What if Wilt always had to face Tyson Chandler and not Bill Russell on the 1960s Celtics?

[NeilsCeltics]

What if Wilt always had to face Tyson Chandler and not Bill Russell on the 1960s Celtics?

[eminence]

Wilt Chamberlain would have a lot of rings.

[theonlyclutch]

Tyson Chandler probably doesn't get the Celtics that far into the PS in the first place...

[Cycklops]

Tyson would match up better physically, but Russell did all kinds of stuff to get into Wilt's head and make him play worse and make his team worse. I don't think Tyson would get that part.

[mischievous]

Wilt would've ate him for dinner. But lets be serious for a second, if Russell didn't exist Wilt would have at least 10 rings, and not only would we not hear nonsense about how his impact wasn't conducive to winning, he'd be the unanimous GOAT imo.

[Johnlac1]

Chandler's a real good center, but you had to have seen the sixties Celtics to understand what Russell meant to them. The team was built around Russell's talents. He wasn't just a great def. player, shot blocker, and rebounder.
He was the heart and soul of the team, a great inspirational leader. He was maybe the most intelligent player in the league. As long as he was on the court, the rest of the Celtics believed they could win. And they usually did.
Chandler could duplicate some of what Russell did physically, but I doubt he could equal what Russell did mentally for the team.

[bastillon]

Wilt would've still find a way to choke, but instead he'd be probably getting dumpstered by Oscar or Jerry West.

[SkyHookFTW]

I was wondering when the first Wilt hater post would pop up.

[Doctor MJ]

Wilt Chamberlain would have a lot of rings.

Yup and folks like me who are pretty critical of Wilt would be a lot less critical.

[eminence]

Would like to note that I'm not talking Russell levels of rings, but like 5 or so? Which without Russell there skewing the data is pretty much as good as anyone ever. He'd probably be the favorite for GOAT.

[CavaliersFTW]

Tyson would match up better physically, but Russell did all kinds of stuff to get into Wilt's head and make him play worse and make his team worse. I don't think Tyson would get that part.

Tyson Chandler has got less length and athletic ability than Bill Russell

[norcocredo]

Tyson Chandler probably doesn't get the Celtics that far into the PS in the first place...

I don't know about that. For the first 6 seasons of the 60's all you had to do was win 1 series and you were in the finals. Considering how stacked the Celtics were compared to the rest of the league, I am quite sure the Celtics would of been in just as many finals with Tyson Chandler

[SaintofKillers]

Tyson would match up better physically.

I strongly disagree with this part.

Tyson is probably the weakest post defender I've seen among "great defenders". Watching him guard Bynum and Cousins (clearly scorers several stations below Wilt) was just embarrassing and cringe-worthy and due to his absolute helplessness, he even had to resort to explicitly flopping and flailing to get the zebras to make calls.

[Johnlac1]

Tyson Chandler probably doesn't get the Celtics that far into the PS in the first place...

I don't know about that. For the first 6 seasons of the 60's all you had to do was win 1 series and you were in the finals. Considering how stacked the Celtics were compared to the rest of the league, I am quite sure the Celtics would of been in just as many finals with Tyson Chandler

You had to win two series to get into the finals if you weren't the top team in the division. At the 65-66 season all teams had to win two series to get into the finals
The Celtics had the best team in the league until the '65-66 seasons. The Wilt-led Sixers beat them 6-3 in the season series, but the Celtics whipped them in the playoffs 4-1. Wilt choked in game five only scoring 46 pts. Yes, that was a sarcastic comment.
The Celtics were the greatest team of the sixties, but they also had a little luck in the playoffs making a number of last plays to win key games and avoiding injuries to their best players namely Russell, Havlicek, and S. Jones.
The ball bounces a little differently, their key players are hurt for the playoffs (like Russell in '58 when he sprained his ankle allowing the Hawks to win the title), and Wilt's teams and the Lakers have a few more titles.

[D.Brasco]

Whats is this Tyson would match up better non-sense? Tyson has some of the most extreme chicken legs I've ever seen



Dude would get tossed by Wilt.

Regardless I doubt he'd be 1/50th the team leader that Rusell was.

[Cycklops]

Tyson would match up better physically.

I strongly disagree with this part.

Tyson is probably the weakest post defender I've seen among "great defenders". Watching him guard Bynum and Cousins (clearly scorers several stations below Wilt) was just embarrassing and cringe-worthy and due to his absolute helplessness, he even had to resort to explicitly flopping and flailing to get the zebras to make calls.

Yes, he only weighs about 240 pounds. But Russell was about 220.

[bastillon]

Wilt Chamberlain would have a lot of rings.

Yup and folks like me who are pretty critical of Wilt would be a lot less critical.

Except he wouldn't have a lot of rings. Jerry West would, and Oscar to the lesser degree. Lakers with West were much better than Wilt's team most of the time. And if Russell wasn't there Wilt wouldn't have joined West in that scenario. Pre 69, I'm pretty sure there is not much more that Wilt would've done with those teams. It was very rare that Wilt's team would be 2nd best in the league. Maybe, in 64, maybe in 68, but that's pretty much it. Considering Wilt's track record it is highly probable that Oscar would've won in 64, and West in 68. Other than that? In 61, 63 and 65 his teams sucked and were bounced early not because of Russell, but because they were poor. In 64 Royals were clear-cut 2nd best team, in 68 Lakers with West absolutely rocking.

I think the logo would have a lot of rings. Likely about 6 rings or so, with 2 or 3 going to Oscar. Instead of Wilt-Russell, we would have Oscar vs West in the finals every year. And Wilt would still be breaking records with empty stats.

[Quotatious]

Wilt would've ate him for dinner. But lets be serious for a second, if Russell didn't exist Wilt would have at least 10 rings, and not only would we not hear nonsense about how his impact wasn't conducive to winning, he'd be the unanimous GOAT imo.

Wilt would have at least 10 rings? Not even remotely close. Maybe 5, but no more than that. West and Baylor would benefit the most. They would have 5+, most likely. Pettit would get a few more in the mid/late 50s.

I still don't see Oscar getting any with the Royals. Maybe in '64, but that's still a pretty huge MAYBE, as Wilt performed very well in the '64 playoffs, and it's really hard to say who would win that year, between the Royals and Warriors. Would be a very close series, 6 or 7 games, for sure.

[70sFan]

Celtics would not win probably any rings. Difference between Russell and Chandler is HUGE. Wilt would kill Boston, Tyson can't guard even Cousins or Howard... NMot to mention that Lakers and Hawks would have more titles (maybe even Royals).

[Doctor MJ]

Wilt Chamberlain would have a lot of rings.

Yup and folks like me who are pretty critical of Wilt would be a lot less critical.

Except he wouldn't have a lot of rings. Jerry West would, and Oscar to the lesser degree. Lakers with West were much better than Wilt's team most of the time. And if Russell wasn't there Wilt wouldn't have joined West in that scenario. Pre 69, I'm pretty sure there is not much more that Wilt would've done with those teams. It was very rare that Wilt's team would be 2nd best in the league. Maybe, in 64, maybe in 68, but that's pretty much it. Considering Wilt's track record it is highly probable that Oscar would've won in 64, and West in 68. Other than that? In 61, 63 and 65 his teams sucked and were bounced early not because of Russell, but because they were poor. In 64 Royals were clear-cut 2nd best team, in 68 Lakers with West absolutely rocking.

I think the logo would have a lot of rings. Likely about 6 rings or so, with 2 or 3 going to Oscar. Instead of Wilt-Russell, we would have Oscar vs West in the finals every year. And Wilt would still be breaking records with empty stats.

Well I didn't say Wilt would have as many rings as Russell, and West is the big reason why. It would be my expectations that by the end of '68 - the last year Wilt & West played separately in real life - they'd each have 3-4 rings.

To point out specific years:

Wilt's team would have been an incredibly dangerous slight underdog in both '60 (to the Hawks) and '62 (to the Lakers)

Then when Wilt moves to the 76ers, there basically isn't a time when Wilt isn't a serious, serious threat. They came closest to beating the Celtics in '65, and they had the best record in '66.

Then there's '67 which is obvious, and '68 which I think you're crazy if you think the Lakers would be favorites there. Philly had easily the better record and came closer to beating the Celtics in the playoffs.

So yeah, there 6 years where Wilt would have had a very, very good chance to win a title before '69 even though I'm only thinking he'd probably have 3 or 4.

Then there's the matter that if Wilt doesn't change teams after '68, who do we really think has more success from that point on given that Baylor was on his last legs?

If there's no Russell I think Wilt is seen as the undisputed GOAT by the time retires, but West would be seen as a very respectable 2nd.

On other guys:

It's pretty clear Pettit would have more rings, and that would help his stock too.

"Robertson in the finals every year"? Don't be silly dude. Have you even looked up how many times Cincy had the best record in the East after Boston? It only happened twice, and one of those years saw them get "upset" by Wilt.