Net54baseball.com Forums - Best all time basketball rebounder? (offense and defense)

Net54baseball.com Forums (http://www.net54baseball.com/index.php)

- Watercooler Talk- ALL sports talk (http://www.net54baseball.com/forumdisplay.php?f=25)

- - Best all time basketball rebounder? (offense and defense) (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=292193)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth (Post 2042327)

I would take Kareem over both of them. :)

And miss the playoffs.

Just noticed the OP asked for personal favorites. Mine was Fat Lever who was just 6' 3" & skinny (Fat was short for Lafayette). Nevertheless he averaged eight or nine boards a game in his prime & as a good passer & scorer he was one of the top triple double guys in the league.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cardsagain74 (Post 2042333)

"You don't have to watch the video". So, what you claim to recall about this is all that matters, and a recent interview with Bill Russell himself is dismissed? You are saying that your own anecdotes carry more weight than what the man himself is now saying. I can't fathom that.

Anyway, Russell said that he'd pick himself. Explains why for about 20 seconds, then ends it with "the way I play, my team wins."

Yes, I changed the course from best rebounder to "best player", but then you also argued that in Wilt's favor, so I responded to that too.

And no one is discounting Wilt that much. Those of us in favor of Russell, Rodman or whoever (especially as the best rebounder) aren't even saying it with total conviction. We say "we think Rodman is/could've been the best rebounder" or "he's the guy I'd take", and then back it up with arguments that show that side of things. That is not an argument against Wilt's greatness or saying that he's far and away inferior, like you infer.

But look at the comments in Wilt's favor. They're mostly "it's not even close, Wilt was a beast, no one could ever compare". And saying things like the other Celtics "picked up the slack" in a Russell 18 point/19 rebound game, especially one where Wilt made just 15 of 42 field goals against him, not only shows a total lack of understanding of everything the Celts tried to do to win during those years, but are more critical of Russell than anything I've said about Wilt.

There is no point in continuing this so I'll save you the time and disappointment too: the basic stats of points and rebounds per game are not end-all answers to these debates, nor are claimed anecdotes from decades ago. Thing is, I have never been a Celtics fan, and was actually a huge Lakers fan growing up in the '80s, But when I form my opinions in these spots, I look at the whole picture, and I'm going to really give the benefit of the doubt to the guys who made their teams champions. Especially in spots where (when it comes to arguing the best rebounder) those basic stats for Wilt vs. Russell are virtually identical anyway.

Wilt never won state titles in high school or college championships either (paying for Kansas, no less). It doesn't matter when or where they played (or with or against whom). Russell almost always won when it counted the most, while Wilt struggled mightily to. Either all of Wilt's many various teammates were always that inferior for 20 years, or there was a common denominator that made the difference. Wonder which it was?

It was clearly inferior teammates. He didn't have another all american as a teammate at Kansas. He didn't win a high school state championship but did win a championship in a pro league going 36-1 while in high school, much more impressive. While Russell was dominating high school kids, Wilt was dominating grown men.

Points per game aren't impressive when he is basically tied with Michael Jordan for #1 all time? You would have a point if Wilt was a volume scorer shooting 44%. Wilt led the NBA in FG% 9 times in 14 year career, 2nd 3 times and 3rd once. I will take that guy every time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rats60 (Post 2042419)

Russell had KC Jones with him at USF, an all american and member of the college basketball HOF. You can have Russell, a career 44% shooter. He doesn't win any of those championships if he doesn't have a huge talent advantage on his teams.

Of course he wouldn't win any titles. He needed everyone else in high school. He needed KC Jones in college. He needed KC and everyone else in the pros.

It was all a matter of everyone else carrying Russell for 20 years. Not the other way around. That makes perfect sense.

Jones was a pretty awful offensive player, btw. He couldn't throw it in the ocean and was a mediocre passer. Defensively he excelled, but so did Guy Rodgers, who was also considered a far superior passer and playmaker. with Wilt and Philly.

Although point guards were such poor shooters in that era that it's hard to tell if those two were really that great on defense, or if it was just the culture for point guards to not be expected to make many perimeter shots.

And saying "I wouldn't take Russell and his 44% shooting" is like someone saying that they wouldn't take Wilt because of his free throw shooting. You don't use an elite player's only weakness in that argument. It's ridiculous

Quote:

Originally Posted by rats60 (Post 2042427)

Points per game aren't impressive when he is basically tied with Michael Jordan for #1 all time? You would have a point if Wilt was a volume scorer shooting 44%. Wilt led the NBA in FG% 9 times in 14 year career, 2nd 3 times and 3rd once. I will take that guy every time.

I did not say it's "not impressive"; I said it's not an end-all argument stat. That is entirely different.

And a few posts ago, I didn't say Wilt wasn't a productive rebounder. I said he wasn't the most productive rebounder of his era. Also, something entirely different.

Your reading comprehension is sorely lacking, and you regularly take things inaccurately out of context to try and prove your points.

To cardsagain74 "John"- you can have an opinion, you can't have your own facts:

1) Bill Russell most definitely DID say Havlicek was the best he ever played with. The only reason I made that point was that YOU switched this from a "who is the best rebounder" opinion piece, into a Wilt vs Russell debate. (And for Russell to say HE was the best ever, well...let's say that says more about him, than answers the actual question about who was "best ever". I think Mr. Russell may be a tad biased).

2) Despite the clear intent for this to be a "best rebounder" opinion piece, YOU persisted in bringing up Celtics team glory- again and again. Methinks you aren't as much of a Lakers fan as you claim to be...

3) Your command of basic English suffers when you have a dog in the fight. I didn't "infer" things or make general comments. I directly TOLD you to look at the rebounds totals/achievements and get beyond team banners. In addition to averaging 20 rpg over an entire career, Wilt set the single game rebound record (already discussed) and turned in FIVE 50 point, 40 rebound double/doubles. He owns ALL FIVE such 50/40 NBA double doubles in its history- which means your guy Bill has NONE.

4) Oh yes, before I forget- In his 14 seasons, Wilt led the league in rebounds 11 times. This means your guy Bill DIDN'T, in the 10 years their play intersected. I hope these ironclad specifics disabuse you of the notion that I am "relying on anecdotes". This has been my point all along- when you try to compare INDIVIDUAL stats head up with Wilt, you begin to realize how dominant his play was.

5) You did get one thing right, albeit sarcastically- Wilt did in fact have inferior teammates to Russell. Your insinuation that Wilt was somehow the problem on his teams is laughable enough that it is almost -almost- not worth addressing. It shows a clear lack of understanding on your part about why so many of his teams even got to the finals, that most people who have ever watched the sport know is abjectly foolish. Wilt was THE reason his teams got that far- period. Paragraph. And he still was on two NBA championship teams, for Heaven's sake!! As Rats60 correctly pointed out, Russell was very, very fortunate to be encircled with HOF teammates his entire career. That's great for him and fans of the Celtics (which you are, by the way). I think guys like you are just peeved that Russell dedicated his entire game to one side of the ball, and a guy like Wilt could match him there AT MINIMUM, and still blow him away offensively.

In conclusion, if you keep blowing the horn about the Celtic's TEAM titles, I can sure as heck tout Wilt's rebounds achievements as they DIRECTLY relate to the subject matter. Funny thing is, I don't dislike Russell- irrational fan boys, however, are another matter

Quote:

Originally Posted by howard38 (Post 2042421)

Never realized he was such an exceptional rebounder for a small guard. Great defensive player too.

Calvin Natt and (especially) Alex English got the press for those really good Nuggets teams of the mid 80s, but they never would've been contenders without everything Fat did

Quote:

Originally Posted by ClementeFanOh (Post 2042431)

I can tout Russell without being a Celtics fan. You don't have the first clue about who I am, and are hysterically hypocritical about calling someone else a fanboy. And now you're turning this into personal character attacks.

I will not address you again.

John cardsagain74- then I will do the addressing. If you think "fanboy" is a personal character attack, you've got bigger problems than a rebounding debate...
I stayed on topic, you drifted off topic. I caught you and called you on it, so you kept moving the goalposts. Russell won a bunch of NBA titles, Wilt was the better player by a landslide of metrics- including rebounds.

My vote is for the worm.

Just saw a stat for average rebounds per game. Chamberlain and Russel were 1 and 2 with 22.89 and 22.45. Surprisingly # 3 was Bob Pettit at 16.22

Quote:

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop (Post 2053873)

Just saw a stat for average rebounds per game. Chamberlain and Russel were 1 and 2 with 22.89 and 22.45. Surprisingly # 3 was Bob Pettit at 16.22

Maurice Stokes averaged more but played only three seasons.