Bill Russell vs. Wilt Chamberlain

[Kblaze8855]

What the hell is PER gonna say here? Ignoring the inaccuracy of the number to begin with....you dont even have all numbers from those days.

And as for Russell being lucky....

What did the Celtics do without him exactly? You show 4 guys in the top 20 in PER in 58.....Russell being one of them. They had 3 of them...and an additional all star in Ed Macauley in 55 and 56...pre Russell. Went 500 and won 3 playoff games one year and went 39-33 the next and won just one playoff game. What did all that PER do to help?

[CB4GOATPF]

Bill Russel is just a Dikembe Mutombo type of player. He just happened to win many rings because he was on a great team in a league with only 8 or less other teams. Can you imagine if today's Boston celtics played in a league agaisnt teams like Nets, New York, Minnesota, Thunders, Raptors and Warriors all year long? They would win 11 championships too.

Disagree that he was only Dikembe type player. Russel had Great Floor Defense, Stealer, Pick Pocketer etc...more like Garnett with a weaker offensive arsenal compared to Othe Great Centers. He was good passer too.

[JustinJDW]

Russell, because of his success and leadership. Individual stats can only get you so far. This is a team sport people.

[CB4GOATPF]

Russell, because of his success and leadership. Individual stats can only get you so far. This is a team sport people.

[B]That is why he won, HIS TEAM not Just Him. There where even some season where some of his temates had a Superior PER than Russell (although he was mostly their best player). He was blessed like no other Sports figure to Play Along Side SUPERSTARS THAT WHERE IN THEIR PRIME WHILE HE WAS IN HIS PRIME FOR OVER A DECADE.

Wilt was Better than Russell clearly as a player, he just didn

[ShaqAttack3234]

I'll go with Wilt. He could dominate a game at both ends. And starting in 1967, I cant think of one thing Russell did better than Chamberlain.

[G.O.A.T]

I cant think of one thing Russell did better than Chamberlain.

Than you're a fu[COLOR="Black"]c[/COLOR]king idiot. No two ways about it.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Than you're a fu[COLOR="Black"]c[/COLOR]king idiot. No two ways about it.

Says the moron who doesn't know the difference between than and then. What did Russell do better than Wilt in seasons like 1967 and 1972? Russell himself said that Wilt played his role better than he ever did.

[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.

Wilt was taller, stronger, faster, (not a quicker jumper however), more naturally skilled and as he'd tell you better looking.

Still Russell made every player better by a significant margin and absolutley dominated the NBA.

Celtics: 0 titles before Russell

They Win the title his first year and every series he plays in completely (except one vs. Philly in '67) for the next thirteen years.

Every player that was on the team when Russell entered the league was gone before he retired, he kept on winning.

The year after he retires ('70) they miss the playoffs.

The next year they miss the playoffs.

'72 Wilt and the Lakers who Russell owned, win their first title and set an NBA record for wins.

In '73 they win more games than anyone ever except the Lakers the year prior, they get upset before the Finals by New York. The Celtics lose a game seven for the first time in franchise history on their home floor.

They win titles in '74 and '76 two of the three most diluted talent pool seasons in NBA history. The '76 team is widely considered by Boston fans their worst title team.

Important to note the one constant piece in all this for Boston is Red Auerbach who claimed that without Russell the Celtics would have never won a single title.

Here's the bottom line:

Russell is the single greatest winner in the history of Sports and the argument against him is for a guy he consistently whooped regardless of who had the better supporting cast.

Even worse it's based on stats which Wilt cared about more than anything and Russell less than anything.

It's like you've all (who pick Wilt) have been proven wrong by history and are still dumb enough to fall for it again.

It's not like it's close here folks, or that they played in different eras, or different positions, or that one guy had more talented team mates than the other.

Wilt was traded twice. If he was a better player than the guy that 11 Championships were built around, why would anyone trade him?

Ask yourself that, what GM is so fu[COLOR="Black"]c[/COLOR]king dumb that he trades someone as good as Wilt.

Why does Auerbach say he would have never coached Wilt if he was better than Russell.

Why does almost everyone who played with or against the two pick Russell?

Why? Why? Why?

[G.O.A.T]

You're right I am a fu[COLOR="Black"]c[/COLOR]king idi[COLOR="Black"]o[/COLOR]t. Sorry, I'll check myself next time.

Finally we agree on something.

[EricForman]

Wilt he was the Better Player in almost Every Aspect of the Game but Foor Defense.

Russell was lucky to play with Superior Teamates throughout his career

bill simmons book easily debunks this theory.

there have been so many anti-wilt comments made by former teammates and opponents (as oppose to russell, whom everyone speaks highly of) that alone should end the debate.

wilt's "i can't foul out of a game" rule (that he imposed on himself) was so stupid he actually avoided contact after he had his 5th foul. think about this for a second--how much did he hurt his team by keeping this foolish record? he put his stats and records over his team always.

there is no argument for wilt over russell what so ever.

[G.O.A.T]

bill simmons book easily debunks this theory.

there have been so many anti-wilt comments made by former teammates and opponents (as oppose to russell, whom everyone speaks highly of) that alone should end the debate.

wilt's "never foul out" rule was so stupid he actually avoided contact after he had his 5th foul. he put his stats and records over his team always.

there is no argument for wilt over russell waht so ever.

Thank you for educating yourself and listening to those smarter (or at least more informed) than you. And as your usernames father would say (to those about to make a predictably misguided retort) "Not Bill Simmons dumbass"

[ShaqAttack3234]

Finally we agree on something.

And you're how old, moron? That has to be the most childish thing you can do. Editing my posts. Seriously, what purpose does that even serve?

The funny thing is that your entire argument for Russell over Chamberlain is based on TEAM success. Russell was on a GREAT team. Team success only goes so far when comparing individual players.

And it's funny how you say that he made every player better by a significant margin. How do you have any way of knowing that? In fact John Havlicek had his best seasons after Russell retired, Bob Cousy was already Bob Cousy before Russell entered the league and most of the other key players( Sam Jones, Tom Heinsohn ect.) played their entire careers with Russell so it's impossible to know how much better Russell made them.

These guys were great players in their own right. Lets not act like you could put any 4 scrubs next to Russell and they'd win a title. In fact I'd bet on Chamberlain taking a team of scrubs farther because unlike Russell, he could carry a team offensively.

When Wilt played on stacked teams he had some pretty amazing success in his own right. 68-13 record and a title in '67, 62 wins and a game 7 loss in the Eastern Division Finals in '68 with Billy Cunningham injured and a 69-13 record, NBA championship and a record 33 game winning streak. That's also excluding another 60 win season and three other finals appearances.

You want to hear something amazing? In '67, Wilt's 76ers broke the record for most wins in a season and 5 years his Lakers broke that record while setting a record winning streak that still stands today.

And as far as Wilt being traded? Wilt demanded the second trade and the first trade was more because of off the court issues.

Go watch all of the footage available of Wilt and Russell and then tell me that Russell dominated games like Chamberlain did.

[plowking]

Wilt is the most insecure individual to ever step on the court. He could not praise another man without bringing him down. Even when speaking on Russel, the guy who constantly whooped his ass, he would say, that he could do it better if in that position.

[Abraham Lincoln]

Wilt is the most insecure individual to ever step on the court. He could not praise another man without bringing him down. Even when speaking on Russel, the guy who constantly whooped his ass, he would say, that he could do it better if in that position.

His creedence differed over the course of time.


At 2:00 mark below

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTMfGVjfwbM





and two decades later at 1:22 mark below

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2CqQ4x3klT4




Part of the great Celtics dynasty goes to Red as well, for the greatest duo in league history Russell & Red had a relationship like few player/coaches have ever had in sport. Russell came into a great situation, & milked it for all it was worth whilst doing exactly what was needed to achieve the goal, beit no more no less. Chamberlain did not have the same sort of stability on a team until his 2nd go round with Coach Hannum in Philadelphia. Indeed they should have been a dynasty if not for a number of circumstances. Earlier in his career, the Warriors were struggling financially therefore encouraging Chamberlain to average as spectacular numbers as be possible.

Chamberlain's problem was not his ego, but rather his psychological versatility. He may very well have had some unknown problems. He was not a natural leader, nor was he a silent willing follower. All prior to the drill seargant Alex Hannum & later on the patient teacher Bill Sharman.

However, Russell vs. Chamberlain vs. O'Neal vs. Abdul-Jabbar is a matter of preference in what the evaluator puts the most stock into. Part of the reason why Russell has been disrespected on various boards be the lack of understanding the player evaluation process. Judge a player by how well he completes HIS objective's, not how well he completes the evaluator's creedence of his objective. "Better to understand than to be understood." Despite the numbers, championships, etc, the wise man prefers to value players based on single season play. And Wilt in '67 was in my opinion the most dominant anybody has ever been. Right next to such other legendary center years as '00 O'Neal, '62 Russell, '71 Alcindor, '94 Olajuwon, & '83 Malone.

[Psileas]

Russell was, among else, the greatest winner, defender, one of the greatest passers among big men and arguably also the greatest rebounder ever. Is this enough to put him over Wilt? Well, for one, it strikes me as curious and hypocritical that there are so many people who rank him above Wilt due to these values and yet almost nobody ranks him as the GOAT overall player, because when it comes to the Russell vs Jordan/Kareem discussions, then all this stuff suddenly takes the back seat and arise the matters of his HOF teammates, his mediocre scoring and shooting percentages and so on.

I myself rank these qualities pretty high, and that's why I'm not among the ones who rank Shaq or Hakeem ahead of Russell, but to take him over Wilt?

Someone posted before that Wilt outscored and outrebounded Russell in all their R.S + playoff series. That's true. Here are the numbers (points + rebounds):

1960 R.S

Wilt: 39.1/29.7
Russell: 19.8/23.7

1960 P.O

Wilt: 30.5/27.5
Russell: 20.7/27.0

1961 R.S

Wilt: 35.5/31.4
Russell: 18.8/25.9

1962 R.S

Wilt: 39.7/28.8
Russell: 18.5/24.6

1962 P.O

Wilt: 33.6/26.9
Russell: 22.0/25.9

1963 R.S

Wilt: 38.1/28.9
Russell: 14.6/27.8

1964 R.S

Wilt: 28.7/26.0
Russell: 14.1/24.3

1964 P.O

Wilt: 29.2/27.6
Russell: 11.2/25.2

1965 R.S

Wilt: 25.3/26.5
Russell: 12.6/22.2

1965 P.O

Wilt: 30.1/31.4
Russell: 15.6/25.3

1966 R.S

Wilt: 28.3/30.7
Russell: 10.5/20.5

1966 P.O

Wilt: 28.0/30.2
Russell: 14.0/26.2

1967 R.S

Wilt: 20.3/26.7
Russell: 12.2/21.1

1967 P.O

Wilt: 21.6/32.0 (also 10.0 apg and more than 6 bpg)
Russell: 11.4/23.4

1968 R.S

Wilt: 17.1/26.1
Russell: 7.8/17.5

1968 P.O

Wilt: 22.1/25.1
Russell: 13.7/23.9

1969 R.S

Wilt: 16.3/24.0
Russell: 6.7/17.0

1969 P.O

Wilt: 11.7/25.0 (Wilt's worst series against Russell)
Russell: 9.1/21.1

Honestly, if the playoff series wins were split (let alone in Wilt's favor) is there anyone at all who would even consider taking Russell?

Moving one step further and responding to the argument that Wilt also had great teammates after the early 60's, here are some lines of the two in selected games that Boston won:


Wilt: 29/26, Russell: 3/27, with 0 FGM (1966)
Wilt: 46/34, Russell: 18/31 (1966 playoffs)
Wilt: 30/28, Russell: 10/29 (1967)
Wilt: 26/23, Russell: 4/26 (1967)
Wilt: 28/30, Russell: 8/24 (1968 playoffs)
Wilt: 35/19, Russell 5/16 (1969),

and these are seasons when Wilt had good teammates (I won't even mention some even more impressive lines by Wilt in older games that Boston won). Did he dominate the ball too much and trusted his teammates too little? Not really. That Wilt was a damn good passer, as well, posting 5+ apg in 4 different seasons.

Maybe it could be that, apart from the known blames of Wilt's playoff failures (and some mediocre, for his level, games), his otherwise "great" teammates didn't exactly do much to raise to the occasion, either:

Billy Cunningham was one of the best rookies of the 1966 season. Then, he completely blew it in the playoffs. Hal Greer, a 44.5% FG shooter, dove to 35.2% against the Celtics (and his overall scoring went way down, as well). Chet Walker, a 45.2% FG shooter, went 37.5% in that series. These guys sucked way more than Wilt did, yet nobody remembers this. Add to this an inexperienced coach (Schayes) who never managed to even begin controling the egos of his players and his career practically was over before it even began (compare this to Russell having arguably the GOAT coach) and you have a recipe for disaster.
Ironically, the game when Wilt trusted his teammates more than any other time (7th ECF in 1968) was also a game for which Wilt takes almost all the blame, and was another game when his teammates flopped badly. Because, if Greer, Jones and Walker could hit just a respectable % of their FG's instead of once against being in the low-mid 30's, the Sixers would be the NBA Finalists (and probably champions, as well) and nobody would now know that Wilt barely even shot in that second half. Instead, he might very well have a 3rd ring, increasing his GOAT case among fans.
1969? It was Wilt's least productive series against Russell. Also, it was Baylor's least productive series against the Celtics, as well, and Baylor actually played even worse. If Wilt couldn't do a bit more (while guarded by Russell), why couldn't Baylor? It could be enough to give the Lakers the ring, which would increase Wilt's resume even more. Wilt, with 3 rings in a row (and 4 overall, along with 1972) would now be considered as having solved the Celtics' mystique and a legit winner, while doing nothing more than he did. All it takes would be a little more help from some teammates who are now simply branded "too good to lose a title with them". Just like it took a little more help from Jordan's teammates and a great coach to earn him rings in the 90's, despite Jordan not being really better individually in his title seasons than, say, the 1988-90 ones, so we don't have strange debates like "who was greater, Jordan or Isiah Thomas".
(Baylor, btw, also had an equally mediocre 1970 Finals series, and Wilt in both series took a low number of FGA's, so it's not as if their roles collided).