Bill Russell vs. Wilt Chamberlain

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

[/quote]

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

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

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

[quote]

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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




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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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



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



So at the end of the day


Russell joins

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


Wilt Joins

2 HOFs
Non-Playoff Team






No comparison.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That

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

Russell pooped on Wilt.

kobe

[QUOTE=GP_20]Great Post Psileas :applause:


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

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





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

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

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

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