread (as if he hasn't had enough support already).


Don't YOU think Wilt is better anyways? :confusedshrug:


I've already said Russell was the #1 guy on most his title teams and the #1 reason they won. And without them they would not have won. What more do you want to hear? His teammates needed him more than he needed them. His teammates were more lucky to have him then he was to have them.

I agree with all of that. But that has nothing to do with my point.



Fine forget enterances, throughout their careers, no Top 10 player has had starcasts as good as Russell. Even Kobe has had some horrible starcasts (05-07), Wilt too, Shaq, and the list goes on. Russell?

I think in terms of starcasts/coaches, throughout career, Russell ranks #1 as in having the best with him. Not 1 season, career.







But again, what are you doing? You were supposed to be on Wilt's side. :confusedshrug:

[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]

In order to win, you have to score and rebound. It's a part of winning. You don't just win by showing up, you have to produce. And Wilt produced more than Russell, [I]everytime[/I].

[QUOTE]
You think like Chamberlain, one ring was enough for him too; until people started knocking him again than he wanted and finally after numerous tries got #2. [/QUOTE]

Rings with 2 different teams. Beat that Russell. (Joke)


[QUOTE]
and then he changed it again and again; what are you basing your opinions off of, which book did you read or interviews\videos did you watch?[/QUOTE]

Yes he changed it lots of times. And that's whats so impressive. He's done everything. And whatever he's done he has done it in historically high levels. I don't need to read a book to know that Wilt changed his game later in his career from earlier. That's all I was saying.


[QUOTE]Here's my favorite part...



So you agree were yourself, are amazed at your opinion and think that because of that Wilt is better...are you Wilt Chamberlain?

Few people have been as arrogant and delusional...[/QUOTE]

Once again you misinterpret. I said "arguably Top 3....". And then later I myself support this statement. Which is different from saying "arguably" because arguably might mean you don't support it. But I think he was Top 3 everywhere.

[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.

Even though you only rank Wilt above Russell because of his 2 rings...?[/QUOTE]

I value Individual Domination with Team Accomplishments on the side. Thus I value both. And without one, Wilt would not be better. And of course I value Individual Domination more in individual comparisons.


[quote]
So two rings plus individual and statistical dominance is greater than 11 rings plus individual dominance.

Explain to use how that makes any sense?[/QUOTE]


Yes because [U]Individual[/U] dominance should be valued more when comparing [U]individual[/U] players. Thus, Wilt's large advantage individually overcomes Russell's team advantage.

[QUOTE]KBlaze8855, why do you keep supporting Russell in this thread (as if he hasn't had enough support already).


Don't YOU think Wilt is better anyways?


I've already said Russell was the #1 guy on most his title teams and the #1 reason they won. And without them they would not have won. What more do you want to hear? His teammates needed him more than he needed them. His teammates were more lucky to have him then he was to have them.

I agree with all of that. But that has nothing to do with my point.



Fine forget enterances, throughout their careers, no Top 10 player has had starcasts as good as Russell. Even Kobe has had some horrible starcasts (05-07), Wilt too, Shaq, and the list goes on. Russell?

I think in terms of starcasts/coaches, throughout career, Russell ranks #1 as in having the best with him. Not 1 season, career.







But again, what are you doing? You were supposed to be on Wilt's side. [/QUOTE]


I dont much care which one anyone picks. Both Wilt and russell have the most insane **** used against him. Wilt is disrespected because he was so dominant he makes people assume his opponents sucked and he was out for himself even though he won 2 titles, made 6 finals, and led 2 of the 4 best teams ever wins wise. And Russell won so much he has people pretending someone else made him a winner because nobody could be that good....even if he was the sole common factor to 15 various champions.

These guys both did so much that the mindblowing things they accomplished are the primary thing used to discredit them and I get more annoyed with it every year.

The side I appear to be on will generally be that of who is hated on most foolishly at the moment. And reading that Bill is just Reds missing piece and that PER means some of these guys riding his coattails were better than him....

Its exactly why I dont read ISH much anymore.

There comes a point where you have to totally disregard what you see or spend every minute arguing. And its easier to not read anything. Really this time...going to bed.

Not sleep. But bed....I have a game on DVR that needs watching.

[QUOTE=Kblaze8855]I dont much care which one anyone picks. Both Wilt and russell have the most insane **** used against him. Wilt is disrespected because he was so dominant he makes people assume his opponents sucked and he was out for himself even though he won 2 titles, made 6 finals, and led 2 of the 4 best teams ever wins wise. And Russell won so much he has people pretending someone else made him a winner because nobody could be that good....even if he was the sole common factor to 15 various champions.

These guys both did so much that the mindblowing things they accomplished are the primary thing used to discredit them and I get more annoyed with it every year.

The side I appear to be on will generally be that of who is hated on most foolishly at the moment. And reading that Bill is just Reds missing piece and that PER means some of these guys riding his coattails were better than him....

Its exactly why I dont read ISH much anymore.

There comes a point where you have to totally disregard what you see or spend every minute arguing. And its easier to not read anything. Really this time...going to bed.

Not sleep. But bed....I have a game on DVR that needs watching.[/QUOTE]

Yeah they are both generally underrated.

But you don't think Wilt's side was being foolishly hated on this thread? Since you think it's nearly even, you don't think statements like this


[QUOTE=G.O.A.T.]There is no argument for Chamberlain[/QUOTE]


[QUOTE=G.O.A.T.]It isn't even close.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=G.O.A.T.]
I don't understand how people can be so absurd as to ignore all the evidence that shows how clearly superior in every aspect of competition Russell was to Wilt.[/QUOTE]


are foolish? :oldlol:

Hey at least I think it's a good comparison and everything. This is just absurd. You miss these KBlaze885? Total disrespect on Wilt.




And I never said Bill was Red's missing piece. Don't know where you heard that from. And who used PER? Probably CB4GOATPF or whatever, but no one listens to his colored arguments anyways.

[QUOTE=GP_20]
Yes he changed it lots of times. And that's whats so impressive. He's done everything. And whatever he's done he has done it in historically high levels. I don't need to read a book to know that Wilt changed his game later in his career from earlier. That's all I was saying.
[/QUOTE]

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.

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.

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=GP_20]Yeah they are both generally underrated.

But you don't think Wilt's side was being foolishly hated on this thread? Since you think it's nearly even, you don't think statements like this


are foolish? :oldlol:

Hey at least I think it's a good comparison and everything. This is just absurd. You miss these KBlaze885? Total disrespect on Wilt.




And I never said Bill was Red's missing piece. Don't know where you heard that from. And who used PER? Probably CB4GOATPF or whatever, but no one listens to his colored arguments anyways.[/QUOTE]

This is someone telling you you're wrong and you begging him to tell me I'm wrong. This is what you do.

He understands my argument and why I say the things I do...("did you miss these"...sad dude) if he thought WIlt was better I'd be fine with it because he understands my argument and draws a different conclusion...it's subjective. He also understands hyperbole, context and nuance, which you do not and thus understands when I say "there is no argument against Russell" I mean that laying out all the unbiased evidence I have come across and weighing it based on my educated opinions on what makes a good basketball player I draw a very clear conclusion as to who is better.

When Abe said he preferred Wilt, I asked him why and he explained he values individual season peak the most when measuring a players greatness. At that point I understood and accepted his argument knowing he understood and accepted mine. We both get smarter.

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.

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.