RealGM

If there was no Russell.

I think

Nate most likely would be considered the best defensive player of the 1960s and he also would have made more All-NBA teams.

Plus he would also get the bonus of being viewed as the only guy who was able to lockdown Wilt.


As for Walt Bellamy, he most likely would have been put on a couple of All-NBA teams and maybe that would be enough for him to sneak into the top 75 list.

I do wonder how Ed Macauley and Cliff Hagan would be viewed nowadays had Boston kept them.

Would they have won a couple of titles from 1957 to 1961 against Pettit and Baylor and Wilt?

If so how would that change our view of them?

coastalmarker99 wrote:I do wonder how Ed Macauley and Cliff Hagan would be viewed nowadays had Boston kept them.

Would they have won a couple of titles from 1957 to 1961 against Pettit and Baylor and Wilt?

If so how would that change our view of them?

Depends what you do with Russell in your scenario,
If he disappears, then Boston wins titles, Cousy is considered star and gets a lot more love. Team starts to lose when Cousy retires, Cousy is Top 25 all-time.

If Russell is in St Louis, they win a bunch of titles with Pettit and Russell, and Pettit gets top 20 as he is winning titles in league with Oscar, West, Wilt, Baylor.

coastalmarker99 wrote:If there was no Russell.

I think

Nate most likely would be considered the best defensive player of the 1960s and he also would have made more All-NBA teams.

Plus he would also get the bonus of being viewed as the only guy who was able to lockdown Wilt.


As for Walt Bellamy, he most likely would have been put on a couple of All-NBA teams and maybe that would be enough for him to sneak into the top 75 list.

Bellamy gets the 2nd team All-NBA and definitely is Top 75 guy. He is the one whose legacy really changes (other than Wilt)

Thurmond would be ranked higher, even more so than Bellamy.

Russell made 3× All-NBA First Team (1959, 1963, 1965)
And 8× All-NBA Second Team (1958, 1960–1962, 1964, 1966–1968)

So now that he is out of the picture I will try to decide which center takes his place on those teams.

Wilt gets two of Russell's All-NBA first teams spots in the 1960s

While Dolph Schayes gets Russell's first-team spot in 1959

As for 1960, I have no clue who takes Russell's place on the second team.

Same for 1961.


1962 I think Walt takes Russell's spot.

1963 I think Walt takes Russell's spot.

1964 I think Walt takes Russell's spot.

1965 I think Walt takes Russell's spot but it is close with Nate.

1966 I think Nate gets it

1967 I think Nate gets it.

1968 I think Nate gets it.

70sFan wrote:Thurmond would be ranked higher, even more so than Bellamy.

It is possible that maybe Thurmond wins an MVP without Russell being in the NBA.

As he did finish second to Wilt in 1968 but you expect with no Russell that voter fatigue would be a factor with Wilt that season as it was for Kareem in 1973.

coastalmarker99 wrote:Russell made 3× All-NBA First Team (1959, 1963, 1965)
And 8× All-NBA Second Team (1958, 1960–1962, 1964, 1966–1968)

So now that he is out of the picture I will try to decide which center takes his place on those teams.

Wilt gets two of Russell's All-NBA first teams spots in the 1960's

While Dolph Schayes gets Russell's first-team spot in 1959

As for 1960, I have no clue who takes Russell's place on the second team.

Same for 1961.

I was just going through this excercise as well but it is striking how disconnected voting for MVP, All-NBA and the All-Star game is those years. 1958 should be Neil Johnston. 1959 is a mess where they're better off counting both Schayes and Pettit as centers and then giving Sears or Twyman an open forward slot instead or they'd have to pick between Foust and Kerr for the 2nd team center behind Schayes. 1960 looks like Walter Dukes was the most highly regarded (4 MVP votes and All-Star starter out west) but it should be Lovellete joining Wilt on the All-NBA team. 1961 is probably Lovelette again. 1962 Bellamy. 1963 would most likely be Bellamy again but Red Kerr got a lot of love in the MVP voting so it might be him instead. Likely Bellamy again but Embry looks like he has an even better shot than Kerr the year before. 1965 is pretty open between Bellamy in his final All-Star season, sophomore Thurmond, rookie Reed and possibly Embry again. Gun to my head I guess Reed? 1966 would be Thurmond although Reed and Beaty could be in the conversation too. In 1967 Thurmond was 2nd in MVP voting so he's definitely getting Russell's All-NBA spot here. 1968 would be Reed.

70sFan wrote:Thurmond would be ranked higher, even more so than Bellamy.

In 1968 when Nate and Wilt matched up against each other.

Wilt only averaged 17 PPG against him which is a seven-point drop-off.

Wilt also only shot 46% from the field against him which is a 13-point drop-in field goal efficiency.

All things considered in a world without Russell I think Nate takes that MVP award away from Wilt.'


Thus it makes you wonder where Nate would be ranked all-time with these accolades under his belt.
7× NBA All-Star
1× NBA Most Valuable Player 1968
3X All-NBA Second Team 1966–1968
2× NBA All-Defensive First Team (1969, 1971)
3× NBA All-Defensive Second Team (1972–1974)

Up until I skimmed through this thread, I didn't realize that Wilt had 7x All-NBA 1st Team selections to Russell's 3x. Considering that Wilt appears to have been disliked as a personality compared to Bill Russell... so does this not add more weight to the argument that Wilt was a better player than Russell in the decade of the 1960s? I mean, he got voted to 1st team more than twice as many times by people who disliked him more than his competition.

An interesting view is how would Reed's legacy be viewed if he goes to back to back in 1969 and 1970 while beating Wilt in the finals in both years.

Then once he comes back fully healthy again in 1973 he once again beats Wilt in the finals.

I could see Reed's legacy going through the roof in this hypothetical scenario.

As winning 3 rings and 3 finals MVPs all against what many people would consider to be the undisputed best center of that era with no Russell.

Would make for a huge legacy boost for Reed despite his poor longevity.

As I could easily see him being argued as a top 25 to top 20 player of all-time nowadays.

LAL 1947 even if the media had voted for MVP during that era instead of players.


Russell would still have 5 MVP's as the writers voted for him from 1961-1963

Here is an article for proof.


The only thing that would change is that Wilt would also have 5 MVPs as he would have won the award over Oscar.

Thus in the 10 seasons that Wilt and Russell were overlapped in the NBA

It would have been 5 MVPs for Wilt to Russell's four.

To go along with Wilt's 7 to 2 Margin in being selected as first team all NBA over Russell.

If we take away Russell out of the picture that means there are 11 titles for non-Wilt centers to grab.

I might be assuming things but here is how I see things going from 1957 to 1969.

1957 Celtics win the title.

1958 Celtics win the title.

1959 Nationals win the title.

1960 Warriors win the title.

1961 Hawks win the title

1962 Warriors win the title

1963 Royals win the title

1964 Warriors win the title

1965 76ers win the title

1966 76ers win the title

1967 76ers win the title

1968 76ers win the title

1969 New York wins the title.


Wilt wins 7 rings in the 1960s but his legacy suffers a massive blow after joining LA and losing to Reed in three NBA finals.

Wayne Embry finishes his career with one ring

Dolph Schayes has two rings.

Nate still has zero rings.

Reed has three rings.

Ed Macauley has 2 rings.