RealGM

If Wilt were drafted by Boston in place of Russell in 1957 and spent his whole career with the Celtics, how many rings would he have won?

I have no idea, but definitely less than Russell. People have to acknowledge that you need a certain amount of stability to build dynasties that last full decade. Only few players fit this archetype - Bird, Duncan, Curry to name some examples... and Russell is the ultimate example.

It doesn't mean that Wilt was worse basketball player, but I can't see him staying in Boston for 12 years without losing focus or motivation.

It seemed there were a lot of era specific and Wilt specific things that would hold him back from 11, like the Globetrotters thing and the social climate of Boston.

You may get clearer more precise answers if the intended question is made clearer.

Is this a world with duplicate Wilts so Wilt is fully taking Russell's place?
Is Russell displaced to somewhere else in this scenario?
There's more of course that could be gone into but the presence or absence of another Wilt or a Russell could certainly change title odds.

Probably 5+ and would be legitimately in the GOAT conversation because then he would have all the hardware to go along with his stats.

Assuming Russell and Wilt play for the same teams as the other did in real life, with injuries occurring in the same seasons, and careers lasting the same lengths:

1957 - BOS
1958 - BOS
1959 - BOS
1960 - PHW
1961 - BOS
1962 - PHW
1963 - LAL
1964 - BOS
1965 - PHI
1966 - PHI
1967 - PHI
1968 - PHI
1969 - LAL
1970 - LAL
1971 - MIL
1972 - MIL

The tally here would then be

Russell: 8 rings (-3)
Wilt: 5 rings (+3)
West: 3 rings (+2)
Kareem: 2 rings (+1)

I don't think the Boston would really be any better for Wilt, unless we are assuming that Auerbach could do a better job than any other coach in history at getting Wilt to play the right way for more than a year at a time.

lots of them i would imagine

Boston would have ruined the competition even more and the NBA might not have made it to modern days...

i think the more interesting scenario is bill russel in atlanta with petit, wilt in boston with all the celtics guys

ceiling raiser wrote:Assuming Russell and Wilt play for the same teams as the other did in real life, with injuries occurring in the same seasons, and careers lasting the same lengths:

1957 - BOS
1958 - BOS
1959 - BOS
1960 - PHW
1961 - BOS
1962 - PHW
1963 - LAL
1964 - BOS
1965 - PHI
1966 - PHI
1967 - PHI
1968 - PHI
1969 - LAL
1970 - LAL
1971 - MIL
1972 - MIL

The tally here would then be

Russell: 8 rings (-3)
Wilt: 5 rings (+3)
West: 3 rings (+2)
Kareem: 2 rings (+1)

Your tally's are a complete joke.

As it would actually be.
1957 - BOS
1958 - BOS
1959 - BOS
1960 - BOS
1961 - BOS
1962 - BOS
1963 - BOS
1964 - BOS
1965 - BOS
1966 - BOS
1967 - BOS
1968 - BOS
1969 - LAL
1970 - LAL
1971 - MIL
1972 - MIL

Russell: 2 rings (-9)
Wilt: 12 rings (+10)
West: 2 rings (+1)


Do you really think Russell is winning in 1968 against a fully healthy Boston team with Wilt?

As this was the injury report for the 76ers

-Wally Jones (injured knee cartilage):

-Luke Jackson (pulled hamstring muscle):

-Hal Greer (bursitus in his right knee):

-And, Billy Cunningham (broken right wrist).



There's no chance he wins in 1966 as well.

As Wilt's Sixers had to win their last 11 games to edge the Celtics by one game.

But, the reality was, the Celtics were still a better team as Boston just had a ton of games missed by their key players.

Satch Sanders missed 8 games, Havlicek missed 9 games, KC Jones missed 10, and Sam Jones missed 13.


Even most of their key bench players missed games, as well.

And Wilt's Sixers went 6-3 against Boston in the regular season. (BTW, Wilt missed the one other game, and Boston routed the Sixers.)

During the regular season, and in those nine games, Wilt averaged 28.3 ppg, 30.7 rpg, 4.1 apg, and shot .47.3.

Russell was at 9.3 ppg, 21.2 rpg, 4.9 apg, and shot...get this... .301 from the field. (BTW, he scored 19 points on 9-11 shooting in the game Wilt missed.)

Then, in the five-game EDF's, Boston routed Philly, 4-1.

However, Wilt played almost exactly the same in that series, as he did in their nine regular season H2H's.

He averaged 28.0 ppg, 30.2 rpg, 3.0 apg, and shot .509 from the field.

But, his teammates collectively shot .352 from the field (and that explains Wilt's drop in apg.)

To Russell's credit, he did play better in the EDF's, than he did in the regular season H2H's.

He averaged 14.0 ppg, 26.2 rpg, 5.6 apg, and shot .407 from the field.

Still, there was simply no rational explanation for the dramatic drop by Wilt's teammates.

And, as always, Russell's teammates just shelled them. Sam Jones averaged 25.8 ppg, and Havlicek averaged 25.4 ppg. Wilt's two best teammates, were Hal Greer, at 16.4 ppg on a .325 FG%, and Chet Walker at 14.6 ppg on a .375 FG%.

Russell himself made the comment that Wilt could do a better job in his [Russell's] role than Russell could do in Wilt's.

"Wilt is playing better than I used to -- passing off, coming out to set up screens, picking up guys outside, and sacrificing himself for team play."-- Bill Russell 1972 Great Moments in Pro Basketball, (by Sam Goldaper) p.24

Wilt was clearly the superior player out of the two.

He just didn't have an actual great supporting cast around him that could match up with Russell's Celtics until 1967.

From 1957 thru 1965, Wilt would have easily won every single title


That is 9 rings right there.

'66? Well, if Wilt's teammates, who played brilliantly against Boston in the regular season (going 6-3 against them), and then played as miserably as they did in the post-season (shooting a collective .352 without Wilt), that is now 10 rings for Wilt.

'67? Both teams, sans Wilt and Russell, were comparable.

But Wilt was a far better player than Russell and he would have been far better than a younger Russell, as well

Thus Wilt wins his 11th ring.

'68? For the second straight season, Wilt had a roster that was comparable to Russell's. And had they not been decimated by injuries as seven of their eight key players, including Wilt himself, were playing with significant injuries, or not playing at all.)

Give Russell that post-season roster... and Wilt wins his 12 straight ring.

'69? This would go to Russell.
'

rand wrote:If Wilt were drafted by Boston in place of Russell in 1957 and spent his whole career with the Celtics, how many rings would he have won?

Is Russell in the league and where did he go? Wilt without Russell has a real shot at close to 10 rings. Wilt with Russell in the league, not nearly as good a shot. I think Boston is one of the best run franchises but I don't think their talent around Russell relative to other franchises in the league was the reason Boston won 11 rings, it was Russell.

If the two switch places, I think Russell wins a couple with Philly with Arizin/Gola and company early, then doesn't as they move to SF and Thurmond is as bad a fit with Russell as he was with Wilt, then Russell comes to Philly again and wins maybe 2 of 3, then Russell goes to LA and wins 3 of 4 from 69-72 for roughly 7 rings while Wilt wins maybe 5-6 in Boston. Russell's teams frustrate and beat Wilt's consistently when they go head to head in the playoffs while Wilt continues to have the dominant statistics. I'm a big Russell believer.

Without Russell ever coming into the league, Wilt has as good a shot as anyone else ever has of 11 rings from 57-69. He dominated every non-Russell team over his career in the playoffs at an 80%+ series win rate. He just may not get the lucky breaks that even the Russell Celtics had to enjoy to finish with 11 titles.

penbeast0 wrote:

rand wrote:If Wilt were drafted by Boston in place of Russell in 1957 and spent his whole career with the Celtics, how many rings would he have won?

Is Russell in the league and where did he go? Wilt without Russell has a real shot at close to 10 rings. Wilt with Russell in the league, not nearly as good a shot. I think Boston is one of the best run franchises but I don't think their talent around Russell relative to other franchises in the league was the reason Boston won 11 rings, it was Russell.

If the two switch places, I think Russell wins a couple with Philly with Arizin/Gola and company early, then doesn't as they move to SF and Thurmond is as bad a fit with Russell as he was with Wilt, then Russell comes to Philly again and wins maybe 2 of 3, then Russell goes to LA and wins 3 of 4 from 69-72 for roughly 7 rings while Wilt wins maybe 5-6 in Boston. Russell's teams frustrate and beat Wilt's consistently when they go head to head in the playoffs while Wilt continues to have the dominant statistics. I'm a big Russell believer.

Without Russell ever coming into the league, Wilt has as good a shot as anyone else ever has of 11 rings from 57-69. He dominated every non-Russell team over his career in the playoffs at an 80%+ series win rate. He just may not get the lucky breaks that even the Russell Celtics had to enjoy to finish with 11 titles.

The Celtics were a good team before Russell.

Every year, 1951-56, they finished above .500 and made POs.

From 1952 to 1956, Celtics were the best offensive team in the NBA. They led in P/G all 5 years.

In ORtg those years, Celtics ranked 1, 2, 1, 1, 1, 3.

1956-57

Celtics played the first 24 games of 1956-57 w/o Russell who was at the Olympics.

In 24 first games w/o Russ, Celtics were

16-8, .66.7 % (pace of 55 W in 82 g)

Best record in NBA (Syracuse 2nd at .528)

105.2 P/G

100.6 P/G opponents

Thus, in 1956-57, the Celtics were by far the best team in NBA without Russell.



Also how about this?

In the 57-58 Finals, in which Russell was injured, ...the series was tied 1-1 when Russell injured his ankle in the third quarter of game three.

They lost that game by three points, but they actually outscored the Hawks in the 4th period, and without Russell, by five points.

Now, surely without Russell, Boston would have no chance, right? Well, without Russell in game four, Boston won handily, 109-98. And, while they did lose game five without him, it was by two points.

Russell finally returned for game six, but could only play 20 minutes.

Boston would go on to lose that game by one point, but they outscored the Hawks in the second half, without Russell.

Not only that, but Boston would continue to add players every year. Sam Jones in '58. Havlicek in '63.

Then, Auerbach would go out and steal players too.

How could the Celtics pick up Clyde Lovellette for their '64 title run, for nothing? Lovellette had averaged 21 ppg on .47.1 just the year before.

Later they added players like Wayne Embry (a multiple all-star), or Em Bryant (remember him in game seven of the '69 Finals) and Bailey Howell, a 20 ppg scorer on a very high efficiency for his era (.51.2.)

The 1960 Celtics always had by far, the deepest teams in the league, and aside from Russell, they could simply plug in another great player when they needed to.

I do assume that Russell's teammates play better than Wilt's because of their playstyles. Wilt walked up the court more while Russell pushed his way up faster (Wilt worked harder once he got up in his greater offensive role). This give the teammates more time to find open shots. Wilt's teammates sometimes would dump the ball in to him then just stand around waiting for him to do something rather than wasting time cutting and moving (up through 67 anyway) knowing that Wilt was capable of creating against doubles or finding a wide open stationary guy if their man doubled. Without that offensive confidence in Russell, his teammates worked harder, moved more, and had more individual confidence in their own games. And, Russell was consistently and clearly the better team defender.

So, I think teams like the Arizon/Gola Warriors or the 66 Sixers have their other players doing significantly better with Russell instead of Wilt where some of the Celtics teams have the opposite effect. I can't prove it but it is my best guess.

coastalmarker99 wrote:Your tally's are a complete joke.

As it would actually be.
1957 - BOS 1960 Wilt
1958 - BOS 1961 Wilt
1959 - BOS 1962 Wilt
1960 - BOS 1963 Wilt vs 1957 Russell
1961 - BOS 1964 Wilt vs 1958 Russell
1962 - BOS 1965 Wilt vs 1959 Russell
1963 - BOS 1966 Wilt vs 1960 Russell
1964 - BOS 1967 Wilt vs 1961 Russell
1965 - BOS 1968 Wilt vs 1962 Russell
1966 - BOS 1969 Wilt vs 1963 Russell
1967 - BOS 1970 Wilt vs 1964 Russell
1968 - BOS 1971 Wilt vs 1965 Russell
1969 - LAL 1972 Wilt vs 1966 Russell
1970 - LAL 1973 Wilt vs 1967 Russell
1971 - MIL 1968 Russell
1972 - MIL 1969 Russell

Russell: 2 rings (-9)
Wilt: 12 rings (+10)
West: 2 rings (+1)

We can agree to disagree on this, but do you really think that Boston wins in those two seasons?

For the record, I go back and forth on Wilt -- I just think Russell had more of an impact on Winning. I don't judge players by box scores.

One argument I am open to in this situation is coaching. I think outside of Hannum and Sharman, Wilt's coaches were rather bad. Which might make it difficult for Russell to win. I do think that Russell would've worked well in VbK's system in 1969, however.

People in the last couple of years seem to want to downplay the other 1960's Celtics players to boost up Russell.

Just going off of awards the Celtics were overwhelmingly more talented than the other teams of the 1960s

1959 3 1st team All NBA players Russell, Cousy, and Sharman...when else has that ever happened?

1960 Cousy 1st team All NBA, Russell, Sharman 2nd team

1961 Cousy 1st team All NBA, Russell, Heinsohn 2nd team

1962 Cousy, Russell, Heinsohn 2nd team All NBA...

4 Celtics made the All-Star Team Cousy, Russell, Heinsohn, and Jones

1963 Russell 1st team All NBA, Cousy, Heinsohn 2nd team...Havlicek Rookie team

1964 Havlicek, Russell, Heinsohn All NBA 2nd team.... Sam Jones also made the All-Star team

1965 Russell 1st team, Sam Jones 2nd team

1966 Russell, Jones, Havlicek All NBA 2nd team

1967 Russell, Jones All NBA 2nd team

1968 Russell, Havlicek All NBA 2nd team

1969 Havlicek All NBA 2nd team

That is an amazing run of ALL NBA team honours that I don't see being matched ever again.

And people forget that other Celtic players such as KC jones and Sanders would have been on the all-defensive team every year had it existed.


Now if you compare that to Wilt's supporting cast for the first 6 years of his career it destroys it


As Wilt had zero All NBA teammates from 1959 to 1965.


He had two terrible coaches in Neil Johnston and Bob Feerick who never coached again after they got fired.

ceiling raiser wrote:

coastalmarker99 wrote:Your tally's are a complete joke.

As it would actually be.
1957 - BOS 1960 Wilt
1958 - BOS 1961 Wilt
1959 - BOS 1962 Wilt
1960 - BOS 1963 Wilt vs 1957 Russell
1961 - BOS 1964 Wilt vs 1958 Russell
1962 - BOS 1965 Wilt vs 1959 Russell
1963 - BOS 1966 Wilt vs 1960 Russell
1964 - BOS 1967 Wilt vs 1961 Russell
1965 - BOS 1968 Wilt vs 1962 Russell
1966 - BOS 1969 Wilt vs 1963 Russell
1967 - BOS 1970 Wilt vs 1964 Russell
1968 - BOS 1971 Wilt vs 1965 Russell
1969 - LAL 1972 Wilt vs 1966 Russell
1970 - LAL 1973 Wilt vs 1967 Russell
1971 - MIL 1968 Russell
1972 - MIL 1969 Russell

Russell: 2 rings (-9)
Wilt: 12 rings (+10)
West: 2 rings (+1)

We can agree to disagree on this, but do you really think that Boston wins in those two seasons?

For the record, I go back and forth on Wilt -- I just think Russell had more of an impact on Winning. I don't judge players by box scores.

One argument I am open to in this situation is coaching. I think outside of Hannum and Sharman, Wilt's coaches were rather bad. Which might make it difficult for Russell to win. I do think that Russell would've worked well in VbK's system in 1969, however.

In the 62-63 season, the Warriors move to San Francisco. Arizin, the ONE quality teammate that Wilt actually had in his three years to that point, retired. And Gola is quickly traded away.

that Warrior roster, aside from Wilt, was arguably the worst in NBA history. How can I say that? The very next year their new head coach, Alex Hannum, conducted a pre-season scrimmage, sans Wilt, against some rookies and scrubs. Guess which team won? Hannum was horrified.

In the 1963 season a prime Russell would now be saddled with an awful roster...

While Chamberlain would be surrounded by ... eight other HOF players!

Russell, himself not nearly the offensive force that Wilt was (44.8 ppg on a .52.8 FG% in '63...

and BTW, easily led the NBA in Win Shares)...he just had absolutely no one on his roster that can shoot, nor rebound.

His best teammate is Tom Meschery, a player who played better under Wilt, than at any other time in his career, and the reality was, he was able to score 16 ppg playing with Wilt, simply because he wasn't being defended.

Oh, and he would only play 64 games that season.

Sorry, but there is no way that Russell "elevates" that roster.

Meanwhile, a now peak Chamberlain destroys the Lakers in the Finals.

As Wilt' averaged staggering numbers against the Lakers in the decade of the 60's.

And If need be, that Wilt would have hung 40+ ppg on that Laker roster.

As overall, in those 86 games he played against them in that decade here were his numbers.

40 Point Games: 42

50 Point Games: 19

60 Point Games: 7

70 Point Games: 2

High game of 78 points.

ceiling raiser wrote:

coastalmarker99 wrote:Your tally's are a complete joke.

As it would actually be.
1957 - BOS 1960 Wilt
1958 - BOS 1961 Wilt
1959 - BOS 1962 Wilt
1960 - BOS 1963 Wilt vs 1957 Russell
1961 - BOS 1964 Wilt vs 1958 Russell
1962 - BOS 1965 Wilt vs 1959 Russell
1963 - BOS 1966 Wilt vs 1960 Russell
1964 - BOS 1967 Wilt vs 1961 Russell
1965 - BOS 1968 Wilt vs 1962 Russell
1966 - BOS 1969 Wilt vs 1963 Russell
1967 - BOS 1970 Wilt vs 1964 Russell
1968 - BOS 1971 Wilt vs 1965 Russell
1969 - LAL 1972 Wilt vs 1966 Russell
1970 - LAL 1973 Wilt vs 1967 Russell
1971 - MIL 1968 Russell
1972 - MIL 1969 Russell

Russell: 2 rings (-9)
Wilt: 12 rings (+10)
West: 2 rings (+1)

We can agree to disagree on this, but do you really think that Boston wins in those two seasons?

For the record, I go back and forth on Wilt -- I just think Russell had more of an impact on Winning. I don't judge players by box scores.

One argument I am open to in this situation is coaching. I think outside of Hannum and Sharman, Wilt's coaches were rather bad. Which might make it difficult for Russell to win. I do think that Russell would've worked well in VbK's system in 1969, however.

1969 Wilt was still a monster offensively.

As when SI ran an article claiming that Wilt could no longer score.

Wilt caught wind of the article, and the night before it hit the newsstands Chamberlain exploded with a 60 point game.

He followed that up with a 66 point game (on 29-35 shooting) a few days later.

In fact, over the course of 17 straight games, Wilt crushed the league, averaging 31.1 ppg in that span. Included were games of 30 on ROY and HOFer Elvin Hayes; 33 on Bob Rule

(look him up...he had three straight outstanding seasons before he injured his knee), and even a 35 point game on Russell, which was his highest against Russell since his 46 point game in the '66 ECF's.



Considering that Red would be coaching that version of Wilt.

I don't think he would have shackled him as VBK did.


Plus there is no chance Russell is winning.

While his two best teammates in Hal Greer and Walker are averaging 16.4 ppg on a .32.5 FG% and 14.6 ppg on a .37.5 FG%.

coastalmarker99 wrote:snip

I am generally not as high on a lot of the hall-of-famers. However I do think Cousy is arguably a top 20 player all-time, and probably should get more respect for his ability. I think his shooting numbers are deflated for the same reasons as were Russell's -- because of the run-and-gun scheme.

Havlicek and Jones are surefire HOFers, likely top 50 players all-time. They probably compare favorably to Scottie Pippen and Ray Allen (both of whom I am lower on than most). However it is worth noting that at no point in time were all three of Cousy/Jones/Havlicek at their peaks.

Wilt had heart issues in 1963. I am skeptical that season could've been turned around, given I am projecting the same health and conditioning in this hypothetical.

I will admit one potential blind spot of mine is 1971. Wilt wanted to play one more year, and likely would not have joined the ABA for the new 70-71 season, when it was a lot more nascent than it was in 73-74. So it's possible he wins that year.

One other issue I have is, I don't think the Celtics would've succeeded with a dominant center scorer. Wilt was miles better than Ed Macauley, and was a much more talented scorer than Russell. However it demonstrates that Celtics didn't run their offense through a dominant scoring center.

Here is my disconnect with your logic:

Wilt's box actual box score stats->Wilt is better than Russell->Wilt's box score stats on Russell's teams means they'll perform that much better

My belief is:

1967, 1968 (I don't blame Wilt for losing this year like most do, I think the MLK assassination ruined the flow of this series), 1969, 1972, 1973 demonstrate that teams performed better when Wilt was an active facilitator on offense (and not the first option on a per minute basis). So, Wilt in that role would perform best on the Celtics. HOWEVER this is why extrapolating his box score stats onto the Celtics doesn't make sense to me.

The Celtics had enough talent that adding Wilt means they'd win several titles. Maybe more than a handful. But I don't think it would be with Wilt scoring 40 a night. Or even 30.

Maybe I'm wrong. But this is my belief.

Anyhow, would be interested in your thoughts in this thread:

viewtopic.php?f=64&t=2200675