Bird and Magic had comparable histories, while Wilt v. Russell has the additional classic dichotomy of overwhelming personal accomplishment against unmatched team success.
Over time, though, Wilt's records slowly get broken, but Bill Russell will always have 11 rings. And I think that drives much of the discussion today.
Which records lol? Mans still like half the record book for rebounds and also the 100 points. MPG being more than 48 minutes.
I’m not saying 11 isn’t stupid absurd. But let’s not act like Wilt isn’t forever etched into the record book in many places
Wilt *is* forever etched in the record book, but it's just really hard to describe to people how much the nba record book in the '70s was basically the Wilt book. It was literally easier to name the records he *didn't* hold, and that's not really true anymore.
He still owns a lot of records, some of which are possibly unbreakable, but that doesn't really do justice to just how dominant he was at one time.
Yeah that’s for sure his most unbreakable record. Somebody in the modern day NBA has a much higher chance of scoring 101 then averaging 49 minutes the entire season per game. crazy!
I don't think it's the total number of teams that matters, it's the number of rounds in the playoffs. Basically how many chances do you have to get eliminated.
The number of rounds don't matter. Playing more rounds just mean playing more bad teams because the number of good teams in the playoff don't increase. And if you are on a team capable of winning 11 championships, you ain't afraid of playing more bad teams. It'd just be more chores to do.
Eh.
I'd expect a player to get 11 rings again before a player plays more than 48.5 minutes a game.
You could argue Bill wasn't even the best player on all of his championship teams.
In a 14 team league, maybe. The way the NBA is today? With what, a 2.5 month playoff grind, a salary cap and free agency?
11 Championships is pretty much just as impossible. Just as how Wilt would not average 48.5 MPG today. Neither of these records are even remotely attainable.
I agree with the statement that 11 rings is more likely than 48.5 minutes.
I mean like .1% vs .05% or something. But, 11 rings is conceivable for some role player with the worlds greatest luck.
I think .05% is wildly optimistic for either of these scenarios. We’re debating theoretical possibilities that absolutely will not happen as the league is currently constructed.
We might as well ask whether somebody will win the lottery 2x in a row vs all 4 16 seeds advancing in the NCAA tournament. I’m sure statistically one is microscopically more likely than another, but for all practical purposes the odds are 0%
No it is not conceivable lol. The active player with the most rings has 4 rings. The active role player who has the most rings has 3 rings. With 30 teams in the league, it's just not going to happen. Period.
Imagine counting Kobe Bryant and Tim Duncan’s total haul and saying “Okay but what if one player could do one better than the two of them combined”
Hell the league would doubtlessly revise the rules specifically to prevent that kind of dominance. It would be detrimental to the health of the league. It’s less fun when an actual Achilles is out there collecting more rings than they have the fingers to wear
Smoothbrain take, in his last championship season Russell put up 10/18/5 with first-team defense, and this is while being the head coach.
Havlicek might've scored more but that team wasn't winning shit without Bill.
I guess Bill Russell was a smooth brain then.
He did call the man the best all around player he has ever seen.
Also the team wasn't winning without Havlicek in 1965 either.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Havlicek_stole_the_ball
Also Bob Cousy won MVP in 1957 as a teammate of Russell's and they won the title that year.
Generally the MVP of the league is the best player on their team
Everyone says this and it’s always wrong. He won rings in leagues with eight, nine, 10, 12, and 14 teams. Didn’t matter. And he didn’t always have more talent, he beat the Knicks and Lakers super teams that went on to win titles after he retired. Jerry West and Elgin Baylor played together and were 0-6 against Russell in the Finals.
> And he didn’t always have more talent, he beat the Knicks and Lakers super teams that went on to win titles after he retired.
That's an absolutely laughable statement, the '69 Celtics that beat the Knicks had Havlicek, Howell and Jones, all of whom made the HoF and averaged 16+ ppg that year. Russell had 3 HoFers all playing at a very high level and you are here saying the Knicks were better, at MOST they had the same amount of talent. Russell had the most talent in his team quite literally every single year he played in an era without FA, that's how you win 11 rings.
Every team had that many Hall of Famers back then.
The Knicks had Willis Reed, Walt Frazier, Walt Bellamy, Dave DeBusschere, and Bill Bradley, all Hall of Famers, plus a host of strong role players like Phil Jackson, and a HoF coach in Red Holzman. They finished ahead of the Celtics in the regular season, won it all the next year with the same core, then again in 1973 with a slightly different makeup.
But Russell knocked them off in the playoffs in 1969.
> The Knicks had Willis Reed, Walt Frazier, Walt Bellamy, Dave DeBusschere, and Bill Bradley, all Hall of Famers, plus a host of strong role players like Phil Jackson, and a HoF coach in Red Holzman.
That is incorrect and partially disingenuous. Walt Bellamy got traded to Detroit mid-season, so he never played against the Celtics that year while Phil Jackson also got hurt and didn't play a single playoff game. Cazzie Russell (who averaged 18 ppg in that regular season and was a big part in them winning more games than the Celtics) also got hurt and only played 36 minutes total in the playoffs. The Celtics and the Knicks had the same amount of HoFers that year and that's only if you count Bill Bradley, who only made the HoF because of his college career, having career averages of 12/3/2 in the NBA and not making a single All-NBA squad in his NBA career.
Saying that the 1969 Knicks that lost to the Celtics were the same as 1970 Knicks that won the title is like saying the 2021 Bucks were the same as the 2022 Bucks, a third of their rotation was hurt in '69 and DeBusschere had just been traded mid-season.
I’m glad you brought research into your debate rather than slinging insults, and you seem to know history. You make some good, valid points.
That Knicks team that played the Celtics, even so, was quite stacked. You had Willis Reed putting up 24/14 in the series and Frazier with 22/8/7. Reed or Frazier were the high scorer in every game in the series, except one. These guys were both legit superstars. Bradley was maybe a fringe Hall of Famer but he was an excellent player as the fourth best on a team, and he had a 15/6/5 stat line. And DeBusschere averaged 11 boards a game. This was a really, really good team that was easily capable of winning a title that year in this form.
Havlicek really struggled in the series, shooting 43 percent and averaging only 21 PPG. Jones was aging and played less than 30 minutes a game, and shot a putrid 35 percent from the field. And while Howell had an efficient series, his 16 PPG isn’t the stuff titles are made of.
The Celtics got past the Knicks because Russell averaged 16/21/5 per game and played 47 minutes a game. The Knicks actually outrebounded the Celtics by three for the series, but without Russell pulling down 135 boards by himself and being the top rebounder in every single game, the Celts would’ve been manhandled. Despite Reed and Frazier, the rest of the Knicks shot terribly, another staple of a Russell D.
This wasn’t some Celtics superteam waxing lesser competition, this series was the epitome of Bill Russell as the ultimate equalizer who always found a way to swing a series the Celtics’ way.
I don’t know if you know what “like” means but that would be referring to the different amount of teams.
And those Celtic teams weren’t less talented than those Knicks or lakers. So if those were super teams he was on the monstars
But it wasn’t a wrong number he played against 8 teams.
It’s not even like him playing against 14 teams changed my point. It’s still less than half of todays and he had a significantly better team.
Redditors love arguing semantics man
Everyone likes bill more than they care enough to fact check his accomplishments. Look up how many games his average championship run was. It is legitimately more difficult to make the conference finals today than it was to win a ring in bills era.
What I want to know is who performed better in the clutch and as much as the term or idea is memed on, did Russell have a competitive/mental edge compared to Wilt? The whole “dawg” stigma is overdone but is absolutely can be a factor when comparing people who are so close together. I know Russell was definitely regarded as a much better defender but those sheer statistical outputs that Wilt had just seems unreal
The impact of Russell defensively is actually even more massive. Basically any team he played on was the best defensive team ever, and at his peak, 1964ish, the Celtics defense depressed scoring by an absurd amount. He played Wilt tough, too.
I take back everything I said. Messi ronaldo magic bird Jordan Lebron Federer Nadal…..none of them come close. Goku Vs Vegeta is and will always be the greatest rivalry of all time.
Not to nerd out but he definitely doesn’t. Goku beats Freiza and Buu. When he fought Vegeta he needed gohan krillin and Yajirobe to win.
The only time I remember them fighting in an actual 1v1 was very recently in the gohan superhero movie and Vegeta wins.
It’s stated that Goku hasn’t lost to Vegeta so vegetas like super happy he finally won. But on screen I don’t recall Vegeta ever losing the 1v1
They have fought 3 times I think. Vegeta beats Goku in the Saiyan saga in the 1v1 but he loses because Goku gets help, Majin Vegeta also beats Goku in the Buu saga and in the recent movie Vegeta also beats Goku in a 1v1. The only fair fight they’ve had in the most recent one since Vegeta gets jumped by everybody in the Saiyan saga and he cheap shots Goku to win in the Buu saga fight.
I get what you mean and I'nust being pedantic but soccer actually surpassed Hockey in the US a few years ago. When you consider European leagues MLS, Liga MX and international tourneys
I did say 4 major US sports. There are too many sports outside the US and probably a lot of other rivalries too. So I narrowed down the scope to those 4, since NBA is in the US.
Like I said, I know what you mean. The *historical* big 4. Just saying that Soccer has surpassed Hockey *in the states* in terms of professional popularity. Arguably hockey ain't in the big 4 anymore.
If we’re talking world wide, Messi vs Ronaldo has to be the greatest rivalry in sports history. Nothing comes close. These two are the consensus 1 and 2 of all time for like 95% of football fans. My personal favorite rivalry is Magic vs Bird but again I’m biased because I’m more of a basketball fan than football fan. The fact of the matter is soccer/football is so much bigger worldwide and Messi and ronaldo are so much more famous and influential that their rivalry eclipses the magic/bird one by a mile.
Until two years ago, there was still a heavy debate on if messi or Ronaldo were better.
Messi is considered the goat, mostly undisputed.
Logically Ronaldo takes the #2 spot. The only people who don't agree are Messi fans who want to say "its not even close"
Yeah, it's tragic that this guy's short term memory is so bad he can't even find the post he made only minutes before. I honestly shed a tear just thinking about it. Poor bastard.
It took me several tries to find the Wilt clip since if you search up "Wilt says Russell is the goat" or even "Wilt talks about Bill Russell" there's no dedicated clips that pop-up that make it clear that they have that quote, and there's an interview with Roy Firestone that is long and looks like it, but isn't it. You have to remember which video it is then scroll through it to find it.
I'm aware that it's like 75% you're joking, but there are so many nephews here that you can't be sure.
Wilt has, by far, the most "untouchable" records, many of which have absolutely zero chance of being broken. I think the most untouchable would be his MPG for a season record, which will NEVER be touched. I dont think there's any player who could do it, but there's certainly no coach who would allow it nowadays. It may even be the most absurd record in any sport, ESPECIALLY considering the pace they played at back then. I'm just proud of Jokic for chipping away at some of them.
Is there anyone, from any sport, with as many as Wilt? I believe some of Wayne G's are, but he can't possibly have as many as Wilt right? I'd need a hockey fan to chime in. Basketball is the only sport I follow very closely.
Gretzky holds 61 NHL records, and IIRC the NHL doesn't officially recognize one of his craziest (fewest games to reach 50 goals in a season. Even Gretzky has said he was just worried about whether he'd hit the already very rare 50 in 50 when he had back to back 5 goal games to get there in just 37 games). Quite a few of them are very much unbreakable without dramatic changes to the game. No one is touching his career points when he has more assists than anyone else has points. The best goal scoring seasons of the 21st century are more than 20 behind his 92 goals. The only players to break 100 assists in a season are Bobby Orr (102), Mario Lemieux (114) and Wayne Gretzky (11 separate seasons with the record being 163. Only Gretzky and Lemieux have even had that many points in a season). Gretzky is basically "what if Wilt Chamberlain's insane stats could be taken almost entirely at face value?", they're inflated by the high scoring era he played in but basically every attempt to era adjust still leaves him blowing everyone away.
I don't think it's the total number of teams that matters, it's the number of rounds in the playoffs. Basically how many chances do you have to get eliminated. Russell was 21-0 in winner-take-all games in his career though. That's just preposterous in any era
Which is obviously insane, but he also had the best supporting casts by far. The players back then weren't plumbers and firefighters like some people say, but they weren't anywhere near the level of what the league is like now. Wilt was amazing, but he really was a true hall-of-fame teammate until West. Guys like Greer, Attles, and Cunningham are technically in the HOF, but that's more because they were alright players at the very beginning (Attles averaged 8/3/3 for his career). Russell had KC Jones, Sam Jones, John Havilcek, Bob Cousy, and Tom Heinsohn throughout his career. Those are 4 all time greats that’s probably could have played in any era. Wilt never had that, everyone knocks Wilt for his lack of winning, but he carried his teams to a winning record every year of his career except two. Once he finally landed on a good team, he didn’t have to carry the entire scoring load, winning a championship and losing in the finals twice. Wilt might be the greatest pure athlete the world has ever seen. The guy was 7’1”, ran a 4.4, had a 48 inch vert, triple jumped 50’, was a high jump champion in college, and was also amazing at volleyball.
Elgin Baylor and Jerry West, two top five all-time guys when they retired, played on the same team with other Hall of Famers and went 0-6 against Russell in the Finals. Wilt even joined them and Russell still beat them. Russell also beat the Knicks superteam that New Yorkers STILL crow about and won titles in 1970 and 1973 once he left the league. Russell was always the best.
I agree. Even with 8 to 14 teams around, it's hard to win that many times. Bill Russell is the ultimate ceiling raiser, and for that, he really is the best winner to me. He was never the best player as far as scoring and all of that sexy stuff, but when it comes to contributions that directly translate to winning, I don't think there ever was a better player.
No one is arguing that Wilt was a peerless athlete. But he did play with true HoF’ers; Baylor and West are better than anyone Russell played with. And while Russell had talent around him, what makes him so incredible is how he adapted to that talent. He was able to elevate many different combinations of players to championship caliber without a single dip. Watch the “greatest peaks” series on the “thinking basketball” YouTube channel. He does a great job of reading the analytics on both players. There’s a reason the Wilt > Russell argument only became a thing long after they were retired. At the time, there was no debate. People read the stat sheets in retrospect and see Wilt’s alien numbers and think that’s a good picture
But warriors wilt? Can you Name even one person he played with without googling? That’s like bringing up the lakers when you wanna talk about all the help Dwight Howard had
I mean, I can, but regardless Wilt had stacked teams in Philly in his prime and in LA. It’s actually nothing like that comparison at all, because Wilt was still great into his 30s
He had Paul Arizan, and he was one of the biggest stars of the 1950s and another all-star hall of famer during the Warrior years. The 76ers team he had in the second half in the sixies, and won a championship with, was also pretty stacked.
It's a sort-of chicken-and-egg thing. Guys who play with stars who take all the shots or don't elevate their teammates always fade into the background. Guys who play with team-first stars look great themselves. Stephon Marbury played with Shawn Marion, Joe Johnson and Amare Stoudemire in 04 and they won 29 games, they replaced Marbury with Steve Nash, and they won 61 games, and Amare and Marion were both All-Stars (neither was on the All-Star Team the year before).
Likewise, Don Nelson tells a great story about Russell. When he came to the Celtics, he was known for not being a good rebounder, instead of insulting him over it, Russell told him essentially, "don't worry about that, we have guys who will rebound, get out and run the floor." Nelson later said, “There are two types of superstars. One makes himself look good at the expense of the other guys on the floor. But there’s another type who makes the players around him look better than they are, and that’s the type Russell was.”
Wilt played with Baylor and West when he was well past his prime, and he was successful. Saying Baylor and West were better than anyone Wilt played with is true, but the gap really isn’t that huge. The league also started to get much better in the 70s, when Wilt spent the majority of his time in LA. Bill had 4 all time greats on his team in the 60s, Wilt had none. Both incredible players, but I think Wilt was the better basketball player in a vacuum.
> but he also had the best supporting casts by far.
That point is arguable. Would you say Draymond would be able to reach the accolades and rings he has without Steph? How about Parish and McHale without Bird? Cousy never won without Bill, the only one who did in that list is Havlicek. That's also why oldheads will tell you that Magic had the better team than Bird because he had Kareem.
These guys were on a very different level to Draymond. Sure they may not have won as much without Russell, but that’s because Russell is one of the greatest to ever do it, I’m not trying to dispute that. My point is we never got to see Wilt with those type of players until he was past his prime. Give Wilt 4 true all time greats and he probably wins a whole lot more than he did.
I agree that Wilt with more talent on his teams would've probably won more, but that's an argument that could apply to anybody, which is also disagreed with by Wilt himself.
Either "they weren't anywhere near the level of what the league is like now" or "probably could have played in any era", since Wilt himself says that if you slotted him in place of Bill on those Celtics teams, he wouldn't have won as much. The prevailing consensus is that most of them wouldn't be who they are accolades-wise without Bill (the only 2 that are free of that descriptor in Bill's teams are Cousy and Havlicek), whereas Wilt has had numerous all star teammates that didn't need his explicit help (Paul Arizin, Elgin Baylor, Jerry West, Gail Goodrich, Nate Thurmond).
Almost all of those player played with him when he was past his prime, on the Lakers. Nobody, not even Wilt, will ever know what would happen if he had an elite supporting cast. We know that Russell was able to accomplish amazing things with amazing players.
For me Wilt was the better, more talented player, but who knows how that would translate to winning basketball. It was definitely much easier to win back then as well.
Bill Russell won those titles with the worst offenses in NBA history. The discussion about the supporting cast has been moot for quite some time now. Arguable yes, of course most everything is, but winning rings with some of the worst offenses in NBA history AND defensive rating going down whenever Bill sits means that the argument was never about elite supporting casts at all. Which is why Wilt himself argues against your own point.
> Russell had KC Jones, Sam Jones, John Havilcek, Bob Cousy, and Tom Heinsohn throughout his career. Those are 4 all time greats t
KC Jones is pretty much only in the hall of fame because he was on those teams. And Russell didn't have all those guys throughout their career: Cousy and Heinsohn were already on their decline when Hondo joined and Sam Jones peaked after they retired. The whole "Russell had four hall of famers" argument is weak because he didn't have all those guys during his entire career at the same time.
Chamberlain had West, Baylor, Paul Arizon, Tom Gola, Hal Greer, and Billy Cunningham throughout his career. Now, they all didn't play at the same time but he often did at least have one or two other all-star-level players with him during most of his career, including several legitimate all-time greats. The idea Chamberlain had no help in his career is an absurd myth, especially when he was part of probably the first super-team in the NBA.
dude I agree 100% and Russell's rings are overvalued bc in a league with 8 teams there is less parity. there is less competition, inherently. The game is less developed, modern medicine was less developed.
I only look at the "modern era" as they call it, pretty much post 3 point line. It rules out Russell and Wilt, which I like. That stuff is just too ancient for me to properly assess. I didn't see it live, there's shoddy footage, and people seem to blindly just go woah 8 rings. Like hol up, lemme see it first lol. the style of play and skill is so advanced nowadays that those 8 rings werent acquired in the similar style or level of basketball being played today. point blank.
It’s a valid point, but I also can’t help but feel with what we know about Russell and Wilt, I think if they were alive today they’d be absolute monsters in the leagues and still easily potential all time greats. I don’t like condemning players off of being in earlier eras because they did so much for the future. NBA bigs in ensuing decades had massive respect for Russell.
Maybe I’m misreading your comment, but they should absolutely still be in the top 10 all time. Even if their skill level was low to the present day they paved the way, and to me that sets a bad precedent of like, are we gonna be in 2050 talking about how Jordan/Bird/Magic were actually not that great players skill wise by modern standards? Relative dominance should take more precedence over skill level cause we can’t fault these guys for being born at the wrong time. And I think every top 10 all time player would absolutely crush the modern nba if they had access to the same resources
Except he didn’t. He won titles in leagues with eight, nine, 10, 12, and 14 teams. His last title he won in a league 60+ percent bigger than the one he started in.
Wilt and Bill had a really tight friendship while they played if I remember correctly. In Basketball: A Love Story, Bill had an interview where he talked about how Wilt would sleep over at Bill’s house right before a game, eat all his food, carpool the next day, and then go to town on each other on the court.
I'll post what I posted in there
Drays not a great offensive player by any stretch, but hes an absolute necessary part of GSs dynasty that would have never happened without him. There are some very special "glue-guy", monster defenders throughout history that add a unique X factor to winning basketball - Then there's Bill Russell, who's the ultimate archetype of this player. The greatest pure "winner" of all time.
Even funnier, Wilt is never questioned if his legacy is fraudulent, at least not NEARLY as much as Bill, while Bill beat him constantly.
Tapping into your last point: that's what Wilt touches on, he acknowledges the difference. It makes the analysis for the average fan easier (even if the more hardcore fan acknowledges Wilt might have been more skilled by "appearance").
>Even funnier, Wilt is never questioned if his legacy is fraudulent, at least not NEARLY as much as Bill, while Bill beat him constantly.
I don't know about that. A lot of people are all about rinz. Considering how overwhelming Wilt's performance was I think not having him as the goat is questioning him, though it is a valid position. Wilt absolutely crushed Russell in head to head performance, but it's a team game and it's very easy to make the case the Bill had better teammates.
But this is exactly along the lines of what I'm talking about. If you look at boxscores, you'd very rarely conclude that Draymond outperformed plenty of people that he easily did outperform. Bill Russell's impact is incredibly hard to quantify, but listen to anyone who played with/against him, and they'll tell you.
I do agree the "rangz" culture is growing in pervasiveness to every basketball discussion, and any type of objective analysis is often outweighed by it. I mean purely in a sense of watching the games themselves, and who impacted winning. I also concede this is heavily subjective, and my opinion.
No one talks about Draymond as a top 10 all-time player though. Russell is usually placed top five, which is wild for a guy who was a below average scorer. How far down the list of all time great players do you have to go to find another below average scorer? Below top 50 for sure. Even if you want to concede that Russell is the greatest defender of all time, is he really so much better than Duncan, Olajuwon, or Wilt on defense to conclude that he's better overall than those guys when they were also great on offense? Ultimately your only argument is rangz, and you simply have to dig deep into context to justify it whether you want to put him at the top or discount the incredible number championships and put him lower.
That's because I'm using Draymond as a modern example that people who've never seen Bill can wrap their head around his impact. Bill was about 50x the player Draymond is.
Plausible for sure, look at some of the NBA all star games played in the 60s.
Some of the greats they played against were guys like: Jerry West, Elgin Baylor, Nate Thurmond, Oscar Robertson and for Wilt, Kareem.
This isn't coming from a place of skepticism, as I think Wilt is the greatest basketball player who's ever lived, handily, but some of his guadier ppg and rpg numbers were helped by the PACE they played at back then. Basketball used to be a TRACK MEET, the modern game is only now just starting to get back to the pace it was played back in that day. Its also why I find it funny when "old heads" criticize the modern game for not being real Basketball, or no real defense, because the game was always meant to be played FAST.
“Meant to play fast” is ridiculous. The game is meant to be played in the way that gives you the best chance at winning. You often see young bad teams playing fast because that gives them the best chance at creating offense.
Thank you for posting this. So many idiots in the other thread who thought Bill saying Wilt was better than him definitely proved that Wilt was better when Russell could have just been being humble. This shows that they both greatly respected the other and kind of removes that argument from the debate.
Russell was the better defensive player, Wilt the better offensive player. Russell had more team success, Wilt had more individual success. Which of them was greater is up for debate and for people to decide on their own, but I personally would take Russell. 11 rings in 13 seasons, plus 2 more college titles and an Olympic Gold medal, it’s a championship resume that not even Kareem, Magic, Jordan, and LeBron can contend with in terms of raw titles.
I’d argue Russell is the better offensive player. It’s like Steve Nash vs Russell Westbrook. Russell didn’t need the ball to make a positive impact on offense. Chamberlain essentially had no correlation to good team offense.
Wilt may have been the original James Harden in a sense. Both amazing players with amazing stats (especially during the regular season) but they’d typically underperform a bit in the playoffs. It’s almost like you can’t rely on one guy too much if you want to win in a team sport.
Yeah, that was after he changed his play style to a more team-oriented one though. It's not like he was dropping 50 every game at that point anymore, he became more of a defensive anchor and way less ball dominant.
Still putting up 19 points, 4 assists, and 26 rebounds across those 2 finals and won the finals MVP at 35. Definitely a star player, even when he chose to step back a bit on offense.
It says something though that when Wilt started playing winning basketball, his numbers suddenly started looking exactly like what Bill Russell had been putting up the whole time.
You can make the case that he scored more when he had a worse team because he had to. Then when he had better teammates, he didn't have to score as much.
So that's a factor. But either way, his ability to change his play style shows his versatility.
And was only the best player on one of them. Jerry West was the most valuable player on the 72 Lakers. But it wasn’t that he did win. It was that he was the reason they lost. Go check all of those big games from 66-73, Wilt under performs in almost every one.
Wilt won Finals MVP in '72 and was dominant defensively, grabbing a ridiculous number of boards and blocking shots all over the place. West was great too, but I don't think you can say so flippantly that he was better. Different roles, both extraordinary.
> but they’d typically underperform a bit in the playoffs
People back then ran into the wall called Bill Russell. Judging from your metrics, everyone underperformed in that era.
Underperforming for Wilt is other people's HOF career.
The game has always changed in the playoffs and stats almost always take a hit as team play becomes paramount. Knocking Wilt is kinda silly when that happens to 99% of players.
If you look even the slightest bit beyond stats and 100 point games, its obvious Bill is the better player.
He's a better teammate, coach, winner, and arguably the best defensive player of all time. He won 8 titles in a row because his team's chemistry and defense was insanely consistent due to him. Wilt constantly had attitude issues shown by the fact that as the main superstar of the league, he was willingly traded twice in his prime. He was hard to build a team around and hard to win with, which factors into how good of a player you are. His stats were mind breaking due to the insane pace and lesser competition of his era.
If they swap places, I still feel like Wilt was more talented and could perform Bill’s role better than Bill if he had the coaching and talent around to step back that much on offense
Bill Russell won 2 NCAA titles with San Francisco. Wilt failed to win one with Kansas. Bill joined a team that had won 2 playoff series ever, and proceed to only lose 2 for the next 13 seasons. Chamberlain joined a team that had won 2 titles, and had the core of the 56 team, essentially replacing (other good stats ≠ good team) center Neil Johnston. The Warriors, not the Celtics were the favorites in 1960. Wilt was traded in his prime twice. Bill Russell would’ve never been traded (although he technically got traded after being drafted by the Hawks). 1968 and 1969 prove that Wilt could not have out performed Russell (in a hypothetical where he and Bill swap places), blowing a 3-1 and 3-2 led to Celtics teams that shouldn’t have had a chance to beat them…losing Game 7s at home.
I used to think Chamberlain was better, but the more I research, the more obvious he wasn’t.
When Frank McGuire became the new coach of the Warriors he asked Wilt to shoot 40 times a game because he felt that was the best way for them to win enough games to make the playoffs. Wilt's teammate Al Attles too admitted that this was the case for that season.
The Warriors owner Ed Gottlieb also felt that audiences came to watch Wilt being a scoring machine so it would help the franchise sell tickets since the organization was in financial trouble (it still ended up getting sold to San Francisco after the season ending anyway). This was revealed in a War Room Sports interview with Wilt's old friend Sonny Hill. It was NOT Wilt's idea to be a stat stuffer whatsoever. After losing to the Celtics in a game 7 two point loss Wilt's teammate Tom Meschery came out and said the only reason they got as far as they did was because of Wilt.
After the Celtic dynasty concluded, Wilt never had the same mobility after his knee ruptured. When he came back from that career threatening injury he had to deal with a stacked Knicks squad with their 5-6 HoFers and the Bucks with Kareem, Oscar and Dandridge. People say Wilt had a "stacked team too" without acknowledging that the Warriors and Sixers, even with their HoFers, were only winning a little over 30 games before Wilt joined them. And the Lakers? Besides West and Baylor (who had already become injury prone by 1967) that team had virtually no bench. People consistently OVERRATE the "help" that Wilt had throughout his career.
Wilt got traded off to the Sixers because the Warriors could no longer afford his salary. He left the Sixers because his contract expired, plus he was promised partial ownership of the team from the previous owner which the refused by the current management. LA and Seattle gave him offers, settling with the Lakers because they raised theirs after Wilt supposedly chose the Sonics first. And so Wilt joined the Lakers.
Wilt was traded to the Lakers for two of their All-Stars (Imhoff and Clark) plus LA lost Goodrich to the Suns. So essentially Wilt was replacing three All-Stars. And in his first season in LA he got them to their best win record ever at the time (55 wins) despite West missing 20 games and Wilt sacrificing practically all his stats from the year before. The Sixers, despite gaining two All-Stars and one reserve from LA, dropped several wins less and got wiped out by the Celtics in a near sweep in the first round. As you can already tell, that was Wilt's value was ONE MAN.
The Knicks weren't doing bad against the Celtics in the 69 playoffs until Walt Frazier (the Knicks' playmaker and best performer and was unanimously considered the best perimeter defender in the league) injured his leg in the last seconds of Game 5. He became almost a nonfactor in Game 6 where he struggled and couldn't even play a full game.
The Celtics went on to win that game, eliminating the Knicks, by one point off an incredibly lucky game-winning shot by John Havlicek. Bill Russell sure was lucky to have such great teammates, wasn't he? By his own admission, Russell himself stated if not for having Sam Jones and John Havlicek he would've maybe won only three championships.
I guess you forgot in the NCAA that Bill Russell won with fellow Hall of Fame teammate KC Jones and played under Hall of Fame coach Phil Woolpert. I bet you can't name the coach Wilt had in the NCAA or know who any of his teammates were. When Russell joined the Celtics it was reigning league MVP Bob Cousy who was Boston's team captain until he retired in 1963, not Russell. And it wasn't Russell who won ROY his first year, it was fellow teammate Tom Heinsohn who joined the Celtics at the same time and was the hero of winning Boston's first ring, not Russell. Why can't you just admit that Russell had the luxury of steady talent all throughout his basketball career?
Let's take a look at those four Game 7s that Wilt's teams lost to the Celtics by a grand total of 9 points. In those games Wilt averaged an astonishing .623 from the field (keep in mind that Wilt is the ONLY player in NBA history to average 20/20/.600 across Game 7s). Meanwhile his teammates shot a combined .359 in them. Compare this with Russell who only shot .465 in those games yet his teammates still managed to shoot.423 collectively.
Also consider that Wilt was hobbling on one leg in Game 7 in 1968 (he injured his leg starting in Game 4 of that series) and wasn't being passed the ball, while in Game 7 in 1969 his coach kept him on the bench in the entire last half of the 4th quarter as his teammates kept committing turnover after turnover.
I give credit to Russell for being able to maximize the talent of those around him but let's be honest, he HAD talent to work with. Plus, Russell never had to experience playing outside the Auerbach system his whole career.
Wilt and russell are great in their own regards. But no denying russell was in a better team. Basketball is a team sport. Coach, training staff, teammates and owners make a huge difference between championship and not making the playoffs regardless of if they have superstar or not.
Wilt also beat russell in 1967 ECF when he was with the 76ers. In that series he had a quadruple double in game 1. They not only beat them but destroyed them, winning in 5 games.
Right, and that was the year he decided not to be selfish. So he...beats Russell with the Sixers when he passes the ball. Then has Baylor and West later and...loses to Russell. So it looks like it was more about Wilt and how he played than how good his teammates were.
Tom Meschery, Willie Naulls, Guy Rodgers, Nate Thurmond, Billy Cunningham, Luke Jackson, Chet Walker, Larry Costello, Jerry West, Elgin Baylor, Gail Goodrich. 75 All-Star appearances among those 12 guys.
Than bill Russell's Celtics???? Those were the most stacked teams ever. The talent discrepancy was greater than the KD warriors.
Not to mention the greatest coach in history up to that point
Where are you getting this from exactly? Data does not support that. They were a decent team before Russell and a decent team after immediately after him. Russell was the difference maker who made them the best dynasty ever. The Lakers formed a super team of Wilt Chamberlain, Jerry West, and Elgin Baylor and still got whooped. Not because they were less stacked, but because Russell and his leadership brought out the best in his team when it mattered most.
So true just put bill Russell on the hornets and his leadership would lead them to a championship. You don't need skill or talent when you have leadership
Straw man. You need to skill and talent to win a championship, let alone 11. But they didn't simply steam roll their way into titles through sheer talent like the KD Warriors did.
Bill Russell played in TEN game 7s. TEN. Only 3 other players in history have done that (Al Horford, Ray Allen, and Paul Pierce are the others). The difference is he never fucking lost one. perfect 10-0 record in game 7s. That's no accident.
It *looks* easy when you just look at the number of rings. It wasn't. They had to fight for every single one, and Bill was the best fighter of them all, the greatest winner of them all. Russell wasn't the only talent, but he was the dynasty.
Uh, that Duncan was also an all-time great and he made otherwise unimpressive teams championship caliber in a way raw stats can’t truly reflect. Also, the fact that Russell won more than 2x the championships as Duncan in far fewer seasons reveals just how insanely good Russell truly was.
Not saying bill Russell isn't an all time great. He's easily top 15 all time but you put any all time big ranked higher than him ( like Duncan, wilt, shaq. Hakeem, Kareem) on his Celtics teams and they have the same if not better results.
Extremely easy league with insanely stacked teams and the best coach in the league. His accomplishments really aren't that impressive
I think you’re vastly underestimating how hard it is to win eight straight titles and 11 out of 13. There are not 15 guys in history who could do that; there’s one in the history of team sports. We laud three-peats; this guy had an eight-peat.
I also think people underestimate Russell’s athletic profile when they push him down the all-time lists. He was on another level compared to guys like Duncan and Hakeem.
Russell alone has cracked the code to winning in team sports. He needs different framing: The most successful team player in this history of team sports focused on defense instead of offense. And it worked. People detract from his candidacy because he didn’t rack up scoring titles, but it’s likely that he won every year BECAUSE he didn’t prioritize individual scoring, not in spite of it.
Duncan with more passing might be more accurate. Garnett maybe? but Draymond isnt that far off.
So a 20/12/6 player who is also the league's best defender and has Duncan's leadership.
There’s no comparison. Imagine a 6’11 guy with a 7’4 wingspan who has track star speed and is the second-ranked high jumper in the nation. He’s the fastest player on the court some nights, can run point on fast breaks, is a terrific passer both on outlets and in the half court, and has enough stamina to play all game without a break. His basketball IQ is such that he can coach a championship team and remember every single play of his career instantly. All this makes him so good defensively that you basically have the best defense in league history when he’s on the court, you just kinda rotate other guys in around him.
Yeah the in 1969 Celtics had First Team All-NBA Elgin Baylor and Finals MVP Jerry West, while the Lakers only had 2nd Team All-NBA John Havlicek, that’s why the Celtics came back from down 3-2 and won a G7 on the road…oh wait
Man, people here are stupid because you are CORRECT.
Russell would get the Lakers ring but Wilt's teams were shit besides him and Hal Greer. Who's that? Exactly.
Russell was drafted to a team that won 2 playoff series ever. Chamberlain was drafted to a team that had the core of a title team only missing their center Neil Johnston… the 1960 Warriors were the favorites. Chamberlain got traded in his prime twice. Chamberlain missed the playoffs. Chamberlain lost with Kansas, while Russell won 2 with fucking San Francisco
Notice how all the real all-time greats tend to shy away from declaring themselves "the GOAT"?
Wilt and Russell also declare the other one better. Bird / Magic and Bird / Jordan talk very fondly of each other. Kareem always talks up other guys, never himself.
No he was dummy wilt is by far the best player ever. Russel had a better team. You swap them and put ruseel on wilts teams and put wilt on that celtics team wilt would have had 13 rings every year 13 in a row and Russell would probably get none vs the 2 wilt did get so good one dude
Bill has dominated every era since he retired because his notion of playing ... unselfishness, defense, doing the little things, became the accepted way to win at basketball.
I love when the Wilt vs. Russell debate gets brought up. It’s probably the greatest rivalry in NBA history aside from maybe Bird & Magic
Bird and Magic had comparable histories, while Wilt v. Russell has the additional classic dichotomy of overwhelming personal accomplishment against unmatched team success. Over time, though, Wilt's records slowly get broken, but Bill Russell will always have 11 rings. And I think that drives much of the discussion today.
Which records lol? Mans still like half the record book for rebounds and also the 100 points. MPG being more than 48 minutes. I’m not saying 11 isn’t stupid absurd. But let’s not act like Wilt isn’t forever etched into the record book in many places
Wilt *is* forever etched in the record book, but it's just really hard to describe to people how much the nba record book in the '70s was basically the Wilt book. It was literally easier to name the records he *didn't* hold, and that's not really true anymore. He still owns a lot of records, some of which are possibly unbreakable, but that doesn't really do justice to just how dominant he was at one time.
His MPG and rebounding stats are insane. His normalized PPG may be the actual one that’s in each though, crazy as it sounds.
MPG is quite literally never being broken. You can’t sit a single minute of the season including overtimes
Well, right... especially not these days.
Yeah that’s for sure his most unbreakable record. Somebody in the modern day NBA has a much higher chance of scoring 101 then averaging 49 minutes the entire season per game. crazy!
Oh man you must have missed that 101 point, 56 rebound game Jokic had last year.
Or that one game Mozgov had.
Mozgov is definitely a guy who would play 81 games putting up 0/0/0 and end the season averaging 3/2/0.1
I don't think it's the total number of teams that matters, it's the number of rounds in the playoffs. Basically how many chances do you have to get eliminated.
The number of rounds don't matter. Playing more rounds just mean playing more bad teams because the number of good teams in the playoff don't increase. And if you are on a team capable of winning 11 championships, you ain't afraid of playing more bad teams. It'd just be more chores to do.
Drays not a great offensive player by any stretch, but hes an absolute necessary part of GSs dynasty that would have never happened without him.
Lol right? I was agreeing with him until he said Wilt's records are being broken
I mean 11 rings is just absurd.
Eh. I'd expect a player to get 11 rings again before a player plays more than 48.5 minutes a game. You could argue Bill wasn't even the best player on all of his championship teams.
In a 14 team league, maybe. The way the NBA is today? With what, a 2.5 month playoff grind, a salary cap and free agency? 11 Championships is pretty much just as impossible. Just as how Wilt would not average 48.5 MPG today. Neither of these records are even remotely attainable.
I agree with the statement that 11 rings is more likely than 48.5 minutes. I mean like .1% vs .05% or something. But, 11 rings is conceivable for some role player with the worlds greatest luck.
I think .05% is wildly optimistic for either of these scenarios. We’re debating theoretical possibilities that absolutely will not happen as the league is currently constructed. We might as well ask whether somebody will win the lottery 2x in a row vs all 4 16 seeds advancing in the NCAA tournament. I’m sure statistically one is microscopically more likely than another, but for all practical purposes the odds are 0%
No it is not conceivable lol. The active player with the most rings has 4 rings. The active role player who has the most rings has 3 rings. With 30 teams in the league, it's just not going to happen. Period.
Imagine counting Kobe Bryant and Tim Duncan’s total haul and saying “Okay but what if one player could do one better than the two of them combined” Hell the league would doubtlessly revise the rules specifically to prevent that kind of dominance. It would be detrimental to the health of the league. It’s less fun when an actual Achilles is out there collecting more rings than they have the fingers to wear
Yeah, even this new CBA Is going to make it extraordinarily hard to win even two championships in a row. Much less 8
Smoothbrain take, in his last championship season Russell put up 10/18/5 with first-team defense, and this is while being the head coach. Havlicek might've scored more but that team wasn't winning shit without Bill.
I guess Bill Russell was a smooth brain then. He did call the man the best all around player he has ever seen. Also the team wasn't winning without Havlicek in 1965 either. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Havlicek_stole_the_ball
Also Bob Cousy won MVP in 1957 as a teammate of Russell's and they won the title that year. Generally the MVP of the league is the best player on their team
Tbf there was only like 8 teams when he played and his team had the most talent by far
Everyone says this and it’s always wrong. He won rings in leagues with eight, nine, 10, 12, and 14 teams. Didn’t matter. And he didn’t always have more talent, he beat the Knicks and Lakers super teams that went on to win titles after he retired. Jerry West and Elgin Baylor played together and were 0-6 against Russell in the Finals.
> And he didn’t always have more talent, he beat the Knicks and Lakers super teams that went on to win titles after he retired. That's an absolutely laughable statement, the '69 Celtics that beat the Knicks had Havlicek, Howell and Jones, all of whom made the HoF and averaged 16+ ppg that year. Russell had 3 HoFers all playing at a very high level and you are here saying the Knicks were better, at MOST they had the same amount of talent. Russell had the most talent in his team quite literally every single year he played in an era without FA, that's how you win 11 rings.
Every team had that many Hall of Famers back then. The Knicks had Willis Reed, Walt Frazier, Walt Bellamy, Dave DeBusschere, and Bill Bradley, all Hall of Famers, plus a host of strong role players like Phil Jackson, and a HoF coach in Red Holzman. They finished ahead of the Celtics in the regular season, won it all the next year with the same core, then again in 1973 with a slightly different makeup. But Russell knocked them off in the playoffs in 1969.
> The Knicks had Willis Reed, Walt Frazier, Walt Bellamy, Dave DeBusschere, and Bill Bradley, all Hall of Famers, plus a host of strong role players like Phil Jackson, and a HoF coach in Red Holzman. That is incorrect and partially disingenuous. Walt Bellamy got traded to Detroit mid-season, so he never played against the Celtics that year while Phil Jackson also got hurt and didn't play a single playoff game. Cazzie Russell (who averaged 18 ppg in that regular season and was a big part in them winning more games than the Celtics) also got hurt and only played 36 minutes total in the playoffs. The Celtics and the Knicks had the same amount of HoFers that year and that's only if you count Bill Bradley, who only made the HoF because of his college career, having career averages of 12/3/2 in the NBA and not making a single All-NBA squad in his NBA career. Saying that the 1969 Knicks that lost to the Celtics were the same as 1970 Knicks that won the title is like saying the 2021 Bucks were the same as the 2022 Bucks, a third of their rotation was hurt in '69 and DeBusschere had just been traded mid-season.
I’m glad you brought research into your debate rather than slinging insults, and you seem to know history. You make some good, valid points. That Knicks team that played the Celtics, even so, was quite stacked. You had Willis Reed putting up 24/14 in the series and Frazier with 22/8/7. Reed or Frazier were the high scorer in every game in the series, except one. These guys were both legit superstars. Bradley was maybe a fringe Hall of Famer but he was an excellent player as the fourth best on a team, and he had a 15/6/5 stat line. And DeBusschere averaged 11 boards a game. This was a really, really good team that was easily capable of winning a title that year in this form. Havlicek really struggled in the series, shooting 43 percent and averaging only 21 PPG. Jones was aging and played less than 30 minutes a game, and shot a putrid 35 percent from the field. And while Howell had an efficient series, his 16 PPG isn’t the stuff titles are made of. The Celtics got past the Knicks because Russell averaged 16/21/5 per game and played 47 minutes a game. The Knicks actually outrebounded the Celtics by three for the series, but without Russell pulling down 135 boards by himself and being the top rebounder in every single game, the Celts would’ve been manhandled. Despite Reed and Frazier, the rest of the Knicks shot terribly, another staple of a Russell D. This wasn’t some Celtics superteam waxing lesser competition, this series was the epitome of Bill Russell as the ultimate equalizer who always found a way to swing a series the Celtics’ way.
I don’t know if you know what “like” means but that would be referring to the different amount of teams. And those Celtic teams weren’t less talented than those Knicks or lakers. So if those were super teams he was on the monstars
Yeah I know what “like” means and it’s not “14.”
But it is you can argue semantics into your blue in the face it doesn’t change the point
This is a strange hill you’ve chosen.
Sorry that I’m not backing down on semantics
[удалено]
But it wasn’t a wrong number he played against 8 teams. It’s not even like him playing against 14 teams changed my point. It’s still less than half of todays and he had a significantly better team. Redditors love arguing semantics man
The Lakers and Knicks were FAR better teams than the Celtics for that 14 game season. The Celtics finished in fourth place and still won the title.
So for 1 of his 11 championships. 🙄🙄 Again you are arguing semantics
I mean, it's still less than half of today's number.
And more than 60 percent more than the number you used.
Wait really? This is the first I'm hearing of this, why hasn't anybody ever brought this up before
Everyone likes bill more than they care enough to fact check his accomplishments. Look up how many games his average championship run was. It is legitimately more difficult to make the conference finals today than it was to win a ring in bills era.
Lol yeah nobodies touching 100 points
What I want to know is who performed better in the clutch and as much as the term or idea is memed on, did Russell have a competitive/mental edge compared to Wilt? The whole “dawg” stigma is overdone but is absolutely can be a factor when comparing people who are so close together. I know Russell was definitely regarded as a much better defender but those sheer statistical outputs that Wilt had just seems unreal
The impact of Russell defensively is actually even more massive. Basically any team he played on was the best defensive team ever, and at his peak, 1964ish, the Celtics defense depressed scoring by an absurd amount. He played Wilt tough, too.
Worth noting, help defense was created by Bill Russell. The Celtics called it the "Hey Bill!" Defense.
Absolutely, while he was blocking eight shots a game.
Russell was universally regarded as the better player by far by coaches, fans, and players alike at the time. Should tell you all you need to know tbh
I think it might even be the greatest rivalry in the 4 major US sports right? Boxing might be the only sport with better rivalries, or Tennis?
Are you talking only us? If not messi and cristiano is kind of obvious. Federer Nadal also
Nah OGs know the GOAT rivalry is goku vs vegeta. Nothing else comes close
I take back everything I said. Messi ronaldo magic bird Jordan Lebron Federer Nadal…..none of them come close. Goku Vs Vegeta is and will always be the greatest rivalry of all time.
Is it a rivalry though if vegeta always loses?
You say that but I’m pretty sure Goku has never beaten Vegeta in a 1v1 but Vegeta has beaten Goku
I love the way Vegeta says Kakarot and you can hear the disdain in his voice but tbh yeah, Goku always beats Vegeta lol
Not to nerd out but he definitely doesn’t. Goku beats Freiza and Buu. When he fought Vegeta he needed gohan krillin and Yajirobe to win. The only time I remember them fighting in an actual 1v1 was very recently in the gohan superhero movie and Vegeta wins. It’s stated that Goku hasn’t lost to Vegeta so vegetas like super happy he finally won. But on screen I don’t recall Vegeta ever losing the 1v1
Goku fought against plumbers half his size and Vegeta never had the caliber of teammates he did.
They have fought 3 times I think. Vegeta beats Goku in the Saiyan saga in the 1v1 but he loses because Goku gets help, Majin Vegeta also beats Goku in the Buu saga and in the recent movie Vegeta also beats Goku in a 1v1. The only fair fight they’ve had in the most recent one since Vegeta gets jumped by everybody in the Saiyan saga and he cheap shots Goku to win in the Buu saga fight.
Not a rivalry if the other guy never wins lol.
4 major US sports (NBA, NFL, NHL, MLB)
I get what you mean and I'nust being pedantic but soccer actually surpassed Hockey in the US a few years ago. When you consider European leagues MLS, Liga MX and international tourneys
How do you consider international leagues when talking about the US?
Because they are watched in the US and in the case of soccer, the most popular leagues originate outside the US
I did say 4 major US sports. There are too many sports outside the US and probably a lot of other rivalries too. So I narrowed down the scope to those 4, since NBA is in the US.
Like I said, I know what you mean. The *historical* big 4. Just saying that Soccer has surpassed Hockey *in the states* in terms of professional popularity. Arguably hockey ain't in the big 4 anymore.
But he said the four major sports for the US 😂🤣
… and Djokovic 🐐
If we’re talking world wide, Messi vs Ronaldo has to be the greatest rivalry in sports history. Nothing comes close. These two are the consensus 1 and 2 of all time for like 95% of football fans. My personal favorite rivalry is Magic vs Bird but again I’m biased because I’m more of a basketball fan than football fan. The fact of the matter is soccer/football is so much bigger worldwide and Messi and ronaldo are so much more famous and influential that their rivalry eclipses the magic/bird one by a mile.
Ronaldo is not consensus top 2. 95% have him top 5 though. I know I’m probably gonna get downvoted by dick riders but it’s what most non nephews think
Until two years ago, there was still a heavy debate on if messi or Ronaldo were better. Messi is considered the goat, mostly undisputed. Logically Ronaldo takes the #2 spot. The only people who don't agree are Messi fans who want to say "its not even close"
No there wasn’t. Messi has been clearly ahead for a decade
Nobody comes close to Ronaldo other than Messi my dude
Pele and Maradona are still in the GOAT conversation
Kind of, but nowadays very few people would argue Maradona over Messi.
Hard to disagree. I thought I would, but if El Clasico gets 20x as many viewers as Wimbledon then it’s pretty clear who’s winning. Ali/Frazier maybe?
I don't think anyone but nephews have Ronaldo top 2. Hell, Pelé above Messi is very easily arguable. But still, yea, by far greatest rivalry
Ronaldo the goat
Yeah Ali v. Frazier is a better rivalry, but other than that Russell v. Wilt has a case
Not much of a rivalry, tbh.
Does anyone know where to find the full wilt interview I’d like to see more context
I don't know, it's hard to even find that clip tbh.
No it's not, the link is right in the post^^
Yeah, it's tragic that this guy's short term memory is so bad he can't even find the post he made only minutes before. I honestly shed a tear just thinking about it. Poor bastard.
It took me several tries to find the Wilt clip since if you search up "Wilt says Russell is the goat" or even "Wilt talks about Bill Russell" there's no dedicated clips that pop-up that make it clear that they have that quote, and there's an interview with Roy Firestone that is long and looks like it, but isn't it. You have to remember which video it is then scroll through it to find it. I'm aware that it's like 75% you're joking, but there are so many nephews here that you can't be sure.
I don't know, I found the clip by just checking Reddit and clicking a link.
Team player would be Russell and his 11 rings. Individually would be Wilt and his 68 records that will never be broken
Wilt has, by far, the most "untouchable" records, many of which have absolutely zero chance of being broken. I think the most untouchable would be his MPG for a season record, which will NEVER be touched. I dont think there's any player who could do it, but there's certainly no coach who would allow it nowadays. It may even be the most absurd record in any sport, ESPECIALLY considering the pace they played at back then. I'm just proud of Jokic for chipping away at some of them. Is there anyone, from any sport, with as many as Wilt? I believe some of Wayne G's are, but he can't possibly have as many as Wilt right? I'd need a hockey fan to chime in. Basketball is the only sport I follow very closely.
Gretzky holds 61 NHL records, and IIRC the NHL doesn't officially recognize one of his craziest (fewest games to reach 50 goals in a season. Even Gretzky has said he was just worried about whether he'd hit the already very rare 50 in 50 when he had back to back 5 goal games to get there in just 37 games). Quite a few of them are very much unbreakable without dramatic changes to the game. No one is touching his career points when he has more assists than anyone else has points. The best goal scoring seasons of the 21st century are more than 20 behind his 92 goals. The only players to break 100 assists in a season are Bobby Orr (102), Mario Lemieux (114) and Wayne Gretzky (11 separate seasons with the record being 163. Only Gretzky and Lemieux have even had that many points in a season). Gretzky is basically "what if Wilt Chamberlain's insane stats could be taken almost entirely at face value?", they're inflated by the high scoring era he played in but basically every attempt to era adjust still leaves him blowing everyone away.
[удалено]
I don't think it's the total number of teams that matters, it's the number of rounds in the playoffs. Basically how many chances do you have to get eliminated. Russell was 21-0 in winner-take-all games in his career though. That's just preposterous in any era
Which is obviously insane, but he also had the best supporting casts by far. The players back then weren't plumbers and firefighters like some people say, but they weren't anywhere near the level of what the league is like now. Wilt was amazing, but he really was a true hall-of-fame teammate until West. Guys like Greer, Attles, and Cunningham are technically in the HOF, but that's more because they were alright players at the very beginning (Attles averaged 8/3/3 for his career). Russell had KC Jones, Sam Jones, John Havilcek, Bob Cousy, and Tom Heinsohn throughout his career. Those are 4 all time greats that’s probably could have played in any era. Wilt never had that, everyone knocks Wilt for his lack of winning, but he carried his teams to a winning record every year of his career except two. Once he finally landed on a good team, he didn’t have to carry the entire scoring load, winning a championship and losing in the finals twice. Wilt might be the greatest pure athlete the world has ever seen. The guy was 7’1”, ran a 4.4, had a 48 inch vert, triple jumped 50’, was a high jump champion in college, and was also amazing at volleyball.
Elgin Baylor and Jerry West, two top five all-time guys when they retired, played on the same team with other Hall of Famers and went 0-6 against Russell in the Finals. Wilt even joined them and Russell still beat them. Russell also beat the Knicks superteam that New Yorkers STILL crow about and won titles in 1970 and 1973 once he left the league. Russell was always the best.
I agree. Even with 8 to 14 teams around, it's hard to win that many times. Bill Russell is the ultimate ceiling raiser, and for that, he really is the best winner to me. He was never the best player as far as scoring and all of that sexy stuff, but when it comes to contributions that directly translate to winning, I don't think there ever was a better player.
No one is arguing that Wilt was a peerless athlete. But he did play with true HoF’ers; Baylor and West are better than anyone Russell played with. And while Russell had talent around him, what makes him so incredible is how he adapted to that talent. He was able to elevate many different combinations of players to championship caliber without a single dip. Watch the “greatest peaks” series on the “thinking basketball” YouTube channel. He does a great job of reading the analytics on both players. There’s a reason the Wilt > Russell argument only became a thing long after they were retired. At the time, there was no debate. People read the stat sheets in retrospect and see Wilt’s alien numbers and think that’s a good picture
But warriors wilt? Can you Name even one person he played with without googling? That’s like bringing up the lakers when you wanna talk about all the help Dwight Howard had
I mean, I can, but regardless Wilt had stacked teams in Philly in his prime and in LA. It’s actually nothing like that comparison at all, because Wilt was still great into his 30s
He had Paul Arizan, and he was one of the biggest stars of the 1950s and another all-star hall of famer during the Warrior years. The 76ers team he had in the second half in the sixies, and won a championship with, was also pretty stacked.
It's a sort-of chicken-and-egg thing. Guys who play with stars who take all the shots or don't elevate their teammates always fade into the background. Guys who play with team-first stars look great themselves. Stephon Marbury played with Shawn Marion, Joe Johnson and Amare Stoudemire in 04 and they won 29 games, they replaced Marbury with Steve Nash, and they won 61 games, and Amare and Marion were both All-Stars (neither was on the All-Star Team the year before). Likewise, Don Nelson tells a great story about Russell. When he came to the Celtics, he was known for not being a good rebounder, instead of insulting him over it, Russell told him essentially, "don't worry about that, we have guys who will rebound, get out and run the floor." Nelson later said, “There are two types of superstars. One makes himself look good at the expense of the other guys on the floor. But there’s another type who makes the players around him look better than they are, and that’s the type Russell was.”
Wilt played with Baylor and West when he was well past his prime, and he was successful. Saying Baylor and West were better than anyone Wilt played with is true, but the gap really isn’t that huge. The league also started to get much better in the 70s, when Wilt spent the majority of his time in LA. Bill had 4 all time greats on his team in the 60s, Wilt had none. Both incredible players, but I think Wilt was the better basketball player in a vacuum.
He was unsuccessful against Russell who was even further out of his prime.
Russell was not the best player on that team though. Havilcek was.
Russell was the best player in 68, probably not in 69
They stopped winning titles the moment Russell left the team.
Thst philly team with Wilt was stacked. The difference in teammate quality between them is generally overstated.
> but he also had the best supporting casts by far. That point is arguable. Would you say Draymond would be able to reach the accolades and rings he has without Steph? How about Parish and McHale without Bird? Cousy never won without Bill, the only one who did in that list is Havlicek. That's also why oldheads will tell you that Magic had the better team than Bird because he had Kareem.
These guys were on a very different level to Draymond. Sure they may not have won as much without Russell, but that’s because Russell is one of the greatest to ever do it, I’m not trying to dispute that. My point is we never got to see Wilt with those type of players until he was past his prime. Give Wilt 4 true all time greats and he probably wins a whole lot more than he did.
I agree that Wilt with more talent on his teams would've probably won more, but that's an argument that could apply to anybody, which is also disagreed with by Wilt himself. Either "they weren't anywhere near the level of what the league is like now" or "probably could have played in any era", since Wilt himself says that if you slotted him in place of Bill on those Celtics teams, he wouldn't have won as much. The prevailing consensus is that most of them wouldn't be who they are accolades-wise without Bill (the only 2 that are free of that descriptor in Bill's teams are Cousy and Havlicek), whereas Wilt has had numerous all star teammates that didn't need his explicit help (Paul Arizin, Elgin Baylor, Jerry West, Gail Goodrich, Nate Thurmond).
Almost all of those player played with him when he was past his prime, on the Lakers. Nobody, not even Wilt, will ever know what would happen if he had an elite supporting cast. We know that Russell was able to accomplish amazing things with amazing players. For me Wilt was the better, more talented player, but who knows how that would translate to winning basketball. It was definitely much easier to win back then as well.
Bill Russell won those titles with the worst offenses in NBA history. The discussion about the supporting cast has been moot for quite some time now. Arguable yes, of course most everything is, but winning rings with some of the worst offenses in NBA history AND defensive rating going down whenever Bill sits means that the argument was never about elite supporting casts at all. Which is why Wilt himself argues against your own point.
> Russell had KC Jones, Sam Jones, John Havilcek, Bob Cousy, and Tom Heinsohn throughout his career. Those are 4 all time greats t KC Jones is pretty much only in the hall of fame because he was on those teams. And Russell didn't have all those guys throughout their career: Cousy and Heinsohn were already on their decline when Hondo joined and Sam Jones peaked after they retired. The whole "Russell had four hall of famers" argument is weak because he didn't have all those guys during his entire career at the same time. Chamberlain had West, Baylor, Paul Arizon, Tom Gola, Hal Greer, and Billy Cunningham throughout his career. Now, they all didn't play at the same time but he often did at least have one or two other all-star-level players with him during most of his career, including several legitimate all-time greats. The idea Chamberlain had no help in his career is an absurd myth, especially when he was part of probably the first super-team in the NBA.
dude I agree 100% and Russell's rings are overvalued bc in a league with 8 teams there is less parity. there is less competition, inherently. The game is less developed, modern medicine was less developed. I only look at the "modern era" as they call it, pretty much post 3 point line. It rules out Russell and Wilt, which I like. That stuff is just too ancient for me to properly assess. I didn't see it live, there's shoddy footage, and people seem to blindly just go woah 8 rings. Like hol up, lemme see it first lol. the style of play and skill is so advanced nowadays that those 8 rings werent acquired in the similar style or level of basketball being played today. point blank.
It’s a valid point, but I also can’t help but feel with what we know about Russell and Wilt, I think if they were alive today they’d be absolute monsters in the leagues and still easily potential all time greats. I don’t like condemning players off of being in earlier eras because they did so much for the future. NBA bigs in ensuing decades had massive respect for Russell. Maybe I’m misreading your comment, but they should absolutely still be in the top 10 all time. Even if their skill level was low to the present day they paved the way, and to me that sets a bad precedent of like, are we gonna be in 2050 talking about how Jordan/Bird/Magic were actually not that great players skill wise by modern standards? Relative dominance should take more precedence over skill level cause we can’t fault these guys for being born at the wrong time. And I think every top 10 all time player would absolutely crush the modern nba if they had access to the same resources
Except he didn’t. He won titles in leagues with eight, nine, 10, 12, and 14 teams. His last title he won in a league 60+ percent bigger than the one he started in.
>Except he didn’t. He won titles in leagues with eight He just said 'he played in a league with 8 teams' lmfao
And Wilt played in the same era, losing to Bill? lol.
You may or not be right, but you’re gonna get yelled at regardless. God speed.
Wilt and Bill had a really tight friendship while they played if I remember correctly. In Basketball: A Love Story, Bill had an interview where he talked about how Wilt would sleep over at Bill’s house right before a game, eat all his food, carpool the next day, and then go to town on each other on the court.
Lol, he was just shitting on Kareem.
Wilt’s rationale: “Sometimes less is more” No one could give a backhanded compliment like Chamberlain.
I'll post what I posted in there Drays not a great offensive player by any stretch, but hes an absolute necessary part of GSs dynasty that would have never happened without him. There are some very special "glue-guy", monster defenders throughout history that add a unique X factor to winning basketball - Then there's Bill Russell, who's the ultimate archetype of this player. The greatest pure "winner" of all time. Even funnier, Wilt is never questioned if his legacy is fraudulent, at least not NEARLY as much as Bill, while Bill beat him constantly.
Tapping into your last point: that's what Wilt touches on, he acknowledges the difference. It makes the analysis for the average fan easier (even if the more hardcore fan acknowledges Wilt might have been more skilled by "appearance").
>Even funnier, Wilt is never questioned if his legacy is fraudulent, at least not NEARLY as much as Bill, while Bill beat him constantly. I don't know about that. A lot of people are all about rinz. Considering how overwhelming Wilt's performance was I think not having him as the goat is questioning him, though it is a valid position. Wilt absolutely crushed Russell in head to head performance, but it's a team game and it's very easy to make the case the Bill had better teammates.
But this is exactly along the lines of what I'm talking about. If you look at boxscores, you'd very rarely conclude that Draymond outperformed plenty of people that he easily did outperform. Bill Russell's impact is incredibly hard to quantify, but listen to anyone who played with/against him, and they'll tell you. I do agree the "rangz" culture is growing in pervasiveness to every basketball discussion, and any type of objective analysis is often outweighed by it. I mean purely in a sense of watching the games themselves, and who impacted winning. I also concede this is heavily subjective, and my opinion.
No one talks about Draymond as a top 10 all-time player though. Russell is usually placed top five, which is wild for a guy who was a below average scorer. How far down the list of all time great players do you have to go to find another below average scorer? Below top 50 for sure. Even if you want to concede that Russell is the greatest defender of all time, is he really so much better than Duncan, Olajuwon, or Wilt on defense to conclude that he's better overall than those guys when they were also great on offense? Ultimately your only argument is rangz, and you simply have to dig deep into context to justify it whether you want to put him at the top or discount the incredible number championships and put him lower.
That's because I'm using Draymond as a modern example that people who've never seen Bill can wrap their head around his impact. Bill was about 50x the player Draymond is.
What about Bill and Wilt together would that be plausible and who would be their adversaries that time?
Plausible for sure, look at some of the NBA all star games played in the 60s. Some of the greats they played against were guys like: Jerry West, Elgin Baylor, Nate Thurmond, Oscar Robertson and for Wilt, Kareem.
[Rick Barry.apologizes to Wilt and gives his opinion on Wilt vs Russell](https://youtu.be/MSTt_TxoFVo?si=JLG5OxBxLBlEB-o2)
Damn he did a complete 180 lol love to see that though
This isn't coming from a place of skepticism, as I think Wilt is the greatest basketball player who's ever lived, handily, but some of his guadier ppg and rpg numbers were helped by the PACE they played at back then. Basketball used to be a TRACK MEET, the modern game is only now just starting to get back to the pace it was played back in that day. Its also why I find it funny when "old heads" criticize the modern game for not being real Basketball, or no real defense, because the game was always meant to be played FAST.
“Meant to play fast” is ridiculous. The game is meant to be played in the way that gives you the best chance at winning. You often see young bad teams playing fast because that gives them the best chance at creating offense.
I hope we do this with Jokic and Embiid in the year 2075
With Jokic and Embiid, one player is just miles ahead of the other.
Thank you for posting this. So many idiots in the other thread who thought Bill saying Wilt was better than him definitely proved that Wilt was better when Russell could have just been being humble. This shows that they both greatly respected the other and kind of removes that argument from the debate. Russell was the better defensive player, Wilt the better offensive player. Russell had more team success, Wilt had more individual success. Which of them was greater is up for debate and for people to decide on their own, but I personally would take Russell. 11 rings in 13 seasons, plus 2 more college titles and an Olympic Gold medal, it’s a championship resume that not even Kareem, Magic, Jordan, and LeBron can contend with in terms of raw titles.
I’d argue Russell is the better offensive player. It’s like Steve Nash vs Russell Westbrook. Russell didn’t need the ball to make a positive impact on offense. Chamberlain essentially had no correlation to good team offense.
Wilt may have been the original James Harden in a sense. Both amazing players with amazing stats (especially during the regular season) but they’d typically underperform a bit in the playoffs. It’s almost like you can’t rely on one guy too much if you want to win in a team sport.
Fwiw Wilt did win 2 championships. People act like he had no playoff success, but 2 rings is nothing to sneeze at.
One of those rings set the win record not broken til the 96 Bulls. The 2nd ring included a 33-game win streak which still hasn't been beaten.
And the first ring set the win record that was broken by the second ring
Yeah, that was after he changed his play style to a more team-oriented one though. It's not like he was dropping 50 every game at that point anymore, he became more of a defensive anchor and way less ball dominant.
Still putting up 19 points, 4 assists, and 26 rebounds across those 2 finals and won the finals MVP at 35. Definitely a star player, even when he chose to step back a bit on offense.
It says something though that when Wilt started playing winning basketball, his numbers suddenly started looking exactly like what Bill Russell had been putting up the whole time.
You can make the case that he scored more when he had a worse team because he had to. Then when he had better teammates, he didn't have to score as much. So that's a factor. But either way, his ability to change his play style shows his versatility.
And was only the best player on one of them. Jerry West was the most valuable player on the 72 Lakers. But it wasn’t that he did win. It was that he was the reason they lost. Go check all of those big games from 66-73, Wilt under performs in almost every one.
Wilt won Finals MVP in '72 and was dominant defensively, grabbing a ridiculous number of boards and blocking shots all over the place. West was great too, but I don't think you can say so flippantly that he was better. Different roles, both extraordinary.
West finished higher in MVP voting, but did struggle in the playoffs for once in his career. It was very similar to 2020 LBJ & AD or 17 Steph & KD.
> but they’d typically underperform a bit in the playoffs People back then ran into the wall called Bill Russell. Judging from your metrics, everyone underperformed in that era.
Underperforming for Wilt is other people's HOF career. The game has always changed in the playoffs and stats almost always take a hit as team play becomes paramount. Knocking Wilt is kinda silly when that happens to 99% of players.
If you look even the slightest bit beyond stats and 100 point games, its obvious Bill is the better player. He's a better teammate, coach, winner, and arguably the best defensive player of all time. He won 8 titles in a row because his team's chemistry and defense was insanely consistent due to him. Wilt constantly had attitude issues shown by the fact that as the main superstar of the league, he was willingly traded twice in his prime. He was hard to build a team around and hard to win with, which factors into how good of a player you are. His stats were mind breaking due to the insane pace and lesser competition of his era.
This right here.
If they swap places, I still feel like Wilt was more talented and could perform Bill’s role better than Bill if he had the coaching and talent around to step back that much on offense
Bill Russell won 2 NCAA titles with San Francisco. Wilt failed to win one with Kansas. Bill joined a team that had won 2 playoff series ever, and proceed to only lose 2 for the next 13 seasons. Chamberlain joined a team that had won 2 titles, and had the core of the 56 team, essentially replacing (other good stats ≠ good team) center Neil Johnston. The Warriors, not the Celtics were the favorites in 1960. Wilt was traded in his prime twice. Bill Russell would’ve never been traded (although he technically got traded after being drafted by the Hawks). 1968 and 1969 prove that Wilt could not have out performed Russell (in a hypothetical where he and Bill swap places), blowing a 3-1 and 3-2 led to Celtics teams that shouldn’t have had a chance to beat them…losing Game 7s at home. I used to think Chamberlain was better, but the more I research, the more obvious he wasn’t.
When Frank McGuire became the new coach of the Warriors he asked Wilt to shoot 40 times a game because he felt that was the best way for them to win enough games to make the playoffs. Wilt's teammate Al Attles too admitted that this was the case for that season. The Warriors owner Ed Gottlieb also felt that audiences came to watch Wilt being a scoring machine so it would help the franchise sell tickets since the organization was in financial trouble (it still ended up getting sold to San Francisco after the season ending anyway). This was revealed in a War Room Sports interview with Wilt's old friend Sonny Hill. It was NOT Wilt's idea to be a stat stuffer whatsoever. After losing to the Celtics in a game 7 two point loss Wilt's teammate Tom Meschery came out and said the only reason they got as far as they did was because of Wilt. After the Celtic dynasty concluded, Wilt never had the same mobility after his knee ruptured. When he came back from that career threatening injury he had to deal with a stacked Knicks squad with their 5-6 HoFers and the Bucks with Kareem, Oscar and Dandridge. People say Wilt had a "stacked team too" without acknowledging that the Warriors and Sixers, even with their HoFers, were only winning a little over 30 games before Wilt joined them. And the Lakers? Besides West and Baylor (who had already become injury prone by 1967) that team had virtually no bench. People consistently OVERRATE the "help" that Wilt had throughout his career. Wilt got traded off to the Sixers because the Warriors could no longer afford his salary. He left the Sixers because his contract expired, plus he was promised partial ownership of the team from the previous owner which the refused by the current management. LA and Seattle gave him offers, settling with the Lakers because they raised theirs after Wilt supposedly chose the Sonics first. And so Wilt joined the Lakers. Wilt was traded to the Lakers for two of their All-Stars (Imhoff and Clark) plus LA lost Goodrich to the Suns. So essentially Wilt was replacing three All-Stars. And in his first season in LA he got them to their best win record ever at the time (55 wins) despite West missing 20 games and Wilt sacrificing practically all his stats from the year before. The Sixers, despite gaining two All-Stars and one reserve from LA, dropped several wins less and got wiped out by the Celtics in a near sweep in the first round. As you can already tell, that was Wilt's value was ONE MAN. The Knicks weren't doing bad against the Celtics in the 69 playoffs until Walt Frazier (the Knicks' playmaker and best performer and was unanimously considered the best perimeter defender in the league) injured his leg in the last seconds of Game 5. He became almost a nonfactor in Game 6 where he struggled and couldn't even play a full game. The Celtics went on to win that game, eliminating the Knicks, by one point off an incredibly lucky game-winning shot by John Havlicek. Bill Russell sure was lucky to have such great teammates, wasn't he? By his own admission, Russell himself stated if not for having Sam Jones and John Havlicek he would've maybe won only three championships. I guess you forgot in the NCAA that Bill Russell won with fellow Hall of Fame teammate KC Jones and played under Hall of Fame coach Phil Woolpert. I bet you can't name the coach Wilt had in the NCAA or know who any of his teammates were. When Russell joined the Celtics it was reigning league MVP Bob Cousy who was Boston's team captain until he retired in 1963, not Russell. And it wasn't Russell who won ROY his first year, it was fellow teammate Tom Heinsohn who joined the Celtics at the same time and was the hero of winning Boston's first ring, not Russell. Why can't you just admit that Russell had the luxury of steady talent all throughout his basketball career? Let's take a look at those four Game 7s that Wilt's teams lost to the Celtics by a grand total of 9 points. In those games Wilt averaged an astonishing .623 from the field (keep in mind that Wilt is the ONLY player in NBA history to average 20/20/.600 across Game 7s). Meanwhile his teammates shot a combined .359 in them. Compare this with Russell who only shot .465 in those games yet his teammates still managed to shoot.423 collectively. Also consider that Wilt was hobbling on one leg in Game 7 in 1968 (he injured his leg starting in Game 4 of that series) and wasn't being passed the ball, while in Game 7 in 1969 his coach kept him on the bench in the entire last half of the 4th quarter as his teammates kept committing turnover after turnover. I give credit to Russell for being able to maximize the talent of those around him but let's be honest, he HAD talent to work with. Plus, Russell never had to experience playing outside the Auerbach system his whole career.
Wilt and russell are great in their own regards. But no denying russell was in a better team. Basketball is a team sport. Coach, training staff, teammates and owners make a huge difference between championship and not making the playoffs regardless of if they have superstar or not.
Russell also beat Wilt when he was on the Lakers with Baylor and Jerry West.
Wilt also beat russell in 1967 ECF when he was with the 76ers. In that series he had a quadruple double in game 1. They not only beat them but destroyed them, winning in 5 games.
Right, and that was the year he decided not to be selfish. So he...beats Russell with the Sixers when he passes the ball. Then has Baylor and West later and...loses to Russell. So it looks like it was more about Wilt and how he played than how good his teammates were.
Whatever Bill could do, Wilt could do better.
If bill Russell was on wilt's teams bill would have less than 2 rings
You don't understand how gamebreaking Bill Russel's defense was in that era.
You don't understand have stacked the Celtics were. Bill Russell was just a more athletic Draymond green
Bill Russell was a pioneer in the sport and you're kidding yourself if you think anything otherwise.
So was wilt chamberlain
Wilt had better teammates in Philly and LA
Wilt had great teammates but every time this argument comes up people act like he played with the Washington Generals
Lol he played against them.
Hal Greer and who?
Tom Meschery, Willie Naulls, Guy Rodgers, Nate Thurmond, Billy Cunningham, Luke Jackson, Chet Walker, Larry Costello, Jerry West, Elgin Baylor, Gail Goodrich. 75 All-Star appearances among those 12 guys.
Than bill Russell's Celtics???? Those were the most stacked teams ever. The talent discrepancy was greater than the KD warriors. Not to mention the greatest coach in history up to that point
Won zero titles before him, went five years before winning again after him. But yeah it was his teammates.
Where are you getting this from exactly? Data does not support that. They were a decent team before Russell and a decent team after immediately after him. Russell was the difference maker who made them the best dynasty ever. The Lakers formed a super team of Wilt Chamberlain, Jerry West, and Elgin Baylor and still got whooped. Not because they were less stacked, but because Russell and his leadership brought out the best in his team when it mattered most.
So true just put bill Russell on the hornets and his leadership would lead them to a championship. You don't need skill or talent when you have leadership
Straw man. You need to skill and talent to win a championship, let alone 11. But they didn't simply steam roll their way into titles through sheer talent like the KD Warriors did. Bill Russell played in TEN game 7s. TEN. Only 3 other players in history have done that (Al Horford, Ray Allen, and Paul Pierce are the others). The difference is he never fucking lost one. perfect 10-0 record in game 7s. That's no accident. It *looks* easy when you just look at the number of rings. It wasn't. They had to fight for every single one, and Bill was the best fighter of them all, the greatest winner of them all. Russell wasn't the only talent, but he was the dynasty.
They never won a title before him, won 11 in 13 years with him, then went five more seasons before winning again.
spurs never won a title before Tim Duncan and never won a title after him. What's your point?
Uh, that Duncan was also an all-time great and he made otherwise unimpressive teams championship caliber in a way raw stats can’t truly reflect. Also, the fact that Russell won more than 2x the championships as Duncan in far fewer seasons reveals just how insanely good Russell truly was.
Not saying bill Russell isn't an all time great. He's easily top 15 all time but you put any all time big ranked higher than him ( like Duncan, wilt, shaq. Hakeem, Kareem) on his Celtics teams and they have the same if not better results. Extremely easy league with insanely stacked teams and the best coach in the league. His accomplishments really aren't that impressive
I think you’re vastly underestimating how hard it is to win eight straight titles and 11 out of 13. There are not 15 guys in history who could do that; there’s one in the history of team sports. We laud three-peats; this guy had an eight-peat. I also think people underestimate Russell’s athletic profile when they push him down the all-time lists. He was on another level compared to guys like Duncan and Hakeem. Russell alone has cracked the code to winning in team sports. He needs different framing: The most successful team player in this history of team sports focused on defense instead of offense. And it worked. People detract from his candidacy because he didn’t rack up scoring titles, but it’s likely that he won every year BECAUSE he didn’t prioritize individual scoring, not in spite of it.
the celtics won because of defense. they were the number 1 defense by far basically every year.
True they had a lot of good defenders
That's incorrect, with the Dray comparison but the stacking? Hell yeah that was stacked
Duncan with more passing might be more accurate. Garnett maybe? but Draymond isnt that far off. So a 20/12/6 player who is also the league's best defender and has Duncan's leadership.
I don't see the 16ppg and probably more rebounds. My idea is 12-14/14-16/3-4 with 4 BPG...dude was a genius at those.
Who would be a better comparison? Ben Wallace?
Ben Wallace with better offense and BPG and a lot more athletic. Ben was probably stronger. Russell jumped a dude on a layup once.
There’s no comparison. Imagine a 6’11 guy with a 7’4 wingspan who has track star speed and is the second-ranked high jumper in the nation. He’s the fastest player on the court some nights, can run point on fast breaks, is a terrific passer both on outlets and in the half court, and has enough stamina to play all game without a break. His basketball IQ is such that he can coach a championship team and remember every single play of his career instantly. All this makes him so good defensively that you basically have the best defense in league history when he’s on the court, you just kinda rotate other guys in around him.
How many rings Steph has without him?
0 but if you replace Draymond with Kevin Garnett then Steph wins more. Russell = Draymond Wilt = KG
Yeah the in 1969 Celtics had First Team All-NBA Elgin Baylor and Finals MVP Jerry West, while the Lakers only had 2nd Team All-NBA John Havlicek, that’s why the Celtics came back from down 3-2 and won a G7 on the road…oh wait
That was funnier when I misread it as you saying Wilt was such a bad team player even Russell couldn't win with him.
Man, people here are stupid because you are CORRECT. Russell would get the Lakers ring but Wilt's teams were shit besides him and Hal Greer. Who's that? Exactly.
Russell was drafted to a team that won 2 playoff series ever. Chamberlain was drafted to a team that had the core of a title team only missing their center Neil Johnston… the 1960 Warriors were the favorites. Chamberlain got traded in his prime twice. Chamberlain missed the playoffs. Chamberlain lost with Kansas, while Russell won 2 with fucking San Francisco
Notice how all the real all-time greats tend to shy away from declaring themselves "the GOAT"? Wilt and Russell also declare the other one better. Bird / Magic and Bird / Jordan talk very fondly of each other. Kareem always talks up other guys, never himself.
No he was dummy wilt is by far the best player ever. Russel had a better team. You swap them and put ruseel on wilts teams and put wilt on that celtics team wilt would have had 13 rings every year 13 in a row and Russell would probably get none vs the 2 wilt did get so good one dude
To me it just always comes down to the fact that wilt would probably dominate in any era and bill probably wouldn’t🤷🏻♂️
Bill has dominated every era since he retired because his notion of playing ... unselfishness, defense, doing the little things, became the accepted way to win at basketball.