Felton vs. Norman (The Chamberlain\Russell Thread)

[URL="http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/centurys_best/news/1999/05/06/russell/"]May 10, 1999[/URL]

[IMG]http://i40.tinypic.com/2zg69ew.jpg[/IMG][I]


'When it comes to rating basketball players, I never put myself into that mix, ever -- I never have. And the reason for that is I decided early in my career the only really important thing is to win the games. I wanted my career to be such that people would say, [/I][I]He won championships, and that's a historical fact, that's not anyone's opinion. I think Oscar Robertson, Wilt Chamberlain, Bob Pettit, Elgin Baylor, Larry Bird, Magic Johnson, Michael Jordan -- all these guys, I call it a tie, in that there's no one any better than these guys, and all these guys were as good as anyone could be. Because you can't say -- or at least I wouldn't say -- that one guy's better. The only way you can make any kind of judgment is how much they dominate their contemporaries. There are maybe half a dozen good centers in the league. But they'll play each other and won't guard each other. When Wilt [Chamberlain] was young, if they'd have told him he couldn't guard me, they probably would've had to arrest him for assault! [Laughs.] To his coach!

Like I say, I think Shaq's very good, to start with. There is no prototype for a good player, at his position. What his talent is, he uses it quite well. Here's what I mean: They'll take a stat and say, As long as he's doing this, he's not a great player. So you go back 10, 12 years, Magic Johnson was at his heyday, and their marketing gimmick was his triple-doubles. This is the standard. And they still talk about guys' double-doubles now. It's starting to sound like baseball, with all the stats! [Laughs.] So now you can say the standard for a guard is the triple-double. Last year, the No. 1 guard in the league, Michael Jordan, I think he had one triple-double. So then that stat doesn't hold up, does it? So when a guy starts to tell me about these numbers, I know right away he doesn't know what he's talking about. Because every player develops his own key stats. [/I][I]His stats will determine how well [/I][I]he's playing, but his key stats may not compare to the guy before or anybody else.

[/I][I]Like when I was playing, one of the stats that no one talked about is that I averaged about five assists a game. But the offense was not centered around me; offensively, I was not what you'd call a dominant center. I could play high post and low post -- from the high post I did passing, from the low post I did shooting. And so a guy will develop his own stats as his career goes. Basically to me two things have happened: First, people try to predict who's going to win. So much so now that it becomes bigger than the game. I always liked to wait and watch the game! [Laughs.] [/I]
[I]
You know they [the Orlando Magic] did go -- although they got swept -- to the Finals. To me, it is not a bad year if you're in the Finals. I was almost appalled by the way they talked about the Buffalo Bills losing four straight Super Bowls. Getting into four straight Super Bowls itself is quite an accomplishment. That's like a writer saying you're not a good writer unless you win a Pulitzer. So if you write for 10 years and don't ever get a Pulitzer, you're a loser? That dog won't hunt. [Laughs.]'[/I]

[I]

[QUOTE=alexandreben][I]

[QUOTE]KAJ and Jerry West[/QUOTE]

He must have neglected to mention them.

From 1989:

[I][SIZE="2"] Almost immediately Russell was thrown into personal conflict with the awesome 7'1" 275 pound Wilt Chamberlain when he later entered the NBA in 1959. It was offense vs. defense, differing styles, a clash of strong personalities, a natural rivalry that delighted fans.
Chamberlain managed to outscore Russell in their personal confrontations but it was usually Russell's team that came out on top. In the 10 years Russell and Chamberlain stalked each other the Celtics won the NBA Championship nine times and held an 84-57 edge over Chamberlain's, Philadelphia, San Fransisco and Los Angeles teams.
This was frustrating for the hulking Wilt the Stilt who rationalized "I outscored him in head-to-head meetings 440-212 out-rebounded him 333-161 and even blocked more of his shots than he did of mine."
Russell countered: "Only the first year against Wilt was a challenge. Then it became clear that he was great - but I was better."
[/SIZE][/I]

[I]"What fun is it to discuss Bill Russell without mentioning his rivalry with Wilt Chamberlain? Yes, basketball is a team game, but within that context, Russell and Chamberlain were the most celebrated individual rivalry in the history of the sport.

More fuel was dumped on the fire in the fall of 1967 whe harve Pollack, a 76ers executive who was the public relations man for both the Philly Warriors and the 76ers ffor most of the past 42 years, issued the definitive statistical comparison of the rivalry in his 76ers press guide. Harvey's numbers revealed that Chamberlain outscored ad outrebounded Russell. According to Harvey that settles it. Chamberlain was a better plyer than Russell.

Harvey is wrong.

Russell had much more intensity than Wilt and skills better suited to playing basketball. Russell made us all better players. Wilt, in my opinion, had the opposite effect on teams. Wilt was such an individualistic plyer that, rather than help his teammates, he would often generate petty jealousies. Teammates were told to wait until Wilt came downcourt, to get it inside to Wilt etc, rather than look for their own scoring opportunities. There was resentment on the part of the other players who thought they shot better than Wilt or had talents that weren't being exploited. It was just the opposite with Russell because he took care of himself only after helping us out. We didn' have to take care of him.

There's a postscript to this. The question has oftenbeen asked, "What would have happened to the Celtics if Wilt had played for them instead of Russell?" First, it's never clear if Russell is to be factored into this equation by playing for another team against the Celtics. Let's say he isn't. We can assume te Celtics would have won something with Wilt. If Wilt had been surrounded by our talent we would have won some Championships. Wheter that number would have been three, four, five or six is anybody's guess. But it defintley would not have been eleven of thirteen.

I know it's difficult for some people to comprehend how you can say a guy who was capable of scoring 50 points a game for an entire season and 100 points in a single game, isn't better tha Bill Russell who never scored 40 points in an NBA game.

You've got to understand the game. The Chemistry we had with Russell as a running team would not have been there with Chamberlain. I would not have waited for Wilt to gt set up so we could pass him the ball. I wouldn't have cared if he could score 100 points every game.

Maybe you had to see Wilt and Russ play against each other to understand the difference. The fact is that Wilt was bigger and stronger, and could take it to the basket t will-except against us. Russell intimidated him. Wilt ca say what he wants, but I used to watch Wilt muscle in against everyone else, but not against Russell. He would never do tha. That's how his fadeaway jump shot was born. Russell forced Wilt to develop that shot.

In our games, Russ's strategy was simple: Force Wilt just a little bit on the sides so he couldn't muscle in with a spin move, using one or no dribbles. If Wilt got Russ under the basket, he could, in fact, overpower him.

The psychology between them was fascinating. Russ would dig in from the start. He didn't have to be told the importance of this rivalry. Wil would get his offensive rebounds and power stuff, an once in a while make an individual move, but Russ wouldn't let him sustain it. He might even do it for a game, nd maybe he'd do it with the fadeaway, but there was no way he would be Russ over a period of time using the fadeaway as his basic weapon.

Wilt was a paradox. Becausehe was so effective, coaches wantd him to score 40 points a game or more. But he still had to play with four other people. Wilt was a complete individualist, but you ca't use that as an excuse. I don't think Wilt ever understood that basketball is a team sport and unless all five players participate, you can't win. One year Wilt averaged 50 points a game, by the end of his career all he did was pass. He never seemed to catch on.

Basketball is a true team sport. The success of the whole is predicated on all five individuals reacting to one another, as opposed to one guy hitting eighty-eight home runs and the others tagging along. Wilt's incessant search for individual records wheter it was scoring, rebounding, or assists, indicates to me that he never really understood how the game should be played to win those championships he always talked about.

That brings us to the fact that Russell was the catalyst for our teams. He molded the team and made the talents blend. We had out share of letdowns and mood swings, although probably not as many as teams have today. One reason we had fewer than ayone, I am sure, was the nature of Bill Russell' game. I suspect it caused us to overachieve more than the Philadelphia players.

None of this may make any sense to Wilt. He has the numbers for now. Russell will always have the rings. It was no accident."[/I]

Gonna bump this. Above is Bob Cousy's take on the debate.

All kinds of gems in this thread.

[FONT="Comic Sans MS"]"Had Wilt been surrounded by the playing cast that Russell was with the Boston Celtics and had he had a Red Auerbach as coach, his team might have won all those championships."

John Wooden[/FONT]

[QUOTE=jlauber][FONT="Comic Sans MS"]"Had Wilt been surrounded by the playing cast that Russell was with the Boston Celtics and had he had a Red Auerbach as coach, his team [B]might [/B]have won all those championships."

John Wooden[/FONT][/QUOTE]
nobody knows.

[QUOTE=jlauber][FONT="Comic Sans MS"]"Had Wilt been surrounded by the playing cast that Russell was with the Boston Celtics and had he had a Red Auerbach as coach, his team might have won all those championships."

John Wooden[/FONT][/QUOTE]

And Cousy, Auerbach, Russell, Havlicek, Heinsohn, both Jones boys and Sharman (who coached Wilt) are all on the record saying it wouldn't be 11 of 13) (Satch pretty muchh says it too, but not directly so I excluded him)


So you can take their no ways...

or the "might" of a great coach who hardly ever saw them play.

[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]And Cousy, Auerbach, Russell, Havlicek, Heinsohn, both Jones boys and Sharman (who coached Wilt) are all on the record saying it wouldn't be 11 of 13) (Satch pretty muchh says it too, but not directly so I excluded him)


So you can take their no ways...

or the "might" of a great coach who hardly ever saw them play.[/QUOTE]

Who really knows? Wilt, himself, said that Russell probably blended better with his teammates than he (Chamberlain) would have. Still, I am convinced that Wilt would have won around a minimum of seven titles had the two swapped rosters in their ten H2H seasons.

Furthermore, I have often wondered how many titles Wilt would have won had he had his Sixers roster for 10+ years. (I know...he only won one title with that group, in three full seasons, but in '68 that roster was DECIMATED by injuries.)

with the same roster he had, Wild could have won 5 more rings. if i remember correctly he had 5 game 7s decided by a total of 9 points, all against him. thats bad luck. no need for Cousy, Jones or Havlicek on his team, just the basketball god.
:pimp:

[QUOTE=L.A. Jazz]with the same roster he had, Wild could have won 5 more rings. if i remember correctly he had 5 game 7s decided by a total of 9 points, all against him. thats bad luck. no need for Cousy, Jones or Havlicek on his team, just the basketball god.
:pimp:[/QUOTE]

Close. He had four game seven's against Russell, in which his team's lost by 2, 1, 4, and 2 points. And in the '70 Finals, his Lakers lost a game seven to the Knicks, but by even the account of NY TIMES writer Leonard Koppett, the refs handed NY game five...so Wilt's game six of 45 points and 27 rebounds should have been the clincher.

And I have documented the SEVERAL "excuses" that Wilt's TEAMs had in those close series' losses, as well.

In any case, for those that question my ranking of Chamberlain (at anywhere from 1-4) because of "only" two rings...it must be put in proper perspective. He was an EYELASH away from winning as many as FIVE more. It was not as if his team's were getting blown out in the first round of the playoffs, or because Wilt played poorly or was outplayed (which almost never happened BTW.)

I've been reading this thread for the last hour and it saddens me how many people overlook Russell's talent and ability.

Sure, he didn't put up gaudy scoring numbers like Wilt Chamberlain.

Sure, he wasn't a 7 foot giant like Kareem or Shaq.

But the aim of basketball is to win games (and championships), and nobody did that better than Russell.

He's a winner, a leader, an inspiration, an enforcer, a legend.

He's the best center ever.