Bill Russell vs. Wilt Chamberlain

I wanted to note that these "sports debates" columns concern only debates that are "two-pronged" or binary. That is to say, I won't have a "Best Second Baseman Ever" entry. Rather, I'll be posting entries that break down into either / or categories, such as...

Better Player: Bill Russell or Wilt Chamberlain

This debate transcends an interest in basketball, because (a.) Bill Russell won 11 NBA championships in thirteen years, and (b.) Chamberlain was a dominant scorer, with the only 100-point game ever. As time goes by, both of these achievements stand as almost untouchable, but not entirely unbelievable, given a few factors. During Russell's era, there were almost a third of the teams in the NBA today, and getting to a finals (and winning a championship) were much easier than in the current long plow. In terms of Chamberlain's accomplishment, though he didn't have the benefit of a three-point opportunity, he also had a coach and a team that deferred to him, to a fault.

Basically, the debate comes down to a number of biases that typically have little to do with Russell or Chamberlain. There's the defense vs. offense bias. The Lakers or Celtics bias. The sullen superstar (Russell) or the gregarious trash-talker (Chamberlain). Which makes the discussion all the more compelling, of course. (For the record, I have always leaned toward Russell for those reasons, and more.)

Few fans actually remember Russell, and, when he does poke his head out, he makes inexplicable public speeches, such as "Keven Garnett more than my own son!" or the like. When LeBron James recently decided to change numbers, he chose the 6 jersey, to honor Michael Jordan (and his 23). James and others didn't seem to mind that Russell was being slighted for Jordan. Chamberlain, on the other hand, has always been on the edge of the public's consciousness.

First Entry: The Great Sports Debates

I was reading an archived Slate.com review of Buzz Bissinger’s Three Nights in August. I haven’t actually gotten to Bissinger’s book, an account of a three-game series between the Cardinals and the Cubs from the eyes of manager Tony LaRussa, but the review fascinated me. The article, whose author skewered Joe Girardi, was brimming with contempt for Kissinger’s anti-Moneyball, old-school ranting. This got me thinking about some of the great ongoing sports debates. (It also doesn’t hurt that I’m still working on Bill Simmons’s tome, The Book of Basketball, which seems to have a list for every miniscule interest: Top Ten Freeloading Point Guards, Top Fifty Centers From Southern Idaho, etc. I mean that as a deep compliment, by the way.) I think I’m going to put together a list, with one entry per day of the ten greatest sports debates, and then rank them at the end. So here’s the first entry:

The Moneyball Crew vs. Traditionalists

Since Michael Lewis published Moneyball: The Art of Winning an Unfair Game in 2003, a theoretical divide has cut through most baseball fans. There’s the school of thought (that Lewis, in fact, shortchanged) that managers have a larger role in producing a winner than a general manager and that RBI, steals, and batting average are high-value stats. Lewis, and Oakland general manager Billy Beane, went on to criticize these “traditionalists” by foregrounding their subjective biases, prizing on-base percentage, and seem to minimize the importance of in-game player management. Frankly, I admire Lewis’s book, but its influence on me has less to do with my thinking on baseball and more to do with my thinking on “group think” and player evaluation. In the intervening conversations between the sides, traditionalists have pointed out Beane’s shortcomings in wins and losses, while the Moneyball crew have pointed out the success of his proteges (including Epstein of the Red Sox).