Russell vs. Chamberlain...

[the_ouskull]

Russell.

Admins, you can go ahead and lock this thread now. Anybody who says anything to the contrary either never watched, or knows nothing about - likely both, the game of basketball.

When you have one for every finger, and were often the best player on the court while earning them, then rings DO matter a bit... Also, look at their head-to-head matchups. It's not even close.

the_ouskull

[My Opinion Matters]

I came into this thread fully armed and ready to go to war, but, yeah you pretty much summed it, skull.

Definitely Russell.

[JLEW1818]

I'd love to see Wilt play with 7 other Hall of Fame players at once.

I'm sure he would have a million rings too.


Wilts averages,

30.1 Points
22.9 rebounds

Russell
15.1 Points
22.5 Rebounds


I think Wilt had more talent. Russell was great and was on a great team.


Of course you know my philosophy to look at rings. That's only when the players have equal talent. I think Wilt was a better basketball player.


Skull so you basically think Russell is number 2 all time? I'm sure you have read Simmons book, and all over Celtic dong!! lol j/k :D

I also have Kareem over Russell all time.

[the_ouskull]

Well, you're young and still appreciate highlights more than winning. It'll change.

If the mental game is part of your measure of talent, then Wilt v. Bill won't even come down to rings - keeping in mind that Bill Russell is the Lord of the Rings like the Icy Hot Stuntaz were the Lords of the Bling.

Wilt played with multiple HoF'ers too, sir. If you're going to mention Simmons' book, don't ignore the brilliant argument he laid out in it.

the_ouskull

[JLEW1818]

I don't appreciate highlights at all. Lebron James is a playoff failure. He can slam blocks off the rim but bitches about his elbow during the same series.

Bill had 7 hall of fame teammates.

Can you name another top 10 guy that had that? Bill always had at least 4+ hall of fame guys.


I think Wilt's natural talents and basketball talents were better than Bill's.

Bill did win more. And i'm all for taking the rings as the deciding factor when it comes down to 2 players close talent wise. But Wilt was better and more talented than Bill.

[Eielson]

By your "rings" logic, thought, Steve Kerr is a better player than Chris Paul, and Stacey King is a better player than Charles Barkley. Rings DO matter, but they're not the be-all, end-all.

[the_ouskull]

By your "rings" logic, thought, Steve Kerr is a better player than Chris Paul, and Stacey King is a better player than Charles Barkley. Rings DO matter, but they're not the be-all, end-all.

If you're going to quote me, you should use quotes.

[JLEW1818]

By your "rings" logic, thought, Steve Kerr is a better player than Chris Paul, and Stacey King is a better player than Charles Barkley. Rings DO matter, but they're not the be-all, end-all.

I'm not sure if you are quoting me or not but.

to clear anything up.



When comparing players with similar talent and similar skills. I then look at rings to decide between the two in most cases. And must be the best player on their team, or second in some cases.

Chris Paul has more talent and is a better basketball player than Steve Kerr, so the argument ends there. Chris Paul is better. Steve Kerr was never the best player on his team, never the second best player.

Same with King and Barkely. Barkley is clearly better. The ring comment can't even come into the picture.

[Eielson]

.
By your "rings" logic, thought, Steve Kerr is a better player than Chris Paul, and Stacey King is a better player than Charles Barkley. Rings DO matter, but they're not the be-all, end-all.

[My Opinion Matters]

I'd love to see Wilt play with 7 other Hall of Fame players at once.

I'm sure he would have a million rings too.

I know its a popular myth among Wilt supporters that Russell played with better players, but it's just that: a myth.

Wilt played with 6 other players that were in the NBA's top 50, Bill Russell played with 4.

Swing and a miss!

[JLEW1818]

names and years please.

how is it a myth? Bill always had at least 4 Hall of Fame guys with him.

Are you saying Wilt always had 4-7 other hall of fame players on his teams?

i can research this more when i get home. haha.

[My Opinion Matters]

names and years please.

how is it a myth? Bill always had at least 4 Hall of Fame guys with him.

Are you saying Wilt always had 4-7 other hall of fame players on his teams?

i can research this more when i get home. haha.

The top 50 Wilt played with: Paul Arizin, Nate Thurmond, Billy Cunningham, Hal Greer, Elgin Baylor, and Jerry West.

Bill Russell played with: John Havlicek, Bob Cousy, Bill Sharman, and Sam Jones.

To further illustrate how silly the "Russell was surrounded with better players" argument is consider this: Bill Sharman retired in 1961, and Russell went on to win 7 more titles without him. Bob Cousy retired in 1964, and Russell won 6 more titles without him. Bill Russell was the 1960's Celtics.

[JLEW1818]

The top 50 Wilt played with: Paul Arizin, Nate Thurmond, Billy Cunningham, Hal Greer, Elgin Baylor, and Jerry West.

Bill Russell played with: John Havlicek, Bob Cousy, Bill Sharman, and Sam Jones.

To further illustrate how silly the "Russell was surrounded with better players" argument is consider this: Bill Sharman retired in 1961, and Russell went on to win 7 more titles without him. Bob Cousy retired in 1964, and Russell won 6 more titles without him. Bill Russell was the 1960's Celtics.

he had like 4+ hall of fame players on every championship team.

His offense was not great. His D was insane

[Eielson]

What is even up for debate? Wilt is obviously the better scorer, and not just by a little bit. He's about twice the scorer (30.1 ppg-15.1 ppg; .540 FG%-.440 FG%). As a passer? That edge also goes to Wilt. He even led the league in assists one year. Many people have said he was just tying to show he wasn't selfish, but that still doesn't discount his passing ability. There's really no way to be unimpressed by a guy in his 30's going 24.1-24.2-7.8 (points-rebounds-assists) and then going 24.3-23.8-8.6 the next year. Rebounds? Wilt again. Wilt led the league in rebounds 11 times; Russell did it 4 times. More fun Wilt records; career rebounds, career average rebounds; single season rebounding total, single season rebounding average, rebounds in a regular season game, and rebounds in a playoff game.

So now that we've established that Wilt was a better scorer, better passer, and better rebounder, what's left? Are you going to say that Russell's amazing defense makes up for all this? Here's another fun fact; Wilt scored 50 points on Russell 7 different times.

[Eielson]

Red Auerbach was the 1960's Celtics.

Fixed that for ya.

[the_ouskull]

Fixed that for ya.

Not entirely. Russell also coached the Celtics to a championship, so it's not like Red was without peer. In fact, it kind of suggests the opposite. That, if a player/coach can win a title, then maybe anybody could have coached a player like Russell to a title. His NCAA school, San Francisco, won two titles too. It's not like he started "accidentally" winning. Winning is all that he cared about in the whole freakin' world.

And he did it, too. Better than anybody else ever has.

And, let's not downplay the guy's defense. No less an authority than John freakin' Wooden called Russell "the best defensive man I've ever seen." He coached Alcindor. He was only 6'9" and dominated games defensively. Imagine if Dwight Howard blocked 5 more shots, snatched 10 more boards, and averaged about 5 more assists per game. That's Bill Russell.

And, to go "there" for a minute, he did it all in one of the whitest cities ever, right in the middle of the Civil Rights Movement. He is class, and he is grace, and he is the personification of victory.

Wilt scored. (Ahem...)
Russell WON.

Advantage? Well, that's up to you... Are you a man or a boy? Would you rather lose, but put on a great show doing it? Or hold up the gold ball?

the_ouskull

[the_ouskull]

As for Wilt... He's the guy who would intentionally miss a shot, just to rebound it, just to get a triple-double. He's THAT guy. Screw that guy.

the_ouskull

[My Opinion Matters]

he had like 4+ hall of fame players on every championship team.

Don't let the facts get in the way of a good story, right jlew? Of the Hall-of-Famers Russell played with Cousy retired in 1964, Heinsohn retired in 1965, Sharman in 1961, Ed Macauley in 1959. Granted, Sam Jones was around until 1969 and Hondo was around well until the 1970's. KC Jones? Don't make me laugh. His inclusion in the HOF as a player is enough to delegitimize the Hall itself. I'm probably forgetting someone, but any combination of these players doesn't add up to your supposition that "Russell played with 4 other HOFer's at all times."

[My Opinion Matters]

What is even up for debate? Wilt is obviously the better scorer, and not just by a little bit. He's about twice the scorer (30.1 ppg-15.1 ppg; .540 FG%-.440 FG%). As a passer? That edge also goes to Wilt. He even led the league in assists one year. Many people have said he was just tying to show he wasn't selfish, but that still doesn't discount his passing ability. There's really no way to be unimpressed by a guy in his 30's going 24.1-24.2-7.8 (points-rebounds-assists) and then going 24.3-23.8-8.6 the next year. Rebounds? Wilt again. Wilt led the league in rebounds 11 times; Russell did it 4 times. More fun Wilt records; career rebounds, career average rebounds; single season rebounding total, single season rebounding average, rebounds in a regular season game, and rebounds in a playoff game.

So now that we've established that Wilt was a better scorer, better passer, and better rebounder, what's left? Are you going to say that Russell's amazing defense makes up for all this? Here's another fun fact; Wilt scored 50 points on Russell 7 different times.

No doubt about it, Wilt is the prolific compiler of regular season statistics in professional basketball history. Even against his nemesis Russell his stats didn't suffer that much in the regular season. But how did Wilt perform compared to Bill in the playoffs? When it mattered most?

Wilt: 160 playoff games, 22.5 ppg, 24.5 rpg, 4.2 apg
Russell: 165 games, 16.2 ppg, 24.9, 4,7 apg.

Not so much of a discrepancy when the games mattered most, was there? I would like to see you explain that one away. Wilt's numbers decreased dramatically when it was crunch-time, while Russell improved his stats.

Oh, and just for good measure: Bill's record against Wilt, 84-58

Championships: Bill 11, Wilt 2

[Scott D]

"This challenge by Chamberlain is going to make [Russell] better than ever," Braun forecast. "He's got a lot of pride, and nobody is going to knock him off that All-Star team without a fight." - Carl Braun

For the most part as a complete team nobody could touch those 60s Celtics. I have my doubts that the 90s Bulls or 80s Lakers could hang with them, with those being the two most prolific teams of those eras.

As much as I'm a Wilt fan, in a lot of ways he was the Patrick Ewing of his era (excluding his two titles in 67 and 72). His teams despite having fellow HoF players on the rosters just weren't as good or as deep as the Celtics. The Celtics played in such a way to shut down the other 4 guys on the court, and let Wilt "get his" to a degree with Russell guarding him.

I do think that if Wilt had been on those Boston clubs, and Russell in Philly, that there's a good chance that the titles would have been a lot more even if not tilting in Wilt's favor by a fair degree.

[JLEW1818]

I only use rings as a deciding factor when comparing 2 players with the same talent and stats.

Wilt was a better basketball player than Russell. So i don't even look at the rings when comparing the two.


two guys close in talent you may ask and somewhat in stats? Karl Malone, and Tim Duncan.
Ducan gets the edge. 4-0

[the_ouskull]

I only use rings as a deciding factor when comparing 2 players with the same talent and stats.

Wilt was a better basketball player than Russell. So i don't even look at the rings when comparing the two.

That's the dumbest f*cking thing I've ever heard.

Please, without using statistics, explain your argument.

I'm just about capped off on the bullsh*t flying around this thread, and I'll put this faggy baby to bed if I have to. I'd rather someone else just trip on their own piles lying around.

the_ouskull

[JLEW1818]

Because Russell was not as good as Wilt. It stops there. He won many many rings, with many many Hall of Fame Players.

You and Bill Simmons are some of the only articles/books that I have read that have Russell ahead of Wilt.

that's it.

Most of them have Kareem and Wilt ahead of Russell, as a total player. Bill Simmons is the biggest boston homer ever.

oh and his basketball knowledge is horrible at times too. He picked the Bobcats to beat Boston in the first round this year. Good call Bill. His ESPN title should be taken away just for that. I've never seen somebody be so wrong in my life.

so just because Skull the English professor and Bill Simmons, the Boston homer claim one argument is correct, does not make it 100% correct.

What do u mean give you an augment and don't use stats?

Ok give me a reason Karl Malone is better than Robert Horry, and don't use stats!!!!!!!


I'm all for rings, I'm usually on that side of the argument, when 2 players are very similar in skill and stats. Wilt was basically better than Russell in every statistically category. He was a far better offensive player and arguably a better defender.

Bill Russell was the middle piece on already great teams.

Wilt still won 2 rings, so he can be in the ELITE category, obviously.



I always allow Lebron to be in the conversation with MJ and Kobe, because stat/skill wise he is elite. He just does not have the rings, so he can't be in the final category with them. And so far he is a playoff failure.

If Bill Russell is as good as you guys say he is, we need to put him above MJ as well. Why is he not above MJ then?

[Eielson]

No doubt about it, Wilt is the prolific compiler of regular season statistics in professional basketball history. Even against his nemesis Russell his stats didn't suffer that much in the regular season. But how did Wilt perform compared to Bill in the playoffs? When it mattered most?

Wilt: 160 playoff games, 22.5 ppg, 24.5 rpg, 4.2 apg
Russell: 165 games, 16.2 ppg, 24.9, 4,7 apg.

Not so much of a discrepancy when the games mattered most, was there? I would like to see you explain that one away. Wilt's numbers decreased dramatically when it was crunch-time, while Russell improved his stats.

So is your argument that Russell was nowhere near as good as Wilt in the regular season, but he was almost as good as him in the playoffs? Anyway, those stats are extremely misleading. Wilt's playoff stats in his prime are still well ahead of Russell's. Russell played 90 playoff games while still in his twenties. Wilt on the other hand played 52 games while still in his twenties. That means that Wilt played 67.5% of his playoff games while in his thirties. It should also be pointed out that Russell retired at 34, while Wilt retired at 36. That means that Wilt played 32 games after the age where Russell retired, and those 10.4 and 14.7 points per game certainly didn't help his career playoff points per game.

I've got a stat that will break your heart, though.

Career Rebounding Averages:
Wilt: 22.9
Russell: 22.5

Career Head-to-Head Rebounding Averages:
Wilt: 28.7
Russell: 14.5

Explain that one.

[the_ouskull]

Because Jordan was that good AND flashy. Also, being more game-specific, he was able to create his own offense. Players who don't need someone else to get them the ball tend to get forgotten a bit at times.

-----

Karl Malone v. Robert Horry...

They're both 6'9", although Horry plays a little longer because he's got longer arms, Malone out-weighs him by 30 pounds (250-220), giving him the considerable size/strength advantage. Horry may have faster feet, but the difference isn't as great as many would believe. Simply because Karl was big didn't mean he was slow.

Malone was a guaranteed bucket from inside 15'. He was also able to create his own shot very well, when necessary. And, when (frequently) double-teamed, he was a superb passer from the post. His passing really started to pick up after Utah lost to Portland in the 1992 playoffs. (Malone came out determined to be a more well-rounded player, and he was. And, since I'm being sarcastic, I'm going to use a stat. His commitment to improving his game resulted in an increase of almost an entire assist per game. :D)

Malone was a superior scorer; a guaranteed bucket or trip to the line when he posted up, a great screener and roll guy on the pick and roll, and he had a really smooth (if kind of country) mid-range jump shot. On defense, he kept the other team's big men from getting too comfortable around the basket, and he used his strength and instincts to harass the ball on defense. He also knew his limitations, going for more steals than blocks, and playing solid defense rather than gambling. He was also an excellent rebounder due to his size, strength, and positioning.

Horry, on the other hand, was a much less reliable scorer. He had much better range than Malone did, but it was his inconsistent shooting that kept him from ever being considered a full-time starter. He started in the league a lot in his early years due to Houston's gaping holes in the front court after Hakeem, but was never really considered a "starter."

Malone, on the other hand, was not only considered a starter, but often his team's first option on offense, and was widely considered one of the best players in the NBA, by players, coaches, and fans alike. Malone's talent, in fact, was such that he was considered, on more than one occasion, to be the most valuable player in the league.

Horry made the All-Rookie 2nd team.

Give me a f'ing break with that. Who needs stats for that one? Russell v. Wilt is the same way. You're not able to look past the stats, and you've argued yourself into a corner. In ten years, come find this thread and laugh about it. If you're still a fan of basketball then, you'll be less of a fan as Wilt. Don't take Simmons' (what's your problem with him?) word for it, though. Do your own research into Wilt's stats.

Yeah, Wilt led the league in assists. Dougie G. led the NCAA in assists once too. So what?

the_ouskull

[Eielson]

I love how this thread turned into a me vs. MOM (hehehe) and skull vs. jlew argument. Not saying I want that to change, just thought it was kinda funny.

Can you imagine how time-consuming/frustrating it would be to argue MOM (hehehe) and skull at the same time? When you respond to them you have to spend a decent amount of time looking up stats and such, so imagine getting up in the morning to see posts to respond to from both of them. You spend a little while responding to the first one, and then have to spend some more time responding to the second one. By the time you finished responding to both of them, the person who wrote the first one will have responded again, and the whole process starts over again.

[JLEW1818]

Malone > Horry

MJ > World

Wilt > Bill

Wilt < 1960's Celtics

[the_ouskull]

Russell WAS the '60's Celtics, you ignorant twit!

[JLEW1818]

so he should be the best ever! most rings.

[BillyBall]

Russell has more rings, Wilt got more *****.

Its a draw.

[JLEW1818]

:D

[My Opinion Matters]

So is your argument that Russell was nowhere near as good as Wilt in the regular season, but he was almost as good as him in the playoffs? Anyway, those stats are extremely misleading. Wilt's playoff stats in his prime are still well ahead of Russell's. Russell played 90 playoff games while still in his twenties. Wilt on the other hand played 52 games while still in his twenties. That means that Wilt played 67.5% of his playoff games while in his thirties. It should also be pointed out that Russell retired at 34, while Wilt retired at 36. That means that Wilt played 32 games after the age where Russell retired, and those 10.4 and 14.7 points per game certainly didn't help his career playoff points per game.

I've got a stat that will break your heart, though.

Career Rebounding Averages:
Wilt: 22.9
Russell: 22.5

Career Head-to-Head Rebounding Averages:
Wilt: 28.7
Russell: 14.5

Explain that one.That's the funny thing about statistics I suppose, they can be analyzed and reanalyzed and then manipulated to suit just about any side of a discussion. There's reasonable explanations for the statistical difference between the two players I think, but the deeper we get into a statistical dissection of these two players the more I realize we're missing the point.

From the perspective of individual statistics no player will ever measure up to Wilt Chamberlain, and I suspect Wilt was aware of this during his playing days. Wilt was a man that was obsessed with amassing his own statistics. That's not a criticism, it's the objective truth. That's why I realized we're really not even having the same discussion here. If the criteria to evaluate the greatness of a player is based solely on individual statistics, Bill Russell certainly doesn't measure up. No player before or since measures up to the statistical Mount Everest that was Wilt Chamberlain.

But I just happen to believe the ultimate measure of a competitor is how many times they've won. If that's the criteria, well then certainly no one comes close to Bill Russell, and no one ever will. Either Bill Russell was continually the benefactor of the most incomprehensible luck imaginable during his playing days, or he was the reason his teams always won. He won at every level. Two national championships at the University of San Francisco. 11 NBA championships. You can't convince me that Russell was a part of those championship teams by accident. How many times did Wilt Chamberlain, the most dominant player in the history of basketball win a NCAA championship? Zero. Why is it Russell almost always won while Wilt's rarely ever did? It's been proven that the supposition that "Bill Russell played with better players than Wilt" is demonstrably false. Russell had better teammates up until 1965, Wilt Chamberlain had better teammates after 1965. As for Russell playing with, what is it, 6 or 7 other HOFer's during his career I revert back to the old chicken-and-the-egg argument. Did Boston win 11 championships because they had 7 HOFer's, or does the old Celtics dynasty have that many players in the HOF because they won 11 championships? I happen to think it's the latter, and when you study the careers of players like KC Jones and Tommy Heinsohn it's almost impossible not to draw the same conclusion. So again, why is it Bill Russell won so much more frequently and definitively than Wilt Chamberlain?

I have the answer: it's because they were different players and very different men. Wilt put himself first, Bill put the team first.They're both great players. Two of the greatest of all-time, no doubt about it. I'll give credit to Wilt for becoming more unselfish in the twilight of his career (and no, I don't mean the year he led the league in assists. That was the epitome of his selfishness)and subjugating himself to more of a supporting player on his Lakers championship team. How many titles could Wilt have won had he been more of a team player earlier in his career? I guess we'll never know.

For me this debate ultimately comes down to one question: if you had to pick one for a do-or-die, single elimination game who would you pick? The guy who would score 40 points, grab 20 rebounds, but frustrates his coach, alienates his teammates and ultimately costs his team the game? Or the guy whom the coaches and teammates respect, grabs 20 boards, alters the opposition's offensive gameplan with his defense, is the ulimate team leader, and is willing to accept whatever role neccesary to get the victory (even if it means the spotlight doesn't shine quite so brightly on him, and him alone)?

I'll take the second guy 100 times of out 100. We know which guy is which.

[My Opinion Matters]

I love how this thread turned into a me vs. MOM (hehehe) and skull vs. jlew argument. Not saying I want that to change, just thought it was kinda funny.

Can you imagine how time-consuming/frustrating it would be to argue MOM (hehehe) and skull at the same time? When you respond to them you have to spend a decent amount of time looking up stats and such, so imagine getting up in the morning to see posts to respond to from both of them. You spend a little while responding to the first one, and then have to spend some more time responding to the second one. By the time you finished responding to both of them, the person who wrote the first one will have responded again, and the whole process starts over again.

I don't want to jump to conclusions, but I think we might be nerds. :D

[the_ouskull]

There's no way even I'M sick enough to take this on, but I'd like to see a stat on how many times each of their teams, Russell's and Wilt's, were blown out in games. (Like, a loss by 15+ or something...)

the_ouskull

[My Opinion Matters]

All this discussion really needs to be complete is Collier's unimformed opinion based on non-existent research and unreliable hearsay.

Yeah, I went there.

[Scott D]

that's way too many games to look at, even for you.

[stoops the eternal pimp]

scottie pippen is better than everybody

[the_ouskull]

that's way too many games to look at, even for you.

There's GOT to be a website... Must... step... away... from... magic p*rn box...

the_ouskull

[Scott D]

I'm sure there's a dark recessed corner of either nba.com or basketball-reference.com that would allow you to pull up scores from prior seasons for a single team via the schedule. But that's just masochistic.

[Eielson]

That's the funny thing about statistics I suppose, they can be analyzed and reanalyzed and then manipulated to suit just about any side of a discussion. There's reasonable explanations for the statistical difference between the two players I think, but the deeper we get into a statistical dissection of these two players the more I realize we're missing the point.

From the perspective of individual statistics no player will ever measure up to Wilt Chamberlain, and I suspect Wilt was aware of this during his playing days. Wilt was a man that was obsessed with amassing his own statistics. That's not a criticism, it's the objective truth. That's why I realized we're really not even having the same discussion here. If the criteria to evaluate the greatness of a player is based solely on individual statistics, Bill Russell certainly doesn't measure up. No player before or since measures up to the statistical Mount Everest that was Wilt Chamberlain.

But I just happen to believe the ultimate measure of a competitor is how many times they've won. If that's the criteria, well then certainly no one comes close to Bill Russell, and no one ever will. Either Bill Russell was continually the benefactor of the most incomprehensible luck imaginable during his playing days, or he was the reason his teams always won. He won at every level. Two national championships at the University of San Francisco. 11 NBA championships. You can't convince me that Russell was a part of those championship teams by accident. How many times did Wilt Chamberlain, the most dominant player in the history of basketball win a NCAA championship? Zero. Why is it Russell almost always won while Wilt's rarely ever did? It's been proven that the supposition that "Bill Russell played with better players than Wilt" is demonstrably false. Russell had better teammates up until 1965, Wilt Chamberlain had better teammates after 1965. As for Russell playing with, what is it, 6 or 7 other HOFer's during his career I revert back to the old chicken-and-the-egg argument. Did Boston win 11 championships because they had 7 HOFer's, or does the old Celtics dynasty have that many players in the HOF because they won 11 championships? I happen to think it's the latter, and when you study the careers of players like KC Jones and Tommy Heinsohn it's almost impossible not to draw the same conclusion. So again, why is it Bill Russell won so much more frequently and definitively than Wilt Chamberlain?

I have the answer: it's because they were different players and very different men. Wilt put himself first, Bill put the team first.They're both great players. Two of the greatest of all-time, no doubt about it. I'll give credit to Wilt for becoming more unselfish in the twilight of his career (and no, I don't mean the year he led the league in assists. That was the epitome of his selfishness)and subjugating himself to more of a supporting player on his Lakers championship team. How many titles could Wilt have won had he been more of a team player earlier in his career? I guess we'll never know.

I think this just comes down to Russell having more team accomplishments and Wilt having more personal accomplishments. Team accomplishments are certainly more important, but I feel confident that if the roles were reversed and Auerbach were coaching Wilt, he would've been the one with all the rings. Russell wasn't the only one that piled up the rings. Sam Jones had 10; Red Auerbach had 9; Tom Heinsohn, KC Jones, Satch Sanders, and John Haviliceck each had 8; Jim Loscutoff and Frank Ramsey had 7; Bob Cousy had 6. Obviously not all of those players were necessary to the championship run, but most of them were. I would give the rings argument more weight if it weren't for the fact that Wilt was undoubtedly a better offensive player and rebounder. Sure, Wilt was egotistical and his bickering with coaches hurt his team, but I've also heard that Russell may have also been a bit egotistical (honestly, I would think most NBA players are, especially the stars). Perhaps Russell wouldn't have that great reputation as a team player if he didn't have such great teammates and the greatest coach of all-time on his sideline. It's hard to argue with a coach when you're winning just about everything possible. Just look at TO in Philadelphia. There were no problems for the first half of the season when the Eagles were 8-0 or whatever. It was a whole different story when they started to lose, though. I'm pretty confident Wilt had a bigger ego, but I doubt that this "Russell is a saint, Wilt is a demon" picture you guys are painting is true.


For me this debate ultimately comes down to one question: if you had to pick one for a do-or-die, single elimination game who would you pick? The guy who would score 40 points, grab 20 rebounds, but frustrates his coach, alienates his teammates and ultimately costs his team the game? Or the guy whom the coaches and teammates respect, grabs 20 boards, alters the opposition's offensive gameplan with his defense, is the ulimate team leader, and is willing to accept whatever role neccesary to get the victory (even if it means the spotlight doesn't shine quite so brightly on him, and him alone)?


Both!

[My Opinion Matters]

You're just feeling confident today because the Lakers beat the Celtics in a decisive game 7, admit it.

[Eielson]

:D

The fact that I've heard "Kobe" more than I've heard "Lakers" makes me want to vomit, though. I really don't understand why people act like this game made him better than Magic. Kobe got outplayed by Ron Artest...that's embarrassing.

[My Opinion Matters]

I'm glad that despite our differences we can both agree that Kobe Bryant probably hosts raping parties for Satan and Hitler.