A GOAT DISCUSSION THREAD

1951WheatiesPremium · December 1, 2022 2:48AM

I thought we (and others) could continue our conversation from @threeofsix ’s thread over here and respect the wishes in the other thread:

@1951WheatiesPremium said:

» show previous quotes
If we’re speaking strictly offensively, what about Wilt Chamberlain and his offensive dominance? I fully respect Bobby Orr, mind you, but Wilt Chamberlain was an offensive force like nothing basketball has ever seen before or since. There’s a lot of innacuracies about him, the greatest being that he didn’t play against anyone his size. Wilt was 7’1 and the average center was 6’10. In today’s game the average center is 6’11. It’s not his fault he had better physical gifts than the other players; isn’t that much of the argument in favor of Orr, anyway?

This is a really solid collection of his records, many as unbreakable as any records in sports. I would suggest any basketball fan would enjoy how it often they list who was ‘second best’ and how enormous the disparity is between he and the other great scorers. Often, he’s also second…🤔

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_career_achievements_by_Wilt_Chamberlain

@Goldenage said:

Love a guy who knows his stuff.

Wilt is right there behind Orr in per game numbers by position, except MJ scored as many points as Wilt per game, but Jabbar was well below Wilt.

Not as much as Coffey (#2) was behind Orr in points per game.

If we look into other factors between Wilt/Jabbar and Orr/Coffey, then Bobby Orr’s #’s per game becomes stronger.

1 GOAT. Bobby Orr

2 GOAT. Wilt

3 GOAT. Secretariat

1951WheatiesPremium · December 1, 2022 2:56AM

I’m not sure it’s fair to Wilt to hold the entirety of his career totals against Bobby’s career totals. ALL bodies break down post 30; Wilt continued and Bobby didn’t. If you went same seasons or ‘to age 30’ you’ll see even more dominance from Wilt. Wilt actually had a season where he played 48.5 minutes per game; an NBA game is 48 minutes long.

😳

Lastly, Michael Jordan had the three point shot to pad his scoring totals whereas the 3 point shot did not exist at Wilt’s time playing basketball. Michael showed with the Wizards what he would look like as he was slowing down considerably (still a solid player, not the best in the league) and hasn’t the games played for his PPG average to measure up to Wilt’s.

I think that context matters…

Goldenage · December 1, 2022 4:03AM

Bobby’s body was breaking at age 21 when he had his first of 12-20 knee surgeries. He skated on one leg in the 76 Canada Cup and won MVP of the tournament.

Bobby Clarke said he couldn’t even get out of bed in the morning.

Ever hear that about Wilt ?

Goldenage · December 1, 2022 4:10AM

Orr much more faster than 9, 99, and 66. None of them could stop him and he’d take the puck from them due to his superior speed.

Not sure how that translates to basketball.

1951WheatiesPremium · December 1, 2022 4:31AM

@Goldenage said:
Orr much more faster than 9, 99, and 66. None of them could stop him and he’d take the puck from them due to his superior speed.

Not sure how that translates to basketball.

In his prime, in a big game, Wilt would score between 40 and 50 points, rebound the ball 25-30 times and reject 10-20 shots. He was also an excellent passer with high assist totals, even leading the league in assists for a full season despite playing a position not typically known for ball distribution.

So, atypical production for the positions they played is a trait both men possessed.

Both men won two titles, too.

Goldenage · December 1, 2022 4:33AM

Wilt is the Goat of bball.

Many just never saw him.

The numbers don’t lie, do they.

I can consider MJ, just like I can consider Howe for hockey, but it’s still Wilt and Bobby.

craig44 · December 1, 2022 4:57AM

I dont feel like rewriting the long post i made in the other thread about Orr, so I will paraphrase.

How much of a dip should Orr's career ranking take because of the brevity of his career? He really only had 6 or 7 dominant seasons sandwiched in between a couple early partial seasons and 3 late career partial seasons. He was done by 27 and retired by 30. he only played 657 games total.

He had no old man years to affect his rate stats, which certainly would have gone down (as do every old player in any sport)

I compare him to Koufax in baseball. truly great/transcendent for 6-7 seasons, then broken down. Koufax is seldom/never listed on any GOAT lists, partially because of his short career.

Goldenage · December 1, 2022 5:17AM

@craig44 said:
I dont feel like rewriting the long post i made in the other thread about Orr, so I will paraphrase.

How much of a dip should Orr's career ranking take because of the brevity of his career? He really only had 6 or 7 dominant seasons sandwiched in between a couple early partial seasons and 3 late career partial seasons. He was done by 27 and retired by 30. he only played 657 games total.

He had no old man years to affect his rate stats, which certainly would have gone down (as do every old player in any sport)

I compare him to Koufax in baseball. truly great/transcendent for 6-7 seasons, then broken down. Koufax is seldom/never listed on any GOAT lists, partially because of his short career.

Give Scotty Bowman a call. The greatest coach ever will explain it to you. 😇

Goldenage · December 1, 2022 5:25AM

If Sandy Koufax won an ERA title, gold glove, World Series, and triple crown all in one year, then we could even begin a discussion on comparing him to Bobby Orr.

Until someone in baseball does that, we simply can not.

craig44 · December 1, 2022 5:38AM

@Goldenage said:
If Sandy Koufax won an ERA title, gold glove, World Series, and triple crown all in one year, then we could even begin a discussion on comparing him to Bobby Orr.

Until someone in baseball does that, we simply can not.

Koufax: 1963: Cy Young, Triple crown, reg sea. MVP, world series MVP, Champ
1965: Cy Young, triple crown, reg Seas MVP-2, won World Series MVP, Champ
1966: Cy Young, Triple crown, reg seas MVP-2

as far as GG, we all know those are a joke. Ask Palmiero in 1999.

the more i look into them, they seem like as good a pair as can be had considering they played 2 different sports.

craig44 · December 1, 2022 5:39AM

@Goldenage said:

@craig44 said:
I dont feel like rewriting the long post i made in the other thread about Orr, so I will paraphrase.

How much of a dip should Orr's career ranking take because of the brevity of his career? He really only had 6 or 7 dominant seasons sandwiched in between a couple early partial seasons and 3 late career partial seasons. He was done by 27 and retired by 30. he only played 657 games total.

He had no old man years to affect his rate stats, which certainly would have gone down (as do every old player in any sport)

I compare him to Koufax in baseball. truly great/transcendent for 6-7 seasons, then broken down. Koufax is seldom/never listed on any GOAT lists, partially because of his short career.

Give Scotty Bowman a call. The greatest coach ever will explain it to you. 😇

Definitely not saying he was wasnt a great player, maybe the best ever, but his brief career has to be taken into account here. He had no old man years.

Goldenage · December 1, 2022 5:44AM

@craig44 said:

@Goldenage said:
If Sandy Koufax won an ERA title, gold glove, World Series, and triple crown all in one year, then we could even begin a discussion on comparing him to Bobby Orr.

Until someone in baseball does that, we simply can not.

Koufax: 1963: Cy Young, Triple crown, reg sea. MVP, world series MVP, Champ
1965: Cy Young, triple crown, reg Seas MVP-2, won World Series MVP, Champ
1966: Cy Young, Triple crown, reg seas MVP-2

as far as GG, we all know those are a joke. Ask Palmiero in 1999.

the more i look into them, they seem like as good a pair as can be had considering they played 2 different sports.

Koufax won the HR and batting title?
Never knew that?

Orr won the scoring championship twice with 8 consecutive Norris as league’s best defenseman.

Was Koufax the leagues best pitcher and hitter ever ?

Orr was the entire league’s best D and O man twice. Never done in hockey before or after.

If Babe Ruth led the league in HRs, BA, and ERA the same season, then you have Bobby Orr.

1951WheatiesPremium · December 1, 2022 5:49AM

@Goldenage said:
Wilt is the Goat of bball.

Many just never saw him.

The numbers don’t lie, do they.

I can consider MJ, just like I can consider Howe for hockey, but it’s still Wilt and Bobby.

I consider Kareem Abdul-Jabbar to be the basketball GOAT, myself.

However, the reason I brought up Wilt as a counter to ‘no one dominated their sport offensively the way Orr did’ is because I think Wilt basically did dominate offensively, on an unprecedented level, in basketball on that level.

craig44 · December 1, 2022 5:54AM

@Goldenage said:

@craig44 said:

@Goldenage said:
If Sandy Koufax won an ERA title, gold glove, World Series, and triple crown all in one year, then we could even begin a discussion on comparing him to Bobby Orr.

Until someone in baseball does that, we simply can not.

Koufax: 1963: Cy Young, Triple crown, reg sea. MVP, world series MVP, Champ
1965: Cy Young, triple crown, reg Seas MVP-2, won World Series MVP, Champ
1966: Cy Young, Triple crown, reg seas MVP-2

as far as GG, we all know those are a joke. Ask Palmiero in 1999.

the more i look into them, they seem like as good a pair as can be had considering they played 2 different sports.

Koufax won the HR and batting title?
Never knew that?

Orr won the scoring championship twice with 8 consecutive Norris as league’s best defenseman.

Was Koufax the leagues best pitcher and hitter ever ?

Orr was the entire league’s best D and O man twice. Never done in hockey before or after.

If Babe Ruth led the league in HRs, BA, and ERA the same season, then you have Bobby Orr.

those were not your criteria. I listed stats based on the criteria you chose. I think we can at least begin a discussion, as you stated.

craig44 · December 1, 2022 6:02AM

If Babe Ruth led the league in HRs, BA, and ERA the same season, then you have Bobby Orr.

I dont see where Orr ever led Hockey in "HR's"? I would think home runs would be the baseball equivalent to hockeys goals scored.

Maywood · December 1, 2022 6:24AM

It seems Bill Russell deserves a little respect and consideration, though I expect the disclaimers to what he accomplished and why the others are better to be forthcoming.

1951WheatiesPremium · December 1, 2022 7:38AM

@Maywood said:
It seems Bill Russell deserves a little respect and consideration, though I expect the disclaimers to what he accomplished and why the others are better to be forthcoming.

For what it’s worth, I wouldn’t argue against Bill Russell, Wilt Chamberlain or Kareem Abdul-Jabbar as the GOAT. All are very fine choices. To me, what sets Kareem apart from the two is his from the impact he had immediately in his rookie season: the Bucks went from winning 29 games to 56(!) games and he was literally the only (significant) difference on the roster between the two seasons.

craig44 · December 1, 2022 7:55AM

i have never understood the Russell argument for GOAT. unless, that is, one is using most total rings for GOAThood. To me, Russell's offense is just too limited to have him ranked number 1. it seems, that when matched up against Wilt, that Chamberlain had a distinct advantage in statistics.

I dont understand how a player can be considered the greatest of ALL time, when he wasn't even the greatest of HIs time.

1951WheatiesPremium · December 1, 2022 8:52AM

@craig44 said:
i have never understood the Russell argument for GOAT. unless, that is, one is using most total rings for GOAThood. To me, Russell's offense is just too limited to have him ranked number 1. it seems, that when matched up against Wilt, that Chamberlain had a distinct advantage in statistics.

I dont understand how a player can be considered the greatest of ALL time, when he wasn't even the greatest of HIs time.

Basketball is my love and my passion when it comes to sports. In order for a basketball team to succeed, there are a lot of moving parts that need to work together. On some level, on a true team, every player must subvert their ego and deliver what the team needs instead of trying to focus on their individuality. This impacts everybody on the floor - five individual egos - and what they are doing and should be doing to advance the team toward winning.

While it sounds easy, it’s far from it: just about every player was the singular dominant force on ALL of their teams prior to turning pro. As such, many don’t know anything else but to dominate the ball offensively BUT there is only one ball. Therefore it must be shared.

If you want to see what it looks like when the ball isn’t shared, watch the average NBA game. It is mostly one on one basketball and little in the way of defensive effort. Players need to feel totally involved to give total effort. Basically, most players are unwilling to kill themselves while one guy gets all the shots - it’s more about human nature.

Which is what makes Bill Russell all the more remarkable as a player: it was his ability to have an enormous ego off the court and no ego on it that made him great. Bill Russell could most definitely score but he understood the above and made a conscious choice to lead by example. Everybody could score on that team and they all scored. This also enabled Russell to focus more on rebounding (at both ends) and defense such that they were now completely dynamic on both the offensive AND defensive end of the floor, making every team he played for a nearly unbeatable team for the entirety of his career.

Lest we forget, he led the Dons of the University of San Francisco to back to back titles and Team USA to the gold with different rosters before turning pro.

Bill Russell was nothing short of spectacular.

erikthredd · December 1, 2022 9:06AM

The GOAT debate for basketball has already been decided...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MfNP81Mr7Js

Maywood · December 1, 2022 9:09AM

@craig44, I appreciate the way you look into stats and bring them to the forefront of discussion about players, but I also think you tend to over-rely on them. Sometimes you just have to look past stats. Like what you said about Lew Alcindor, Russell made the Celtics instant perennial NBA Champions and runner's-up, a trend which continued for 20 years. He helped make the Boston Celtics what they are.

erikthredd · December 1, 2022 9:25AM

For basketball, I'd go with these three:
1. Michael Jordan
2. Bill Russell
3. Lebron
Then that next grouping is so much harder to rank with Bird,Magic,Kareem,Wilt,Shaq,Kobe & Duncan in no particular order. I think Giannis has a real chance at ending up in that top 10 depending on if he can win 2-3 more championships before he's done playing.

For football, I'd go:
1. Tom Brady
2. Joe Montana
3. Jerry Rice
Then I'd have Reggie White,Lawrence Taylor,Jim Brown,Barry Sanders,Walter Payton & Deion in no particular order in that next group. I do think Aaron Donald will end up high on this list by the time he's done playing football.

craig44 · December 1, 2022 9:50AM

@1951WheatiesPremium said:

@craig44 said:
i have never understood the Russell argument for GOAT. unless, that is, one is using most total rings for GOAThood. To me, Russell's offense is just too limited to have him ranked number 1. it seems, that when matched up against Wilt, that Chamberlain had a distinct advantage in statistics.

I dont understand how a player can be considered the greatest of ALL time, when he wasn't even the greatest of HIs time.

Basketball is my love and my passion when it comes to sports. In order for a basketball team to succeed, there are a lot of moving parts that need to work together. On some level, on a true team, every player must subvert their ego and deliver what the team needs instead of trying to focus on their individuality. This impacts everybody on the floor - five individual egos - and what they are doing and should be doing to advance the team toward winning.

While it sounds easy, it’s far from it: just about every player was the singular dominant force on ALL of their teams prior to turning pro. As such, many don’t know anything else but to dominate the ball offensively BUT there is only one ball. Therefore it must be shared.

If you want to see what it looks like when the ball isn’t shared, watch the average NBA game. It is mostly one on one basketball and little in the way of defensive effort. Players need to feel totally involved to give total effort. Basically, most players are unwilling to kill themselves while one guy gets all the shots - it’s more about human nature.

Which is what makes Bill Russell all the more remarkable as a player: it was his ability to have an enormous ego off the court and no ego on it that made him great. Bill Russell could most definitely score but he understood the above and made a conscious choice to lead by example. Everybody could score on that team and they all scored. This also enabled Russell to focus more on rebounding (at both ends) and defense such that they were now completely dynamic on both the offensive AND defensive end of the floor, making every team he played for a nearly unbeatable team for the entirety of his career.

Lest we forget, he led the Dons of the University of San Francisco to back to back titles and Team USA to the gold with different rosters before turning pro.

Bill Russell was nothing short of spectacular.

There are a few points I will disagree with you on. I dont see any evidence that Russell could "most definitely score" he was a career .440 fg shooter and a .561 ft shooter. pretty abysmal when compared to Wilt. It also appears that Wilt was the equal or even a little better at passing than Russell as he averaged slightly more assists per game. I just cant find anything in the statistical record that Russell could do better than wilt. Russell is known for his rebounding, but Wilt was better. Wilt was better when they faced each other.

The one thing Russell's TEAMS did better was win. of course, he was surrounded by all stars and HOFers. put wilt on those teams and they would no doubt still have 11 rings in 13 years. he was a better player. by every conceivable measure.

As far as Russell having no ego on the court, I would disagree. As for players needing no ego in order to have winning teams, I would also disagree. there are many examples of superstars with GIANT egos who won multiple titles. See Jordan, Michael or Bird, Larry.

Usually when I hear people placing Russell above the fray when it comes to GOAT arguments it is followed by such platitudes as he was the "consummate winner", the "greatest teammate", "selfless",
These are all great adjectives, but they are all anecdotal. there is no evidence for these things.

craig44 · December 1, 2022 9:57AM

@Maywood said:
@craig44, I appreciate the way you look into stats and bring them to the forefront of discussion about players, but I also think you tend to over-rely on them. Sometimes you just have to look past stats. Like what you said about Lew Alcindor, Russell made the Celtics instant perennial NBA Champions and runner's-up, a trend which continued for 20 years. He helped make the Boston Celtics what they are.

Not sure i remember what i said about Lew Alcindor?

Ultimately, the statistical record is all we have. Memories are subjective and inherently unreliable. we tend to remember only the "memorable" things. We remember the 9 game winning shots jordan made. but we tend to forget the 26 times he missed. this only gets exacerbated over time. the older players take on a mythic-like status. then there comes a point when there is no one left who watched generations of players. Ruth, Cobb, Gehrig and very soon, Mantle, williams, Wilt and Russell. when that generation is gone, what will we have left? Only the statistics.

The eyeball test is a very skewed one. because as humans, our memories are not absolute.

Maywood · December 1, 2022 10:02AM

The one thing Russell's TEAMS did better was win. of course, he was surrounded by all stars and HOFers. put wilt on those teams and they would no doubt still have 11 rings in 13 years. he was a better player. by every conceivable measure.

It's interesting the way we each look at things and interpret what we see to fit our narrative. I see Bill Russell's teams being what they were in large part because of him while also considering that Chamberlain took on so much himself that he didn't elevate his team to the highest level. Put another way, when a team scores 110 points there are only so many players who can score. With the Lakers that tended to be Chamberlain, with the Celtics it seemed to be everyone around Russell.

Chamberlain may have had better individual stats but that never translated into the kind of Championships that Russell's teams had.

Maywood · December 1, 2022 10:03AM

Not sure i remember what i said about Lew Alcindor.

my mistake, that was 51wheaties.

erikthredd · December 1, 2022 10:16AM

@craig44 said:
I just cant find anything in the statistical record that Russell could do better than wilt.

Bill Russell has long been considered the best defensive player in NBA history in fact the NBA started keeping track of blocked shots because of Bill Russell. They weren't tracking them during his playing days but numerous players have said over the years that Russell would have averaged closer to 10 blocks a game than the typical 2-3 we see these days.

The one thing Russell's TEAMS did better was win. of course, he was surrounded by all stars and HOFers. put wilt on those teams and they would no doubt still have 11 rings in 13 years. he was a better player. by every conceivable measure.

Wilt played with plenty of Hall of Fame players throughout his career:
Guy Rodgers
Jerry West
Al Attles
Chet Walker
Hal Greer
Gail Goodrich
Billy Cunningham
Paul Arizin
Tom Gola
Elgin Baylor

erikthredd · December 1, 2022 10:20AM

Bill Russell also coached the Celtics to two NBA championships while he was still playing in 1968 & 1969 and IIRC that hasn't been repeated in NBA history.

edit: IIRC there hasn't even been a second person after Russell to attempt the duo role of player & head coach let alone leading the team to multiple titles.

craig44 · December 1, 2022 10:51AM

@erikthredd said:

@craig44 said:
I just cant find anything in the statistical record that Russell could do better than wilt.

Bill Russell has long been considered the best defensive player in NBA history in fact the NBA started keeping track of blocked shots because of Bill Russell. They weren't tracking them during his playing days but numerous players have said over the years that Russell would have averaged closer to 10 blocks a game than the typical 2-3 we see these days.

The one thing Russell's TEAMS did better was win. of course, he was surrounded by all stars and HOFers. put wilt on those teams and they would no doubt still have 11 rings in 13 years. he was a better player. by every conceivable measure.

Wilt played with plenty of Hall of Fame players throughout his career:
Guy Rodgers
Jerry West
Al Attles
Chet Walker
Hal Greer
Gail Goodrich
Billy Cunningham
Paul Arizin
Tom Gola
Elgin Baylor

how do you know Russell was the best defender in the history of the NBA?

I have heard that Bill may have averaged 10+ blocks a game. I have also heard the same about Chamberlain. those are anecdotes. there may be truth to them, but we don't know. How do you explain to someone who never saw them play how you KNOW Russell was the best defender?

Many people thought Jim Rice was the most feared hitter of his day. we know now that assertion is greatly exaggerated and no doubt false.

If we relied on memories and what sportswriters of the time thought, we would have no idea that Rafael Palmiero wasn't the best fielding first baseman of 1999 or that Bob Welch wasnt the best pitcher in 1990.

Also, the years he had help, like the 1972 lakers and the 1967 76ers (when they almost swept the celtics and Wilt destroyed Russell) Chamberlain won.

Hydrant · December 1, 2022 10:58AM

I do not believe there is any such thing as the GOAT......Not in any sport......Too many variables involved...... I did believe in the GOAT myth when I was a child because sports announcers kept telling me ad nauseam that this or that player was the Greatest of All Time!.....As I grew older I began to notice...... The GOATs change.... with surprising regularity..... AND....usually the GOAT is a current (TomBrady?) or recently retired player......Once time moves on?...VOILA!....A new GOAT!......Keeps the fans interested.... Other than that?....Doesn't mean a thing.....

1951WheatiesPremium · December 1, 2022 11:22AM

@craig44 said:

@1951WheatiesPremium said:

@craig44 said:
i have never understood the Russell argument for GOAT. unless, that is, one is using most total rings for GOAThood. To me, Russell's offense is just too limited to have him ranked number 1. it seems, that when matched up against Wilt, that Chamberlain had a distinct advantage in statistics.

I dont understand how a player can be considered the greatest of ALL time, when he wasn't even the greatest of HIs time.

Basketball is my love and my passion when it comes to sports. In order for a basketball team to succeed, there are a lot of moving parts that need to work together. On some level, on a true team, every player must subvert their ego and deliver what the team needs instead of trying to focus on their individuality. This impacts everybody on the floor - five individual egos - and what they are doing and should be doing to advance the team toward winning.

While it sounds easy, it’s far from it: just about every player was the singular dominant force on ALL of their teams prior to turning pro. As such, many don’t know anything else but to dominate the ball offensively BUT there is only one ball. Therefore it must be shared.

If you want to see what it looks like when the ball isn’t shared, watch the average NBA game. It is mostly one on one basketball and little in the way of defensive effort. Players need to feel totally involved to give total effort. Basically, most players are unwilling to kill themselves while one guy gets all the shots - it’s more about human nature.

Which is what makes Bill Russell all the more remarkable as a player: it was his ability to have an enormous ego off the court and no ego on it that made him great. Bill Russell could most definitely score but he understood the above and made a conscious choice to lead by example. Everybody could score on that team and they all scored. This also enabled Russell to focus more on rebounding (at both ends) and defense such that they were now completely dynamic on both the offensive AND defensive end of the floor, making every team he played for a nearly unbeatable team for the entirety of his career.

Lest we forget, he led the Dons of the University of San Francisco to back to back titles and Team USA to the gold with different rosters before turning pro.

Bill Russell was nothing short of spectacular.

There are a few points I will disagree with you on. I dont see any evidence that Russell could "most definitely score" he was a career .440 fg shooter and a .561 ft shooter. pretty abysmal when compared to Wilt. It also appears that Wilt was the equal or even a little better at passing than Russell as he averaged slightly more assists per game. I just cant find anything in the statistical record that Russell could do better than wilt. Russell is known for his rebounding, but Wilt was better. Wilt was better when they faced each other.

On average, Wilt Chamberlain took 40 shots a game and Bill Russell took 15 shots a game. Given and extra 25 shots a game, I imagine he could score more points and I don’t think that’s a stretch..

They averaged a half a rebound differenct per game.

The one thing Russell's TEAMS did better was win. of course, he was surrounded by all stars and HOFers. put wilt on those teams and they would no doubt still have 11 rings in 13 years. he was a better player. by every conceivable measure.

If he’s taking 40 shots a game for those Celtics teams, that has a big impact on the play of others.

As far as Russell having no ego on the court, I would disagree. As for players needing no ego in order to have winning teams, I would also disagree. there are many examples of superstars with GIANT egos who won multiple titles. See Jordan, Michael or Bird, Larry.

Off the court, I agree they had big egos. On the court, as Michael became less selfish and after 6 years of losing, the team began to share the ball and get more players involved. I watched it happen and while there was a little more too it than that, that was the biggest factor in my opinion.

Larry Bird was a very, very efficient scorer and an incredibly unselfish player who is the epitome of someone who used his skill to improve the play of those around him.

Usually when I hear people placing Russell above the fray when it comes to GOAT arguments it is followed by such platitudes as he was the "consummate winner", the "greatest teammate", "selfless",
These are all great adjectives, but they are all anecdotal. there is no evidence for these things.

I believe seeing the games is as important as the statistical records they produce.

JoeBanzai · December 1, 2022 11:28AM

@craig44 said:
i have never understood the Russell argument for GOAT. unless, that is, one is using most total rings for GOAThood. To me, Russell's offense is just too limited to have him ranked number 1. it seems, that when matched up against Wilt, that Chamberlain had a distinct advantage in statistics.

I dont understand how a player can be considered the greatest of ALL time, when he wasn't even the greatest of HIs time.

THANK YOU!

NOBODY dominated a sport like Wilt and he did it for a long time.

To all the Bill Russell fans, the Celtics would have won more titles with Wilt.

On hockey, I was a Gretzky guy until I considered playing defense and throwing an occasional check. To be fair to Gordie, you should combine Wayne's and McSorley's numbers and divide by two, then compare.

Orr is fascinating, but the short career keeps him from serious GOAT consideration. Probably most dominant for a short period of time.

The only other clear cut GOAT (to me) would be Ali in boxing. He could outbox the boxers and the punchers. Tyson would have been a bloody mess. Hard to say about Joe Louis, but a boxer ( Billy Conn?) had him beat until he tried to slug it out with Joe.

Football and baseball are impossible to come up with a GOAT for me. The more guys you have on the field makes it too hard.

I could see Peyton Manning, Barry Sanders or Jim Brown WAY before Brady.

Baseball is tough for me between Ruth and Mays. I'll go with Willie. NEVER Bonds.

Really no way to tell, but fun debating.

erikthredd · December 1, 2022 11:59AM

@craig44 said:

@erikthredd said:

@craig44 said:
I just cant find anything in the statistical record that Russell could do better than wilt.

Bill Russell has long been considered the best defensive player in NBA history in fact the NBA started keeping track of blocked shots because of Bill Russell. They weren't tracking them during his playing days but numerous players have said over the years that Russell would have averaged closer to 10 blocks a game than the typical 2-3 we see these days.

The one thing Russell's TEAMS did better was win. of course, he was surrounded by all stars and HOFers. put wilt on those teams and they would no doubt still have 11 rings in 13 years. he was a better player. by every conceivable measure.

Wilt played with plenty of Hall of Fame players throughout his career:
Guy Rodgers
Jerry West
Al Attles
Chet Walker
Hal Greer
Gail Goodrich
Billy Cunningham
Paul Arizin
Tom Gola
Elgin Baylor

how do you know Russell was the best defender in the history of the NBA?

I have heard that Bill may have averaged 10+ blocks a game. I have also heard the same about Chamberlain. those are anecdotes. there may be truth to them, but we don't know. How do you explain to someone who never saw them play how you KNOW Russell was the best defender?

Many people thought Jim Rice was the most feared hitter of his day. we know now that assertion is greatly exaggerated and no doubt false.

If we relied on memories and what sportswriters of the time thought, we would have no idea that Rafael Palmiero wasn't the best fielding first baseman of 1999 or that Bob Welch wasnt the best pitcher in 1990.

Also, the years he had help, like the 1972 lakers and the 1967 76ers (when they almost swept the celtics and Wilt destroyed Russell) Chamberlain won.

I'm going off of what I've heard from numerous former NBA greats have repeatedly said over the years,that his defensive prowess and BBIQ were unparalleled. Most of the defensive metrics that were created and used to to tally statistics since the NBA's early days come about because of the type of impact Bill Russell had on that end of the basketball court.

You can point to Wilt's stats and just assume that he was the better player because he may have had x amount more points or rebounds but, at the time when Russell kept getting the best of him head to head, go look at how Wilt actually fared against Russell in those games.
Wilt might have gone into a game averaging 30/field goal attempts a game while shooting .50% from the field to get his scoring average. Some games Russell would force him into taking 10-20 more FGA's just to reach his scoring average but with a much lower FG% for that game. Other times Bill might force him into taking half as many shots as he averages keeping him well below his points per game average.
What Russell did to Wilt,and pretty much every other great player he matched up with at the time was make them work much harder on the offensive end just to get close to their per game averages and at the time,there weren't all of these defensive metrics that we have today keeping track of stuff like this.

I'm not trying to make the argument that Russell was better than Wilt,imho he was when you factor in the entire picture. If Wilt is your pick then I can respect that but to just look at someone's stat page alone to base this off of is leaving out a huge part of the picture, especially when we're talking about a time in sports when tracking basic stats alone was something new.

All of your baseball anecdotes really aren't comparable because I don't follow baseball, just as you don't follow basketball because If you did I wouldn't need to explain to you what made Bill Russell such a great basketball player.

Russell vs Wilt
Regular season Russell was 57-37 against Wilt
Playoffs Russell was 29-20 against Wilt
Playoff series won head to head: Russell 7-Wilt 1
Russell played with 12 Hall of Fame teammates, the best being Bob Cousy
Wilt played with 10 Hall of Fame teammates, the best being Jerry West (the guy on the NBA logo)
Russell won 11 titles/Wilt won 2 titles

Another way to look at this is to compare it to Brady vs Manning for most of their careers. Manning (Wilt) always had the better regular season statistics but Brady (Russell) won more championships and for many years was the one obstacle standing in Manning's way of winning more titles.

erikthredd · December 1, 2022 12:57PM

There are very few current defensive metrics that could take into consideration how good on defense players were back in those early NBA decades when the league wasn't even tracking defensive stats at the time but here's one where Russell is by far ahead of the rest of the pack:
Defensive Win Shares https://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/dws_career.html
Unfortunately the NBA didn't start keeping track of most of the major defensive stat catgories until 1973-74 after Russell & Wilt had both retired.

Maywood · December 1, 2022 1:23PM

To all the Bill Russell fans, the Celtics would have won more titles with Wilt.

This is pure speculation and not backed by anything else. For all we know, they may have won less.

JoeBanzai · December 1, 2022 2:50PM

@Maywood said:
To all the Bill Russell fans, the Celtics would have won more titles with Wilt.

This is pure speculation and not backed by anything else. For all we know, they may have won less.

Sure, and so is "Bill Russell was the best defensive player". However replacing Russell with a guy who scored a lot more points and was also a great defensive player certainly shouldn't have made the team worse.

What is really unbelievable is after looking at their respective statistics ANYONE could conclude Russell was better than Chamberlain.

spacehayduke · December 1, 2022 3:22PM

While I would never take away what Bobby Orr did, he is no Gretzky. The Great One is the GOAT in hockey.

I have always like Jabbar over all of the others for bb GOAT. Not flashy just solid, consistent, high numbers for all stats. If not Jabbar, then I like Jordan. I have a had time with the current era NBA players. They just don't play the same principled game as was played in the Jabbar-Jordan-Bird-Russell etc. times. So I can't put James up there.

NFL? Agree with Brady #1, then Montana, then Rice. Rice is still probably GOAT for receivers.

1951WheatiesPremium · December 1, 2022 3:30PM

@JoeBanzai said:

@Maywood said:
To all the Bill Russell fans, the Celtics would have won more titles with Wilt.

This is pure speculation and not backed by anything else. For all we know, they may have won less.

Sure, and so is "Bill Russell was the best defensive player". However replacing Russell with a guy who scored a lot more points and was also a great defensive player certainly shouldn't have made the team worse.

What is really unbelievable is after looking at their respective statistics ANYONE could conclude Russell was better than Chamberlain.

Because there is much much more to basketball - and all sports - than statistics and the goal is for your team to defeat your opponent. You don’t win via individual statistical brilliance, you win when five guys go all in on winning above all else.

For those who didn’t see Russell, a good comparison is Tim Duncan. He was a spectacular player, his teams won a lot, and he was the centerpiece of it all. Sometimes Tony Parker filled up the scoring column, other times it was Manu Ginobili and various other guys carved out very solid careers with and after being around the Spurs as the understood the team concept better. Tim Duncan could have scored a lot more points and taken a lot more shots a game. He chose to buy into the winning formula instead and hung banners instead of chasing scoring titles.

Alfonz24 · December 1, 2022 3:31PM

Jabbar or Jordan?

erikthredd · December 1, 2022 3:53PM

@JoeBanzai said:

What is really unbelievable is after looking at their respective statistics ANYONE could conclude Russell was better than Chamberlain.

Looking at their statistics tells us one guy cared more about getting his stats while the other was all about winning.

We're talking about a guy who once scored 100pts in a single game and averaged 50+ppg in a season, Wilt created the term Iso-ball with his team's one dimensional play (throw it to Wilt on every offensive possession even though on most of those early era Wilt teams he had up to 3-4 HOF teammates.)
That led to great individual stats for Wilt,just like it has with numerous other great offensive players over the years like early era MJ, early Lebron, early KD, James Harden on the Rockets and others like Russell Westbrook and Carmelo Anthony but none of those players ever won anything in the NBA with that style of play.

Its no coincidence that Wilt led the NBA in scoring for 7 straight years with zero titles then once he decided to be more of a team player,his scoring average and FGA/game went down while his FG% and Assists/game went up and his teams actually won a couple championships.

@JoeBanzai said:
Sure, and so is "Bill Russell was the best defensive player".

Seeing that was my phrase,I'll respond to it with the only defensive metric available for that era, career Defensive Win Shares and Bill Russell owns that one by a landslide.
https://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/dws_career.html

Just for some perspective, Ben Wallace & Dikembe Mutombo combined to play 36 seasons in the NBA and are considered two of the greatest defenders in NBA history. They combined to win eight DPOY awards between them (4 each/most ever) and their defensive win shares combined for 36 total seasons totalled just slightly more than Russell had alone in just 13 seasons.

craig44 · December 1, 2022 4:28PM

@erikthredd said:

@craig44 said:

@erikthredd said:

@craig44 said:
I just cant find anything in the statistical record that Russell could do better than wilt.

Bill Russell has long been considered the best defensive player in NBA history in fact the NBA started keeping track of blocked shots because of Bill Russell. They weren't tracking them during his playing days but numerous players have said over the years that Russell would have averaged closer to 10 blocks a game than the typical 2-3 we see these days.

The one thing Russell's TEAMS did better was win. of course, he was surrounded by all stars and HOFers. put wilt on those teams and they would no doubt still have 11 rings in 13 years. he was a better player. by every conceivable measure.

Wilt played with plenty of Hall of Fame players throughout his career:
Guy Rodgers
Jerry West
Al Attles
Chet Walker
Hal Greer
Gail Goodrich
Billy Cunningham
Paul Arizin
Tom Gola
Elgin Baylor

how do you know Russell was the best defender in the history of the NBA?

I have heard that Bill may have averaged 10+ blocks a game. I have also heard the same about Chamberlain. those are anecdotes. there may be truth to them, but we don't know. How do you explain to someone who never saw them play how you KNOW Russell was the best defender?

Many people thought Jim Rice was the most feared hitter of his day. we know now that assertion is greatly exaggerated and no doubt false.

If we relied on memories and what sportswriters of the time thought, we would have no idea that Rafael Palmiero wasn't the best fielding first baseman of 1999 or that Bob Welch wasnt the best pitcher in 1990.

Also, the years he had help, like the 1972 lakers and the 1967 76ers (when they almost swept the celtics and Wilt destroyed Russell) Chamberlain won.

I'm going off of what I've heard from numerous former NBA greats have repeatedly said over the years,that his defensive prowess and BBIQ were unparalleled. Most of the defensive metrics that were created and used to to tally statistics since the NBA's early days come about because of the type of impact Bill Russell had on that end of the basketball court.

You can point to Wilt's stats and just assume that he was the better player because he may have had x amount more points or rebounds but, at the time when Russell kept getting the best of him head to head, go look at how Wilt actually fared against Russell in those games.
Wilt might have gone into a game averaging 30/field goal attempts a game while shooting .50% from the field to get his scoring average. Some games Russell would force him into taking 10-20 more FGA's just to reach his scoring average but with a much lower FG% for that game. Other times Bill might force him into taking half as many shots as he averages keeping him well below his points per game average.
What Russell did to Wilt,and pretty much every other great player he matched up with at the time was make them work much harder on the offensive end just to get close to their per game averages and at the time,there weren't all of these defensive metrics that we have today keeping track of stuff like this.

I'm not trying to make the argument that Russell was better than Wilt,imho he was when you factor in the entire picture. If Wilt is your pick then I can respect that but to just look at someone's stat page alone to base this off of is leaving out a huge part of the picture, especially when we're talking about a time in sports when tracking basic stats alone was something new.

All of your baseball anecdotes really aren't comparable because I don't follow baseball, just as you don't follow basketball because If you did I wouldn't need to explain to you what made Bill Russell such a great basketball player.

Russell vs Wilt
Regular season Russell was 57-37 against Wilt
Playoffs Russell was 29-20 against Wilt
Playoff series won head to head: Russell 7-Wilt 1
Russell played with 12 Hall of Fame teammates, the best being Bob Cousy
Wilt played with 10 Hall of Fame teammates, the best being Jerry West (the guy on the NBA logo)
Russell won 11 titles/Wilt won 2 titles

Another way to look at this is to compare it to Brady vs Manning for most of their careers. Manning (Wilt) always had the better regular season statistics but Brady (Russell) won more championships and for many years was the one obstacle standing in Manning's way of winning more titles.

you are using TEAM results to rank two PLAYERS. Head to head, wilts stats are better in every category except assists, where russell averaged .5 an assist more per game. in the playoffs, head to head, it was the same. Russell just couldnt compete with Wilt head to head. it was domination.

other than the anecdotal, "Russell was the greatest defender", or "Russell was the greatest teammate" I have yet to see an actual evidence-driven argument for Russell.

the statistical record seems very clear, Chamberlain was significantly better.

craig44 · December 1, 2022 4:43PM

@1951WheatiesPremium said:

@craig44 said:

@1951WheatiesPremium said:

@craig44 said:
i have never understood the Russell argument for GOAT. unless, that is, one is using most total rings for GOAThood. To me, Russell's offense is just too limited to have him ranked number 1. it seems, that when matched up against Wilt, that Chamberlain had a distinct advantage in statistics.

I dont understand how a player can be considered the greatest of ALL time, when he wasn't even the greatest of HIs time.

Basketball is my love and my passion when it comes to sports. In order for a basketball team to succeed, there are a lot of moving parts that need to work together. On some level, on a true team, every player must subvert their ego and deliver what the team needs instead of trying to focus on their individuality. This impacts everybody on the floor - five individual egos - and what they are doing and should be doing to advance the team toward winning.

While it sounds easy, it’s far from it: just about every player was the singular dominant force on ALL of their teams prior to turning pro. As such, many don’t know anything else but to dominate the ball offensively BUT there is only one ball. Therefore it must be shared.

If you want to see what it looks like when the ball isn’t shared, watch the average NBA game. It is mostly one on one basketball and little in the way of defensive effort. Players need to feel totally involved to give total effort. Basically, most players are unwilling to kill themselves while one guy gets all the shots - it’s more about human nature.

Which is what makes Bill Russell all the more remarkable as a player: it was his ability to have an enormous ego off the court and no ego on it that made him great. Bill Russell could most definitely score but he understood the above and made a conscious choice to lead by example. Everybody could score on that team and they all scored. This also enabled Russell to focus more on rebounding (at both ends) and defense such that they were now completely dynamic on both the offensive AND defensive end of the floor, making every team he played for a nearly unbeatable team for the entirety of his career.

Lest we forget, he led the Dons of the University of San Francisco to back to back titles and Team USA to the gold with different rosters before turning pro.

Bill Russell was nothing short of spectacular.

There are a few points I will disagree with you on. I dont see any evidence that Russell could "most definitely score" he was a career .440 fg shooter and a .561 ft shooter. pretty abysmal when compared to Wilt. It also appears that Wilt was the equal or even a little better at passing than Russell as he averaged slightly more assists per game. I just cant find anything in the statistical record that Russell could do better than wilt. Russell is known for his rebounding, but Wilt was better. Wilt was better when they faced each other.

On average, Wilt Chamberlain took 40 shots a game and Bill Russell took 15 shots a game. Given and extra 25 shots a game, I imagine he could score more points and I don’t think that’s a stretch..

They averaged a half a rebound differenct per game.

The one thing Russell's TEAMS did better was win. of course, he was surrounded by all stars and HOFers. put wilt on those teams and they would no doubt still have 11 rings in 13 years. he was a better player. by every conceivable measure.

If he’s taking 40 shots a game for those Celtics teams, that has a big impact on the play of others.

As far as Russell having no ego on the court, I would disagree. As for players needing no ego in order to have winning teams, I would also disagree. there are many examples of superstars with GIANT egos who won multiple titles. See Jordan, Michael or Bird, Larry.

Off the court, I agree they had big egos. On the court, as Michael became less selfish and after 6 years of losing, the team began to share the ball and get more players involved. I watched it happen and while there was a little more too it than that, that was the biggest factor in my opinion.

Larry Bird was a very, very efficient scorer and an incredibly unselfish player who is the epitome of someone who used his skill to improve the play of those around him.

Usually when I hear people placing Russell above the fray when it comes to GOAT arguments it is followed by such platitudes as he was the "consummate winner", the "greatest teammate", "selfless",
These are all great adjectives, but they are all anecdotal. there is no evidence for these things.

I believe seeing the games is as important as the statistical records they produce.

this is hyperbole. in no single season did wilt ever average 40 shots/game. he came close in 61 when he averaged 39.5. for his career he averaged 22.5/game. that is a LONG way from 40.

now, had russell taken 40 shots/game, or even 22.5/game as wilt did, i would postulate the Celtics would have been worse for it. Why? Because Russell was a bad shooter. even though his game was close to the rim, he only averaged .440 FG career. Chamberlain was a .540 FG% for his career. if anything, give russell less shots. it would be less for him to miss.

there is a reason he didnt shoot more, his teammates/coaches didnt want him too because he was barely above league average at it and it hurt the team.

1951WheatiesPremium · December 1, 2022 4:54PM

@craig44 said:

@1951WheatiesPremium said:

@craig44 said:

@1951WheatiesPremium said:

@craig44 said:
i have never understood the Russell argument for GOAT. unless, that is, one is using most total rings for GOAThood. To me, Russell's offense is just too limited to have him ranked number 1. it seems, that when matched up against Wilt, that Chamberlain had a distinct advantage in statistics.

I dont understand how a player can be considered the greatest of ALL time, when he wasn't even the greatest of HIs time.

Basketball is my love and my passion when it comes to sports. In order for a basketball team to succeed, there are a lot of moving parts that need to work together. On some level, on a true team, every player must subvert their ego and deliver what the team needs instead of trying to focus on their individuality. This impacts everybody on the floor - five individual egos - and what they are doing and should be doing to advance the team toward winning.

While it sounds easy, it’s far from it: just about every player was the singular dominant force on ALL of their teams prior to turning pro. As such, many don’t know anything else but to dominate the ball offensively BUT there is only one ball. Therefore it must be shared.

If you want to see what it looks like when the ball isn’t shared, watch the average NBA game. It is mostly one on one basketball and little in the way of defensive effort. Players need to feel totally involved to give total effort. Basically, most players are unwilling to kill themselves while one guy gets all the shots - it’s more about human nature.

Which is what makes Bill Russell all the more remarkable as a player: it was his ability to have an enormous ego off the court and no ego on it that made him great. Bill Russell could most definitely score but he understood the above and made a conscious choice to lead by example. Everybody could score on that team and they all scored. This also enabled Russell to focus more on rebounding (at both ends) and defense such that they were now completely dynamic on both the offensive AND defensive end of the floor, making every team he played for a nearly unbeatable team for the entirety of his career.

Lest we forget, he led the Dons of the University of San Francisco to back to back titles and Team USA to the gold with different rosters before turning pro.

Bill Russell was nothing short of spectacular.

There are a few points I will disagree with you on. I dont see any evidence that Russell could "most definitely score" he was a career .440 fg shooter and a .561 ft shooter. pretty abysmal when compared to Wilt. It also appears that Wilt was the equal or even a little better at passing than Russell as he averaged slightly more assists per game. I just cant find anything in the statistical record that Russell could do better than wilt. Russell is known for his rebounding, but Wilt was better. Wilt was better when they faced each other.

On average, Wilt Chamberlain took 40 shots a game and Bill Russell took 15 shots a game. Given and extra 25 shots a game, I imagine he could score more points and I don’t think that’s a stretch..

They averaged a half a rebound differenct per game.

The one thing Russell's TEAMS did better was win. of course, he was surrounded by all stars and HOFers. put wilt on those teams and they would no doubt still have 11 rings in 13 years. he was a better player. by every conceivable measure.

If he’s taking 40 shots a game for those Celtics teams, that has a big impact on the play of others.

As far as Russell having no ego on the court, I would disagree. As for players needing no ego in order to have winning teams, I would also disagree. there are many examples of superstars with GIANT egos who won multiple titles. See Jordan, Michael or Bird, Larry.

Off the court, I agree they had big egos. On the court, as Michael became less selfish and after 6 years of losing, the team began to share the ball and get more players involved. I watched it happen and while there was a little more too it than that, that was the biggest factor in my opinion.

Larry Bird was a very, very efficient scorer and an incredibly unselfish player who is the epitome of someone who used his skill to improve the play of those around him.

Usually when I hear people placing Russell above the fray when it comes to GOAT arguments it is followed by such platitudes as he was the "consummate winner", the "greatest teammate", "selfless",
These are all great adjectives, but they are all anecdotal. there is no evidence for these things.

I believe seeing the games is as important as the statistical records they produce.

this is hyperbole. in no single season did wilt ever average 40 shots/game. he came close in 61 when he averaged 39.5. for his career he averaged 22.5/game. that is a LONG way from 40.

now, had russell taken 40 shots/game, or even 22.5/game as wilt did, i would postulate the Celtics would have been worse for it. Why? Because Russell was a bad shooter. even though his game was close to the rim, he only averaged .440 FG career. Chamberlain was a .540 FG% for his career. if anything, give russell less shots. it would be less for him to miss.

there is a reason he didnt shoot more, his teammates/coaches didnt want him too because he was barely above league average at it and it hurt the team.

I’m doing it from memory, @craig44

He did have a season where he averaged 40 shots a game. It falls to 22 shots a game for his career a game because of the second half of his career and longevity.

Actual Stats:

erikthredd · December 1, 2022 5:14PM

@craig44 said:

@erikthredd said:

@craig44 said:

@erikthredd said:

@craig44 said:
I just cant find anything in the statistical record that Russell could do better than wilt.

Bill Russell has long been considered the best defensive player in NBA history in fact the NBA started keeping track of blocked shots because of Bill Russell. They weren't tracking them during his playing days but numerous players have said over the years that Russell would have averaged closer to 10 blocks a game than the typical 2-3 we see these days.

The one thing Russell's TEAMS did better was win. of course, he was surrounded by all stars and HOFers. put wilt on those teams and they would no doubt still have 11 rings in 13 years. he was a better player. by every conceivable measure.

Wilt played with plenty of Hall of Fame players throughout his career:
Guy Rodgers
Jerry West
Al Attles
Chet Walker
Hal Greer
Gail Goodrich
Billy Cunningham
Paul Arizin
Tom Gola
Elgin Baylor

how do you know Russell was the best defender in the history of the NBA?

I have heard that Bill may have averaged 10+ blocks a game. I have also heard the same about Chamberlain. those are anecdotes. there may be truth to them, but we don't know. How do you explain to someone who never saw them play how you KNOW Russell was the best defender?

Many people thought Jim Rice was the most feared hitter of his day. we know now that assertion is greatly exaggerated and no doubt false.

If we relied on memories and what sportswriters of the time thought, we would have no idea that Rafael Palmiero wasn't the best fielding first baseman of 1999 or that Bob Welch wasnt the best pitcher in 1990.

Also, the years he had help, like the 1972 lakers and the 1967 76ers (when they almost swept the celtics and Wilt destroyed Russell) Chamberlain won.

I'm going off of what I've heard from numerous former NBA greats have repeatedly said over the years,that his defensive prowess and BBIQ were unparalleled. Most of the defensive metrics that were created and used to to tally statistics since the NBA's early days come about because of the type of impact Bill Russell had on that end of the basketball court.

You can point to Wilt's stats and just assume that he was the better player because he may have had x amount more points or rebounds but, at the time when Russell kept getting the best of him head to head, go look at how Wilt actually fared against Russell in those games.
Wilt might have gone into a game averaging 30/field goal attempts a game while shooting .50% from the field to get his scoring average. Some games Russell would force him into taking 10-20 more FGA's just to reach his scoring average but with a much lower FG% for that game. Other times Bill might force him into taking half as many shots as he averages keeping him well below his points per game average.
What Russell did to Wilt,and pretty much every other great player he matched up with at the time was make them work much harder on the offensive end just to get close to their per game averages and at the time,there weren't all of these defensive metrics that we have today keeping track of stuff like this.

I'm not trying to make the argument that Russell was better than Wilt,imho he was when you factor in the entire picture. If Wilt is your pick then I can respect that but to just look at someone's stat page alone to base this off of is leaving out a huge part of the picture, especially when we're talking about a time in sports when tracking basic stats alone was something new.

All of your baseball anecdotes really aren't comparable because I don't follow baseball, just as you don't follow basketball because If you did I wouldn't need to explain to you what made Bill Russell such a great basketball player.

Russell vs Wilt
Regular season Russell was 57-37 against Wilt
Playoffs Russell was 29-20 against Wilt
Playoff series won head to head: Russell 7-Wilt 1
Russell played with 12 Hall of Fame teammates, the best being Bob Cousy
Wilt played with 10 Hall of Fame teammates, the best being Jerry West (the guy on the NBA logo)
Russell won 11 titles/Wilt won 2 titles

Another way to look at this is to compare it to Brady vs Manning for most of their careers. Manning (Wilt) always had the better regular season statistics but Brady (Russell) won more championships and for many years was the one obstacle standing in Manning's way of winning more titles.

you are using TEAM results to rank two PLAYERS. Head to head, wilts stats are better in every category except assists, where russell averaged .5 an assist more per game. in the playoffs, head to head, it was the same. Russell just couldnt compete with Wilt head to head. it was domination.

other than the anecdotal, "Russell was the greatest defender", or "Russell was the greatest teammate" I have yet to see an actual evidence-driven argument for Russell.

the statistical record seems very clear, Chamberlain was significantly better.

Craig, come on now. this argument you're trying to make is completely FOS to this point. YOU have brought nothing to it other than to tell us that:
1. Wilt didn't have HOF teammates..that's already been proven wrong.
2. Russell's defense didn't matter (when its literally HALF of the game and I gave you the only defensive metric available for the time proving Russell is far and away the greatest defender ever using the NBA's actual stats to track this)

Russell was nothing more than a one dimensional scorer on bad teams until a light finally clicked halfway thru his career and he realized he'll never win anything while taking 30+ shots a game. Scoring titles are great but they usually don't lead to championships and didn't in Wilt's case.

No offense Craig, and don't take this the wrong way, but listening to you try to make an NBA argument on whose better than who when we all know you aren't a basketball fan really adds nothing to the debate other than you reading Wilt & Russell's stats pages and forming an opinion off that alone. That would be like me jumping into a hockey or baseball thread acting like I know what I'm talking about when I don't.

You started off one of your comments with this opinion..."i have never understood the Russell argument for GOAT."
Maybe you should read more into this subject if you really have such a strong opinion against him. You want to use his offensive numbers against and just downplay how great he was on the other end even though I've made numerous attempts to show you that the NBA didn't track defensive stats until after Russell retired and the main reason why they did was because of him.
I could obviously go calculate Wilt's stats against Russell head to head each game and how those games compared to Wilt versus the rest of the league but we're talking about 140-50 games and I'm not spending all of that time just to a point that probably wouldn't be taken seriously anyways.

You & I both being Brady honks know full well that there was much more than what we read on a stat sheet that made Brady as great as he's been and the same could be said for Bill Russell.
If you're an ebook reader I'm pretty sure I have about 5-6 ebooks about Russell that I'd gladly send you to read if interested. He's a much greater NBA player than some want to give him credit for because most casual fans,if we can even call them/you that, don't follow basketball and when you foray into a basketball debate everyone wants to point to PPG, APG or RPG (as the only stats that matter (in this current NBA era its also three point percentage also.)

georgebailey2 · December 1, 2022 5:26PM

A chart to evaluate a certain claim regarding a GOAT. I will let everyone guess what the chart represents and who the players are. I will say that what is presented is the cumulative numbers for the particular statistic, i.e. Year 9 is the stat for years 1 through 9. These are all equivalent from the start of their respective careers (although, for Player 2, I swapped out an injured year for a better one at age 30 to make his numbers look better). These are just the stats/facts, you can make your own conclusions/opinions. FYI, the game totals are 696, 621, 621 and 653 for Player 1, Player 2, Player 3 and Player 4, respectively.

JoeBanzai · December 1, 2022 5:35PM

Maroo Mendoza was actually better than Babe Ruth.

I don't care about the statistics.

JoeBanzai · December 1, 2022 5:48PM

@craig44 said:

@1951WheatiesPremium said:

@craig44 said:

@1951WheatiesPremium said:

@craig44 said:
i have never understood the Russell argument for GOAT. unless, that is, one is using most total rings for GOAThood. To me, Russell's offense is just too limited to have him ranked number 1. it seems, that when matched up against Wilt, that Chamberlain had a distinct advantage in statistics.

I dont understand how a player can be considered the greatest of ALL time, when he wasn't even the greatest of HIs time.

Basketball is my love and my passion when it comes to sports. In order for a basketball team to succeed, there are a lot of moving parts that need to work together. On some level, on a true team, every player must subvert their ego and deliver what the team needs instead of trying to focus on their individuality. This impacts everybody on the floor - five individual egos - and what they are doing and should be doing to advance the team toward winning.

While it sounds easy, it’s far from it: just about every player was the singular dominant force on ALL of their teams prior to turning pro. As such, many don’t know anything else but to dominate the ball offensively BUT there is only one ball. Therefore it must be shared.

If you want to see what it looks like when the ball isn’t shared, watch the average NBA game. It is mostly one on one basketball and little in the way of defensive effort. Players need to feel totally involved to give total effort. Basically, most players are unwilling to kill themselves while one guy gets all the shots - it’s more about human nature.

Which is what makes Bill Russell all the more remarkable as a player: it was his ability to have an enormous ego off the court and no ego on it that made him great. Bill Russell could most definitely score but he understood the above and made a conscious choice to lead by example. Everybody could score on that team and they all scored. This also enabled Russell to focus more on rebounding (at both ends) and defense such that they were now completely dynamic on both the offensive AND defensive end of the floor, making every team he played for a nearly unbeatable team for the entirety of his career.

Lest we forget, he led the Dons of the University of San Francisco to back to back titles and Team USA to the gold with different rosters before turning pro.

Bill Russell was nothing short of spectacular.

There are a few points I will disagree with you on. I dont see any evidence that Russell could "most definitely score" he was a career .440 fg shooter and a .561 ft shooter. pretty abysmal when compared to Wilt. It also appears that Wilt was the equal or even a little better at passing than Russell as he averaged slightly more assists per game. I just cant find anything in the statistical record that Russell could do better than wilt. Russell is known for his rebounding, but Wilt was better. Wilt was better when they faced each other.

On average, Wilt Chamberlain took 40 shots a game and Bill Russell took 15 shots a game. Given and extra 25 shots a game, I imagine he could score more points and I don’t think that’s a stretch..

They averaged a half a rebound differenct per game.

The one thing Russell's TEAMS did better was win. of course, he was surrounded by all stars and HOFers. put wilt on those teams and they would no doubt still have 11 rings in 13 years. he was a better player. by every conceivable measure.

If he’s taking 40 shots a game for those Celtics teams, that has a big impact on the play of others.

As far as Russell having no ego on the court, I would disagree. As for players needing no ego in order to have winning teams, I would also disagree. there are many examples of superstars with GIANT egos who won multiple titles. See Jordan, Michael or Bird, Larry.

Off the court, I agree they had big egos. On the court, as Michael became less selfish and after 6 years of losing, the team began to share the ball and get more players involved. I watched it happen and while there was a little more too it than that, that was the biggest factor in my opinion.

Larry Bird was a very, very efficient scorer and an incredibly unselfish player who is the epitome of someone who used his skill to improve the play of those around him.

Usually when I hear people placing Russell above the fray when it comes to GOAT arguments it is followed by such platitudes as he was the "consummate winner", the "greatest teammate", "selfless",
These are all great adjectives, but they are all anecdotal. there is no evidence for these things.

I believe seeing the games is as important as the statistical records they produce.

this is hyperbole. in no single season did wilt ever average 40 shots/game. he came close in 61 when he averaged 39.5. for his career he averaged 22.5/game. that is a LONG way from 40.

now, had russell taken 40 shots/game, or even 22.5/game as wilt did, i would postulate the Celtics would have been worse for it. Why? Because Russell was a bad shooter. even though his game was close to the rim, he only averaged .440 FG career. Chamberlain was a .540 FG% for his career. if anything, give russell less shots. it would be less for him to miss.

there is a reason he didnt shoot more, his teammates/coaches didnt want him too because he was barely above league average at it and it hurt the team.

It gets SO tiring to hear people try to say a lesser player is better because of team accomplishments.

It's hilarious when they actually prove themselves wrong.

The chart shows Russell as the best defensive player, with Wilt a few players lower. Let's then look at the scoring chart.

Get real Wilt scored twice as many points!

craig44 · December 1, 2022 6:34PM

@erikthredd said:

@craig44 said:

@erikthredd said:

@craig44 said:

@erikthredd said:

@craig44 said:
I just cant find anything in the statistical record that Russell could do better than wilt.

Bill Russell has long been considered the best defensive player in NBA history in fact the NBA started keeping track of blocked shots because of Bill Russell. They weren't tracking them during his playing days but numerous players have said over the years that Russell would have averaged closer to 10 blocks a game than the typical 2-3 we see these days.

The one thing Russell's TEAMS did better was win. of course, he was surrounded by all stars and HOFers. put wilt on those teams and they would no doubt still have 11 rings in 13 years. he was a better player. by every conceivable measure.

Wilt played with plenty of Hall of Fame players throughout his career:
Guy Rodgers
Jerry West
Al Attles
Chet Walker
Hal Greer
Gail Goodrich
Billy Cunningham
Paul Arizin
Tom Gola
Elgin Baylor

how do you know Russell was the best defender in the history of the NBA?

I have heard that Bill may have averaged 10+ blocks a game. I have also heard the same about Chamberlain. those are anecdotes. there may be truth to them, but we don't know. How do you explain to someone who never saw them play how you KNOW Russell was the best defender?

Many people thought Jim Rice was the most feared hitter of his day. we know now that assertion is greatly exaggerated and no doubt false.

If we relied on memories and what sportswriters of the time thought, we would have no idea that Rafael Palmiero wasn't the best fielding first baseman of 1999 or that Bob Welch wasnt the best pitcher in 1990.

Also, the years he had help, like the 1972 lakers and the 1967 76ers (when they almost swept the celtics and Wilt destroyed Russell) Chamberlain won.

I'm going off of what I've heard from numerous former NBA greats have repeatedly said over the years,that his defensive prowess and BBIQ were unparalleled. Most of the defensive metrics that were created and used to to tally statistics since the NBA's early days come about because of the type of impact Bill Russell had on that end of the basketball court.

You can point to Wilt's stats and just assume that he was the better player because he may have had x amount more points or rebounds but, at the time when Russell kept getting the best of him head to head, go look at how Wilt actually fared against Russell in those games.
Wilt might have gone into a game averaging 30/field goal attempts a game while shooting .50% from the field to get his scoring average. Some games Russell would force him into taking 10-20 more FGA's just to reach his scoring average but with a much lower FG% for that game. Other times Bill might force him into taking half as many shots as he averages keeping him well below his points per game average.
What Russell did to Wilt,and pretty much every other great player he matched up with at the time was make them work much harder on the offensive end just to get close to their per game averages and at the time,there weren't all of these defensive metrics that we have today keeping track of stuff like this.

I'm not trying to make the argument that Russell was better than Wilt,imho he was when you factor in the entire picture. If Wilt is your pick then I can respect that but to just look at someone's stat page alone to base this off of is leaving out a huge part of the picture, especially when we're talking about a time in sports when tracking basic stats alone was something new.

All of your baseball anecdotes really aren't comparable because I don't follow baseball, just as you don't follow basketball because If you did I wouldn't need to explain to you what made Bill Russell such a great basketball player.

Russell vs Wilt
Regular season Russell was 57-37 against Wilt
Playoffs Russell was 29-20 against Wilt
Playoff series won head to head: Russell 7-Wilt 1
Russell played with 12 Hall of Fame teammates, the best being Bob Cousy
Wilt played with 10 Hall of Fame teammates, the best being Jerry West (the guy on the NBA logo)
Russell won 11 titles/Wilt won 2 titles

Another way to look at this is to compare it to Brady vs Manning for most of their careers. Manning (Wilt) always had the better regular season statistics but Brady (Russell) won more championships and for many years was the one obstacle standing in Manning's way of winning more titles.

you are using TEAM results to rank two PLAYERS. Head to head, wilts stats are better in every category except assists, where russell averaged .5 an assist more per game. in the playoffs, head to head, it was the same. Russell just couldnt compete with Wilt head to head. it was domination.

other than the anecdotal, "Russell was the greatest defender", or "Russell was the greatest teammate" I have yet to see an actual evidence-driven argument for Russell.

the statistical record seems very clear, Chamberlain was significantly better.

Craig, come on now. this argument you're trying to make is completely FOS to this point. YOU have brought nothing to it other than to tell us that:
1. Wilt didn't have HOF teammates..that's already been proven wrong.
2. Russell's defense didn't matter (when its literally HALF of the game and I gave you the only defensive metric available for the time proving Russell is far and away the greatest defender ever using the NBA's actual stats to track this)

Russell was nothing more than a one dimensional scorer on bad teams until a light finally clicked halfway thru his career and he realized he'll never win anything while taking 30+ shots a game. Scoring titles are great but they usually don't lead to championships and didn't in Wilt's case.

No offense Craig, and don't take this the wrong way, but listening to you try to make an NBA argument on whose better than who when we all know you aren't a basketball fan really adds nothing to the debate other than you reading Wilt & Russell's stats pages and forming an opinion off that alone. That would be like me jumping into a hockey or baseball thread acting like I know what I'm talking about when I don't.

You started off one of your comments with this opinion..."i have never understood the Russell argument for GOAT."
Maybe you should read more into this subject if you really have such a strong opinion against him. You want to use his offensive numbers against and just downplay how great he was on the other end even though I've made numerous attempts to show you that the NBA didn't track defensive stats until after Russell retired and the main reason why they did was because of him.
I could obviously go calculate Wilt's stats against Russell head to head each game and how those games compared to Wilt versus the rest of the league but we're talking about 140-50 games and I'm not spending all of that time just to a point that probably wouldn't be taken seriously anyways.

You & I both being Brady honks know full well that there was much more than what we read on a stat sheet that made Brady as great as he's been and the same could be said for Bill Russell.
If you're an ebook reader I'm pretty sure I have about 5-6 ebooks about Russell that I'd gladly send you to read if interested. He's a much greater NBA player than some want to give him credit for because most casual fans,if we can even call them/you that, don't follow basketball and when you foray into a basketball debate everyone wants to point to PPG, APG or RPG (as the only stats that matter (in this current NBA era its also three point percentage also.)

because i am no longer a basketball "fan" doesnt mean i am a complete rube to the sport. I watched very heavily for about 20 years from the middle 80s to the middle 00s. i also played the game through high school and scrimmaged with the college team, though never suited for them. i just have no interest in the current game.

you keep bringing up DWS. I did a little digging and have learned a bit about it. it is not all that useful a tool as it turns out. unfortunately, it is about the only tool we have reaching back into the 60s. it is based off from team defense and extrapolates out for individual. about as useful as pitcher wins. here is a little excerpt i found that put it more succinctly than i could.

Defensive Win Shares are largely a guessing game for players in Russell's era.

They're determined by looking at:

Team points allowed per scoring attempt

Minutes played

Total rebounds (box scores didn't separate offensive boards)

Assists (as a proxy for steals and blocks, which weren't recorded)

And we don't even know how many scoring attempts each team faced. We have to use a team's own scoring attempts to guess at their opponents' scoring attempts.

Once they get the team defensive value, they assign it to players based 25% on minutes played, 25% on assists, and 50% on total rebounds.

as you can see, it is largely useless as a tool to try and rank individual players.

you mentioned that wilt was a one-dimensional scorer? it sure seems that may be true. likewise, it seems Russell was a no-dimensional scorer. just really bad at it. there have been lots of one dimensional scorers in nba history, its just no one has ever done it better than wilt, one-dimensional or not.

it all comes down to this. I can prove to you how good wilt was on offense. you cannot prove to me how good russell was on defense. you have to rely on anecdotes and one fairly useless stat.

at any rate, this is a fun thought experiment.

erikthredd · December 1, 2022 6:39PM

I found a quick way to check Wilt vs Russell head to head in the playoffs and how his points per game were affected with Russell covering him compared to Wilt vs the rest of the NBA.

Wilt's point per game averages below are listed as"
his ppg in regular season that year
his ppg in playoff rounds before facing Boston
his ppg vs Russell/Boston in the next round

1959-60
37.6ppg regular season
38.7ppg in 1st round vs Syracuse in playoffs
30.5ppg vs Russell in round 2. Boston won series 4-2
WIlt scoring went down vs Russell

1961-62
50.4ppg in regular season
37.0ppg in 1st round vs Syracuse
33.6ppg vs Russell in round 2. Boston won series 4-3
WIlt scoring went down vs Russell

1963-64
36.9ppg in regular season
38.6ppg in 1st round vs STL in playoffs
29.2ppg vs Russell in Finals. Boston wins series 4-1
WIlt scoring went down vs Russell

1964-65
34.7ppg in regular season
27.8ppg in 1st round vs Cincinnati in playoffs
30.1ppg vs Russell in round 2. Boston wins series 4-3
WIlt scoring went up vs Russell in this playoff series

1965-66
33.5ppg in regular season
28.0ppg vs Russell in round 1. Boston wins series 4-1
WIlt scoring went down vs Russell

1966-67
24.1ppg in regular season
28.0ppg in 1st round vs Cincinnati in playoffs
21.6ppg vs Russell in round 2. Philly wins series 4-1
WIlt scoring went down vs Russell but Philly wins series

1967-68
24.1ppg in regular season
25.5ppg in 1st round vs NY in playoffs
22.1ppg vs Russell in round 2. Boston wins series 4-3
WIlt scoring went down vs Russell

1968-69
20.5ppg in regular season
12.0ppg in 1st round vs SFW
19.2ppg in 2nd round vs ATL
11.7ppg in Finals vs Russell. Boston wins series 4-3
WIlt scoring went down vs Russell

Wilt played against Russell in 8 playoff series (including two Finals) and in 7 out of the 8 series his scoring average went down with Russell covering him head to head. That one playoff series when Wilt averaged more vs Russell he still ended up losing the series. Russell won 7 out of the 8 playoffs series vs Wilt.

Wilt's Regular Season stats and Playoff Series stats can be found here: (scroll down for PLAYOFF SERIES)
https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/c/chambwi01.html

So to sum this comment up,when Russell faced Wilt in a playoff series 87.5% of the time his defense held Wilt to less points than he came in averaging. In two series it was considerably lower than what Wilt was averaging during the regular season.

1951WheatiesPremium · December 1, 2022 7:04PM

Is the argument here that because we don’t have stats to correlate to it that defense doesn’t matter?

That doesn’t make much sense to me.

It is not a coincidence that when Michael Jordan decided to address his biggest deficiencies and become a better defender, that the Bulls began to win games and championships. And he was always a scoring champion - from the jump - so the noteworthy change is defense. Not easy to quantify and therefore winning is more directly correlated to the defense, not the scoring.

erikthredd · December 1, 2022 7:22PM

@craig44 said:

it all comes down to this. I can prove to you how good wilt was on offense. you cannot prove to me how good russell was on defense. you have to rely on anecdotes and one fairly useless stat.

at any rate, this is a fun thought experiment.

You can dismiss the DWS but I did say repeatedly that it was the only defensive metric available for that era. That obviously changed due to Russell's dominance on defense (and Wilt's play too,i'll add.) This subject goes much deeper than you're willing to give it and that's fine but don't sit there and just ignore how Russell's defense changed how the NBA tracked that side of the ball.
Its not just his/all defense that the NBA started to track but they also decided to start handing out a Finals MVP award in Russell's final season as a player/coach that saw them beat the Lakers for his 11th title in 13 seasons.
He won 11 titles and had their been a Finals MVP he probably would have won,at the very least,anywhere from 7-9 if not more in those 11 seasons. This whole Russell/Wilt debate would have still be going on had that happened but it would have changed quite a bit in Russell's favor. You know this is true because us Pats fans have been using the same argument for Brady's Rings/FMVPs for years.

One thing i want to know is if Wilt was this great statistical monster on both sides of the ball then how did Bill Russell win 5 regular season MVP awards to just Wilt's 4? You would think that all of Wilt's points,rebounds and assists he was averaging would have counted for something more with the MVP voters. 😉😉😉😉😉

Empty stats like that puts you in that James Harden/Russell Westbrook all time grouping,imho. 😎

A GOAT DISCUSSION THREAD

Comments