"Saturday morning wake-up call"

If you could start a team with Wilt Chamberlin or Bill Russell, who would you take?

I've been reading a lot about these two guys, and it is very difficult for me to determine who was the better player.

Russell won way more championships (11) than Chamberlin (2), but he also had a better supporting cast for his entire career. Bob Cousey directed the Celtics through 1963, Bill Sharman was a pinpoint shooter as was Tommy Heinsohn, Sam Jones was Mr. Clutch, K.C. Jones was a solid player and so were Satch Sanders, Jim Lustocuff and Frank Ramsey.

Yeah, Russell had plenty of help.

Chamberlin, on the other hand, never had such a complete team around him until he joined the Lakers in the later 1960s, which featured Jerry West and Elgin Baylor. He did have guys such as Guy Rodgers, but never a rotation as solid as Boston's.

Still, there are some questions as to how dedicated Chamberlin was to winning. In his first few years in the league, he seemed to only care about his individual statistics. Alex Hannum changed this when he took over the Philadelphia Warriors in the early '60s, and they came very close to beating the Celtics in the '62 Eastern Conference Finals.

But Russell simply refused to lose. He did whatever it took to win. Unlike Chamberlin, there were never any questions about Russell's intentions when he took the court. Just win, baby.

Russell refused to stand down to anybody, unlike Chamberlin - especially in Wilt's early years - who often wouldn't retaliate when being pushed around by opponents' physical centers.

Despite this, the statistics clearly favor Chamberlin. He led the league in scoring from 1960-1966, averaging a record 50.4 points in 1962. Russell never averaged more than 18.9 points per game. Chamberlin also had the edge in rebounding - believed to be Russell's biggest strength - averaging the most boards in the league 11 times compared to four times for Russell. And Chamberlin is No. 1 in all-time rebounds ahead of Russell.

But when it comes to MVP awards, Russell has a slight advantage of five to four. That right there makes my very, very tough decision. Russell was a tiny bit better than Chamberlin.

So if I had the privlege today of starting a team with either of these greats from the past while they were in their prime, I'd take Russell.

Barely.