If Russell was better, why did he finish second to Wilt in the All-NBA voting?
If Wilt was better, why didn't he win more games? (Starred on some .500 or below teams; won his second title as a role player late in his career).
Russell's Celtics were ridiculous. I just went through their rosters and found that every one of their championship teams had at least four or five guys who ended up in the Hall of Fame. That's pretty crazy.
I think Russell benefited tremendously from playing with superstar teammates. Had free agency been like how it is today (did it even exist?), there's no way this Celtics team would have remained intact.
And then, of course, you have to factor in - yes, again - that there were only nine teams or so.
Can you imagine Michael Jordan's Bulls playing in a nine-team league that didn't have free agency? They would have easily won ten titles. Simply by being a good team and staying intact.
Russell's Celtics pretty much beat up on the same teams over and over again. Not to take anything away from them, but these factors cannot be ignored.
And isn't Russell known mostly for being a winner? What if he played on a bad team? Would he alone have been good enough to carry them to respectability? Would he have won a ring? And had he gone ringless or just won a few, would he still be considered in the argument for the best center ever?