William Russell vs Wilton Chamberlain

If I was picking anybody who ever played to build a franchise around it would be Wilt. I don't think that's taking away from anything Russell or Jordan or anyone else achieved, but I don't see how you rank the greatest <i>player</i> strictly on what their <i>teams</i> did. No matter how great a player is, the other nine guys on the court and coaches on the sideline have a lot to do with who wins. Maybe the fact that Chamberlain didn't win as many titles means ranking the greatest players isn't worth the debate.

I do find Chamberlain to be one of the most fascinating people in American history. I honestly don't think he had the drive that players like Russell and Jordan had because the game just came too damn easy for him. It's why he amused himself with his own little games within the game, like scoring 100 points or deciding he was going to lead the league in assists.

 

Jesus Christ, you're really stretching things now.

 

a2 + b2 = Double Quarter Pounder with Fries

 

No onions, please.

 

That's a good hypothesis to be tested.

2009-2010 playoff teams with +/- 5 difference or greater between pythagorean wins and actual wins:

Dallas Mavericks, 55 real wins, 49 pyth wins. lost to San Antonio Spurs (50/50)
Chicago Bulls, 41 real wins, 36 pyth wins. lost to Cleveland (61/59)

2008-2009
No teams

2007-2008
Utah Jazz, 54 real wins, 59 pyth wins. def. Houston (55/55) and lose to Lakers (57/59)
Toronto Raptors, 41 real wins, 49 pyth wins lost to Orlando (52/56)
Cleveland Cavaliers, 45 real wins, 40 pyth wins, def. Washington (43/40), lost to Boston (66/67)

2006-2007
San Antonio Spurs 58 real wins, 64 pyth wins, def. Denver (45/45), Phoenix (61/59), Utah (51/49) and Cleveland (50/52)
Dallas Mavericks 67 real wins, 61 pyth wins, lost to Golden State (40/40)
Chicago Bulls 49 real wins, 55 pyth wins, def. Miami (44/38), lost to (53/53)

So since 2006-07, there have been three series with a team with a major differential in Pyth Wins facing a series where they have more Pyth wins but fewer actual wins than their opponents. The team with the superior Pyth wins are 3-0, and also take note that Pyth wins also made some other interesting predictions that came true (06-07 Dallas not as good as their record, 06-07 Bulls vs. Miami was a major mismatch in Chicago's favor).

Going back more years would be more conclusive, but that's a start and it's suggestive of the predictive powers of using Pythagorean Wins.

 

Does that sort of nonsense go on in any other sport? At least, anywhere close to this degree?

You might need a ring to get into the discussion of best-ever QBs or best-ever first basemen, but does the number of rings ever get toted up as pedantically as it does in basketball? As if one star player can make up for his teammates or his coaches or his general managers. Wilt won two championships, which covers him for that "team success" category. Turn to all the other categories after that, and it's a rout. I have a hunch Russell would agree.

 

Bill Bradley said it best in his book: Wilt Chamberlain was the most outstanding individual player in the history of basketball -- a team sport. Russell was the best team player.

 

Wilt HIMSELF said a few years before his death that if their positions had been reversed he would only have won four or five titles with the Celtics rather than Russell's 11 because it took him longer to figure out the team elements of what he was doing.
I mean come on. The guy we're arguing about acknowledged his rival was a better player. Once again I remind you, Wilt never had a bigger fan than yours truly. But history is about what happened, not looking at agate.

 

Wilt Chamberlain was not an expert on what makes a basketball player valuable to this team. And he had a vested interest in being diplomatic.

 

C'mon, when was the man of 20,000 women ever known for modesty and self-deprecation? Umm, never. Wilt might've been a great guy, but he was always known for his boastfulness, never diplomacy.

Wilt admitting that the Celtics would have far fewer rings if the roles had been reversed is quite telling, as it was very much against his character to make a concession like that.

 

Frankly, Russell got a little lucky, too.

On the play before "Havlicek stole the ball!!!", Russell turned the ball over, setting himself up as the possible goat.

Don Nelson's shot off the back of the rim in 1969 doesn't go in 98% of the time.

And Russell never had the likes of Neil Johnston or Butch van Breda Kolff as his coach.

 

Give me Wilt. After all, he was a Jayhawk.