Career Comparison: Bill Russell vs Wilt Chamberlain

[Knightmare]

I'd have Shaq over Wilt, but have no issues with someone picking Wilt over him.

You are sort of right that no one dominated like Wilt.

His numbers are amazing but need to be taken into context with the time he played the game.

He was basically playing with a bunch of amateurs and a league that was predominately white (and had zero international players). He didn't have a lot of competition. These days young people do anything they can to become an NBA player. That wasn't how it was back then. They didn't get paid a lot of money, so people took on careers in other occupations. The league was still finding it's feet when he was killing it. Even by the late 60s Wilt's scoring had tumbled substantially. At 30 years of age, when he should have been in his prime, he was only scoring 24 points per game. His per 36 minute numbers that season would have him around the 50th highest points per 36 minutes in today's game. This in spite of Wilt playing in an era of higher scoring and faster pace.

While players like Wilt would be playing in today's NBA, it dropped off quickly as you went down the players on each team. For most teams from the 60s and 70s, the third best player on the team was some white dude who couldn't jump. He probably had to work another job in the off-season to make ends meets.

And just for the record Wilt's scoring has been matched by guys like Jordan and Curry once you take into account the pace of the game, even at Wilt's peak.

Shaq v Wilt isn't even a conversation. Other than dunking the basketball and attacking the rim (and Wilt just would choose not to) - and even then he was still the far more dominant there wasn't a second category Shaq was better than Wilt. Free throws by 1-2?

The bigs that played in the 60s and 70s may have been the best bigs ever.

60s: Wilt, Russell, Thurmond, Reed, Hayes, Unseld, Bellamy, Petit, Lucas, Hawkins.
70s: Kareem, Wilt, Malone, Walton, McAdoo, Gilmore, Unseld, Lanier, Cowens, Ballamy, Haywood, Sikma, Hawkins.

The 60s/70s have the most dominant bigs of any era. And the key difference is there were fewer teams so every game you're playing against good bigs.

As for Wilt not scoring in the late 60s/70s. That was because he was told not to - to play more like Russell with coaches recognising others needed more shots and wanting Wilt to focus on defence and rebounding so that others could be more involved in the offence - with the theory of the time being that playing like Russell was the winning formula. During that time, people would tell Wilt 'you can't score anymore' then he'd go off for a big offensive game and go back to focusing on defence and rebounding.

Wilt's scoring was only a component of his game. Of any inside player, he was the greatest scorer. But then as a rebounder and defensively, there was never any better with Russell the only one in the conversation for defence as he blocked shots more offensively and in the big moments.

Also, you are right I don't watch many games from the 60s/70s.

Mainly because I see better basketball played at a rec center.

That comment immediately disqualifies you from talking about basketball from the 60s/70s. You can put the Australian national team together and they're not beating Russell's Celtics.

The two best ever (Wilt and Russell) another who was top 5 until LeBron won in Cleveland in Oscar, then two top 15 all-timers in Baylor and West also played during the 60s.

70s was ruled by Kareem though the quality of bigs then was also special. There just wasn't other than a few years here/there that other top 15 all-timer he played against with Julius Erving the closest thing when he joined the NBA ranks.

 

[fidstar]

Another annoying Wilt stat.

He's such an amazing rebounder. He averaged so many rebounds.

Yes, you are correct. He did average a lot of rebounds. And he is an awesome rebounder.

But, some more "legend" stuff.

Let's look at the numbers...

Wilts peak in rebounding happened between 1960 and 1969 (these were all the seasons Wilt averaged 20+ rebounds per game).

Through these seasons he averaged 24.3 rebounds. Super impressive.

But let's dig through that a bit more.

There were a lot more rebounds to be had back then. For instance in 1961 (Wilt's best rebounding season), there were, on average 73.2 rebounds per game across the league. In comparison, a typical NBA game has 45 per game this season (which is actually the highest it's been 1979).

Between 1960 and 1969 there were an average of 68 rebounds per game per team.

Now, let's compare that to Howards career. From his rookie season to now the league has averaged 42 rebounds per game.

So, let's prorate Wilt's numbers back to make a fair comparison to Howard on the actual amount of rebounds actually available to grab. 24.3 x 42/68 = 15 rebounds per game.

That's about what Wilt would average in today's game.

That's also based on him playing 47 minutes per game.

Wilt would average 15 rebounds per game playing 47 minutes.
Meanwhile Howard is averaging 12.6 rebounds per game playing 34.5 minutes per game.

To me that looks like Howard is a better rebounder.

If you start comparing him to guys like Rodman, then he's not nearly as good.

Anyway, my point isn't that Wilt isn't a great rebounder. It's more the "legend" thing of "OMG 25 rebounds per game. He's so much better than anyone ever" BS you see.

He grabbed the amount of rebounds expected of a good rebounding center. If he played today he'd be in the hunt for the rebounding title every year.

 

[fidstar]

That comment immediately disqualifies you from talking about basketball from the 60s/70s. You can put the Australian national team together and they're not beating Russell's Celtics.

If you dropped the 90s Bulls (or the current Warriors) into the 70s league and those teams played the same basketball, then it would be 92 dream team stuff.

At worst 77-5. And that's because of an injury or boredom.

The games evolved man. It's not their fault. It's gone from an amateur league to a full time, big money, world wide, thing that makes 70s basketball obsolete.

And fwiw I'm not saying those teams couldn't train and evolve and ultimately give the Warriors/Bulls a run for their money. They certainly could. But not playing 60s/70s basketball. There's a reason teams don't play like that any more.

I'm also giving the Australian National team a good shot in a 7 game series against the Celtics. Celtics probably win, but the fact we are having the conversation shows how much better the game is today. An 8 consecutive championship team vs a team of players that has 1 or 2 NBA quality starters and a bunch of scrubs.

 

[Knightmare]

If you dropped the 90s Bulls (or the current Warriors) into the 70s league and those teams played the same basketball, then it would be 92 dream team stuff.

At worst 77-5. And that's because of an injury or boredom.

The games evolved man. It's not their fault. It's gone from an amateur league to a full time, big money, world wide, thing that makes 70s basketball obsolete.

And fwiw I'm not saying those teams couldn't train and evolve and ultimately give the Warriors/Bulls a run for their money. They certainly could. But not playing 60s/70s basketball. There's a reason teams don't play like that any more.

I'm also giving the Australian National team a good shot in a 7 game series against the Celtics. Celtics probably win, but the fact we are having the conversation shows how much better the game is today. An 8 consecutive championship team vs a team of players that has 1 or 2 NBA quality starters and a bunch of scrubs.

Those Bulls and Warriors would dominate the 70s. Sure. Those teams could win 75 games in the 70s. Along with Russell's Celtics, Michael's Bulls and Steph's Warriors are the three greatest teams ever. Under modern rules, Russell's Celtics aren't going to compete with Steph's Warriors. And that's going to happen without a three point line during Russell's days.

I won't disagree with you for ragging on the 70s with that being the weaker of the eras since pre-Russell/Wilt.

Don't dismiss the stars of the 60s. The top end stars of the 60s stack up with the stars of any era.

What was notable in the 60s and 70s was the big men. They compare favourably to the bigs seen in the 80s/90s/00s on average. The late 10s is the only time where there may be a question based on how highly you value bigs who stretch the floor with so many stretch bigs now and the best quality of bigs we've seen since the 60s and 70s.

 

[Knightmare]

Another annoying Wilt stat.

He's such an amazing rebounder. He averaged so many rebounds.

Yes, you are correct. He did average a lot of rebounds. And he is an awesome rebounder.

But, some more "legend" stuff.

Let's look at the numbers...

Wilts peak in rebounding happened between 1960 and 1969 (these were all the seasons Wilt averaged 20+ rebounds per game).

Through these seasons he averaged 24.3 rebounds. Super impressive.

But let's dig through that a bit more.

There were a lot more rebounds to be had back then. For instance in 1961 (Wilt's best rebounding season), there were, on average 73.2 rebounds per game across the league. In comparison, a typical NBA game has 45 per game this season (which is actually the highest it's been 1979).

Between 1960 and 1969 there were an average of 68 rebounds per game per team.

Now, let's compare that to Howards career. From his rookie season to now the league has averaged 42 rebounds per game.

So, let's prorate Wilt's numbers back to make a fair comparison to Howard on the actual amount of rebounds actually available to grab. 24.3 x 42/68 = 15 rebounds per game.

That's about what Wilt would average in today's game.

That's also based on him playing 47 minutes per game.

Wilt would average 15 rebounds per game playing 47 minutes.
Meanwhile Howard is averaging 12.6 rebounds per game playing 34.5 minutes per game.

To me that looks like Howard is a better rebounder.

If you start comparing him to guys like Rodman, then he's not nearly as good.

Anyway, my point isn't that Wilt isn't a great rebounder. It's more the "legend" thing of "OMG 25 rebounds per game. He's so much better than anyone ever" BS you see.

He grabbed the amount of rebounds expected of a good rebounding center. If he played today he'd be in the hunt for the rebounding title every year.

What separates Wilt from Dwight and for that matter anyone on the defensive end and you can adjust the rebound numbers as you like, but Dwight and same goes with everyone else in NBA history didn't challenge or block nearly as many shots per game. Wilt even before considering adjusted shots averaged in excess of 9 blocks per game. Dwight and Rodman aren't doing that - adjusted for pace/minutes or not. Russell was the only guy close in rebounds and blocks.

So again it's a case of Wilt's accomplishments are being diminished over time.

See block numbers as evidence: from his 112 recorded games.

 

[fidstar]

Even though there are no official numbers I'm sure Wilt had some great block numbers back in the 60s/70s. But once again, you need to take into account the era he played in. One that had an extra bunch of shots per game. He played all the minutes. Players shot closer to the basket (because they couldn't shoot) and the players were less talented.

If Wilt played today, no doubt he would be one of the leading shot-blockers every year.

 

[Knightmare]

Even though there are no official numbers I'm sure Wilt had some great block numbers back in the 60s/70s. But once again, you need to take into account the era he played in. One that had an extra bunch of shots per game. He played all the minutes. Players shot closer to the basket (because they couldn't shoot) and the players were less talented.

If Wilt played today, no doubt he would be one of the leading shot-blockers every year.

I don't think it would even be a question. He'd lead the NBA every year in blocks. He has the length of JaVale and has a 48" vertical and instincts as good as any shot blocker ever. He also had the strength to block dunks and he'd intimidate guys so much that they'd be afraid to go up for shots anywhere near the rim in a way no one else has ever achieved.

Even after retirement in a pickup game v Magic's Lakers he announced 'there will be no more shots made at this basket' and he proceeded to block every shot attempted on that basket.

 

[fidstar]

...he proceeded to block every shot attempted on that basket.

He also killed a lion bare handed.

 

[thecatattack]

Wilt with modern sports science, training and technology would be the best player ever.

 

[thecatattack]

I don't think it would even be a question. He'd lead the NBA every year in blocks. He has the length of JaVale and has a 48" vertical and instincts as good as any shot blocker ever. He also had the strength to block dunks and he'd intimidate guys so much that they'd be afraid to go up for shots anywhere near the rim in a way no one else has ever achieved.

Even after retirement in a pickup game v Magic's Lakers he announced 'there will be no more shots made at this basket' and he proceeded to block every shot attempted on that basket.

Wilt was about an inch taller than Javale (Javale with shoes and Wilt without) and 2inch bigger wingspan.

 

[thecatattack]

Also lmaoing at this dude saying Wilt wasn't an amazing rebounder

Wilt would feast in this era with modern advancements. Imagine him on ******* Ayton or Kanter. Food.

I mean *, the Clippers were running Gallo at the 5 on Ayton today.

 

[Knightmare]

Also lmaoing at this dude saying Wilt wasn't an amazing rebounder

Wilt would feast in this era with modern advancements. Imagine him on ******* Ayton or Kanter. Food.

I mean ****, the Clippers were running Gallo at the 5 on Ayton today.

BBQ chicken. Though everyone is BBQ chicken against Wilt.

 

[fidstar]

Also lmaoing at this dude saying Wilt wasn't an amazing rebounder

Good to see you didn't read the post.

Wilt was an amazing rebounder. Point was that having 25 rebounds per game back in the 60s is the same as having 15 rebounds today.

 

[fidstar]

Fact of the day

Michael Jordan scored almost 50% more per possession in his career than Wilt did.

So, when Wilt scored 20, MJ scored 30.

 

[fidstar]

lol Knicks. Could have had the King.

 

[thecatattack]

Good to see you didn't read the post.

Wilt was an amazing rebounder. Point was that having 25 rebounds per game back in the 60s is the same as having 15 rebounds today.

I did but you're comparing different eras, which you shouldn't do, in the most basic way possible.

The TRB peaks when Wilt and Russell are in the league and then all of a sudden drops off when he retires? Is it a coincidence? Is it because Wilt and Russell out of the league and not altering shots?

 

[thecatattack]

Fact of the day

Michael Jordan scored almost 50% more per possession in his career than Wilt did.

So, when Wilt scored 20, MJ scored 30.

Cool? I guess? Nah, not really.

They were both above their peers, Wilt just played in a less efficient era.

 

[Knightmare]

Fact of the day

Michael Jordan scored almost 50% more per possession in his career than Wilt did.

So, when Wilt scored 20, MJ scored 30.

In the last 7 years of his career, Wilt's primary responsibility was not to score - actually being told not to score so much so others could get shots up and feel like they were contributing to the offence - with Wilt told to focus his attention on the defensive end, rebounding and passing the basketball to open teammates.

In the 67-68 season Wilt led the NBA in assists, and that was in an era where assists were not awarded as easily - only being awarded for catch and shoot. Incredibly from the most dominant player and big man in NBA history, Wilt achieved in this season higher assist numbers than Michael achieved at any stage during his career.

 

[fidstar]

I did but you're comparing different eras, which you shouldn't do, in the most basic way possible.

The TRB peaks when Wilt and Russell are in the league and then all of a sudden drops off when he retires? Is it a coincidence? Is it because Wilt and Russell out of the league and not altering shots?

Nope.

Super easy to check... https://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_stats.html

Shots and free throws per game were a lot higher during the Wilt/Russell era.

All teams couldn't shoot => lot's of rebounds.

I also used league averages (not Wilt/Russell game averages) to work out 25 rebounds back in the 60s equates to 15 rebounds today.

 

[fidstar]

In the last 7 years of his career, Wilt's primary responsibility was not to score - actually being told not to score so much so others could get shots up and feel like they were contributing to the offence - with Wilt told to focus his attention on the defensive end, rebounding and passing the basketball to open teammates.

In the 67-68 season Wilt led the NBA in assists, and that was in an era where assists were not awarded as easily - only being awarded for catch and shoot. Incredibly from the most dominant player and big man in NBA history, Wilt achieved in this season higher assist numbers than Michael achieved at any stage during his career.

I need to stress that I think Wilt's amazing. Around the 5-8 on my all time list. So, please don't think I'm trying to insult him.

Anyway back to the thing. Wilt did lead the league in assists one season. Amazing effort by a big man.

Number of assists back then are about equivalent to when MJ played, so it's not a bad comparison to make. Wilt averaged 24 points and 8.6 assists that season. MJ averaged 35 points and 8 assists per game. I think I'm giving up the 0.6 assists for the extra 11 points per game.

 

[Knightmare]

I need to stress that I think Wilt's amazing. Around the 5-8 on my all time list. So, please don't think I'm trying to insult him.

Anyway back to the thing. Wilt did lead the league in assists one season. Amazing effort by a big man.

Number of assists back then are about equivalent to when MJ played, so it's not a bad comparison to make. Wilt averaged 24 points and 8.6 assists that season. MJ averaged 35 points and 8 assists per game. I think I'm giving up the 0.6 assists for the extra 11 points per game.

5-8 all time is entirely insulting to Wilt. It's as insulting to see LeBron compared to MJ as it is for anyone other than maybe Russell from a leadership/winning perspective to be compared to Wilt.

There in my view are a clear top 3, then a clear top 6. Wilt, Russell, MJ are the clear three. Then Kareem, LeBron and Oscar though the later for having a shorter prime while arguably better than Kareem or LeBron I'd have behind those guys. From there you have Hakeem/Shaq/Magic/Kobe/Bird/Baylor/West in any order with KD, AD, Giannis and Steph all on their way and tracking to break into that group.

If Wilt's assists were counted as they are today, they would likely be double what they are now because it was simply off the basis of catch and shoot. If guys put the ball on the floor for so much as one dribble then, that was considered an unassisted basket in the 60s whereas today it's considered a continuation if they instantly drive or put the ball on the floor and pull up off the bounce.

There are actually a lot of factors that make Michael better than his stats suggest. A slow pace of play in that era compared to 60s or now. Hand checking existed making it hard for the offensive player v now where fouls are called for just about anything. Floor spacing isn't what it was. People forget how great of a defender he was - he was all-league standard every year on that end and the greatest certainly two way perimeter player with his offence for perimeter players the best we've seen. He played in a triangle system that resulted in his stats being lower than they should be. So all those factors see MJ several gears ahead of Kareem/LeBron/Oscar. But as a guy who had less career 50 points games including playoffs than Wilt had in one season, not having the rules changed as with Wilt to make him less dominant, not averaging 50 points, 25 rebounds or 10 blocks per game in any one season, not leading the NBA in assists. And played against the best at his position during his career v Michael who didn't. I see no reasonable grounds for a comparison let alone anyone claiming Michael was better than Wilt.

 

[fidstar]

5-8 all time is entirely insulting to Wilt. It's as insulting to see LeBron compared to MJ as it is for anyone other than maybe Russell from a leadership/winning perspective to be compared to Wilt.

There in my view are a clear top 3, then a clear top 6. Wilt, Russell, MJ are the clear three. Then Kareem, LeBron and Oscar though the later for having a shorter prime while arguably better than Kareem or LeBron I'd have behind those guys. From there you have Hakeem/Shaq/Magic/Kobe/Bird/Baylor/West in any order with KD, AD, Giannis and Steph all on their way and tracking to break into that group.

If Wilt's assists were counted as they are today, they would likely be double what they are now because it was simply off the basis of catch and shoot. If guys put the ball on the floor for so much as one dribble then, that was considered an unassisted basket in the 60s whereas today it's considered a continuation if they instantly drive or put the ball on the floor and pull up off the bounce.

There are actually a lot of factors that make Michael better than his stats suggest. A slow pace of play in that era compared to 60s or now. Hand checking existed making it hard for the offensive player v now where fouls are called for just about anything. Floor spacing isn't what it was. People forget how great of a defender he was - he was all-league standard every year on that end and the greatest certainly two way perimeter player with his offence for perimeter players the best we've seen. He played in a triangle system that resulted in his stats being lower than they should be. So all those factors see MJ several gears ahead of Kareem/LeBron/Oscar. But as a guy who had less career 50 points games including playoffs than Wilt had in one season, not having the rules changed as with Wilt to make him less dominant, not averaging 50 points, 25 rebounds or 10 blocks per game in any one season, not leading the NBA in assists. And played against the best at his position during his career v Michael who didn't. I see no reasonable grounds for a comparison let alone anyone claiming Michael was better than Wilt.

I can't see how in this post you say MJ was better than his stats because of the slow pace, but be so upset at me saying Wilt's stats were higher because of the fast pace of the 60s/70s

You keep giving me these crazy numbers, and I've showed Wilt going for 50 points or 25 rebounds is like a 35/15 average today. It's completely awesome, but the numbers are blown out of all proportions if you just look at raw stats. Then throw in that it was an amateur league and lack of video/stats etc, then it doesn't make sense to say it's insulting not to have him number 1. Wilt/Russell (as well as guys like West) are incredibly hard to rank in these things. It's hard enough comparing two players playing at the same time in the same position. It's basically impossible in this case. So, to say it's insulting is super weird.

Anyway, back on the inflated stats of the Wilt era. A classic example is Oscar's triple double season. Completely awesome, but highly overrated. Here is a comparison of his triple dub season and Westbrook's first one per 100 possessions...

Robertson 1961-62 26.7 10.8 9.9
Westbrook 2016-17 44.9 15.0 14.6

Westbrook's season dwarfs Robertson's.

Oscar's season (while still amazing), benefits from the faster pace of the 60s/70s game. Just like everyone else from that era.

Rule changes is a weird one. I mean Durant has had a rule change for him. Likewise Harden. Selwood had one in the AFL. Having a rule changed because of what a player does doesn't mean as much as you think it does. Particularly when you are talking about a game still finding it's feet like it was when Wilt played.

 

[fidstar]

Some more stuff about Wilt's rebounding...

Here are what the leading rebounders from each team for the 1965 season averaged per 36 minutes

Wilt - 18.7 rebounds per 36 minutes
Russell - 18.9
Jerry Lucas - 17.1
Walt Bellamy - 13.4
Darrall Imhoff - 13.0
Gus Johnson - 15.3
Gene Tormohlen - 14.6
Nate Thurmond - 16.0
Joe Strawder - 13.5

So, Wilt is the best of them (alongside Russell), but is only 20% or so higher than the rest of his center opponents.

Much like Dwight averages 20% or so more rebounds per game than most centers.

He was a really good rebounder in the 60s/70s. Similar to Howard. And dwarfed by peak Rodman.

 

[Knightmare]

I can't see how in this post you say MJ was better than his stats because of the slow pace, but be so upset at me saying Wilt's stats were higher because of the fast pace of the 60s/70s

You keep giving me these crazy numbers, and I've showed Wilt going for 50 points or 25 rebounds is like a 35/15 average today. It's completely awesome, but the numbers are blown out of all proportions if you just look at raw stats. Then throw in that it was an amateur league and lack of video/stats etc, then it doesn't make sense to say it's insulting not to have him number 1. Wilt/Russell (as well as guys like West) are incredibly hard to rank in these things. It's hard enough comparing two players playing at the same time in the same position. It's basically impossible in this case. So, to say it's insulting is super weird.

Anyway, back on the inflated stats of the Wilt era. A classic example is Oscar's triple double season. Completely awesome, but highly overrated. Here is a comparison of his triple dub season and Westbrook's first one per 100 possessions...

Robertson 1961-62 26.7 10.8 9.9
Westbrook 2016-17 44.9 15.0 14.6

Westbrook's season dwarfs Robertson's.

Oscar's season (while still amazing), benefits from the faster pace of the 60s/70s game. Just like everyone else from that era.

Rule changes is a weird one. I mean Durant has had a rule change for him. Likewise Harden. Selwood had one in the AFL. Having a rule changed because of what a player does doesn't mean as much as you think it does. Particularly when you are talking about a game still finding it's feet like it was when Wilt played.

Michael's stats weren't anywhere close to Wilt's.

No one today is getting 35/15. Nor are they getting Wilt's block totals. Michael if he played today could average 37 every season with, 8 rebounds, 8 assists and 2 steals but Wilt would be getting 35/15/8/5 points/rebounds/assists/blocks. I'm taking Wilt's numbers with his impact on the boards and stopping anyone from getting to the rim more valuable to winning when it's on that level.

What you continue to discount is the quality of bigs Wilt played against. The quality of bigs Wilt played against are the best bigs in the history of the NBA relative to any period, and he's playing those guys every night. They're not stretching the floor as today's big are but as scorers, rebounders and defenders they were on average superior to those from other eras. That was the golden era of big man play. Not having nights off against inept bigs as we've seen from the 80s and beyond on more teams than not with very few good teams having good bigs.

Re. Robertson v Westbrook. You can adjust numbers to per 100 possessions. But again you're not taking into account how assists weren't recorded in the 60s as they are today - you can double Robertson's assist totals to reflect that.

What was more incredible again about Robertson was his efficiency with a career average 48.5 fg% in an era where the paint was packed and there was no way to the rim - with the way the paint was packed, you can add 5% to anyone's fg% in the 60s to reflect modern play. As a guard, you're scoring from mid range mostly - or in the case of Robertson mid range and a lot from postups - and better in these situations than MJ - and doing this with the most incredible shot blockers playing then - and they're not you're modern swat it out of bounds blocker, they actually had much better technique then blocking shots from the bottom and towards teammates with Russell the master of this - using this as a weapon not only to get his side possession but to create swift offence. And scoring those points in a big man centric era and doing so with that efficiency with limited chances to get to the rim was absurd.

Robertson wasn't a ball hog/high usage player like Westbrook. He played the right way - moving the basketball and not holding it so that teammates would be involved in the offence and not standing around as modern players do when Westbrook holds the ball or plays 1v5.

Prime Oscar is on MJ's level. Not the athlete or aerial assault on the basket, but a more complete scorer who was a better passed and rebounder. He just didn't have as long of a prime - though late he did defer to Kareem - or play as many years which places him behind MJ, Kareem and LeBron who have maintained that level or close for longer.