dhsilv2 wrote:KG Leonard wrote:dhsilv2 wrote:
Russell is seen as the better player because he was the better basketball player, not because he won more. The winning lead people to taking more time to figure out why, where they discovered that while Wilt was a good offensive player, he's nowhere near one of the most dominate offensive players (he was far better defensive player than he was offensively) and that Russell had more impact on defense than anyone has ever had in nba history and by a margin.
The problem is that Russell gets way too much credit for 11 titles, he has no real case against the freak that has all records, could lead the league in assist, rebound like the best of them. I don't even give credit Wilt for his defense because even if Russell was goat defender he wasn't the better player overall. Sure Wilt might not have reached his potential, wasn't the best in all the playoffs. It scary he scored so much, has untouchable records when he wasn't all that great offensive player in your eyes. I have huge respect for Russell as all-time defender, player, leader but he wasn't MVP, best in the league for decade if Celtics didn't have all-time team. He was less talented than Wilt in half of the game. Scoring wise some of their match up was not in the same world.
This reminds if Green dismissing Barkley like being the best means winning finals.
Skickat från min SM-N950F via Tapatalk
Russell was just better. Anyone who can turn off tapatalk signatures would know this!
But seriously, while the data isn't as large as we'd want, we have enough evidence on Russell's impact to make a legitimate case that he's the mos impactful individual player in NBA history.
He was simply that good on defense. Remember in that era, defense was far FAR more important than offense.
You made a bad point about me not caring about taptalk signature but his defense is legendary we all know that. He was also limited in other parts of the game, which is why I think the decade belongs to Celtics as team but player wise Wilt easy.
You can't rate his defense so high and underrate the scoring of Wilt who only MJ can compare career ppg, all-time leader in other parts. Of course Russell's D was more important than his offence , he played with so many HOF scorers,shooters that he could score 6 ppg and win finals he failed to stop Wilt.
Would he win those titles in Bucks carrying decent teams.... I'm not dissing ATG player but winning teams are overrated in individual comps, match ups. It wasn't Wilt vs Russell in the finals.
Skickat från min SM-N950F via Tapatalk