Who was more dominant between Wilt and Russell?

[Buckets22]

Wilt, didn't they change a bunch of rules to kneecap him even before coming into the NBA?

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

Wilt wasn't just stats. I think Wilt was the better player but Russell's teams played better as a team. I am not holding the lack of rings against Barkey.

If Chmaberlain had Russell's team leadership abilities and basketball IQ he might have a few more rings but the Celtics usually had better teams and that can't be blamed on Wilt.

Wilt shooting a ton probably helped his teams because his shooting percentage was so much better than his teammates. Later Wilt passed a lot when maybe he should have shot more. Russell seemed to take what the opposition gave him while Wilt seemed to force things a bit compared to Russell.

Still Wilt is just the better more dominant player. You have to go all in on inangibles to make Russell better than Wilt, unless you are just counting rings.

[freethedevil]

Wilt wasn't just stats. I think Wilt was the better player but Russell's teams played better as a team. I am not holding the lack of rings against Barkey.

If Chmaberlain had Russell's team leadership abilities and basketball IQ he might have a few more rings but the Celtics usually had better teams and that can't be blamed on Wilt.

Wilt shooting a ton probably helped his teams because his shooting percentage was so much better than his teammates. Later Wilt passed a lot when maybe he should have shot more. Russell seemed to take what the opposition gave him while Wilt seemed to force things a bit compared to Russell.

Still Wilt is just the better more dominant player. You have to go all in on inangibles to make Russell better than Wilt, unless you are just counting rings.

russell beat wilt with weaker teams and better teams. So "russell had better teams" doesn't really work.

[Owly]

Still Wilt is just the better more dominant player. You have to go all in on inangibles to make Russell better than Wilt, unless you are just counting rings.

I don't think this is the case. I think one could think that Russell's defensive impact wasn't captured by the boxscore of the day but was massive. One could also think Chamberlain's offensive boxscore to some degree overstated his offensive impact (people will go to different lengths on this). I would call either of these intangibles.

russell beat wilt with weaker teams and better teams. So "russell had better teams" doesn't really work.

Which years do you consider Russell won with weaker teams? Is this "on paper" or in the series (after acknowledging the two players can affect the productivity of others) factoring in health etc?

[freethedevil]

Still Wilt is just the better more dominant player. You have to go all in on inangibles to make Russell better than Wilt, unless you are just counting rings.

I don't think this is the case. I think one could think that Russell's defensive impact wasn't captured by the boxscore of the day but was massive. One could also think Chamberlain's offensive boxscore to some degree overstated his offensive impact (people will go to different lengths on this). I would call either of these intangibles.

russell beat wilt with weaker teams and better teams. So "russell had better teams" doesn't really work.

Which years do you consider Russell won with weaker teams? Is this "on paper" or in the series (after acknowledging the two players can affect the productivity of others) factoring in health etc?

68 and 69.

[Owly]

Still Wilt is just the better more dominant player. You have to go all in on inangibles to make Russell better than Wilt, unless you are just counting rings.

I don't think this is the case. I think one could think that Russell's defensive impact wasn't captured by the boxscore of the day but was massive. One could also think Chamberlain's offensive boxscore to some degree overstated his offensive impact (people will go to different lengths on this). I would call either of these intangibles.

russell beat wilt with weaker teams and better teams. So "russell had better teams" doesn't really work.

Which years do you consider Russell won with weaker teams? Is this "on paper" or in the series (after acknowledging the two players can affect the productivity of others) factoring in health etc?

68 and 69.

Full health or in the shape they were in during the series? The '68 Sixers were pretty dinged up.

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

Elgin Baylor shot poorly in the 1969 playoffs. He was 34 years old but he did better in 1970. With Wilt not shooting much and Baylor shooting poorly and the supporting cast not being that good that puts a lot of pressure on West. This is one of those years where I think Wilt.

That Celtic team is not that strong but in game 7 Sam Jones and Havlicek shot the ball well. I am not sure the Lakers were the better team but If the Lakers were the better team the should not let the series get to 7 games. The weaker team can get hot and steal a game.