Why do people criticize Wilt Chamberlain for "only" winning two championships?

[fpliii]

You know its true.

Saying Russell > Wilt is like saying Eli > Peyton or Fisher > Kidd.


Russell was a worse player on a better team. It's that simple.

I respect your opinion but disagree. Russell's teams won on the backbones of their defenses. Here are the ORtg/DRtg numbers relative to league averages:

[CODE]Team O D pO pD
57 BOS -0% 6% -0% 6%
58 BOS -1% 6% -2% 8%
59 BOS 0% 6% -1% 10%
60 BOS 2% 6% -2% 10%
61 BOS -3% 8% 2% 10%
62 BOS -0% 9% -3% 9%
63 BOS -2% 9% -4% 8%
64 BOS -4% 12% -4% 15%
65 BOS -3% 11% -4% 11%
66 BOS -3% 8% 3% 5%
67 BOS 2% 5% -7% 9%
68 BOS -1% 5% 2% 4%
69 BOS -2% 7% 4% 6%[/CODE]

First two are regular season, final two are playoffs. Higher positive number is better.

The offenses were mediocre at best, and other than Russ, who was a great defender on those teams?

I can understand if you think Wilt or whoever else was better (though I'd disagree), but Russ wasn't a markedly lesser player than any of those dudes.

[NumberSix]

I respect your opinion but disagree. Russell's teams won on the backbones of their defenses. Here are the ORtg/DRtg numbers relative to league averages:

[CODE]Team O D pO pD
57 BOS -0% 6% -0% 6%
58 BOS -1% 6% -2% 8%
59 BOS 0% 6% -1% 10%
60 BOS 2% 6% -2% 10%
61 BOS -3% 8% 2% 10%
62 BOS -0% 9% -3% 9%
63 BOS -2% 9% -4% 8%
64 BOS -4% 12% -4% 15%
65 BOS -3% 11% -4% 11%
66 BOS -3% 8% 3% 5%
67 BOS 2% 5% -7% 9%
68 BOS -1% 5% 2% 4%
69 BOS -2% 7% 4% 6%[/CODE]

First two are regular season, final two are playoffs. Higher positive number is better.

The offenses were mediocre at best, and other than Russ, who was a great defender on those teams?

I can understand if you think Wilt or whoever else was better (though I'd disagree), but Russ wasn't a markedly lesser player than any of those dudes.

With Wilt, the Celtics would be better offensively and even better on defense.

[DatAsh]

No. It's a team sport and Wilt happened to play in an era where the game was in its early stages. There were only 8 teams and the disparity between the Celtics and every other team was too much for any 1 player to make up. It's the same story in every major sport. Whether it's the Canadiens, packers or the Yankees, there's always 1 team that dominates the early years of a sport. It's not a coincidence. It's not like today where millions upon millions of people try to be good enough to be pros. Everybody and their momma wasn't busting their ass to make $8 a game as a pro athlete. 95% of the players in that era legitimately couldn't make today's D-League.

If you put prime LeBron James or Kevin Durant on the Current Syracuse team, they're not going to be able to win a series against the worst NBA teams.

The celtics didn't need Russell to win 11 championships. They just needed any one of the better centers of the era. They would have won just as much with Walt Belamy.

Wilt's career path was similar to other greats though. He spent the first half of his career on very bad to mediocre teams, and then spent the last 6 years with great to all time great teams. Most of those years his supporting cast was better than anyone's, including Russell's. The careers of guys like Jordan and Lebron were very similar to Wilt's in that sense. He didn't have good teams from the get go ala Russell, Magic, Bird, Kobe, Duncan, but he wasn't unfortunate in the average sense.

[CavaliersFTW]

Wilt's career path was similar to other greats though. He spent the first half of his career on very bad to mediocre teams, and then spent the last 6 years with great to all time great teams. Most of those years his supporting cast was better than anyone's, including Russell's. The careers of guys like Jordan and Lebron were very similar to Wilt's in that sense. He didn't have good teams from the get go ala Russell, Magic, Bird, Kobe, Duncan, but he wasn't unfortunate in the average sense.

Starting talent sure, but not necessarily true when benches and depth come into question. Even the teams in the 2nd half of his career, though usually equipped with a good starting 5, had little to nobody else after that, which is a contrast to Russell's teams which at times (like in '67, '68 or '69) may not have had a starting line up as solid, but did in fact have more depth throughout their 2nd unit. The Celtics could lose starters and still run all their plays and be able to perform at a high level, '68 Sixers for example, didn't seem to have as much luck. If someone went down there was a bigger void.

[Deuce Bigalow]

It's not a nice compliment, being Jlauber means that you're a lonely old fart with a bastard child and a fat wife. Being Jlauber means that you're obsessed with someone you never met, someone you never saw in action and someone who had no clue about your existence while living.

You are dedicating you life to writing bogus lies and obsession like posts without gaining anything.

I **** your wife, your son and yourself in the mouth.

That's pretty gay dude.

[Asukal]

What is so hard to understand? All that dominance and only two? Wilt stans...

[DatAsh]

I respect your opinion but disagree. Russell's teams won on the backbones of their defenses. Here are the ORtg/DRtg numbers relative to league averages:

[CODE]Team O D pO pD
57 BOS -0% 6% -0% 6%
58 BOS -1% 6% -2% 8%
59 BOS 0% 6% -1% 10%
60 BOS 2% 6% -2% 10%
61 BOS -3% 8% 2% 10%
62 BOS -0% 9% -3% 9%
63 BOS -2% 9% -4% 8%
64 BOS -4% 12% -4% 15%
65 BOS -3% 11% -4% 11%
66 BOS -3% 8% 3% 5%
67 BOS 2% 5% -7% 9%
68 BOS -1% 5% 2% 4%
69 BOS -2% 7% 4% 6%[/CODE]

First two are regular season, final two are playoffs. Higher positive number is better.

The offenses were mediocre at best, and other than Russ, who was a great defender on those teams?

I can understand if you think Wilt or whoever else was better (though I'd disagree), but Russ wasn't a markedly lesser player than any of those dudes.

Russell being carried by Cousy, Havlicek, Jones, ect.

Seriously though, those numbers are a virtual perfect bell-curve coinciding with Russell's pre-prime, prime, peak, and decline. The evidence of Russell's defensive impact is there

[CODE]
Bos Def Rank
56 (6/8)
[COLOR="Red"]57 (1/8)
58 (1/8)
59 (1/8)
60 (1/8)
61 (1/8)
62 (1/9)
63 (1/9)
64 (1/9)
65 (1/9)
66 (1/9)
67 (1/10)
68 (2/12)
69 (1/14)[/COLOR]
70 (8/14)
[/CODE]

Years in red are with Russell, years in black are pre/post Russell. Sadly people only seem to care about statistics that involve ppg/rpg/apg, despite the fact that:
1. Defense has proven itself to be far more valuable than offense over the years
2. Big men have traditionally had a much bigger impact on the defensive end than they have had on the offensive end. Even Wilt - one of the best offensive centers ever - was arguably having his biggest impact on defense.

Biggest problem is people aren't looking to learn, they're looking to reaffirm their beliefs.

[DatAsh]

Starting talent sure, but not necessarily true when benches and depth come into question. Even the teams in the 2nd half of his career, though usually equipped with a good starting 5, had little to nobody else after that, which is a contrast to Russell's teams which at times (like in '67, '68 or '69) may not have had a starting line up as solid, but did in fact have more depth throughout their 2nd unit. The Celtics could lose starters and still run all their plays and be able to perform at a high level, '68 Sixers for example, didn't seem to have as much luck. If someone went down there was a bigger void.

I pretty much agree. From 66 on, I see Wilt as the better player playing with the better players. The fact that Russell still beat him 3 of those 4 years was a combination of bad luck on Wilt's part - for reason's you hinted at, as well as others - and Russell and the Celtics playing better than they really were in the playoffs.

[LAZERUSS]

Since I posted this in the wrong discussion...here is where it should have been...

Basketball is a TEAM sport. And it usually involves TEN players on each team. And then there is the coaching factor, as well.

If every "GOAT" player started out every season with the same exact roster, and barring injuries, then there would be no question as to the best "winner" really was.

But that scenario does not exist.

Regarding the Russell-Chamberlain debates...

we do KNOW that Russell had better, to much better supporting casts, almost every season in their ten years in the league together. And he CERTAINLY had better rosters in Chamberlain's first six seasons.

In Russell's last four seasons,

65-66. While Wilt's team won their last 11 regular season games, to edge out Boston by a game, the reality was, the Celtics were resting their starters, and were only interested in winning a title. In fact, Russell missed two games, Siegfried missed nine, Sanders missed eight, Havlicek missed nine, and Sam Jones missed 13. ALL were healthy for the playoffs.

And here is another interesting point about that season. Chamberlain's Sixers went 6-3 against the Celtics during the regular season. During the course of those nine games, Wilt averaged 28.3 ppg, 30.7 rpg, 3.7 apg, and shot .521 against Russell.

In the EDF's, Boston cruised to a 4-1 romp over the Sixers. Obviously Wilt must have had a dramatic decline, right? In the EDF's, Wilt averaged 28.0 ppg, 30.2 rpg, 3.2 apg, and shot .509 from the field (and yes, the Wilt-bashers will jump up and say...see, he did decline.) What happened then? Wilt's TEAMMATES, the same TEAMMATES that he led to a 6-3 regular season series win over Boston...collectively shot .352 from the field. Meanwhile, Havlicek and Sam Jones just exploded, each scoring 25 ppg.

I just don't see how anyone could blame Wilt, at all, for that series loss.


68-69. The Wilt-bashers love to point this H2H out. They will claim that Wilt was traded to a Laker team and formed a Super Team. Meanwhile, they will continue to argue, Russell's dynasty was on it's last legs. How in the hell did Wilt allow Boston to come back from 2-0, and then 3-2 series' deficits?

The reality was, that Laker team had lost THREE key players from the season before, and Wilt was basically asked to replace 42 ppg and 18 rpg. What's more, in the previous season, Jerry West missed 31 games, but their two other guards, all-star Archie Clark, and future HOFer Gail Goodrich, picked up the slack, and LA went 19-12 in West's absence. Again, both were gone in 68-69, and their only real replacement...journeyman Johnny Egan, who would provide very little, and then his gaffe in game four probably cost the Lakers a 4-1 series romp.

The gaffe? LA was leading the series, 2-1, and leading late in game four, 88-87, with only a few seconds remaining. Furthermore, they had the ball, too. However, instead of putting the ball in West's hands, their incompetent coach had Egan handling it. And, of course, Egan was stripped, and then Sam Jones, while falling down, hit the buzz-beating game-winner. Given the fact that LA easily beat Boston in game five, and that ONE PLAY probably cost the Lakers a 4-1 series win.

Furthermore, that "old" Celtic team was MUCH deeper than the Lakers. They could go TEN deep. just how deep was their roster? In a game seven, none other than Em Bryant (who?) scored 20 points.

Of course the main two reasons that the Lakers lost that series were shared equally by Elgin Baylor, and their coach, Butch van Breda Kolff. In fact, you could argue that despite Baylor's horrific series, it was more VBK's fault, simply because he continued to allow Baylor to fire blanks. All series long.

In three of LA's losses in that series, Baylor shot 4-18, 2-14, and 8-22 from the field (and he also shot 4-13 in a win.) In that game four loss, one point loss, Baylor shot 2-14 from the field, and 1-6 from the line.

Now, the Wilt-bashers will also claim that Wilt only scored 12 ppg in that series. Yes, this was truly Chamberlain's worst playoff series of his entire career. But again, his COACH severely shackled him in the playoffs, while allowing Baylor to shot-jack bricks in every game. Baylor shot .385 in that post-season, while Wilt shot .545.

But, just watch footage of the 4th quarter of game seven. Early in the period, Wilt gets Russell to pick up his fifth foul. The Lakers go right back to Chamberlain, and he goes right around the matador defense of Russell for an easy layin. It would be the last time Wilt would touch the ball down low. So, instead of milking that play the rest of the game, VBK had Baylor and West taking all the shots down the stretch.

Of course, Wilt was injured with six minutes left, and had to come out. However, before he came up lame, his Lakers had staged a furious rally against a Celtic team now running on fumes. They had cut a 17 point deficit down to seven in a span of four minutes.

After a couple of minutes, Chamberlain asked to go back in. VBK refused, and with Wilt's substitute, the great f@@king Mel Counts, choking twice down the stretch (and shooting 4-13 for the game), the Lakers lost by two points (on yet another miracle shot by Don Nelson.)

So, for those Wilt-bashers that claim that Wilt had West playing a maginificent series, which he did, and they still lost...well, what does that tell you about that VBK strategy???? Maybe, just maybe having the greatest post player in NBA playing the low post, and getting touches down low, instead of having him play a useless high post, ...maybe, just maybe, LA might have won that series.

In any case, while Wilt did not play well in that Finals, he still outplayed Russell. And in that game seven, Wilt outscored Russell, 18-6, outshot Russell from the field, 7-8 to 2-7, and outrebounded Russell, 27-21...all while playing 5 minutes less. Oh, and take away both Wilt's and Russell's FG/FGAs in that game, and Russell's teammates outshot Wilt's teammates from the field by a .477 to .360 margin...in a two point win.


Continued...

[LAZERUSS]

And...

Continuing...

67-68. The Wilt-bashers, at least those that have never actually done any research on that particular season, will blurt out, "Aha, Wilt with a better team, STILL lost against Russell! In fact, Wilt choked away a 3-1 series lead!"

True, Chamberlain's roster was at least the equal of Russell's...at least during the regular season. But the roster that just blew away the NBA during that regular season (and running away with the best record in the league by eight games), was NOT the same roster that would eventually lose a game seven by four points.

The Sixers lost HOFer Billy Cunningham to a broken wrist in the first round of the playoffs. More importantly, Wilt, himself, was nursing an assortment of injuries, including a tear in his calf. How bad were those injuries. Recaps had Wilt NOTICEABLY LIMPING throughout that series.

Still, the Sixers forged a 3-1 series lead. Even without Cunningham, and even with an injured Wilt, they were on the verge of duplicating their 4-1 series romp over Boston from the previous EDF's in '67.

And this injured Wilt certainly did his part in that game five, too. He just crushed Russell...outscoring him, 28-8, outrebounding him, 30-24, outassisting him 7-4, and outshooting him from the field, 11-21 to 4-10. BUT, two key starters, on an already thin roster, Luke Jackson and Wali Jones, both went down with leg injuries, and both were worthless the rest of the series.

Philly lost game that game five. But again, had Wilt's teammates even contributed anything, and they would have won that series right then.

Wilt did have an awful game six. He shot 6-21 from the field, and 8-23 from the line. And, of course, his Sixers lost. Hal Greer played a great game, with 40 points, but it was not enough.

In game seven, where was Greer's 40 point game? He would shoot 8-25 from the field. Chet Walker would shoot 8-22. An injured Jones shot 8-22. A hobbled Jackson shot 7-17. And Matt Guokas shot 2-10. Wilt only shot 4-9, but his teammates completely ignored him in the second half...and with all of that, the Sixers still only lost that game seven by four points.

Again, Wilt was playing (every minute of that series BTW), with significant injuries. Even Russell commented after that series, that a "lessor man would not have played."

Now, given all of the above, does anyone in their right mind honestly believe that Russell's Celtics would have beaten a healthy Sixer team? Hell, it likely would have been a worse roasting than what the Sixers gave them in '67.


Which brings us to ...

66-67. This is where it gets interesting. Chamberlain's roster was at the very least, the equal of Russell's (albeit, not as deep.) And, they would be relatively healthy all season, including the post-season. The result? A 68-13 record, and a full eight games over a 60-21 Boston team. In fact, the Sixers set the tone early in the season, with a resounding 138-96 win over Boston. They would explode to a 46-4 record, and coasted to a then all-time record.

In the EDF's, Wilt, and his Sixers left little doubt as to who the best player, and the best team, really was. Only a subpar effort in game four (a 121-117 loss), in Boston, prevented a sweep.

And the Russell-supporters have never been able to provide a reasonable answer to this question, either:

In the clinching game five loss of the '66 EDF's, Wilt exploded for 46 points and 34 rebounds (again, in a losing effort.)

Now, it was Russell who was faced with the EXACT same scenario in the '67 EDF's. And did Russell come up with a supreme effort in his game five, and when his teammates so desperately needed him to? Nope...Russell went quietly like a lamb being led to slaughter. He put up a meager FOUR points, on 2-5 shooting, with 21 rebounds, and seven assists. Meanwhile, Chamberlain "the choker" blasted Russell for 29 points, 22 of which came in the first half, and when the game was still close...to go along with 13 assists, 36 rebounds, and seven blocks.

BTW, in that clinching game five loss, the Celtics came out on fire, and built an early 17 point first quarter lead. However, by mid-way thru the 4th period the Sixers had pulled away to a 131-104 lead, and would cruise to a 140-116 win. In a span of a little over half of the game, the Sixers had outscored Boston by 44 points.

And, as always, Chamberlain just crushed Russell in that series. He outscored Russell, per game, 22-10. He outrebounded Russell, per game, 32-23 (!). He outassisted Russell, per game, 10-6 (yes, a triple double series.) And he outshot Russell from the field by a .556 to .358 margin.

All of which begs the question...how many more rings would Wilt have won, had he had healthy rosters like his '67 Sixers...instead of either putrid, or gagging rosters like he had so many other times in his career?

And, of course, if Russell were truly the better player...how could he have allowed Wilt to so thoroughly embarrass him, and his dynasty, in that '67 run?

[LAZERUSS]

Russell being carried by Cousy, Havlicek, Jones, ect.

Seriously though, those numbers are a virtual perfect bell-curve coinciding with Russell's pre-prime, prime, peak, and decline. The evidence of Russell's defensive impact is there

[CODE]
Bos Def Rank
56 (6/8)
[COLOR="Red"]57 (1/8)
58 (1/8)
59 (1/8)
60 (1/8)
61 (1/8)
62 (1/9)
63 (1/9)
64 (1/9)
65 (1/9)
66 (1/9)
67 (1/10)
68 (2/12)
69 (1/14)[/COLOR]
70 (8/14)
[/CODE]

Years in red are with Russell, years in black are pre/post Russell. Sadly people only seem to care about statistics that involve ppg/rpg/apg, despite the fact that:
1. Defense has proven itself to be far more valuable than offense over the years
2. Big men have traditionally had a much bigger impact on the defensive end than they have had on the offensive end. Even Wilt - one of the best offensive centers ever - was arguably having his biggest impact on defense.

Biggest problem is people aren't looking to learn, they're looking to reaffirm their beliefs.

I'll respond to both you and Fpliii...

There was no question about Russell's total impact on the game. And obviously, he won...period. You can find "flaws" in virtually every other GOAT candidate, especially when it comes to winning, but Russell was almost perfect in that aspect of the game.

So, while there is a solid argument to be made that he was routinely surrounded by great rosters, he at least won almost every time with them. No other GOAT can say that. Virtually all of them lost at some point in their careers, even with better supporting casts, than the team's that they lost to.

Having said that, though, Chamberlain gets ripped for "losing", or "choking"...but at least he was generally losing to great teams. The only real exception to that, came in the '61 playoffs...in a series in which Wilt put up 37 ppg and 23 rpg, and in which his teammates collectively shot .332 from the field (and his two best teammates shot .325 and .206.)

Bird lost seven times against lessor teams. Kareem several times. Shaq, was swept six times in the post-season, and again, lost on several occasions in which he had favored teams. You can go right down the list.

Not only that, but those guys had some poor series against lessor teams, too. I have chronicled both Kareem's and Bird's before, so need to repost them here, but they both "choked" more than once against inferior competition.

But here was Wilt, "losing" seven times to the greatest dynasty in NBA history, and in several of those, he "lost" by the slimmest of margins in game seven's. And he usually did so while playing brilliantly in defeat. And again, he was putting up 30-25 series against RUSSELL forcryingoutloud. He wasn't having a poor series against a Parish, or a Dawkins, or an Eaton, or an Ostertag, or a Marques Johnson, etc. And you won't find him being mauled by the likes of Thurmond or Moses, either.

But that is the crux of these discussions...the EXPECTATIONS. Or as I like to call it... the "Wilt Double-Standard." He was simply EXPECTED to put up 40-25 series winning numbers every year. Who else would have been called a "choker" with a 22-25 series, or on one-leg, putting up a 23-24 .625 series? Who else would have been considered a "flop" with a 33-27 post-season series?

As I said all along,...at least Chamberlain was losing to RUSSELL, and not some one like Marvin Webster, Mark Eaton, or Mychael Thompson.

Again, I'll give Russell his due. The man simply won. But he did at least lose once to Wilt, and in the majority of their other H2H series, it was extremely close.

[LAZERUSS]

Hey, you fat bitch.

1. You don't know the difference between being wrong, assumping one thing and lying. I have never lied in a discussion with you, you on the other hand have cherry picked stats, info and made up stuff as well just so Wilt will look better.

2. You are the same clown who claimed that Wilt was a world class Volleyball player when he played in a co-ed league, a league where women and men play on the same team and he only did it for one year.

3. And now you're even lying about what I've claimed and you cherry pick like a mad man, you are a totally clueless fool.

4. You have some mental disease, no one can be this delusional and stupid. You didn't even watch Wilt play and it's well documented that you didn't.

I don't know why I bother, but I will play anyway...

First of all, I have never claimed that Wilt was a HOF Volleyball player (or whatever they would be called.) I have merely quoted other sources which have made that claim. Nor do I believe Wilt, himself, ever made that claim.

Having said that, though, how about this article...

http://www.volleyballmag.com/article...lasting-legacy

[QUOTE]Make no mistake. Without Wilt, who barnstormed with his Big Dippers, coached a women

[Audio One]

Don't want to get int all the numbers and seasons and such but I do want to say there is a disconnect between Wilt the guy who put up insane numbers vs the Wilt who won on the big stage

Wilt is almost mythical when it comes to his numbers but his dominance doesn't match the results in the end and I think that's where the critics find fault in his titles or lack of

I'm not saying he should have more or that I'm one who holds having "only 2" titles against Wilt
2 titles are incredible and are 2 more than 90% of the guys who ever played the game have but in the same sentence when you start stacking his 2 titles up against guys with 6 5 4 or even 3 titles then you compare to how he's lauded as this incredible unstoppable force of nature then something doesn't add up and that's what his critics take aim at

does that make sense?

So when you stack up Michael's six titles to Russell's 11 when he's lauded as this incredible unstoppable force of nature, then something doesn't add up, so it's perfectly believable that Jordan's not the GOAT??

Am I doing it right?

[DatAsh]

Having said that, though, Chamberlain gets ripped for "losing", or "choking"

The people that call Wilt a choker and cite his playoff ppg drop fail to account for
1. It was a coaching decision and change in the offense. His role in the playoffs was often different than it was in the regular season, so comparing stats doesn't really make sense.
2. His teams often did better in the playoffs than they did in the regular season. They came within mere points of beating much better teams that absolutely crushed them in the regular season.

But here was Wilt, "losing" seven times to the greatest dynasty in NBA history, and in several of those, he "lost" by the slimmest of margins in game seven's. And he usually did so while playing brilliantly in defeat. And again, he was putting up 30-25 series against RUSSELL forcryingoutloud. He wasn't having a poor series against a Parish, or a Dawkins, or an Eaton, or an Ostertag, or a Marques Johnson, etc. And you won't find him being mauled by the likes of Thurmond or Moses, either.

But that is the crux of these discussions...the EXPECTATIONS. Or as I like to call it... the "Wilt Double-Standard." He was simply EXPECTED to put up 40-25 series winning numbers every year. Who else would have been called a "choker" with a 22-25 series, or on one-leg, putting up a 23-24 .625 series? Who else would have been considered a "flop" with a 33-27 post-season series?

As I said all along,...at least Chamberlain was losing to RUSSELL, and not some one like Marvin Webster, Mark Eaton, or Mychael Thompson.

Again, I'll give Russell his due. The man simply won. But he did at least lose once to Wilt, and in the majority of their other H2H series, it was extremely close.

Had Russell never existed, Chamberlain would likely be considered the unanimous best player ever. Russell mortalized Zeus in a sense; he showed people the god was human and could actually be beaten.

I have them both in that very top tier of players with Michael and Magic. It's easy to see what made Chamberlain great - though I have him in that top tier for different reasons than most - but Russell's tricky; you really have to do your research with Russell.

[Audio One]

The people that call Wilt a choker and cite his playoff ppg drop fail to account for
1. It was a coaching decision and change in the offense. His role in the playoffs was often different than it was in the regular season, so comparing stats doesn't really make sense.
2. His teams often did better in the playoffs than they did in the regular season. They came within mere points of beating much better teams that absolutely crushed them in the regular season.



Had Russell never existed, Chamberlain would likely be considered the unanimous best player ever. Russell mortalized Zeus in a sense; he showed people the god was human and could actually be beaten.

I have them both in that very top tier of players with Michael ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶M̶a̶g̶i̶c̶ . It's easy to see what made Chamberlain great - though I have him in that top tier for different reasons than most - but Russell's tricky; you really have to do your research with Russell.