RealGM

This hypothetical scenario has me thinking about how having Russell drafted in 1970 to the Celtics in place of Cowens.


Would have changed both Wilt's and Kareem’s legacies.



As Wilt's known rate of winning series against everyone but Boston is just over 80% (a little bit higher than that of Michael Jordan), he probably wins 5 to 8 titles from 1959 to 1970 to go along with 5 to 6 MVP awards.

And even if Russell beats him back to back in the finals in 1972 and 1973 to end Wilt's career.

Wilt most likely gets given the age excuse by most fans.



As for Kareem.


The Celtics with Russell and Havlicek most likely dominate throughout the 1970s and win anywhere from 4 to 6 titles.


And If Russell gets a couple of regular-season MVPs and Finals MVPs to go along with his rebounding and shot-blocking titles.


While Kareem is missing the playoffs in back to back years.


Then it most likely leaves a large dent in Kareem's legacy.


As people would argue if he truly was the best player of the 1970s compared to Russell who would have the edge on him in terms of rings and accolades.

Why are you assuming 4-6 rings for Russell. Those 70s Celtics were better than the 60s ones outside of the center position and the league was larger but arguably weaker. Why not assume Kareem wins in 71 and either 80 or 82 with Russell still winning 11 rings? (Not arguing that he would necessarily but it would make the parellel a lot stronger)

penbeast0 wrote:Why are you assuming 4-6 rings for Russell. Those 70s Celtics were better than the 60s ones outside of the center position and the league was larger but arguably weaker. Why not assume Kareem wins in 71 and either 80 or 82 with Russell still winning 11 rings? (Not arguing that he would necessarily but it would make the parellel a lot stronger)

Could you please explain to me why you think the 1970s Celtics were better than the 1960s Celtics outside of the center position?


As Sam Jones and Bob Cousy plus Sharman to me were better players than anyone outside of Havlicek on the 1970 Celtics.

penbeast0 wrote:Why are you assuming 4-6 rings for Russell. Those 70s Celtics were better than the 60s ones outside of the center position and the league was larger but arguably weaker. Why not assume Kareem wins in 71 and either 80 or 82 with Russell still winning 11 rings? (Not arguing that he would necessarily but it would make the parellel a lot stronger)

1973-77 Celtics were quite talented (not sure if more talented than 1957-61 Celtics) but 1970-72 or 1978-80 - not even close.

I think beating 1972 Lakers or 1977 Blazers would be a big obstacle.

70sFan wrote:

penbeast0 wrote:Why are you assuming 4-6 rings for Russell. Those 70s Celtics were better than the 60s ones outside of the center position and the league was larger but arguably weaker. Why not assume Kareem wins in 71 and either 80 or 82 with Russell still winning 11 rings? (Not arguing that he would necessarily but it would make the parellel a lot stronger)

1973-77 Celtics were quite talented (not sure if more talented than 1957-61 Celtics) but 1970-72 or 1978-80 - not even close.

I think beating 1972 Lakers or 1977 Blazers would be a big obstacle.

If anyone could shut down bill Walton and his teammates it would be Russell.


As a result, I think the 1977 Celtics with Russell and a still capable Havlicek would be the favourites against the Blazers.

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.

coastalmarker99 wrote:

penbeast0 wrote:Why are you assuming 4-6 rings for Russell. Those 70s Celtics were better than the 60s ones outside of the center position and the league was larger but arguably weaker. Why not assume Kareem wins in 71 and either 80 or 82 with Russell still winning 11 rings? (Not arguing that he would necessarily but it would make the parellel a lot stronger)

Could you please explain to me why you think the 1970s Celtics were better than the 1960s Celtics outside of the center position?


As Sam Jones and Bob Cousy plus Sharman to me were better players than anyone outside of Havlicek on the 1970 Celtics.

Not a fan of 1960s Cousy, a terrific player in the 50s but by the 60s, the game had passed him by. Let's take 1962 and 1973 Celtics, the two highest SRS teams of the groups (and yes, I wasn't looking at every year, just at the core group that won rings, the 2 core groups in the case of the 1960s). Both teams made their bones with defense, both were below average offensively with 73 even worse than 62. The TS% for the league in 62 was .479, in 73 was .498 to compare to the individual numbers.

PG Bob Cousy (28.2min, 3.8 reb, 7.8 ast, 15.7 pts on .443 ts%/.408 playoffs!, weak defensively)
v. Jo Jo White (39.6min, 5.0reb, 6.1 ast, 19.7 pts on .457 ts%/.493 playoffs, good defender)
Both guys who were inefficient scorers, Cousy the better playmaker, White the better defender, White upped his game in the playoffs while Cousy consistently crashed and burned in the 60s)

WING Sam Jones (30.6min, 5.9, 3.0, 18.4 @ .507t%) average defender, go to scorer for that team
v. John Havlicek (42.1, 7.1, 6.6, 23.8 @ .502) excellent defender, scoring comparable, adds a secondary playmaker as White plays off ball a lot

WING Satch Sanders (29.1, 9.5, 0.9, 11.7 @ .488) defensive specialist, combo forward
v. Don Chaney (31.5min, 5.7, 2.8, 13.1 @ .532) defensive specialist, swingman
Comparing these two because they played much more comparable roles, Sanders has edge for me

PF Tom Heinsohn (30.2, 9.5, 2.1, 22.1 @ .482) another guy who shoots too much, not known for his defense, decent offensive rebounder as is Sanders.
PF Paul Silas (32.7, 13.0, 3.1, 13.3 @ .532) great defender, enforcer, surprisingly good passer, probably the most underrated of the Celtics players.

BENCH 62: KC Jones may have been one of the worst offensive PGs to ever start an NBA season with neither scoring nor playmaking a strength but he was a terrific defender to give a different look from Cousy, deep bench they had Ramsey for instant offense and Ramsey had a history of playoff explosions to counter Cousy's playoff failures although this was not one of his prime years.
BENCH 73: 73 had a tighter rotation with less minutes for reserves. Don Nelson was the 6th man and a scorer who combined decent efficiency with good volume. They also used Art Williams as the playmaking PG when they needed a different look.

Looking at these teams, the biggest differentials that I see are that 73 had great switchable defenders 1-5, 62 had 3 top defenders but could bring in KC Jones for 4. The playmaking is also a bit better in 73, the rebounding is better in 62. Scoring is similar with an edge to 62 (remember the era difference is about .020 ts%). I think 73 is the superior team when healthy, though they don't use their bench as much.

The other group of Celtics was at its height in 67. League average ts% was close to 73, .493. As with all the Celtic rings, another powerhouse defensive team with a below average offense.
KC Jones (31.4, 3.0, 5.1, 6.2 @ .445) defensive specialist, ball often went through Russell
Sam Jones (32.3, 4.7, 3.0, 22.1 @ .508) Still a scorer, okay elsewhere but not outstanding
John Havlicek (32.1, 6.6, 3.4, 21.4 @.500) Lots of scorers on this team though not super efficient, Havlicek was playing more off ball in this era, defensive rep if anything stronger than 73
Bailey Howell (30.9, 8.4, 1.3, 20.0 @ .559) The team's most efficient scorer, not a passer or defender, could swing to the 3
BENCH Satch Sanders, still the same strong defensive combo forward who could play next to Howell, Larry Siegfried backed up both guards after they picked him up off waivers, decent jump shooter, not much of a playmaker for a PG. They also were using Don Nelson as bench offense though less than Sanders and Siegfried.
With the later era Russell who passed more and shot less, this team would probably be better than the 73 team; with the earlier version of Russell who hadn't developed his post passing game as much and shot more, I'd favor the superior ballhandling of the 73 team and I still think the 73 team is better defensively.

Nice post, penbeast

Doctor MJ wrote: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.

russel teams were the best defenses in basketball history, at least relative to dominance od their era

struggling against them (and wilt actually had great series vs them) ks far from some big black Mark on wilt

so i dont think the greatest defense in history containing wilt by itself tells us much, specially because there were other teams and players we know could slow him down like reed and the knicks and specially nate thurmond

so if wilt played in a celtics-less era and won a lot of rings he would be considered higher in all time lists but i think there would be enough evidence he was Human still

also the unimpresiveness of most of his team offenses in spite of his numbers would let us know he was not necesarrily as great in offense as his numbers would suggest (on the other hand not having to be compared to russel may have gave him a greater defensive reputation/legend which would be more sccurate)

at least i see it that way

falcolombardi wrote:

Doctor MJ wrote: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.

russel teams were the best defenses in basketball history, at least relative to dominance od their era

struggling against them (and wilt actually had great series vs them) ks far from some big black Mark on wilt

so i dont think the greatest defense in history containing wilt by itself tells us much, specially because there were other teams and players we know could slow him down like reed and the knicks and specially nate thurmond

so if wilt played in a celtics-less era and won a lot of rings he would be considered higher in all time lists but i think there would be enough evidence he was Human still

also the unimpresiveness of most of his team offenses in spite of his numbers would let us know he was not necesarrily as great in offense as his numbers would suggest (on the other hand not having to be compared to russel may have gave him a greater defensive reputation/legend which would be more sccurate)

at least i see it that way

Let me put it this way:

The main takeaway that the NBA world took from the 1960s is that teams win championships, not individuals.

The main takeaway that the NBA world took from the 1990s is that the team with the best player wins championships.

If Russell didn't exist, good chance the NBA world concludes decades earlier that the way to win is to let one guy score a ton instead of having a long period where teams focused on things like getting as many players into double digits as possible.

Now as I say this, I think the reality is that a no-Russell league would have had Wilt likely winning less championships than the Lakers, but this wouldn't have the same type of effect as the Celtics dynasty because West & Baylor would still be putting up gaudy statlines.

If Wilt/West/Baylor/Oscar types win all the championships, then I'm pretty sure Wes Unseld and Dave Cowens don't win MVPs.
Meanwhile in our reality, if Rudy Gobert had a year like he did last year in a time before Jordan started winning championships, he'd have had a strong chance at MVP.

falcolombardi wrote:russel teams were the best defenses in basketball history, at least relative to dominance od their era

Yes, but. Also the lowest-skill era in the sport and in his last year, there were still only 14 teams in the league. There are a lot of contextual factors to consider when discussing him. Obviously a dude who would be a wild defender and rebounder in any era, but this is one of those clear times where drawing cross-comparisons is so challenging. Talking about the quality of his defenses is well and good, but discussing the merits of that defense against a league that can't shoot as well as the league does now and had the luxury of collapsing in on a post player like Wilt because there was no 3pt line to incentivize them to spread out is a major contextual change relative to now which is worth mentioning, you know?

Again, respect to Russ, but when we talk about about the Celtics dynasties, it's worth noting we started to see some serious differences even into the mid-70s in terms of league shooting ability, tactical development, talent proliferation, etc. There were 4 more teams by 1975, pace had dropped by like 12 possessions per game (and in 65, the Celtics led the league in pace, keep in mind, they were not a slow, grinder team).... there's lots of stuff that started to alter considerably.

====

Now that I've said all that, I realize that you were going a whole different direction that I thought, and were actually supporting Wilt. Oops. Hurr durr.

Yeah, I think that blaming Wilt for his weaker teams not being able to compete with Russ' in context is sort of odd and non-sensical, and part of the ring fetishism that we see a lot of which causes many players to go overlooked thanks to contextual factors beyond their control. You draft Russell later, and his defensive impact drops. Not because he's suddenly less athletic or whatever, but because the league has grown and improved over time. Even in a half-decade after his retirement. The achievements of his career had become literally impossible to replicate due to league evolution. He would still be an amazing player. He would still rebound like a boss and alter shots, and the style of play of the time would lead to him being one of the best defenders in the league. Probably the best, because that was still a pre-3pt league relying heavily on mid-range shots and shots around the rim, both of which he was rather adept at frustrating and altering. But it would have led to Wilt winning a LOT more in the 60s.

Kareem's legacy would not have been altered that much, IMHO. He won a single ring in the 70s with the Bucks and then the remainder of his rings with the Lakers, who would have still roflstomped their way through the league as actually occurred. 5 of his rings came with Magic, quite a few of them once Kareem was long past his prime and more of a roleplayer than a focal star. He might have a couple fewer MVPs, though, perhaps, depending on what the prevailing opinion of Russell was and how successful his teams were.

Doctor MJ wrote:Let me put it this way:

The main takeaway that the NBA world took from the 1960s is that teams win championships, not individuals.

The main takeaway that the NBA world took from the 1990s is that the team with the best player wins championships.

Neither of these were, of course, entirely correct. You still need focal talent, and even Jordan didn't win until he bought into a team concept with sufficient talent surrounding him. That said, what was true versus what people took away from the results, not always the same thing, in deference to your point.

Meanwhile in our reality, if Rudy Gobert had a year like he did last year in a time before Jordan started winning championships, he'd have had a strong chance at MVP.

Would he, though?

Pre-90s, would he be recognized that way? If you adjust for pace, then yeah, maybe. He'd look Unseldian, so if he won a title, sure. But no offensive creation, no playmaking. Still, we're talking 20/20/4 if we presume he isn't playing the 30mpg or so he managed in his actual career. That would catch the eye of audiences back then, yeah. So maybe you're right, that's an interesting thought to consider. Unless he couldn't hold up against the extra 10 mpg.

Gobert is more Dikembe Mutombo in terms of numbers; I don't see him getting 20 rebounds a game in any year other than maybe in the 60s, there are only 4 guys in NBA history to reach that mark and none since 1970. Even Russell who is one of the 3 serious GOAT rebounding candidates (Wilt, Rodman) probably wouldn't in the 70s and 80s. If Utah is winning titles, either he or Mitchell would get serious MVP consideration even today, hopefully Rudy.

Wes won MVP with a Nash like narrative. His team went from worst in the conference to best record in the league with Unseld being the only real addition; he wasn't the best player in the league but he may have been the most valuable in terms of wins added which is one of the things MVP voters look for most.

and Welcome Back!

penbeast0 wrote:Gobert is more Dikembe Mutombo in terms of numbers; I don't see him getting 20 rebounds a game in any year other than maybe in the 60s, there are only 4 guys in NBA history to reach that mark and none since 1970. Even Russell who is one of the 3 serious GOAT rebounding candidates (Wilt, Rodman) probably wouldn't in the 70s and 80s. If Utah is winning titles, either he or Mitchell would get serious MVP consideration even today, hopefully Rudy.

Yeah, that's fair, and also worked into the minutes remark, but it is a pretty exclusive club and time bracket, that's true!

Wes won MVP with a Nash like narrative. His team went from worst in the conference to best record in the league with Unseld being the only real addition; he wasn't the best player in the league but he may have been the most valuable in terms of wins added which is one of the things MVP voters look for most.

Also true! And MVP hasnt meant "best player in the league" every year, even this century, so that makes sense.

and Welcome Back!

Thanks

In theory, it shouldn't hurt either as each would be the same player. But we consider rings, MVPs and the like. So Wilt is a much stronger GOAT candidate. Kareem would still have his super productive Buck years, but may miss one ring. Not hurt a lot.

Laimbeer wrote:In theory, it shouldn't hurt either as each would be the same player. But we consider rings, MVPs and the like. So Wilt is a much stronger GOAT candidate. Kareem would still have his super productive Buck years, but may miss one ring. Not hurt a lot.

Are you - as I initially (in my head) read - projecting the '71 Celtics (2.3 SRS IRL with Cowens) with Russell swapped in as at least something of a threat to the '71 Bucks (11.91 SRS) or are you projecting a threat to one of the Laker titles ... which ... maybe ... there's some butterfly stuff. I assume people aren't projecting Boston to get 6th pick and Bird in '78 (though maybe they can still trade for 8th and two more teams are scared off ... still they're probably dealing less if they're good).

If you run anything over things could be different. But just rings wise ... Boston aren't great right off (and Russell doesn't show huge impact in year one IRL) and Milwaukee were probably under their over-under for titles in the Jabbar years IRL, maybe Russell changes that overall but I can't see more than a punchers chance in a '71 series.

Owly wrote:

Laimbeer wrote:In theory, it shouldn't hurt either as each would be the same player. But we consider rings, MVPs and the like. So Wilt is a much stronger GOAT candidate. Kareem would still have his super productive Buck years, but may miss one ring. Not hurt a lot.

Are you - as I initially (in my head) read - projecting the '71 Celtics (2.3 SRS IRL with Cowens) with Russell swapped in as at least something of a threat to the '71 Bucks (11.91 SRS) or are you projecting a threat to one of the Laker titles ... which ... maybe ... there's some butterfly stuff. I assume people aren't projecting Boston to get 6th pick and Bird in '78 (though maybe they can still trade for 8th and two more teams are scared off ... still they're probably dealing less if they're good).

If you run anything over things could be different. But just rings wise ... Boston aren't great right off (and Russell doesn't show huge impact in year one IRL) and Milwaukee were probably under their over-under for titles in the Jabbar years IRL, maybe Russell changes that overall but I can't see more than a punchers chance in a '71 series.

I assumed Russell replaced Cowens and all of the other Celtics were the same. 1971 is the ring I think Kareem could lose.

I think Wilt would have probably 5 or 6 rings and be looked at as a serious GOAT candidate. Not sure Kareem's changes much.

Doctor MJ wrote: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.

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?