Better Defense: Russell vs Wilt (in Russell's role)?

[kooldude]

who do you think?

[penbeast0]

people (including Russell) said that Wilt defended as well as Russell when focused on it later in his career; but since he only once managed to beat out Russell in their decade of rivalry, seems hard to believe. I've heard too many comments by players that were pure puff (and frequently contradicted by other comments by the same player) to buy that as a legit basis for comparisom without more.

[Doctor MJ]

Well let's see. One can easily make a case that in '67 Wilt played Russell's role better than Russell did. Of course, the next year Russell's team won again, and the next year, after Wilt left the Sixers, they still won 50 games. So I'd say take your pick A) Wilt was better than Russell for one year, but so lacked focus that his longevity at maximum value makes Shaq look like a marathon runner or B) Wilt wasn't better than Russell.

[kooldude]

Well let's see. One can easily make a case that in '67 Wilt played Russell's role better than Russell did. Of course, the next year Russell's team won again, and the next year, after Wilt left the Sixers, they still won 50 games. So I'd say take your pick A) Wilt was better than Russell for one year, but so lacked focus that his longevity at maximum value makes Shaq look like a marathon runner or B) Wilt wasn't better than Russell.

what about Wilt with the Lakers?

[TrueLAfan]

Kind of agree about Wilt with the Lakers. But, by then, Wilt was just a huge guy--he had lost some of his lateral quickness with his knee injury and age. He still had great hops and foot speed, though. Russell was always a great help defender and had great instincts and quickness. I think Wilt after 1970 was as effective as Russell, but was a very different type of defensive player. In general, I think Wilt as his peak defensively was as good as any player in history.

[Doctor MJ]

-= original quote snipped =-



what about Wilt with the Lakers?

Well as usual, listen to what TrueLA says he's probably right.

My feeling? If you add in the Laker years, then in Russell-esque mode he won 2 titles in 6 years. He did this with some really great supporting casts for which it would be just silly to say Russell's supporting cast as far better. And of course, Russell won 11 titles in 13 years.

I stand by, either Wilt's peak was better, but he only was able to maintain for a year or so (and possibly he reached that peak twice), or he simply wasn't as good in that role as Russell.

[Warspite]

-= original quote snipped =-



Well as usual, listen to what TrueLA says he's probably right.

My feeling? If you add in the Laker years, then in Russell-esque mode he won 2 titles in 6 years. He did this with some really great supporting casts for which it would be just silly to say Russell's supporting cast as far better. And of course, Russell won 11 titles in 13 years.

I stand by, either Wilt's peak was better, but he only was able to maintain for a year or so (and possibly he reached that peak twice), or he simply wasn't as good in that role as Russell.

I dont see how Wilt played the Russell mode when Wilt was still avg almost 10ppg more and he led the league in assts one yr. Wilt did more on offense in a avg game in 1968 than Russell did in a week. 25ppg, 7asts and 20+ rebs is still doing more than just about anyone not named Oscar or West.

one of my fav stories is Wilts 1st game vs Bellamy (30ppg/20rbpg). He told Bellamy he wouldnt score in the 1st half and proceeded to block his 1st 9 shots.

To say that Russell is a better defender because his teams won the title is the same as saying Manu is the better scorer over Kobe because his team won the title.

Again I can go into several stories of how Wilts defense (at age 50) was on par or better than prime Mutombo but those stories are too hard to believe and make Wilt into some superhero fictional character that hes not.

[Doctor MJ]

-= original quote snipped =-



I dont see how Wilt played the Russell mode when Wilt was still avg almost 10ppg more and he led the league in assts one yr. Wilt did more on offense in a avg game in 1968 than Russell did in a week. 25ppg, 7asts and 20+ rebs is still doing more than just about anyone not named Oscar or West.

one of my fav stories is Wilts 1st game vs Bellamy (30ppg/20rbpg). He told Bellamy he wouldnt score in the 1st half and proceeded to block his 1st 9 shots.

To say that Russell is a better defender because his teams won the title is the same as saying Manu is the better scorer over Kobe because his team won the title.

Again I can go into several stories of how Wilts defense (at age 50) was on par or better than prime Mutombo but those stories are too hard to believe and make Wilt into some superhero fictional character that hes not.

Rating Wilt is very tough Warspite. I've back and forth a number of times. I try to get every piece of info I can, but that which simply doesn't fit with the glaring facts, I don't know what to do with.

In '69, the year after Wilt left, the Sixers won 55 games. *That* was the supporting cast Wilt had there, and he still only managed 1 title with them. Russell had far greater team success, with supporting casts that I have a hard time believing were far better than that. Were this a question of Russell simply having more titles than Wilt, I'd still have no trouble just looking at Wilt's stats and putting him above Russell. The reality is though that the difference between the success is so stark that when I see counter-indicators, I can't ignore it.

[penbeast0]

Wilt was the greatest individual basketball player ever . . . including MJ . . . and it wasn't really close. The problem he had is that he was so incredible, it always seemed to be about him, not the team. He would decide he would shut down a great rookie (Bellamy) and focus completely on that and succeed. He would decide that he would score 50 points a game and do that . . . with average team success. He would decide that people didn't respect his passing ability enough and so he would lead the league in assists (I wonder what his turnovers were like). He woud decide that Bill Russell was getting success with a high post passing game on offense and great shotblocking help defense and do that . . . and do it individually as well as Russell.

What he couldn't do was get his teammates to dominate as well as he did. Like many great players who can't coach because their players just don't seem to get it the way they did, Wilt never seemed to bring his TEAM to the next level. He did win one championship with great talent (Greer, Cunningham, Walker, Luke Jackson) then again with the Lakers after Russell retired but despite his great individual performances, Russell and the Celtics kept beating them (sometimes with great talent too; earlier with shaky talent that got overrated because they played with Russell).

The key is that Wilt was the greatest individual player in NBA history, but Russell was instinctively focused on team winning . . . . thus the undefeated NCAA championship and the 11 titles in 13 seasons as the key player on his team. . . a record no one else has ever approached.