RealGM

A top 100 project is upcoming and the Russell argument of 11 rings is hard to beat.

So, say Russell gets hurt in the Olympics as the us wins the gold medal. He never plays in the nba.

How many championships do the celtics win?


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

Tough to say because there were only 8 teams, which emans they had a great chance at getting another star.
i will say this though....Wilt would be Babe Ruth level in NBA lore. He'd likely have the stats + titles.

DQuinn1575 wrote:A top 100 project is upcoming and the Russell argument of 11 rings is hard to beat.

So, say Russell gets hurt in the Olympics as the us wins the gold medal. He never plays in the nba.

How many championships do the celtics win?

Zero.

There's really no way to tell. So many things would've changed about many different teams, not just the Celtics, that it's hard to even speculate what would've happened. Cousy/Sharman/Heinsohn core probably wouldn't win any championships - MAYBE would've sqeezed one in the late 50s, before the really huge superstars like Wilt, Oscar and West entered the league, but I think the Hawks with Pettit and Hagan (plus aging Ed Macauley and Slater Martin), then also with a 20/10 center like Clyde Lovellette, would've probably been too much to overcome. Obviously in the 60s it would've been even more difficult - Boston could end up being like the Lakers or Royals - not having an elite center, less starpower, but better depth, though I think they would still be at a disadvantage due to not having that elite superstar, like West, Wilt or Oscar, or even Elgin.


One thing's for sure - West/Baylor and Wilt would now have a lot more rings, Oscar's Royals might've at least made the finals, at least one or two times, as well.

You would say zero, but the Celts being the Yankees of that era would have just bought somebody else's top center. Might have bought Wilt himself.

Interesting aside: supposedly Auerbach was trying to recruit Wilt to attend a college in-market for Boston so they could use their territorial pick.

That being said...

So Russ was traded for Cliff Hagan (in the league until 66 and went to the ABA until 70, his last high-level season seems to be 64) and Ed Macauley (in the league until 59, last impact season was 58).

I think Boston would have better luck winning earlier than later, unless they could snag a center prospect. Assuming they didn't grab anyone of note though, they'd probably have a ton of trouble once Wilt and Oscar got to the then-East Division. I can't imagine them winning from 60. Prior to that:

57: Might have a shot, especially since it was a close series. Boston had Russell in real life, but Hagan and Macauley were legitimate players for the Hawks.
58: Possibly, for the same reasons as above.
59: They swept the Lakers, though Russ having the GOAT rebounding series was a big part of that. Unsure.

In 61 they faced Syracuse, but they might have to play Philly instead if Russ isn't around. As for 63 they faced the Royals (and not Wilt), but it was a long series.

Any other year, running into Wilt would be a problem. As would going against the Lakers, since Boston no longer has a center mismatch, and West/Baylor become a problem.

Gun to my head, they win in 57 and 58. If they win again after that, it'd be because they drafted some other incredible big man.

Winsome Gerbil wrote:You would say zero, but the Celts being the Yankees of that era would have just bought somebody else's top center. Might have bought Wilt himself.

Wilt and Red might've killed each other, lol. It would be really awkward, knowing how much they disliked each other.

Willis Reed, Nate Thurmond, Zelmo Beaty or Walt Bellamy could still be up for grabs, though Bellamy doesn't seem to be a player that Auerbach would've liked...

fpliii wrote:Interesting aside: supposedly Auerbach was trying to recruit Wilt to attend a college in-market for Boston so they could use their territorial pick.

That being said...

So Russ was traded for Cliff Hagan (in the league until 66 and went to the ABA until 70, his last high-level season seems to be 64) and Ed Macauley (in the league until 59, last impact season was 58).

I think Boston would have better luck winning earlier than later, unless they could snag a center prospect. Assuming they didn't grab anyone of note though, they'd probably have a ton of trouble once Wilt and Oscar got to the then-East Division. I can't imagine them winning from 60. Prior to that:

57: Might have a shot, especially since it was a close series. Boston had Russell in real life, but Hagan and Macauley were legitimate players for the Hawks.
58: Possibly, for the same reasons as above.
59: They swept the Lakers, though Russ having the GOAT rebounding series was a big part of that. Unsure.

In 61 they faced Syracuse, but they might have to play Philly instead if Russ isn't around. As for 63 they faced the Royals (and not Wilt), but it was a long series.

Any other year, running into Wilt would be a problem. As would going against the Lakers, since Boston no longer has a center mismatch, and West/Baylor become a problem.

Gun to my head, they win in 57 and 58. If they win again after that, it'd be because they drafted some other incredible big man.

A much better answer than my throwaway giveup.

Winsome Gerbil wrote:

fpliii wrote:Interesting aside: supposedly Auerbach was trying to recruit Wilt to attend a college in-market for Boston so they could use their territorial pick.

That being said...

So Russ was traded for Cliff Hagan (in the league until 66 and went to the ABA until 70, his last high-level season seems to be 64) and Ed Macauley (in the league until 59, last impact season was 58).

I think Boston would have better luck winning earlier than later, unless they could snag a center prospect. Assuming they didn't grab anyone of note though, they'd probably have a ton of trouble once Wilt and Oscar got to the then-East Division. I can't imagine them winning from 60. Prior to that:

57: Might have a shot, especially since it was a close series. Boston had Russell in real life, but Hagan and Macauley were legitimate players for the Hawks.
58: Possibly, for the same reasons as above.
59: They swept the Lakers, though Russ having the GOAT rebounding series was a big part of that. Unsure.

In 61 they faced Syracuse, but they might have to play Philly instead if Russ isn't around. As for 63 they faced the Royals (and not Wilt), but it was a long series.

Any other year, running into Wilt would be a problem. As would going against the Lakers, since Boston no longer has a center mismatch, and West/Baylor become a problem.

Gun to my head, they win in 57 and 58. If they win again after that, it'd be because they drafted some other incredible big man.

A much better answer than my throwaway giveup.

I'm still unsure about 59 lol. Baylor wasn't the reason they lost that series, and perhaps he wins it on his own for them. But it's hard to decide how much of the sweep was due to Russell.

I'm just not sure who has the intestinal fortitude, genius-level understanding of the game, focus, and most importantly, respect of his teammates to win as player-coach in 1968 and 1969. Can't see them winning those years.

They have the best chance in the early years. Once Robertson/Lucas, West/Baylor, and Wilt reach the league or are in their prime, Boston becomes a vulnerable donut team. At their best with Hondo and Sam Jones, they are a poor man's version of the West/Baylor Lakers. This is assuming they don't sign Wilt, Thurmond, etc.

I probably should have said assume every other player in the league stays the same. No new center for Boston. I'm trying to give Russell a with and without for championships.

I have to look at year by year, and will add my two cents in after I do that.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

Quotatious wrote:There's really no way to tell. So many things would've changed about many different teams, not just the Celtics, that it's hard to even speculate what would've happened. Cousy/Sharman/Heinsohn core probably wouldn't win any championships - MAYBE would've sqeezed one in the late 50s, before the really huge superstars like Wilt, Oscar and West entered the league, but I think the Hawks with Pettit and Hagan (plus aging Ed Macauley and Slater Martin), then also with a 20/10 center like Clyde Lovellette, would've probably been too much to overcome. Obviously in the 60s it would've been even more difficult - Boston could end up being like the Lakers or Royals - not having an elite center, less starpower, but better depth, though I think they would still be at a disadvantage due to not having that elite superstar, like West, Wilt or Oscar, or even Elgin.


One thing's for sure - West/Baylor and Wilt would now have a lot more rings, Oscar's Royals might've at least made the finals, at least one or two times, as well.

Remember that the Hawks would not have Macauley or Cliff Hagan (their guy who always came up big in the playoffs) because that was the price Boston paid them for the right to draft Russell.

But yeah, my guess is that Boston turns into the Cinncinnati Royals part two. Without Russell to anchor the defense and rebounding, Red's philosophy of getting as many shots up as you can would probably not have much success. Ramsey, Hagan, and Sam Jones were great playoff performers but Cousy was a complete dog in those years and I've never been impressed with Macauley or Heinsohn who would be the primary scorers. They also would be completely vulnerable to Pettit and Wilt with that small, weak interior front line. Even adding Satch Sanders doesn't fix that as he is also a combo forward rather than someone who can guard a true big man star in the low post.

They get a lot better with the KC/Sam Jones/Havlicek/Sanders/Howell teams and did a nice job of picking up a bunch of ring chasing centers (as they did with SFs in Russell's first years) . . . Embry, Lovellette, Barnes, etc. could create at least a mediocre center by committee. However, other than maybe Sam Jones, their stars are just too one-dimensional to compete with the Wilt led Sixers though they match up well with the Lakers. Howell was a terrific offensive player but played little defense; Sanders and KC Jones were outstanding defensive specialists but gave little else -- you would hope for some rebounding from Sanders or some playmaking from KC and maybe without Russell as a crutch, they develop a bit more but I wouldn't count on it. Havlicek is an overrated offensive player up through 67 as well, he has that incredible motor, passes well, plays great defense, and is a good rebounder for a swingman but his shooting stroke is weak. He's one of the few players that actually recreated and improved his game after turning 30. I don't see greater responsibility creating more efficiency for him.

Winsome Gerbil wrote:You would say zero, but the Celts being the Yankees of that era would have just bought somebody else's top center. Might have bought Wilt himself.

I don't see how the Yankees comparison makes sense in this context. The Celtics did nothing before Russell got there, they certainly didn't have some kind of infinite amount of cash to throw around at free agent superstars, and Boston wasn't exactly a city African Americans were dying to play in.

So even bringing up Wilt here is a non-starter.

If all you mean is that Red Auerbach is smart and you think he'd figure something out in his player acquisition to make the team more than just Russell-less, I agree to some degree but remember that Auerbach had already been coaching in the NBA (or precursor leagues) and hadn't won any titles in that span. To simply assume that he'd win titles in the next 13 years really overestimates what he can do.

Jerry west would have 7 NBA titles and be talked about in the same conversation as Jordan.

If they keep it trucking with the same roster then probably zero.

Remember that the Hawks would not have Macauley or Cliff Hagan (their guy who always came up big in the playoffs) because that was the price Boston paid them for the right to draft Russell.

I assumed the trade was made, and then Russell got hurt, so the Celtics would not have Macauley or Hagan, and the league would be exactly the same.

So

1957- The Celtics had the best record at 16-8 before Russell showed up, playing about 1/2 their games at home, and in a very balanced league. I'll say the stay the best team and WIN

1958- they lost with Russell hurt, so the lose, but they lost the 2 games without Russell by 1 and 2 points, so it's pretty darn close LOSE

1959- They get lucky that the St Louis Hawks lose to the 33-39 Lakers. The Celtics beat a 35-37 Syracuse team and a 33-39 Lakers team, even without Russell WIN TITLE #2

1960- Wilt arrives, and the Celtics have no one to guard him so WILT wins his first title

1961-Heinsohn and Sam Jones lead a strong offense - WIlt loses to Syracuse, so the Celtics make the finals but PETTIT wins a second title.

1962-Wilt scores 50 a game, which is too much for the Celtics and for the Lakers, WILT wins second title.

1963 - Oscar Roberston took Celtics to 7 games in real life; in this universe they beat Celts but WEST/BAYLOR get title #1.

1964- With Havlicek and Sam Jones, I'll say the Celtics get revenge on Cincinnati and face Wilt and San Fran in the final. With Clyde Lovellette on the team, they upset the Warriors and get TITLE #3

1965 -Wilt gets traded to 76ers - in real life it went 7 - in this world Wilt wins and beats Lakers for WILT's 3rd

1966 - Wilt beats Celts again, but WEST/BAYLOR who almost beat Celts in real life get TITLE# #2

1967 - Wilt won in real life, no change here
1968 - Wilt wins in this world TITLE #5
1969 - Kind of weird that Wilt gets traded after 5 titles, but I'm keeping everything else the same, so he goes to LA
Lakers beat Knicks in finals so WILT gets 6 titles, WEST/BAYLOR 3.

Wilt gets one more title in 72, giving him 7, West 4, Baylor 3, Pettit 2 - The Celtics get 3 here.

So, even though he played with a loaded team as the detractors would say, Russell still puts this team over the hump 8 times. It's going to be a strong case as I make up an all-time list.

1966 - Wilt beats Celts again, but WEST/BAYLOR who almost beat Celts in real life get TITLE# #2

Lakers (2.76 SRS) didn't have the front line to matchup with the Sixers (4.16 SRS). I know the Sixers had a meltdown against Boston in the playoff series, but I feel they would beaten the Lakers more easily than Boston did. Even in the 10 regular season games, the Sixers were 8-2 against them with a MOV of 6.4 ppg. I know Baylor missed 4 of those games but West did not miss any. Plus they had no answer for Chamberlain. Below we can see his averages in 10 regular season games against the Lakers, where he saw an increase in every category from his regular season averages including efficiency.

40.8 ppg, 26.1 rpg, 6.6 apg, 53.5% FG, 62.0% FT, 56.4% TS

DQuinn1575 wrote:

Remember that the Hawks would not have Macauley or Cliff Hagan (their guy who always came up big in the playoffs) because that was the price Boston paid them for the right to draft Russell.

I assumed the trade was made, and then Russell got hurt, so the Celtics would not have Macauley or Hagan, and the league would be exactly the same.

So

1957- The Celtics had the best record at 16-8 before Russell showed up, playing about 1/2 their games at home, and in a very balanced league. I'll say the stay the best team and WIN

1958- they lost with Russell hurt, so the lose, but they lost the 2 games without Russell by 1 and 2 points, so it's pretty darn close LOSE

1959- They get lucky that the St Louis Hawks lose to the 33-39 Lakers. The Celtics beat a 35-37 Syracuse team and a 33-39 Lakers team, even without Russell WIN TITLE #2

1960- Wilt arrives, and the Celtics have no one to guard him so WILT wins his first title

1961-Heinsohn and Sam Jones lead a strong offense - WIlt loses to Syracuse, so the Celtics make the finals but PETTIT wins a second title.

1962-Wilt scores 50 a game, which is too much for the Celtics and for the Lakers, WILT wins second title.

1963 - Oscar Roberston took Celtics to 7 games in real life; in this universe they beat Celts but WEST/BAYLOR get title #1.

1964- With Havlicek and Sam Jones, I'll say the Celtics get revenge on Cincinnati and face Wilt and San Fran in the final. With Clyde Lovellette on the team, they upset the Warriors and get TITLE #3

1965 -Wilt gets traded to 76ers - in real life it went 7 - in this world Wilt wins and beats Lakers for WILT's 3rd

1966 - Wilt beats Celts again, but WEST/BAYLOR who almost beat Celts in real life get TITLE# #2

1967 - Wilt won in real life, no change here
1968 - Wilt wins in this world TITLE #5
1969 - Kind of weird that Wilt gets traded after 5 titles, but I'm keeping everything else the same, so he goes to LA
Lakers beat Knicks in finals so WILT gets 6 titles, WEST/BAYLOR 3.

Wilt gets one more title in 72, giving him 7, West 4, Baylor 3, Pettit 2 - The Celtics get 3 here.

So, even though he played with a loaded team as the detractors would say, Russell still puts this team over the hump 8 times. It's going to be a strong case as I make up an all-time list.

Not sure how useful Lovellette was in his final year. I didn't see him but looking at this numbers, he took the most FGA/min of his career but at career lows for efficiency and rebounds (though not by huge amounts). He also played less than 50 games. If he stays healthy and plays defense (and at his best he was a Zelmo Beaty type defender), then maybe he's a help in 64. If he's Chris Webber in Philadelphia . . .

Dipper 13 wrote:

1966 - Wilt beats Celts again, but WEST/BAYLOR who almost beat Celts in real life get TITLE# #2

Lakers (2.76 SRS) didn't have the front line to matchup with the Sixers (4.16 SRS). I know the Sixers had a meltdown against Boston in the playoff series, but I feel they would beaten the Lakers more easily than Boston did. Even in the 10 regular season games, the Sixers were 8-2 against them with a MOV of 6.4 ppg. I know Baylor missed 4 of those games but West did not miss any. Plus they had no answer for Chamberlain. Below we can see his averages in 10 regular season games against the Lakers, where he saw an increase in every category from his regular season averages including efficiency.

40.8 ppg, 26.1 rpg, 6.6 apg, 53.5% FG, 62.0% FT, 56.4% TS

This was a tough call, and I pretty much went with the fact the Lakers fared better against the Celtics in the playoffs.

penbeast0 wrote:

DQuinn1575 wrote:

Remember that the Hawks would not have Macauley or Cliff Hagan (their guy who always came up big in the playoffs) because that was the price Boston paid them for the right to draft Russell.

1964

Not sure how useful Lovellette was in his final year. I didn't see him but looking at this numbers, he took the most FGA/min of his career but at career lows for efficiency and rebounds (though not by huge amounts). He also played less than 50 games. If he stays healthy and plays defense (and at his best he was a Zelmo Beaty type defender), then maybe he's a help in 64. If he's Chris Webber in Philadelphia . . .

I figured the Celtics would probably squeeze one playoff in the 60s if they had something at center, and IIRC Lovellette did reasonably well against Wilt earlier in his career.
Boston first two wins were by 12 and 23. And they won the series 4-1.

Game 5 Boston won by 6 despite Wilt getting 30 points -
It looked like a year Boston could win.

The league would have been wide open with the Russell-less Celtics, Oscar, Wilt, and West/Baylor.






It was pretty tough to look at what they had on their roster a few years without Russell.

Realistically they probably would have traded someone like Satch Sanders or KC Jones for a serviceable center.
Looking at the drafts, they wouldnt have gotten anybody before they took Mel Counts in 1964.

If they still get Hondo and Sam Jones then at least 3 or 4. With just Cousey/Sharman/Heinsohn they would make multiple Finals appearances but not sure they would win any.