Bill Russell or Wilt Chamberlain career?

[Pg81]

Wilt is a better player russell had a better career.

What sealed wilt>Russell to me was wilts 1967 and especially 1972 seasons. He was asked to just play defense,rebound, block shots, and don't worry about scoring. Pretty much let the other guys carry that load, which is also pretty much bill Russell's job description his entire career.

And it resulted in one of the best teams of all time and a championship. What that told me was if wilt was put in that role his entire career like in Boston he could've done that same thing. Instead he was asked to carry the team offensively from day one which is what his coaches asked him to do.

Then what happened between 67 and 72?

The sixers and lakers were more stacked than any team russell ever played with, and bill still beat them. wilt chamberlain didn't have to carry anything, he literally was a stat padder. he thought that breaking all the stats and stuff would do more for his legacy than winning, why anyone feels pity for him and his teams are beyond me.

The Lakers were stacked? Baylor was old, declining and repeatedly shat the bed in the playoffs having series where he shot sub 35% and sub 30% from the field. All three struggled with injuries including Wilt busting his knee out so badly that many doubted he would be able to make a meaningful comeback. Together the had one season where all three played healthily together in the playoffs and that's it.
The Lakers were only stacked if all you did was just reading some names on paper without any context whatsoever. On top of that the initial head coach van Breda Kolf also disliked Wilt immensely which did not help integrating during his first year while also pressuring him into a totally new role as a defensive anchor while basically showing a tendency of freezing Wilt out on offense even when Baylor had a terrible quarter/game/series.

Yeah the 76ers were more stacked than the Celtics. Just like the Celtics were more stacked when Wilt was on the Warriors. The difference? Wilt brought the Celtics to the brink of elimination while playing on a significantly inferior team. Russell on the other hand went out with a whimper in 67 and would have repeated that in 68 if not for the entire 76ers team being injured in the playoffs with Wilt having a torn calf muscle. Most of the time Wilt was hanging monster games on Russell with 25+/30+ points, 15+/20+ rebounds and sometimes double digit blocks. You can count the times Russell did the same to Wilt on one hand.

No he was not a stat padder not anymore than MJ was. If he were he would consider his 100 point game as one of his finest achievements. He did not, quite the contrary in fact, he considered an embarrassment and during the game he told his coach that he actually did not want to do it but his team mates continued to keep passing him the ball.

But please continue hating on one of the best players of NBA history with unfounded exaggerations or outright misrepresentations.

[Laimbeer]

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.

[Jack Dempsey]

My answer would be Russell for career, but he was on better teams too.

Or maybe he made his teammates look better than they really were. I mean, all those Hall of Famers couldn't even beat Pettit and his Hawks when Russell got injured. Or the year after he retired, the Celtics didn't even make the Playoffs.

[Ron Swanson]

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.

[Cavsfansince84]

My answer would be Russell for career, but he was on better teams too.

Or maybe he made his teammates look better than they really were. I mean, all those Hall of Famers couldn't even beat Pettit and his Hawks when Russell got injured. Or the year after he retired, the Celtics didn't even make the Playoffs.

I'm not someone to be dismissive of Russell and have a lot of respect for his leadership qualities and approach but in 1958 the Celtics didn't even have Jones or Havlicek yet. Then in 1970 they also lost Jones to retirement so they lost their starting center who was also the coach and an atg great defender/rebounder along with Jones who was a leading scorer for them. So it was expected they would take a big step back that year.

[mrsocko]

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

[Pg81]

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

Bill Russell was lucky to get drafted by Red Auerbach into a perfect situation who got the right pieces around him from the get go. Furthermore the Celtics won four of those titles by a combined margin of 9 against Wilt's team, so 2 points on average and he had no part in those last second baskets but hey who cares about facts and context when you can spin your own narratives on flimsy superficial nonsense.

[Missing Rings]

I tend to lean towards the GOAT since they are the GOAT.

Sent from my [device_name] using [url]RealGM mobile app[/url]

[SkyHookFTW]

Career: Russell
Player: Wilt

[dhsilv2]

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

Having sex with that many women, I am sure nowadays you would easy have some type of life threatening disease.

It isn't like those diseases weren't around back then too...I guess other than AIDs.

[dhsilv2]

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

Having sex with that many women, I am sure nowadays you would easy have some type of life threatening disease.

It isn't like those diseases weren't around back then too...I guess other than AIDs.

[trex_8063]

Do I get to have sex with over 10,000 women too ....

You mean again, right pen?

[BigShaq34]

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

Good point. I'm sure there are a lot of guys here who would take 20,000 women instead of having an NBA career like Russell but having to stick with 1 woman.

hell yeah i would

[mrsocko]

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

Bill Russell was lucky to get drafted by Red Auerbach into a perfect situation who got the right pieces around him from the get go. Furthermore the Celtics won four of those titles by a combined margin of 9 against Wilt's team, so 2 points on average and he had no part in those last second baskets but hey who cares about facts and context when you can spin your own narratives on flimsy superficial nonsense.

Scoreboard 11-2
How about 5-4 mvp awards
How about they named the 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 closests 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 small mind.

[mrsocko]

Double post

[mrsocko]

T post

[mrsocko]

Bill Russell was lucky to get drafted by Red Auerbach into a perfect situation who got the right pieces around him from the get go. Furthermore the Celtics won four of those titles by a combined margin of 9 against Wilt's team, so 2 points on average and he had no part in those last second baskets but hey who cares about facts and context when you can spin your own narratives on flimsy superficial nonsense.

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.

[Johnlac1]

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

Except Wilt's "hero ball" was the only reason his Warrior teams got close enough to compete with the Celtics. And it was his teammates who usually performed badly in the playoffs that cost Wilt's team to lose.
If you want to criticize Wilt like so many Wilt bashers, go ahead. Then why don't you criticize the Baylor-West Lakers who never once beat the Celtics in the finals in eight tries despite Baylor and West usually collectively outscoring Chamberlain by quite a lot.
The fact is (1) the Celtics were a great team during the sixties and Russell was a great player. (2) The Celtics had the best coach and GM in Red Auerbach, and (3) the Celtics got the bounces...no doubt about it. You can call it luck or good fortune, but the breaks always went their way as far as key players avoiding injuries in the playoffs (except for '58 and Russell's sprain) and having last minute or last second plays go their way.
And remember....during that time the Celtics usually had three superstars while the other teams only had one or two.
During his Warrior years the only other elite player Chamberlain had was Paul Arizin who had bad games in decisive Celtics-Warriors playoff contests. West and Baylor never had an elite center until Wilt arrived.
During the bulk of the sixties the Celtics had three superstars in Russell, Havlicek, and Sam Jones. It wasn't until '66 that the Sixers had more talent.
Give a ton of credit to the Celtics and Russell. They won when they had the most talent, and they won when they weren't quite as good.
But played all over again with the same players and coaches, it's doubtful they'd be as fortunate.

[countryboy667]

There's no argument about who had the more successful career--Russell. And he's not the sole reason for it--he played for what is one of the greatest dynasties in pro sports history. Wilt seldom had the luxury of having the kinds of supporting casts Russell consistently had, and when he did, he won.
As for which was the greater athlete--and I'm not knocking Russell, who was a wonderful athlete in his own right--there is simply no comparison. Wilt was worlds better as an athlete than anyone else playing then, Hell, he was worlds better as an athlete than anyone playing NOW. If you didn't see him, there's probably no understanding what an athletic freak--in a positive way--Chamberlain was.
I have a suggestion--some of the people here always downing him don't really know squat about him. READ HIS BOOKS. Yes, he actually WROTE, not GHOSTED, his own books. With all due respect, I doubt if there are more than a handful of players in today's league who could do that. Admit it--a lot of today's players, while not all are dullards, are no more literate than the population at large, and there aren't that high a percentage of writers at that level in the general population. And a goodly percentage of players, while great athletes, who know much about anything but basketball and spending money (how many of them end up broke after their playing days are over?)
Anyway, if you read the books, you will find out not only what an intelligent guy Wilt was, but while he didn't lack ego, he almost always gave opponents their due. You will even find some genuine humility, and that in general he was a very good person--better than that megalomaniac Michael Jordan, for instance, at whose feet many on this board worship. Despite his sexual exploits, he was ahead of his time in many ways in his treatment of women and appreciation for them as athletes, and yes, persons. Has anyone here ever heard of any woman who ever suffered from a liaison with Wilt? I haven't.
I also don't understand how you can dismiss as lies all the things peers said about just how unbelievably great he was. That is just intellectually dishonest--but IMO you find a lot of intellectual dishonesty here on this board, so I'm not surprised that people who never saw him play just dismiss what they said about him out of hand.
Russell--better career, by far. And not just on his own merits. Basketball is a TEAM game.
Russell anywhere near Wilt's class as a pure athlete and all around player? Not even close..

I also think it's sad and ironic that so many African Americans felt so needy for a hero that they had to make up a phony hero (Black Panther) from a phony Country (Wakanda) when all they have to do to find a black man as near to a real superman as you can get in Wilt...not to mention REAL heroes like the Tuskegee Airmen, Jackie Robinson, MLK, and so many others...

https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/wilt-chamberlain-wilt-chamberlain/1121167728
https://www.amazon.com/wilt-chamberlain-autobiography-Books/s?page=1&rh=n%3A283155%2Ck%3Awilt%20chamberlain%20autobiography



I'd LOVE to see Wilt's championship team with the Sixers play today's "invincible" Warriors. I think even with the three ball those Sixers would have a better than even chance of prevailing in a seven-game series. Without the three and enforcing steps, palming, etc. as they were in Wilt's time, the Warriors would not only get swept but DESTROYED in every game.

[penbeast0]

My answer would be Russell for career, but he was on better teams too.

Or maybe he made his teammates look better than they really were. I mean, all those Hall of Famers couldn't even beat Pettit and his Hawks when Russell got injured. Or the year after he retired, the Celtics didn't even make the Playoffs.

I'm not someone to be dismissive of Russell and have a lot of respect for his leadership qualities and approach but in 1958 the Celtics didn't even have Jones or Havlicek yet. Then in 1970 they also lost Jones to retirement so they lost their starting center who was also the coach and an atg great defender/rebounder along with Jones who was a leading scorer for them. So it was expected they would take a big step back that year.

In 58, they had recent "MVP" Bob Cousy, end of prime Bill Sharman, HOF 6th man Frank Ramsey, and Tommy Heinsohn if you like that sort of thing. Lots of scoring, not a ton of defense, basically the Celtics teams pre Russell only Heinsohn wasn't nearly as efficient a scorer for his league as Ed Macauley. But you take any team's best player away and they probably struggle.

As for 1970, Sam Jones wasn't the leading scorer or even a starter in 1969 as they transitioned him to 6th man (still could score though, 3rd behind Havlicek and Howell. They still had Havlicek plus Howell/Sanders/Nelson (Howell was banged up but Nelson stepped up) and Siegfried/Bryant plus Rookie Jo Jo white who took Sam Jones's reserve minutes in the backcourt. Hank Finkel just didn't cut it at C and the team didn't have the ability to play their signature defense without Russell.