Switch Wilt with Russell from 1960-1972

[Narigo]

How many rings do you think Russell could have had if he was in Wilt shoes (Warriors, Sixers and Lakers) starting from 1960-72? Wilt plays for the Celtics his whole career.

[coastalmarker99]

If you put Wilt on those Celtic teams and he fully buys into Red's system as he did with Sharman.

The Celtics easily win every single title outside of 1969.

As Russell even said himself when he was a commentator for CBS that a 35-year-old Wilt post knee injury on the Lakers was playing his role better than he ever did.


Also the talent disparity between their two teams made it to where Wilt had to thoroughly outplay Russell to even have a 50/50 shot at winning.

It seemed as though when Wilt thoroughly outplayed Russell was when Wilt's team won but not all the time and usually it was a close margin.

When Russell played even with Wilt or outplayed Wilt, the Celtics would blow them out.

One such example out of many is in Game 4 of the '64 Finals.

Wilt beat Russell all the way across the board with 27 points, 38 rebounds, and shot .52.2 from the floor.

While Russell had 8 points, 19 rebounds, and shot .33.3 from the floor.

Yet, the Celtics still won.


Now think about a prime Wilt who could concentrate solely on the defensive end going up against Russell who would have to do far more offensively for his teams to even stand a chance.

[coastalmarker99]

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 who was an incredibly prideful man being as fully comfortable on Wilt's teams as he was with Boston.

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]

1960 Warriors with rookie Russell lose to the Celtics in four or five games after Red through using Heinsohn to repeatably hard foul Russell lures Russell into losing his cool which results in him hurting his hand in a fight.

1961 with a frustrated Russell who starts to clash with Neil Johnson the Warriors still lose in the first round to the Nationals.

1962 Warriors lose in the first round to the Nationals.

1963 after being moved and losing paul to retirement the Warriors who are now completely devoid of talent outside of Russell miss the playoffs.

1964 Warriors lose to the Hawks in six or seven games.

1965 the 76ers lose to Boston in six games

1966 76ers lose to Boston in five games after the entire team struggles offensively.

Hal Greer is slammed by the press for his lacklustre play compared to Sam Jones who excels in the series.

1967 76ers lose to Boston in seven games

1968 76ers lose to Boston in six games.

1969 Lakers destroy Boston in five and send Wilt into retirement.

1970 Lakers beat New York in six.

1971 Lakers lose to the Bucks in four.

1972 Lakers lose to the Bucks in six games with the sub-par play of Jerry west being blamed for the loss.

1973 Lakers lose to New york in six games after Jerry west tears his hamstring.

[coastalmarker99]

The now present-day narrative on real GM about Russell is that he did all he could do against Wilt and Boston who won 12 titles in 13 years.

But the gap in the supporting cast and coaching departments was just too much to overcome until Russell went to LA in 1969 and was finally used in a proper manner.


There would be questions about Russell's attitude towards his head coaches and his cold regard for his teammates in that did it stop Russell from winning more.

[coastalmarker99]

I would like to see the argument for the person who voted that Russell would win over 5 rings.

From 1960 thru 1965 Wilt would have easily won everyone.

That is 6-0 right there.

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

But if Russell's two best teammates in Hal Greer and Walker still average 16.4 ppg on a .32.5 FG%, and 14.6 ppg on a .37.5 FG%

While Sam Jones averages 25.8 ppg, and Havlicek averages 25.4 ppg

that is now 7-0 in Wilt's favour

1967 Both teams were equal to each other as the 76ers had more offensive weapons while Boston was loaded with depth and elite defenders in Kc jones and Havlicek.

But it took Wilt in real life averaging 21.6 ppg, 32.0 rpg, 10.0 apg, 7+ bpg, 56% FG while destroying Russell along with Sam Jones struggling massively.

To put away Boston and they very well could have won game 2 to have the series tied at 2 games all after the first 4 games if Howell played more minutes in game 2.

Therefore I think Boston with Wilt who would contain Russell far more than Russell did in reality with Wilt in 1967 takes the series in six or seven games.

In 68 the 76ers were destroyed by injuries as seven of their eight key players were playing with significant injuries, or not playing at all as a result I don't think they beat Boston.


In 1969 I suspect that Russell would have not gotten along with Van Breda Kolff still if it all played out as it did.

Russell would have had a brilliant West, a horrific Baylor, and a roster that had been stripped substantially in the Wilt trade and thru expansion...

Still, despite that, I think the Lakers would have beaten Boston and 72 Wilt in five or six games.



70? Is Russell going to blow out his knee instead of Wilt? If he does, he probably doesn't even come back to play in the playoffs as Wilt did.


If however, he does not blow out his knee I think LA beats New york in six games.


1971 now as a 34-year-old and with that injury-plagued roster the Lakers have in 1971 I don't think Russell beats the Bucks that year.


72? Russell is now 35 and Russell himself admitted that he never played as good as this Wilt did that year and he wasn't as good as a Post defender as Wilt was.


So if Kareem plays just slightly better to go along with West's slump the Bucks most likely get past the Lakers in six games.

[coastalmarker99]

Wilt NBA's records that he set against Russell)

Most rbs game(55)

Most rbs playoff game(41)

Most rbs 7 game series

Most rbs 5 game series

Highest rpg average for a series(32.0)

Highest APG average for a center in a CF (10.0)

Most points scored in an elimination game on the road (50)

Wilt had three 30 rpg series out of 8 played against Russell.

Wilt held Bill to less than 40% shooting in 5 out of 8 playoff series.


If Wilt had been coached by Red who was the master of psychology he would have been even better than he already was and that's a scary thought.

I see a '66-'68 Wilt for the entire decade of the 60's.

Scoring 20-22 ppg and then hanging 50+ as needed.

His defence would actually have been better since he wouldn't have had to score 40-50 ppg just to keep his teammates competitive.




As for Russell, he would get saddled with lazy, or incompetent coaches aside from Sharman and Hannum who would basically make him do everything on both sides of the floor.

Russell himself said this in an interview in the 1960s, "Wilt can do my job better than I can do Wilt's."

And that's a fact.

[Dutchball97]

It's sad that threads comparing Russell and Wilt always turn into this nonsense but as we can see it's all one person who can't let things go and accept the boxscore isn't the end all be all.

Like at least keep your biased opinion confined to a single comment instead of drowning these threads in Russell hate.

[coastalmarker99]

Give me some rational reasons Dutchball97 outside of intangibles for thinking that Russell would win over 5 rings with Wilt's squads if you swapped him and Wilt.

I examined all 49 PO games.

I tracked data in four categories: TS%, Pts, Reb, Ast.

The overall data showed this:

PTS: Wilt: 43-6 (Wilt had more points than BR in 43 games vs. 6 games for Russ.)

REB: Wilt: 32-18 (1 tie)

AST: BR: 27-15 (7 ties)

TS%: Wilt: 32-17

I figured out Russ/Wilt’s teammates’ data by subtracting Russ/Wilt’s stats from team stats.

PTS: BR's teammates: 40-9 (BR teammates had more points than Wilt's in 40 of those games, vs. 9 for Wilt's mates.)

REB: BR teammates, 33-15 (1 tie)

AST: BR teammates: 28-16-5

TS%: BR teammates, 26-23

Also, finally, we know that Wilt and Russell played H2H in 8 PO series.

We know that Wilt and Russell played H2H in 8 PO series.

But who led in each category:

PTS: 8-0 Wilt

REB: 8-0 Wilt

AST: 6-2 Russell

TS%: 8-0 Wilt


Teammates:

PTS: 8-0 Russell's teammates

REB: 7-1 Russell's

AST: 5-3 Russell's

TS%: 5-3 Russell's

Therefore we see with the data that Wilt bested Russ in 26 of 32 (81%) categories over 8 PO series.

And that Russell's 11 teammates bested Wilt's 11 teammates in 25 of 32 (78%)categories over 8 PO series


I like Russell and think personally that he is a top 5 player ever.



But most people don't like the fact that my evidence clearly shows that Russell played on far better squads for most of his career compared to what Wilt had.

Again...swap the rosters between the two and it would have been Wilt holding all those rings as the great John Wooden said.

[penbeast0]

I'm assuming Russell goes to Philly while Wilt goes to Boston. Wilt wins 2 titles his first three seasons easily before Russell comes into the league. He averages 30-45 points and Cousy is lauded for all his assists while Heinsohn, Sharman, and Ramsey see their scoring cut drastically.

NBA ready Russell is drafted by Philly, an above average team led by veteran Stars Paul Arizin and Tom Gola. Meanwhile, the Celtics struggle against the Warriors in the playoffs after excellent regular seasons as Wilt has great numbers against Russell but the other players have "inexplicably" poor postseasons. The Warriors win the title in 60-62. But by 64/65 the Warriors are shot; Russell is still great but the next generation is slow to take over at the wings/guard slots while Boston reloads great players on the fly and Wilt wins another title, probably 2. People start writing articles about how Wilt has caught up and passed Russell.

Russell gets traded to the Sixers. With Russell, the Sixers win 2 of 3 titles in 66-68 before the owner trades Russell to the Lakers for financial reasons. Alex Hannum is brought in and moves Russell to the high post where instead of scoring 15-20 a game on decent rTS, he scores 10-15 on below league average rTS but the Sixers other scorers more than take up the slack and Hannum is seen as a genius, reinvigorating Russell.

Russell goes to LA to play with Baylor and West. Wilt and the Celtics have their best players but are starting to age. They make Wilt coach but, as when he did coach in San Diego, he doesn't really focus on it having too many balls in the air. Russell fits seamlessly into Butch Van Breda Koff's motion offense, scoring even less while playmaking from the high post and LA wins the title in 69 with BvBK named coach of the the year. They go on to win 2 more titles in 70-72 but are surpassed by young Lew Alcindor and the Bucks in 71 and the consensus is that Alcindor (Kareem) has surpassed Russell as the prototype NBA center and that the Bucks loss in 72 was due to injuries and bad luck.

Russell retires with 8 titles in 13 years and many years later, people are writing threads that say that if Wilt had only gone to Philly with those veteran stars, he would have beat Russell with the Celtics every year because, after all, he scored a lot more and was still a great defender.

[coastalmarker99]

I'm assuming Russell goes to Philly while Wilt goes to Boston. Russell wins titles in Philly his first two seasons easily before Wilt comes into the league. He averages 15-20ppg with above average rTS and revolutionizes big man defense.

Wilt is drafted by the Celtics but defending champion Russell and the veteran stars on Philly know their game and beat the Celtics 3 times out of 5 as Arizin, Gola, and company show much stronger play than the current historical record. St. Louis or LA may steal a title early on too. Meanwhile, the Celtics struggle in the playoffs after excellent regular seasons as Wilt has good numbers against Russell but the other players have "inexplicably" poor postseasons. By 64/65 the Warriors are shot; Russell is still great but the next generation is slow to take over at the wings/guard slots and Wilt wins a title, probably 2. People start writing articles about how Wilt has caught up and passed Russell.

Russell gets traded to the Sixers. With Russell, the Sixers win 2 of 3 titles in 66-68 before the owner trades Russell to the Lakers for financial reasons. Alex Hannum is brought in and moves Russell to the high post where instead of scoring 15-20 a game on decent rTS, he scores 10-15 on below league average rTS but the Sixers other scorers more than take up the slack and Hannum is seen as a genius, reinvigorating Russell.

Russell goes to LA to play with Baylor and West. Wilt and the Celtics have their best players but are starting to age. They make Wilt coach but, as when he did coach in San Diego, he doesn't really focus on it having too many balls in the air. Russell fits seamlessly into Butch Van Breda Koff's motion offense, scoring even less while playmaking from the high post and LA wins the title in 69 with BvBK named coach of the the year.

Russell retires with 9 titles in 13 years and many years later, people are writing threads that say that if Wilt had only gone to Philly with those veteran stars, he would have beat Russell with the Celtics because, after all, he scored a lot more and was still a great defender.

I think you're being pretty optimistic saying Russell wins 9 titles.

It's only fair to put Russell on the Warriors starting from 1959.

In which he gets a declining Arizin for three years; an over-rated Gola who was among the worst post-season performers among "HOFers" (with and without Wilt BTW), for three seasons; rookie Thurmond as a backup for one season.


You can make an argument that arizin could have scored maybe 5 ppg more with Russell taking fewer shots than Wilt or that Gola plays better due to Russell's leadership skills.


But I just don't think they could have scored enough.

As while that roster played reasonably well with Wilt in the regular season, they were simply awful in the post-season.

Especially In the '61 playoffs as they were atrocious.


Aside from Wilt, Chamberlain's teammates collectively shot .33.2 from the field in the first round of the playoffs.

His three "HOFers" shot .36.8, .32.5, and .20.6 respectively.


I don't see how Russell who is a far weaker offensive player than Wilt was is going to improve the Warriors' offensive woes in the playoffs and take down Boston who would have superior coaching and far more talented rosters.


If we look at Wilt's FG% and his teammate's FG%.


In his first 5 PO series against the Celtics, you can see just how bad they struggled and that's with Wilt's gravity drawing in most of Boston's defenders who completely ignore guys such as Rodgers in favour of doubling Wilt without the ball.

See this video for evidence plus the stats down below.

Watch on YouTube

;t=584s

Year WC team Mates

1960 .50.0 .37.5

1962 .46.8 .35.4

1964 .51.7 .34.8

1965 .55.5 .38.2

1966 .50.9 .35.2


Wilt wouldn't need any help guarding Russell who he held to under 40% in 5 out of 8 playoff series.

In fact, Red would probably want the entire team to play the Warriors straight up as most likely with their offensive woes that would allow Boston to dominate with the fast break.

[70sFan]

I learnt one thing - if you respect Russell and Wilt, don't waste time in such threads.

[penbeast0]

Give me some rational reasons Dutchball97 outside of intangibles for thinking that Russell would win over 5 rings with Wilt's squads if you swapped him and Wilt....

(a) Wilt was such an amazing player that there was a natural tendency to throw the ball in to Wilt and watch him work. This is true particularly in the playoffs. Combine this with Russell being more unselfish (even when Wilt was trying to rack up assists, he was determined to be the one generating those numbers while Russell never seemed caught up in stats, just winning) and it's not that hard to see guys like Arizin thriving more, particularly in the playoffs, while guys like Heinsohn, Sharman, Sam Jones, and Frank Ramsey would be more marginalized. This is especially true if Wilt comes in and wins a couple of titles as a scoring machine before Russell is drafted; it would make him more resistant to change.

(b) The Celtics are a poor fit for Wilt as, early on, they were a bunch of offensively minded players except for Jim Lotscutoff and later Satch Sanders (KC Jones too once he started to get minutes). Sharman played good defense but Cousy, Ramsey, and (my opinion, other differ) Heinsohn were not good defenders without Russell covering for them. The team would struggle more getting everyone enough shots to be happy and might lose cohesion as players feel marginalized.

(c) Russell's defense was better suited to 60s play. Wilt may have been Russell's equal as a rim protector and defensive rebounder and even more intimidating (though there are contemporary quotes about Wilt's leaping being telegraphed while Russell got less vertical but was more of a quick leaper as well as the hard block v. soft block issue). Russell, however, liked to roam and recover, stepping out to challenge midrange shooters then using his quickness to recover to his man (another possible reason why Wilt may have had great individual stats against him). Wilt, according to peers quoted in Terry Pluto's Tall Tales, didn't like to come out even against his own man if his man didn't post up. So, Russell adds this horizontal defense to this great vertical defense.

Now, maybe I'm wrong. A lot of this was trying to figure out why Russell always seemed to have the best team when Wilt was the most talented player to ever play in the NBA. I started with the idea that Russell's teammates were that much better but moved off it as the main reason because the more I looked at Cousy/KC Jones/Heinsohn/Sanders and even Havlicek, the less impressive they looked outside of their context (this is Russell era Cousy, in the pre-Russell era he and Sharman were the clear best guard duo in the league for most of Cousy's career) though Wilt's teams had more holes and less depth. Then I looked for other reasons why Russell might have had the success he did. Maybe it was luck, he certainly had his share (as did most of the other NBA dynasties like the Bulls or the current Warriors), but he was just too consistently successful for me to accept that explanation.

[coastalmarker99]

I would agree with you Penbeast that there could be huge pressure on Red from Brown and other NBA owners due to Wilt's talents to milk him for ticket sales as the Warriors did.


But on the other hand, Wilt did come into the NBA as a defensive player and took an extreme amount of pride in his defensive and playmaking abilities.


And he was to his credit willing to adjust to whatever his coaches asked of him even though sometimes it backfired.

Red would probably use the same strategy with Wilt as he did with Russell in order to hide the others on defence.

I don't think he would attempt to spam Wilt on offence against Russell he would probably use him in the same way as Hannum did in the 1967 ECF.


As for Russell, I can see him getting mismanaged by his coaches before Hannum and clashing with them as they would attempt to force him to become more of an offensive force in order to beat Boston.

[70sFan]

Yeah, people can't just explain Russell's success with a "luck" card. You can win one ring based on luck, two would be tough but I can see that. You can't argue that someone was lucky for his whole career.

[coastalmarker99]

Russell was lucky more than unlucky during his career

True he did lose a ring that he would have won in 1958 to injury.

But he also gained a ring in 1968 that he wouldn't have gotten if the 76ers were fully healthy.

plus that Hot Rod miss in 1962 was unbelievably lucky to go along with John's steal in 1965 and Nelson's shot in 1969.


In most universes, if Russell's career was played over and over again.

He probably wins 11 titles once out of 100 with most of the outcomes ending in 8 or 9 rings.


And that's not an insult to Russell that's just how low the odds of him winning 11 are


As It takes a special type of player and organisation to do a feat that epic.

[An Unbiased Fan]

If Wilt was on the Celtics, he would be the runaway GOAT

[Jaivl]

Yeah, people can't just explain Russell's success with a "luck" card. You can win one ring based on luck, two would be tough but I can see that. You can't argue that someone was lucky for his whole career.

I mean, yes, you can and I think Russell definitely was.

But unlucky Russell still ends up with, like, 4 rings at least, so...

[70sFan]

Yeah, people can't just explain Russell's success with a "luck" card. You can win one ring based on luck, two would be tough but I can see that. You can't argue that someone was lucky for his whole career.

I mean, yes, you can and I think Russell definitely was.

But unlucky Russell still ends up with, like, 4 rings at least, so...

I mean that you can't explain Russell's success by pure luck. Of course he had a lot of luck, like any successful player but his level of success is way beyond that.

[coastalmarker99]

I'm assuming Russell goes to Philly while Wilt goes to Boston. Wilt wins 2 titles his first three seasons easily before Russell comes into the league. He averages 30-45 points and Cousy is lauded for all his assists while Heinsohn, Sharman, and Ramsey see their scoring cut drastically.

NBA ready Russell is drafted by Philly, an above average team led by veteran Stars Paul Arizin and Tom Gola. Meanwhile, the Celtics struggle against the Warriors in the playoffs after excellent regular seasons as Wilt has great numbers against Russell but the other players have "inexplicably" poor postseasons. The Warriors win the title in 60-62. But by 64/65 the Warriors are shot; Russell is still great but the next generation is slow to take over at the wings/guard slots while Boston reloads great players on the fly and Wilt wins another title, probably 2. People start writing articles about how Wilt has caught up and passed Russell.

Russell gets traded to the Sixers. With Russell, the Sixers win 2 of 3 titles in 66-68 before the owner trades Russell to the Lakers for financial reasons. Alex Hannum is brought in and moves Russell to the high post where instead of scoring 15-20 a game on decent rTS, he scores 10-15 on below league average rTS but the Sixers other scorers more than take up the slack and Hannum is seen as a genius, reinvigorating Russell.

Russell goes to LA to play with Baylor and West. Wilt and the Celtics have their best players but are starting to age. They make Wilt coach but, as when he did coach in San Diego, he doesn't really focus on it having too many balls in the air. Russell fits seamlessly into Butch Van Breda Koff's motion offense, scoring even less while playmaking from the high post and LA wins the title in 69 with BvBK named coach of the the year. They go on to win 2 more titles in 70-72 but are surpassed by young Lew Alcindor and the Bucks in 71 and the consensus is that Alcindor (Kareem) has surpassed Russell as the prototype NBA center and that the Bucks loss in 72 was due to injuries and bad luck.

Russell retires with 8 titles in 13 years and many years later, people are writing threads that say that if Wilt had only gone to Philly with those veteran stars, he would have beat Russell with the Celtics every year because, after all, he scored a lot more and was still a great defender.

My question with you having Russell winning 2 out of 3 titles from 1966 to 1968 years is this,

One explanation for the Celtics' dominance over those great 76er teams is that while Wilt and Russell usually cancelled each other out outside of 1967 in which Wilt just destroyed Russell.

The series usually rested on the shoulders of Greer and Jones and whoever would win that battle would swing the series in their team's favour.

It explains the 76ers dominating the Celtics in 1967 as Hal Greer just destroyed Jones in that series,


29.2 PPG on 46% to 21 PPG on 39%


It also explains why the Celtics won in three of the other years.

1965 ECF 29 PPG to 22.4 PPG

1966 ECF 25.8 PPG to 16.4 PPG

1968 ECF 23.6PPG on 47% to 26.1 on 40%.

As in most of Jones's playoff battles with Hal Greer, he usually outplayed him outside of 1967.


We also have to remember a guy named Havlicek who usually outplayed Walker in most of those playoff matchups outside of 1965 in which he was terrible.


1966 ECF 25 PPG to 14.6 PPG

1967 ECF 30 PPG to 20.6 PPG.

1968 25. 6 PPG on 48% to 20.3 on 40%