Quote:
|
So Zen, you are willing to admit that Peyton is the better player? Because Wilt was certainly the better player.
|
I don't agree that Chamberlain was the better player. I'm not saying that he was the inferior player either. It's hard to tell. Chamberlain undoubtedly had gaudier scoring averages and had a more intimidating physical game but Russell was more cerebral and nearly always destroyed him in head-to-head match-ups. Also, the two put up nearly identical career numbers in most of the other statistical categories.
In games like basketball and football, the quality of your teammates can impact your individual numbers. Had Russell not played on stacked championship Celtics teams, he easily could have padded his stats to Chamberlain levels. But Russell didn't have to score 30+ points per game to be effective. He could trust his teammates. He could defer to others. He could be an efficient complementary player on some nights and focus more on outlet passing, setting screens and doing the little things that go unappreciated, on other nights.
Chamberlain didn't play that way. He tried to do everything himself. Sure, he averaged twice as many points per game as Russell but he also took almost twice the number of shots. This isn't to say that Chamberlain wasn't an outstanding player - only that it's not fair to measure players in the same way when they had different styles and situations.
To use a current basketball example, look at the Celtics. In past years, when the Celtics were a one-man team, Pierce did everything from scoring to rebounding to passing. This year, with Garnett and Allen added to the mix, none of the Big Three have to be ball hogs. None of them have to take all the shots. They can share the ball with each other and allow some of the secondary guys to pick up the slack on offense. As a result, their numbers are down across the board. Now does that mean they've all taken a step back? Is Kevin Garnett no longer a great power forward? Is Paul Pierce no longer a perennial All-Star swingman? Of course not. If they were alone again on separate teams, I'm sure they could easily pad their numbers. Fortunately, they no longer have to; there's enough talent around them to distribute the offense more evenly, focus more on defense, and conserve their energy for later on in the season.
That's how I see the Brady vs. Manning rivalry. Neither player is Michael Jordan because neither player is alone in his supremacy above all others. Russell vs. Chamberlain is a better comparison because both players are immensely talented but one has generally had more success in big games than the other (Russell-Brady) and one has historically had better conditions for displaying his individual firepower (Chamberlain-Manning.)
Until this season, the Colts had much better offensive weapons for Manning. This allowed him to show off his talent and throw for lots of yardage and touchdown passes. Brady, on the other hand, had very weak receivers. This artificially kept his numbers down and made pundits think that he couldn't throw the long ball, even though in reality, he was simply playing within the capacities of his team.
Now that Brady's teammates on offense are as good as Manning's, we're seeing Brady put up the gaudy numbers that Manning always produces. Whereas before some could say, "Well, Manning always has superior numbers, therefore he's better," we're now seeing that Brady is every bit as capable of producing those numbers when given a similar cast of players. In fact, Brady is out-performing Manning on an individual basis this year and will likely break his all-time record for TD passes in a single season.
Same story with Russell and Chamberlain, or the Pierce of this year and the Pierce of last year. The surrounding circumstances matter. In basketball and football, you can't look at the individual stats alone like in baseball.