If Russell was drafted in 1970 instead of 1957 How would that have changed both Wilt's and Kareem’s legacies.

[Doctor MJ]

Helps Wilt, hurts Kareem. Don't know if I need to elaborate because I think it's clear this is the case.

Incidentally, this is the sort of experiment I do when I do cross-era player comparisons. One form of counterfactual analysis I do.

One word of caution when using it:

We have to consider the significance of the ignorance we'd have were the scenario in question to play out. If Russell's Celtics hadn't consistently gotten the better of Wilt's teams, the basketball world would likely have wrongly concluded that no team could stop Wilt. If we know that they'd be wrong in their thinking due to a blindspot they would have that we don't, we should not give their vantage point weight as if it has equal validity to our own.

Without Russell Wilt might have also never reached the same heights.
You need strong competition to get the best out of you.

But in terms of our perception, a player who never fails tends to be seen as flawless and inevitable. So Wilt may have literally been a worse player without Russell, but would likely have been perceived as better.

[frica]

Helps Wilt, hurts Kareem. Don't know if I need to elaborate because I think it's clear this is the case.

Incidentally, this is the sort of experiment I do when I do cross-era player comparisons. One form of counterfactual analysis I do.

One word of caution when using it:

We have to consider the significance of the ignorance we'd have were the scenario in question to play out. If Russell's Celtics hadn't consistently gotten the better of Wilt's teams, the basketball world would likely have wrongly concluded that no team could stop Wilt. If we know that they'd be wrong in their thinking due to a blindspot they would have that we don't, we should not give their vantage point weight as if it has equal validity to our own.

Without Russell Wilt might have also never reached the same heights.
You need strong competition to get the best out of you.

But in terms of our perception, a player who never fails tends to be seen as flawless and inevitable. So Wilt may have literally been a worse player without Russell, but would likely have been perceived as better.

Or maybe he would have been seen as an extension of the 50s where Mikan dominated. A weaker era dominated by The giant.

In bodybuilding Lee Haney is not seen as the GOAT (or even contender) despite unquestionable dominance.
He's seen as the guy that came between Arnold and Dorian Yates.

But maybe Wilt would be seen as the Arnold, so you might be right.
I'm just not sure because without the same development I think he'd look quite a bit worse against the later centers than he did in reality. More specifically Kareem and Thurmond, and I guess Russell as well.
More dominant early on, but less so later.
A few bad performances against those 3 in the late 60s/early 70s and the perception of perfection is gone.

[Doctor MJ]

Without Russell Wilt might have also never reached the same heights.
You need strong competition to get the best out of you.

But in terms of our perception, a player who never fails tends to be seen as flawless and inevitable. So Wilt may have literally been a worse player without Russell, but would likely have been perceived as better.

Or maybe he would have been seen as an extension of the 50s where Mikan dominated. A weaker era dominated by The giant.

In bodybuilding Lee Haney is not seen as the GOAT (or even contender) despite unquestionable dominance.
He's seen as the guy that came between Arnold and Dorian Yates.

But maybe Wilt would be seen as the Arnold, so you might be right.
I'm just not sure because without the same development I think he'd look quite a bit worse against the later centers than he did in reality. More specifically Kareem and Thurmond, and I guess Russell as well.
More dominant early on, but less so later.
A few bad performances against those 3 in the late 60s/early 70s and the perception of perfection is gone.

Mikan is perceived like this because he dominated with size at a size that in future eras would not be that impressive of a size (to say nothing of race).

Wilt is generally seen as the greatest physical specimen that the world of athletics has ever seen, and this perception has nothing to do with Russell.



Re: a few bad performance and the perception of perfection is gone. Very true. I don't believe Wilt was capable of winning 11 championships at anything - I don't think he had the mentality for it - so that was always going to bring him down to earth a bit, but if Wilt could have owned the claim of "When he was at his peak, his team always won", I think it would have helped his legacy, and more importantly: It would have shaped perception of how what "winning basketball" meant.

[penbeast0]

Kareem stil wins in 1971
Wilt still wins in 1972

Celtics win 1973,74,75,76

1977 is a toss up. Can Russell make Wicks and Rowe play better?
Because the 1977 team is better do the Celtics not get to draft Cedric Maxwell?
Because the 1978 team is better and drafts at 16th instead of 6th do they still get to draft Larry Bird?
Without the Celtics have Bird and Maxwell does Kareem get an additional ring in 1984?

Too many ifs when you start changing draft positions. I think you have to assume Red managed to work deals to get his key guys; heck, the Lakers were able to get the picks to draft Worthy and Magic #1.

1970 is 1 year away from the upset Celtics title over Wilt/Baylor/West and company. It would be an upset for the Celtics to win this by adding rookie Bill Russell but not completely ridiculous. Hank Finkel was not an NBA starting center, Russell is arguably the GOAT, the Knicks were great but not 71 Bucks level and probably not 69 Lakers level (at least in terms of talent). Let's give this title to the Celtics.

The 71 Bucks are one of the great teams of all time and should win. Especially since Russell's second year is the one he came up limping in the final and Bob Pettit was able to take advantage with arguably the most dominant 4th quarter closeout performance in NBA finals history.

The 72 Celtics have all the pieces in place to win a title except Paul Silas . They still have 33 year old Satch Sanders to be the defensive stopper to platoon with Don Nelson's offense. With Russell's rim protection and ability to affect players away from the basket and get back to his man, they have more talent than the Knicks without Willis Reed and should go to the finals against Wilt, West, Goodrich, and company. I'd bet on Russell beating Wilt based on the long history of him always finding a way to do so.

73-76 the improvement from Cowens (who I do like) to Russell (my GOAT performer) should make the Celtics a dynasty again. 5 titles.

77 is a tough one. The Celtics fell apart with Dave Cowens only playing a half season and trying to integrate Sidney Wicks, Curtis Rowe, and half a season of scorer Charlie Scott. Could Russell have held them together with a full season and brought Wicks and Rowe back to the confident but not obnoxious players they were at UCLA? I would give the Celtics a good shot.

78-79 are just bad years even though Cowens was playing the full season. The team didn't fit together didn't seem to like each other. Even Russell can't save these.

80-82 Russell with Bird and company. The Celts return to their dominance, this time over Kareem and the Lakers, much to the disgust of Celtics haters everywhere. Kareem certainly has a shot at a title but I'd bet on the new Green Machine even though I am not sure how they integrate Robert Parish with Russell still there playing big minutes. Assuming they can keep him from being unhappy or deal him for equivalent guard talent, it could easily be 3 more Celtic titles.

Obviously I am a huge Russell fan. I like Cowens too but the difference between them both as players and as team leaders in the later, grumpy years seems to work in the 70s Celtics favor quite a bit. While I'm not saying it's a sure thing, but with the same luck Russell had in the 60s (where he always seemed to catch the breaks in the closeout game except 1958) I could see 10 titles in 13 years, the toughest being 1970 and 1977 (harder than 58 and 69?).

[penbeast0]

Question for y'all. If Russell moves to the 70s leaving Wilt the undisputed king with, say, 5 titles, does this to anything for Walt Bellamy's legacy? Just a random thought...

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

But in terms of our perception, a player who never fails tends to be seen as flawless and inevitable. So Wilt may have literally been a worse player without Russell, but would likely have been perceived as better.

Or maybe he would have been seen as an extension of the 50s where Mikan dominated. A weaker era dominated by The giant.

In bodybuilding Lee Haney is not seen as the GOAT (or even contender) despite unquestionable dominance.
He's seen as the guy that came between Arnold and Dorian Yates.

But maybe Wilt would be seen as the Arnold, so you might be right.
I'm just not sure because without the same development I think he'd look quite a bit worse against the later centers than he did in reality. More specifically Kareem and Thurmond, and I guess Russell as well.
More dominant early on, but less so later.
A few bad performances against those 3 in the late 60s/early 70s and the perception of perfection is gone.

Mikan is perceived like this because he dominated with size at a size that in future eras would not be that impressive of a size (to say nothing of race).

Wilt is generally seen as the greatest physical specimen that the world of athletics has ever seen, and this perception has nothing to do with Russell.



Re: a few bad performance and the perception of perfection is gone. Very true. I don't believe Wilt was capable of winning 11 championships at anything - I don't think he had the mentality for it - so that was always going to bring him down to earth a bit, but if Wilt could have owned the claim of "When he was at his peak, his team always won", I think it would have helped his legacy, and more importantly: It would have shaped perception of how what "winning basketball" meant.

We are not all so good with faces.
I recognized Andre the Giant.
I was looking at the other tall guy and thinking that is not Bill Russell. It is not Bill Russell, It is Wilt. Wilt and the shorter guy in the middle Arnold Schwarzenegger sort of look like they are in a gay porn.
Photo needed captions.