RGM Top 100 Vote Thread - The Greatest Player of All-Time

[Sedale Threatt]

I've learned a ton about Bill Russell over the past couple years, and my opinion has evolved accordingly. I went from being soundly in Wilt Chamberlain's camp to seeing no possible way I could rate him over Russell, and now I'm seriously considering putting him over Kareem, which was another Rubicon I never thought I'd cross.

I will draw a permanent line at Jordan, however.

It's certainly worth the debate, but I just don't see any way I can be swayed from voting Jordan first, for any number of reasons. The ridiculous individual dominance, the wealth of accolades, the fact his team always won the title when it was good enough, the way he always went down fighting in losing causes, how he produced at a record-setting level, yet actually managed to play better in the playoffs, when it counted most.

And regarding the whole "intangibles" debate...obviously, Russell is off the charts in this area. It's a huge indicator of his championship pedigree that he won two titles in college, then ripped off so many more in the pros. The Celtics always won when they should have, plus a few more times when they shouldn't have. That's a tremendous testament to Russell's impact, as is Boston's 11-0 record in Game 7s.

That said, how was Jordan not immensely gifted in his own right? Perhaps not as a team builder like Russell, but in terms of raw will, determination, utter confidence, the refusal to lose, etc., etc. There has never been a more fierce competitor in NBA history than Michael Jordan. Never.

I'm just about to finish Halberstam's "Playing for Keeps" for the third time, and it is absolutely filled with anecdote after anecdote about Jordan rising to the challenge each and every time. I think about Jordan, and one word comes to mind -- flawless. I literally can't come up with a single thing about his game or approach that wasn't elite, with the possible exception that he used to railroad teammates he didn't respect.

That said, guys like B.J. Armstrong and Steve Kerr are quoted as saying Jordan's ridiculously high expectations are a huge reason why the Bulls succeeded as they did. Nobody wanted to let him down, or squander the opportunity to play next to such a spectacular athlete. As if by weeding out the weak links, he made the team better -- a quality I've always found to be trite at best, yet the case can still be made.

I'll willingly admit to a generational bias here. Russell was fantastic. I just saw Jordan come through too many times, in such spectacular fashion, to vote for anyone else.

[lorak]

re: Different Eras. I don't understand how we are supposed to seriously consider "how well game translates to other eras." League rules as well as economic factors change the dynamics of the game, and the sport evolved. Why not just judge guys based on what they did?

Sure. So Mikan was the most dominant ever - that what he did ;] so where would you rank him?

As for GOAT I'm with you, it's MJ vs Russell for me, but I will probably vote for Jordan because he had less flaws.

re: Dr J
If he had so great impact I would like to see some data confirming that, not some sentences like "I remember TLAF said so".
And if we count ABA he definitely is borderline top 10 player, but if we count ABA what with players like Mel Daniels or even Roger Brown?

[TMACFORMVP]

re: Intangibles. These are *already* built in to impact. If someone had really bad off-court issues, or zapped a team in practice and uninspired them, then we would see in that a player's impact. I fear people look at a player's impact (intangibles built in) and then ADD some intangible factor, which really at its root is just a bias.

I see this with McGrady vs. Kobe Bryant. It's been noted by many NBA people that McGrady had "lazy" habits, and like Allen Iverson, didn't take practice as seriously as he could have. BUT THE DUDE STILL SMOKED THE LEAGUE IN 2003.

Someone says, well, if McGrady had more "fire" (or whatever) he would have had a better career. That's true probably. But he made SEVEN all-nba teams. Guess what - if Shaq cared more about basketball he might have been the GOAT.

But we should just judge these guys on how they played/actual impact.

I think we have similar views, but over the course of this thread, I've used the word intangible differently. For me, I've considered intangibles as leadership, clutch play, etc, which could also be taken as literal aspects of ones game as you allude to. It's not necessarily bashing ones career because they lacked as much "fire" or "drive" as another player, but merely pointing out that there have been instances where that lack of whatever we call it has hurt them in their overall ranking. Had McGrady been past the first round, he'd be much highly ranked, a shoe in for the HOF, similarly with Shaq and his claim at GOAT status. Nearly talent wise, and statistically, there isn't a difference from a prime McGrady, and Kobe, but the difference shows up in the ability to step up in big games, and lead a team to it's furthest potential (I also would like to say as a side note, I'm in 100% agreement that outside of his 03 season, many people don't realize Mac is underrated in the sense many don't realize he's been an All-NBA caliber, and consistent top finisher in MVP voting for nearly a decade). But there have been too many instances where he's settled, and blown series with substantial leads (two series with 2-0 leads, one having won both games on the road, a 3-1 series lead, and losing a Game 7 at home).

As much as I'd pain to say it, the greats would have had that desire to close those series, regardless of the supporting cast that was given. I've been using that little gap as intangibles, when it should I suppose be taken apart of a players impact, not thrown around to the side. I also understand what you mean, that shouldn't really play much a factor, since "what if" games just leads to more questions and uncertainty - we should just take the players at face value. Unfortunately, I think that sort of argument is inevitable when we're discussing the GOAT, when the littlest of things matter between all these players that are of similar caliber.

[Sedale Threatt]

Two big markdowns for me with Dr. J:

No. 1: He played in an era where the talent pool was diluted, so it's difficult to measure his true impact.

No. 2: His teams had some notable screw-ups in the playoffs, where they should have won championships.

At any rate, I don't even see why his name is coming up so early. He's not even close to the top spot.

[JordansBulls]

Vote for Kareem

I flip back and forth on Jordan and Kareem but if there's ever a tie in my mind, I give it to the big. Many people claim that Magic was "the guy" on those Lakers championship teams, and offensively there absolutely correct but Kareem anchored the defense as well as being a dynamic scorer in his own right. Kareem wasn't an actual #2 impact guy like Kobe was on the Shaq years because of his defense.

Nominate: Jerry West

In 1987 and 1988 he was. And was a #3 in 1988.

[TMACFORMVP]

re: Dr J
If he had so great impact I would like to see some data confirming that, not some sentences like "I remember TLAF said so".
And if we count ABA he definitely is borderline top 10 player, but if we count ABA what with players like Mel Daniels or even Roger Brown?

I don't know if you read the post or not, but everything said there was fact. The Nets did win the ABA championship, beating the Nuggets. The same Nuggets team went on to finish with the NBA's second best record after the merger, while the Nets team that beat them just the previous season without Erving finished with the worst record in the NBA, by more than eight games. And the Sixers team Erving went to went from a .500 team that reached the NBA Finals in his first season.

I don't understand what more data you'd want with that particular example. And Sedale, it's for the nomination, not this actual spot, so you bring up a good point in that discussion would be better served when it actually comes time for Erving to be selected, lol.

[Sedale Threatt]

Got it.

[Dr Positivity]

There's a small problem I have with Wilt Chamberlain. He was great, no doubt, amazing athlete, very powerful, and as dominant as they come. But when it comes to ranking him, why does he get the nod so EASILY over someone just as powerful of an athlete, dominant as an athlete, and most certainly a bigger winner in the sport of basketball like Shaq?

In the modern era only 2 guys have been leaders to a three-peat: Shaq and Jordan. Before that you have to go back to Russell and Mikan. Wilt has too been a journey man in the NBA, he's too had issues regarding teammates with egos. However, when it comes down to it, he put it all together on the line one time, and that was in '67. Shaq's done that three times, and his '01 Lakers are regarded as one of the greatest teams EVER, just like the '67 Sixers. It just makes no sense to me why Wilt gets so much praise and hype, I understand his era dominance (although it can be argued that Shaq is arguably the most dominant athlete to ever play, just like Wilt, there was not one player that could stop him, and he went up against the best; don't let the '95 Finals fool you, Olajuwon in no way did he stop or even come close to containing Shaq), I understand how great of an athlete he was, but IMHO he does not so easily get the sway of votes over Shaq. Not for me anyways.

I'm with you, I have Shaq over Wilt on my list. I see Shaq as the evolutionary Wilt with better playoff and Finals performances, which is frankly the reason Shaq has 4 titles and Wilt has 2

[ElGee]

re: Different Eras. I don't understand how we are supposed to seriously consider "how well game translates to other eras." League rules as well as economic factors change the dynamics of the game, and the sport evolved. Why not just judge guys based on what they did?

Sure. So Mikan was the most dominant ever - that what he did ;] so where would you rank him?

As for GOAT I'm with you, it's MJ vs Russell for me, but I will probably vote for Jordan because he had less flaws.

re: Dr J
If he had so great impact I would like to see some data confirming that, not some sentences like "I remember TLAF said so".
And if we count ABA he definitely is borderline top 10 player, but if we count ABA what with players like Mel Daniels or even Roger Brown?

For me, I draw in the line in the sand somewhere and call it basketball. James Naismith was probably ridiculously dominant in 1891, but I don't need him on my GOAT list. I start somewhere around the shot clock era...basketball before then often featured stuff like "passing demonstrations" and "suprise attacks."

So I can acknowledge Mikan's dominance and importance on the game, but he's slightly outside the scope of something like this for me (and my Dad is 73 and isn't offended by this generational bias).

[lorak]

re: Dr J
If he had so great impact I would like to see some data confirming that, not some sentences like "I remember TLAF said so".
And if we count ABA he definitely is borderline top 10 player, but if we count ABA what with players like Mel Daniels or even Roger Brown?

I don't know if you read the post or not, but everything said there was fact. The Nets did win the ABA championship, beating the Nuggets. The same Nuggets team went on to finish with the NBA's second best record after the merger, while the Nets team that beat them just the previous season without Erving finished with the worst record in the NBA, by more than eight games. And the Sixers team Erving went to went from a .500 team that reached the NBA Finals in his first season.

I don't understand what more data you'd want with that particular example. And Sedale, it's for the nomination, not this actual spot, so you bring up a good point in that discussion would be better served when it actually comes time for Erving to be selected, lol.

76ers:
1976 - 46 wins
1977 - 50 wins

Not so big difference, SRS looks better, but there were also other changes - for example in 1977 they added Caldwell Jones, very good defensive center.

Nets
+1000 minutes

1976
Dr J
R. Jones
Williamson
Hughes
Skinner
Bassett
Taylor
Melchionni
Nater

1977
Bassett
Breda Kolff
Skinner
Hawkins
Williamson (only 42 games)
Archibald (only 34 games)
Fox
Bantom
Terry

So we see that were completely different teams, only Bassett and Skinner played in 1976 and 1977 and of course Williamson but he missed half season in 1977.

[lorak]

re: Different Eras. I don't understand how we are supposed to seriously consider "how well game translates to other eras." League rules as well as economic factors change the dynamics of the game, and the sport evolved. Why not just judge guys based on what they did?

Sure. So Mikan was the most dominant ever - that what he did ;] so where would you rank him?

As for GOAT I'm with you, it's MJ vs Russell for me, but I will probably vote for Jordan because he had less flaws.

re: Dr J
If he had so great impact I would like to see some data confirming that, not some sentences like "I remember TLAF said so".
And if we count ABA he definitely is borderline top 10 player, but if we count ABA what with players like Mel Daniels or even Roger Brown?

For me, I draw in the line in the sand somewhere and call it basketball. James Naismith was probably ridiculously dominant in 1891, but I don't need him on my GOAT list. I start somewhere around the shot clock era...basketball before then often featured stuff like "passing demonstrations" and "suprise attacks."

So I can acknowledge Mikan's dominance and importance on the game, but he's slightly outside the scope of something like this for me (and my Dad is 73 and isn't offended by this generational bias).

But why? There are players who were good before shot clock and after. For example Shayes was All NBA 1st team in 1954 and then three times with shot clock and in 1961 he was last time selected to 2nd team. Cousy - similar story, only longer, because he was All NBA even in 1963. That's only two examples but there's more of them. But the point is - if someone was very good at basketball several years before shot clock he also was good with shot clock. So I don't see reason to discredit Mikan, who wasn't worse than Pettit, who probably will be in our top 20-30.

Or If we will be discredit players before shot clock this project shouldn't be called "all time" but "top 100 since shot clock". It would be more fair, IMHO of course

[TMACFORMVP]

76ers:
1976 - 46 wins
1977 - 50 wins

Not so big difference, SRS looks better, but there were also other changes - for example in 1977 they added Caldwell Jones, very good defensive center.

I was merely alluding to them becoming a team that went to the NBA Finals, when the previous year, they lost in the first round. That's the biggest jump to make in the NBA. Not to mention, the record doesn't indicate too much considering it took time to adjust to his new teammates. The Sixers finished 32-18, which means that they got off to a 18-14 start. It shows with the better chemistry, why they won 55 games in the regular season the next year.

So we see that was completly different teams, only Bassett and Skinner played in 1976 and 1977 and of course Williamson but he missed half season in 1977.

I did note in my post that Williamson missed half the season, and other few players had left the team as well, but perhaps I did overstate the significance Dr. J had on that Nets team. But nonetheless, it's undeniable, the remainder of that cast that had left were role players, while the loss of Erving was the biggest factor in them being the worst team in the NBA, while the team he joined made the NBA finals.

And it's also interesting to note that the Nets prior to his arrival won 30 games, and lost in the first round, while his first season with them resulted in 55 wins and an ABA championship.

[An Unbiased Fan]

Vote for Kareem

I flip back and forth on Jordan and Kareem but if there's ever a tie in my mind, I give it to the big. Many people claim that Magic was "the guy" on those Lakers championship teams, and offensively there absolutely correct but Kareem anchored the defense as well as being a dynamic scorer in his own right. Kareem wasn't an actual #2 impact guy like Kobe was on the Shaq years because of his defense.

Nominate: Jerry West

In 1987 and 1988 he was. And was a #3 in 1988.

If you use the "vaunted" stat winshares, then Kobe has a 16.8 WS edge to KAJ's 10.1 WS, in both their 5 title runs in LA. Kobe's 0.190 WS/48 also beats out KAJ's 0.162 WS/48.

This is a major reason why I'm probably going to vote MJ. KAJ wasn't as impactful for his 6 rings, as MJ was.

As a matter of fact, I think I've made my decision.

My vote for #1 = Michael Jordan. He was not without flaws(but who isn't), yet clearly, he was the most complete player ever, and had the most complete resume ever.

Nomination = Mikan. I'm not sure how high he will go in my rankings, but it's hard not to at least put him into the discussion considering what he did during his era.

[Baller 24]

I would hate for it to seem like I'm piling on Russell, but since he's in contention for the #1 spot, I feel compelled to point out a few more things.

1) I tend to feel that Russell dominance, even within his own era, is a bit overstated. Amongst the Top 10 candidates, Russell is the ONLY one with less than 6 All-NBA 1st team nods. Even more amazing is that he barely has half of that total at 3. Now competition definitely factors into this since both MJ & KAJ probably had the easiest time getting 1st teams nods during their eras, but even still, it's hard to call Russ the GOAT when he wasn't even rated the #1 center 9 out of 12 years.

How do you figure this? I definitely wouldn't consider All-NBA Teams as a primary factor to consider who the best center was, isn't their objective the same thing? To win the NBA Championship? Russell did that, and despite the HOFs on his team, they wouldn't have been HOFs without the main piece: Bill Russell. His team wasn't always stacked and talented compared to his peers, he just knew how to play his role right, and exactly what to do. He stated in his book you only spend very little time scoring the basketball in a game of basketball, it's what you do for the other 38-40 minutes that make you win games.

2) Not only did Wilt best Russell in All-NBA 1st teams 7 to 3, he was also the more dominant rebounder & scorer. Wilt was #1 in RPG 11 out of 13 times, and #2 the other 2 seasons. He was #1 in PPG seven times, and led the NBA in FG% nine times. Russell was the superior defender, but it should also be noted that Wilt made 2 All-D 1st teams at the end of his career.

However, Russell would have the All-NBA Defensive team named in his honor if it was recorded at the start of his career. And on top of that Russell's got the most important accolade, and that's the NBA Championships, along with his 5 MVPs.

I give Russell major credit for his leadership & intangibles, but it's hard to ignore the multiple HOFers he was surrounded by in an 8 team league. I'm not sure how Russ is over Wilt in both dominance of the 60's as a player, or in how well they would do across other decades. Wilt's skillset and style of play would be dominant from the 50's-00's, while I question what Russell would produce post-merger. A center who shoots in the mid to low 40% would have a tough time outside of the 50-60's.

Everything you were stating was a debate until I read this part. Here's where I wholeheartedly disagree Russell's teammates wouldn't be in the HOF without him. KC Jones, Tommy Henison, Hondo, Sam Jones, ETC they all were benefited by Russell. In a 70s after Wilt retired he stated on video that he probably couldn't have replicated what Russell did with 11 championships, even if he was replaced and played on the Celtics. You can also argue that Wilt's teammates were more talented and overall had a higher skillset with guys like Greer, Walker, and Cunningham. There's only one player that was capable of nearly containing Chamberlain, and that was Russell, just imagine how incredibly hard must have been to win 2 championships as a player/coach. He's the GOAT defender, his rebounding skills are regardless of how much slightly better Wilt was, is still amongst the elite. He wouldn't be shooting that low of a percentage, he was an absolute iron man, and his abilities as a passer can be lethal, especially in today's game (we see the importance of capable passing big men like KG, TD, Shaq, Dirk, ETC). You can't discount the fact that he was a winner, that's the biggest thing he's got on Wilt, especially considering HIS team faced Russell's multiple times in the playoffs. And I'll say it again Russell's talent is nothing without him on that team.

[FJS]

My vote goes to KAJ:
He dominated in 2 teams, 2 eras.
6 MVP, 6 Titles
Max. Scorer of all-time
All star every year but 1979
A great C who dominated in offense and deffense.


Then, nominate for MJ
MJ reasons are pretty obvious and a lot of you have written about it.

[penbeast0]

Who is the GOAT? There are basically 4 main contenders: Michael Jordan, Bill Russell, Wilt Chamberlain, and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. That said, one falls out quickly.
Kareem just isn’t at the level of the other 3 contenders. When he was at his peak, his team more consistently underperformed, failing to make the playoffs or losing in early rounds. He did win 1 title before Magic Johnson, probably the 5th greatest player of all time, joined him and they started winning and was the primary player on at least 1 and possibly as many as 3 more titles before it clearly became Magic’s team for the rest of his career. However 1-4 titles is not a lot of team success for a man supposedly the greatest player of all time; he couldn’t carry teams alone but his teams were often underperformers despite his individual brilliance. This tends to be blamed on his lack of killer instinct but I think it is more his personality. Kareem was a shy, withdrawn yet highly egotistical person; he didn’t reach out to teammates or focus on team goals until Magic’s personality transformed those Kareem/Jamaal Wilkes/Norm Nixon collections of talent into genuine teams. Similarly, he only won with Milwaukee when Oscar Robertson took over the clubhouse leadership. As for his stats, they are great but don’t compare to Wilt, who was a greater scorer (even with pace adjustment and especially if you adjust for league wide efficiency levels at the same time) and a much greater rebounder. Jabbar was a very good rebounder, but compared to the GOAT centers, Wilt and Russell, he fell considerably short. Finally, his defensive impact, while good (better than Wilt’s excluding defensive rebounding) only compares to an average Russell year in his absolute peak.
Wilt also falls short in the area of carrying his team above and beyond their talents. His “failings” are massively documented; but basically he couldn’t get past Bill Russell and the Celtics even when he had better talent (68-69) and Auerbach was not longer coach (Russell was), yet Russell still won. Yet Wilt is still the greatest scorer of all time, one of the 3 claimants for the title of greatest rebounder of all time, and won 2 titles although for the title in LA he was no longer the main man offensively. Greatest individual player of all time, but doesn’t match up team wise.
Thus is comes down to Russell v. Jordan. Michael Jordan is, like Russell with rebounding, the GOAT of scoring. Wilt during his prime was a superior force and LeBron before this year was closing in when you adjust for pace (sharing with Wade and Bosh has lessened his individual numbers) but Jordan still tops the leaderboard for greatest scorer even adjusting for pace. He is also the greatest winner since Russell and Mikan with 6 rings in a greatly expanded league which does make it more difficult to win titles. Why then do I go with Russell for GOAT? First, Russell’s defense was at least as important to the Celtic titles as Jordan’s scoring was to the Bulls. And, Russell was also at the GOAT level in a second area, rebounding. Jordan wasn’t one dimensional, he was a good rebounder and passer and an outstanding defender but not GOAT level at any of those skills (he might have been for wing defense if he had focused on it consistently but he often saved his energy defensively for his offense except during crunch time where he was superb). Secondly, Jordan wasn’t a winner from day 1 to the end like Russell. Jordan came into the league on a weaker team than Russell did and before Phil Jackson came in and talked him into more of a sharing role, was widely perceived as a “me” guy determined to get his stats even at the expense of his teammates. One famous argument was when his coach used the “there’s no I in team” and Jordan shot back “but there’s an I in win.” It took Jordan several years and the GOAT coach (the Zen Master has won everywhere with different talents; Red never won before Russell and the Celtics won after Red left) to get to the top. Even when he focused his talents on winning, Jordan famously quit basketball to try to play pro baseball, leaving his teammates in the midst of a 3 championship run. He came back for 3 more then retired – and his comeback with the Wizards, while basically irrelevant to his basketball skills, again shows this “me” ego issue; he hurt the team’s development with his must win now comeback. And that’s the third strike against Jordan. He was a jerk. He called his teammates his supporting cast and ripped them in the press. He gets a pass for it generally because they won anyway and because of the massive media hype of his day but his dynasty was never going to last like Russell’s IMHO because he would drive off other great players eventually with his arrogance. Jordan is the greatest non-center to ever play, easily, and the #2 guy all time for me, but compared to Russell he is second best.
On the pro side, Russell is arguably the greatest rebounder of all time – easily the all-time leader in rebounds per 36 minutes at 19.1 (Wilt was only 18.0 per 36, he just played ungodly minutes) although it is tough to compare him to Rodman because of the problem with different calculations of team rebounds and pace differentials, still he is at worst second. His rebounding dominance is comparable to Jordan’s scoring dominance only great rebounding volume correlates more highly with team success than great scoring volume! He was also the greatest passing center of his era; a better passer for a center than MJ for a guard. He was also a great leader and teammate with everyone that ever played with him singing his praises unanimously. And, he won that 1969 title with an aging and weakened Celtic team with appreciably less talent around him than his main rivals, particularly Wilt. His weakness is his scoring. In his early years, he was a decent scorer (15-20 ppg) with excellent efficiency for his era (top 5 in the league in FG% his first 4 years) though the raw percentage was an unimpressive 44% or so; but in a league where the league average was around 40. Then they moved him outside to take advantage of his passing skills and open lanes for Havlicek and Sam Jones to drive and later for Bailey Howell to set up in the post; he was not an outside shooter (poor FT%) and his shooting suffered accordingly BUT his team continued to win every year and he never complained about sacrificing his individual game for team goals (unlike Jordan). So, for Russell, his case comes down to (1) GOAT winner, (2) GOAT defensive force, (3) GOAT rebounder = GOAT.

Vote – Bill Russell
Nominate – George Mikan (I’m not sure if he is top 10, top 20, or even top 50, but he’s the only guy not nominated that even an argument could be made for being top 5. I also looked at Erving, West, Moses, and LeBron.

[Baller 24]

My vote goes to KAJ:
He dominated in 2 teams, 2 eras.
6 MVP, 6 Titles
Max. Scorer of all-time
All star every year but 1979
A great C who dominated in offense and deffense.


Then, nominate for MJ
MJ reasons are pretty obvious and a lot of you have written about it.

MJ as in Jordan? He's already on the ballot.

[Baller 24]

I've got my nominations down to three guys: Kevin Garnett, Moses Malone, and Julius Erving.

All three have one championship with an absolutely loaded roster, all three have years where their peak is ridiculously high, statistically speaking ('04 KG, '83 Malone, '75 Erving). While Garnett's defensive value is already noted to be the best this decade, but in comparison he blows them out of the water. Clear rebounding advantage goes to Malone, but KG's not too far off. If I'm looking at between KG, West, and Big O, I'm not even hesitant on picking KG there, but Malone and Erving are the tough and interesting ones to choose between.

[An Unbiased Fan]

How do you figure this? I definitely wouldn't consider All-NBA Teams as a primary factor to consider who the best center was, isn't their objective the same thing? To win the NBA Championship? Russell did that, and despite the HOFs on his team, they wouldn't have been HOFs without the main piece: Bill Russell. His team wasn't always stacked and talented compared to his peers, he just knew how to play his role right, and exactly what to do. He stated in his book you only spend very little time scoring the basketball in a game of basketball, it's what you do for the other 38-40 minutes that make you win games.

I get what you're saying, and defintely don't think All-NBA teams should be the sole determinent of which player was better during a particular season. It's just that the difference is so dramatic with Russell. It seems all the great players(even those not listed in the Top 10) have 5 or more All-NBA 1st teams.

That said, Russ does have 5 MVPs, so I do think he was a dominant player in that era. it's just that I'm not sure if there's much seperation from Wilt, or if he's even higher than Wilt.

However, Russell would have the All-NBA Defensive team named in his honor if it was recorded at the start of his career. And on top of that Russell's got the most important accolade, and that's the NBA Championships, along with his 5 MVPs.

Very true. I'm sure Russell would have racked up All-D & DPOY awards, which is a major point in his favor. Even still though, Wilt seemed to be the more complete player. A guy who could score at a much higher volume and with better efficiency than Russell by a huge margin. Wilt was the better rebounder, while Russ was the far superior defender.

Everything you were stating was a debate until I read this part. Here's where I wholeheartedly disagree Russell's teammates wouldn't be in the HOF without him. KC Jones, Tommy Henison, Hondo, Sam Jones, ETC they all were benefited by Russell. In a 70s after Wilt retired he stated on video that he probably couldn't have replicated what Russell did with 11 championships, even if he was replaced and played on the Celtics. You can also argue that Wilt's teammates were more talented and overall had a higher skillset with guys like Greer, Walker, and Cunningham.

Well Russell did come to a team with an established star(Cousy). He benefitted from having the best facilitator of that era. As Cousy was on his way out, Hondo came in. Hondo was a guy who put up bigtime seasons even after Russell retired, and led the Celtics to 2 titles himself.

I do think the other roleplayers are a bit overrated, but let's not act like the 60's Celtics weren't stacked. They benifted from playing with Russell, but Russell also benefitted from playing with them. I have to toally disagree with Wilt's cast being comparable to Russ's.

There's only one player that was capable of nearly containing Chamberlain, and that was Russell, just imagine how incredibly hard must have been to win 2 championships as a player/coach. He's the GOAT defender, his rebounding skills are regardless of how much slightly better Wilt was, is still amongst the elite. He wouldn't be shooting that low of a percentage, he was an absolute iron man, and his abilities as a passer can be lethal, especially in today's game (we see the importance of capable passing big men like KG, TD, Shaq, Dirk, ETC). You can't discount the fact that he was a winner, that's the biggest thing he's got on Wilt, especially considering HIS team faced Russell's multiple times in the playoffs. And I'll say it again Russell's talent is nothing without him on that team.

Those are some great points, and I think you have swayed me a bit in regards to Wilt vs Russell. The head to head matchups are hard to overlook, and I do agree that much of his value isnt' neccesarily translated into the stat sheet. It's just a shame that the NBA didn't keep better video records, so we could see that 60'-65' era more in depth.

[penbeast0]

Very true. I'm sure Russell would have racked up All-D & DPOY awards, which is a major point in his favor. Even still though, Wilt seemed to be the more complete player. A guy who could score at a much higher volume and with better efficiency than Russell by a huge margin. Wilt was the better rebounder, while Russ was the far superior defender.

Actually, according to basketball-reference.com, Russell pulled down 19.1 rebounds/48 minutes for his career while Wilt pulled down 18.0 which is a clear rebounding edge for Russell over Wilt. Wilt just played such crazy minutes that it inflates all his already superhuman stats. But Rodman or Russell, not Wilt, had the highest rebound rate of all time.