This is not a vent board or any other kind of therapy. Before you hit the POST button, ask yourself if your contribution will add to the level of discussion going on.
Important notes on articles:
- Please do not copy entire articles into your post; rather, provide links to them.. We are now links-only for ALL Internet publications. If only a small portion of the article pertains to your post, Fair Use allows you to copy those one or two paragraphs, provided you cite the author's name and the publication for which he writes. Otherwise, put a link in the HTTP Link box.
- Even if you're copying a reference to an article, provide a link to the page from which the article came. We're trying to cut down on duplicate topics, and the posting process will check the link to your article to see if it's already being discussed on this board. At the very least, you'll save yourself some grief on the boards.
- If your first reaction after reading the article you're going to share is the author is uninformed / stupid / a jerk / all of the above, it's not worth sharing with anyone. Not every article needs to be discussed. The more the hair-pulling articles are discussed (e.g. ESPN Page 2), the more the authors will write hair-pulling articles.
Post being replied to
Championships are about teams. Wilt was a better player. by 528 Flanner
The Russell era Celtics were loaded and well coached. Wilt just schooled Russed and was a better player both offensively and defensively. He just rarely had the other parts around him. In 94 regular season head to head meeting Wilt averaged 29.9 ppg and a .448 fg% against the guy who some claim as the best defensive player of all time. Russell had 14.2 ppg with a .370 fg%. Rebound stats and blocks were not available but it's generally acknowledged that Wilt was a monster off the boards. The guy even led the league one year in assists per game.
If you take championships out of the equation, Wilt is easily the GOAT.