RealGM

For me personally, I say, Baylor.

As In comparison to the other players of the 1960's who Russell affected.

Baylor lacks a major individual award aside from his Rookie of the Year award.

Yes, he does have multiple All-Star selections and All-NBA First Team selections and yes, those are noteworthy.

But in the current culture of comparing rings and/or MVPs, Baylor lacks both of those distinctions.


The others have a championship and/or MVP award that puts them in the listings, typically higher than Baylor from the publications and rankings that I've seen.

West has a championship, Pettit has a championship (his championship incidentally coming at the expense of Russell's Celtics and being the combo-breaker from the Celtics winning ten straight championships) as well as the first MVP award in league history, and Oscar has a championship and an MVP award.

The other players are often known for other things as well: West is known for his successful career as an executive, Pettit is tied with Kobe for most All-Star MVPs so his name came up a little by association when the league renamed the award in Kobe's honor, and Oscar is the original Mr. Triple-Double.

Baylor is largely known for an unsuccessful career as an executive of the Clippers (although to his defense, he did win 2006's Executive of the Year, albeit a couple of years before he'd be released.

And the only time during his 22-year tenure that the Clippers would win a playoff series), made worse by his lawsuit against Donald Sterling (and although the lawsuit was dropped, the later revelations of Sterling's racism would indicate that Baylor at least had a sound point in his racial discrimination suit).

There's no doubt that Russell affected the legacy of all the players listed throughout the 1960' but based on my thoughts, there's no doubt that he affected Baylor's legacy more than anyone not named Wilt.

It would be interesting to see how different we would view the superstars and coaches of the 1960's nowadays on this board if Russell was not around.

Bob Cousy's ranking drops a ton along with Havlicek and Sam Jones.

Red most likely gets ranked behind Hannum and Fred Schaus as the best coaches of that era

Baylor and Pettit probably get included in the top 15 debates.

West and Oscar maybe sneak into the top ten.

Wilt is most likely ranked as a top 5 player ever by everyone


You can honestly make the case that Russell is the most important figure in NBA history as nobody outside of him affected the legacies of more all-time players and coaches and teams in such a grand fashion.

Those 76ers' teams from 1965 to 1968 probably get viewed as a top 3 dynasty of all-time if they four-peat.

If the Lakers or Royals win in 1962 and 1963 that probably shifts the NBA from being a big man's league into a guards and wings game.

coastalmarker99 wrote:It would be interesting to see how different we would view the superstars and coaches of the 1960's nowadays on this board if Russell was not around.

Bob Cousy's ranking drops a ton along with Havlicek and Sam Jones.

Red most likely gets ranked behind Hannum and Fred Schaus as the best coaches of that era

Baylor and Pettit probably get included in the top 15 debates.

West and Oscar maybe sneak into the top ten.

Wilt is most likely ranked as a top 5 player ever by everyone

Hondo doesn't drop that much imo. People barely give him credit for the 6 titles he won with Russell as is. I think West and by extension Baylor gain the most. West with 3-5 rings is regarded much differently imo while Baylor's injury issues will still be there.

West is the easy answer but Pettit is also a candidate as the seas would open up well for the Hawks with no Russell and largely peaking before they have to do much with Wilt. If the Celtics went on to win multiple titles anyway with Cousy he is a pick too.

Cavsfansince84 wrote:

coastalmarker99 wrote:It would be interesting to see how different we would view the superstars and coaches of the 1960's nowadays on this board if Russell was not around.

Bob Cousy's ranking drops a ton along with Havlicek and Sam Jones.

Red most likely gets ranked behind Hannum and Fred Schaus as the best coaches of that era

Baylor and Pettit probably get included in the top 15 debates.

West and Oscar maybe sneak into the top ten.

Wilt is most likely ranked as a top 5 player ever by everyone

Hondo doesn't drop that much imo. People barely give him credit for the 6 titles he won with Russell as is. I think West and by extension Baylor gain the most. West with 3-5 rings is regarded much differently imo while Baylor's injury issues will still be there.

For me personally, this is how I see the 1957 to 1969 time period playing out without Russell in the picture.

1957 Celtics win

1958 Celtics win

1959 Syracuse win

1960 Warriors win

1961 Lakers win

1962 Warriors win

1963 Royals win

1964 Warriors win

1965 76ers win

1966 76ers win

1967 76ers win

1968 76ers win

1969 Lakers win

Wilt wins 8 rings during the 1960s and both Baylor and West end up with 2 rings during the decade but West ends up with 3 rings for his career if he still wins in 1972.

The question I have with Pettit is are the Hawks still title contenders from 1957 to 1961 without that Russell trade in 1956 that gifted them two hall of fame players in Ed Macauley and Cliff Hagan


Boston in 1956-1957 were 16 and 8 without Russell and also had the best defence in the NBA and that was after trading their two hall of fame players to the Hawks if they keep them.


Boston most likely goes back to back in 1957 and 1958 but I think their window ends after that.

Oscar still would have had a much greater legacy with a title in Cincinnati. Like he would still be a top 10 all-timer for a lot of people. Leading #1 offenses with ok not great casts for 5 straight years is no joke and Oscar did that.

Baylor I feel wouldn't be a top 10 all-timer even with a title in 62. He just wasn't quite as good as Oscar.

Djoker wrote:Oscar still would have had a much greater legacy with a title in Cincinnati. Like he would still be a top 10 all-timer for a lot of people. Leading #1 offenses with ok not great casts for 5 straight years is no joke and Oscar did that.

Baylor I feel wouldn't be a top 10 all-timer even with a title in 62. He just wasn't quite as good as Oscar.

I think the only years' Oscar had a legit chance to win a ring with the royals was in 1963 and 1964.


And considering Wilt was unbeaten against the Royals and Oscar in the playoffs and has a 17 and 4 playoff record against Non-boston teams I think the Warriors beat the Royals in the 1964 finals.


But I do think Oscar wins a ring in 1963 through LA in the finals would be an incredibly tough matchup.

One thing to consider for Oscar's legacy is that if he beats Jerry and Baylor in the 1963 finals that basically ends the debate between them.

As having that over West while leading #1 offences year after year with average teams would make the debate go in Oscar's favour for most fans.

We potentially get an all-time great Finals match-up with Oscar vs. Jerry.

I understand your take on Baylor and you're probably right. To me he is a top 20 player anyway as he was amazing in that era, at the level of West and Robertson in his prime. West though would certainly be top 10 as n many would say he is easily better than Kobe, which he is, and with more than six championships, not far off Jordan. All the 60s stars elevate really and five of them would be definite top 20, top 15 likely.

Not saying he'd be the top choice, but I wonder if Thurmond now gets perceived as the GOAT defender and is just generally regarded more highly in most circles. I've seen many compare his skills to being a hybrid of Wilt and Bill's in some ways so I doubt he'd be overlooked in the same way tbh, maybe he gets viewed as a unicorn in a league without Bill but maybe I misunderstood the question.

I don't think Thurmond would get perceived as the GOAT defender even with no Russell in the picture he may get a boost in reputation nowadays.


But someone such as Wilt would be perceived by most to be the Goat defender now.




Wilt's defensive performances and team's defensive ratings would definitely get viewed more favourably without the standard of Russell to live up to

It would depend to a great deal on who stepped up in Russell's absence. If Wilt continues to win 80+% of his playoff series against everyone but Russell, that takes away most of the titles in the 60s and it becomes the era of Wilt with everyone else falling into his shadow. If the Hawks then Lakers or Warriors step up and win multiple titles coming out of the west, it's still Wilt's era but he's perceived more like Kareem in the 70s. If Oscar and Jerry Lucas or the Celtics get past Wilt in the East, then their stars get more credit. It would be interesting.

coastalmarker99 wrote:But in the current culture of comparing rings and/or MVPs, Baylor lacks both of those distinctions.

Fwiw, I believe this is in a strictly literal sense incorrect. My understanding is that Baylor got a ring in '72. Obviously he retired early in the year.


"Legacy" depends on a bunch of stuff, how series that are a balance of probability (not a given) play out, what we assume happens with the pick, what we assume happens in the NCAA in the prior years (which may impact the pick), how butterfly effect stuff plays out.