Best all time basketball rebounder? (offense and defense)

[Chuck9788]

Tell me who was the best? Who was your personal favorite?

[stlcardsfan]

Moses Malone and Bill Walton in the 70s and 80s.

Dennis Rodman late 80s and 90s.

[D. Bergin]

Old School - Wilt Chamberlain, with Bill Russell nipping at his heels. Not sure how the Offensive/Defensive breakdown between those two were, as the stats aren't really there to corroborate.

70's to early 80's. - Moses Malone owned the offensive boards season after season. Not really any competition in that area. Defensive boards, which I don't think are quite as important, as they can be divied up easier among team-mates, especially if you have bigger or more aggressive guard play, is a bit trickier.

I'll leave that answer to somebody else, and just give Moses the title for that era.

Post Moses era - Rodman, most complete on both ends, with his offensive board skills and positioning, giving the biggest advantage to his teams.

Modern Day - I don't know. Could probably get a dozen different answers for this question. Andre Drummond? DeAndre Jordan? Dikembe Mutombo? Shaq (though he never actually led the league in rebounding)? Game has evolved. Ball gets spread around the floor more, the bigger men have been moved out of the box, and guards swarm the ball off the rim to try and get it up the floor quicker.

[TUM301]

Two players that got every inch out of their rebounding talents, "Tall Paul" Silas and one Wes Unseld. Not nearly the biggest or the best but man did they know the art of rebounding and turned it into long outstanding careers !

[JustinD]

In my opinion the best offense, defense, or two way is Rodman...all time. Weird or not, no one ever fought harder for every ball, he would sacrifice his body unquestionably every game.

[cardsagain74]

Originally Posted by JustinD

In my opinion the best offense, defense, or two way is Rodman...all time. Weird or not, no one ever fought harder for every ball, he would sacrifice his body unquestionably every game.

And as a 6'7 guy with a somewhat lean natural frame. His career as a rebounder shouldn't have even been physically possible. Not to mention how his passing (and the rest of his impact on the court) made teams so much better than they were without him.

Not only the most skilled rebounder in the history of the game, but also one of its greatest winners and champions.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Wes Unseld and the shortest big man of all time Charles Barkley.

[Shoeless Moe]

Dennis

[nolemmings]

Unseld

[LibSuperstar]

Once read that in practice Rodman would watch the ball on the rim to see how it spun off to see what angle to catch it at.

[rats60]

For raw numbers, Wilt Chamberlain. One of Wilt's keys to success was his conditioning. He would be able to stay on the court and play at a high level while his competitors would tire out. That enabled him to put up huge numbers.

For skill level it is Jerry Lucas. Moses Malone and Dennis Rodman rebounded by desire and hustle. Jerry Lucas rebounded by his mind. He studied rebounding like no other player. He knew where the ball was going to bounce if it missed and positioned himself for the rebound. He studied different player's shots. Lucas is 4th all time in rebounds per game and one of two players to average 20 ppg and 20 rpg in a season.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by cardsagain74

And as a 6'7 guy with a somewhat lean natural frame. His career as a rebounder shouldn't have even been physically possible. Not to mention how his passing (and the rest of his impact on the court) made teams so much better than they were without him.

Not only the most skilled rebounder in the history of the game, but also one of its greatest winners and champions.

His near-psychopathic personality and behavior certainly detracted from the public's perception of him, but for a guy who didn't score a lot he was a force.

[icurnmedic]

Never cared for him but Rodman was a game changer,period!

[Exhibitman]

A classic example of how familiarity causes over-assessment of a player's impact. Wilt averaged 22.89 boards per game. Rodman averaged 13.12 boards per game. Not even in the same class. Hell, when Wilt was 36 and on his last legs he averaged 18.6 per game and led the league. Andre Drummond has a better career average than Rodman, as do Walt Bellamy and Dave Cowens. The only advantage Rodman has is that we all saw him on tv during the Bulls' run, where he fit in perfectly and made his name. The only guy close to Wilt is Bill Russell.

We need some images:



1961 photo of Chamberlain against the Celtics.



1960 Chamberlain team issue; with that kind of leaping, not a lot else matters...

[icurnmedic]

Maybe. But this is akin to the argument that players from 30,40,50 years ago couldn’t play in the M L B today. Times were different. Wilt is in the conversation of best of all time. Also what,7 feet or so? At 6’7 Rodman was a better rebounder! That doesn’t mean he had more. Maybe the tv comment is correct.

[Exhibitman]

If we were talking 10% differential, maybe, but nearly twice the boards including play in the early 1970s with the likes of Kareem and Thurmond and Unseld and Lanier and Cowens to battle? The argument doesn't hold water.

[cardsagain74]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

A classic example of how familiarity causes over-assessment of a player's impact. Wilt averaged 22.89 boards per game. Rodman averaged 13.12 boards per game. Not even in the same class. Hell, when Wilt was 36 and on his last legs he averaged 18.6 per game and led the league. Andre Drummond has a better career average than Rodman, as do Walt Bellamy and Dave Cowens. The only advantage Rodman has is that we all saw him on tv during the Bulls' run, where he fit in perfectly and made his name. The only guy close to Wilt is Bill Russell.

This shows a complete misunderstanding of Rodman's career. He had "made his name" well before he played for the Bulls, and he was a dominant rebounder everywhere he played (regardless of how well he fit in).

Rodman was only a full-time starter from '90 to '98, thanks to entering the league at age 25 (and how stacked the Pistons were his first few years). He then led the league in rebounds/game for seven straight seasons. For every one of those full-time years except his first one.

And when you look at rebounds per minute, the gap closes a lot between Rodman and Chamberlain (and almost entirely with Drummond). And that's despite Rodman having to defend further out on the perimeter more than those guys.

Considering that Chamberlain and Drummond were 4-6 inches taller and outweighed him by almost 100 pounds, it's quite easy to make an argument that Rodman was the better pure rebounder

[PowderedH2O]

This doesn't really answer the question of "all-time", but one of the greatest I ever saw (although his career wasn't very long, for various reasons, including suspension) was Kermit Washington in the late 1970's. I used to play a game called Statis Pro Basketball. Kermit pretty much grabbed everything at power forward. Obviously he never put up the gaudy numbers of Malone, Wilt, etc, but he grabbed a boat load of boards when he was in the game.

[howard38]

Originally Posted by cardsagain74

This shows a complete misunderstanding of Rodman's career. He had "made his name" well before he played for the Bulls, and he was a dominant rebounder everywhere he played (regardless of how well he fit in).

Rodman was only a full-time starter from '90 to '98, thanks to entering the league at age 25 (and how stacked the Pistons were his first few years). He then led the league in rebounds/game for seven straight seasons. For every one of those full-time years except his first one.

And when you look at rebounds per minute, the gap closes a lot between Rodman and Chamberlain (and almost entirely with Drummond). And that's despite Rodman having to defend further out on the perimeter more than those guys.

Considering that Chamberlain and Drummond were 4-6 inches taller and outweighed him by almost 100 pounds, it's quite easy to make an argument that Rodman was the better pure rebounder

In addition to that there were significantly more rebounds available when Wilt played. That is to say a lot more shots ( therefore misses) were taken 50-60 years ago than when Rodman played.

[jiw98]

If my math is correct, looking at the careers of Chamberlain vs. Rodman.
Chamberlain collected 40.3% of the available rebounds per game.
Rodman collected 29.9% of the available rebounds per game.
Yes there were more rebounds available when Wilt played, but he also dominated the boards.
I'll go with Wilt all the way as the better rebounder.

[cardsagain74]

Originally Posted by jiw98

If my math is correct, looking at the careers of Chamberlain vs. Rodman.
Chamberlain collected 40.3% of the available rebounds per game.
Rodman collected 29.9% of the available rebounds per game.
Yes there were more rebounds available when Wilt played, but he also dominated the boards.
I'll go with Wilt all the way as the better rebounder.

That's because Rodman played 31.7 minutes per game for his career, and Wilt played 45.8 minutes/ game.

So Rodman collected a higher % of available rebounds than Wilt (per minute on the floor)

[jiw98]

Chamberlain had .49 rebounds per minute played
Rodman had .41 rebounds per minute played
Chamberlain still leads if my math is correct, so I'm still staying with Chamberlain.

[clydepepper]

For Offensive Rebounds...Moses Malone, Adrian Dantley and Bernard King

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by jiw98

Chamberlain had .49 rebounds per minute played
Rodman had .41 rebounds per minute played
Chamberlain still leads if my math is correct, so I'm still staying with Chamberlain.

You have to combine the two statistics to get percentage of possible rebound per minute played which Rodman is well-ahead in.

Also there's a difference between a center in the 1960's and a power forward in the 1990's and where they are guarding their opponent. Wilt was almost always right under the rim, Rodman could be nearly anywhere on the floor. So by nature of his position and era (a center today is much less likely to just be parked under the basket) Chamberlain had an advantage.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by clydepepper

For Offensive Rebounds...Moses Malone, Adrian Dantley and Bernard King

Moses was INSANE on the O-boards

[ClementeFanOh]

My list:


#1- Wilt
#2- Wilt
#3- Wilt

Wilt could (and did) carry entire teams on his back, season after season. His rebounding numbers weren't just because he was tall either (Manute Bol and Shawn Bradley, anyone?) We are all offering opinions of course. Mine is that every other guy on this list- including some wonderful players I like- are playing for 2nd best.
Trent King

[ALR-bishop]

Chamberlain averaged over 48 minutes a game in the 61/62 season. Maybe we should adjust his figures for hogging so much time on the court.

Was fortunate to see him play in person when the Hawks were still in St Louis

[ClementeFanOh]

Al- I wasn't aware that Wilt was player-coach that year, making decisions to keep himself on the court so he could "hog" stats. Geez.

Trent King

[ALR-bishop]

I guess a smiley face was required....Geez Louise

[rats60]

Originally Posted by cardsagain74

And when you look at rebounds per minute, the gap closes a lot between Rodman and Chamberlain (and almost entirely with Drummond). And that's despite Rodman having to defend further out on the perimeter more than those guys.

This is irrelevant. That Rodman wasn't in good enough condition to play more minutes shouldn't be used to discredit others. Then there are all the time he got technicals or kicked out of games. He was a very undisciplined player. Also, Rodman used very little energy on the offensive end other than rebounding. I will take a Jerry Lucas who could average both 20ppg and 20rpg.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by ClementeFanOh

Al- I wasn't aware that Wilt was player-coach that year, making decisions to keep himself on the court so he could "hog" stats. Geez.

Trent King

He took 39.5 shots per game. He was really hogging the ball. He also only finished second in the league in field goal percentage because he took all of those shots.

[howard38]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

A classic example of how familiarity causes over-assessment of a player's impact. Wilt averaged 22.89 boards per game. Rodman averaged 13.12 boards per game. Not even in the same class. Hell, when Wilt was 36 and on his last legs he averaged 18.6 per game and led the league. Andre Drummond has a better career average than Rodman, as do Walt Bellamy and Dave Cowens. The only advantage Rodman has is that we all saw him on tv during the Bulls' run, where he fit in perfectly and made his name. The only guy close to Wilt is Bill Russell.

We need some images:



1961 photo of Chamberlain against the Celtics.



1960 Chamberlain team issue; with that kind of leaping, not a lot else matters...

Rodman also led the league in rebounds in his age 36 season. And he was even more on his last legs than Chamberlain having missed significant time to injuries over each of the previous five seasons.

[howard38]

Originally Posted by jiw98

If my math is correct, looking at the careers of Chamberlain vs. Rodman.
Chamberlain collected 40.3% of the available rebounds per game.
Rodman collected 29.9% of the available rebounds per game.
Yes there were more rebounds available when Wilt played, but he also dominated the boards.
I'll go with Wilt all the way as the better rebounder.

Basketball-reference.com has a stat called total rebound % which I assume is something akin to what you calculated. They have Rodman at only 23.4% but only have data on Wilt's last three seasons when he was 34-36 years old. Rodman beats him by a lot in his 34-36 years, something like 25% to 19%. Both figures seem low to me but I don't know how they came up with the numbers. I'm quite sure that Chamberlain's % was higher than Rodman's earlier in his career & likely over their entire careers, however. FWIW, I think Chamberlain was the best rebounder but Rodman is definitely in the mix.

[cardsagain74]

Originally Posted by rats60

This is irrelevant. That Rodman wasn't in good enough condition to play more minutes shouldn't be used to discredit others. Then there are all the time he got technicals or kicked out of games. He was a very undisciplined player. Also, Rodman used very little energy on the offensive end other than rebounding. I will take a Jerry Lucas who could average both 20ppg and 20rpg.

It had nothing to do with Rodman's condition. The culture of the game was entirely different back then. All of the star players logged a lot more minutes than they did during the late '80s and '90s.

And you obviously never saw Rodman play. He was a good enough passer that some offense was run through him, especially with the Bulls' triangle. And then whenever a shot went up, he was all over the place trying to tap any miss back out. All of that needed plenty of energy on the offensive end.

[cardsagain74]

Also, for all the Chamberlain advocates, he wasn't even the most productive rebounder of his own era. Bill Russell averaged 19.1 rebounds per 36 minutes. Wilt averaged 18.0 per 36.

And Russell was just like Rodman on defense. All over the floor at all times helping out on D.

When it comes to hitting the boards, those are the two guys I would take over anyone (despite how amazing Jerry Lucas and the others mentioned were)

[ClementeFanOh]

John- we have agreed in the past, but I can't this time. This thread has taken an "anti Wilt" turn (ironically, just how it was when he played- "Nobody roots for Goliath"). Since Wilt didn't play 36 minutes- he played entire games and didn't foul out, ever- I like the entire game approach. Even Bill Russell couldn't stop Wilt, and said as much. The 55 boards in one game is an insane stat, and it was against the Celtics! (Wilt had 34 points and 55 boards, Russell 19 boards and 18 points, and naturally Boston won Wilt was a consistent stat machine year in, year out- he's your #1 pick if fantasy basketball existed in the 60s. The raw numbers are overwhelming. Doesn't mean the other guys weren't great. They were- Wilt was just a beast. If someone wants to bang on his stats, try the one where his career field goal percentage was higher than his career free throw percentage Trent King

[ALR-bishop]

Am also a Russell fan and got to see him play in St. Louis against the Hawks as well. The Hawks actually drafted Russell and traded him to Boston for Hagan and Macauley

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

Am also a Russell fan and got to see him play in St. Louis against the Hawks as well. The Hawks actually drafted Russell and traded him to Boston for Hagan and Macauley

The Celtics also got Heinsohn and KC Jones in the same draft.

[cardsagain74]

Originally Posted by ClementeFanOh

John- we have agreed in the past, but I can't this time. This thread has taken an "anti Wilt" turn (ironically, just how it was when he played- "Nobody roots for Goliath"). Since Wilt didn't play 36 minutes- he played entire games and didn't foul out, ever- I like the entire game approach. Even Bill Russell couldn't stop Wilt, and said as much. The 55 boards in one game is an insane stat, and it was against the Celtics! (Wilt had 34 points and 55 boards, Russell 19 boards and 18 points, and naturally Boston won Wilt was a consistent stat machine year in, year out- he's your #1 pick if fantasy basketball existed in the 60s. The raw numbers are overwhelming. Doesn't mean the other guys weren't great. They were- Wilt was just a beast. If someone wants to bang on his stats, try the one where his career field goal percentage was higher than his career free throw percentage Trent King

If you go just by the basic per game numbers, Wilt averaged 22.9 rebounds for his career and Russell 22.5. Far from the individual domination of everyone that his mythical reputation has. And in the game you quoted, Wilt shot just 15 for 42 from the floor against him. So not only did Russell do a great job against him defensively, but that would've created a lot more chances for offensive rebounds than the typical Wilt game

So even in a game when Wilt's gaudy numbers set a record, Russell still really D'ed him up and found a way to win that day. Which he did better than anyone in the history of sports.

[ClementeFanOh]

John- you crossed over into "total player" conversation, and Wilt wins that one hands down. In the 55 rebound game, it wasn't Bill Russell who found a way to win, it was the Celtics. That's the rub- Wilt was often a one man team, Russell was lucky to have multiple HOFers helping him out. (And when one player nearly outrebounds an entire TEAM- it was Wilt 55, Celts 59- it cannot be claimed with a straight face that Russell "d'ed him up". Wilt had almost double Russell's points and almost triple his boards). Wilt gutted Russell like a fish that game, the rest of the Celtics made up the slack and they won. This was acceptable to Russell and the Celts, but there is zero question who the best player was on the court. Again, Bill Russell was a wonderful player, but even by his own admission wasn't on the same planet as Wilt.

[ClementeFanOh]

John- almost forgot, Wilt doesn't have a "mythical" reputation. The sheer numbers, the opponent anecdotes, all real. If you haven't read the book "Wilt, 1962" by Gary Pomerantz, it's worth it (unless you just can't stand Wilt as a fan of Russell and the Celts). There's a fascinating story Walt Bellamy tells about Wilt showing him who was boss on the court, that is worth the read. Yet another HOFer who placidly recited how dominant Wilt was- a long list, by the way.

[cardsagain74]

Trent, Wilt made 15 out of 42 shots in that game. I can't understand how you can't see what a good defensive job that is against him. Of course Wilt is going to score at least 34 if he gets that many shots. Many NBA players could if they were asked to score on virtually every possession.

In addition to the 11 rings with the Celts, Russell won two more in high school and two more in college, during the only four years he was a star on those teams. He won everywhere, all the time, regardless of who played with him or against him, except for one year he got hurt in the playoffs (early in their series against St. Louis) and another when everything finally came together for Wilt and Philly for a single season ('66-'67) from beginning to end. Which is what it took to finally beat him.

So from his teen years until he retired, he was the star of his team for 17 seasons. 15 championships, one injury, and just a single season that his opponent bested him on the floor.

Yes, I'll take that guy over anyone. And I don't know what Russell may have said back when he was playing, but there's a recent interview on youtube with him, where he's asked: "if you had to pick one player (as the best), who is it?"

Watch the last 30 seconds below for that (and Russell's answer):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46RutBTe-as&t=1s

[ClementeFanOh]

John- I don't have to watch the video, I recall Russell saying Havlicek was the best he played with. I'm an OSU fan, so I'm happy with that choice...
Again, original topic was best rebounder...rebounder. Not the player who was the best on a loaded team. Wilt could outrebound Russell every day of the week and twice on Sunday, and still people would fault him- like you are doing right now. Russell's winning legacy is impressive- as was the legacy of all the players on that era's Celts squad, including their coach. Their winning ways continued after Russell retired- though not with such high frequency. Wilt won "only" 2 titles- sarcasm there- mostly because he got teams to the championship round essentially by himself. Here's a fascinating exercise: transpose Wilt and Russell, and honestly evaluate if Russell could have dragged even one of those teams to the finals (and bear in mind that people will STILL say "Wilt lost the finals" instead of 'Wilt's team...")
Anecdotally, I have noticed that many Wilt fans are more than happy to compliment/acknowledge the greatness of those Boston teams, but the Russell defenders are often very grudging of acknowledging Chamberlain (sound familiar?) Even professional awards were awarded in a way that, frankly, defied reality. I believe that Russell won MVP for 61/62 at 19 ppg and 24 rpg, compared to Wilt at FIFTY ppg/27 rpg. Ironically, it's been Russell himself who's been the most lucid and realistic about their relative skills. Finally, if you are moved to research their individual stats head to head while they played vs one another in NBA, I'll save you time and disappointment- Wilt wins, and it's clear. It's only when you examine team stats that the Russell/Celts camp wins out- and I believe that tally was 88-74 Celts. In short, Wilt>Russell head to head, Celts>Wilt's teams.

[ALR-bishop]

Plus Wit played all those minutes and grabbed all those rebounds while apparently dealing with some 20,000 distractions along the way. Bet none of these other guys come close to that

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by ClementeFanOh

John- I don't have to watch the video, I recall Russell saying Havlicek was the best he played with. I'm an OSU fan, so I'm happy with that choice...
Again, original topic was best rebounder...rebounder. Not the player who was the best on a loaded team. Wilt could outrebound Russell every day of the week and twice on Sunday, and still people would fault him- like you are doing right now. Russell's winning legacy is impressive- as was the legacy of all the players on that era's Celts squad, including their coach. Their winning ways continued after Russell retired- though not with such high frequency. Wilt won "only" 2 titles- sarcasm there- mostly because he got teams to the championship round essentially by himself. Here's a fascinating exercise: transpose Wilt and Russell, and honestly evaluate if Russell could have dragged even one of those teams to the finals (and bear in mind that people will STILL say "Wilt lost the finals" instead of 'Wilt's team...")
Anecdotally, I have noticed that many Wilt fans are more than happy to compliment/acknowledge the greatness of those Boston teams, but the Russell defenders are often very grudging of acknowledging Chamberlain (sound familiar?) Even professional awards were awarded in a way that, frankly, defied reality. I believe that Russell won MVP for 61/62 at 19 ppg and 24 rpg, compared to Wilt at FIFTY ppg/27 rpg. Ironically, it's been Russell himself who's been the most lucid and realistic about their relative skills. Finally, if you are moved to research their individual stats head to head while they played vs one another in NBA, I'll save you time and disappointment- Wilt wins, and it's clear. It's only when you examine team stats that the Russell/Celts camp wins out- and I believe that tally was 88-74 Celts. In short, Wilt>Russell head to head, Celts>Wilt's teams.

I would take Kareem over both of them.

[cardsagain74]

"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?

[cardsagain74]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I would take Kareem over both of them.

How dare you

[rats60]

Originally Posted by cardsagain74

And you obviously never saw Rodman play. He was a good enough passer that some offense was run through him, especially with the Bulls' triangle. And then whenever a shot went up, he was all over the place trying to tap any miss back out. All of that needed plenty of energy on the offensive end.

I lived in Illinois during Rodman's years with the Bulls. Almost every game was on TV and I watched them. I was a huge Michael Jordan fan.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by cardsagain74

Also, for all the Chamberlain advocates, he wasn't even the most productive rebounder of his own era. Bill Russell averaged 19.1 rebounds per 36 minutes. Wilt averaged 18.0 per 36.

I thought everyone in the 60s played all of the time. I guess Russell wasn't in very good shape either. If Wilt wasn't a productive rebounder, how come Russell let Wilt get 55 rebounds in a game against the Celtics?

[rats60]

Originally Posted by cardsagain74

Trent, Wilt made 15 out of 42 shots in that game. I can't understand how you can't see what a good defensive job that is against him. Of course Wilt is going to score at least 34 if he gets that many shots. Many NBA players could if they were asked to score on virtually every possession.

In addition to the 11 rings with the Celts, Russell won two more in high school and two more in college, during the only four years he was a star on those teams. He won everywhere, all the time, regardless of who played with him or against him, except for one year he got hurt in the playoffs (early in their series against St. Louis) and another when everything finally came together for Wilt and Philly for a single season ('66-'67) from beginning to end. Which is what it took to finally beat him.

So from his teen years until he retired, he was the star of his team for 17 seasons. 15 championships, one injury, and just a single season that his opponent bested him on the floor.

Yes, I'll take that guy over anyone. And I don't know what Russell may have said back when he was playing, but there's a recent interview on youtube with him, where he's asked: "if you had to pick one player (as the best), who is it?"

Watch the last 30 seconds below for that (and Russell's answer):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46RutBTe-as&t=1s

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.