RealGM

These would be the coaches Russell would play under if he swapped situations with Wilt.

Neil Johnson, I don't think he and Russell would have gotten along with him as Russell knew more about basketball than him.

Frank McGuire, I do think he and Russell would have gotten along as Frank actually treated his black players like human beings and he managed to earn the respect of Wilt who ran practices for him when he was off taking care of his sick son.


Bob Feerick, I don't think he would have gotten along with him as Russell knew more about basketball than him and I can imagine Russell's reaction to him begging for plays from Russell as he did with Wilt.


Alex Hannum, I think he would have gotten along with Russell really well as Russell would have respected his basketball IQ.


Dolph schayes I don't know if Russell would have respected him as Schayes was known as an incredibly soft coach around the NBA who was rarely tough on his players, unlike Red and Hannum.


VBK I can not see Russell respecting someone who was an alcoholic and engaged in farting contests with the team.

Joe Mullaney, I can see Russell just tolerating him as Wilt did.

Sharman I can see Russell really getting along with him.

My thinking is that Russell would have gotten the same reputation as Wilt had in being labelled unfairly I might add as a coach killer.

As part of it is I can't see Russell being as fully comfortable on Wilt's teams.

John Havlicek: Bill was comfortable on the Celtics because he knew that Red was the first coach to draft a black player and that the Celtics were the first team to consistently start five black players. Our roommates were integrated.

Jim Loscutoff: On a lot of teams, the black players went one way, the whites another. on our team, we made a point of everyone hanging around together.


Could Russell have withstood the abuse he faced on a daily basis without this environment created by Red Auerbach who was crucial to Russell's success as a player?

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1998-01-16-9801170003-story.html

This is the environment that Russell would have been in on the Warriors compared to what he had in Boston

On an exhibition tour one afternoon, we stopped at a Fulton, Mo., eatery for lunch.

The team filled the place, sprawling in booths and taking two seats per man at the counter.

The white owner took his fellow Caucasians' lunch orders, mostly breaded pork sandwiches and mashed potatoes with gravy, as I recall. Then, when he got to Wilt, he said, "The kitchen's closed."

Nobody said a word. Wilt and my other black teammates got up, walked out of the place and got back on the bus.

We remained and ate our pork sandwiches. The incident was never discussed. Implicit was the understanding that that's the way it was in those days.


I just can't imagine the Celtics doing something as cold to Russell as the Warriors did with Wilt.

hell, when In October 1961, during the exhibition season, the champion Celtics had been involved in a racial showdown in Lexington, Kentucky.

Boston's black players left town hurriedly before their game against St. Louis after the coffee shop in the team's hotel refused to serve Tom Sanders and Sam Jones.

Celtics owner Walter Brown fumed that the Celtics would never play another exhibition game in the South, or any other place, where they might be embarrassed.

Back in Boston, Russell told newsmen, "I will not play any place again under those circumstances."

One of Boston's white players, Frank Ramsey, who once played at the University of Kentucky, apologized to his black teammates on behalf of the entire state.

"No thinking person in Kentucky," Ramsey said, "is a segregationist."


I can see Russell as a result of being in this environment being even more closed off to his teammates and coaches.

coastalmarker99 wrote:My thinking is that Russell would have gotten the same reputation as Wilt had in being labelled unfairly I might add as a coach killer.

As part of it is I can't see Russell being as fully comfortable on Wilt's teams.

John Havlicek: Bill was comfortable on the Celtics because he knew that Red was the first coach to draft a black player and that the Celtics were the first team to consistently start five black players. Our roommates were integrated.

Jim Loscutoff: On a lot of teams, the black players went one way, the whites another. on our team, we made a point of everyone hanging around together.


Could Russell have withstood the abuse he faced on a daily basis without this environment created by Red Auerbach who was crucial to Russell's success as a player?

Interesting point. I am pretty sure Russell could stand it as all the great black players of his era stood it but whether there would be team cohesion on the other teams without a strong racial integration policy and with coaching changes (assuming Russell doesn't win more and prevent the coaching changes). A lot of the Celtic defensive success, especially in the early years where they had lesser defensive talents, was their buying into the team defense. A good part of that was Russell backstopping the others to allow them to play tighter and more aggressively on defense, part was Russell being one of the great quarterbacks defensively, calling switches and fostering communication, but you also have to give credit to Red (who I generally am not nearly as impressed with as a coach as I am as the GOAT GM relative to era) for fostering a team atmosphere.

I do think Russell would foster a team atmosphere far more than early Wilt did because of his playstyle and personality but it's not as much of a sure thing with the racial issues that you brought up.

penbeast0 wrote:

coastalmarker99 wrote:My thinking is that Russell would have gotten the same reputation as Wilt had in being labelled unfairly I might add as a coach killer.

As part of it is I can't see Russell being as fully comfortable on Wilt's teams.

John Havlicek: Bill was comfortable on the Celtics because he knew that Red was the first coach to draft a black player and that the Celtics were the first team to consistently start five black players. Our roommates were integrated.

Jim Loscutoff: On a lot of teams, the black players went one way, the whites another. on our team, we made a point of everyone hanging around together.


Could Russell have withstood the abuse he faced on a daily basis without this environment created by Red Auerbach who was crucial to Russell's success as a player?

Interesting point. I am pretty sure Russell could stand it as all the great black players of his era stood it but whether there would be team cohesion on the other teams without a strong racial integration policy and with coaching changes (assuming Russell doesn't win more and prevent the coaching changes). A lot of the Celtic defensive success, especially in the early years where they had lesser defensive talents, was their buying into the team defense. A good part of that was Russell backstopping the others to allow them to play tighter and more aggressively on defense, part was Russell being one of the great quarterbacks defensively, calling switches and fostering communication, but you also have to give credit to Red (who I generally am not nearly as impressed with as a coach as I am as the GOAT GM relative to era) for fostering a team atmosphere.

I do think Russell would foster a team atmosphere far more than early Wilt did because of his playstyle and personality but it's not as much of a sure thing with the racial issues that you brought up.

I wonder how Russell would handle VBK.

Wilt: After the trade, Butch was quoted as saying he "could handle Wilt." Well, you handle horses, not people. Then there was all this talk about there not being enough basketballs for West, Baylor and myself.

That didn't bother me.

I was willing to sacrifice my offence to concentrate on defence and rebounding so West and Baylor could score and we could make a run for the title.

But with Butch, he always wanted me to know he was the boss.


Do you think that same bad team atmosphere would have occurred if Russell took Wilt's place on the 1969 Lakers?


As I truly can not see Russell respecting him as he refused to listen to his players plus he was a alcoholic and engaged in farting contests with the team.

VBK was tone deaf to Wilt, true. But he was also the defending coach of the year who had run a motion and spacing offense where the center was not a featured postup player which was an offense Russell would excel in but Wilt found confining. There were also quotes of Wilt and Baylor wanting to operate out of the same space and quoting only Wilt's side of the argument might ignore Wilt's own issues that played in. And they STILL got within 1 minute of winning it all; I think Russell's advantages over Wilt in that system with those teammates would add a margin so long as you see Russell and Wilt as similar level talents with different strengths. Now I know you see Wilt as being vastly superior and if you are right, then the synergy might not come close to closing the talent gap.

penbeast0 wrote:VBK was tone deaf to Wilt, true. But he was also the defending coach of the year who had run a motion and spacing offense where the center was not a featured postup player which was an offense Russell would excel in but Wilt found confining. There were also quotes of Wilt and Baylor wanting to operate out of the same space and quoting only Wilt's side of the argument might ignore Wilt's own issues that played in. And they STILL got within 1 minute of winning it all; I think Russell's advantages over Wilt in that system with those teammates would add a margin so long as you see Russell and Wilt as similar level talents with different strengths. Now I know you see Wilt as being vastly superior and if you are right, then the synergy might not come close to closing the talent gap.

Wilt decided to become a Russell copycat in the 1969 playoffs

And the Lakers had the best defence in the playoffs in 1969, so it's not like Wilt didn't make a massive impact.

I don't see an older Russell who was on his last legs and was clearly running out of gas in the finals providing the same impact as Wilt did.

As Chamberlain outscored, badly outrebounded, and badly outshot Russell plus out-blocked him in that 1969 finals series.

But knowing Russell's luck it's possible he wins the title that year as change that Sam Jones game-winner and the Lakers would have rolled to an easy 5 game series win.


Or maybe VBK decides to call a time-out after the made Celtic free-throw had cut the lead to 88-87 late in game 4 and make West the inbounder instead of Baylor or the person getting the ball instead of Egan.

coastalmarker99 wrote:
Wilt decided to become a Russell copycat in the 1969 playoffs

And the Lakers had the best defence in the playoffs in 1969, so it's not like Wilt didn't make a massive impact.

I don't see an older Russell who was on his last legs and was clearly running out of gas in the finals providing the same impact as Wilt did.

As Chamberlain outscored, badly outrebounded, and badly outshot Russell plus out-blocked him in that 1969 finals series.

But knowing Russell's luck it's possible he wins the title that year as change that Sam Jones game-winner and the Lakers would have rolled to an easy 5 game series win.


Or maybe VBK decides to call a time-out after the made Celtic free-throw had cut the lead to 88-87 late in game 4 and make West the inbounder instead of Baylor or the person getting the ball instead of Egan.

Russell isn't on his last legs and running out of gas if we switch the two because Wilt started 3 years earlier so this is the equivalent of what in reality was '66 Russell. I was also making the assumption for the purpose of rings that Russell's career lasts 14 years as Wilt's did and Wilt's 13 like Russell's did though that may not be fair.

Also, if Wilt and Russell are both winning rings, even if Russell has a slight advantage the way I postulated in the "What if Wilt played for the Celtics?" thread, then Wilt is a lot less likely to change his playstyle to emulate Russell. And Wilt generally had great series against Russell putting up superior numbers head to head while Wilt's teammates generally had less than stellar series against Russell while the other Celtics generally had decent series against Wilt. Coincidence? Or defensive playstyle? Again, we are just making best guesses from available information.

penbeast0 wrote:

coastalmarker99 wrote:

penbeast0 wrote:VBK was tone deaf to Wilt, true. But he was also the defending coach of the year who had run a motion and spacing offense where the center was not a featured postup player which was an offense Russell would excel in but Wilt found confining. There were also quotes of Wilt and Baylor wanting to operate out of the same space and quoting only Wilt's side of the argument might ignore Wilt's own issues that played in. And they STILL got within 1 minute of winning it all; I think Russell's advantages over Wilt in that system with those teammates would add a margin so long as you see Russell and Wilt as similar level talents with different strengths. Now I know you see Wilt as being vastly superior and if you are right, then the synergy might not come close to closing the talent gap.

Wilt decided to become a Russell copycat in the 1969 playoffs

And the Lakers had the best defence in the playoffs in 1969, so it's not like Wilt didn't make a massive impact.

I don't see an older Russell who was on his last legs and was clearly running out of gas in the finals providing the same impact as Wilt did.

As Chamberlain outscored, badly outrebounded, and badly outshot Russell plus out-blocked him in that 1969 finals series.

But knowing Russell's luck it's possible he wins the title that year as change that Sam Jones game-winner and the Lakers would have rolled to an easy 5 game series win.


Or maybe VBK decides to call a time-out after the made Celtic free-throw had cut the lead to 88-87 late in game 4 and make West the inbounder instead of Baylor or the person getting the ball instead of Egan.

Russell isn't on his last legs and running out of gas if we switch the two because Wilt started 3 years earlier so this is the equivalent of what in reality was '66 Russell. I was also making the assumption for the purpose of rings that Russell's career lasts 14 years as Wilt's did and Wilt's 13 like Russell's did though that may not be fair.

And Wilt generally had great series against Russell putting up superior numbers head to head while Wilt's teammates generally had less than stellar series against Russell while the other Celtics generally had decent series against Wilt. Coincidence? Or defensive playstyle? Again, we are just making best guesses from available information.

It is interesting that when I made a request to the NBA archives that they do have full games of Wilt vs Russell in the 1969 finals such as games 3 and 4 of that series.


And also some more footage of Wilt vs Russell in games 3 and 5 of the 1966 ECF in which Wilt clearly looks like the best player on the floor.


Fun fact I was trying to get Wilt vs Reed footage and I found out that they do have most of the 1970's finals in their archives.

You can see footage of game 4 of the 1970 finals in which they remastered down below.

I think you can say that Wilt always looked like the best player on the floor in pretty much every game of his long and storied NBA career except possibly against young Lew Alcindor. Russell's abilities were less obvious and his defensive influence covered more of the floor due to his quickness and recovery instincts.

I think of him as the most talented and most dominant individual force in NBA history. But his individual brilliance didn't always translate into a team context that well; possibly because the game always came so easy to him that he didn't need to work on understanding the team game. Thus he would decide to lead the league in assists rather than score, or, by the end of his career, shoot so little that he gave up the threat of his scoring to a large degree. He was trying to intellectualize how he could not have won more than he did despite his brilliance and trying to create scenarios to do so, rather than having ingrained an instinctual feel for the game and winning.

penbeast0 wrote:

coastalmarker99 wrote:
Wilt decided to become a Russell copycat in the 1969 playoffs

And the Lakers had the best defence in the playoffs in 1969, so it's not like Wilt didn't make a massive impact.

I don't see an older Russell who was on his last legs and was clearly running out of gas in the finals providing the same impact as Wilt did.

As Chamberlain outscored, badly outrebounded, and badly outshot Russell plus out-blocked him in that 1969 finals series.

But knowing Russell's luck it's possible he wins the title that year as change that Sam Jones game-winner and the Lakers would have rolled to an easy 5 game series win.


Or maybe VBK decides to call a time-out after the made Celtic free-throw had cut the lead to 88-87 late in game 4 and make West the inbounder instead of Baylor or the person getting the ball instead of Egan.

Russell isn't on his last legs and running out of gas if we switch the two because Wilt started 3 years earlier so this is the equivalent of what in reality was '66 Russell. I was also making the assumption for the purpose of rings that Russell's career lasts 14 years as Wilt's did and Wilt's 13 like Russell's did though that may not be fair.

Also, if Wilt and Russell are both winning rings, even if Russell has a slight advantage the way I postulated in the "What if Wilt played for the Celtics?" thread, then Wilt is a lot less likely to change his playstyle to emulate Russell. And Wilt generally had great series against Russell putting up superior numbers head to head while Wilt's teammates generally had less than stellar series against Russell while the other Celtics generally had decent series against Wilt. Coincidence? Or defensive playstyle? Again, we are just making best guesses from available information.

The thing about the footage is that is incredibly expensive to get and you can't share it.

It costs about 6000 dollars for them to remaster the games for you.


While I would like more Russell vs Wilt footage so the footage can back up my claims.


What I am trying to save up for is Nate vs Wilt in 1969 and 1973.


Plus the 1972 finals.