Bill Russell or Wilt Chamberlain career?

Moderators: trex_8063, PaulieWal, Quotatious, penbeast0, Doctor MJ, Clyde Frazier

Bill Russell career vs Wilt Chamberlain career

Bill Russell's career
50
77%
Wilt Chamberlain's career
15
23%
 
Total votes: 65

Pg81
Starter
Posts: 2,437
And1: 1,042
Joined: Apr 20, 2014
 

Re: Bill Russell or Wilt Chamberlain career? 

Post#41 » by Pg81 » Mon Aug 12, 2019 7:49 am

Laimbeer wrote:Russell seemed to have a career on the floor filled with joy, while Wilt was frustrated most of the time.

The only thing that might make it a conversation is the racial stuff Russ had to put up with - I'm not sure it was as bad for Wilt, can't say.


What are you talking about? Russell was the surly guy off court who refused to interact with fans, especially white ones, while Wilt was the outgoing guy who was friendly and helpful regardless of skin color. Not saying Russell was a racist, he just handled the present racism differently than Wilt. On court I see no difference between the two.
The only thing that comes to mind where Wilt was not enjoying basketball was probably early on, when the refs swallowed their whistles while opponents elbowed and kneed the crap out of him. Wilt was in fact considering leaving the league because he was fed up with that.

mrsocko wrote:
Ron Swanson wrote:Full stop. The '67 Sixers were not "more stacked than any team Russell ever played for". They weren't even any more stacked then the Celtics were that same year....

I've always maintained that Wilt was the better player in a vacuum than Russell, not because of the statistical production, but because like the poster above explained, we actually got to see Wilt in different roles throughout his career (dominant scorer, play-maker/distributor and offensive anchor, lower usage defensive anchor) and be dominant in every single facet. To me, no player in history (not Jordan or Lebron) so seamlessly transitioned between such varying roles on his teams and excelled to the extent that Wilt did.


We got to see Wilt in different roles because there was only one role that brought 11 championships in 13 years. That was Bill Russell. He didn’t have to change anything. He knew that if he let Wilt play hero ball that his team would win. It is a proven fact that the more one player dominates a team the less Efficient that team becomes. Finding the open man is the best play in basketball. It a team sport and if Wilt had figured that out earlier he would have won many more championships


:crazy:
Except when Wilt played a similar role he easily eclipsed Russell. Not only did he put up better stats in terms of assists and scoring at a much better volume and efficiency he also led his team to an all time great winning record unprecedented at the time. Russell was lucky that a team of the 76ers had not come together earlier or he would have lost more than once to them and was also lucky that the entire starting five was injured in the finals in 68 or they would have repeated.

mrsocko wrote:
mrsocko wrote:
mrsocko wrote:


Scoreboard 11-2
How about 5-4 mvp awards
How about they named the finals MVP award after Russell
How about the Celts won nothing until Russell arrived and the dynasty ended when he retired.
How about he averaged 44 minutes a night while the next closest Celt(Havelcek) averaged 32.
How’s that for superficial nonsense. Your a hater. Russell did what it took to win. Wilt did what soothed his ego. Best player on the losing team is the greatest player of all time in your mind.


:crazy:
Rings are a team award, useless for direct player comparisons
1 more MvP means nothing. Steve Nash has two MvPs, I guess Nash is better than Kobe then. :roll:
How about the entire league scrambling to change rules to limit your dominance like widening the lane or offensive goal tending?
Wilt went to a bottom of the barrel team and almost beat the Celtics in his third year with just one all star level team mate who shat the bed.
Wilt averaged 48.5 minutes for a season and 46 for career. What does it matter how much others average? Not one bit does it matter.
Yeah right, Wilt did what soothed his ego, that is why he played 3 very different roles all of which were not demanded by him but asked for by his coaches.

No one here hates Russell. You are just a Wilt hater who cannot concede that Wilt was at the very least equal to Russell and you can make an easy argument that he was better on scoring alone, because there is not just a difference there it is a cliff so vast that you cannot see the other side. Wilt was more than twice the scorer than Russell was as evident that despite role changes Wilt averaged 33 ppg for career on vastly superior efficiency and when he was scoring at Russell's volume he set new efficiency records which last to this day. In fact the the highest single season efficiency record to this day is held by Wilt which he set in his last year. He holds 78 official records and would probably have around 100 if blocks had been counted.
Johnlac1
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,159
And1: 1,416
Joined: Jan 21, 2012
 

Re: Bill Russell or Wilt Chamberlain career? 

Post#42 » by Johnlac1 » Mon Aug 12, 2019 4:12 pm

Gee whiz, how many Russell vs. Chamberlain threads is it now?
Oh well, this is a sports forum.
Wilt is my all-time favorite player, but I in no way want to diminish Russell. His achievements were outstanding. He was a great player and a great team player.
But things did fall in place for him. He played for a coach/GM, Red Auerbach, who was not only the best coach in the league but also the best GM.
Auerbach knew how to win, and he knew how to get the right players to win.
For the first nine or ten seasons of Russell's career the Celtics had the best talent in the league. But they still won titles after they weren't the most talented team. A lot of credit for that goes to Auerbach as well as Russell, Havlicek, S. Jones, and the other Celtics.
Auerbach created three separate champion teams in three different decades after undergoing very short periods of poor basketball between the champion teams.
And there was the incredible good fortune (luck?) Boston had in the playoffs. Except for one year during Russell's career, the '58 finals when Russell suffered a severe sprained ankle, all the luck in the form of lucky bounces, last second shots/plays, and crippling injuries affecting a team went in favor of the Celtics.
As I have pointed out in a number of these threads, with just the average share of luck going his way, Wilt would have ended up with five or six titles instead of two.
If he would have had the same good fortune as Russell had in the form of better coaches, teammates, and luck, he could have had seven or eight.
Twas not to be.
Russell and Chamberlain were both great players. One had more good fortune than the other in the course of their careers. Let's leave it at that.
freethedevil
Veteran
Posts: 2,627
And1: 1,471
Joined: Dec 09, 2018
         

Re: Bill Russell or Wilt Chamberlain career? 

Post#43 » by freethedevil » Mon Aug 12, 2019 9:31 pm

Johnlac1 wrote:Gee whiz, how many Russell vs. Chamberlain threads is it now?

Russell and Chamberlain were both great players. One had more good fortune than the other in the course of their careers. Let's leave it at that.

Wilt joined a team who had the league's best offense when healthy and managed to make them worse(in spite of his defense).

The season before they went from 50 win pace to a 30 win pace and barely got worse after trading wilt for role players.

This never happened with Russell who turned an average defense into a defense roughly twice as good as any defense that's ever came after it.

So no, lets not leave it at that, the difference wasn't luck. The difference was one was more consistent.
freethedevil
Veteran
Posts: 2,627
And1: 1,471
Joined: Dec 09, 2018
         

Re: Bill Russell or Wilt Chamberlain career? 

Post#44 » by freethedevil » Mon Aug 12, 2019 9:58 pm

Pg81 wrote:
Laimbeer wrote:
:crazy:
Except when Wilt played a similar role he easily eclipsed Russell.

Huh?'

Image

Wilt's defenses never came close to touching russell's.
Not only did he put up better stats in terms of assists and scoring at a much better volume

Lol @ you thinking this means anything.
Wilt was more than twice the scorer than Russell was as evident that despite role changes Wilt averaged 33 ppg for career on vastly superior efficiency and when he was scoring at Russell's volume he set new efficiency records which last to this day. In fact the the highest single season efficiency record to this day is held by Wilt which he set in his last year. He holds 78 official records and would probably have around 100 if blocks had been counted.

Again, lol @ you thinking this means anything. Did these records help his teams win?
Image
[img]he%20also%20led%20his%20team%20to%20an%20all%20time%20great%20winning%20record%20unprecedented%20at%20the%20time.[/img]
So we're calling him "at the least equal" because of one season of play :lol: And regardless, event hen your argument falls apart because wilt's team played like a 60 win team without him in the 60's. Without Russell, the celtics collpased to below average. How does this help your case?

Worse still, as he chased another record, philly collapsed to awful, he was traded, philly barely got worse and he joined a team who, when healthy, played at a pace better than the 6ers without him. And yet, the team got worse when he joined them.


How can you seriously claim wilt was "equally as good as russell" when one made his team the most dominant dynasty while the other joined the heatles of the 60 and managed to make them worse?

No one here hates Russell. You are just a Wilt hater who cannot concede that Wilt was at the very least equal to Russell and you can make an easy argument that he was better on scoring alone

No, you cannot, because players are not signed to score. They are signed to make their team better. Russell was far more impactful over his career than wilt was, hence, there's no argument for chamberlain.
freethedevil
Veteran
Posts: 2,627
And1: 1,471
Joined: Dec 09, 2018
         

Re: Bill Russell or Wilt Chamberlain career? 

Post#45 » by freethedevil » Mon Aug 12, 2019 10:32 pm

Ron Swanson wrote:Full stop. The '67 Sixers were not "more stacked than any team Russell ever played for". They weren't even any more stacked then the Celtics were that same year....

I've always maintained that Wilt was the better player in a vacuum than Russell, not because of the statistical production, but because like the poster above explained, we actually got to see Wilt in different roles throughout his career (dominant scorer, play-maker/distributor and offensive anchor, lower usage defensive anchor) and be dominant in every single facet. To me, no player in history (not Jordan or Lebron) so seamlessly transitioned between such varying roles on his teams and excelled to the extent that Wilt did.

Wilt's 6 ers played at a 60 win pace without him.

They were stacked. Full stop.
User avatar
Ron Swanson
RealGM
Posts: 13,698
And1: 8,634
Joined: May 15, 2013

Re: Bill Russell or Wilt Chamberlain career? 

Post#46 » by Ron Swanson » Mon Aug 12, 2019 10:47 pm

freethedevil wrote:
Ron Swanson wrote:Full stop. The '67 Sixers were not "more stacked than any team Russell ever played for". They weren't even any more stacked then the Celtics were that same year....

I've always maintained that Wilt was the better player in a vacuum than Russell, not because of the statistical production, but because like the poster above explained, we actually got to see Wilt in different roles throughout his career (dominant scorer, play-maker/distributor and offensive anchor, lower usage defensive anchor) and be dominant in every single facet. To me, no player in history (not Jordan or Lebron) so seamlessly transitioned between such varying roles on his teams and excelled to the extent that Wilt did.

Wilt's 6 ers played at a 60 win pace without him.

They were stacked. Full stop.


That's pretty impressive considering he literally missed only one game that year. Even more impressive that it's statistically impossible.
User avatar
Jaivl
Assistant Coach
Posts: 4,434
And1: 3,572
Joined: Jan 28, 2014
Location: A Coruña, Spain
Contact:
   

Re: Bill Russell or Wilt Chamberlain career? 

Post#47 » by Jaivl » Mon Aug 12, 2019 11:02 pm

penbeast0 wrote:Do I get to have sex with over 10,000 women too . . . otherwise Russell.

Was reading the thread with hopes of making that same joke... Damn you Penbeast!
Maf wrote:I'd undestand if anyone had KG outside top ten PF's. Having him top five all-time? Often I jokingly rank Kyle Korver as the GOAT but I never try to fake serious discussion about it.

ShawnKemp96 wrote:Infact he made a lot more steals than the statisticians think.
freethedevil
Veteran
Posts: 2,627
And1: 1,471
Joined: Dec 09, 2018
         

Re: Bill Russell or Wilt Chamberlain career? 

Post#48 » by freethedevil » Mon Aug 12, 2019 11:06 pm

Ron Swanson wrote:
freethedevil wrote:
Ron Swanson wrote:Full stop. The '67 Sixers were not "more stacked than any team Russell ever played for". They weren't even any more stacked then the Celtics were that same year....

I've always maintained that Wilt was the better player in a vacuum than Russell, not because of the statistical production, but because like the poster above explained, we actually got to see Wilt in different roles throughout his career (dominant scorer, play-maker/distributor and offensive anchor, lower usage defensive anchor) and be dominant in every single facet. To me, no player in history (not Jordan or Lebron) so seamlessly transitioned between such varying roles on his teams and excelled to the extent that Wilt did.

Wilt's 6 ers played at a 60 win pace without him.

They were stacked. Full stop.


That's pretty impressive considering he literally missed only one game that year. Even more impressive that it's statistically impossible.

* in the 60's
User avatar
Ron Swanson
RealGM
Posts: 13,698
And1: 8,634
Joined: May 15, 2013

Re: Bill Russell or Wilt Chamberlain career? 

Post#49 » by Ron Swanson » Mon Aug 12, 2019 11:26 pm

Lol, yes, never mind that I was specifically talking about the 1967 team, let's just cherry-pick an absurdly random collection of years from 1960-1964, and 1969-1970, and say that it's evidence of the teams that Wilt actually played with. The irony is just too much here, cuz, ya know, the Celtics won 44, 56, 68, 56, 60, and 56 games along with two championships in 6 of the 7 seasons after Bill Russell retired. So I guess they didn't need Bill Russell that much, huh?

:dontknow:
User avatar
penbeast0
Senior Mod - NBA Player Comparisons
Senior Mod - NBA Player Comparisons
Posts: 21,100
And1: 3,637
Joined: Aug 14, 2004
Location: South Florida
   

Re: Bill Russell or Wilt Chamberlain career? 

Post#50 » by penbeast0 » Mon Aug 12, 2019 11:34 pm

Jaivl wrote:
penbeast0 wrote:Do I get to have sex with over 10,000 women too . . . otherwise Russell.

Was reading the thread with hopes of making that same joke... Damn you Penbeast!


That post was from 2013 . . . . I am of course way too mature to make such a joke now.
[quote="Nivek"] This post could come only from a Wizards fan. It somehow combines delusional optimism with soul-crushing pessimism.
freethedevil
Veteran
Posts: 2,627
And1: 1,471
Joined: Dec 09, 2018
         

Re: Bill Russell or Wilt Chamberlain career? 

Post#51 » by freethedevil » Tue Aug 13, 2019 12:13 am

Ron Swanson wrote:Lol, yes, never mind that I was specifically talking about the 1967 team, let's just cherry-pick an absurdly random collection of years from 1960-1964, and 1969-1970, and say that it's evidence of the teams that Wilt actually played with. The irony is just too much here, cuz, ya know, the Celtics won 44, 56, 68, 56, 60, and 56 games along with two championships in 6 of the 7 seasons after Bill Russell retired. So I guess they didn't need Bill Russell that much, huh?

:dontknow:

Yeah the chronology is where your equivalency falls apart. How is there success 7 years later relevant here? :-?

The season after russell's retirement(the most relevant one) as a player coach they had a losing record and couldn't even win 40 games. The season after that they added pieces and still couldn't reach 50. They only succeeded after a full rebuild and multiple years to recover.

How is that remotely to comparable to the teams wilt was playing at on the time being fine without him? It should be harder to recover from losing a player on the fly or in a single season, and yet, wilt's teams, despite his supposed bad luck, weren't as reliant on him as the celtics were on a well past his prime russell. And yet, despite said reliance, russell's teams were more successful. How does that work? :-?
Pg81
Starter
Posts: 2,437
And1: 1,042
Joined: Apr 20, 2014
 

Re: Bill Russell or Wilt Chamberlain career? 

Post#52 » by Pg81 » Tue Aug 13, 2019 6:06 am

freethedevil wrote:
Johnlac1 wrote:Gee whiz, how many Russell vs. Chamberlain threads is it now?

Russell and Chamberlain were both great players. One had more good fortune than the other in the course of their careers. Let's leave it at that.

Wilt joined a team who had the league's best offense when healthy and managed to make them worse(in spite of his defense).

The season before they went from 50 win pace to a 30 win pace and barely got worse after trading wilt for role players.

This never happened with Russell who turned an average defense into a defense roughly twice as good as any defense that's ever came after it.

So no, lets not leave it at that, the difference wasn't luck. The difference was one was more consistent.


:crazy:
The team would have been fantastic offensively if van Breda Kolf had bothered to properly integrate Wilt, which he did not, in fact he did his damnest to get Wilt out of LA and hated him being there. He made them worse? They won the title right after Baylor left.

Russell was never traded so this is not an argument whatsoever since we have no data how Russell would have done on different team. He was lucky to get traded into an ideal situation with one of the best coaches of all time around. And yes he was plenty of lucky. Winning four seasons on last second plays where he usually was hardly involved is the epitome of luck.

freethedevil wrote:
Ron Swanson wrote:Lol, yes, never mind that I was specifically talking about the 1967 team, let's just cherry-pick an absurdly random collection of years from 1960-1964, and 1969-1970, and say that it's evidence of the teams that Wilt actually played with. The irony is just too much here, cuz, ya know, the Celtics won 44, 56, 68, 56, 60, and 56 games along with two championships in 6 of the 7 seasons after Bill Russell retired. So I guess they didn't need Bill Russell that much, huh?

:dontknow:

Yeah the chronology is where your equivalency falls apart. How is there success 7 years later relevant here? :-?

The season after russell's retirement(the most relevant one) as a player coach they had a losing record and couldn't even win 40 games. The season after that they added pieces and still couldn't reach 50. They only succeeded after a full rebuild and multiple years to recover.

How is that remotely to comparable to the teams wilt was playing at on the time being fine without him? It should be harder to recover from losing a player on the fly or in a single season, and yet, wilt's teams, despite his supposed bad luck, weren't as reliant on him as the celtics were on a well past his prime russell. And yet, despite said reliance, russell's teams were more successful. How does that work? :-?


Yeah, the cherry picking continues. Tell me, how long did it take LA to win a title again, despite acquiring Kareem later? :roll:
Teams were fine without him, yet continue to not win titles long after him. :lol:
Wilt transformed the Warriors from a bottom of the barrel league team almost single-handedly to a team that was able to seriously threaten the Celtics in his third year already. He brought the 76ers so much over the top they crushed the Celtics. Yeah Russell was lucky that 76ers did not come together earlier.

freethedevil wrote:
Pg81 wrote:
Laimbeer wrote:
:crazy:
Except when Wilt played a similar role he easily eclipsed Russell.

Huh?'

Image

Wilt's defenses never came close to touching russell's.
Not only did he put up better stats in terms of assists and scoring at a much better volume

Lol @ you thinking this means anything.
Wilt was more than twice the scorer than Russell was as evident that despite role changes Wilt averaged 33 ppg for career on vastly superior efficiency and when he was scoring at Russell's volume he set new efficiency records which last to this day. In fact the the highest single season efficiency record to this day is held by Wilt which he set in his last year. He holds 78 official records and would probably have around 100 if blocks had been counted.

Again, lol @ you thinking this means anything. Did these records help his teams win?
Image
[img]he%20also%20led%20his%20team%20to%20an%20all%20time%20great%20winning%20record%20unprecedented%20at%20the%20time.[/img]
So we're calling him "at the least equal" because of one season of play :lol: And regardless, event hen your argument falls apart because wilt's team played like a 60 win team without him in the 60's. Without Russell, the celtics collpased to below average. How does this help your case?

Worse still, as he chased another record, philly collapsed to awful, he was traded, philly barely got worse and he joined a team who, when healthy, played at a pace better than the 6ers without him. And yet, the team got worse when he joined them.


How can you seriously claim wilt was "equally as good as russell" when one made his team the most dominant dynasty while the other joined the heatles of the 60 and managed to make them worse


And the cherry picking continues. Entire post is nothing but rubbish. I never even claimed that Wilt was a better defender, but keep telling to yourself that the game is only played on one side of the floor.
Wilt did not join the 60s Heatles, what kind of nonsense is that. He joined a team with an ailing Baylor who was shooting his team out of playoffs and the coach hating him. Wilt brought them a title finally after van Breda Kolf and Baylor had left, despite suffering an injury most had considered career ending the year before.
You can swap Wilt and Russell, adjust the team accordingly and it would have been Wilt having more rings than Russell, easily. Russell for most of the decade had the superior team. When the time came that the roles were reversed Wilt's team crushed Russell's something that never happened the other way around when Wilt was healthy.
freethedevil
Veteran
Posts: 2,627
And1: 1,471
Joined: Dec 09, 2018
         

Re: Bill Russell or Wilt Chamberlain career? 

Post#53 » by freethedevil » Tue Aug 13, 2019 8:42 am

Johnlac1 wrote:
:crazy:
The team would have been fantastic offensively if van Breda Kolf had bothered to properly integrate Wilt,

This is so weak. The goat offense became mediocre, and you're trying to pin it all on the coach?

Wilt told kolf he wanted to be utilized as a passer( a season off the 6ers offense regressing as he overpassed). Kolf put him in position to do that, and just like the 6ers, the results sucked. Absolving wilt is ludicrous here. You can hold kolf sitting wilt in game 7 against him, but that doesn't change that wilt made his offense worse. The lakers made the final with a good defense carrying a unremarkable offense. And since wilt, nor the lakers, touched russell or the celtics defensively, there's no way to argue he was on russell's level that season, even if we assume he would have won the title. To recap, 67 wilt in the heart of his prime wasn't on the level of russell as he neared retirement, and you're actually trying to argue there's no way russell can't be argued as better?
:lol:

Russell was never traded so this is not an argument whatsoever since we have no data how Russell would have done on different team.

Lol? Russell forced a trade to a 62 win powerhouse because he wanted la. FYI, The 6ers. when healthy, won at a 60 win pace in 1969. Wilt's crowining acheivement was playing durant on the era's warriors for a season. Am I supposed to be impressed? This is what Bill, on a team whose point differential dropped by 20 without him:
From 1962-65, their average margin-of-victory (MOV) was over 8 points per game. During the same time span, only two other teams even eclipsed 4 points per game – the ’64 Royals and the ’64 Warriors.


In what universe is the former more impressive than the latter?


[/quote] Alright then, lets split the game 7 losses. That gives wilt...
4 rings.
And it gives Russell...
9.

Happy?
freethedevil wrote:Yeah, the cherry picking continues. Tell me, how long did it take LA to win a title again, despite acquiring Kareem later? :roll:
Teams were fine without him, yet continue to not win titles long after him. :lol:

Huh? The cavs haven't won a ring since kyrie left. What is this supposed to prove? Wilt was not playing in the seasons leading up to kareem. What does this have to do with his impact? Are you trying to suggest willt was also co managing the organization while he played? Sticking to what's relevant, the lakers won 46 games the season after chamberlain's retirement. The celtics won 35. Russell's celtics exeprienced a 8 point srs drop. That's a "lebron leaves the cavs" level drop off on the greatest dynasty ever. What is wilt's argument again?
Wilt transformed the Warriors from a bottom of the barrel league team almost single-handedly to a team that was able to seriously threaten the Celtics in his third year already. He brought the 76ers so much over the top they crushed the Celtics. Yeah Russell was lucky that 76ers did not come together earlier.

peak Wilt needed the heatles and the dubs to beat old man russell, but russell was the lucky one?
:lol:
Pg81 wrote:And the cherry picking continues. Entire post is nothing but rubbish. I never even claimed that Wilt was a better defender, but keep telling to yourself that the game is only played on one side of the floor.

The celtics were an average offense and the goat defense and on route to 11 titles and by far the most dominant three year stretch of wilt's era. Two way player isn't relevant if it's consistently getting smashed by one way play. And fyi, russell didn't need his teammates for that level of dominance:
For instance, when his teammates missed time, Boston rarely missed a beat. In 1958, Bob Cousy sat for seven games and the Celtics played far better without him. In ’59 and ’60, Sharman, Cousy and Tom Heinsohn missed a few games each, and the machine kept on ticking. In ’61, Sharman missed 18 games and the Celtics were (again) better without him. In ’62, Cousy missed five and, yes, the Celtics were better without him (portending his retirement years).6

But Russell missed four games in 1962 and Boston’s differential fell by 22 points. Four games is infinitesimally small, but all of these stories point in the same direction. It was only when Russell was hampered by injury (in the 1958 Finals) that the Celtics fell short of a title — the single time a Russell team failed to win in a 12-year span dating back to college.7

This trend would hold throughout most of Russell’s career. In ’66, Sam Jones missed eight games and Boston’s performance didn’t budge. Jones missed 11 more contests in ’69 and the team was about 2 points worse without him. All told, as the roster cycled around Russell, his impact seemed to remain. A more detailed calculation of his game-level value has Russell at the top of the impact-heap in his era, while similar studies have him behind only Jerry West and Oscar Robertson (who both had the fortune of playing on dominant teams during the most watered-down years in NBA history).

Playing against west in the finals, russell succesfully shut him down even with west fouling out his team's 4 next best defenders. But go ahead, keep whining about russell's "stacked" teams.
Wilt did not join the 60s Heatles, what kind of nonsense is that. He joined a team with an ailing Baylor who was shooting his team out of playoffs and the coach hating him.

He joined two of the league's best 5 players after they'd put together the best offense ever. Heatles is generous.
Wilt brought them a title finally after van Breda Kolf and Baylor had left, despite suffering an injury most had considered career ending the year before.

Yes, left with merely the best offensive player of his generation to help him, along with another top ten guy in walton, he managed to beat old man russell in his first year as a player coach. Clearly this overrules russell's decade worth of consistent dominance :roll:.
swap Wilt and Russell, adjust the team accordingly and it would have been Wilt having more rings than Russell, easily. Russell for most of the decade had the superior team. When the time came that the roles were reversed Wilt's team crushed Russell's something that never happened the other way around when Wilt was healthy.

Based on what? Russell's defense would fit anywhere. Wilt's offense could not. There is literally nothing suggesting wilt was the more imapactful player. His teams suffered less without him, his impact metrics are inferior to russell's, and his teams were more dependent on wilt's teammates than the celtics were dependent on russell's.

There is no reason to think wilt would have more rings, let alone 11 if they switched situations. Your hypothetical is baseless and silly. Nothing suggests wilt was more important to his team, ad russell's teams were clearly better.

What is wilt's argument again?
DatAsh
Junior
Posts: 403
And1: 185
Joined: Sep 25, 2015

Re: Bill Russell or Wilt Chamberlain career? 

Post#54 » by DatAsh » Wed Aug 14, 2019 2:32 am

Pg81 wrote:When the time came that the roles were reversed Wilt's team crushed Russell's something that never happened the other way around when Wilt was healthy.


That's not really what happened though, unless you're only concerned with that one year.

Wilt came into the league in 1960, so they went at it for a decade. For 6 of those years, Russell had better teammates, and he went 6/6 against Wilt in those years. For 4 of those years, Wilt had equal or slightly better teammates, yet Russell still went 3/4 against Wilt in those years.

In my view, 66-69 made it clear who the better player was. Had we never seen Wilt with good teams, and had he never won because of that, I actually think you could make a better argument for him.
DatAsh
Junior
Posts: 403
And1: 185
Joined: Sep 25, 2015

Re: Bill Russell or Wilt Chamberlain career? 

Post#55 » by DatAsh » Wed Aug 14, 2019 2:38 am

You can blame the coach or Wilt for the Laker struggles in 69, and I personally place the blame on both of them, but can you imagine adding Russell to that team instead of Wilt? 69 Lakers with Russell instead of Wilt would likely be one of the best teams ever. Best offense and best defense. They already had the best offense(Russell wouldn't get in the way of that at all), and coupled with Russell's truly unique ability to basically guarantee the best defense :o Definitely in the running for best team ever, imo.
freethedevil
Veteran
Posts: 2,627
And1: 1,471
Joined: Dec 09, 2018
         

Re: Bill Russell or Wilt Chamberlain career? 

Post#56 » by freethedevil » Wed Aug 14, 2019 3:11 am

DatAsh wrote:
Pg81 wrote:When the time came that the roles were reversed Wilt's team crushed Russell's something that never happened the other way around when Wilt was healthy.


That's not really what happened though, unless you're only concerned with that one year.

Wilt came into the league in 1960, so they went at it for a decade. For 6 of those years, Russell had better teammates, and he went 6/6 against Wilt in those years. For 4 of those years, Wilt had equal or slightly better teammates, yet Russell still went 3/4 against Wilt in those years.

In my view, 66-69 made it clear who the better player was. Had we never seen Wilt with good teams, and had he never won because of that, I actually think you could make a better argument for him.

In fairness, injuries happened in two of those finals, but taking them to game 7 before wilt's coach took him out is suffecient to indicate russell was better imo.

Additionally, injuries due affect your value. So if you yourself getting injured costs your team a ring, can't really use that to take away the ring from who beat you as an accomplishment.
DatAsh
Junior
Posts: 403
And1: 185
Joined: Sep 25, 2015

Re: Bill Russell or Wilt Chamberlain career? 

Post#57 » by DatAsh » Wed Aug 14, 2019 3:13 am

freethedevil wrote:
DatAsh wrote:
Pg81 wrote:When the time came that the roles were reversed Wilt's team crushed Russell's something that never happened the other way around when Wilt was healthy.


That's not really what happened though, unless you're only concerned with that one year.

Wilt came into the league in 1960, so they went at it for a decade. For 6 of those years, Russell had better teammates, and he went 6/6 against Wilt in those years. For 4 of those years, Wilt had equal or slightly better teammates, yet Russell still went 3/4 against Wilt in those years.

In my view, 66-69 made it clear who the better player was. Had we never seen Wilt with good teams, and had he never won because of that, I actually think you could make a better argument for him.

In fairness, injuries happened in two of those finals, but taking them to game 7 before wilt's coach took him out is suffecient to indicate russell was better imo.

Additionally, injuries due affect your value. So if you yourself getting injured costs your team a ring, can't really use that to take away the ring from who beat you as an accomplishment.


Agreed
Warspite
RealGM
Posts: 13,191
And1: 1,029
Joined: Dec 13, 2003
Location: Surprise AZ
Contact:
       

Re: Bill Russell or Wilt Chamberlain career? 

Post#58 » by Warspite » Wed Aug 14, 2019 3:20 am

mrsocko wrote:
Ron Swanson wrote:Full stop. The '67 Sixers were not "more stacked than any team Russell ever played for". They weren't even any more stacked then the Celtics were that same year....

I've always maintained that Wilt was the better player in a vacuum than Russell, not because of the statistical production, but because like the poster above explained, we actually got to see Wilt in different roles throughout his career (dominant scorer, play-maker/distributor and offensive anchor, lower usage defensive anchor) and be dominant in every single facet. To me, no player in history (not Jordan or Lebron) so seamlessly transitioned between such varying roles on his teams and excelled to the extent that Wilt did.


We got to see Wilt in different roles because there was only one role that brought 11 championships in 13 years. That was Bill Russell. He didn’t have to change anything. He knew that if he let Wilt play hero ball that his team would win. It is a proven fact that the more one player dominates a team the less Efficient that team becomes. Finding the open man is the best play in basketball. It a team sport and if Wilt had figured that out earlier he would have won many more championships


When Wilt found the open man he shot about 25% from the field. He lost 3 Championships from having teammates flat out choke throwing up bricks. 62 and 68 are epic fails by his teammates.
HomoSapien wrote:Warspite, the greatest poster in the history of realgm.
Warspite
RealGM
Posts: 13,191
And1: 1,029
Joined: Dec 13, 2003
Location: Surprise AZ
Contact:
       

Re: Bill Russell or Wilt Chamberlain career? 

Post#59 » by Warspite » Wed Aug 14, 2019 3:26 am

penbeast0 wrote:
Jaivl wrote:
penbeast0 wrote:Do I get to have sex with over 10,000 women too . . . otherwise Russell.

Was reading the thread with hopes of making that same joke... Damn you Penbeast!


That post was from 2013 . . . . I am of course way too mature to make such a joke now.



Just curious I received an +1 from a post that was 11 yrs old last week. Anything like that happen to you?
HomoSapien wrote:Warspite, the greatest poster in the history of realgm.
WarriorGM
Starter
Posts: 2,447
And1: 1,176
Joined: Aug 19, 2017

Re: Bill Russell or Wilt Chamberlain career? 

Post#60 » by WarriorGM » Wed Aug 14, 2019 3:26 am

Warspite wrote:
mrsocko wrote:
Ron Swanson wrote:Full stop. The '67 Sixers were not "more stacked than any team Russell ever played for". They weren't even any more stacked then the Celtics were that same year....

I've always maintained that Wilt was the better player in a vacuum than Russell, not because of the statistical production, but because like the poster above explained, we actually got to see Wilt in different roles throughout his career (dominant scorer, play-maker/distributor and offensive anchor, lower usage defensive anchor) and be dominant in every single facet. To me, no player in history (not Jordan or Lebron) so seamlessly transitioned between such varying roles on his teams and excelled to the extent that Wilt did.


We got to see Wilt in different roles because there was only one role that brought 11 championships in 13 years. That was Bill Russell. He didn’t have to change anything. He knew that if he let Wilt play hero ball that his team would win. It is a proven fact that the more one player dominates a team the less Efficient that team becomes. Finding the open man is the best play in basketball. It a team sport and if Wilt had figured that out earlier he would have won many more championships


When Wilt found the open man he shot about 25% from the field. He lost 3 Championships from having teammates flat out choke throwing up bricks. 62 and 68 are epic fails by his teammates.


One of the things that made Russell a winner was knowing his teammates and playing to their strengths. Just another one of those intangibles that gets overlooked.

Return to Player Comparisons