Wilt Chamberlain Blocked 26 Shots Against the Pistons?

[Doctor MJ]

Hard to say. Havlicek is also one of the greatest wing defenders of all time. Russell definitely wasn't the only HOF defender on the team. Those Boston teams were just stacked.

1) Boston won 5 championship before Havlicek was on the team.

2) "greatest wing defenders of all time" is another way of saying "among those who don't matter very much, Havlicek looks pretty good".

Boston is by far the greatest defensive team in history based on domination of the leagues they were in, it began while Havlicek was in high school, and ended the moment Russell retired. Whatever your opinion of Russell is, it should not be heavily influenced based on some notion that he had some perfect defensive supporting cast with him. His cast completely turned over while he was playing. He was the indispensable part - not the only part, but drastically superior than any of the others - and there are very few other players in history that you could even dream would play his role.

[Biff]

Hard to say. Havlicek is also one of the greatest wing defenders of all time. Russell definitely wasn't the only HOF defender on the team. Those Boston teams were just stacked.

1) Boston won 5 championship before Havlicek was on the team.

2) "greatest wing defenders of all time" is another way of saying "among those who don't matter very much, Havlicek looks pretty good".

Boston is by far the greatest defensive team in history based on domination of the leagues they were in, it began while Havlicek was in high school, and ended the moment Russell retired. Whatever your opinion of Russell is, it should not be heavily influenced based on some notion that he had some perfect defensive supporting cast with him. His cast completely turned over while he was playing. He was the indispensable part - not the only part, but drastically superior than any of the others - and there are very few other players in history that you could even dream would play his role.

When the league was incredibly watered down and weak. George Mikan was the outgoing dominate player and he wouldn't be a superstar in today's game. While I agree that what Russell did was impressive, it's no more impressive than what Tim Duncan has done in today's game. Duncan likely could have replicated what Russell did in that watered down league. This mythologizing of players that played in the 60's is ridiculous.

[Gant]

Hard to say. Havlicek is also one of the greatest wing defenders of all time. Russell definitely wasn't the only HOF defender on the team. Those Boston teams were just stacked.

1) Boston won 5 championship before Havlicek was on the team.

2) "greatest wing defenders of all time" is another way of saying "among those who don't matter very much, Havlicek looks pretty good".

Boston is by far the greatest defensive team in history based on domination of the leagues they were in, it began while Havlicek was in high school, and ended the moment Russell retired. Whatever your opinion of Russell is, it should not be heavily influenced based on some notion that he had some perfect defensive supporting cast with him. His cast completely turned over while he was playing. He was the indispensable part - not the only part, but drastically superior than any of the others - and there are very few other players in history that you could even dream would play his role.

When the league was incredibly watered down and weak. George Mikan was the outgoing dominate player and he wouldn't be a superstar in today's game. While I agree that what Russell did was impressive, it's no more impressive than what Tim Duncan has done in today's game. Duncan likely could have replicated what Russell did in that watered down league. This mythologizing of players that played in the 60's is ridiculous.

Duncan and Russell are completely different players. And the league wasn't watered down- talent was concentrated as there were few teams.

[Johnlac1]

Haha! I'm guessing our top 6 centers would be the same. Russell definitely belongs with those 5, though he wouldn't be my top choice.

You're right.

Just ftr - not trying to make the argument here - I rate Russell at the top because of how extreme his defensive impact was. One can definitely argue that he wouldn't be the best of the centers today, but I don't think any of the later era centers would have matched what Russell did back then.

Hard to say. Havlicek is also one of the greatest wing defenders of all time. Russell definitely wasn't the only HOF defender on the team. Those Boston teams were just stacked.

The five best players of the sixties (who played most of the decade) were probably Chamberlain, Russell, Baylor, Robertson, and West. But in the second ten were Sam Jones and Havlicek. In fact you can argue Havlicek could be in the top five. After West, Sam Jones was probably the best shooting guard. Then they were always picking up good players like Bailey Howell who was one of the best pfs in the league. Not to take anything away from the Celts. They still had the best overall strategy and focus of any team of the decade. Which is of course reflected in their fantastic record.

[Biff]

1) Boston won 5 championship before Havlicek was on the team.

2) "greatest wing defenders of all time" is another way of saying "among those who don't matter very much, Havlicek looks pretty good".

Boston is by far the greatest defensive team in history based on domination of the leagues they were in, it began while Havlicek was in high school, and ended the moment Russell retired. Whatever your opinion of Russell is, it should not be heavily influenced based on some notion that he had some perfect defensive supporting cast with him. His cast completely turned over while he was playing. He was the indispensable part - not the only part, but drastically superior than any of the others - and there are very few other players in history that you could even dream would play his role.

When the league was incredibly watered down and weak. George Mikan was the outgoing dominate player and he wouldn't be a superstar in today's game. While I agree that what Russell did was impressive, it's no more impressive than what Tim Duncan has done in today's game. Duncan likely could have replicated what Russell did in that watered down league. This mythologizing of players that played in the 60's is ridiculous.

Duncan and Russell are completely different players. And the league wasn't watered down- talent was concentrated as there were few teams.

I realize that. But Duncan is a VERY good defensive player and an incredibly talented offensive player as well. Russell is a career 44% shooter. That's absolutely terrible for a center. He was a greater passer and obviously a phenomenal offensive rebounder, but he was nowhere near the offensive player Duncan is. Duncan is closer to Russell defensively than Russell is to Duncan offensively. You guys can take Russell in a pickup game and I'll gladly take Duncan. I feel pretty confident that my team would come out on top.

[marcusaurelius]

Wilt was a freak of nature. Give him modern training and nutrition, and greatly improved competition that would challenge him, and there is no telling how good he could of been.

It really is hard to compare people from different times, but he can legitimately be considered as the best player ever.

As others have rightfully mentioned, those Boston teams with Russell were really stacked with talent. Give Wilt anywhere near that level of talent and he could of won just as many, if not more championships. He was a monster in his time just like Shaq was for a few years. But Wilt was dominant for a longer period of time. Shaq just didn't keep himself in the kind of shape he should have.

Overall, I would say that he was the most talented/unstoppable player ever.

[Biff]

And before anyone points anything further out, let's keep in mind that Russell's teams averaged around 110 shots a game. Duncan's in the low 60's. It kind of explains the incredibly inflated rebounding numbers, yeah?

Just for kicks I decided to pace adjust Russell's 63-64 so that they're the same as Duncan's 04-05 pace.

Raw stats: 15 points, 24.7 rebounds, 4.7 assists

Russell: 44 minutes, 10.6 points, 17.5 rebounds, 3.3 assists / Duncan: 33 minutes, 20.3 points, 11.1 rebounds 2.7 assists

Per 36

Russell: 8.6 points, 14.3 rebounds, 2.7 assists / Duncan: 22.1 points, 12.1 rebounds, 2.9 assists

And for fun let's bring Duncan's to 44 minutes and adjust his pace to the same as the Celtics from 63-64.

38 points, 20.8 rebounds, 5 assists

[marcusaurelius]

I would have to agree that Duncan is like a modern day Russell. But he is a much more complete and all around player. He is an incredible "makes his teammates better on both ends" kind of guy. Little things that don't show up on the stats sheet, but that really make your team better.

[Gant]

And before anyone points anything further out, let's keep in mind that Russell's teams averaged around 110 shots a game. Duncan's in the low 60's. It kind of explains the incredibly inflated rebounding numbers, yeah?

Just for kicks I decided to pace adjust Russell's 63-64 so that they're the same as Duncan's 04-05 pace.

Raw stats: 15 points, 24.7 rebounds, 4.7 assists

Russell: 44 minutes, 10.6 points, 17.5 rebounds, 3.3 assists / Duncan: 33 minutes, 20.3 points, 11.1 rebounds 2.7 assists

Per 36

Russell: 8.6 points, 14.3 rebounds, 2.7 assists / Duncan: 22.1 points, 12.1 rebounds, 2.9 assists

And for fun let's bring Duncan's to 44 minutes and adjust his pace to the same as the Celtics from 63-64.

38 points, 20.8 rebounds, 5 assists

It's very hard to compare eras. What we're talking about is a good example:


Pace increases some numbers and decreases others. Duncan wouldn't get the same percentages if he's playing the sprint game.

If the old players slowed down, played fewer minutes, and rested more, they'd have higher shooting percentages. The style was so different, all the numbers would change.

If the current players sprinted non-stop like they used to, and played longer minutes, they'd have lower shooting percentages. Most current players could not handle the speed and physical demands of that style without significantly building up to it.

Imagine Duncan playing 25% more minutes and running 25% faster on every play. That would dramatically change his game.

Pace was used as a weapon back then. It was a strategy to defeat the opponent both by beating them down the court, and sapping their strength in the 4th quarter. No player was smarter at using it than Russell. He was a genius.

He didn't win simply because of his incredible speed, length, timing and leaping ability. He won because he set his opponent up to fail physically or mentally at key moments. Speed was the main weapon. Inducing fatigue in the opponent was a plan. Russell was brilliant at it.

[Future Coach]

I would have to agree that Duncan is like a modern day Russell. But he is a much more complete and all around player. He is an incredible "makes his teammates better on both ends" kind of guy. Little things that don't show up on the stats sheet, but that really make your team better.

I don't see this comparison at all. Apples to oranges as they say as it completely disregards the roles great players play in successful team basketball. I'm a Duncan fan. I think he is the best PF of all time given his vast all-around skills and how it has fostered great and consistent team success. But Duncan for much of his career has been the focal point of the offense. One would never say that Bill Russell was the focal point of the offense like Duncan. That was never Russell's role in the NBA. His teammates filled that role as it was the better route to achieving great team success, which by no coincidence hia teams achieved more of than anyone else by a big, big margin. So to compare their stats completely disregards the reality of TEAM basketball.

Russell's role was to be the defensive anchor of his teams, which dominated defensively. And maybe more importantly he was the coach on the floor, and for a little while he was the actual "Player-Coach" which no one else does like he did to such success, especially as a center. Duncan does not provide that for the Spurs as Parker is more their coach on the floor (as PG's traditionally are).

And as great of an athlete as Duncan is with his coordination, great touch and endurance (and swimming ability), he doesn't come close to Russell as an athlete. Russell had great coordination, endurance and a decent touch, but his speed, strength and leaping ability blows Duncan out of the water.

So apples to oranges as they say. But this is the "stats generation" where folks just look at #s and the listed position and make comparisons, instead of focusing on how each player impacts play on the floor in ways stats can never describe.


And I'm not trying to single anyone out or anything, it just seems sometimes that people pay more attention to a box score than the actual game, and as someone who loves the game of basketball that frustrates me as that's not how the game should be approached.

/rant over

[Gant]

Getting off topic a bit:

Here's just one example of how Russell set up an opponent: Russell would size up one of the other team's main scorers. He'd figure out a shot he knew he could block every time, and he'd let the guy get that shot off in that game.

The opposing shooter thought he had his money shot.

Then, if the game came down to the wire, the opposing player would take that shot at a key moment. Russell would easily block it into the hands of one of his Celtic teammates (which is something he regularly did), and they'd have a lay up on the other end.

4 point swing, and the game was over. The guy was incredible.

[scotty_417]

I'm just saying that playing for 48 minutes isn't some amazing feat of endurance compared to playing, say, 40 minutes. If NBA games were 60 minutes long, no one would make much of 48 mpg. These guys could play for 100 minutes if they wanted to (though the quality of play would certainly go down).

I don't want to downplay Wilt at all - he was an incredible athlete - but in general I think people make too big a deal about minutes.

It's the lack of rest that's the big deal not the extra minutes of playing. Of course you bring up lowering of quality of play, so that's the question: Was Wilt truly unfazed by his minutes, or should he have been rested? My guess would be to split the difference. He probably should have been rested some, but his endurance was spectacular.

This guy was playing 48 minutes/game, bedding down multiple women, waking up the next morning, playing 48 minutes/game, bedding down multiple women. Talk about spectacular endurance.

[Biff]

And before anyone points anything further out, let's keep in mind that Russell's teams averaged around 110 shots a game. Duncan's in the low 60's. It kind of explains the incredibly inflated rebounding numbers, yeah?

Just for kicks I decided to pace adjust Russell's 63-64 so that they're the same as Duncan's 04-05 pace.

Raw stats: 15 points, 24.7 rebounds, 4.7 assists

Russell: 44 minutes, 10.6 points, 17.5 rebounds, 3.3 assists / Duncan: 33 minutes, 20.3 points, 11.1 rebounds 2.7 assists

Per 36

Russell: 8.6 points, 14.3 rebounds, 2.7 assists / Duncan: 22.1 points, 12.1 rebounds, 2.9 assists

And for fun let's bring Duncan's to 44 minutes and adjust his pace to the same as the Celtics from 63-64.

38 points, 20.8 rebounds, 5 assists

It's very hard to compare eras. What we're talking about is a good example:


Pace increases some numbers and decreases others. Duncan wouldn't get the same percentages if he's playing the sprint game.

If the old players slowed down, played fewer minutes, and rested more, they'd have higher shooting percentages. The style was so different, all the numbers would change.

If the current players sprinted non-stop like they used to, and played longer minutes, they'd have lower shooting percentages. Most current players could not handle the speed and physical demands of that style without significantly building up to it.

Imagine Duncan playing 25% more minutes and running 25% faster on every play. That would dramatically change his game.

Pace was used as a weapon back then. It was a strategy to defeat the opponent both by beating them down the court, and sapping their strength in the 4th quarter. No player was smarter at using it than Russell. He was a genius.

He didn't win simply because of his incredible speed, length, timing and leaping ability. He won because he set his opponent up to fail physically or mentally at key moments. Speed was the main weapon. Inducing fatigue in the opponent was a plan. Russell was brilliant at it.

Wilt averaged 54% for his career. Duncan would still shoot a decent percentage even in a higher pace game. Maybe his career percentage drops from 50.6 to 48%.

I'm not saying Russell wasn't one of the greatest of all time. I think it's just ridiculous when people act like these guys are so much better than the other greats from other eras. And I know you can't compare these stats apples to apples, all I'm trying to show is how inflated the stats were back then. It's ridiculous to say "OMG Russell averaged 25 rebounds, he's 2.5X better than Duncan lulz!" Well no duh, teams were taking almost 40-50 more shots EACH. That's a TON of extra rebounding opportunities. If we had Russell's TRB%, I bet it wouldn't be much higher than Duncan's, and probably similar to someone like Dennis Rodman.

[Biff]

A bunch of butt-hurt 60's homers are starting to come out of the woodwork so I guess I'll bow out before everyone starts making an enormous fuss.

Last word. Russell was one of the greatest of all-time and a great athlete, but he wasn't any better of an athlete than Lebron, or Shaq, or Jordan. He played in a weak league where he, Wilt, Big O and Jerry West would be the only all-stars in today's game. I don't think guys like Bob Pettit would be nearly as impact playing in today's game. Great player for his era, but he'd be a role player today.

Anyway, enjoy your mythologizing. I'll go back to reading stats.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ti2Ncll2K64

vs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=coXloPKD8CAs

Edit: And before anyone accuses me of being a Duncan homer, I'm a Suns fan. Dude left a bitter taste in my mouth more times than I can count. I've come to have an enormous amount of respect for the man.

[MacGill]

Wilt was a freak of nature. Give him modern training and nutrition, and greatly improved competition that would challenge him, and there is no telling how good he could of been.

It really is hard to compare people from different times, but he can legitimately be considered as the best player ever.

As others have rightfully mentioned, those Boston teams with Russell were really stacked with talent. Give Wilt anywhere near that level of talent and he could of won just as many, if not more championships. He was a monster in his time just like Shaq was for a few years. But Wilt was dominant for a longer period of time. Shaq just didn't keep himself in the kind of shape he should have.

Overall, I would say that he was the most talented/unstoppable player ever.

When you're already a 'freak of nature' how much more does modern training and nutrition really help? This is why we say Wilt from an athletic stand point was well ahead of his time but this isn't to be confused with he would have surpassed his own athletism that he displayed in his own era. MJ today wouldn't become twice the athlete that he already was or LBJ 25 years from now. That's what makes them outliers, they didn't follow normal athletic standards

If you understand basketball fundemantals, you'll understand why Wilt's perception has shifted over the years. The biggest is just that in time it is perfectly reasonable to expect that newer and better 'freaks' are created and come in dominating at a higher level. The second is revisiting his career and using context to what he accomplished and then realizing there were flaws that were covered up by mass appeal and gaudy statistics.

When you watch Wilt execute you realize how talented he was but how at the same time how he was much more of an athlete than a skilled basketball player. Titles have nothing to do with how great Wilt was or could have been but you may want to research Russell more to find out exactly why he dominated the league like no one else during that time period.

[Doctor MJ]

Hard to say. Havlicek is also one of the greatest wing defenders of all time. Russell definitely wasn't the only HOF defender on the team. Those Boston teams were just stacked.

1) Boston won 5 championship before Havlicek was on the team.

2) "greatest wing defenders of all time" is another way of saying "among those who don't matter very much, Havlicek looks pretty good".

Boston is by far the greatest defensive team in history based on domination of the leagues they were in, it began while Havlicek was in high school, and ended the moment Russell retired. Whatever your opinion of Russell is, it should not be heavily influenced based on some notion that he had some perfect defensive supporting cast with him. His cast completely turned over while he was playing. He was the indispensable part - not the only part, but drastically superior than any of the others - and there are very few other players in history that you could even dream would play his role.

When the league was incredibly watered down and weak. George Mikan was the outgoing dominate player and he wouldn't be a superstar in today's game. While I agree that what Russell did was impressive, it's no more impressive than what Tim Duncan has done in today's game. Duncan likely could have replicated what Russell did in that watered down league. This mythologizing of players that played in the 60's is ridiculous.

Okay so in other words, you're completely abandoning your previous argument which dabbled into 1960s specifics in favor of knocking the entire era and those who don't damn it as people lost in mythology. Do you see the problem with how this comes across?

Addressing your ideas sincerely:

1. It's fine to believe that the weakness of early NBA eras more than makes up for Russell's superior dominance.

2. It's not reasonable to try to paint Russell as if he dominated old white men like Mikan given that he never played against Mikan and Russell was still leading a team to titles at the end of the '60s.

3. It's also problematic talking about weak athleticism of the day given that Russell contemporaries like Wilt Chamberlain & Nate Thurmond continued being able to do their thing as old men well into the '70s while the dominant player of the '70s (Kareem) was without question less athletically gifted than Russell was.

4. It's fine to believe that what Duncan has is more impressive than Russell's accomplishment.

5. It's completely naive to think that Duncan could ever have filled in for Russell's role. Two very different body types. Had you said Hakeem instead, that would make sense. Garnett wouldn't be laughable. Anthony Davis might actually get there. Duncan though simply does not have the lithe body type required for the extreme agility of Russell's game. You can argue Duncan's other gifts more than make up for it, but no, Duncan could not "play" Russell no matter how hard he tried.

[Doctor MJ]

A bunch of butt-hurt 60's homers are starting to come out of the woodwork so I guess I'll bow out before everyone starts making an enormous fuss.

...

Edit: And before anyone accuses me of being a Duncan homer.

Given that you accused everyone who disagreed with you and called them "butthurt", I don't think you have to worry about anyone else here being the one causing the fuss.

[I beg to differ]

Getting off topic a bit:

Here's just one example of how Russell set up an opponent: Russell would size up one of the other team's main scorers. He'd figure out a shot he knew he could block every time, and he'd let the guy get that shot off in that game.

The opposing shooter thought he had his money shot.

Then, if the game came down to the wire, the opposing player would take that shot at a key moment. Russell would easily block it into the hands of one of his Celtic teammates (which is something he regularly did), and they'd have a lay up on the other end.

4 point swing, and the game was over. The guy was incredible.

Yeah, ok buddy.

[BlackIce]

Pre Drummond era obviously.

[Prokorov]

i hate that 90% of what wilt accomplished just gets thrown away because "everyone back then was a super unathletic white stiff who was 6 foot 2"

the guy was an extremely skilled 7+ footer built like ben wallace, had the skill and polish of akeem, the agression of shaq and the athlecisim of dwight. that guy is arguably the best player or 2 in the game no matter what era you would put him in.

if you put dwight or hibbert or gasol or noah in 1968 are they averaging 50 a game? socring 100? getting 55 rebounds?