Best all time basketball rebounder? (offense and defense)

[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.

[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.