RealGM

Looking back at Wilt's supporting cast, there are several of Wilt's teammates who are in the basketball hall of fame. But compared to Russell's teammates it doesn't seem that all hall of famers from that particular era are equal.

Wilt's back court:

Guy Rodgers, Tom Gola, & Al Attles

Russell's back court:

Sam Jones, Bill Sharman, & Bob Cousy.

Wilt's Forwards: Paul Arizin, Woody Sauldsberry, Joe Grabowski, Tom Meschery

Russell's Forwards: Tommy Heinsohn, Satch Sanders, Frank Ramsey, Jim Loscutoff

Seems like the only advantage Wilt had (if you consider it an advantage), was at the power forward position. Paul Arizin is probably viewed more favorably in NBA annals than Tommy Heinsohn. That's like the only teammate Wilt had with the warriors that is a true "NBA Hall Of Famer". But Arizin was an older guy, from the pre-shot clock era of the NBA who was just hanging on.

And when Wilt was traded to the 76ers, Russell's teammates were getting older, but the Celtics drafted John Havlicek who was just way better than Billy Cunningham & Hal Greer.

If Russell & Chamberlain had switched teams, what do you think the championship count would look like? As it was when they played against each other, it was Russell's 9 to Wilt's 1.

Wilt’s 76er team was better than any team Russell had. Before that Russell had better teams.

Wilt
Chet Walker
Hal Greer
Billy Cunningham
Luke Jackson
Wali Jones

That team was voted the best NBA team of the first 35 years of the league IIRC.

SkyHookFTW wrote:Wilt’s 76er team was better than any team Russell had. Before that Russell had better teams.

Wilt
Chet Walker
Hal Greer
Billy Cunningham
Luke Jackson
Wali Jones

That team was voted the best NBA team of the first 35 years of the league IIRC.

Cosigned.

Wilt had worse teammates when he was on the Warriors, but after that, Wilt played with plenty of talent and showed no capacity for running through the league year after year the way Russell did.

Was there luck in that? Yes, along with Wilt being erratic in his focus, but suffice to say, put Wilt with average luck on those Celtics and he doesn't win as frequently as Russell did.

Outside of a couple years in the late 60s with the Sixers [one of which Wilt saw his cast go down with injury in the playoffs], and some later years in LA (which appear to be aside from the intent of this thread, which is looking only at their overlapping careers), Russell otherwise had the better teammates.

I disagree that Wilt had better PF's; Arizin was a SF, btw, and Ramsey really more of a SG, too, especially by the time Russell arrived.

Anyway, I'll elaborate by way of how I perceive the hierarchy of the players you listed in that section (Arizin, Sauldsberry, Meschery, Grabowski, Ramsey, Heinsohn, Sanders, Loscutoff).....

Paul Arizin (even in that late-stage of his career) might be the best "forward" of those listed.
But after that I think Tom Heinsohn and Frank Ramsey are comfortably better than any of the other Wilt teammates in that list.
Perhaps more debatable, but I'm pretty comfortable placing Sanders ahead of Meschery, too [Meschery probably bein the next-best teammate of Wilt here].

And Woody Sauldsberry is likely the worst among them.
I know you'll point to him being an "All-Star" the year before Wilt arrived......but that's because those doing the picking didn't know what was good for them, as it were (tbh, most of them STILL don't).
Sauldsberry scored a lot [for the time period], but you'll note he was nearly 8% below league avg in his shooting efficiency [this in an era where shooting efficiency is already a bit suspect].
Maybe he took a lot of bad bail-out shots as he was creating for others?? Unlikely, given he averaged just 1.0 apg [despite playing >38 mpg].
This was quite simply a guy who LOVED to jack up shots even though he wasn't any damn good at making them [basically your nightmare teammate in a pick-up game].....and no one at the time had the sense to bench him or at least tell him to knock it off.
He rebounded barely adequately for a PF/C of the time period; definitely nothing special there. And to my knowledge [I could be wrong], he was not a special defender at all.
It's worth noting that Sauldsberry has the lowest career Win Shares total EVER: -7.9!

Jim Loscutoff also couldn't shoot worth a damn.......but he at least had the sense to not TRY to shoot all the damn time [and even his shooting efficiency was just negligibly better than Sauldsberry's].
Loscutoff meanwhile was one of the best defensive forwards of his era: an extremely powerfully-built 6'5" who they didn't call "Jungle Jim" for nothing; despite playing primarily SF (some PF), he actually rebounded a little better than Sauldsberry, too (who was 2" taller and played PF [and a pinch of C]).
I'd liken Loscutoff [for his era] to PJ Tucker in this era.

Grabowski was somewhere in between the Meschery/Sanders level and the Sauldsberry(/Loscutoff) level. I'd rank those eight guys something like:
Arizin
Ramsey/Heinsohn

Sanders
Meschery

Grabowski
Loscutoff

Sauldsberry

Overall, I think Russell's got the better group of 4.


Among those you listed as backcourt players, Guy Rodgers is overrated [because he tallied a lot of assists]. He forced all kinds of bad shots (another with terrible shooting efficiency), and [not counting the '70 Bucks (with Kareem) where he was an 11 mpg role player] wasn't a significant part of a legit "good" offense in his entire career.....not once. That's despite several years alongside Wilt.
To me, that's a harsh indictment of a PG.

Tom Gola, otoh, is probably UNDER-rated. Reputation as a good and versatile defender; versatile in general, sort of a utility man (nick-named "Mr. All-Around"), and has reasonably solid WOWYR figures, fwiw.
Maybe like the Nicolas Batum [perhaps "rich man's" version] of his time?? Or perhaps we should be more generous and say more like the Andre Iguodala of his era??

Al Attles was a scrappy defender, so he's likely better than his numbers indicate. That said, Attles was fairly poor offensively for a PG. Perhaps similar to KC Jones, a notable omission among Russell's backcourt crew. Attles is a little better offensively, but probably a little worse defensively (Jones being probably the best defensive PG of the 60s outside of maybe Jerry West).

All of that said, I think it's arguable [likely, in fact] that the three best guards of the six you listed are Sam Jones, Bill Sharman, and Bob Cousy.......all Russell's teammates.


Truly it's not until he gets to the Sixer franchise where we can be boastful about Wilt's casts, imo.

FullForceMDs wrote:Looking back at Wilt's supporting cast, there are several of Wilt's teammates who are in the basketball hall of fame. But compared to Russell's teammates it doesn't seem that all hall of famers from that particular era are equal.

Wilt's back court:

Guy Rodgers, Tom Gola, & Al Attles

Russell's back court:

Sam Jones, Bill Sharman, & Bob Cousy.

Wilt's Forwards: Paul Arizin, Woody Sauldsberry, Joe Grabowski, Tom Meschery

Russell's Forwards: Tommy Heinsohn, Satch Sanders, Frank Ramsey, Jim Loscutoff

Seems like the only advantage Wilt had (if you consider it an advantage), was at the power forward position. Paul Arizin is probably viewed more favorably in NBA annals than Tommy Heinsohn. That's like the only teammate Wilt had with the warriors that is a true "NBA Hall Of Famer". But Arizin was an older guy, from the pre-shot clock era of the NBA who was just hanging on.

And when Wilt was traded to the 76ers, Russell's teammates were getting older, but the Celtics drafted John Havlicek who was just way better than Billy Cunningham & Hal Greer.

If Russell & Chamberlain had switched teams, what do you think the championship count would look like? As it was when they played against each other, it was Russell's 9 to Wilt's 1.

Arizin was a swingman, not a PF, the other guys were the 4's and that was the biggest weakness of the Wilt Warriors teams. I would have Arizin, pre-Wilt, as clearly better than Heinsohn, there is a question as to whether Arizin aged out or whether the "walk the ball up and throw it in to Wilt" offense nerfed his (and Gola's) talents. Remember that Arizin was the generally acknowledge star of a title team in Philly pre-Wilt, something Cousy and Sharman couldn't do in Boston. Probably the best of the supporting casts for either team in the 50s.

Gola was a guy I really loved, sort of Ben Simmons with low volume shooting but not better than Sharman who was the pre-Sam Jones era Celtics' best shooter. Rodgers was worse than Cousy even with Cousy's traditional lousy playoff performance and Attles was good, but not as good as Frank Ramsey whose regular playoff heroics made up for a lot of Cousy's playoff fails. The PFs were generally meh at best, Meschery being the best of them until Nate Thurmond. I'm not a Heinsohn fan, low efficiency gunners who aren't known for good defense or passing are generally not winning players, but the Philly PFs were weak and Lotscutoff/Sanders were solid defensive specialists. Russell's supporting cast in Wilt's Warriors years was superior.

I disagree that Havlicek was significantly better than Chet Walker who was his counterpart on the Sixers. Walker was more efficient and also a good defender. Greer was considered by their peers to be the best SG in the league, Sam Jones second. Wali Jones was a defensive specialist like KC Jones; not KC's equal defensively but better offensively. Cunningham's competition as primarily a PF would have been Bailey Howell who was more efficient than Billy C, though Cunningham was more athletic and a better defender. Both had defensive forwards as well with Luke Jackson considered even a better defender than Satch Sanders. Excellent depth in Philly too with Larry Costello and Dave Gambee further down the bench. I would call these two supporting casts as a slight edge to the Sixers if everyone was healthy but the problem was that in Wilt's 3 years there, they were only fully healthy in the great 67 season. And, unlike the Warrior years, there's no sign that Wilt's teammates were playing below their abilities as Hannum changed Wilt into enough of a passer that Greer, Walker, and Cunningham were all taking more shots than he was.

Then Wilt went to LA where he had Jerry West and Elgin Baylor. There's no one on the Celtics outside of Russell that comes close to Jerry West in terms of talent, or even Baylor though that's closer (and Baylor and Wilt had trouble fitting together). The Celtics were slipping as KC Jones had retired and Sam Jones had been moved to 6th man as he aged, with Em Bryant and Larry Siegfriend moving into starting roles or Don Nelson with Havlicek moving to the 2. LA outside of West and Baylor was underwhelming as well but those two give them a clear talent edge for that one year.

As for how the Celtics would have done with Wilt, they had a bunch of offensive players, they had been a strong offensive team throughout the 50s pre-Russell. Wilt's identity early in his career was as a volume scorer and he was known for walking up the court rather than pushing the fast break as a trailer. Russell had a clear edge as an outlet passer and getting up and down the court on both ends. I think the Celtics look a lot less talented if they adapt around Wilt's early identity with slower pace and a focus on passing the ball into the post and Wilt was such a ridiculous talent that almost any coach would do so. Sure, if Red had an Alec Hannum epiphany and made Wilt a lesser scoring passing hub, it's possible that wouldn't happen but assuming Wilt was the Wilt we saw, I think the team would certainly be better offensively (they were LOUSY during the Russell years despite all that "talent), and equally certainly worse defensively. I'd be surprised if they are as good as the Russell Celtics in almost any year. OF course, Wilt plays 3 more years after Russell retires; Havlicek, Howell, and Sanders are still there even though those Celtics sucked with a hole at center. He might win another ring during those years, though Kareem and Oscar in Milwaukee have one of the great seasons in history.

The bigger question is how Russell would have done with Wilt's teams. Did the Warriors have enough scoring on those teams to deal with Russell's limited offense? I do think they had more than enough defensive talent (Gola, Attles, and Arizin all had good defensive reps) to take advantage of Russell's unique defensive skill set and dominate the league defensively the way his Celtics teams did. I would say they had a bit more defensive talent than Boston up to 63 or so. Arizin would have to step up; his efficiency stayed roughly what it was in the 50s even with Wilt, though his volume didn't scale with the increase in league pace as you might expect (how would it with Wilt scoring 35-50 ppg!). He has proved he could score at that level at a higher volume, Gola would get you 10-15, you would need a bit more from Rodgers (who did score 20+ when he went to Chicago toward the end of his career) and from the PFs (Meschery had a nice playoff run averaging 20+ppg but generally wasn't that capable and Saulsberry, etc. were outmatched as they went into the 60s. They would suffer offensively, but I would guess that if Russell had the same defensive dominance of the league there that he had in Boston, it wouldn't matter that much. Would Russell win a ring in all the same years? Well, if he's still injured against the Pettit Hawks where Pettit exploded in the 4th quarter to win the Hawk's only title, that's still one loss. Then Wilt comes into the league in Boston, though his rookie year is lower efficiency and more biting on fakes defensively. But Wilt from year 2 in Boston (61-64) would be the same monster roadblock to Russell's dominance that he was in real life and at the end of 62 Arizin retires, leaving no primary scorer. So 63 and 64 would be a tougher road for Russell than it was with the Celtics though Russell and Thurmond would probably work better in 64 and 65 than Thurmond and Wilt did. Russell with the Sixers would win in 67 and have the same injury issues in 66 and 68. Russell with the Lakers in 69, especially as he has most likely moved to the same high post passing role he did with Boston to take advantage of all the Sixers scorers, would be a much better fit with both Baylor and coach BvBK and should win the title over Wilt and the weakened Celtics in 69.

So, my guess is that Russell wins 2 rings before Wilt enters the league (as he did in Boston) plus Wilt's rookie year. The next years are much tougher fights but while I'd bet on Russell in 62 still, 63 is unlikely and 64 would take a lot of adjustment building around the Russell/Thurmond defensive duo. In Philly, I think Russell is a lot easier to adapt to, with his focus on defense rather than offense. They may win either 65 or 66, probably do win 67, are too injury riddles in 68, then Russell wins another ring in 69. So. Russell wins a good 7 titles in 13 years (maybe 8) rather than 11, leaving another 3 or 4 for Wilt to claim leaving Wilt with 5 or 6 as I don't see LA or St. Louis winning over Wilt in Boston.

That's my best guess, assuming Wilt has the same offensive and defensive impact, Russell has the same defensive impact and offensive style, the breaks work out similarly for the two big men (rather than for Boston and their opponents) and their respective teams play about the same given the changes in roles.

penbeast0 wrote: I'm not a Heinsohn fan, low efficiency gunners who aren't known for good defense....

Recall from the top 100 project that Heinsohn was considered fairly good defensively according to Red Auerbach, fwiw. His chief supporter [ZeppelinPage] was a little overly rosy and passionate in his arguments for Heinsohn, but he did show that much. And fwiw, Heinsohn has looked OK to me defensively in my limited eye-test [equivalent of 2 full games logged from '62-'65].

I mean, maybe you're right about his defense; but what is the evidence?
Just a caution against remaining attached to narratives which might not be entirely true [purely out of habit of reciting them].
I recall you always saying Walt Bellamy "ate his way out of the league" [or something to that effect], despite the fact that he was still only 245 lbs in 1972 [11th season, in which he averaged nearly 19 and 13, and looking EXTREMELY similar to how he'd looked a decade earlier], played over 13 seasons at >37 mpg for his career, while basically never missing a game.......none of which sound like the profile of someone who wasn't taking care of his body.

trex_8063 wrote:

penbeast0 wrote: I'm not a Heinsohn fan, low efficiency gunners who aren't known for good defense....

Recall from the top 100 project that Heinsohn was considered fairly good defensively according to Red Auerbach, fwiw. His chief supporter [ZeppelinPage] was a little overly rosy and passionate in his arguments for Heinsohn, but he did show that much. And fwiw, Heinsohn has looked OK to me defensively in my limited eye-test [equivalent of 2 full games logged from '62-'65].

I mean, maybe you're right about his defense; but what is the evidence?
Just a caution against remaining attached to narratives which might not be entirely true [purely out of habit of reciting them].
I recall you always saying Walt Bellamy "ate his way out of the league" [or something to that effect], despite the fact that he was still only 245 lbs in 1972 [11th season, in which he averaged nearly 19 and 13, and looking EXTREMELY similar to how he'd looked a decade earlier], played over 13 seasons at >37 mpg for his career, while basically never missing a game.......none of which sound like the profile of someone who wasn't taking care of his body.

Also worth noting that he was pretty good rebounder and wasn't actually inefficient relative to era. Up until 1964 he was always right around league average in efficiency with his lowest ts+ being 96 and several seasons at or above 100(league average).

I think my point with Heinsohn was that EVEN IF those things were true, he was still a better player than the likes of Woody Saulsbury, especially if he could platoon with Sanders (or Lotscutoff) for the defense. I wasn't actually slamming Heinsohn . . . .this time.

I think Russell did over the larger portion of his career(relative to the league) but Wilt also went against stronger teams imo during much of those years than I think Russell had to. Plus Wilt's teams had injuries that really hurt them a few years.

Wilt usually obliterated Russell every time they matched up in the playoffs aside from the 1969 finals but of course, Russell having the better teammates and coach was usually able to barely get by the one-man team that was Wilt Chamberlain.

Russ fans claim that Celtics 7-1 PO record shows Russ dominated and is better than Wilt as a player.

Wilt fans say he dominated Russ individually but that Russ’s teammates outplayed Wilt’s. This comment looks at the actual record, series by series and game by game.

I examined all 49 PO games. I tracked data in four categories: TS%, Pts, Reb, Ast.

The overall data showed this:

PTS: Wilt: 43-6 (Wilt had more points than BR in 43 games vs. 6 games for Russ.)

REB: Wilt: 32-18 (1 tie)

AST: BR: 27-15 (7 ties)

TS%: Wilt: 32-17

I figured out Russ/Wilt’s teammates’ data by subtracting Russ/Wilt’s stats from team stats.

PTS: BR's teammates: 40-9 (BR teammates had more points than Wilt's in 40 of those games, vs. 9 for Wilt's mates.)

REB: BR teammates, 33-15 (1 tie)

AST: BR teammates: 28-16-5

TS%: BR teammates, 26-23

Wilt and Russell exchanging teams obviously leads to Wilt far outperforming Russell ring-wise. People try to make it look like he was some uncoachable headcase, while Russell was the "smart one".


In reality, Russell was just as big of an egoist and hard to coach and was lucky enough to find the only coach who could match his high level of thinking and ego and earned his respect in Red.

Wilt was similarly smart and challenging but has had the bad luck of being coached by some horrible or very inexperienced coaches, who have never achieved the slightest distinction without him. There's no chance Russell gets along with coaches who knew less on basketball smarts and tactics than he already knew.


Let's be realistic here though, Wilt winning more rings would actually harm him and his era more than benefit them, since it's pretty obvious that the marketing machine of the Stern era wanted nothing to do with the black and white, big man-centred eras with the limited footage, that predated them, they wanted to promote the newer, more exciting type of game of the '80s-'90s,


so, Wilt winning more rings, along with him still posting godly numbers would further lead people into promoting the "weak era/competition" BS and his rings would be discredited anyway, regardless of how many he might win.

I'd even say, the more, the worse. The only way for him to get promoted as the GOAT would be to be an exciting small man and/or to play after the early 80's, not winning more rings in older eras. Russell was won almost any ring available and still gets zero respect, so, learn from his example.

Any player that wins 11 championships probably had the best collective team in the league more often than not.

Regarding Heinsohn:

Here is the evidence that points positively towards his defensive impact:

1. Auerbach mentioning him as a top defensive cornerman.
2. '57 Celtics improving defensively upon his arrival (from bottom of the league to among the best).
3. Celtics dropping by 3 points in relDRtg the season after he retires.
4. Auerbach was known to focus on defense, and would often bench players for lack of effort on that side.
5. Going off point #4, if Auerbach was playing Heinsohn so much then one can conclude he was doing something right defensively.
6. More minor, but Auerbach did make Heinsohn head coach--and the Celtics won 2 championships. He clearly believed in Heinsohn and his basketball knowledge.
7. Finally, film work backs up his defensive effort--swiping at balls often and able to block even Jerry West. He was also, by all accounts, a pretty amazing offensive rebounder (making him even more valuable).

On his knack for stealing:

"...A guy would get a defensive rebound and Tommy would sneak in from behind and take the ball away."
--Bob Ryan in Tall Tales

Auerbach had the entire Celtics team playing hard on defense, that's why they were the best team in the league before Russell arrived. Auerbach's coaching also significantly improved the defensive abilities of his players, it seems. KC Jones praises him in his own book and mentions how Tom Sanders didn't join the team as a defensive player but Auerbach helped mold him into one.

Regarding Woody Sauldsberry:

As awful as he was offensively, and as badly as he was clearly hurting his team--Woody Sauldsberry was actually an amazing defensive player. In fact, I've found quotes from Paul Arizin and Wilt Chamberlain calling him one of the toughest defenders in the entire league (he would even guard Wilt himself at times). Bill Russell in Second Wind also mentions him as one of the great defenders in the league.

I think he would have been more valuable if he shot less and focused on driving to the hoop (his free throw rates are some of the lowest I've ever seen).

There are only two seasons where wilt had better teammates than Russell. That was in 67 and 68.

Narigo wrote:There are only two seasons where wilt had better teammates than Russell. That was in 67 and 68.

It was actually three if you count 1969

But injuries killed Wilt's teammates in 68.


So it was basically he had better teammates than Russell's for 2 seasons in the 10 years they played against each other from 1959 to 1969.

You could make the case for 66 as well, though Cunningham was a rookie and they didn't have 3rd guard Larry Costello. Maybe even 65 though there they have Costello (behind Al Biachi) and are missing Wali Jones.

It's even possible to make the argument for years like 62 depending on how you rate Arizin/Gola/Rodgers/Attles/Meschery/Johnson v. Sharman/Heinsohn/Cousy/Sanders/Jones/Jones if you think the Warriors players are better than their stats due to the style of play where the coaches wanted a Wilt centric unipolar offense (and looking at Wilt, who could blame them). I think the Celtics superior depth wins out but I would say Arizin's prime was better than either Cousy or Sharman's and he doesn't look like he's dropped off as much as they have.

penbeast0 wrote:You could make the case for 66 as well, though Cunningham was a rookie and they didn't have 3rd guard Larry Costello. Maybe even 65 though there they have Costello (behind Al Biachi) and are missing Wali Jones.

It's even possible to make the argument for years like 62 depending on how you rate Arizin/Gola/Rodgers/Attles/Meschery/Johnson v. Sharman/Heinsohn/Cousy/Sanders/Jones/Jones if you think the Warriors players are better than their stats due to the style of play where the coaches wanted a Wilt centric unipolar offense (and looking at Wilt, who could blame them). I think the Celtics superior depth wins out but I would say Arizin's prime was better than either Cousy or Sharman's and he doesn't look like he's dropped off as much as they have.

No Penbeast you can not even make a serious argument for years such as 62.

As Arizin shot only 37.5 percent for that entire playoff run and Gola only shot a terrible 27.1 for that entire playoff run as well in 62.


Plus Rodgers shot also a terrible 35 percent from the floor as well throughout that entire postseason.

Paul Arizin was total garbage in the last two postseasons of his career as he managed to only shoot.

32.5 and 37.5 from the field in his last two postseasons.


And to make matters worse he shot 4 out of 22 from the floor in a two-point game seven loss to the Celtics in the 1962 ECF so if he even plays average in that game seven maybe Wilt gets a ring in his 50PPG season.

I agree he had bad playoff runs those years. OF course, Cousy shot under .400 both those playoff series too. And again, with Wilt taking up the middle, Arizin was moved further outside than he was in his earlier seasons where he was more of a slasher and less of a jump shooter. It could be that with Russell instead of Wilt opening up space and allowing him to be the primary featured star, Arizin might step up, we don't know.

coastalmarker99 wrote:Wilt and Russell exchanging teams obviously leads to Wilt far outperforming Russell ring-wise.

He could literally win 2 more than Russell did. Something its almost unimaginable he achieves, but were he to somehow do this despite all common sense it would not be far more. It would be 2 more.

Plug and play still not a thing.
Worse players doing better than better players still not a thing.

Texas Chuck wrote:

coastalmarker99 wrote:Wilt and Russell exchanging teams obviously leads to Wilt far outperforming Russell ring-wise.

He could literally win 2 more than Russell did. Something its almost unimaginable he achieves, but were he to somehow do this despite all common sense it would not be far more. It would be 2 more.

Plug and play still not a thing.
Worse players doing better than better players still not a thing.

I meant that Wilt wins about 12 or 11 rings with the Celtics from 1956 to 1969 compared to Russell's one with the 76ers Lakers and Warriors from 1959 to 1969.