Here is evidence of the fact Wilt was robbed of the 1962 MVP when he averaged 50PPG due to other players disliking him.

[HardenandWilt]

Not me.

harden was intentionally left off all-nba in 2016 and and 2021.. and has been robbed of 2 mvps... 2017 and 2019

Nah, Harden's never been robbed of anything.

The advanced stats for those years I listed show other wise. Just admit to being wrong

Harden is the modern day wilt, on and off the court

[HardenandWilt]

Not me.

harden was intentionally left off all-nba in 2016 and and 2021.. and has been robbed of 2 mvps... 2017 and 2019

That username lol

It’s perfect

[JonFromVA]

Before the start of the 1962 season, Chamberlain wanted to believe McGuire but he thought Boston was unbeatable.

It simply had too many good players.

McGuire said it was true that Boston was better than Philadelphia when Chamberlain was scoring thirty-seven or thirty-eight points a game.

But if he scored fifty points a game, McGuire said, the Warriors could beat Boston.

“Fifty?” Chamberlain protested. “Nobody can average fifty a game in this league.”

McGuire told Chamberlain he could do it.

The other players wouldn’t be happy, he said, and he, McGuire, was going to have to put up with a lot of bitching, but that was his problem.

He would have to convince them that the only way they could win was with Chamberlain shooting constantly.

In McGuire’s view, Chamberlain wasn’t being selfish in taking so many shots.

He just had the highest shooting percentage on the team.

It made more sense to have your 50-percent shooter taking the shot than it did your 40-percent shooter, which meant that if one of Wilt’s teammates with a poorer shooting percentage did not pass to Wilt, that man was not acting in the team’s interest.

“I have two goals,” McGuire told Chamberlain. “I hope we win the championship.

And I hope you break every record in the book.”

Source:

https://www.amazon.com/Rivalry-Russell-Chamberlain-Golden-Basketball-ebook/dp/B000FCKGSY/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=wilt+russell+rivalry&qid=1630955531&sr=8-1

You forgot the footnote:

(*) Wilt didn't score more than 41pts in the playoffs that season, and Frank McGuire resigned his position when the Warriors moved west. It was his first and last season coaching in the NBA. In game 7 of the ECF, Wilt only scored 22. The Celtics team that beat them shot just 39% from the field and didn't even have a free throw advantage. They did generate 10 more assists and presumably turned the ball over less (but BBR doesn't have turnover stats from back then).

[JonFromVA]

As a kid I remember the arguments about Wilt, Bird, Magic, and Kareem as being the greatest. While I never watched Wilt live, I grew up around many that did, which of course means they also watched Russell, yet Russell was never in those conversations outside of saying if Wilt had his teammates he would still be winning championships in the early 80s.

Today when I write or talk about the GOAT, I always rank based on the ones I have seen, because the fact is Wilt clearly has an argument as GOAT but his stats and his lack of championships make it hard to judge just how good he is.

I do think it is both sad and funny how many have included Russell in the GOAT arguments now that never watched him play and attack anybody that has Wilt clearly ahead of him, yet those that watched them argue Russell shouldn't be in the conversation.

It depends who you were talking to, there will always be fans who don't look much beyond the slash line in the box score and the numbers Wilt accumulated the records he set made him a legend and an icon, but basketball is not an individual sport.

Bill Russell himself has said his goal with Wilt was not to stop him, he didn't even want to rile him up. He just wanted him to quietly score less than his average. He'd gladly concede the individual battle to Wilt because it wasn't an individual battle.

[JonFromVA]

Thanks for correcting me. It's helpful.

I think you provided some good points and I don't disagree too much with your take. Wilt fans overrate him to death, but there are a lot of misconceptions about his career that turned him into someone he never was.

It's such a shame that we still don't have enough footage to get a clear conclusion of how he played. I still hope NBA will release something for 75th anniversary that could help us.

I found the passage from When The Garden was Eden by Harvey Araton (which does mention the torn knee tendons Wilt suffered before the 1970 playoffs, his layered and complex personality, as well as his social activism):

"Unable to string titles together like his rival, Chamberlain went out of his way to convince people that basketball did not define him. He took the opportunity to lecture reporters on the dangers of fueling America's obsession with winning at all costs-a worthy discussion, then and now, but made at a rather questionable juncture: soon after his 45-point, 27-rebound performance in Game 6. Teammates rolled their eyes, chagrined at the latest iteration of Wilt being Wilt. Was he already making excuses for what he feared or expected would happen in New York? One of his teammates told Sports Illustrated: "You play the whole season to win, don't you? Isn't that what competition was all about?" Another one, requesting anonymity for fear of coming off disrespectful to a deceased man, told me, "We were dumbfounded. For the second year in a row, it was as if he was saying, 'It doesn't really matter.' After we all - Wilt included - worked so hard to get there."

Compelling character. Just imagine how polarizing he would be in today's society.

Heh, in the SI vault article I linked, Russell pretty much says the sport of basketball is a meaningless trivial pursuit, but that didn't mean he didn't play the game as if it wasn't the most important thing in the World. Just nobody is going to call him on remarks like that because of his 11 rings.

(*) I thought about trying to fix my triple negative, but I'm kind of proud of my accomplishment and left it in.

[xdrta+]

harden was intentionally left off all-nba in 2016 and and 2021.. and has been robbed of 2 mvps... 2017 and 2019

Nah, Harden's never been robbed of anything.

The advanced stats for those years I listed show other wise. Just admit to being wrong

Harden is the modern day wilt, on and off the court

"the modern day wilt," that's hilarious. By screwing the Nets Harden is finally in a situation where he might go a long way--that is, if he doesn't fold in the playoffs like he usually does.

[rzzzzz]

I do think it is both sad and funny how many have included Russell in the GOAT arguments now that never watched him play and attack anybody that has Wilt clearly ahead of him, yet those that watched them argue Russell shouldn't be in the conversation.

I grew up in Philly and as a kid I watched Chamberlain play Russell live (once) and a lot on TV. I was, and am, a fan of all Philly teams, and I was thrilled when they finally beat the Celtics in ‘67. Which was basically the title. The finals were an afterthought then. Wilt was spectacular. In the arena you couldn’t take your eyes off of him. He was such a specimen even when he wasn’t making all those sensational plays. And, of course, he was the best known basketball player on the planet. When Johnny Carson made a Wilt joke, everybody knew who he was talking about.

But where the hell did you get the idea that we didn’t think Russell was our greatest nemesis? He was tough as nails, and never gave an inch. We hated him. When Wilt won that first title we all thought he finally beat Russell. He beat the best. Nobody would bat an eye if someone suggested Russell was the best. Of course he had to be in that conversation. Now it’s only because its been so long and most folks never saw those games, and go by stats and highlights that they somehow get this strange notion that Russell wasn’t all that good. He captained 2 NCAA titled teams, and then the Olympics. But now it has to be his team mates and coach who made all the difference, even if none of them won a title with Russell off the floor. (Except Havlicek, once, years after Russell retired.) That Hal Greer, Chet Walker, Luke Jackson, Billy Cunningham (and then) Jerry West and Elgin Baylor were ordinary. Or Dr Jack Ramsey couldn’t coach. Yeah, Russell, with his 14 championships wouldn’t even get off the bench if he played today.

[KrAzY3]

But where the hell did you get the idea that we didn’t think Russell was our greatest nemesis? He was tough as nails, and never gave an inch. We hated him.

It is a bit interesting that Jordan played this role for well, fans of pretty much any good team of my generation. I did not like Jordan at all but I have a ton of respect for him because he was such an immovable object.

This whole conversation also segues with another conversation I was participating in. When discussion LeBron subbing into a blowout, presumable just to accumulate stats, one poster in particular defended it because people would only remember his reaching 40K and that ultimately the statistics would be all people are left with.

In this case, all most people are left with between Wilt and Russell are the stats. They lose the context, they lose how tough a competitor Russell was (heck they're starting to lose that context for Jordan's much more recent career). I suppose distant generations will look at guys like Draymond Green and Ben Wallace and scratch their head at how those guys got any accolades. How do you make 5 times All-NBA while never scoring double digit in points? How does a power forward who averages 6.9 rebounds and 8.7 points make 4 All-Star teams? Well, the stats do not tell the whole story.

We grasp this concept, but when we look to the past we have trouble applying it even if we have other measures (like success which is the ultimate goal) to go off of.

[HardenandWilt]

Nah, Harden's never been robbed of anything.

The advanced stats for those years I listed show other wise. Just admit to being wrong

Harden is the modern day wilt, on and off the court

"the modern day wilt," that's hilarious. By screwing the Nets Harden is finally in a situation where he might go a long way--that is, if he doesn't fold in the playoffs like he usually does.

harden has multiple scoring records that rival wilt... stephen curry fans are still living in 2016, meanwhile other players like luka, ja, harden and cp3 have since peaked higher and have gotten better

harden will be seen aa a top 20 player universally when he retires

[xdrta+]

The advanced stats for those years I listed show other wise. Just admit to being wrong

Harden is the modern day wilt, on and off the court

"the modern day wilt," that's hilarious. By screwing the Nets Harden is finally in a situation where he might go a long way--that is, if he doesn't fold in the playoffs like he usually does.

harden has multiple scoring records that rival wilt... stephen curry fans are still living in 2016, meanwhile other players like luka, ja, harden and cp3 have since peaked higher and have gotten better

harden will be seen aa a top 20 player universally when he retires

Really? Chamberlain holds 72 NBA records--how many does Harden hold again? And what do all those other players have to do with Harden v. Chamberlain?

[FuShengTHEGreat]

I think it's very clear that Wilt didn't shoot as much in the playoffs because Warriors changed their strategy into more balanced attack. It's not like Wilt shot horribly in the playoffs, he took 10 FGA less than in RS though. Not to mention that the pace in postseason games are definitely lower than in RS:

1962 Warriors in RS: 111.6 FGA , 74.2 rpg, 131.1 estimated pace
1962 Warriors in PS: 100.8 FGA, 65.2 rpg, 119.7 estimated pace

Even with ignoring changed role in postseason, Wilt played around 11.5 possessions less per game in the playoffs. If we calculate his volume scoring per possession, it's clear that the gap is vastly overstated:

1962 Wilt in RS: 28.5 points per75
1962 Wilt in PS: 21.9 points per75

Of course it is still a notable drop off, but Warriors faced two best defenses in the league and as I said, Philly changed their offensive gameplan because it wasn't sustainable for the playoffs environment.

We don't have enough footage to make a clear conclusion but we do have a few minutes from that game. My observations:

- Russell did tremendous job fronting Wilt and due to lack of shooters Philly guards couldn't give Wilt the ball,
- Wilt in some plays played in the high post, trying to find shooters and cutters - which proves that their gameplan was different than in RS,
- Wilt made two clutch baskets to tie the game - one offensive rebound and-1 and another low post score.

So it was combination of Celtics excellent defense and Warriors trying to take Russell away from offensive plays.

About other HoFers deferring to worse teammates - it's not that uncommon:

1. Hakeem Olajuwon in 1993 WCSF attempted 15 shots in 50 minutes in deciding game 7, Maxwell shot just as much as him.
2. Shaquille O'Neal in the deciding game of1996 ECF took only 13 shots in 42 minutes, less than Hardaway who went 9/21 and as much as Scott who went 4/13.
3. Shaquille O'Neal in 2000 WCF game 7 took only 9 shots in 47 minutes, less than Kobe Bryant (9/19) and Glen Rice (4/10), while losing the first 3 quarters by a large amount.
4. Tim Duncan in 2001 WCF deciding game 4 took only 10 shots in 35 minutes, less than David Robinson (5/16), Antonio Daniels (7/14) and Avery Johnson (6/11).
5. LeBron James in game 6 of 2011 Finals attempted 15 shots in 40 minutes, less than Dwyane Wade who went 6/16.
6. LeBron James in deciding game 4 of 2018 Finals attempted 13 shots in 40 minutes, less than Rodney Hood (4/14) and same as Kevin Love (4/13).

I won't bring more examples, I think it's clear at this point. The difference is that Warriors almost beat superior Celtics team in 7 tough games, so it's possible that maybe Wilt did something well? Contemporary reports certainly didn't blame him for scoring too little.
ones.

With all due respect I'm not sure others instances in NBA history where a high volume scoring C (much less players at other positions historically) at their zeniths are seen as not sustainable come playoff time and required to decrease for their teams to have a better chance at winning.

Wilt was unable to go to the next level in the playoffs vs the Nationals in 61 as his team was swept so it's not only the Celtics this happened against.

In 67 in the Finals yes he was facing arguably the greatest m2m defender in nba history amongst interior players in Thurmond which can explain the decrease to some degree. But he had a ridiculously stacked squad that series vs the underdog Warriors who mostly relied on Barry scoring a ton on poor FG% and usage. His FT% was a all time worst until the 06 Finals with Shaq.

Hakeem in game 7 in 93 led Houston vs Seattle in 4/5 categories and still led them in scoring. He was even double teamed 15-18 ft from the rim.

Shaq in 96 (Orlando was riddled with injuries btw) and Duncan in 01 and LBJ in 18. They were down 0-3 in those games by that point its not like they really had a chance in those elimination defeats unlike Wilt and Philly in 62 vs Boston in a game 7.

Kareem in 74 vs Boston game 7 being swarmed in that loss. He tried to compensate for Oscar's struggles and Allen missing.injured. He was still the guy the Bucks tried to win or lose through.

I'd have like to have seen that from Wilt in 62 given he scored FAR more points than anyone in nba history that season. Deferring to a guy going 4-22 in a game 7 while taking far less shots than him is inexcusable imho.

[70sFan]

With all due respect I'm not sure others instances in NBA history where a high volume scoring C (much less players at other positions historically) at their zeniths are seen as not sustainable come playoff time and required to decrease for their teams to have a better chance at winning.

With all due respect, we've never seen any other player in NBA history shooting 40 times per game. It was horrible offensive gameplan, it worked in RS because Wilt was great but you can't do that against two best defensive teams in the league.

Wilt was unable to go to the next level in the playoffs vs the Nationals in 61 as his team was swept so it's not only the Celtics this happened against.

It's true, Wilt didn't score better against Syracues in 1961 than in RS, but I find it hard to blame him for the loss when his teammates shot 33% from the field...

In 67 in the Finals yes he was facing arguably the greatest m2m defender in nba history amongst interior players in Thurmond which can explain the decrease to some degree. But he had a ridiculously stacked squad that series vs the underdog Warriors who mostly relied on Barry scoring a ton on poor FG% and usage. His FT% was a all time worst until the 06 Finals with Shaq.

I have enough footage from 1967 finals to say that Wilt had a different job in that series. The series was extremely fast paced, Wilt was focused on defensive end in the finals.

Hakeem in game 7 in 93 led Houston vs Seattle in 4/5 categories and still led them in scoring. He was even double teamed 15-18 ft from the rim.

How can you know that Wilt wasn't doubled in these games? You haven't seen more footage than me, that's for sure.

Shaq in 96 (Orlando was riddled with injuries btw) and Duncan in 01 and LBJ in 18. They were down 0-3 in those games by that point its not like they really had a chance in those elimination defeats unlike Wilt and Philly in 62 vs Boston in a game 7.

How about 2000 WCF game 7 then?

Kareem in 74 vs Boston game 7 being swarmed in that loss. He tried to compensate for Oscar's struggles and Allen missing.injured. He was still the guy the Bucks tried to win or lose through.

You know that because you've seen these games. You haven't seen game 7 of 1962 ECF, so how can you know that?

[JonFromVA]

We know in a playoff context and especially down the stretch of close games, it gets harder and harder to run offense through a big man in the paint - especially one that struggles to shoot free throws.

Wilt was the Babe Ruth of the NBA, but even without much tape or advanced stats to examine; it's not hard to imagine playoff games playing out quite differently than regular season games.

If people are hesitant to give Bill Russell credit because he didn't have to carry the Celtic's scoring load - I suppose I understand that, but the bottom line is contribution to winning and I'd gladly throw out +/- stats to support Bill if I could, but even in a course way we've got basically an entire career of domination sandwiched around a 39-33 team with a 0.6 net rating and a 34-36 team with a -1.6 net rating. Bill had a lot of teammates who joined him in the Hall Of Fame, but not one of them that played with him for his first title was there when he won his last.

[FuShengTHEGreat]

With all due respect, we've never seen any other player in NBA history shooting 40 times per game. It was horrible offensive gameplan, it worked in RS because Wilt was great but you can't do that against two best defensive teams in the league.

Even if it supposedly was a horrible offensive gameplan Wilt still scored and shot a worse FG% in the playoffs and deserves some accountability here. Any player that drops that significantly in the playoffs statistically deserves to be critiqued to a degree

It's true, Wilt didn't score better against Syracues in 1961 than in RS, but I find it hard to blame him for the loss when his teammates shot 33% from the field

No it's not about losing its about him not elevating his level of play in that series against a team his squad was favored to beat. He went from 51% FG in the regular season to only 46% FG the series loss on 1ppg less average.

I have enough footage from 1967 finals to say that Wilt had a different job in that series. The series was extremely fast paced, Wilt was focused on defensive end in the finals

Even if he was focused on the defensive end no matter how anyone spins it he still fell WAY short in the '67 Finals of what he averaged in the regular season that year.

24ppg 68% FG Regular season. 17.5ppg 58% FG in the Finals. And the pace of the series can't be attributed to his brutal 30% FT for the series. Fortunately Philadelphia faced a overmatched lesser experienced Warriors squad where his struggles at the line didn't come to the forefront unlike the next 2 years in the playoffs.

How can you know that Wilt wasn't doubled in these games? You haven't seen more footage than me, that's for sure

Lots of great Centers get doubled teamed so that just comes with the territory. Hakeem led the 93 Rockets in 4/5 categories and still their leading scorer in that game 7 and NOT deferring to guys shooting poorly like Wilt did to Arizin in 62 vs Boston.

How about 2000 WCF game 7 then?

00' Portland had arguably the tallest frontcourt in NBA history. They were throwing multiple bodies on Shaq. Sabonis at 7'3" almost 300 lbs even past prime would easily be the biggest combination of height and size Wilt ever faced. They were doubling Shaq with either.

6'11" Jermaine
6'10" Rasheed
6'9" Brian Grant

And Pippen was hawking from the perimeter as well.

Bill Russell was by far the tallest Celt at 6'10"

You know that because you've seen these games. You haven't seen game 7 of 1962 ECF, so how can you know that?

Puhleeze. The 74 Bucks played lousy around Kareem in game 7. And he still tried to score as best as he could to the as the go to guy. He went 10/21 for 26 pts.

And it's the same story for Wilt in game 7 in 68 (no matter how many excuses his supporters try to throw out about Cunningham being out guys being injured yadda yadda) where his lesser teammates stunk from the field and he was nowhere to be found as a go to guy so I know 62 wasn't the only instance.

When a guy averages 50ppg in a regular season and ends his season shooting FAR less than a guy that goes 4 of 22 I don't need to watch 2 1/2 of a game in retrospect to know he didn't play up to par.

[FuShengTHEGreat]

Wilt certainly is one of the goats.

But the fact that he consistently scored considerably less in the playoffs than he did in the regular season literally every single year, and his career playoff scoring average being almost 10 ppg less than his career regular season scoring average , is problematic.

Sent from my SM-G960W using RealGM mobile app

And the excuse thrown out is Boston being in the way when his scoring and efficiency even went down in some series not facing Boston. Or his role had changed.

61 vs Syracuse team gets swept by a under. 500 team. Of course you don't automatically blame one guy for everyone losing but that doesn't change the fact he didn't improve vs a team his squad was favored to beat.

51% FG in the regular season. Only 46% FG vs Syracuse.

67 Finals vs the Warriors. Yes he had to go against Nate Thurmond that series. But he had a ridiculously stacked roster compared to the underdog Warriors.

24ppg 68% FG - 17ppg 58% FG. He couldn't make a FT if it meant saving humanity in that series. All time Finals MVP worst 30% for a series.

72 vs the Bucks. It's quite ludicrous to have read comments in videos on that series how he "outplayed" Kareem that series. Obviously he was past his prime going against a monster but still that's another series that can't be blamed on Russell and Boston.

14ppg 64% FG in the regular season
10ppg 44% FG vs Milwaukee.

And even with Boston in the picture it's not like he and his teams shouldn't have won those some of those series like in 68 and 69 anyways with him epically underperforming individually both years in defeat.

[70sFan]

Even if it supposedly was a horrible offensive gameplan Wilt still scored and shot a worse FG% in the playoffs and deserves some accountability here. Any player that drops that significantly in the playoffs statistically deserves to be critiqued to a degree

To a degree - I agree, but you don't take into account defenses faced. Wilt faced -5.3 rDRtg defense on average in 1962 playoffs. That's not usual for most postseason runs. If we take his efficiency relative to defenses faced, it looks considerably closer:

1962 RS: +5.7 rTS%
1962 PS: +2.9 rTS%

The drop is notable, but it's nothing extraoridinary. This rTS% is actually better than Olajuwon's 1995 efficiency in postseason.

If you want to call it another excuse, then keep in mind that it's regular way to judge postseason production both on PC Board and by analytics like Ben Taylor.

No it's not about losing its about him not elevating his level of play in that series against a team his squad was favored to beat. He went from 51% FG in the regular season to only 46% FG the series loss on 1ppg less average.

Fair enough, although it's 3 games sample. I fail to see how it's more important than 1994 Shaq's performance or Hakeem's 1990 weak offensive performance vs Lakers. Wilt was still young, developing player. He became better after that year, which was admited in numerous articles by him, his opponents and his coaches.

Even if he was focused on the defensive end no matter how anyone spins it he still fell WAY short in the '67 Finals of what he averaged in the regular season that year.

24ppg 68% FG Regular season. 17.5ppg 58% FG in the Finals. And the pace of the series can't be attributed to his brutal 30% FT for the series. Fortunately Philadelphia faced a overmatched lesser experienced Warriors squad where his struggles at the line didn't come to the forefront unlike the next 2 years in the playoffs.

The only reason to blame Wilt in 1967 finals is his horrible FT shooting. He has no excuse for such a horrible showing. Nobody calls Shaq a choker for his horrible FT shooting in 2000 Finals though.

I fail to understand how you can blame him for averaging "only" 58 FG% against the best low post defender in NBA history though. As I said, I have a lot of material from that series and he didn't play DeAndre Jordan role, like some tried to say. He didn't score as much as usual because Sixers were focused on fastbreak offense, while Wilt spent more time on defensive end cleaning up glass. It doesn't mean that he didn't score on Thurmond in the post.

Sixers dominated Warriors in the finals and Wilt did what people always asked him for - play for the win, not for stats. It's ridiculous to criticize him for a series in which he averaged almost a triple double with counting blocks and dominating Thurmond on the glass like nobody ever before or since.

00' Portland had arguably the tallest frontcourt in NBA history. They were throwing multiple bodies on Shaq. Sabonis at 7'3" almost 300 lbs even past prime would easily be the biggest combination of height and size Wilt ever faced. They were doubling Shaq with either.

6'11" Jermaine
6'10" Rasheed
6'9" Brian Grant

And Pippen was hawking from the perimeter as well.

Bill Russell was by far the tallest Celt at 6'10"

What does it have to do with? Like seriously, if you think that the height matters so much then you shouldn't be surprised that Wilt struggled vs Nationals as they had 7'3 Halbrook and 6'9 Kerr on the frontcourt, along with 6'8 Dolph Schayes as the second forward.

I'd definitely take Bill Russell with Tom Sanders help to defend any bigman over old Sabonis who couldn't hold the ground to Shaq due to shot knees and young Jermaine who didn't play next to Sabonis in that series.

Puhleeze. The 74 Bucks played lousy around Kareem in game 7. And he still tried to score as best as he could to the as the go to guy. He went 10/21 for 26 pts.

Wilt took 19 TSA in that game, Kareem took 26 TSA. It's not massive difference, you don't take FT shooting into account.

And it's the same story for Wilt in game 7 in 68 (no matter how many excuses his supporters try to throw out about Cunningham being out guys being injured yadda yadda) where his lesser teammates stunk from the field and he was nowhere to be found as a go to guy so I know 62 wasn't the only instance.

Wilt played injured in the 1968 playoffs. I guess you can call it excuse again, but then again - Wilt tried to shoot much more in game 6 and it didn't help. He was visibly unable to play up to his usual form.

I really think you should take every great center career into microscope like you do with Wilt, because he's not the only one with such moments.

When a guy averages 50ppg in a regular season and ends his season shooting FAR less than a guy that goes 4 of 22 I don't need to watch 2 1/2 of a game in retrospect to know he didn't play up to par.

Well, if the whole Warriors approach was wrong (and it was, giving one player 50 TSA is ridiculous no matter how good this player is), then I think you criticize Wilt for wrong things. I also think you focus way too much on scoring in your evaluation. Wilt was by far the best player on the floor in 1967 finals, yet you try to use this series against him.

[MaxZaslofskyJr]

Well, for what it is worth, Wilt actually won more titles than Bill Russell
Wilt Chamberlain
7× NBA scoring champion (1960–1966)
11× NBA rebounding champion (1960–1963, 1966–1969, 1971–1973)
NBA assist leader (1968)

Yeah that's not how it works.

He has more individual accomplishments. He has far fewer titles.
.

Shows what you know. That's exactly how it works. Those banners hanging from the rafters in Boston? They don't say that Bill Russell was the NBA champion. They say that they were won by the Celtics.

[MaxZaslofskyJr]

It depends on what you value. Spectacle, individual achievement, you gotta go with Wilt every time. Winning titles? That’s all Russell was about. ....

Well, for what it is worth, Wilt actually won more titles than Bill Russell
Wilt Chamberlain
7× NBA scoring champion (1960–1966)
11× NBA rebounding champion (1960–1963, 1966–1969, 1971–1973)
NBA assist leader (1968)

Bill Russell
4× NBA rebounding champion (1958, 1959, 1964, 1965)

Now, Bill Russell's teams happened to win more titles than Wilt's but, after all as we all know, basketball is a team sport. Russell's teammates had plenty to do with that for certain.

You realize you just proved my point, right? Basketball is a team sport. It takes special, definitely more intangible, skills to get your team to beat another team. Wilt played with guys like West, Baylor, Cunningham, Greer, Walker, Jackson and on and on. And he played well with them. As I said, I think his ‘67 squad was better than any of Russell’s. GOAT worthy. If you think individual achievements are most important, he’s your guy. If you think championships are most important, it’s Russell.

If your point is that basketball is a team sport. Well that needs no proof. It's self-evident. Individual achievements are not the most important. Team results are. But when you say "If you think championships are most important, it’s Russell" is where things run off the rails. What a person did to go for a championship, that's what matters. Being on the better team means pretty much nada in and of itself.
"West, Baylor, Cunningham, Greer, Walker, Jackson "? Why bring that up? By judging a player by the number of rings they won these guys do not come close to measuring up to Havlicek, Cousy, Sam & K.C., Sanders, Ramsey, Heinsohn . So, there's the contradiction in your argument that the silly "Rings above all else" criteria inevitably leads to.

[Jables]

His stats were incredible, at the same time he is no GOAT candidate. The only time his teams won is when they were stacked, and he also lost with stacked teams. Odd for a guy capable of averaging 50. Wilt's whole career is used to put down Bill Russell just because people don't like that the actual best player of the time didn't average 25-30 ppg.

[KrAzY3]

Well, for what it is worth, Wilt actually won more titles than Bill Russell
Wilt Chamberlain
7× NBA scoring champion (1960–1966)
11× NBA rebounding champion (1960–1963, 1966–1969, 1971–1973)
NBA assist leader (1968)

Yeah that's not how it works.

He has more individual accomplishments. He has far fewer titles.
.

Shows what you know. That's exactly how it works. Those banners hanging from the rafters in Boston? They don't say that Bill Russell was the NBA champion. They say that they were won by the Celtics.

They don't hang banners for being an NBA scoring champ now do they? "Titles" hah!