Greatest Player

[GloveGuy]

I've only heard of Wilt being a great shot-blocker, though it's not actually recorded.

You can say what you want about the weak era that Wilt played in, but look at where Jordan played in during his reign. He was past the great Boston Celtics and Los Angeles Lakers. I'm not trying to take away anything from Jordan, but he never actually beat the great teams of the eighties.

Regarding the differences in rules, you can thank Wilt for that. Rules were put in to limit him from being so dominant while Jordan received ridiculous treatment from the refs.

Wilt played against, in my mind, the second greatest center, greatest defensive center, and greatest winner of all time. Looking that their head-to-head matchups, Chamberlain destroyed Russell. While the Celtics would win the games due to their roster of HOFs, Chamberlain's individual statistics were unreal.

I still can't believe you'd choose Shaq over Wilt. Wilt was everything Shaq was plus world-class athleticism. Shaq is not the most dominant player and the statistics show.

And please don't dispespect Wilt's competition -- Bill Russell, Willis Reed, Walt Bellamy, Nate Thurmond, and Wes Unseld. These guys are Hall Of Famers. Shaq's competition doesn't come close.

Let me just make one thing clear: I believe that Michael Jordan is the greatest basketball player of all time. But I refuse to state that as a fact.

[Chris_23]

"I've only heard of Wilt being a great shot-blocker, though it's not actually recorded. "

No not great but good, he had the height that was not regular at the time he started. But he was nowhere near Bill Russell in defense and leadership. And leadership is the main thing what can actually be compared between players on totally different playing positions.

Jordan was not past great Celtics or Lakers eras. It was a different era, every era changes. Wilt had his era with his teams. There was a time when there was no such thing as actual salary cap (which arrived in the league in the same year as Michael). It was a constant factor in Michaels era and he built a team within those limits making the team better than it would have been.

Remember that Rodman became a different team only once during his career and that was with the Bulls where Jordan along with Scottie constantly held him back. Rodman did some wonderful things no one expected.

Also Luc Longley, the forgotten center played his best games with the Bulls as a piece of the game that worked like a clock. Its already a long known fact that Scottie Pippen directly learnt from Michael in the earlier years and then became a star of his own also as a part of the "bigger picture".

These are things Wilt never did, he never really made team around him better, he was not a "leader" like Michael, Larry, Magic and Bill were.

Also I never said Russell was better than Chamberlain. Russell was a better leader, who made the team around him better just like Michael did. Russell was a greater defender but against Wilt he was just 6'9.

You cant forget the fact that Wilt Chamberlain just won two titles. Coaches asked him to shoot less in games because the team did not win well enough. Alex Hannum was the one who told him to pass more and actually play the part in the team.

Yet again you bring in the stats when I mentioned Shaq. Different era, you cant compare Shaqs stats to Wilts. We will never know who would have been more of a success had they played more together, but again Shaq is mentally more of a leader and has great court vision. Something that lacked in Wilts play. I do consider Shaq as the most dominant player ever on the court.

And no I am not disrespecting Wilts competition. Willis Reed is just like Russell, a great leader. You are right of course that Shaqs competition today isnt as strong as Wilts. Still, Hakeem Olajuwon up to 99, Tim Duncan (guy has more hall-of-fame statistical points than any other currently playing player, being in his eight season) and David Robinson, Ewing up to 98, defensive horse Dikembe Mutombo. Currently Yao Ming, Ben Wallace... This is not an easy line of people to go up against. Also, as you can see in Heat currently, O'Neal is a team player, filling the role, being the leader of the team and being what Wade needs to become a great player.

but yes, its "fuzzy" comparing Shaq to Wilt.

As far as at athleticism goes, its a known fact that today there are more athletic players in the league than there were fifteen years ago, twenty. And more. We are having younger and younger players entering league, guys who can do amazing things, having major endurance (considering the pace of game nowadays). At that time, athleticism was not very common thng and this was one of the things Wilt was really good in. But just like Michael, who was another great athlete.

All in all, this being a good discussion and such, Ill stand by the opinion that Michael is the greatest ever to play the game. Ill also not state this as a fact, since fact-as-such is a fragile thing anyway.

Whats important though is that Wilt Chamberlain and Michael Jordan are two of the players who have had the greatest impact on the National Basketball League ever. This can be stated as a fact.

It was a good discussion (and Im sure Ill participate in those in the future as well), but this is all from me in this thread

[Dogg]

Kristo, mine magama, kell on juba liiga palju ja sina jahud siin "kõige" paremast

[Sauru]

i just gotta throw my opinion in here. saying that shaq is better than wilt cause wilt played in a weaker era(says you btw) is stupid. wtf does shaq have to play now? ben wallace can guard shaq. wilt would make wallace his bitch. the guy was one of the best athletes to ever play the sport. just think about that for a second as the guy was over 7 feet tall. you say he had no comp? the man had to bang heads with russel, who is easily the best defender to ever play this game. also they had less teams back then which meant less easy games. also meant he played Bill more often. in todays nba a good 20 or so games are easy wins.

also you say wilt was only a good shot blocker? what makes you think that? blocking a shot is only good if it against someone you know? let me throw this little bit of info at you. wilt, and russel for that matter, didnt block the shot into the crowd. they would tap the ball and catch it. that means sooooooooooooo much more than what these players do nowadays and imo proves that those 2 were far better shot blockers than anything we got now. wilt had to play in the time of the legendary celtics and you honestly say he had no comp? this has to be the dumbest shit i have ever heard.

gloveguy has a great point. jordan won in the 90's. he didnt have to play in the toughest era the nba has ever offered. i am not taking away what the man has done, and i do personally think he is the greatest ever, but putting wilt down for playing back then is stupid. another great point by gloveguy. the nba made rules to prevent wilt from doing his thing. when jordan played the refs basicly let mike do whatever he wanted.

[fgrep15]

Their is no "hands down" GOAT, I don't like when people say that, their's no such things as the hands down GOAT. Jordan is the majority pick as the GOAT, so yes, he will get the prize, but to say it's hands down like he's heads over heels above them is dumb.

The margin between all the great players is minimal IMO.

[The GOAT]

Please, I think everyone can agree that I am Teh G.O.A.T. hands down

[COOLmac©]

to TEH GOAT

[Andrew]

Wilt in his prime was listed at 7'1" 275 lbs. For the last few years, Shaq has outweighed him by about 50 pounds. In terms of size, Shaq certainly has the upper hand. But it's more than Shaq vs Wilt. Had Wilt come along in the 80s, he would have faced centres that not could have matched up to him in terms of size, but in terms of skill. It's not as though there weren't big guys back in Wilt's era, but in the words of Bill Russell, "(Wilt) was bigger, stronger than anyone (he'd) ever seen". In the last 20 years, there have been players that could have challenged him in size and ability much more frequently.

Wilt spoke of the difficulty he had with Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, noting him as "the first guy (he) felt he needed help guarding". Would Wilt have been so successful with up to at least four matchups with Kareem per year? The 1971 Finals would suggest Kareem wouldn't be a pushover for the Big Dipper.

Now, throw in some other players. Moses Malone. Often forgotten and underrated, big Moses would surely be able to stand up to Wilt. Robert Parish is another Hall of Famer who was no stranger to guarding some of the game's best pivotmen in big games. Patrick Ewing with his fine offensive game and the tough defense John Thompson preached at Georgetown. Alonzo Mourning and Dikembe Mutombo were also among the best defenders in the paint in the past couple of decades.

David Robinson, a tremendous athlete and extremely versatile player at the centre position. Hakeem Olajuwon, whose footwork and post moves would make great athletes like David Robinson look clumsy; and then there's the Dream's defense. And of course there's Shaquille O'Neal, whose physical dominance of his opponents is comparable to Wilt's, if not by numbers then by nature. You could even mention guys like Karl Malone, power forwards who are adept at guarding bigger players.

These guys would have put up numbers against Wilt, and Wilt would have put up numbers against them. They both would have had their great wins and disappointing losses. But Wilt wouldn't get 50 ppg. He wouldn't tower above his peers or dominate to the same statistical extent. He would still be a great player, a Hall of Famer and one of the greatest of all-time. But he wouldn't achieve those same marks.

The nature of the game has also changed too much. There's no way he'd be fed the ball so freely, so often, and allowed to shoot some 40 times on a nightly basis. He wouldn't grab so many rebounds (a recent book I've read has referred to the 50s and 60s as an era of "poor shooters", which might also explain the inflated rebounding numbers). He'd have some great numbers, he'd hold records, he'd be an awesome player. But I don't think he could get the kind of statistics that he did.

And speaking of statistics, I think it's important to note that he couldn't win a championship with 50 ppg, just as Michael Jordan could not win one with 37.1 ppg. He could not be the league's greatest scorer and a champion; Michael Jordan could. 10 times MJ led the league in scoring, six of those times he was on the championship team. Wilt won a title in Philadelphia, but he had to cut his scoring average in half to do it.

Even with all-time greats like Jerry West and Elgin Baylor at his side, he only won one championship, losing three times in the NBA Finals and once in the Western Conference Finals. Michael Jordan's teams weren't quite as talented top to bottom, and they won six championships. Say what you will about the quality of opponents in the 90s (which I think remains underrated), but it's not as though those Bulls teams were the Celtics of the 60s transplanted into the 1990s. They were able to win three consecutive titles twice, with only three constants. Achieving that, in an era of greed and money-driven player moves is no easy feat.

And of the 80s argument...the 80s is a decade that is remembered with many double standards. Michael Jordan's best statistical seasons came in the 80s, but when that is mentioned the 80s were "a decade with no defense; weak". But whenever the Bulls' success in the 90s is brought up, it's always "they didn't beat the teams of the 80s, a much stronger decade". Depending on the argument against MJ and the Bulls, the 80s is both weaker and stronger than the decades that preceeded and followed it.

Wilt was often called unstoppable. But that doesn't really explain why his playoff scoring average is almost 8 points fewer than his career regular season average. It's a point I've brought up before and it's usually ignored, but I think it illustrates a key difference between Jordan and Chamberlain; Jordan's heroics, his great stats and his outstanding performances came in November, they came in June and they came in between. Michael Jordan's "legend" includes many postseason triumphs. Wilt's postseason career is more closely associated with bitter defeat.

Someone who is "unstoppable" shouldn't get to the postseason and see such a massive drop in scoring output. The defense shouldn't be able to figure shut them down like that. And if the defense didn't shut him down, the other explanation is that he choked. Consistently shut down or choked; not exactly the qualities of an undisputed greatest player of all-time.

Oh, and about the referees "protecting" him - throughout history, especially the last 20 years, a lot of players have been given the benefit of the whistle. It has become another popular double standard devised to belittle Michael Jordan's accomplishments. Did his "star power" influence the referees? I'm sure it did. But plenty of other great players have also had the luxury of getting away with little tricks of their own, even against Michael Jordan.

I rank Michael Jordan, Larry Bird and Magic Johnson as the top three in NBA history. They were not the biggest players in the game, as Wilt was, yet they had so much influence on the game, in both the contests they competed in and the future of the sport. Michael Jordan was below average height, yet dominated the league in scoring as Wilt did before him.

His skills, his awareness, his ability to pick apart the defense. His ability to seemingly player better and better as the stakes rose, the ability to take his game to another level, then another level and another level. All the defining moments, the incredible performances. Game 5 of the 1997 Finals, 38 points, 7 rebounds, 5 assists, 3 steals, the game clinching three...when he was clearly not feeling very well to say the least.

Skills, athleticism, records, stats, success, championships, incredible performances, a fantastic mind for the game...these are all things that the greatest of the great tend to possess. Michael Jordan could boast all of these things in abundance. That is why I consider him to be the best player. That's something I can't conclusively prove. But at the very least, there should be no doubt that he's up there and his accomplishments are real and impressive.

[beau_boy04]

I agreed. Michael Jordan greatness didn't only come thru the regular season, and prove of that is the 63 points he had against the Celtics which by the way is a record.

We always talk about greatness, and who's great and who's good. We talk about how Charles Barkley, Karl Malone, Patrick Ewing, and others elite players never savored the taste of a championship and one of the reason is obvious - Michael Jordan. Oh and before I forget Hakeem and company better thank MJ for leaving the court 2 years because if he had never retired in the first place we wouldn't be talking about 6 rings attained by MJ but 8 maybe more
Anyways, we always talk about rings being a parameter of greatness so check his numbers out:

Michael Jordan = 6 rings
Wilt Chamberlain = 2 rings

Six rings - 6 final appearances - 6 wins
2 rings - mmmm he was great but he wasn't great enough to beat all his opponents because I'm sure there were more than twice he appeared in the Finals.

During an interview, Michael Jordan was asked the question "Michael Jordan, the Greatest Player of all time?" and he said no because he never played against others greats such as Oscar Robertson, Bill Russell, Jerry West and others. --- I guess he was just being humble and respetfull because its very naive to say in public television that you are definitely the best player ever to play the game, though he was definitely the most competitive amongst them all.

Finally, here's my list of the greatest player to ever play the game per position

C: Wilt Chamberlain, Kareem, Russell
PF: Elgin Baylor, Malone
SF: Dr. J, Larry Bird
PG: Oscar Robertson, Magic Johnson
SG: Michael Jordan, Jerry West

Until next time...

[beau_boy04]

The way I arrange those guys was in order of preference with that being said my perfect dream team will consist of the following players:

C - Wilt
PF - Elgin B
SF - DR J
PG - O Rob
SG - MJ

Of course there's always the "luck factor". What am i talking about? ask Bill Russell he played in a team that featured several future Hall of Famers
Bill was great but was he greater than Kareem or Wilt? I don't think so. Bill was known for his defense. Kareem and Wilt are known for their offense and defense, thus making them more complete players than Bill.

[Andrew]

Michael Jordan = 6 rings
Wilt Chamberlain = 2 rings

Six rings - 6 final appearances - 6 wins
2 rings - mmmm he was great but he wasn't great enough to beat all his opponents because I'm sure there were more than twice he appeared in the Finals.

He appeared in the NBA Finals five times, winning twice, though his Warriors and Sixers teams were usually in the Conference Finals. One could argue that the Lakers really could have won at least two Finals series they lost between 1969 and 1973.

During an interview, Michael Jordan was asked the question "Michael Jordan, the Greatest Player of all time?" and he said no because he never played against others greats such as Oscar Robertson, Bill Russell, Jerry West and others. --- I guess he was just being humble and respetfull because its very naive to say in public television that you are definitely the best player ever to play the game, though he was definitely the most competitive amongst them all.

Funny you mention that, because Michael Jordan is often criticised for his ego, yet old timers such as Oscar Robertsen and Wilt Chamberlain (may he rest in peace) have been known to boast about their careers quite egotistically, dismissing the generations that have followed them. Wilt was often quick to mention his statistical marks while Oscar Robertsen has been quoted as saying he could shut down Michael Jordan but Michael Jordan would not be able to guard him.

[The X]

Bill Russell....greatest defensive force ever and a winner....

[Chris_23]

Said I wont post here but after the quality post by Andrew and such I stilld ecided to come check back in.

"Funny you mention that, because Michael Jordan is often criticised for his ego.."

Michael Jordan did have a big ego, but he was not arrogant like some other players (especially nowadays in the league). Michael Jordan has never himself said he was the best ever, nor said anything even similar to that.

You have the guy who was a mental leader in the team (a thing that a player with great ego cannot easily do, watch Kobe). But his "ego" as such came because he wanted to prove people wrong. He took these things so seriously. He just could not accept the things that were said about him. Not being able to make his teammates better. He proved them all wrong.

Many then consider the Wizard years, where Michael was literally as much of a coach as Doug. In many ways this was a right thing to do, Rip Hamilton and Larry Hughes have both said how big was the importance Michael had them in such a short time. One of the problems was Kwame Brown issue, but still.

There was a guy in Wizards who scorched the net with more than a fifty points. Being nearly 40 years old. Chamberlain was gone 36. Abdul-Jabbar played until 41 yes. And people said last summer that Shaq is getting old, being just 31...

Jordan was a major thing for the Wizards. They played so close to the playoffs, but injuries kept bugging the team (and Michael).

Michaels ego is an interesting matter of course, but even if he can be called like that.. He still played team basketball with the record breaking Bulls. And carried them on shoulders when time required. I doubt there are many who can easily forget the series against the Jazz. Michael in fever, like Andrew mentioned, and the situation in 97-98 final game where Scottei was injured. And Michael was so tired. But he carried them, where they belonged, to the championship.

If there is a man who is capable doing all what Michael Jordan did, then him having larger than normal ego is not something that should be negative. He achieved things all pieces together, not with one piece or two pieces alone.

Thanks Andrew, going to get that 96-97 finals game 5 tape out again

[Madsnyb]

Michael Jordan did have a big ego, but he was not arrogant like some other players (especially nowadays in the league). Michael Jordan has never himself said he was the best ever, nor said anything even similar to that.

Michael Jordan may never have actually said it, but he sure hints to the fact that he was the best...I read "The Jordan Rules" the other day, and he seemed like a real jerk. I'm not sure how true everyting in this book is, it's been critisised a lot for containing lies on about everything, but if just a tiny bit of it is real, I'm glad I'm not one of his teammates. I must say I really lost my respect for Jordan by reading this book. Like calling his teammates for "his supporting cast" for an entire season. That can't be good for team spirit...

[air gordon]

lol where does he "hint"?

lol they were all a bunch of jerks at one point or another. must of sam smith's material came from horace grant and phil jackson, so consider the sources. horace was jealous of michael then eventually scottie. and who knows what phil's grudge is with krause- the guy who gave him his coaching break in the nba. obviously jordan's image isn't as perfect as he is portrayed.

[GloveGuy]

Andrew, I've heard of Wilt being a tad over 300 pounds and 7'3" in shoes. If he were in the league now, the only players who could compete with him in size would be Shaq and Yao Ming. The only big man who could compete with him in atleticism would be Kevin Garnett.

Also, keep in mind that Jabbar entered the league when Wilt was certainly passed his prime.

If we could retreat back from wins and rings, and look at the actual basketball player. Not who had the better career, not who put up the best career stats, but who in their prime would you want to start a team with.

Andrew, you put so much emphasis on winning, yet you only mention Bill Russell, the greatest winner in basketball, once. I'm not going to say that Wilt was the greatest winner, but playing against the player who was against the greatest basketball team of all time certainly affects your ring count. Basketball has never been a 1-on-5 game, though Wilt was certainly the first player in history to ever make it so.

But back to Wilt Chamberlain as a basketball player -- I'm not saying that he would score 50 ppg again. But he would dominate, moreso than any center would be able to.

Once again, I'm still not calling him the greatest and no one here is, but to not put him on the same plateau as Magic and Bird is ridiculous. The man was a phenomenal basketball player, and that's what matters in my mind.

[Sauru]

I rank Michael Jordan, Larry Bird and Magic Johnson as the top three in NBA history. They were not the biggest players in the game, as Wilt was, yet they had so much influence on the game, in both the contests they competed in and the future of the sport. Michael Jordan was below average height, yet dominated the league in scoring as Wilt did before him.

His skills, his awareness, his ability to pick apart the defense. His ability to seemingly player better and better as the stakes rose, the ability to take his game to another level, then another level and another level. All the defining moments, the incredible performances. Game 5 of the 1997 Finals, 38 points, 7 rebounds, 5 assists, 3 steals, the game clinching three...when he was clearly not feeling very well to say the least.

first i just wanna say this was a great read. and now let me toss my comments back at ya. first of all i have said from day 1 that the 3 you mentioned i also consider the best 3 ever. all 3 of these players not only played better when it mattered, they made thier teammates play better. i have actually compared it to diablo 2(call me dumb now if you want). in that game the paladin has auras that increase other players stats simple from him being next to them. i always felt that just playing next to one of these 3 players made people play way above thier actual skill level.

my main point for defendering wilt in this thread is simply, i refuse to let some one say he was only that good cause of who he played. imo he would have no problem scoring on any center to ever play this game, 1 on 1. the problem there is, he would never, ever, ever, see a 1 on 1 in todays game. he would touch the ball and get swarmed by defenders. you mentioned his defense of some of the games great centers. i can agree with you here in saying that the other centers could and would score on him, but he certainly would have no trouble scoring on anyone. when i talk defense i talk bill, when i talk offense i am speaking of wilt. when i want to talk of a player who did both i speak of mike.

[Andrew]

Michael Jordan may never have actually said it, but he sure hints to the fact that he was the best...I read "The Jordan Rules" the other day, and he seemed like a real jerk. I'm not sure how true everyting in this book is, it's been critisised a lot for containing lies on about everything, but if just a tiny bit of it is real, I'm glad I'm not one of his teammates. I must say I really lost my respect for Jordan by reading this book. Like calling his teammates for "his supporting cast" for an entire season. That can't be good for team spirit...

I'm sure he's aware how good he is, and I don't doubt that he's got a bit of an ego. But as air gordon already said, while The Jordan Rules is a good read the sources are questionable. Why did Horace Grant dislike Michael Jordan taking the amount of shots he did? Because he wanted to score more points himself. Is that as virtuous as the book makes it out to be?

It seems that MJ's foray into baseball humbled it quite a bit, too. The second threepeat team seemed a much closer unit. And you know, other players have been guilty of selfishness and poor behaviour. The difference is, books aren't written about them and it's kind of swept under the rug.

Andrew, I've heard of Wilt being a tad over 300 pounds and 7'3" in shoes. If he were in the league now, the only players who could compete with him in size would be Shaq and Yao Ming. The only big man who could compete with him in atleticism would be Kevin Garnett.

I've never heard of that, but you're right, he wouldn't face as stiff competition in the league today. But I still don't think he'd be averaging 50ppg along with 28 rpg. There's still enough big bodies to get in his way and no coach is going to allow him 40 shots per game.

Also, keep in mind that Jabbar entered the league when Wilt was certainly passed his prime.

Indeed he did, but it's not as if Wilt was completely washed up. I still think Kareem would have posed problems had Wilt matched up against him for his whole career.

If we could retreat back from wins and rings, and look at the actual basketball player. Not who had the better career, not who put up the best career stats, but who in their prime would you want to start a team with.

You can't eliminate such criteria - how else could you choose one over the other without considering how successful they were in their prime? I'm more inclined to pick a guy like MJ, Bird or Magic because they could do things with or without the ball, they could play inside or out, they had the drive and killer instinct, they could hit the big shot time after time.

Andrew, you put so much emphasis on winning, yet you only mention Bill Russell, the greatest winner in basketball, once. I'm not going to say that Wilt was the greatest winner, but playing against the player who was against the greatest basketball team of all time certainly affects your ring count. Basketball has never been a 1-on-5 game, though Wilt was certainly the first player in history to ever make it so.

Only because my points were mostly about the Jordan vs Wilt debate. But you are right, there's no question that Bill Russell is one of the finest examples of winning and leadership in sports. He's clearly one of the best of all-time. But for me, the fact that he was one of nine Hall of Famers on those Celtics teams keeps him from being number one. As does his offensive game, which while underrated wasn't really in balance with his awesome defensive game, as with other greats.

The other thing is, Wilt was called "unstoppable", which by definition suggests he couldn't be stopped. Obviously such descriptions are thrown around in sports and aren't 100% true, but in the playoffs Wilt wasn't unstoppable. And it's not as if he didn't have good teammates or couldn't match up with the Celtics at all.

But back to Wilt Chamberlain as a basketball player -- I'm not saying that he would score 50 ppg again. But he would dominate, moreso than any center would be able to.

That's certainly not an absurd claim, but I don't think he would dominate had he played in the 80s and 90s, at least not with huge statistical advantages over the great big men of that era.

Once again, I'm still not calling him the greatest and no one here is, but to not put him on the same plateau as Magic and Bird is ridiculous. The man was a phenomenal basketball player, and that's what matters in my mind.

I'd put him top five. No one who makes a mark on the game like he did with the success that he had can be left out of the top five. But ultimately when I try to rank the greatest players in history, I have to seperate them somehow, and I consider stats, skills, success and impact to be some of the criteria, which is why I put Jordan, Magic, Bird and Russell in front of Wilt. I'm not saying he's not in their league, just that I don't consider him the greatest.

my main point for defendering wilt in this thread is simply, i refuse to let some one say he was only that good cause of who he played. imo he would have no problem scoring on any center to ever play this game, 1 on 1. the problem there is, he would never, ever, ever, see a 1 on 1 in todays game. he would touch the ball and get swarmed by defenders. you mentioned his defense of some of the games great centers. i can agree with you here in saying that the other centers could and would score on him, but he certainly would have no trouble scoring on anyone. when i talk defense i talk bill, when i talk offense i am speaking of wilt. when i want to talk of a player who did both i speak of mike.

I agree to an extent, he would put up numbers against the centres of the generations that followed him and they would put up numbers against him. He'd have his huge games, he'd finish with impressive career numbers and most likely a few trophies. But I don't think he'd have the same statistical or physical dominance, not to the same extent. He'd be dominant, he wouldn't get pushed around. But I just don't think it would be quite the same as the game allowed for during his era.

[Sauru]

i think we all can agree that he in no way would be as dominant as he was back then, but i also believe he would still be the best center in the game if he played now, or in the 80's or 90's. well atleast the best offensive center.

[Andrew]

Indeed, he would be among the elite players at his position and overall in any era.

[beau_boy04]

Who are these others 9 Hall of Famers that Bill Russell played with?

[Andrew]

He was one of nine Hall of Famers involved with the Celtics in the 1961 , but I have to correct myself; there were seven Hall of Fame Players: Bill Russell, Bob Cousy, Bill Sharman, Sam Jones, KC Jones, Frank Ramsey, and Tom Heinsohn. Red Auerbach and team president Walter Brown are also enshrined.

During that decade, the Celtics also boasted two more HOFers in John Havlicek, Dave Cowens and a couple of solid double digit scorers in Don Nelson and Tom "Satch" Sanders. Russell was the only constant in the Celtics' 11 titles in 13 years, though most of those guys were around for at least six or seven of those championships.

[senhorxxx]

Wilt in his prime was listed at 7'1" 275 lbs. For the last few years, Shaq has outweighed him by about 50 pounds. In terms of size, Shaq certainly has the upper hand. But it's more than Shaq vs Wilt. Had Wilt come along in the 80s, he would have faced centres that not could have matched up to him in terms of size, but in terms of skill. It's not as though there weren't big guys back in Wilt's era, but in the words of Bill Russell, "(Wilt) was bigger, stronger than anyone (he'd) ever seen". In the last 20 years, there have been players that could have challenged him in size and ability much more frequently.

Wilt spoke of the difficulty he had with Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, noting him as "the first guy (he) felt he needed help guarding". Would Wilt have been so successful with up to at least four matchups with Kareem per year? The 1971 Finals would suggest Kareem wouldn't be a pushover for the Big Dipper.

Now, throw in some other players. Moses Malone. Often forgotten and underrated, big Moses would surely be able to stand up to Wilt. Robert Parish is another Hall of Famer who was no stranger to guarding some of the game's best pivotmen in big games. Patrick Ewing with his fine offensive game and the tough defense John Thompson preached at Georgetown. Alonzo Mourning and Dikembe Mutombo were also among the best defenders in the paint in the past couple of decades.

David Robinson, a tremendous athlete and extremely versatile player at the centre position. Hakeem Olajuwon, whose footwork and post moves would make great athletes like David Robinson look clumsy; and then there's the Dream's defense. And of course there's Shaquille O'Neal, whose physical dominance of his opponents is comparable to Wilt's, if not by numbers then by nature. You could even mention guys like Karl Malone, power forwards who are adept at guarding bigger players.

These guys would have put up numbers against Wilt, and Wilt would have put up numbers against them. They both would have had their great wins and disappointing losses. But Wilt wouldn't get 50 ppg. He wouldn't tower above his peers or dominate to the same statistical extent. He would still be a great player, a Hall of Famer and one of the greatest of all-time. But he wouldn't achieve those same marks.

The nature of the game has also changed too much. There's no way he'd be fed the ball so freely, so often, and allowed to shoot some 40 times on a nightly basis. He wouldn't grab so many rebounds (a recent book I've read has referred to the 50s and 60s as an era of "poor shooters", which might also explain the inflated rebounding numbers). He'd have some great numbers, he'd hold records, he'd be an awesome player. But I don't think he could get the kind of statistics that he did.

And speaking of statistics, I think it's important to note that he couldn't win a championship with 50 ppg, just as Michael Jordan could not win one with 37.1 ppg. He could not be the league's greatest scorer and a champion; Michael Jordan could. 10 times MJ led the league in scoring, six of those times he was on the championship team. Wilt won a title in Philadelphia, but he had to cut his scoring average in half to do it.

Even with all-time greats like Jerry West and Elgin Baylor at his side, he only won one championship, losing three times in the NBA Finals and once in the Western Conference Finals. Michael Jordan's teams weren't quite as talented top to bottom, and they won six championships. Say what you will about the quality of opponents in the 90s (which I think remains underrated), but it's not as though those Bulls teams were the Celtics of the 60s transplanted into the 1990s. They were able to win three consecutive titles twice, with only three constants. Achieving that, in an era of greed and money-driven player moves is no easy feat.

And of the 80s argument...the 80s is a decade that is remembered with many double standards. Michael Jordan's best statistical seasons came in the 80s, but when that is mentioned the 80s were "a decade with no defense; weak". But whenever the Bulls' success in the 90s is brought up, it's always "they didn't beat the teams of the 80s, a much stronger decade". Depending on the argument against MJ and the Bulls, the 80s is both weaker and stronger than the decades that preceeded and followed it.

Wilt was often called unstoppable. But that doesn't really explain why his playoff scoring average is almost 8 points fewer than his career regular season average. It's a point I've brought up before and it's usually ignored, but I think it illustrates a key difference between Jordan and Chamberlain; Jordan's heroics, his great stats and his outstanding performances came in November, they came in June and they came in between. Michael Jordan's "legend" includes many postseason triumphs. Wilt's postseason career is more closely associated with bitter defeat.

Someone who is "unstoppable" shouldn't get to the postseason and see such a massive drop in scoring output. The defense shouldn't be able to figure shut them down like that. And if the defense didn't shut him down, the other explanation is that he choked. Consistently shut down or choked; not exactly the qualities of an undisputed greatest player of all-time.

Oh, and about the referees "protecting" him - throughout history, especially the last 20 years, a lot of players have been given the benefit of the whistle. It has become another popular double standard devised to belittle Michael Jordan's accomplishments. Did his "star power" influence the referees? I'm sure it did. But plenty of other great players have also had the luxury of getting away with little tricks of their own, even against Michael Jordan.

I rank Michael Jordan, Larry Bird and Magic Johnson as the top three in NBA history. They were not the biggest players in the game, as Wilt was, yet they had so much influence on the game, in both the contests they competed in and the future of the sport. Michael Jordan was below average height, yet dominated the league in scoring as Wilt did before him.

His skills, his awareness, his ability to pick apart the defense. His ability to seemingly player better and better as the stakes rose, the ability to take his game to another level, then another level and another level. All the defining moments, the incredible performances. Game 5 of the 1997 Finals, 38 points, 7 rebounds, 5 assists, 3 steals, the game clinching three...when he was clearly not feeling very well to say the least.

Skills, athleticism, records, stats, success, championships, incredible performances, a fantastic mind for the game...these are all things that the greatest of the great tend to possess. Michael Jordan could boast all of these things in abundance. That is why I consider him to be the best player. That's something I can't conclusively prove. But at the very least, there should be no doubt that he's up there and his accomplishments are real and impressive.

Best post ever.
Closed topic.

[beau_boy04]

Yo, I just wanted to get back to this topic because I just found this rare stats that we don't get to see anymore in today's NBA.

Oscar Robertson in his first six season averaged 30.45 ppg, 9.93 rpg, 10.7 apg. I think that's even more amazing than the 50 points year long by Wilt.

[Andrew]

It's a different kind of statistical accomplishment, one just as impressive as Wilt's scoring feats if not more so. But it's often used as an argument that Robertson is the greatest player in history. While there's no questioning just how impressive such statistics are or how good a player must be to attain them, I don't think it's as straightforward as Robertson's stats = greatest of all-time. It's like I said before, there are more factors than individual stats and career/season averages.

But about Robertson's feat - he averaged a triple double for one season (79 games) and fell just short four times in his first five seasons. That's impressive, no question. Magic Johnson came close to averaging a triple double in 1982, Michael Jordan has his 32.5, 8 and 8 season in 1989, Larry Bird had a 28, 9 and 8 (roughly) year in 1987. LeBron's got 27, 7 and 7 this season and Jason Kidd has had a couple of close years. None of these guys have had numbers quite as good as those couple of seasons the Big O had. But they are probably as close as players are going to get in the modern era.

Because once again, the 50s and 60s have been described as an era of poor shooting. Robertson was a 6'5" point guard when 6'5" was a good height for a power forward. Teams were pretty trigger happy back in those days as well. With all these factors taken into consideration, is it wrong to suggest that guys like Michael Jordan, Magic Johnson, Larry Bird, Jason Kidd, LeBron James and maybe even Scottie Pippen could have achieved the same feat had they played under the same circumstances? Was the big O really that much more talented than the other guys who have been close in the last 25 years or so?

In my opinion, yes they could, and no, not necessarily. While it would be a ridiculous suggestion that Robertson's skills and basketball knowledge played a minor role in his statistical achievements, the nature of the game is partly accountable, as his height advantage. I believe that had the players I mentioned been around in the Big O's day, they could have done the same thing.

But no matter how you want to look at the triple double for a season (which is amazing, don't get me wrong), I don't think you can call Robertson the best player in history. I've already outlined what I believe to be acceptable criteria for bestowing such an honour upon a player, and there's a double standard that works on Robertson's favour.

A couple of years ago, it was suggested that Michael Jordan's legacy was tarnished by his stint with the Wizards. By not leading them to the playoffs in those two seasons, officially his last as an NBA player, it was suggested that his place amongst the all time greats was affected. Even though he was past his prime, injured for the final part of the 2001/2002 season and his teammates were young, immature and still developing, missing the playoffs apparently hurts his case in the "who is the greatest player?" debate.

The standard was brought up again recently in regards to Kevin Garnett. It was suggested recently by a writer covering the NBA (I forget who, but I think it was either Bill Simmons or Charley Rosen) that missing the playoffs this year has proven KG isn't a legitimate superstar, not as elite as he's been made out to be these past couple of years.

You could argue that there's some merit to both suggestions, but if you do, you've got to eliminate Oscar Robertson from being a candidate for the greatest player in NBA history. In his prime with the Cincinnati Royals, Robertson failed to make the playoffs not once, not twice, not thrice, but four times.

Michael Jordan, aged 40 with a failing knee and not much of a team posts back to back 37 win seasons (just out of the playoffs) and he's knocked down a peg, Oscar Robertson in his Mr Triple Double days misses the playoffs four years (not consecutively) and is still up there as perhaps the greatest player the league has ever seen? Just another double standard, just another thing that's overlooked when talking about the greats - like Wilt's 22.7 ppg playoff scoring average. And of course, there's the lone championship as Kareem Abdul-Jabbar's sidekick.

That's why I'm inclined to rank Michael Jordan, Magic Johnson, Larry Bird and Bill Russell over players like Wilt Chamberlain and Oscar Robertson. But no doubt, those two guys are special and two of the greatest. But further criteria is required to seperate the best of the best, and success is one of them. And success extends beyond individual statistics and records.