One had amazing stats but wasn't known for winning, the other didn't put up ridiculous numbers but won more than anyone else in history. You choose.
I'll go with Wilt. Russel was quite possibly greatest defensive player ever. But cmon?! 50 points in a season? and a double triple double? No one has tapes of Chamberlains 100 point game but damn! 100 points?!?! Drop jaws now, ask questions later. And hey Wilt still got his at the end of his career with 2 rings right?
Yeah, but by then he wasn't really carrying the offensive load. It is hard to overlook those stats, but then again 11 championships is insane, and the point of the game is to win. I'd probably have to say Wilt too just because of the 50.4 PPG and season, and all his amazing scoring records, but Bill isn't far behind. He's still the greatest winner ever.
I would obviously go with WC simply because of his excellent averages in pts. and rebs. I read in a book that he averaged 30 PPG, and 25 RPG this one season.
I go with Russell. The Championships i believe speak more to me than the big stats of Wilt. Everyone speaks of Wilt's big numbers, but come on, Russell's 11 is way better and greater of an achievement than wilt's 100. I will add though, i think Wilt was a better player individually, but overall, i would pick Russell.
Yeah, he won MVP his rookie season which is impressive. Regardless, you can't match Russell's winning. Eight rings in a row is just ridiculous.
Wilts era was very easy to score,im not trying to take anything from him but that's how it is,also Russel is one of the best if not the best defender.And 11 championships?I don't think anyone will come anywhere near that.They both put down 22 rebs for there career,overall I'd take Russel anyday,a winner and defender is always better then a scorer.
Yes, but the same argument can be used against Russell. He played when the talent level was lower and there was significantly less teams in the NBA, therefore winning championships wasn't as difficult.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (JustBlaze @ Apr 20 2006, 11:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Yes, but the same argument can be used against Russell. He played when the talent level was lower and there was significantly less teams in the NBA, therefore winning championships wasn't as difficult.</div>Sorry,but winning a championship is never easy.Scoring 100 isn't easy either,but it's not harder then winning 11 championships.
The Celtics were so much higher in talent level then the competition though, it's not like how it is today in the NBA where you have 6 teams which are very talented and have a shot at winning it all.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (pjcolpitts @ Apr 20 2006, 06:26 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I go with Russell. The Championships i believe speak more to me than the big stats of Wilt. Everyone speaks of Wilt's big numbers, but come on, Russell's 11 is way better and greater of an achievement than wilt's 100. I will add though, i think Wilt was a better player individually, but overall, i would pick Russell.</div>Yeah, I didn't think about it that way. Championships can't be debated, but stats always can.
Wilt, just a better player overall. Who cares about championships, they were easy when Russell played. Wilt is better. Wilt is better.Yeah, I said that twice.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ELiiiTE @ Apr 21 2006, 03:53 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Wilt, just a better player overall. Who cares about championships, they were easy when Russell played. Wilt is better. Wilt is better.Yeah, I said that twice.</div>If they were so easy why didn't Wilt get one?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (arya202 @ Apr 21 2006, 01:05 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>If they were so easy why didn't Wilt get one? </div>He did...got 2 rings with the Lakers.
in a head-to-head match up, i'll take Bill Russell ANY DAY. He was a winner, and the only player in the history of the game that could shut down Wilt. If you look at talent, it's got to be Wilt. BUT, Russell was a winner, and that's what gives him the edge.
I thought that we were judging who was a better player not who was a better winner. Of course Bill was a better winner; everybody knows that. I didnt see Bill Russel average over 50 points in a season, and Wilt averaged just as many rebounds as Russel did in a few seasons i know.(not sure about career wise). Russel was definatley a better defender but overall, the BETTER player with more TALENT was Wilt. Also, he got more ladies.....
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BCB @ Apr 24 2006, 11:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>None of you kids have ever watched them play so stop pretending like you know everything about them.</div>Who here has said they watched them play? Most people are basing what their saying on stats and what they hear from word of mouth. Stop trying to act high and almighty.
