How do you think Russell would have done in Kareem's place?

[coastalmarker99]

In this hypothetical scenario.

Russell now plays on Kareem’s teams from 70 to 85 as Red had offered him a 3 year deal in 69 to play on which he turned down much to Red”s shock.

While Kareem likewise now plays on boston from 57 to 72 before retiring at 38 like he originally wanted to before his money woes forced him to play longer.

I think Kareem in Russell”s place probably wins 9 to 10 titles but not 11 as Russell did.

Boston however would peak higher as a team and would have multiple seasons where they would win over 65 games.

As 77 Kareem on 64 Boston would not be fair


As for Russell I would really have to think it out as Kareem outside of 71 and 73.

played on injury-plagued rosters in the first half of that decade and with some downright pathetic rosters from '75 thru '77.


I would say that Russell in Kareem”s place wins in 71 80 82 84 for a total of four rings.

As Russell and Magic would have covered each others weaknesses up.

Plus Russell with his outlet passing ability most likely makes La”s fast break even more overpowering.

[70sFan]

GOAT level players do well in any circumstances.

[coastalmarker99]

GOAT level players do well in any circumstances.

Kareem I think through in Russell”s place would be undoubtedly considered by most as the goat.

Imagine 72 Kareem vs La in 59 and in other years with their weakness at the five spot.

Or a rookie Kareem who averaged over 26 vs a prime Reed vs the Hawks in 57.


He would most likely have multiple 35PPG finals and 6 to 7 MVPs for his career.

even if he wins just 9 to 10 rings in Russell”s place.

His two way dominance would just be too hard to argue against.

[70sFan]

GOAT level players do well in any circumstances.

Kareem I think through in Russell”s place would be undoubtedly considered by most as the goat.

Imagine 72 Kareem vs La in 59 and in other years with their weakness at the five spot.

Or a rookie Kareem who averaged over 26 vs a prime Reed vs the Hawks in 57.


He would most likely have multiple 35PPG finals and 6 to 7 MVPs for his career.

even if he wins just 9 to 10 rings in Russell”s place.

His two way dominance would just be too hard to argue against.

Again, you would call Kareem the GOAT because of better scoring numbers. It's really telling...

[penbeast0]

GOAT level players do well in any circumstances.

Kareem I think through in Russell”s place would be undoubtedly considered by most as the goat.

Imagine 72 Kareem vs La in 59 and in other years with their weakness at the five spot.

Or a rookie Kareem who averaged over 26 vs a prime Reed vs the Hawks in 57.


He would most likely have multiple 35PPG finals and 6 to 7 MVPs for his career.

even if he wins just 9 to 10 rings in Russell”s place.

His two way dominance would just be too hard to argue against.

You are assuming Kareem is able to beat Wilt consistently the way Russell did. Those matches were very close and usually decided by Wilt's teammates doing poorly, arguably due to Russell's unique defensive impact. When Kareem did play Wilt, it was a close thing even with an aging Wilt. Wilt might be the one who ends up being the consensus GOAT with more rings than Kareem in the new scenario.

[coastalmarker99]

GOAT level players do well in any circumstances.

Kareem I think through in Russell”s place would be undoubtedly considered by most as the goat.

Imagine 72 Kareem vs La in 59 and in other years with their weakness at the five spot.

Or a rookie Kareem who averaged over 26 vs a prime Reed vs the Hawks in 57.


He would most likely have multiple 35PPG finals and 6 to 7 MVPs for his career.

even if he wins just 9 to 10 rings in Russell”s place.

His two way dominance would just be too hard to argue against.

You are assuming Kareem is able to beat Wilt consistently the way Russell did. Those matches were very close and usually decided by Wilt's teammates doing poorly, arguably due to Russell's unique defensive impact. When Kareem did play Wilt, it was a close thing even with an aging Wilt. Wilt might be the one who ends up being the consensus GOAT with more rings than Kareem in the new scenario.

I don’t think any team in the NBA would be able to beat Boston with Kareem from 1957 to 1966.


Kareem would be surrounded by shooters such as Sharman and Jones along with other great players.


While Wilt would still be surrounded by mediocre supporting casts on the warriors.


It wouldn’t be until 1967 that a team emerges that can beat Boston in a best of seven.

And even then the Celtics supporting cast that year was basically equal to the 76ers.


Jones was better than Greer as a player and he always outplayed him in every single playoff matchup outside of 1967 in which he fell into a shooting slump

John was better then Billy C and walker.

Bailey and Jackson were equal

Wilt would be better than 1980 Kareem.


The thing that would help the 76ers in that series is if Kareem has to coach.


What won the 76ers that series in our time line was.

1 Wilt utterly destroyed Russell

2 Sam jones fell into a shooting slump.

3 Russell was so focused on Wilt that he forget to put a guy such as Bailey who was on fire in game 2 back in the game.

I mean he was 11 of 15 from the floor in that game and Russell only played him 19 minutes

[coastalmarker99]

Here are Wilt's stats game by game for the 1967 series and his final averages.

Game 1- 24 points, 32 rebounds, 12 assists, 12 blocks (Greer had 39 points, Jones had 24 and Walker had 18)

Game 2- 15 points, 29 rebounds, 5 assists, 5 blocks ( Walker had 23, Jones had 22 and Greer had 17)

Game 3- 20 points, 41 rebounds, 9 assists, 5 blocks (Greer had 30 points and Jones had 21)

Game 4- 20 points, 22 rebounds, 10 assists, minimum 3 blocks
Game 5- 29 points, 36 rebounds, 13 assists, 7 blocks

21.6 ppg, 32.0 rpg, 9.8 apg In games 1, 2, 3 and 5, he averaged 7.3 bpg based on the newspaper articles and I counted a minimum of 3 blocks in the second half of game 4 which at worst would give him 6.4 bpg, though he almost surely had more.

Kareem would have never been dominated that Badly as Russell was in that series.

Despite that Boston only lost by five in game 2

Game 3 was a five point game heading into the fourth

Game 5 the Celtics had a 12 point lead in the first half with Wilt”s 22 points the only thing keeping them in the game.


Put 1980 Kareem in that series and that goes 6 to 7 games.

[VanWest82]

I don't think Russell is the difference in getting past the Blazers or Sonics if that's what you mean. 76 Lakers might've made the playoffs with a better defense. 80s Lakers are interesting. Magic would've turned Bill into a useful finisher but I suspect the ceiling of those teams wouldn't have been the same. GOAT passer to GOAT big man finisher is hard to top. Russell wins with Oscar in 71.

[Texas Chuck]

This anti Russell shtick is super old. But hey scoring lots of points is more important than idk winning games and championships for those solely focused on hyping Wilt.

Sent from my SM-A125U using RealGM mobile app

[Heej]

Imagine Russell and Worthy on the fastbreak with Magic lol

[KobesScarf]

Russell would never miss the playoffs like Kareem did in 75 and 76

Lakers would not get to the Finals in 77

Lakers win championships in 78 and 79 for sure. Still can't believe people on here act like these seasons weren't massive failures for Kareem

[penbeast0]

While Kareem is one of my top 5 players of all time, he wasn't the rebounder or defender that Russell was nor did he run the floor as well. The Celtics always had lots of people who wanted to shoot, though none nearly as efficient as Kareem. They needed Russell's shotblocking and rebounding more and Kareem's scoring less than most teams.

Also, Kareem forced his way out of Milwaukee because of the overt and nasty racism of his supposed hometown fans. Boston has a worse rep for that, though Auerbach was one of the most enlightened coaches of his era. It is far from sure that Kareem wouldn't try to force his way to NY or LA again.

On the other end, a healthy Milwaukee had good shooting guards in Robertson, McGlocklin, Allen, etc. and a strong SF in Bobby Dandridge. Their PFs were always bangers so I would guess that's a better squad for Kareem. However, LA had a ton of scorers, even before Magic, led my Jamaal Wilkes and Norm Nixon. Then they added Magic and Worthy; they would be an excellent fit for Kareem and would probably do well as a team even before Magic whereas players that played with Kareem after the murders and before Magic describe Kareem as withdrawn and in a shell (for good reason!). Russell was always team focused and should have a ring or two with that team. He also didn't have the injury issues that plagued Kareem in 75. With Magic, Russell didn't last the way Kareem did so the last 3 rings where Magic was the primary player probably don't happen and he retires after the title in 82. Maybe more rings if Milwaukee finds a primary scorer post Oscar and he pulls those Nixon/Wilkes teams together; maybe less as he retired much sooner.

[FuShengTHEGreat]

I don't think Russell is the difference in getting past the Blazers or Sonics if that's what you mean. 76 Lakers might've made the playoffs with a better defense. 80s Lakers are interesting. Magic would've turned Bill into a useful finisher but I suspect the ceiling of those teams wouldn't have been the same. GOAT passer to GOAT big man finisher is hard to top. Russell wins with Oscar in 71.

Or 1974 either. Kareem did everything humanly possible to beat the Celtics in that series.

[capfan33]

Russell would never miss the playoffs like Kareem did in 75 and 76

Lakers would not get to the Finals in 77

Lakers win championships in 78 and 79 for sure. Still can't believe people on here act like these seasons weren't massive failures for Kareem

In 76 the Lakers should have made the playoffs but the seeding format was dumb. And if you're saying that Russell would have elevated the team even more to ensure the playoffs, I definitely have doubts about that, that team was pretty terrible.

And in 78 and 79 Russell definitely fits better on those rosters but with Silk masquerading as a power forward, I still think it would have been very difficult for them to get past teams with an actual PF. And the loss of Kareem offensively would have still been enormous even though that roster was offensively oriented. Once again, I doubt Russell would've been a big enough difference-maker for them to even make the finals much less win it.

[penbeast0]

Russell would never miss the playoffs like Kareem did in 75 and 76

Lakers would not get to the Finals in 77

Lakers win championships in 78 and 79 for sure. Still can't believe people on here act like these seasons weren't massive failures for Kareem

In 76 the Lakers should have made the playoffs but the seeding format was dumb. And if you're saying that Russell would have elevated the team even more to ensure the playoffs, I definitely have doubts about that, that team was pretty terrible.

And in 78 and 79 Russell definitely fits better on those rosters but with Silk masquerading as a power forward, I still think it would have been very difficult for them to get past teams with an actual PF. And the loss of Kareem offensively would have still been enormous even though that roster was offensively oriented. Once again, I doubt Russell would've been a big enough difference-maker for them to even make the finals much less win it.

Wilkes won a title as the putative PF in 75 in Golden State and neither Sanders nor Howell were particularly strong players for PFs of their day though Sanders was a very good defender and Howell one of the rare efficient Celtic scorers. With the extra rebounding and inside presence of Russell, I don't think that's a huge problem.

IN 78 and 79, you have Adrian Dantley, Wilkes, Nixon, Lou Hudson, and a bunch of offensive minded reserves all of whom are shooting less than their usual. They are like the early Russell Celtics where almost everyone was a scorer (only more efficient). Dantley didn't even average 20 ppg either year and he's one of the NBA's greatest all time scorers. You will always miss the scoring of a Kareem, but the extra rebounding, defensive presence, and quicker better back defense of Russell is probably more valuable to them. Health is always a question and there's no guarantees but they should be significantly better than they were.

[capfan33]

I think the difference is who they were playing against. Wilkes almost outrebounded Hayes in 75 and grabbed as many ORB (not sure how that happened tbh but it did) and Unseld himself was undersized albeit ofc an excellent center. And the Warriors as a whole did fine rebounding against the Bullets.

But in 79 the Lakers got killed on the boards against Seattle despite Kareem having the most rebounds in the series by a margin. While Kareem could have been better, he still grabbed 2.5 rebounds more per game than anyone on the Sonics. Russell would've grabbed more, but I'm not sure how much of a 12-per-game rebound deficit he would've been able to make up for with how poorly the team around him was rebounding. And also so far as I know Dantley's scoring prowess didn't seem to translate well to team offensive results even though I'll admit to not being a Dantley expert by any stretch (also doesn't preclude him from being able to have great offensive impact in this situation).

But I may be underestimating how good they would be overall with Russell instead, the roster definitely makes more sense around him than Kareem. Trading away Washington is one of the more head-scratching moves I've seen a front office make because they really could've used him.

[KobesScarf]

Russell would never miss the playoffs like Kareem did in 75 and 76

Lakers would not get to the Finals in 77

Lakers win championships in 78 and 79 for sure. Still can't believe people on here act like these seasons weren't massive failures for Kareem

In 76 the Lakers should have made the playoffs but the seeding format was dumb. And if you're saying that Russell would have elevated the team even more to ensure the playoffs, I definitely have doubts about that, that team was pretty terrible.

And in 78 and 79 Russell definitely fits better on those rosters but with Silk masquerading as a power forward, I still think it would have been very difficult for them to get past teams with an actual PF. And the loss of Kareem offensively would have still been enormous even though that roster was offensively oriented. Once again, I doubt Russell would've been a big enough difference-maker for them to even make the finals much less win it.

The Lakers only needed 42 wins to make the playoffs in 76 they easily get that done with Russell

The 78 and 79 Lakers had the best roster(easily) it was Kareems putrid leadership why they massively underachieved. Talent wise those teams should have won 50+ without Kareem or Russell at C

[penbeast0]

...
But I may be underestimating how good they would be overall with Russell instead, the roster definitely makes more sense around him than Kareem. Trading away Washington is one of the more head-scratching moves I've seen a front office make because they really could've used him.

Kermit Washington coming out of college was an undersized back to the basket scorer player who the Lakers felt would never be more than a backup in the NBA. They underestimated his work ethic; he went to Pete Newell's big man camp and completely revised his game to turn himself into an outstanding PF with the Clippers before the Walton compensation mess then the Rudy T affair.

[capfan33]

...
But I may be underestimating how good they would be overall with Russell instead, the roster definitely makes more sense around him than Kareem. Trading away Washington is one of the more head-scratching moves I've seen a front office make because they really could've used him.

Kermit Washington coming out of college was an undersized back to the basket scorer player who the Lakers felt would never be more than a backup in the NBA. They underestimated his work ethic; he went to Pete Newell's big man camp and completely revised his game to turn himself into an outstanding PF with the Clippers before the Walton compensation mess then the Rudy T affair.

He was pretty solid in 77 and in the first part of 78, he had already improved significantly in 77. And Newell was working with him as a Laker in the 77 off-season and in 78 was having a career year as a result. As such, I'm not sure why the Lakers would've viewed him that way by 78.

And the Rudy T thing that happened when he was on the Lakers and not coincidentally there's decent evidence to suggest this was the catalyst for him being traded despite being a pretty good fit next to Kareem and having a career year. West, for what it's worth, wanted to keep him.

[KobesScarf]

Dantley didn't even average 20 ppg either year and he's one of the NBA's greatest all time scorers

Dantley's rebounding was also wayyyyy down on those Laker teams