Wilt average 30 points and 23 rebounds per game for his career. The numbers he posted in his first 8 years are mind boggling. His worst season in that stretch was 30 points and 22 boards.

 

In his first 8 seasons, Wilt averaged 39 points and 24.6 rebounds per game. Another interesting stat is that in his last two years in Philly he averaged 8.2 assists per game. Nobody pictures Wilt as a good passing big man. His career highs were 50.4 points, 27.2 rebounds, and 8.6 assists.

 

To compare, Russell averaged 15.1 points and 19.1 rebounds per game for his career. His career bests were 18.9 points, 24.7 rebounds, and 5.8 assists.

 

Of course, Russell is always touted for his defense, so stats are only part of the picture. Especially since they didn't record blocks and steals in that era.

 

I would venture to guess that Wilt may not have been too shabby on defense, but I could be wrong. And, he certainly didn't have the supporting cast of Russell. I suspect Russell could have scored more had it been necessary. And, I also suspect Wilt could have focused more on defense and won more rings with Boston's roster. But, I'm just guessing. I didn't see it. :idunno:

Wilt average 30 points and 23 rebounds per game for his career. The numbers he posted in his first 8 years are mind boggling. His worst season in that stretch was 30 points and 22 boards.

 

In his first 8 seasons, Wilt averaged 39 points and 24.6 rebounds per game. Another interesting stat is that in his last two years in Philly he averaged 8.2 assists per game. Nobody pictures Wilt as a good passing big man. His career highs were 50.4 points, 27.2 rebounds, and 8.6 assists.

 

To compare, Russell averaged 15.1 points and 19.1 rebounds per game for his career. His career bests were 18.9 points, 24.7 rebounds, and 5.8 assists.

 

Of course, Russell is always touted for his defense, so stats are only part of the picture. Especially since they didn't record blocks and steals in that era.

 

I would venture to guess that Wilt may not have been too shabby on defense, but I could be wrong.

 

I have always thought Chamberlain would have been a been defender as well. Maybe some of the over 50-55 crowd on here could help us out.

I'm not sure why a)using championships as the criteria or b)if so why we're discounting the competition. No chance the MJ Bulls faced the same competition that the Magic/Kareem Lakers did. I'm the only that remembers that the Lakers faced a team with a bunch of HOFers or near HOFers? Do the names Bird, Parish, McHale not ring a bell? How about Zeke, Laimbeer, Mahorn, and the Microwave?

 

You can't just look at raw numbers without attaching context.

 

MJ/Pippen would be at the bottom of the list above (and that's a credit to MJ).

 

I think championships is the perfect way to measure the greatest duo ever. That is (or is supposed to be) the ultimate goal of all players and teams.

 

If championships were not used as the criteria, then I would vote for John Stockton and Karl Malone being the greatest NBA duo ever. They win based on their years of excellence together, and the fact that their supporting cast was not even close to the other duos mentioned.

I think championships is the perfect way to measure the greatest duo ever. That is (or is supposed to be) the ultimate goal of all players and teams.

 

If championships were not used as the criteria, then I would vote for John Stockton and Karl Malone being the greatest NBA duo ever. They win based on their years of excellence together, and the fact that their supporting cast was not even close to the other duos mentioned.

 

I don't see a huge discrepancy between what they had and what Chicago or Los Angeles had aside from the two star players. I would definitely agree that the others had better supporting casts.

 

That's one of the reasons I went with Jordan and Pippen.

I think championships is the perfect way to measure the greatest duo ever. That is (or is supposed to be) the ultimate goal of all players and teams.

 

If championships were not used as the criteria, then I would vote for John Stockton and Karl Malone being the greatest NBA duo ever. They win based on their years of excellence together, and the fact that their supporting cast was not even close to the other duos mentioned.

 

 

Too many variables IMO that play into a team winning a championship (era, competition, luck, etc) to use it.

 

Your mentioning of Stockton/Malone would seem to back that up.

I think championships is the perfect way to measure the greatest duo ever. That is (or is supposed to be) the ultimate goal of all players and teams.

 

If championships were not used as the criteria, then I would vote for John Stockton and Karl Malone being the greatest NBA duo ever. They win based on their years of excellence together, and the fact that their supporting cast was not even close to the other duos mentioned.

 

So Oscar Robertson wasn't very good? (Only one NBA title & late in his career)

 

Elgin Baylor? (Retired the year the Lakers got over the hump in '72)

 

Jerry West only won the one title.

 

Championships are important but IMO Clyde is right, Context is the ultimate evaluation of a group, tandem or player.

So Oscar Robertson wasn't very good? (Only one NBA title & late in his career)

 

Elgin Baylor? (Retired the year the Lakers got over the hump in '72)

 

Jerry West only won the one title.

 

Championships are important but IMO Clyde is right, Context is the ultimate evaluation of a group, tandem or player.

 

I think Oscar Robertson/Kareem Abdul Jabbar definitely need to be mentioned in this thread as a candidate for the Greatest NBA duo ever from their days with the Milwaukee Bucks.

 

I do not think Elgin Baylor/Jerry West deserve this honor because of the fact they did not win any championships. They were great to watch, but not deserving of these award. I do think the Wilt Chamberlain/Jerry West combo deserves mention.

 

I stick to my guns and still say an NBA championship ring is necessary to validate as the Greatest NBA duo ever.