Wilt played with some great teams and didn't win jack shit trying to be the go to guy. That includes Russell's final season, when he was on close to his last legs, but beat the heavily favored Lakers who had Wilt, Jerry West and Elgin Baylor in 1969. WIlt won two rings in his career, both as a complimentary player playing a role closer to what Russell played on the Celtics as opposed to just piling up stats.xer0 wrote: ↑Fri Feb 16, 2024 12:07 pm I'll take Wilt anyday, anytime over Russell and I have a far better chance of winning since his offensive gap over Russell and anyone else was far, far bigger than any marginal defensive impact russell had. He simply didnt have the level of ability wilt had. That argument you're making sounds Alot like LeBron.
If you put wilt on those Celtic teams over Russell, they win the title every year.
Russell's defensive impact is beyond legendary. In his 13 seasons with the Celtics, they had the top defensive rating in the NBA 12 times, and were second the other time. No player in NBA history has remotely come close to having that level of influence defensively. They were brutal defensively before he got there, and immediately after he left. Those are cold hard facts.
Funny that you say that if the Celts had Wilt, they would have won every year. Well, the Celtics won 11 titles in Russell's 13 seasons, and one of the one's they didn't win was the year Russell got hurt in the finals, missed a game and was largely ineffective compared to his normal self. The other, was his first season as player/coach, which makes some sense too if you think that through. Meanwhile, Wilt has excuses and no rings when he tried to be central figure. He won his two rings imitating Russell's game.
Wilt played for a great Kansas college team and couldn't win a title. Russell played for USF, a program that was absolutely nothing before he got there and won two NCAA titles. Wilt again had beautiful stats at Kansas but no rings. Russell always got the hardware.
