Why is MJ considered better than Bill Russell?

[jlip]

It had more to do with who Wilt was dating. Wilt was 5th in the voting the next year, with an equally monstrous offensive year. Elgin Baylor, who was close to being defensively challenged at that time, was ahead of him. Petite and O were also ahead of him while Russell won. Wilt was at 44.8ppg 24.3regs with a record FG% efficeincy. Baylor was at 34ppg and 14 rebs and inferior on the boards. Baylor was 10ppg and 10rebounds below Wilt far less defensively and far less efficient. It wasn't about basketball.

I'm talking about 1962 exclusively though. I can't believe that the players, the media, and the coaches considered Russell the MVP over Wilt in '62 just because he was dating Kim Novak (I presume), especially given that Russell seemed not to have that good of a relationship with the media considering he would never sign autographs and was often considered too angry and militant. Also, the Celtics had their 2nd longest losing streak of Russell's career in 1962. It was a four game skid. Russell missed all four games with an Achilles tendon injury. (Ironically the longest losing streak of Russell's career was a five game skid during the 1969 season. Again Russell missed those five games with an injury.)

[jlauber]

@ the bolded part...
The players who actually faced Russell anywhere from 10-13 times each that season voted him MVP in a landslide. Not only that, the media who watched him play did an unofficial vote that season and again voted him the league's MVP in a landslide.

In that very year, 1962, Syracuse Nationals head coach, Alex Hannum, had the following to say about Russell, “From a coach’s viewpoint, Bill’s the most valuable player in the history of the game.”

My question is... If the players who played against him, the media who watched him, and the coaches that coached against him considered him the rightful MVP in 1962, under what credible authority do you claim that he should not have been the MVP that season?

My problem with this "voting" was this...

Take a look at Wilt's and Russell's numbers in the 59-60 season (Chamberlain's rookie year.) And then, take a look at their TEAM's W-L records. Wilt won the MVP award that year.

Now, do the same thing for the 61-62 season. Virtually every number was the same...EXCEPT...Chamberlain put up an even more staggering offensive season. Russell's stats and TEAM record were about the same, as was Chamberlain's TEAM record.

Furthermore, while I guess the voting was done before the post-season, how can anyone argue against Chamberlain in the playoffs, either. He took a FAR inferior roster (basically the same last place team he joined in his rookie season), to a game seven, two-point loss against a 60-20 Celtic team that had a 6-3 edge in HOFers.

There was an ESPN article last year (I believe) that not only ranked Wilt's 61-62 season as the greatest in NBA history...they claimed that it was the greatest EVER in ALL of major professional team sports HISTORY.


But let's carry this even further. Wilt led the NBA in rebounding and FG% in his 71-72 season, and was voted first team all-defense. He also took a team that had gone 48-34 the year before, to a 69-13 record, which was the best ever at the time...and a world title. Meanwhile, Kareem, played on a team that actually dropped from their record of the year before (going from 66-16 down to 63-19), but he did lead the NBA in scoring. Who won the MVP award that year? Of course, it was Kareem. Wilt did get some measure of revenge by winning the Finals MVP, but still, it sure seems like a double-standard to me.

And, as Pointguard pointed out. How does Wilt finish SEVENTH in the MVP balloting in his 62-63 season? All he did that year was LEAD the league in 15 of the 22 statistical categories (67%!), and by a huge margin in several. And, even though he played on an awful team, he still led the NBA in Win Shares, and here again, by a wide margin. On top of all of that, he set a PER mark of 31.8, which is still the highest in NBA history.

Now, for those that argue that Wilt played on a losing team in that 62-63 season...one, Kareem won the award on a losing team in his 75-76 season...and in a year that he was nowhere near as dominant as Wilt was in 62-63. And two, Wilt then took that same basic roster of 62-63 (along with rookie Nate Thurmond, who was playing part-time, out of position, and who shot .395) to the Finals the very next year. Did Wilt win the award that year, after taking a last-place team to the Finals the very next year? Nope...Russell wins it again.

Take a look at his 69-69 season...and keep in mind that not only did Unseld win the MVP award with FAR inferior stats (and who was abused by Chamberlain H2H)...but Wilt was NOWHERE to be found in the MVP balloting. How was that possible, in a year in which he averaged 20.5 ppg, led the NBA in rebounding, and led the NBA in FG%. On top of all of that, how good was his defense that year? In a game on Christmas day that year, he blocked 23 shots.

I'm sorry, but I am convinced that there was anti-Wilt bias in his entire career.

[G.O.A.T]

This is something I don't understand, if we view his FG% differently because of the league average, then shouldn't we also view a 30 point game different because of the extra 30-35 possessions per game? And I'd think a great scorer holding back his offense for the team would have a high FG% like Wilt in the late 60's/early 70's. It didn't prevent his teams from winning obviously, but scoring simply doesn't seem like it was one of Russell's strengths.

You have to view everything in context I think.

The scoring numbers sort of find their middle with the faster pace equaling lower percentages, but also it's important to note that that same faster pace allotted for statistical anomalies and exceptions (like Wilt). However for the most part if you compare the league's top scorer's, they are pretty level with most of the NBA's post-shot clock history.

The era Russell played in and the field goal percentage of the league is also why you have to take his rebounding numbers with a grain of salt.

Just like 20 rebounds in 1962 isn't 20 rebounds in 2011, 45% from the field in 1962 isn't 45% in 2011.

Russell was not a great scorer, and had he been asked to do it every night he and his team would have failed, but he understood that and channeled his efforts towards things that not every guy on his team could do.

And no, scoring was not Russell's strength, but he was above average at it by any era's standards. And he has some postseason numbers that stack up with just about any center in any era.

My problem is people saying he was limited offensively or an average or poor offensive player. How can a guy have the highest apg of any center all-time and have multiple Championship playoff runs and NBA finals where he topped 20 ppg and be an average offensive player?

How can he be called "the key to our offense after Cousy" by John Havlicek his teammate for five post-Cousy titles and be average?

It's just dumb and it bothers me a little that people don't admit their ignorance online, because if you confronted someone in person the same way they'd have no choice but to back down.

[pauk]

career - its between russel and jordan for me

talent - oscar robertson easily

[jlip]

I disagree regarding Jordan vs Wilt.

I think Jordan was a better scorer, I don't think it's a coincidence that despite playing in an era with far fewer shots that MJ's career playoff scoring average is 10.9 ppg higher than Wilt's, his highest scoring series are easily better than Wilt's, same with his highest scoring playoff runs.

Prime Wilt had a bigger impact defensively, IMO, but I think Jordan was the better offensive player.

And I also think that he impacted games at least as much, if not more, even with poor teammates, 3rd year MJ(who wasn't the player he was in his prime), carried his team to a 40-42 record. In one of his best individual years, Wilt's team was 31-49 and they missed the playoffs, and in '65, before he was traded to Philadelphia, I believe his Warriors were 11-33. I can't imagine prime Jordan leading teams to such poor records.

This is where I find that individual scoring volume is less a function of pace and more a function of role, system, but more specifically, number of shots taken by the player. It's perfectly understood that Wilt's era was a far faster era than Jordan's as far as pace is concerned. During Wilt's first 6 seasons he shot more than anybody in league history, but things changed after that. As a result, Wilt, again playing in a much faster era, and averaging over 7 more minutes of playing time attempted "only" 22.5 fg per game for his career. Jordan managed to attempt 22.9 fg per game for his career during the regular season in fewer minutes and in a slower pace.

In the playoffs Wilt attempted 17.1 shots per game while playing 47.2 mpg. In Jordan's slower era with fewer shots available he attempted 25.1 shots per game in just 41.8 mpg. Wilt did attempt more fts per game than Jordan though. It appears that pace and number of possessions was not a factor here. It's more or less a players' willingness to take shots. I found the same thing when I compared Kobe's shots per game with Oscar Robertson's.

[G.O.A.T]

My problem with this "voting" was this...

Take a look at Wilt's and Russell's numbers in the 59-60 season (Chamberlain's rookie year.) And then, take a look at their TEAM's W-L records. Wilt won the MVP award that year.

Yes he did, but then the playoffs happened and people remembered that Russell was the real MVP and thus he won it the nest three years. I would have voted for Wilt after the 1959-60 season too, his numbers were like nothing the league had ever seen, and previously when a center dominated the league statistically he won titles, so people assumed Wilt would in titles, but he didn't and Russell did, pretty simple to figure out if you eliminate your love for Wilt.

Wilt could have and should have been better than Russell, but he wasn't.

There was an ESPN article last year (I believe) that not only ranked Wilt's 61-62 season as the greatest in NBA history...they claimed that it was the greatest EVER in ALL of major professional team sports HISTORY.

If they mean in terms of stats, then yes. But it wasn't even his best season, so you know the person writing that is not very informed or passionate about the subject.

But let's carry this even further. Wilt led the NBA in rebounding and FG% in his 71-72 season, and was voted first team all-defense. He also took a team that had gone 48-34 the year before, to a 69-13 record, which was the best ever at the time...and a world title. Meanwhile, Kareem, played on a team that actually dropped from their record of the year before (going from 66-16 down to 63-19), but he did lead the NBA in scoring. Who won the MVP award that year? Of course, it was Kareem. Wilt did get some measure of revenge by winning the Finals MVP, but still, it sure seems like a double-standard to me.

A big part of the reason was because Wilt and West split votes. (West got more btw, so that tells you who the players viewed as the team leader, a major factor among players when voting for an MVP)

And, as Pointguard pointed out. How does Wilt finish SEVENTH in the MVP balloting in his 62-63 season?

Maybe because his team finished 20 games under .500 and last in attendance. Where is the value?

Was he dominant? was it an all-time great statisitical season? Of course, but it was not an MVP worthy season as the team went no where and lost money, they could have done that without him, and lost less money.

Now, for those that argue that Wilt played on a losing team in that 62-63 season...one, Kareem won the award on a losing team in his 75-76 season...and in a year that he was nowhere near as dominant as Wilt was in 62-63. And two, Wilt then took that same basic roster of 62-63 (along with rookie Nate Thurmond, who was playing part-time, out of position, and who shot .395) to the Finals the very next year. Did Wilt win the award that year, after taking a last-place team to the Finals the very next year? Nope...Russell wins it again.

Nope, Oscar got it that year.

[ShaqAttack3234]

You have to view everything in context I think.

The scoring numbers sort of find their middle with the faster pace equaling lower percentages, but also it's important to note that that same faster pace allotted for statistical anomalies and exceptions (like Wilt). However for the most part if you compare the league's top scorer's, they are pretty level with most of the NBA's post-shot clock history.

The era Russell played in and the field goal percentage of the league is also why you have to take his rebounding numbers with a grain of salt.

Just like 20 rebounds in 1962 isn't 20 rebounds in 2011, 45% from the field in 1962 isn't 45% in 2011.

Russell was not a great scorer, and had he been asked to do it every night he and his team would have failed, but he understood that and channeled his efforts towards things that not every guy on his team could do.

And no, scoring was not Russell's strength, but he was above average at it by any era's standards. And he has some postseason numbers that stack up with just about any center in any era.

My problem is people saying he was limited offensively or an average or poor offensive player. How can a guy have the highest apg of any center all-time and have multiple Championship playoff runs and NBA finals where he topped 20 ppg and be an average offensive player?

How can he be called "the key to our offense after Cousy" by John Havlicek his teammate for five post-Cousy titles and be average?

It's just dumb and it bothers me a little that people don't admit their ignorance online, because if you confronted someone in person the same way they'd have no choice but to back down.

Well, I think that Russell's ability to run the floor, set picks and get offensive rebounds ensured that he'd be able to score points, so I agree that he wasn't below average. My best description of him would be an opportunistic scorer. Not a dominant scorer, but a guy who could get points in a variety of ways, just not as far as I've seen by throwing the ball to him in the post and having him consistently create his own offense. But in that era with all of the fast breaks and missed shots, a guy who ran the floor so well and got so many offensive rebounds could be a scoring threat. And sometimes, you can get will your team to victory that way. I saw a bit of that with Dwight Howard in game 6 vs Cleveland when he had 40. He did score in the post, but a lot of his points were from outworking Varejao and Ilgauskas on the offensive glass, setting picks and rolling to the basket and running the floor.

Regarding assists, well, I think there were alot more "easy" assists back then such as this one. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJjBDUhbBcs#t=0m29s

Very simple pass and a defensive mistake, to Russell's credit, he spotted it, and he looked for the cutter first and saw that the cutter wasn't open, so you can see his IQ, but that's why I don't really view assist numbers the same.

Here's a nice pass though, and the type of play that I've always loved. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qiVAF...elated#t=4m54s

That's an example of why I liked the early 2000s Kings so much, or why I like watching Pau Gasol, and why Bill Walton is one of my favorite players. But I haven't seen that many passes like that, and it's not a pass that I haven't seen other big men make.

If you have specific examples of Russell's passing then feel free to post them, but I'm a skeptic by nature, so I do have to see things for myself.

I think it'd be foolish to question whether he was a good passer, but it's different for me to compare him specifically to others who I've seen make enough great passes to list as some of the greatest passing big men of all time. I mean I've seen some phenomenal passes from Wilt in some early 70's Laker games, and not much footage of him exists.

[jlauber]

I disagree regarding Jordan vs Wilt.

I think Jordan was a better scorer, I don't think it's a coincidence that despite playing in an era with far fewer shots that MJ's career playoff scoring average is 10.9 ppg higher than Wilt's, his highest scoring series are easily better than Wilt's, same with his highest scoring playoff runs.

Prime Wilt had a bigger impact defensively, IMO, but I think Jordan was the better offensive player.

And I also think that he impacted games at least as much, if not more, even with poor teammates, 3rd year MJ(who wasn't the player he was in his prime), carried his team to a 40-42 record. In one of his best individual years, Wilt's team was 31-49 and they missed the playoffs, and in '65, before he was traded to Philadelphia, I believe his Warriors were 11-33. I can't imagine prime Jordan leading teams to such poor records.




I think that by 1990 Jordan was a capable 3 point shooter. The only years that he took a significant amount with the normal line, he shot 35 and 38%, respectively. In 1990, he was 12th in 3s made and only 7 of the players who made more 3s than Jordan that year shot a better %. His mid-range shot was also visibly better in '92 than '90, so I wonder how good of a season he could've had shooting 3s had he taken them regularly that year.

Jordan never played on a roster as bad as Wilt's 62-63 team. Jordan had the NBA's best rebounder on his 86-87 team. Wilt had a roster that collectively shot .412 without using his .528...which would have been well below the worst team in the league. BTW, did MJ ever take a 40-40 team to a game seven, ONE-POINT loss against a 62-18 team? Did he ever take a 49-31 team, that was outgunned by HOFers 6-3, to a game seven, two-point loss against a 60-20 team?

As far as Wilt's post-season scoring, I have addressed in MANY times. Wilt's TEAM was so bad in his 62-63 (his 45 ppg season) that they missed the playoffs. Wilt also faced a HOF center in nearly 67% of his 160 post-season games, as well as All-Star centers in several others. Not only that, but Wilt's TEAMS were outgunned by HOFers EVERY post-season, but one. In some of them by as much as a 7-2 margin (his 63-64 season...and his HOF teammate was rookie Nate Thurmond, who was playing part-time, out of position, and shooting .395 in the process.)

Furthermore, in Wilt's "scoring" seasons, from 59-60, he averaged 33 ppg and 26 rpg, on about 49% shooting, in league's that shot from .410 to .441, in the post-season. Meanwhile Jordan played in league's that nearly shot 50%...and his career post-season FG% at .487, was still well below Wilt's .522. Wilt not only had his share of HUGE playoff games, he had a 50-35 game against Russell (as well as several 40+ point games against him.) He had FOUR 50+ point games in the post-season, as well.

As far as regular season SCORING, SHOOTING, REBOUNDING, PASSING (yes Wilt LED the NBA one year), and probably DEFENSE (Wilt also probably blocked more shots in one season, than Jordan did in his career), Wilt was FAR greater than MJ. 70+ point games...Wilt has a 6-0 edge over MJ. 60+ point games? Wilt with a 32-5 edge. 50+ point games? Wilt with a 118-39 margin.

FG%? Wilt with a NINE-TO-ZERO edge in that category, including the two highest in NBA history.

Rebounding? This is truly laughable. Wilt was THE greatest rebounder in NBA history (and ESPECIALLY in the post-season, when he pounded even Russell.)

MJ was a better FT shooter, and a better 3 pt shooter (although, if you take away the year's when the NBA moved in the line, he only shot .288), and that was IT.

[gilalizard]

Wilt and Russell don't count because they played before the advent of ESPN.

Muhammad Ali Was a Rebel. Michael Jordan Is a Brand Name.

In celebrating Jordan as a hero, are we merely worshipping capitalism?

By Michael Crowley

http://www.nieman.harvard.edu/report...rand-Name.aspx

Thanks for sharing that article. Very interesting.

I especially liked the comparison between MJ and Ali, and how as much as they are champions of their respective sports, they also represent what that meant to fans in different eras.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Jordan never played on a roster as bad as Wilt's 62-63 team. Jordan had the NBA's best rebounder on his 86-87 team. Wilt had a roster that collectively shot .412 without using his .528...which would have been well below the worst team in the league. BTW, did MJ ever take a 40-40 team to a game seven, ONE-POINT loss against a 62-18 team? Did he ever take a 49-31 team, that was outgunned by HOFers 6-3, to a game seven, two-point loss against a 60-20 team?

As far as Wilt's post-season scoring, I have addressed in MANY times. Wilt's TEAM was so bad in his 62-63 (his 45 ppg season) that they missed the playoffs. Wilt also faced a HOF center in nearly 67% of his 160 post-season games, as well as All-Star centers in several others. Not only that, but Wilt's TEAMS were outgunned by HOFers EVERY post-season, but one. In some of them by as much as a 7-2 margin (his 63-64 season...and his HOF teammate was rookie Nate Thurmond, who was playing part-time, out of position, and shooting .395 in the process.)

Furthermore, in Wilt's "scoring" seasons, from 59-60, he averaged 33 ppg and 26 rpg, on about 49% shooting, in league's that shot from .410 to .441, in the post-season. Meanwhile Jordan played in league's that nearly shot 50%...and his career post-season FG% at .487, was still well below Wilt's .522. Wilt not only had his share of HUGE playoff games, he had a 50-35 game against Russell (as well as several 40+ point games against him.) He had FOUR 50+ point games in the post-season, as well.

As far as regular season SCORING, SHOOTING, REBOUNDING, PASSING (yes Wilt LED the NBA one year), and probably DEFENSE (Wilt also probably blocked more shots in one season, than Jordan did in his career), Wilt was FAR greater than MJ. 70+ point games...Wilt has a 6-0 edge over MJ. 60+ point games? Wilt with a 32-5 edge. 50+ point games? Wilt with a 118-39 margin.

FG%? Wilt with a NINE-TO-ZERO edge in that category, including the two highest in NBA history.

Rebounding? This is truly laughable. Wilt was THE greatest rebounder in NBA history (and ESPECIALLY in the post-season, when he pounded even Russell.)

MJ was a better FT shooter, and a better 3 pt shooter (although, if you take away the year's when the NBA moved in the line, he only shot .288), and that was IT.

I don't know how you can just compare their scoring numbers without mentioning that Wilt took more shots.

Jordan attempted over 25 shots per game twice, his highest being 27.8, Wilt topped Jordan's 27.8 in each of his first 5 seasons with as much as 39.5 shots per game in his 3rd season.

As far as FG%? Jordan is a guard, when was the last time a high scoring guard led the NBA in FG%? Prime Jordan consistently shot between 51-54% from the field and 83-85% at the line. Wilt in his scoring years shot around the same percentage from the field, but closer to 50% from the line, 61% in his best season.

As far as scoring titles, Jordan has the record which is 10, while Wilt has 7. Now you could argue that Wilt may have been able to win scoring titles from '67-'69 had he been asked to and possibly '70 had he been healthy. But then you could say that had Jordan not retired in '94, and had he not been injured in '86 that he'd have 3 more himself. So Jordan has more scoring titles in reality and if you play the hypothetical game.

[gilalizard]

like 6-8, and no one because they didn't really have a cable deal yet.

Yeah, probably most people who saw Russell play on TV did it by adjusting the bunny ears on top of their sets.

[jlauber]

I don't know how you can just compare their scoring numbers without mentioning that Wilt took more shots.

Jordan attempted over 25 shots per game twice, his highest being 27.8, Wilt topped Jordan's 27.8 in each of his first 5 seasons with as much as 39.5 shots per game in his 3rd season.

As far as FG%? Jordan is a guard, when was the last time a high scoring guard led the NBA in FG%? Prime Jordan consistently shot between 51-54% from the field and 83-85% at the line. Wilt in his scoring years shot around the same percentage from the field, but closer to 50% from the line, 61% in his best season.

As far as scoring titles, Jordan has the record which is 10, while Wilt has 7. Now you could argue that Wilt may have been able to win scoring titles from '67-'69 had he been asked to and possibly '70 had he been healthy. But then you could say that had Jordan not retired in '94, and had he not been injured in '86 that he'd have 3 more himself. So Jordan has more scoring titles in reality and if you play the hypothetical game.

Once again, Wilt's FG% numbers were attained in league's that shot FAR worse than Jordan's. As far as scoring goes, Jordan took more shots per game in his career. Furthermore, when Wilt won his scoring titles, he won them by as much as 18.8 ppg (and another at 10 ppg.)

Wilt led the NBA in scoring, seven times. He led the NBA in FG%, nine times, He led the in rebounding, 11 times. And, he even led the NBA in assists one year, which is one more than MJ, a guard, did.

Not only that, but Wilt led the NBA in scoring and rebounding in the same season, FIVE times. He led the NBA in scoring AND FG%, in the same season, FOUR times. He led the NBA in rebounding and FG%, in the same season, EIGHT times. And, he led the NBA in scoring, rebounding, and FG%, in the same season, THREE times.

[jlauber]

Yes he did, but then the playoffs happened and people remembered that Russell was the real MVP and thus he won it the nest three years. I would have voted for Wilt after the 1959-60 season too, his numbers were like nothing the league had ever seen, and previously when a center dominated the league statistically he won titles, so people assumed Wilt would in titles, but he didn't and Russell did, pretty simple to figure out if you eliminate your love for Wilt.

Wilt could have and should have been better than Russell, but he wasn't.

So, from that 59-60 season thru that 63-64 season, here was Wilt statistically outplaying Russell in almost every facet of the game...and in many cases, by HUGE margins...and doing so on team's that were outgunned by HOFers by margins of 7-3, 7-3, 6-3, 8-1, and 7-2...and NEARLY beating two of those heavily-favored Celtic teams TWICE (losing game seven's by two and one point)...Russell was the better player?????

If they mean in terms of stats, then yes. But it wasn't even his best season, so you know the person writing that is not very informed or passionate about the subject.

Agreed. Wilt was even more dominant in his 66-67 season. And, a case could be made that Wilt's 62-63 was even greater than his 61-62 season. Of course, there has NEVER been an NBA player, in the HISTORY of the game, that could rival Wilt's 61-62 and 62-63 seasons, either.

A big part of the reason was because Wilt and West split votes. (West got more btw, so that tells you who the players viewed as the team leader, a major factor among players when voting for an MVP)

No, it was flat out anti-Wilt bias. Virtually everyone that watched the Lakers play that year KNEW that it was WILT leading that team. And, of course, while West really struggled in the post-season, Wilt took over in the playoffs.

Maybe because his team finished 20 games under .500 and last in attendance. Where is the value?

Was he dominant? was it an all-time great statisitical season? Of course, but it was not an MVP worthy season as the team went no where and lost money, they could have done that without him, and lost less money.

BUT, then Wilt takes that same crappy roster to the Finals the very next year, and a HUGE improvement over the year before...and Oscar wins the MVP (despite a MUCH better roster...and a far less improvement in team success.)

As far as the Warriors saving money without Wilt...well, they did trade Wilt. What happened next? Wilt took his Sixer team, a crappy team the year before, to a game seven, one point loss against the 62-18 Celtics. THEN, Chamberlain led the Sixers to the best record in the league over the course of the next three years, and a world championship...which included thumping those Warriors in the Finals.



Once again...I am CONVINCED that there was an anti-Wilt bias in his entire career in the NBA. Furthermore, many players resented the fact that he could so easily dominate them, and the entire league. Let's face reality...Wilt SHREDDED the NBA record book...in virtually everu category. It was so bad, that opposing centers were getting standing ovations when they would hold Wilt to 54 points (just as Darrell Imhoff.)

[G.O.A.T]

Once again...I am CONVINCED that there was an anti-Wilt bias in his entire career in the NBA. Furthermore, many players resented the fact that he could so easily dominate them, and the entire league. Let's face reality...Wilt SHREDDED the NBA record book...in virtually everu category. It was so bad, that opposing centers were getting standing ovations when they would hold Wilt to 54 points (just as Darrell Imhoff.)

I skipped everything else because we've already debated it.

I do wonder if you;ve ever considered the rnoy of you're two arguments being

a) Russell had better teammates
b) Wilt had better stats

Wouldn't A suggest that B was likely?

Regardless, my greater point is that you are wrong (in my opinion of course) to suggest their was an anti-Wilt bias, at least if you mean personally. Players liked Wilt (except his early teammates who resented him), if there was an anti-Wilt bias, it would have also shown in 1966, 67 and 68.

What there actually was, was an anti-not winning the title bias against him.

Right or wrong, the way NBA players think is that he who has the most talent should have the title. In over 100 NBA biographies I've researched that's the most common theme among players who were once elite or on an elite team.

As soon as Wilt's team started really winning consistently and he started playing a team game (which him not playing was not his fault, but his coaches request, we agree.) he was an MVP lock.

Once he got to LA and wasted a sure title season by feuding with a stubborn coach, he had to dodge that stigma again.

If someone never watched, or read about those seasons and just viewed the stats, it would seem ludicrous that Wilt wasn't the MVP, but when you consider the context overall, it makes perfect sense.

You like Wilt, so you give him the benefit of the doubt, others who were less talent, but believed they worked harder and understood how to play the game the right way better resented him. And his team's losing, though not primarily his fault as sometimes presented to be sure, was excuse enough to justify their resentment.

Let's remember too that from '61 to '63, not just the players, but the media and a private Sport Magazine poll selected Russell as MVP. I do think it's pretty disrespectful to diminish that by suggesting it was a conspiracy against Dippy.

[G.O.A.T]

Well, I think that Russell's ability to run the floor, set picks and get offensive rebounds ensured that he'd be able to score points, so I agree that he wasn't below average. My best description of him would be an opportunistic scorer.

That's about perfect. If the opposing team was weak at center he'd go for 30, if he was playing Wilt, he'd shoot only enough to make Wilt keep going for his ball fakes and to force him to expend some energy on the defensive end.

Not a dominant scorer, but a guy who could get points in a variety of ways, just not as far as I've seen by throwing the ball to him in the post and having him consistently create his own offense. But in that era with all of the fast breaks and missed shots, a guy who ran the floor so well and got so many offensive rebounds could be a scoring threat. And sometimes, you can get will your team to victory that way.

Again, I think you're spot on. He was not a guy you could throw the ball into every other possession and say get me 30, he was a guy who could score 20 without you noticing.

Early on he was like Ben Wallace in that no plays were ever run for him (though Ben and Rip Hamilton did an alley oop screen and roll off an elbow curl) but unlike Wallace, Russell would find ways to score 10-20 consistently because he understood the timing and spacing of the game so well. Russell would constantly find ways to help others score while simultaneously looking for opportunities for an easy two of his won.

Regarding assists, well, I think there were alot more "easy" assists back then such as this one. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJjBDUhbBcs#t=0m29s

Very simple pass and a defensive mistake, to Russell's credit, he spotted it, and he looked for the cutter first and saw that the cutter wasn't open, so you can see his IQ, but that's why I don't really view assist numbers the same.

If there were so many though, how come in a game with more made field goals, fewer were assisted on?

Assists weren't given out the same way either. Regardless, Russell was putting up numbers that near and sometimes above half the league leader. How many centers have ever done that?

If you have specific examples of Russell's passing then feel free to post them, but I'm a skeptic by nature, so I do have to see things for myself.

I wish I had more examples, but honestly there are like 20 Russell games floating out their and though I've seen a handful more, I don't personally own any nor can a cite a specific play from the games I have seen.

Most of my opinion on Russell is formed based on what his peers and contemporaries have had to say about him. I feel they are more qualified to judge than I. That goes the same for today's players. I have my opinions, but I also know how little I really know about the players.