Why is MJ considered better than Bill Russell?

[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]I skipped everything else because we've already debated it.

I do wonder if you;ve ever considered the rnoy of you're two arguments being

a) Russell had better teammates
b) Wilt had better stats

Wouldn't A suggest that B was likely?

Regardless, my greater point is that you are wrong (in my opinion of course) to suggest their was an anti-Wilt bias, at least if you mean personally. Players liked Wilt (except his early teammates who resented him), if there was an anti-Wilt bias, it would have also shown in 1966, 67 and 68. [/quote]

There definitely was a hughe anti Wilt bias. Are you seriously saying that is not the case??? Everybody hates goliath wasn't applied to earlier big people. You really think Wilt was 7th in MVP voting in '63??? Where Wilt was nearly shut out? Players back then might have saw game tape here and there of other games but they were voting basically on what they saw in boxscores. In a natural world, players hate the dynasties that prevent them from winning, getting notoriety, HOF votes and championships.

Wilt's out of mind statistical years came shortly after the nation was transfixed on Maris and Mantle chasing 61 homers. Like I said before the Nation was obsessed with offense. This race for 61 was stealing headlines for weeks - while there was a real threat of atomic war - we wanted to be on the offensive end of that as well. We wanted to be the first to the moon. Sports numbers was the way of the nation. 714 was as american as apple pie. Pele was showing the value of skill and scoring in soccer as well. Yet Wilt's numbers which were more of a deviation of great output than we witness in any other sport (the race to 61 would have been broken in the area of 100) is worth an incredible void of support. One year with six guys that were far inferior defensively as well getting more support. [quote]

What there actually was, was an anti-not winning the title bias against him. [/quote]They voted before the playoffs ('61). And they weren't win crazy in their voting in other years.
[quote]
If someone never watched, or read about those seasons and just viewed the stats, it would seem ludicrous that Wilt wasn't the MVP, but when you consider the context overall, it makes perfect sense. [/quote] I could believe that in one of the years but defintely not two, and him finishing seventh provides more context than the context you speak of.
[quote]
You like Wilt, so you give him the benefit of the doubt, [B]others who were less talent, but believed they worked harder[/B] and understood how to play the game the right way better resented him. And his team's losing, though not primarily his fault as sometimes presented to be sure, was excuse enough to justify their resentment. [/quote] Wouldn't these people resent Russell who didn't develop his offense and was blessed with a great situation, more so than Wilt??? Players are competitors they want to secure the advantages they have on superior talents. No way does a player resent MJ not playing the game right. That would be their dream and him loosing! Icing on the cake.

[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]
My problem is people saying he was limited offensively or an average or poor offensive player. How can a guy have the highest apg of any center all-time and have multiple Championship playoff runs and NBA finals where he topped 20 ppg and be an average offensive player?

How can he be called "the key to our offense after Cousy" by John Havlicek his teammate for five post-Cousy titles and be average?

It's just dumb and it bothers me a little that people don't admit their ignorance online, because if you confronted someone in person the same way they'd have no choice but to back down.[/QUOTE]

Don't know if this was a reference to me, so I will reiterate.
I said he was limited offensivley in comparison to GOATS - all of which I named. AND in every sport the Great Ones are creative and proficient with the instrument in use - except Russell. I also said Russell was GWOAT.

[QUOTE=2010splash]Celtics fans crack me up. Bill Russell's skillset resembled a Deke Mutombo at best. He played in a weak era and won a lot... who cares?[/QUOTE]

That is nonsense.

[QUOTE=Pointguard]There definitely was a hughe anti Wilt bias. Are you seriously saying that is not the case??? Everybody hates goliath wasn't applied to earlier big people. You really think Wilt was 7th in MVP voting in '63??? Where Wilt was nearly shut out? Players back then might have saw game tape here and there of other games but they were voting basically on what they saw in boxscores. In a natural world, players hate the dynasties that prevent them from winning, getting notoriety, HOF votes and championships. [/quote]

Once again Wilt was seventh because his team missed the playoffs in a league where 67% of the teams qualify for the postseason. I would have left him off my ballot all together. Finishing 7th of 9 teams and last in attendence means no one was valuable.

Now Wilt's season is historically very significant from an individual and statistical perspective.

And unless you have some evidence to suggest players voted based on something besides the 10 times they played each team and 5-10 they watched them play then you're just making stuff up.

I am disgusted by people in this thread trying to act like they individually are more qualified to determine the MVP of a basketball season than the actual players who played that season.

[QUOTE=Pointguard] I could believe that in one of the years but defintely not two, and him finishing seventh provides more context than the context you speak of.[/quote]

What? The context of him finishing seventh is that his team finished seventh.

Why does it surprise you that he finished so low, that's how that works historically.


[QUOTE=Pointguard] Wouldn't these people resent Russell who didn't develop his offense and was blessed with a great situation, more so than Wilt???[/QUOTE]

No, because that's not how people viewed it at the time. Going to Boston wasn't viewed as some great situation. In addition Russell played a team first game 100%, so players loved him, especially his teammates, whereas Wilt's teammates early on did not like his style of play or the way he was treated by coaches.

The especially didn't like him after he claimed to be quitting after the 1960 playoffs. At that point it was start winning or shut up about Wilt.



[QUOTE=Pointguard] Don't know if this was a reference to me, so I will reiterate.
I said he was limited offensivley in comparison to GOATS - all of which I named. I also said Russell was GWOAT.[/quote]

Comparatively to Russell, Jordan was limited on defense then too right? After all Jordan did not have the capability to impact games with his shot blocking.

What about Bird or Magic's defense? Are you going to tell me that they were as good defensively as Russell was offensively? Because if you do, I think you're a liar. No one ever hid Russell on offense, in fact after 1963, they ran the offense through him. A limited player could not be the focal point of a team's offense that wins five titles in six years.

As far as you calling Russell the greatest winner, a lot of people do that, but not as a compliment, but as a way of dismissing him from the company of other less accomplished and respected player who they feel have a more complete skill set.

Winning is the point of the game, and all sports. If Russell is the greatest winner then he is the greatest player and the debate ends. If you don't think that way than something besides winning must be most important to you.

I've said this before, but we are not scouting players on potential or what they could do based on our opinions. We are evaluating careers, things that happened and things that didn't.

[QUOTE=Pointguard]AND in every sport the Great Ones are creative and proficient with the instrument in use - except Russell.[/quote]

Really, do you want to stand by this as your opinion. Because that sounds fu[COLOR="Black"]c[/COLOR]king ridiculous to me.

[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]Once again Wilt was seventh because his team missed the playoffs in a league where 67% of the teams qualify for the postseason. I would have left him off my ballot all together. Finishing 7th of 9 teams and last in attendence means no one was valuable.

Now Wilt's season is historically very significant from an individual and statistical perspective.

And unless you have some evidence to suggest players voted based on something besides the 10 times they played each team and 5-10 they watched them play then you're just making stuff up.

I am disgusted by people in this thread trying to act like they individually are more qualified to determine the MVP of a basketball season than the actual players who played that season.



What? The context of him finishing seventh is that his team finished seventh.

Why does it surprise you that he finished so low, that's how that works historically.




No, because that's not how people viewed it at the time. Going to Boston wasn't viewed as some great situation. In addition Russell played a team first game 100%, so players loved him, especially his teammates, whereas Wilt's teammates early on did not like his style of play or the way he was treated by coaches.

The especially didn't like him after he claimed to be quitting after the 1960 playoffs. At that point it was start winning or shut up about Wilt.





Comparatively to Russell, Jordan was limited on defense then too right? After all Jordan did not have the capability to impact games with his shot blocking.

What about Bird or Magic's defense? Are you going to tell me that they were as good defensively as Russell was offensively? Because if you do, I think you're a liar. No one ever hid Russell on offense, in fact after 1963, they ran the offense through him. A limited player could not be the focal point of a team's offense that wins five titles in six years.

As far as you calling Russell the greatest winner, a lot of people do that, but not as a compliment, but as a way of dismissing him from the company of other less accomplished and respected player who they feel have a more complete skill set.

Winning is the point of the game, and all sports. If Russell is the greatest winner then he is the greatest player and the debate ends. If you don't think that way than something besides winning must be most important to you.

I've said this before, but we are not scouting players on potential or what they could do based on our opinions. We are evaluating careers, things that happened and things that didn't.



Really, do you want to stand by this as your opinion. Because that sounds fu[COLOR="Black"]c[/COLOR]king ridiculous to me.[/QUOTE]
Im 80% with you G.O.A.T. however I think you put way too much emphasis on a player being on a winning "TEAM".Everything i have read and heard is enough for me to know Russell is the greatest "TEAM" leader of all time.I wouldn't call him the Greatest player of all time.IS it that simple that Russ would have won 11 titles if he had played with the Hawks? how many of those titles did Sam Jones and Hondo ect... have at least 3/4 th the impact Russell had ? How much of a impact did Red have who many have called the Greatest leader of men of all time?Being the focal player of a "TEAM" winning 11 titles is phenomenal,however that alone doesn't make him a better individual player than Wilt,Elgin,Oscar,Magic,Bird,KAJ.I like leadership in players thats why I love Russ,Magic,Oscar,Isiah MJ,Kobe.I think Wilt was much like Lebron is today outstanding skill set,but questionable leadership.

[QUOTE=Niquesports]Im 80% with you G.O.A.T. however I think you put way too much emphasis on a player being on a winning "TEAM".Everything i have read and heard is enough for me to know Russell is the greatest "TEAM" leader of all time.I wouldn't call him the Greatest player of all time.IS it that simple that Russ would have won 11 titles if he had played with the Hawks? how many of those titles did Sam Jones and Hondo ect... have at least 3/4 th the impact Russell had ? How much of a impact did Red have who many have called the Greatest leader of men of all time?[/QUOTE]

I know what you mean and I imagine it comes off that way to some, but the facts are the facts.

Red was a coach for ten years and never won a title before Russell. Cousy and Sharman six years together no rings with a HOF center in Ed Maccauley playing with them. Hondo and the Celtics finished in last place the year after Russell left and won just two titles in seven seasons with a HOF center in Cowens. Sam Jones was the man, but he was never nearly as valuable as Russell and he'd be the first to tell you.

As for Russell going to the Hawks...

I think the Dynasty is even more dominant. Russell, Pettit and Lovellette on the same team? Remember the Hawks got to the Finals in '57, '58, '60 and '61...they went 1-3, all vs. Boston. Now if we were to replay those series with Russell and Cliff Hagan switching places, don't you think the Hawks win all four?

What about if Russell went #1 in the draft to the Royals?

Russell and Maurice Stokes together pre-Wilt...DOMINATION.

Later on you could see a roster with Oscar, Russell, Jerry Lucas and Jack Twyman...WOW! (remember Oscar and Luc were territorial selections)

Put him on the Warriors or Pistons or Nats (all title contenders the previous seasons) and he is a sure title with those teams.

The only teams he might struggle with initially were the Lakers (who had a plan to get him but it flopped) and the Knicks.

Even then, he won everywhere he went and I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

[QUOTE=Niquesports]Being the focal player of a "TEAM" winning 11 titles is phenomenal,however that alone doesn't make him a better individual player than Wilt,Elgin,Oscar,Magic,Bird,KAJ.I like leadership in players thats why I love Russ,Magic,Oscar,Isiah MJ,Kobe.I think Wilt was much like Lebron is today outstanding skill set,but questionable leadership.[/QUOTE]

11 titles in 13 years is so freaking amazing.

Consider that it started and ended with his arrival and departure from the league and it gets more impressive.

Factor in that the team he came to had no history of winning (only NBA franchise that had not won a title or made the finals in one league or another) and it gets even more astounding.

Throw in that he was the first black superstar, the first black MVP, the first black player to lead a team to a title, the first black coach in any sport, the first black coach to win a title in any sport and still the only black coach to win back-to-back titles in the NBA and you're mind is sufficiently blown I assume.

21-0 in do or die games for his career
10-0 in game sevens
11-1 in the Finals with his one loss coinciding with the only major injury of his career.

At some point it all stops being coincidence.

[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]You have to view everything in context I think.

The scoring numbers sort of find their middle with the faster pace equaling lower percentages, but also it's important to note that that same faster pace allotted for statistical anomalies and exceptions (like Wilt). However for the most part if you compare the league's top scorer's, they are pretty level with most of the NBA's post-shot clock history.

The era Russell played in and the field goal percentage of the league is also why you have to take his rebounding numbers with a grain of salt.

Just like 20 rebounds in 1962 isn't 20 rebounds in 2011, 45% from the field in 1962 isn't 45% in 2011.

Russell was not a great scorer, and had he been asked to do it every night he and his team would have failed, but he understood that and channeled his efforts towards things that not every guy on his team could do.

And no, scoring was not Russell's strength, but he was above average at it by any era's standards. And he has some postseason numbers that stack up with just about any center in any era.

My problem is people saying he was limited offensively or an average or poor offensive player. How can a guy have the highest apg of any center all-time and have multiple Championship playoff runs and NBA finals where he topped 20 ppg and be an average offensive player?

How can he be called "the key to our offense after Cousy" by John Havlicek his teammate for five post-Cousy titles and be average?

It's just dumb and it bothers me a little that people don't admit their ignorance online, because if you confronted someone in person the same way they'd have no choice but to back down.[/QUOTE]

I never said Russel was an average offensive player - only that he was not a great offensive player. You did not answer my previous question - what was the league FG% during that time - i am genuinely curious. I do agree that Russel did have some couple years where he put up good offensive numbers in playoffs, namely in 62 and 63, even though again they are still not near Chamberlain or KAJ category. What were the NBA finals where he tooped 20ppg per game? I am pretty sure 1962 was one of them? Any other ones?

[QUOTE=kizut1659]I never said Russel was an average offensive player - only that he was not a great offensive player. You did not answer my previous question - what was the league FG% during that time - i am genuinely curious. I do agree that Russel did have some couple years where he put up good offensive numbers in playoffs, namely in 62 and 63, even though again they are still not near Chamberlain or KAJ category. What were the NBA finals where he tooped 20ppg per game? I am pretty sure 1962 was one of them? Any other ones?[/QUOTE]

Russel[B]l[/B]

When Russell entered the league the league's FG% was 38%, by the early 60's it had moved to 42% and by the late 60's 44%.

I know he topped 20 a game for the Finals in '62, '63 and '66 and I think maybe '68, if not he was close.

In '65 he scored 18 a game on 75% shooting from the field and had two-triple doubles (potential quadruple doubles if we had block numbers) in a five game series.

[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]Russel[B]l[/B]

When Russell entered the league the league's FG% was 38%, by the early 60's it had moved to 42% and by the late 60's 44%.

I know he topped 20 a game for the Finals in '62, '63 and '66 and I think maybe '68, if not he was close.

In '65 he scored 18 a game on 75% shooting from the field and had two-triple doubles (potential quadruple doubles if we had block numbers) in a five game series.[/QUOTE]

Russel's career fg% is 44% (43% for playoffs) so sounds like he was a couple percentage point better than the league average average over the span of his career. Is there a website where the stats for 60s games are available - i have had a hard time finding them.

[B]Russell is great: best defender and 2nd best rebounder of his era but MJ played bothe ends and dominated both at his spot.[/B]

The same reason Wayne Gretzky is considered the greatest Hockey player all time despite only having 4 rings. Or should Henri Richard who won 11 Stanley Cups be the GOAT for Hockey?

Babe Ruth won 7 championships in Baseball and is considered the GOAT, however Yogi Berra won 10 championships in Baseball and is not considered the GOAT.

While I put Russell in the top 3 with MJ and Kareem, as you can see from those examples, why just having the most titles doesn't make you GOAT. And Yogi Berra was damn good.

[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]Once again Wilt was seventh because his team missed the playoffs in a league where 67% of the teams qualify for the postseason. I would have left him off my ballot all together. Finishing 7th of 9 teams and last in attendence means no one was valuable. [/quote]
Players vote as players and fans of the game. They don't vote as GM's. They prefer fewer fans on the road, there is a quiet auditorium feel that has a practice feel without any added pressure. Now if you are suggesting that their crowds were fewer for home games then you would have to understand the anti Wilt stand people were taking. Knick and Philadelphia fans would go to Jersey to see a guy average 50ppg and who has the capacity to get 100 on a night. They do it now for Lebron and Blake Griffin. Besides didn't the franchise just move that year?

This dynamic of winning as being an override on assessing MVP's wasn't true when Petite set up how this MVP thing would work in 1956 (5 years prior) - He was on a team with a loosing record. Nor was winning an overriding dynamic in the more established sports. Any gigantic deviation in stat's was recognized in all of the sports. As I said before Musial wasn't on the level of Mickey Mantle but he won MVP because of the numberical number of home runs. This was the year before Wilt's domination. The winning thing wasn't phenom it was then.

Russell was part of Wilt's get dominated party. He got his cake just like everybody else. Players know when a guy is better than the other. Russell had unbreakable records broke on him just like the others. And Wilt did it where one of Russells claim to fame were. Without looking I know that Russell, supposedly Wilt's defensive equal to Chamberlain's offense, was holding Wilt to half his average in anything. Wilt had a hughe number of games above his average against Russell during the first 5 years. And 12 games (this is a cumulative number) where he doubled Russell's scoring along with more than a double digit rebounding edge. That's domination.
[quote]
And unless you have some evidence to suggest players voted based on something besides the 10 times they played each team and 5-10 they watched them play then you're just making stuff up. [/quote]
LOL, you're telling me in all the books you read, that the players on numerous occassions don't say "then I looked at the boxscores." - you think they're playing Suduko??? You aren't playing me stupid with that comment.
[quote]
I am disgusted by people in this thread trying to act like they individually are more qualified to determine the MVP of a basketball season than the actual players who played that season. [/quote]
I'm saying that there is politics, a dislike of Wilt's dating practices, Red Aurabach and people who were more swayed by those things more than basketball.
[quote]

What? The context of him finishing seventh is that his team finished seventh.
[/quote]
When he outscored Russell by 31ppg and three rebounds his teams record was 49 and 31. And were in 2nd place in the East. [quote]

Why does it surprise you that he finished so low, that's how that works historically. [/quote] The greatest statistical year (I'm talking 1961 here which was a 2nd place finish in wins). Is good enough in every sport to win MVP unaminously across the board. It wasn't like Wilt's defense was bad either. His statistical proportions in baseball would have been at least a 7 homerun game with 21 RBI's single game and a 90 homerun 200 RBI season.
[quote]
No, because that's not how people viewed it at the time. Going to Boston wasn't viewed as some great situation. [/quote] So now you're telling me they don't want to win or value winning? You can't have it both ways.
[quote]
In addition Russell played a team first game 100%, so players loved him, especially his teammates, whereas Wilt's teammates early on did not like his style of play or the way he was treated by coaches. [/quote]
I would jump for joy knowing that the guy who got 60 points on me and took the finest girl intown would have coaching problems! Oh and Russell wasn't some Magic Johnson. He passed a lot because Cousy and Heinsohn were better at scoring. [quote]

The especially didn't like him after he claimed to be quitting after the 1960 playoffs. At that point it was start winning or shut up about Wilt.
[/quote] So it wasn't about his play??? I personally like a guy that considered quitting and then sets the bar much higher than anybody else. You also way overestimate the number of people who have this win at all cost attitude that Russell had. Some people play for money, some play because they enjoy the game, some because of the fame. I really believe that the obssessive winners are few. Perhaps more in that day than now. But I only have Duncan, KG, Ginobli, Lebron, Dwade and a few others in this group. And I don't think they are overwhelmingly respected for this trait. [quote]

Comparatively to Russell, Jordan was limited on defense then too right? After all Jordan did not have the capability to impact games with his shot blocking.
[/quote]
In all fairness to Jordan, teams didn't pass the ball on his side of the court because they feared his defense. Teams feared the double down on his side because he would steal or knock the ball off of the offensibe players leg out of bounds. So they feared the turnover like they feared a great shot blocker.
[quote]
What about Bird or Magic's defense? Are you going to tell me that they were as good defensively as Russell was offensively? Because if you do, I think you're a liar. No one ever hid Russell on offense, in fact after 1963, they ran the offense through him. A limited player could not be the focal point of a team's offense that wins five titles in six years.[/quote] Magic controlled the pace of the game and got steals. People did not think clearly because Magic had them playing his game. Bird's Celtics was one of the most disciplined teams the league had in the 80's. When Magic controlled the pace, Boston was highly inefficient on offense across the board Parrish and McHale excluded as they weren't under the same pressure. The guards and SF were out of their element. Magic had his tenticles in defense thru his control of tempo and the deception that the game was a free for all. Bird talked trash at such high levels players got crosseyed and they saw two rims. LOL, but true. But your question is too hard for me to answer. If I seen Russell play more I could see how he was interwined in the offense better.
[quote]
As far as you calling Russell the greatest winner, a lot of people do that, but not as a compliment, but as a way of dismissing him from the company of other less accomplished and respected player who they feel have a more complete skill set. [/quote]
No. If Russell wanted to be GOAT he should have gotten to the gym and worked on his low post game. If Wilt wanted to be GOAT he should have played his heart out in the playoffs. KAJ and Shaq needed more energy and hustle. Magic and Bird improved themselves in every way but didn't have the defensive end tight. Jordan is the only one I can't find an angle on. He worked hard, he dominated, he improved, his hunger wasn't surpassed.
[quote]
Winning is the point of the game, and all sports. If Russell is the greatest winner then he is the greatest player and the debate ends. If you don't think that way than something besides winning must be most important to you. [/quote] He was never totally responsible for his wins - no one is in team sports. Red Aurabach was very key as he put together a very structured team. They played united. They played with a scoring unit. They played, defense, they played in a winning way. Russell wasn't responsible for scoring. He wasn't responsible for the pieces. He wasn't even responsible for consistent inside scoring. You don't win without that. You need a lot of pieces and Russell was a few but you need a lot.

Isn't there this maxim that good offense beats good defense... . If I outscore you I win... Russell was great on the reactive side of the ball not the proactive. I think he was good offensively but not great.

Greatness comes to us when we are confident, proficient, creative, skilled, and resourceful with whatever instrument we use. Please, let me know of the exceptions. With a ball in his hand Russell is not the greatest ever.

IMO, He didn't even work toward that end.

In the Russell-Wilt debate, people tend to overlook, or do not know, that Wilt was drafted in HIGH SCHOOL, and the year before his rookie season, his Warrior team finished in LAST PLACE.

How about Russell? He came to a Boston team (via a trade) that had finished 39-33 the year before. Not only that, but the Celtics ALSO drafted Tom Heinsohn. So Boston replaced Ed McCauley with Russell AND added Heinsohn to an already quality team. On top of all of that, the Celtics drafted Sam Jones the very next year. So, it was NOT just Russell who turned the Celts into champs, but SEVERAL quality players...along with a HOF coach (something Wilt did not have for many years.)

BTW, for all of Auerbach's anti-Wilt comments throughout his career, he DESPERATELY wanted Wilt while Chamberlain was still in High School.

And while Wilt, himself stated that Russell blended better with his HOF teammates, than perhaps he (Wilt) would have, the fact was, once Chamberlain was surrounded with a decent supporting cast, they were a powerhouse EVERY year from '66 thru '68 with the Sixers (they had the best record in the league each year, and won a dominating title in '67.) AND, his Laker teams went to FOUR Finals in FIVE years, and again, won a title in record-breaking fashion in '72. So, in Wilt's last eight years he was knocking at a title every year but one. And, there were a variety of reasons why six of the eight did not win rings. Poor coaching (especially in '69), poor play by teammates (especially in the post-season...like '66, '68, and '69), horribly officiated games (game five cost LA a title in '70), and devastating injuries (with SEVERAL of them in '68.) BUT, while Wilt languished on some horrible teams, Russell always had a handful of HOFers to fall back on. Russell NEVER had to play with rosters that Wilt had in his first six seasons (and his 62-63 teammates were probably the worst in NBA history.)

Furthermore, there are those that look at Russell's 7-1 TEAM edge in the post-season against Wilt's TEAM's, and somehow believe that Russell dominated Wilt. The fact was, Wilt's TEAM's lost FOUR game seven's to Russell's TEAM's, by a TOTAL of NINE points. And two of those teams were vastly inferior to Russell's TEAM's ('62 and '65.) And, in the '64 Finals, Russell's Celtic's enjoyed a 7-2 edge in HOFers, too.

In their ten years in the league, Russell's Celtics had a SIGNIFICANT edge in talent in six of them. In their first six years, Russell's TEAM's had an edge in HOFers by 7-3, 7-3, 6-3, 8-1, 7-2, and 5-2 margins. In their last four years, when Chamberlain finally had quality supporting casts, Wilt's TEAM's all finished ahead of Russell's in the regular season. BUT, Russell STILL had an edge in HOF teammates EVERY year...as well as much deeper rosters.

Of course, there will be those that argue that Russell's TEAM's still beat Wilt's TEAM's, 3-1 in that span. First of all, Wilt's '66 76ers won their last 11 games to edge Russell's Celtics by ONE game. Boston was STILL the seven-time defending champs, as well, and once again, were much deeper. On top of that, Wilt averaged 28 ppg, 30 rpg, and shot .509 in the ECF's against Russell that year, but Chamberlain's teammates were AWFUL. Jackson shot .429; Walker shot .375; Jones shot .325; Greer shot .325; and Cunningham shot .161. So, CLEARLY, it was NOT Chamberlain's fault that his TEAM did not win the title that year.

How about the '67-68 season, then, when Wilt's TEAM ran roughshod over the NBA and outdistanced Boston by eight games...and then lost a game seven to Boston, by four points in the ECF's? Well, for those that may not have read this before...the Sixers played that entire series without HOFer Cunningham, who broke his wrist in the previous round. And, even without him, Philly still had a 3-1 series lead. However, in game five, BOTH Jackson and Jones suffered leg injuries, and were worthless the last three games. Even more devastasting, was that Chamberlain was injured in game THREE of that series, and was noticeably hobbled the REST of the series. Even Russell acknowledged that a lessor player would not have played. On top of all of that, in game seven, the Sixer players did NOT pass the ball to Chamberlain the second half of that game (he only TOUCHED the ball a handful of times in the entire second half), AND, they collectively shot 33%...in a four point loss.

How about the '68-69 season, then, when Wilt's Lakers had a 55-27 record, to Boston's 48-34...and STILL lost a game seven, by TWO points in the Finals to the Celts? I have documented that series MANY times, but here is a quick recap:

Boston players hit TWO miraculous game-winning shots in that seven game series. Wilt's TEAMMATE, Elgin Baylor did absolutely nothing in games three thru five ( a TOTAL of 24 points), and two of those games were close losses. And then there was Johnny Egan...who basically replaced HOFer Gail Goodrich from the year before. Had Egan not lost the ball in the waning moments of game four, when LA had the lead, and the ball, in a series that they led 2-1, the Lakers would have won that game four to go up 3-1. And after easily beating Boston in game five, 117-104, they would have won the title, 4-1. Instead, he lost the ball, and Sam Jones hit one of those two miraculous game-winners, at the buzzer, and while falling down. And finally, there was Chamberlain's incompetent coach...who had no idea how to use Wilt, but who preferred Baylor shooting blanks to Wilt's offense. The idiot even made the comment that while the Lakers would score when they passed the ball into Wily, the offense looked "ugly." Of course, his biggest gaffe was in leaving Wilt on the bench in the last five minutes of that game seven...a two-point loss. His excuse? Wilt's teammate, Mel Counts, was playing well in Chamberlain's absence. Hmmm...Chamberlain shot 7-8 from the floor in that game...while Counts shot 4-13. Had Wilt been lucky enough to have even Carrot-Top as his coach, the Lakers probably would have won the title.

All of which brings us to Wilt's 66-67 TEAM. That team romped to the best record in NBA history (at the time), and ran away from the 60-21 Celtics (one of Boston's best records during their Dynasty BTW), with a 68-13 record. In their H2H matchup in the ECF's, Chamberlain's TEAMMATES neutalized Russell's usual edge, and with Wilt just crushing Russell in EVERY facet of the game, the Sixers routed Boston, 4-1 (and had they not lost a close game four in Boston, they would have swept them.)

Now, for those that argue that Russell COULD have scored more against Wilt...why DIDN'T he in that '67 series? In fact, in the clinching game five loss, Russell scored FOUR points on 2-5 shooting...while Wilt poured in 29 points on 10-16 shooting. Furthermore, in the clinching game five loss of the '66 ECF's, when Chamberlain's TEAMMATES were just pathetic, Wilt put up a 46-34 game against Russell. If Russell were truly a better player than Wilt, why didn't he reciprocate in the '67 ECF's?

And, the really interesting fact about those '67 ECF's, was that Wilt dominated Russell in the SAME fashion that he did in nearly every H2H post-season series encounter. The difference, obviously, was that, for once, Wilt's TEAMMATES were just as good as Russell's, and they were healthy, as well. The fact was, Wilt routinely outscored Russell by HUGE margins in their post-season margins, as well as outrebounding Russell in EVERY H2H post-season series (and in some, by HUGE margins.) And, given the known FG% numbers in their 142 H2H games, Chamberlain probably outshot Russell in EVERY post-season series, and we do KNOW that he outshot him by a .556 to .358 margin in '67.

As I have stated many times now, Russell may have slightly outplayed Wilt in a small number of their 142 H2H games, but Wilt not only outplayed him in the vast majority of them, he absolutely buried him in some 40 of those games.

Now, hopefully that will give the readers here a little better perspective on the Russell-Wilt rivalry.

[QUOTE=jlauber]In the Russell-Wilt debate, people tend to overlook, or do not know, that Wilt was drafted in HIGH SCHOOL, and the year before his rookie season, his Warrior team finished in LAST PLACE.[/quote]

You tend to overlook why they finished in last place.

Do you need me to remind you or are you going to acknowledge the obvious reason and also point out that Wilt came to a team with 2 HOFers in their prime (same number as Russell did).

[QUOTE=Pointguard]
No. If Russell wanted to be GOAT he should have gotten to the gym and worked on his low post game. [/quote]

A lot of our disagree is over semantics, but this is where you lose me completely.

For Russell to be considered the greatest you believe he would have had to do something that he proved he didn't need to do for his team to win?

He should have not done what he did do, which always worked, and instead done something arbitrary to meet your standard?

All the other players whose weaknesses you listed cost them and their teams title's, Russell's did not. Only an injury and the Greatest Single Season performance by a player in NBA history did.

[QUOTE=Pointguard]Greatness comes to us when we are confident, proficient, creative, skilled, and resourceful with whatever instrument we use. Please, let me know of the exceptions. With a ball in his hand Russell is not the greatest ever.

IMO, He didn't even work toward that end.[/QUOTE]

Luckily for Russell, he figured out that as a center in the 1950's and 60's about 95% of the time he'd be playing the game without the ball in hand, I'd say he had the right approach.

ur a ****in dumb ass...Robert Horry has 7 rings....Is he better than shaq, duncan, jordan kobe??? gtfo with that logic... u must be no older than 12 years old.