Wilt vs. Russell
craig44
Posts: 11,348 ✭✭✭✭✭
there was a little debate over on the trading cards side I was just reading about these two. Rather than continue it over there, I thought it might be fun to include the sports talk crew who dont often read that page. who do you think was better: Wilt or Bill Russell?
for me, Wilt was just too otherworldly to not be better. an absolute freak show athlete. Russell was known for defense and rebounding. Wilt was a better rebounder and I am not sure how accurate/useful DWS is for guys from the 50s and 60s because they were not counting blocks or steals then.
I know Russell is considered one of the greatest defenders of all time, but I wonder what kind of empirical evidence we have to substantiate that? Wilt was known as a good defender as well and made 2 first defensive teams as an old man in the early 70s. I have to think he was a better defender 10-12 years prior.
Everyone talks about Russells 11 chips. awesome number, but wouldnt the C's have won just as many had you switched out the 2 players?
Head to head, Wilt definitely beat out Russell. In fact, Russell could not even hold Wilt to under his career average for point per game, where Wilt kept Bill under his by a point and Wilt was pulling 28 boards/game against Russ.
I am a Boston guy, but I think Wilt was the better of the 2
what do you think?
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Comments
🏀🏀🏀...
Wilt Chamberlain
Not debatable to anyone with a rudimentary understanding of the game of basketball.
BTW - Russell had stated a number of times that Chamberlain was better than him.
Wilt was better defensively. Wilt was twice as good offensively.
Russell was better at playing on great teams.
Not really any comparison here. I've never understood how anyone could even remotely consider Russell better.
Wilt is the GOAT
I agree about Wilt. worlds better offensively. I have also heard/read that he was great defensively. you mentioned he was better that Russell defensively. are there any metrics that prove this?
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
As you can see, Wilt has a higher rebound per game number and surprisingly more all defensive team appearances.
What's really surprising is Russell was only named once. His sycophants claim he was the best defender ever.
Surprisingly, Russell was never a finals MVP.
Now for a couple of stories I just saw recently;
A 50 or so year old Wilt used to play in pick up games against teams led by Magic Johnson. These were high quality players. Some NBA and college players.
After one fiercely contested "game" Magic claimed his team won. Wilt disagreed and was pi$$ed.
Wilt then said " one more game to 20" and at 50 years old, blocked every shot taken by the other team in the rematch. Chamberlain had a vertical leap equal to Mike Jordan's, you don't think he was the best defender ever?
Next was a discussion between Wilt and Mike Jordan and a bunch of other all time greats. It came down to Mike and Wilt both claiming they were the best. After the discussion, Wilt pulled Mike to the side and said "they made rules specifically to hurt my game and rules to help yours, remember that".
The stories don't prove anything, but I found them interesting.
Wilt was a freak of nature, a huge man who was immensely strong and also as athletic as any of the smaller players, then or now.
He also never fouled out of a game, so he was always there at the end!
@JoeBanzai thank you for the reply. I firmly believe Wilt to be the better of the 2. other than the stories, I cant find anything statistics wise to prove either Wilt or Bill were better defensively. I have heard anecdotally much more frequently that Russell was the better defender, but, that proves nothing.
I have heard that story about Magic, Wilt and the pickup games. I love that kind of stuff. not only was he 50, but he had a bad/surgically repaired knee he was playing on as well.
I have also read that Wilt was recruited well into the 1980's about coming out of retirement. I think it was the Nets that offered him a contract during the mid 1980s when he was in his late 40s. I guess that tells you what kind of an athlete he was!!
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
The NBA started naming an All-Defensive team in 1968/69, Russell's final season. Russell made the team the only year he could have.
I got to watch him play near the end of his career.
He was a man among boys even then. Kind of similar to Muhammad Ali when he got old. When fresh at the beginning of a round Ali was beating the crap out of younger fighters, only when he was tired, did the other guy score any shots.
When people say Kareem was better, I just laugh and laugh and laugh. There's video showing Wilt blocking not one but two of Kareems sky hooks on the same possession.
And Kareem was also better than Russell!
In my eyes, there's no question that Wilt was the better player. The ONLY thing Russell has over Wilt is championships. Funny, nobody ever says Sam Jones should be considered the greatest guard ever over Jordan or Magic despite having far more titles than either one.
@Tabe agreed. "big shot Bob" Robert Horry also had more titles than Jordan, Bird or Magic. 7 I think. I dont hear his name mentioned much either.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
I wasn't aware of that. Finals MVP? Same thing?
I never really bothered to look at Russell. As great as he was, there's no comparison here, but thanks for the explanation.
I did notice Wilt led the legue in rebounds 11 times while Bill did it 5 times.
Yep, started in 1968/69, Russell's last year.
Wilt the Stilt
The choice is Wilt. Between the two I'd rather watch Wilt play. Didn't Wilt also play volleyball for a time?
Also would of liked to see what Caitlin Clark would of done against him.😆
Big Dipper was a beast on the beach. Myself and a close friend played 2-on-2 vs. him and another friend at the pits near the Santa Monica Pier. Sometime in the early 80s. Dude spiked a winner off the top of my head. Left a mark.
Enjoy the go.
Had Bill Russell played for the Cincinnati Royals instead of the Boston Celtics there is an excellent chance that less than 10% of the people on this forum would have heard of him. Mind you, he'd have still been a great player, but it's the rings, and only the rings, that make people think he was in the same class as Chamberlain.
And the Royals center, whoever he was, would have a lot of rings had he had the good fortune to play for the Celtics. Probably not as many as Russell, but lots of them.
Wayne Embry would be that Cincinnati center - and he's in the Hall of Fame.
And I've never heard of him. Knowing only that he's in the Hall of Fame, my guess is that he probably would have just as many rings as Russell had he played for the Celtics, and now we'd be asking whether he was better than Chamberlain.
Makes no difference which team sport or which position, if you're even considering how many championships the player has when determining how great he was, you're doing it wrong.
Agree completely.
Had Wilt played for those Celtic teams the may have gone undefeated for YEARS!
So get your insults ready.
I don’t think it’s as vast a gap as many here seem to think. Before I get into why I think that I’ll say that I think Wilt was the better all-around player for his career. Now let’s trigger some egos.
You could look at their careers and everything they’ve said about their careers and others and be convinced like I am that they had slightly different goals. Anyways. Flame on!
In the NBA playoffs teams actually start playing defense, and teams scheme for the opposing best player. Wilt Chamberlain was his teams' best scorer but he was a liability at the end of a close game, especially in the playoffs, because he was abysmal at shooting free throws.
Chamberlain's teams may have won more championships, not because of his teammates or not, but if he was better at shooting free throws and he wasn't a liability on offense at the end of a close game.
Chamberlain shot a lifetime .466 free throw percentage in the playoffs. That's terrible. He only shot 52% from the field too, and for a big man taking only close in shots, that isn't fantastic either.
But those free throws. Yikes.
Russell shot just 56.6% from the line and 44% from the field.
good point. It isnt like Russell was setting the world on fire from either the field or free throw line.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Not much better.
I forgot to add that Wilt was better than Russell. But when talking about all time best, those shooting problems are where it hurts.
Wilt may have won more championships if he hit his free throws and wasn't a liability at the end of the games. So lack of titles is partly on him.
I'd take Bill over the Stilt!
FredJRI...from Patriot Nation
^^no surprise^^
@craig44 Everyone rips on baseball players for poor post season stats in a sport where cold spells are common and pitching around good hitters in baseball is common, and in football post season where it is only just a couple of games...but basketball is a little different as the best player on the team can shoot every time if they want and basketball doesn't have the same cold spells as baseball where the best player can be useless on any given day.
Wilt's lifetime points per game in the playoffs is only 22.5. That is a stark difference than his 30.1 in the regular season.
Bill Russell raised his scoring in the playoffs compared to the regular season.
With all the talk on the football and baseball side of guys who have poor post season success, I am very surprised it is not being applied to Wilt especially since basketball is even more telling for the star player(since they have more control), and Wilt has a drastic drop in production in the post season.
Wilt's first 8 playoff appearances he averaged 29 points.
His last two playoffs he was 35 and 36 years old. Russell wasn't even able to play past the age of 34.
At 35 Wilt was the finals MVP.
good point on the playoff stats. I think there must have been a reason for Wilts lower point production later in his playoff career. I notice he was taking far fewer shots after age 31 or so. I dont know if that was a strategy to focus more on passing or defense or if it was just years of averaging 47 minutes per game taking its toll. I do notice that even in his 30s, wilt was still averaging well over .500% on his FG attempts so it was not because he wasnt making shots, he was taking less shots.
whatever the reason for his late career ppg swoon, he was a better, more effective player than Russell in the playoffs.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
His playoff numbers were also lower yearly compared to his regular season stats before age 31.
But why doesn't he get crap for such a drop in production(even if it is still higher than Russells) like other players have on this board in other sports? They would have won more titles if he scored more and shot better in the playoffs like he did in regular season. Why is he immune to this wide spread criticism the other players get?
@craig44
For instance, in 1969 he averaged 11.7 PPG in the Finals against Boston and shot an abysmal .364 from the line. In the regular season he averaged 27 PPG. That is terrible.
@craig44
Furthermore, Chamberlain's career numbers in the finals he only averaged 18.6 PPG. 18.6!
His lifetime FT% in the finals is an abysmal .375. How does a pro shoot that bad from the line. He is a liability in the Finals near the end of games when a good coach can use that to their advantage.
Yet he is immune to the same scoffing these other players get in other sports...players that ha\ve far less control over their numbers than the top basketball player has, and in sports were variances are more wide on daily or small series basis.
Bill Russell averaged 16.4 in the Finals and played better defense. They were the same in rebounds. Russell shot better from the line. Russell had more assists.
So why do you guys rip these other players for their drop in performance on the biggest stage and elevate lesser players ahead of them as a result, but here Russell outlclassed chamberlain on the biggest stage, and it is crickets?
Wilt mentioned in an article I recall that hearing himself referred to as a “ball hog” bothered him. He was envious of Russell’s success - they were friends. The drop in his points coincided with him absorbing fewer of his teams possessions, a rather dramatic increase in his assists, and, of course, his first championship.
Listen to anything Bill Russell said about Wilt and it’s clear Bill knew Wilt was the greatest. He could do what he wanted. Bill would talk about letting him score his points and “not activating” Wilt by playing aggressive defense. It took Wilt a while to figure out that he had to focus on other aspects of the game to win a championship. Certainly the best Center ever and I wouldn’t roll my eyes at anyone saying he’s the best player in history overall. But it’s hard for me to dismiss what Russell accomplished. He wanted to win and win he did. That’s also greatness.
That is the point in this exercise: comparing wilt and bill. not wilt vs wilt or bill vs bill.
you said it youself, "even if it is still higher than Russells" so yes, his production did drop off ( as does many players in the playoffs) but even then, he was still better than Bill.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
@1948_Swell_Robinson
"Bill Russell averaged 16.4 in the Finals and played better defense. They were the same in rebounds. Russell shot better from the line. Russell had more assists."
how do you know he played better defense?
wilt averaged a bit more points, bill averaged a bit more in assists. rebounds a wash. this is strictly in the finals. if you take the playoffs a whole, wilts advantage on points gets even bigger.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
@bgr if Wilt could do what he wanted, he would shoot better than .37% from the line in the Finals...and hs assists did not increase in the playoffs, but his points shrunk dramatically. Whether it is from some made up personal psychological flaw or not, his points and production fell drastically in the playoffs, and I am certain his team could have won more games if he averaged 30 PPG in the playoffs instead of 22(especially since his shooting percentages also dropped in the playoffs), and certainly if he averaged 30 PPG in the Finals instead of 18.
So @craig44 , based on yours and many others criteria; titles and personal performance in the Finals, Super Bowl, WS....
Russell and Wilt were about equal statistically in the Finals, but Wilt was so bad at shooting free throws that he becomes a liability at the end of games, thereby taking him 'out of the game' offensively in the most important times. As such, Russell is then better in the Finals individually. You can call defense a wash if that bothers you and Russell still wins that, but I think we all know Russell is universally considered the best defender of that time.
So again, why is Wilt getting a different treat in Bill vs Wilt, when you do the opposite in other sports and players?
I didn't look at early years playoff scoring closely, (he averaged 34 1/2 points his first 4 playoffs) but Wilt's last few years, he played with guys like Elgin Bailor and Jerry West, those guys were scoring a lot of points.
In his last 2 playoffs, he had the highest rebound average. Maybe he was in a similar situation as Russell had been, play defense and let other guys do the scoring.
If you ignore his final 2 playoffs (as i mentioned earlier, Bill retired younger) Wilt's scoring average jumps to 25 ppg in the playoffs.
We also all know Wilt had his problems with free throws.
@craig44 is Mike Trout a better hitter or better player than Mookie Betts?
Trout .299/.410/.581 in 6,647 PA
Betts .294/.373/.524 in 6,237 PA
Maybe I'm wrong and you don't view it like I believe you do.
However, I do believe that Wilt's abysmal shooting at the line takes him out of the game in key spots. We know that basketball players actually play defense in the playoff and that basketball players have greater control over how much they contribute since they can shoot every time if they want and they play both offense and defense.
Overall I may still take Wilt over Bill, but I am warming more and more to the idea that some of these players do need to get dinged more for their playoff performances. For instance, I wouldn't call it choking, but Judge seemed to be unable to make adjustments in hitting when the pitchers nibbled and pitched so carefully to him in the playoffs. He should have simply taken more walks and that is on him and I won't defend his poor playoff performance as a product of chance(which can still play a role but I didn't see it that way).
As for Wilt, his overall playoff numbers are down a lot from his regular season, and his Final numbers are down even more. Wilt's inability to shoot free throws hurts his team more than just the percentage of his free throws, it takes the ball out of their best offensive player's hand in the final few minutes of the games. It changes everything and a good coach can exploit that. Perhaps that is why Wilt didn't shoot and score as much in the Finals because he was afraid to get fouled and blow it on the free throw line, or because his coaches gave the ball to other scorers on his team. Either way, it is a HUGE knock against Wilt. Huge.
In the Finals, Russell and Wilt are basically equal offensively, and Russell actually might have the lead due to Wilt being a liability for his teams' offense at the end of games. Defensively, I am call it for Russell. Yeah, I can't prove that, but I'm going with the universal thought that Russell was head and shoulders the best defender of his time.
So I don't think Wilt being a regular season offensive statistical leader over Russell making it is as a slam dunk as many think it is that he is better.
Digging deeper I am heading toward the toss up and I never brought up titles that is often used by you and others.
.
I'm a Boston fan, Celtics, Red Sox, Bruins, NE Patriots, etc.
I think Bill was better, because... he played for the Celtics !!!
Some think, Montana, Payton , etc. were better than Brady ...not me.
Some think, Mantle, Mays, etc. were better than Williams ...not me.
Some think Gretsky, Hull, was better than Orr...not me.
Opinions are like a^^hole^ everyone has one a few have two
It's certainly not meant to be taken literally. He didn't shoot 100% so unless he wanted to fail so frequently... sure. I'm paraphrasing something I remember Bill Russell saying on one or more occasions about Wilt Chamberlain.
If I'm being honest, I think these types of debates can be interesting so long as no one is trying to force their opinion incessantly. The concept of "who's the greatest" is a bit of a foolish contemplation and, I think, takes away from the appreciation of the history of the sport.
In 1962 the Celtics were at the top of the league in possessions per game and the Warriors were at the bottom. Russell generally hovered around 6-8% of his team's offensive possessions, and Chamberlain was near 30% many years.... again... until 1966 where he, by his own admission, was ticked off hearing how he wasn't a team player... hogged the ball... couldn't win a championship.
As far as that free-throw shooing... I can't blame him for not sticking with the granny shot... it's embarrassing. Just ask Rick Barry. And you're not wrong about him being a bit of a late-game liability come playoff time with his poor FT%.
The thing I wonder, which we will never know, is if Wilt didn't shoot and score as much in the Finals because he didn't want to blow it on the line, or if the coaches didn't want to him to shoot as much in the Finals because they were afraid he would blow it on the line. Either way, he wasn't the same offensive force in the Finals, and a good coach would certainly take advantage of his glaring deficiency at the end of games. That is a catastrophic knock to his resume.
His resume also includes the changes the NBA had to make to the game to nerf this unicorn.
As far as these two are concerned, I think the 64 and 66 finals are my favorites. 66 especially because the Lakers were also loaded then. They started super slow in that game 7 and Jerry West went off. I wasn't born when these games occurred, but my uncle was a huge NBA fan and had every game on tape - he was autistic... Every time we visited we would watch a series and his absolute joy watching these games is one of the things I remember most as a kid. Unfortunately he passed years ago, but if he hadn't, I'm sure he would love discussing basketball here.
I don't view those rule changes as anything significant for Wilt's accomplishments and they aren't super accurate.
I see offensive goaltending was banned in 1958. Defensive goal tending well before that.
The league was young still and rule changes and developing the game based on how team took advantage of things is just a natural progression.
The lane was first widened because of George Mikan
The 24 second shot clock was implemented to speed up game and because teams used stall tactics to keep the ball out of Mikan's hands.
Wilt was still great, and like I said, he probably edges Russell, but I'm not so sure as I used to be.
Can't shoot 37% from the line in the Finals. That changes the entire fabric of his team's ability to take advantage of his scoring and in winning games against good well coached teams.
I believe they changed the rule about dunking from the free throw line due to Wilt in 1960. That followed the NCAA changing the same rule because of wilt in 1956. had that rule not been changed it sure would have made a difference, no?
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
If he did indeed do dunks from the line, then that means he took advantage of a rule than anybody going forward never had that chance to do a 'cheat code' on. That would lessen the importance of his stats even more.
But do you know how many dunks he did from the free throw line in an NBA game? I don't believe he did any and that it was just talked about potentially happening if needed.
I would have been more impressed if they had to move the free throw line back because he was so good at making them.
@craig44 @bgr
A rule change that really did hamper a player was the no dunking rule that the NCAA made because of Alcindor. Imagine how much more dominant he could have been after being a hamstrung by a rule that future players never had to be hamstrung by.
That is a real rule change that prevents a players ability to do something that nearly everyone else playing before and after had the chance to do but not Alcindor.
Had the NBA banned dunking just for Chamberlain, but had it before and after, then that would be of significance.
@1948_Swell_Robinson
apparently, Tex Winter witnessed him do 9 in a row from the free throw line as a freshman back in 1956 during preseason. it was then "outlawed" in NCAA. Likewise, it was "banned" in 1960 as there was talk of him doing the same in the NBA.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
I suppose you could say it was a preemptive strike because they knew he was going to do it in games.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
That's exactly what it was.
But, like I said in the Alcindor example, it would only matter if they then reversed the ban after he retired. So it isn't just for Chamberlain, it is for anyone else going forward getting the same idea to break the spirit of the free throw rule.
I actually see that rule as a negative to Chamberlain. A guy can't make free throws good enough so he tries to find a loop hole in the rules to get around it...instead of just getting better at free throws.