Best all time basketball rebounder? (offense and defense)

[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

[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?

[rats60]

Originally Posted by 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?

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.

[ClementeFanOh]

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

[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]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I would take Kareem over both of them.

How dare you

[rats60]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I would take Kareem over both of them.

And miss the playoffs.

[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.

[cardsagain74]

Originally Posted by rats60

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

[bobbyw8469]

My vote is for the worm.

[ALR-bishop]

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

[howard38]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

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.