Replace Bill Russell with...

[That Nicka]

Replace Bill Russell with Ben Wallace or Dennis Rodman and

1) Do the Celtics still win 11 championships?

2) Would Ben Wallace, Marcus Camby or Dennis Rodman put up numbers similar to Bill in the 60s?


Russell played in an era where more shots went up than today and players shot a lower FG% at EVERY position... His career numbers are:

15 ppg, 22.5 rpg, 44% FG

Discuss

edit: added Marcus Camby

[hermes]

i would say no they wouldn't win 11, they would win some because they had a great team but not 11

camby would match the offensive output i think, but not wallace and rodman
and for the rebounds 22 is a lot, i doubt either of them get that many
rodman would get the closest

[penbeast0]

you can replace Russell with Wilt, Kareem, Shaq or Hakeem and still be pretty certain that the Celtics wouldn't win as many championships. Regardless of whether any of them are better than Russell; 11 championships in 13 years is an example of a perfect storm. You have to stay healthy, get the breaks, make the key plays, keep everyone happy, all sorts of things have to be perfect to make a run like that . . . there's a reason no one else has ever come close.

For that matter, the early Celtics that Russell led to those championships, while they had great depth, weren't that great in terms of players. Bob Cousy was the other big star . . . a weak defense, poor efficiency, but flashy player, just ask Red Auerbach who made a description very similar to that when trying desperately to avoid getting stuck with Cousy in the dispersal draft and failing. Bob Heinsohn was the biggest scorer, another low percentage, weak defense player who spread the floor well with his jump shot (Dirk without handles?), the third star was Bill Sharman who was a tough but undersized 2 with average efficiency and great free throw shooting (John Paxon?). Satch Sanders was a nice defender and Frank Ramsey a good bench scorer (generally very deep team) but the Cousy/Sharman/HOF Ed McCauley Celtics from the 4 years before Russell joined the team finished 3,2,2,3 out of a 4 team East . . . thoroughly mediocre!

Russell, who had also led USF and the Olympic team to undefeated campaigns joined the team and they were instantly champions; with his winning they gained a tremendous confidence and mystique and despite turning over the entire rotation other than Russell, they continued to win titles EVERY YEAR! Yes Auerbach brought in good talent but the Celtics faced incredibly loaded teams in St. Louis (3 HOF frontcourt plus Lenny Wilkens), Philly (Wilt, Greer, Cunningham and Chet Walker), LA (Wilt again, with Jerry West, Hairston, etc.) . . . . and yet the Celtics won 11 out of 13! If you replace Russell with ANYONE, they probably win at most half of those titles and that is being generous (and Wilt dominates for at least 5 or 6 titles of his own). It's not just his talent, though that is grossly underrated here on RealGM by many, it's the perfect fit/luck/leadership that no other player in NBA history with the possible exception of later career MJ can approach.

[JordansBulls]

Replace Bill Russell with Ben Wallace or Dennis Rodman and

1) Do the Celtics still win 11 championships?

2) Would Ben Wallace, Marcus Camby or Dennis Rodman put up numbers similar to Bill in the 60s?


Russell played in an era where more shots went up than today and players shot a lower FG% at EVERY position... His career numbers are:

15 ppg, 22.5 rpg, 44% FG

Discuss

edit: added Marcus Camby

Replace Russell with Hakeem or Shaq then yeah. But not no Ben freaking Wallace. Get real man.

[NO-KG-AI]

Ben Wallace isn't the rebounder or man defender, or nearly as good a passer.

Camby isn't the rebounder or man defender, or nearly as good as a passer.

Rodman isn't the help defender, and can't anchor the D, and isn't nearly as good as a passer.

Russell is also a better offensive player than any of them IMO, his passing is worlds better, and he's a better man defender, help defender than any of them, and Rodman is the only comparable rebounder, and I have doubts at how he could rebound if his help D were needed like Russell's.

This insulting to Mr. Russell.

[D.Brasco]

Come on. Rusell was the leader on and off the court. People forget he was the player/coach for their last rind. Can anyone imagine making freaking marcus camby or ben wallace a player coach? never mind rodman lmao.

[That Nicka]

What makes you guys think Ben Wallace or Dennis Rodman couldnt average 15 ppg on 44% BACK THEN... There were barely any other bigs back then... The fact that Bill Russell can be labeled a "dominant center" while being 6'9'' and shooting 44% from the field proves this...

IMHO, any 6'9'' athletic freak (yes, prime Rodman or Wallace) could grab 22 rebounds back then (when ALL STAR GUARDS shot 35% from the field while hoisting 20+ shots a game) and score 15 points against a bunch of midgets

Rodman actually has a higher rebound rate than Russell during some of his prime years, iin an era where defense was astronomically better, players shot a greater percentage and there were bigger, better more athletically gifted players on EVERY team

I'll give Russell the clear passing edge but I'm sure a player as smart as Rodman could develop that skill if he had had an offense run through him as well... lets not forget he would probably stiill be the tallest player on the court most nights at 6'8''

[bluestang302]

If you just want to replace him with a low-scoring, high-rebounding defensive player, why not Wes Unseld? I'd take him over either Rodman or Wallace.

Unseld is a decent match for Russell. He was good defensively, a great rebounder, and a heck of a passer. He wasn't nearly the athlete Russell was though, and wasn't a shot-blocker either. Still, he'd be my choice amongst the "lesser" centers to try and replicate what Russ did. Unseld is a hall of famer in his own right. Nate Thurmond is another option. He WAS a shotblocker.

I don't really think Rodman or Wallace would get the job done. Like Penbeast said, 11 rings in 13 years would be damn hard to replicate with Wilt, Kareem, Hakeem, Shaq, any of those guys. I'd probably even say that in a parallel universe, you might not replicate again with the same exact Celtic teams and the same exact league. Perfect storm.

[Doctor MJ]

Replace Bill Russell with Ben Wallace or Dennis Rodman and

1) Do the Celtics still win 11 championships?

2) Would Ben Wallace, Marcus Camby or Dennis Rodman put up numbers similar to Bill in the 60s?


Russell played in an era where more shots went up than today and players shot a lower FG% at EVERY position... His career numbers are:

15 ppg, 22.5 rpg, 44% FG

Discuss

edit: added Marcus Camby

No and no with the caveat that Rodman could put up better rebounding totals if he were allowed to do nothing but rebound in that time period like he was in the 90s.

I consider Russell to better at blocking and rebounding than the other centers here, plus a fantastic passer and all around leader.

In short: Wilt Chamberlain wouldn't have had a prayer at equaling 11 titles in Russell's place, so no, neither would these guys.

[ThaRegul8r]

Hell no do Ben Wallace, Dennis Rodman or Marcus Camby lead the Celtics to 11 NBA championships. And anyone who suggests they would quite frankly knows nothing about basketball.

This is one of my basketball peeves. People need to do some freaking research on Russell did and what he meant for that team. Go look at how every single one of the Celtics from Red Auerbach (

[ThaRegul8r]

If you just want to replace him with a low-scoring, high-rebounding defensive player, why not Wes Unseld? I'd take him over either Rodman or Wallace.

Unseld is a decent match for Russell. He was good defensively, a great rebounder, and a heck of a passer. He wasn't nearly the athlete Russell was though, and wasn't a shot-blocker either. Still, he'd be my choice amongst the "lesser" centers to try and replicate what Russ did. Unseld is a hall of famer in his own right.

I don't get it. People knock Russell for his scoring (even though he did what needed to be done for the team to win), but Unseld scored even less than Russell did. Unseld could provide the outlet passing to start the break, set picks, but wasn't the defensive player Russell was, and Russell's defense launched the Boston offense, and did what Russell did in the areas of rebounding and passing to a lesser extent. Though much of what Russell did for a team doesn't show up on a stat sheet and can't be quantifiable by numbers, he still did things like average 20-20 in the NBA Finals, put up 30/40 games, set Finals records for highest field goal percentage in a 7-game series, etc., while Unseld made even less of a contribution on the stat sheet. For example, in '78 when he was Finals MVP he averaged 9 points, 11.7 rebounds and 3.9 assists. I fail to see the logic in disparaging Russell for "only" scoring 15 points a game, yet saying that a guy who averaged 10 (and their careers overlapped, so it's not like you have to adjust for era) could replicate what Russell did, notwithstanding the fact that he didn't do what Russell did as well as Russell did them.

[That Nicka]

Ok, I understand Bill Russell was a great player... great... But you didnt say anything that would lead me to believe that Marcus Camby, who averages 14 rebounds and 4 blocks in a league where players are bigger, stronger, more athletic than he is and much better overall talent couldnt pull down 22 rebounds back then...

The thing that gets me about all these old records that cant be broken is that... The reason they cant be broken is because the level of talent back then was so ridiculously low that, the few players that were ahead of their time looked like Gods... If they played today, they may not even be the best player in the league....

Look at every other sport: baseball, football etc... They always said Hank Aarons records would never be broken... Babe Ruth's records would never be broken... Jerry Rice record would never... etc etc etc... But eventually that one player comes along who beats that record.... Its been nearly 50 years since Wilt Chamberlain averaged 50ppg and 26rpg and I can safely guarantee that those stats will never be duplicated... Its not because we havent seen players as gifted/athletic/talented as these retired guys... Its because those other guys got to play against such sucky competition that they looked like Gods.. Kareem bested Wilt on multiple occasions but he never had a statistical season like Wilt's...

The bottom line is: The NBA was an ENTIRELY different game from the 70s forward... Once talent started becoming equally distributed we stopped seeing those God-like numbers and a much more balanced league, very similar to what we have today... Its no coincidence

[penbeast0]

It was close to that long before Maris broke Ruth's record then another 20+ before McGuire (and all the other steroid enhanced players) broke his.

I think many of Chamberlain's records will be broken as the league changes style sometime in the future to a faster paced game. 150-120 scores might become common again; the 100 point mark I would guess is almost sure to go.

The 50/season and 25 reb/game/season and the 48.5 mpg ones will be tougher since in addition to the pace component, they required incredible stamina also and the difference in coaching/substitution patterns is more likely to shift to more substitutions. After all, no one has come close to the starting pitching records for wins or complete games thanks to the development of relief pitching.

But pace as a factor will probably pendulum back up again; even Wilt never got to play against Doug Moe's Denver Nuggets. Just wait until the next big expansion when the NBA adds 20 teams for a European division and the league superstars are playing against a vastly expanded and watered down talent pool . . . things change.

[Point forward]

To answer the TO: Russell was both a game-altering defender and a superb leader. I simply cannot imagine Ben Wallace and Dennis Rodman (lol) exude the same authority. I think the best non-Wilt-or-Kareem Russell replacement would be Tim Duncan. Contemporary choice: Nate Thurmond.

[TMU]

The credibility of the thread was lost when the OP said Marcus Camby is stronger than Bill Russell.

Imo, you replace Russell with anyone who has ever played in this league, and you still won't win 11 championship rings. Let's not forget Russell won 2 championships as the player-coach and I am not sure if anyone could have taken that role and replicate the same success Russell was able to achieve.

[Doctor MJ]

If you just want to replace him with a low-scoring, high-rebounding defensive player, why not Wes Unseld? I'd take him over either Rodman or Wallace.

Unseld is a decent match for Russell. He was good defensively, a great rebounder, and a heck of a passer. He wasn't nearly the athlete Russell was though, and wasn't a shot-blocker either. Still, he'd be my choice amongst the "lesser" centers to try and replicate what Russ did. Unseld is a hall of famer in his own right. Nate Thurmond is another option. He WAS a shotblocker.

I don't really think Rodman or Wallace would get the job done. Like Penbeast said, 11 rings in 13 years would be damn hard to replicate with Wilt, Kareem, Hakeem, Shaq, any of those guys. I'd probably even say that in a parallel universe, you might not replicate again with the same exact Celtic teams and the same exact league. Perfect storm.

Well the replacement would have to be a world class shot blocker to be considered.

[Doctor MJ]

-= original quote snipped =-



Ok, I understand Bill Russell was a great player... great... But you didnt say anything that would lead me to believe that Marcus Camby, who averages 14 rebounds and 4 blocks in a league where players are bigger, stronger, more athletic than he is and much better overall talent couldnt pull down 22 rebounds back then...

The thing that gets me about all these old records that cant be broken is that... The reason they cant be broken is because the level of talent back then was so ridiculously low that, the few players that were ahead of their time looked like Gods... If they played today, they may not even be the best player in the league....

Look at every other sport: baseball, football etc... They always said Hank Aarons records would never be broken... Babe Ruth's records would never be broken... Jerry Rice record would never... etc etc etc... But eventually that one player comes along who beats that record.... Its been nearly 50 years since Wilt Chamberlain averaged 50ppg and 26rpg and I can safely guarantee that those stats will never be duplicated... Its not because we havent seen players as gifted/athletic/talented as these retired guys... Its because those other guys got to play against such sucky competition that they looked like Gods.. Kareem bested Wilt on multiple occasions but he never had a statistical season like Wilt's...

The bottom line is: The NBA was an ENTIRELY different game from the 70s forward... Once talent started becoming equally distributed we stopped seeing those God-like numbers and a much more balanced league, very similar to what we have today... Its no coincidence

Well there's a difference between some new great one surpassing Russell, and saying a guy whose never made an all-star game today is the equivalent of the NBA Player of the Decade in the 60s.

I'd agree that athleticism on the whole is better today than back then, but Russell was an Olympic level athlete in another sport (high jump) for God's sake (for all the talk of Wilt's athleticism, he wasn't even close to that), clearly one of the smartest players and best leaders you'll ever see, and one of few players in history who could keep up the drive to perfection for over a decade straight. The notion that someone like that would be no better or even worse than today's non all star goes much too far.

[penbeast0]

Possibly even Russell couldn't replace Russell with anywhere near the same degree of success. Whether you call it luck, destiny, fate . . . the Celtics won some miracle series to keep their streaks alive. Same goes for some of Michael Jordan's last second superheroics, an exactly identical clone of MJ right down to the mindset and will to win might not have gotten the breaks and might have only two championships instead of 6. Then he would still be considered one of the greats, but wouldn't be up there with Wilt, Kareem, Russell in the GOAT discussion.

[That Nicka]

The credibility of the thread was lost when the OP said Marcus Camby is stronger than Bill Russell.

uhm.. I never said Camby was stronger... I said he averages 14 rebounds in a league where opposing players are bigger/stronger/more athletic than players Russell faced

It may not even be a reach to say Camby is stronger... Russell was only 215 lbs (thats what he was listed at anyway)

[That Nicka]

To answer the TO: Russell was both a game-altering defender and a superb leader. I simply cannot imagine Ben Wallace and Dennis Rodman (lol) exude the same authority. I think the best non-Wilt-or-Kareem Russell replacement would be Tim Duncan. Contemporary choice: Nate Thurmond.

Ok, maybe I got carried away saying those players would be able to lead the Celtics to 11 titles... That obviously takes amazing leadership qualities that none of these other players possess (although they may have been better leaders in an era where they were physically one of the most dominant players to ever step on the court)

BUT, still no one has convinced me that players like Rodman/Wallace/Camby couldnt put up the same numbers back then