Best all time basketball rebounder? (offense and defense)

[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

[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

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.