Chamberlain vs Russell

[LightningStorm]

Seen this debate come up in various threads here, so I decided to give it it's own thread. Who do you think was better between Wilt Chamberlain and Bill Russell? I think Chamberlain was better, and I don't even think it was that close. He was arguably the most dominant scorer in NBA history. And while Russell was arguably the greatest defender ever, he was mediocre on offense. In basketball, a single player can carry a much heavier load on offense than defense. Russell won more because he was on an insanely deep Celtics team.

Who do you guys think was the better player?

Click to read more...

 

[Stylizer1]

Chamberlain vs Russell = Lemieux vs Gretzky

One was dominant and had limited help while the other was dominant and had a stacked team.​

 

[Unholy Diver]

Wilt put up all those crazy stats while still managing to bed thousands of women, he brought it on and off the court

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

Chamberlain vs Russell = Lemieux vs Gretzky​

​

One was dominant and had limited help while the other was dominant and had a stacked team.​

The comparison would work if Gretzky had completely revolutionized the concept and importance of defense in hockey.

 

[Terry Yake]

wilt was better and it's not even close

 

[Aladyyn]

Chamberlain vs Russell = Lemieux vs Gretzky​

​

One was dominant and had limited help while the other was dominant and had a stacked team.​

This is a complete myth, Wilt played with numerous Hall of Famers and perennial All-Stars

 

[John Price]

russell was iron sheik class

noted documentary on wilt coming out very soon. might watch.

 

[DaaaaB's]

This is a complete myth, Wilt played with numerous Hall of Famers and perennial All-Stars

You should really spend some time comparing their rosters if you think Wilt's teams had anywhere near as much talent.

Agreed.

Guy Rodgers

Jerry West

Al Attles

Chet Walker

Hal Greer

Gail Goodrich

Billy Cunningham

Paul Arizin

Tom Gola

Elgin Baylor

Wilt never had more than 3 of those guys on his team at a time. Almost every team Russell played on had 6-8 hall of famers. There was one or two that only had 5.

 

[Aladyyn]

Russell's team had so much talent that they were below average or straight up bad offensively every season and completely fell apart whenever he didn't play.

 

[DaaaaB's]

Agreed. Knowledgeable fans know most of Russell's teammates were non-worthy HoFers half as good as players such as Baylor (3rd career PPG) or West (7th career PPG). Russell 11 rings in 13 seasons. Wilt 2 rings in 14 seasons. I saw both teams play live (on tv) and Russell was better than Wilt.

He played two seasons with Baylor. Cousy and Havlicek were studs too. The rest of Wilt's teammates were not better than the other Celtics hall of famers. Your last comment is laughable, what were you 7 years old at the time.

Don't know how anyone can rank a guy who averaged 15ppg in his career higher than a guy who averaged 30ppg. Wilt was also great at playing defense. Not as great as Russell but still an elite defender.

 

[InjuredChoker]

He played two seasons with Baylor. Cousy and Havlicek were studs too. The rest of Wilt's teammates were not better than the other Celtics hall of famers. Your last comment is laughable, what were you 7 years old at the time.

Don't know how anyone can rank a guy who averaged 15ppg in his career higher than a guy who averaged 30ppg. Wilt was also great at playing defense. Not as great as Russell but still an elite defender.

Celtics won due to their historical defense. Cousy didn't help much in that area.

Havlicek had arguably his best seasons in the early 70s. Yet the Celtics did not make the playoffs in all of those years. Russell had retired and their defense had fallen off a cliff.

 

[Voight]

Wilt AINEC.

Russell is arguably the most overrated player in NBA history.

This is a complete myth, Wilt played with numerous Hall of Famers and perennial All-Stars

Its not a myth at all.

Did Wilt have some HOF teammates? Of course. Most star players do at some point.

As stated above, Russell had 6-8 HOF'ers with him every year.

 

[Aladyyn]

Wilt AINEC.

Tusselll is arguably the most overrated player in NBA history.



Its not a myth at all.

Did Wilt have some HOF teammates? Of course. Most star players do at some point.

As stated above, Russell had 6-8 HOF'ers with him every year.

and most of them are only in the HoF because they won a bunch of championships thanks to being on a team with Bill Russell

 

[DaaaaB's]

Agreed.

C Russell - 22.5 RPG

• Hall of Fame
  12x All Star in 13 seasons
• 4x TRB Champ
• 11x NBA Champ in 13 seasons
• 11x All-NBA in 13 seasons
• 5x MVP
• 1962-63 AS MVP
• 1968-69 All-Defensive
• NBA 75th Anniv. Team

You do realize Wilt averaged 22.9 RPG and was an 11x TRB Champ. He was also a 7x First team All-NBA compared to Russell being a 3x. There's also the whole averaging twice as many PPG thing too.

 

[Voight]

and most of them are only in the HoF because they won a bunch of championships thanks to being on a team with Bill Russell

You can say the same for Russell.

 

[JackSlater]

I've never seen a convincing argument for Russell put forward despite many attempts. Yes, his teams won way more often than Chamberlain's teams won. I can accept that Russell was the better defender. The thing is that Chamberlain blows Russell away in every tangible that we have, and whenever NBA TV would show games or quarters featuring Russell vs Chamberlain I consistently came away thinking that Chamberlain looked obviously better. In my opinion the case for Russell is two things - people not being able to differentiate team results from the play of each team's best player, and simple that people respected Russell, despite his prickly personality, but found Chamberlain wishy washy and desperate and didn't respect him. No one roots for Goliath.

There is a myth that people often throw out, which is that Chamberlain was a ballhog who hurt his team while altruistic Russell sacrificed offence for the better of the team. It's total bullshit in general. Chamberlain was generally the NBA's most efficient scorer and regularly blew Russell away in field goal percentage - if anything, Chamberlain (Career FG% - 54%) should have taken more shots while Russell (Career FG% - 44%) should have taken fewer shots. Of course there are also the legends like Chamberlain leading the NBA in assists... but greedily so. Or Chamberlain consistently blocking shots out of bounds like a neanderthal while Russell brilliantly blocked shots right to his teammates to start fast breaks. The last part did happen I'm sure, but from what I've seen, and according to common sense, it neither was a regular occurrence.

Finally, I'm not even going to bother with their career stats. We all know that Chamberlain, offensive force, blows away Russell, defensive force. I will show the stats from their many head to head matchups though. Since it's beyond predictable that someone won't be able to resist looking at team results, Russell's team won 57 of the 94 matchups.

	PPG	FG%	FT%	APG	RPG
Russell	14.2	37.0	54.3	4.4	22.9
Chamberlain	29.9	48.8	49.3	3.8	28.1

It's a colossal difference and nothing can bridge it. Russell might be the greatest defensive player of all time - we don't have the video evidence or data to really have a good idea about it, but let's just assume that he is. It still wouldn't make up for Chamberlain destroying him that badly, and that's ignoring that Chamberlain himself was a good defensive player. You can argue justifiably that basketball is sometimes more about individual possessions, and that's true, but not when the difference is this stark.

 

[Voight]

Agreed.

C Russell - 22.5 RPG

• Hall of Fame
  12x All Star in 13 seasons
• 4x TRB Champ
• 11x NBA Champ in 13 seasons
• 11x All-NBA in 13 seasons
• 5x MVP
• 1962-63 AS MVP
• 1968-69 All-Defensive
• NBA 75th Anniv. Team

You post that like its somehow supposed to make him seem better than Wilt.

Wilt was the rebound leader almost 3x as often as he was.

 

[MaxV]

I wonder what would have happened had Russell and Walt Bellamy were to switch places.

I am not suggesting that Bellamy was better or that Celtics would have won just as many titles (Bellamy would not be able to contain Wilt the way Russell could), but I absolutely think they would have won a bunch and Bellamy would probably have a much bigger legacy in NBA history.

And would Russell win a lot of titles with the same supporting cast of Bellamy?

 

[JackSlater]

I wonder what would have happened had Russell and Walt Bellamy were to switch places.

I am not suggesting that Bellamy was better or that Celtics would have won just as many titles (Bellamy would not be able to contain Wilt the way Russell could), but I absolutely think they would have won a bunch and Bellamy would probably have a much bigger legacy in NBA history.

And would Russell win a lot of titles with the same supporting cast of Bellamy?

Interesting thought. The big winners here are probably Chamberlain and West, as they would have won more championships, both apart and together. Russell brings something that talented teams need - intelligence and leadership - and he can do it without requiring a lot of the ball, which is important. There's only one ball on offence and teams don't need all five players to be dominant scorers. As such, Boston is almost certainly worse with Bellamy even though he was a better offensive player than Russell was. While those Celtics teams were not as loaded as their reputation makes them out to be, they still didn't really need yet another top scorer. Every team can use another dominant defender however, especially at centre in a league without a three point line.

Bellamy has a reputation as a bit of a loser with a bad mentality, but it's funny how that always happens to guys who played on largely untalented teams. Bellamy didn't win with some talented Knicks teams late in his career, to be fair. Put Bellamy on Boston and he surely comes off as more of a winner, and put Russell on Bellamy's teams and he surely doesn't win 11 championships. That said I wouldn't put it past Russell to somehow pull off a championship or two given that that's just what his teams always did.

Overall if the teams are switched I suspect that Russell goes down in the estimation of others (more of a top 30 player ever) while Bellamy goes up (top 50 or better) and Chamberlain sees his reputation go up (consensus best centre ever and a lock for top 3 in any discussion).

 

[MVP of West Hollywd]

Early in Wilt's career his teammates just passed him the ball and watched him put up points. At this point Wilt is kind of like a side show act where they would pay money to cheer against the giant monster scoring 50 on their team, but this was more of an individual showcase than a team first approach. He was kind of annoying behind the scenes as one of his favorite moves is to threaten to retire unless they pay him more money, he did this many times including after his rookie season. He finds a coach who is the Wilt whisperer in Alex Hannum, who gets him to pass more, etc. leading to his best version yet in 64. The next year, the chemistry between Wilt and teammates collapses again, the Warriors don't want to meet his demands for more money, so he gets traded to 76ers. The 76ers actually have a talented team with young players like Hal Greer, Chet Walker, Billy Cunningham, etc., meanwhile the Celtics while still having several other stars their talent advantage is not like it was in late 50s and early 60s. Wilt no longer has a talent deficit compared to Russell. In 67, they hire Hannum and once again he unlocks Wilt's passing game and they have one of the best seasons ever and beat the Celtics. End of the dynasty now it's Wilt's time? But in 68, Wilt becomes stat driven and tries to lead the league in assists. They have some injuries in the playoffs and MLK murder is a distraction and they blow 3-1 lead to Celtics. Maybe not his fault. Wilt then asks for a trade to LA for a variety of reasons, some of it the same reason modern players want to go to LA, Hannum retired, maybe thinking he needed West and Baylor to beat the Celtics. So he goes there and the early results are kind of underwhelming. Wilt was used to playing in high post passing game in 76ers and they weren't really sure how to make it work in LA, if anything they wanted him to be more aggressive scoring. They still put it together enough to make it to G7 of the finals but lose to the Celtics again with West playing great but Wilt not coming through. Overall even after the 76ers trade to balance the talent the Celtics win 4 of 5 titles against Wilt (65, 66, 68, 69). The Lakers go on to face the Knicks the next year and after a great game 6 Wilt gets defended by one legged Willis Reed as they lose in 7. Throughout his career Wilt is known as kind of a playoff letdown, some of his playoff games he only puts up stats in garbage time. The Celtics have some of the most clutch playoff players of all time like Russell and Jones. This is part of though not all the reasons they managed to pull through time and time again over Wilt. Wilt eventually wins the title in 72 with another all time great team, but he does it taking less shots and playing defense and scoring efficiently - Kind of a Russell impersonation.

Overall while Wilt is a great talent he has a mixed results in terms of chemistry with opponents, playoff clutch play, stability by asking out or for more money so much, and prioritizing different parts of his game at different times - early on he's scoring too much instead of passing, later on he's trying to pass too much instead of scoring, it seems like he didn't quite have the instinct of when to use it at the right time. In modern day we've seen the impact of players who didn't quite get it, with the Hardens quitting on teams repeatedly, Durant albeit piggybacking for 2 titles on Warriors having other teams that self destructed, etc. meanwhile a guy like Duncan has 5 titles by being consummate teammate. Thus Wilt being the daddy of this modern player like Harden and Durant should be taken seriously when evaluating him.

Russell has tremendous intangibles and commitment to winning, always trying to make his teammates better, and is known in the playoffs for always coming up with the big play at the right time. However, if you watch him based on the limited footage we have, it doesn't look that awesome. Reportedly, he barely even blocks more shots than Wilt. In general, I'm confused by how ridiculously successful the Celtics are. Yes they have a great roster, but it's a condensed league where other teams also very good, as mentioned the 76ers in the late 60s, the Lakers had West, Baylor and other good players. The Celtics had some guys retire like Cousy and Heinsohn and there was no transition period where they stopped winning titles. The Celtics in the 70s had another great, underrated center in Dave Cowens and his core of older John Havlicek and Jo Jo white is not that much worse than Havlicek and Jones, and some other players like Paul Silas and Paul Westphal, and they got to play weaker expansion competition (ie they didn't have to beat anyone in 76 title), but they still weren't close to as dominant, with a comparatively normal 2 title team. So why were the Celtics that good? They are by far and away the most dominant dynasty in the major sports, the 8peat blows away any Yankees, Canadiens, etc. team before getting to the 3 more after. It's hard to come up with an explanation other than Russell being that dominant. Maybe he was quietly impactful on offense to go along with his D impact, I don't know.

 

[Mike C]

This is a complete myth, Wilt played with numerous Hall of Famers and perennial All-Stars

Wilt cared about personal stats, took himself out of games and played like a soft little girl so he'd never foul out.

Russell could have scored more but tailored his game to team success

Russell over Wilt all day everyday for me

 

[Mike C]

He played two seasons with Baylor. Cousy and Havlicek were studs too. The rest of Wilt's teammates were not better than the other Celtics hall of famers. Your last comment is laughable, what were you 7 years old at the time.

Don't know how anyone can rank a guy who averaged 15ppg in his career higher than a guy who averaged 30ppg. Wilt was also great at playing defense. Not as great as Russell but still an elite defender.

Russell was a winner with a warrior mentality and Wilt was a gutless loser with zero intestinal fortitude and a narcissistic need for attention. He was James Harden of his day

Who would I succeed at war with? Put #6 in the trenches and get Wilt far the freak away

 

[Mike C]

Great post. Embiid is tied for 5th all-time with LeBron in career PPG. That doesn't make Jo-el a top 6 player all-time. @Mike C

thanks for the kind words!

 

[DaaaaB's]

Haha you guys are hilarious.

 

[Mike C]

Haha you guys are hilarious.

You should see me when some youthful exuberant tells me McDavid is better than Gretzky or The Who isn't a great rock band