Wilt vs. Russell

[The15thunter]

Quote: Originally Posted by HHHRVD55

If I want just pure talent, I'm going with Wilt. Guy could do anything, against anybody. But, counting championships and everything else (ego, being selfish, traded, stuff like that), I'm taking Russell any day of the week.

if i want to impress on-lookers with exhibitions of individual greatness, i take wilt.
if i want to win or build a team, i take russell.

[HHHRVD55]

Quote: Originally Posted by The15thunter

if i want to impress on-lookers with exhibitions of individual greatness, i take wilt. if i want to win or build a team, i take russell.

Exactly what I was trying to say, you just said it better.

[airlandon]

Quote: Originally Posted by ehh

Someone just read the Wilt vs Russell chapter in BOB......

Haha so true

[ParisB]

Wilt Chamberlain was the better player.

Russell's championships is a gloated stat. There were barely any teams back then and hardly any parity. Boston had 90% of the talent back then.

The rest of the points are completely biased and one-sided. Yea, Russell was the better "winner", lol.

[RonnieG]

Quote: Originally Posted by ParisB

Wilt Chamberlain was the better player. Russell's championships is a gloated stat. There were barely any teams back then and hardly any parity. Boston had 90% of the talent back then. The rest of the points are completely biased and one-sided. Yea, Russell was the better "winner", lol.

Yeah, Russell played on the better team with the better coach. Its amazing how often people overlook Russell's amazingly low FG%, especially for that era. And then another distortion that also occurs is when people prop up Russell by pointing out he held Wilt to 27 points a game. Even though, Wilt averaged more than that usually, 27 points per game is still really good.

[Weeks]

Quote: Originally Posted by RonnieG

Yeah, Russell played on the better team with the better coach. Its amazing how often people overlook Russell's amazingly low FG%, especially for that era. And then another distortion that also occurs is when people prop up Russell by pointing out he held Wilt to 27 points a game. Even though, Wilt averaged more than that usually, 27 points per game is still really good.

There teams were proven to be equal in talent.

And a lot of Wilt's coaches were bad because he made them "bad". Something like 9 coaches were fired from the teams he was on during his career.

[ParisB]

Quote: Originally Posted by samtw324

There teams were proven to be equal in talent. And a lot of Wilt's coaches were bad because he made them "bad". Something like 9 coaches were fired from the teams he was on during his career.

Wow, that's the first time I've ever heard someone say that a player makes a coach bad.

Shaq has played for 5 or 6 coaches in his NBA career too. Let's use that as some sort of argument against his basketball or something....sigh. It just seems like the arguments guys use against Wilt are more personal. Probably because Russell was more likeable.

[Weeks]

Quote: Originally Posted by ParisB

Wow, that's the first time I've ever heard someone say that a player makes a coach bad. Shaq has played for 5 or 6 coaches in his NBA career too. Let's use that as some sort of argument against his basketball or something....sigh. It just seems like the arguments guys use against Wilt are more personal. Probably because Russell was more likeable.

That's because Shaq has moved around the league, and when he joins a new team that means there is a new coach.

Would Red have been deemed as good of a coach if he hadn't won any titles? No. But he did because he coached players that would listen to him and that cared about winning. But Wilt on the other hand said he preferred losing, and generally if your a coach and you lose games with such great "talents" on your team such as Wilt Chamberlain, you get fired.

Even Red said that he couldn't have handled a player like Wilt.