Switch Russell for Wilt..

[stanlove1111]

If you put Russell on Wilt's teams at the same age that Wilt was when he played with them, and Wilt on Russell's teams at the same age Russell was when he played with his teams, how many titles do you predict Russell would have won.. I predict 5 or 6. I predict Wilt would have 7 or 8..


I believe Russell would have titles in 67,68.69,70,72, and 73..

[LAZERUSS]

If you put Russell on Wilt's teams at the same age that Wilt was when he played with them, and Wilt on Russell's teams at the same age Russell was when he played with his teams, how many titles do you predict Russell would have won.. I predict 5 or 6. I predict Wilt would have 7 or 8..


I believe Russell would have titles in 67,68.69,70,72, and 73..

From '60 thru '65, Wilt would have easily won every one. That is 6-0 right there.

'66? Well, if Wilt's teammates, who played brilliantly against Boston in the regular season (going 6-3 against them), and then played as miserably as they did in the post-season (shooting a collective .352 without Wilt), that is now 7-0 Wilt.

'67? Both teams, sans Wilt and Russell were comparable. BUT, Wilt was a FAR better player than Russell. And he would have been far better than a younger Russell, as well. 8-0 Wilt.

'68? For the second straight season, Wilt had a roster that was comparable to Russell's. And had they not been DECIMATED by injuries (SEVEN of their EIGHT key players, including Wilt himself, were playing with significant injuries, or not playing at all.) Give Russell THAT post-season roster... 9-0 Wilt.

'69? This would be the one arguable one for me. I suspect that Russell would have been a Van Breda Kolff favorite. Still, is Baylor going to blow chunks all over the court in the Finals? And who is coaching Wilt in Boston? Is that coach going to shackle a near-prime Wilt, or will he unleash him on either an old Russell, or as in your analogy, a younger, more prime one? If 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...while Chamberlain would have been playing with a stacked roster that included an Em Bryant putting up 20 points in game seven. I'll just say... tie.

'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. So, no way does that roster, with a one-legged Russell, at best, beat the '70 Knicks. In fact, they don't make the playoffs.

'71? Is a 34 year old Russell, and only a year removed from major knee surgery, have to battle a PEAK Kareem and a loaded 66-16 Bucks team...and without BOTH West and Baylor? Sorry, but there is no way a 34 year old Russell outplays a peak a Kareem, which Wilt did, and with that injuiry-plagued roster, they don't even advance to the WCF's, where they would have been annihilated.

'72? Russell is now 35. And we know that a PRIME Russell has admitted that he never played like THIS Wilt. And does West suddenly fall in a post-season slump (and after one of the best regular seasons of his career)? His he going to shoot .368 against the Bucks, and if they even get to the Finals, is he going to shoot .325? No way does a 35 year old Russell lead that roster past a peak Kareem's Bucks.

'73? Russell is now 36. How well was he playing at age 36? Hell, was he playing as well as a 36 year old Wilt was, when he was 34? No way. And if a 36 year old Wilt playing with an injured roster couldn't beat the Knicks...well, they wouldn't beat them with a 36 year old Russell, either.

There's your answers.

[JohnMax]

http://usatthebiglead.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/russell-westbrook-3-and-strut-game-4-against-sa.gif

[DatAsh]

From '60 thru '65, Wilt would have easily won every one. That is 6-0 right there.

'66? Well, if Wilt's teammates, who played brilliantly against Boston in the regular season (going 6-3 against them), and then played as miserably as they did in the post-season (shooting a collective .352 without Wilt), that is now 7-0 Wilt.

'67? Both teams, sans Wilt and Russell were comparable. BUT, Wilt was a FAR better player than Russell. And he would have been far better than a younger Russell, as well. 8-0 Wilt.

'68? For the second straight season, Wilt had a roster that was comparable to Russell's. And had they not been DECIMATED by injuries (SEVEN of their EIGHT key players, including Wilt himself, were playing with significant injuries, or not playing at all.) Give Russell THAT post-season roster... 9-0 Wilt.

'69? This would be the one arguable one for me. I suspect that Russell would have been a Van Breda Kolff favorite. Still, is Baylor going to blow chunks all over the court in the Finals? And who is coaching Wilt in Boston? Is that coach going to shackle a near-prime Wilt, or will he unleash him on either an old Russell, or as in your analogy, a younger, more prime one? If 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...while Chamberlain would have been playing with a stacked roster that included an Em Bryant putting up 20 points in game seven. I'll just say... tie.

'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. So, no way does that roster, with a one-legged Russell, at best, beat the '70 Knicks. In fact, they don't make the playoffs.

'71? Is a 34 year old Russell, and only a year removed from major knee surgery, have to battle a PEAK Kareem and a loaded 66-16 Bucks team...and without BOTH West and Baylor? Sorry, but there is no way a 34 year old Russell outplays a peak a Kareem, which Wilt did, and with that injuiry-plagued roster, they don't even advance to the WCF's, where they would have been annihilated.

'72? Russell is now 35. And we know that a PRIME Russell has admitted that he never played like THIS Wilt. And does West suddenly fall in a post-season slump (and after one of the best regular seasons of his career)? His he going to shoot .368 against the Bucks, and if they even get to the Finals, is he going to shoot .325? No way does a 35 year old Russell lead that roster past a peak Kareem's Bucks.

'73? Russell is now 36. How well was he playing at age 36? Hell, was he playing as well as a 36 year old Wilt was, when he was 34? No way. And if a 36 year old Wilt playing with an injured roster couldn't beat the Knicks...well, they wouldn't beat them with a 36 year old Russell, either.

There's your answers.

That's right, Russell and Wilt's entire careers are based on luck.

[LAZERUSS]

That's right, Russell and Wilt's entire careers are based on luck.

Nope...mostly surrounding rosters and coaching. And as been pointed out, when Wilt finally had comparable rosters, injuries killed him.

Russell not only had Auerbach, the coach, but Auerbach the GM, as well. And while Wilt's rosters generally just got oldr and worse, Auerbach was replacing super-stars with super stars, and then even adding more.

And of course, aside from Hannum and Sharman, Wilt was either saddled with lazy, or incompetent coaches the rest of his career. Swap coach's and even with lessor rosters, Wilt likely would have won at least a couple more titles. And give Wilt the GM Auerbach...well, he likely wins almost every year.

[DatAsh]

Nope...mostly surrounding rosters and coaching. And as been pointed out, when Wilt finally had comparable rosters, injuries killed him.

Russell not only had Auerbach, the coach, but Auerbach the GM, as well. And while Wilt's rosters generally just got oldr and worse, Auerbach was replacing super-stars with super stars, and then even adding more.

And of course, aside from Hannum and Sharman, Wilt was either saddled with lazy, or incompetent coaches the rest of his career. Swap coach's and even with lessor rosters, Wilt likely would have won at least a couple more titles. And give Wilt the GM Auerbach...well, he likely wins almost every year.

How do you think Wilt would have done with Kareem's career?

[stanlove1111]

I should add that I think 65 and 66 could go either way. Russell might have 8..

[LAZERUSS]

How do you think Wilt would have done with Kareem's career?

You mean a prime Kareem, from '70 thru '79? Are we swapping a prime Wilt ('60 thru '69) with that Kareem?

Probably wins multiple titles, particularly in the last two years of the 70's. I would really have to think it out, though. Kareem played on injury-plagued rosters in the first half of that decade, and with pathetic rosters from '75 thru '77.

Now, what Chamberlain would be paired up with Magic? Give a prime Wilt ten years with a prime Magic, and they likely win more than five rings. You have to remember, Wilt was carrying pure crap rosters, that played even worse in the post-season, to near upsets of the HOF-laden Celtic teams of the early to mid-60's. Give him Magic, Nixon, Cooper, and Wilkes...or Magic, Worthy, Cooper, and Scott for ten straight years, and I just can't see him not winning a ring almost every year. But again, it would depend on what ages Wilt would have been in the 80's.

[DatAsh]

You mean a prime Kareem, from '70 thru '79? Are we swapping a prime Wilt ('60 thru '69) with that Kareem?

Probably wins multiple titles, particularly in the last two years of the 70's. I would really have to think it out, though. Kareem played on injury-plagued rosters in the first half of that decade, and with pathetic rosters from '75 thru '77.

Now, what Chamberlain would be paired up with Magic? Give a prime Wilt ten years with a prime Magic, and they likely win more than five rings. You have to remember, Wilt was carrying pure crap rosters, that played even worse in the post-season, to near upsets of the HOF-laden Celtic teams of the early to mid-60's. Give him Magic, Nixon, Cooper, and Wilkes...or Magic, Worthy, Cooper, and Scott for ten straight years, and I just can't see him not winning a ring almost every year. But again, it would depend on what ages Wilt would have been in the 80's.

Swap 60-73 Wilt with 70-83 Kareem

[stanlove1111]

From '60 thru '65, Wilt would have easily won every one. That is 6-0 right there.

'66? Well, if Wilt's teammates, who played brilliantly against Boston in the regular season (going 6-3 against them), and then played as miserably as they did in the post-season (shooting a collective .352 without Wilt), that is now 7-0 Wilt.

'67? Both teams, sans Wilt and Russell were comparable. BUT, Wilt was a FAR better player than Russell. And he would have been far better than a younger Russell, as well. 8-0 Wilt.

'68? For the second straight season, Wilt had a roster that was comparable to Russell's. And had they not been DECIMATED by injuries (SEVEN of their EIGHT key players, including Wilt himself, were playing with significant injuries, or not playing at all.) Give Russell THAT post-season roster... 9-0 Wilt.

'69? This would be the one arguable one for me. I suspect that Russell would have been a Van Breda Kolff favorite. Still, is Baylor going to blow chunks all over the court in the Finals? And who is coaching Wilt in Boston? Is that coach going to shackle a near-prime Wilt, or will he unleash him on either an old Russell, or as in your analogy, a younger, more prime one? If 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...while Chamberlain would have been playing with a stacked roster that included an Em Bryant putting up 20 points in game seven. I'll just say... tie.

'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. So, no way does that roster, with a one-legged Russell, at best, beat the '70 Knicks. In fact, they don't make the playoffs.

'71? Is a 34 year old Russell, and only a year removed from major knee surgery, have to battle a PEAK Kareem and a loaded 66-16 Bucks team...and without BOTH West and Baylor? Sorry, but there is no way a 34 year old Russell outplays a peak a Kareem, which Wilt did, and with that injuiry-plagued roster, they don't even advance to the WCF's, where they would have been annihilated.

'72? Russell is now 35. And we know that a PRIME Russell has admitted that he never played like THIS Wilt. And does West suddenly fall in a post-season slump (and after one of the best regular seasons of his career)? His he going to shoot .368 against the Bucks, and if they even get to the Finals, is he going to shoot .325? No way does a 35 year old Russell lead that roster past a peak Kareem's Bucks.

'73? Russell is now 36. How well was he playing at age 36? Hell, was he playing as well as a 36 year old Wilt was, when he was 34? No way. And if a 36 year old Wilt playing with an injured roster couldn't beat the Knicks...well, they wouldn't beat them with a 36 year old Russell, either.

There's your answers.

One thing that goes on with Laz posts is he study every stat everywhere until he finds something to cherry pick. He knocks Wilt's teammates always and blames then but basically assumes that Russell's teammates always played great. I just checked 64-65 playoffs first one I checked and Havlicek shot awful in those playoffs. I am sure if I put 1/100 time into it that he does I could find all kinds of examples of this.


66 is a maybe..Russell might have won that..

[LAZERUSS]

Swap 60-73 Wilt with 70-83 Kareem

Does Wilt blow out his knee in '79-80? In a season in which he was asked to become the focal point of the offense, and in which he responded by leading the league in scoring at 32.2 (and on a .579 FG%, with 20 rpg) in the first nine games, before shredding it? BTW, Wilt was a year older in the same time frames.

Wilt was a better rebounder and defender than KAJ was from ages 34 and 35, while Kareem was a better scorer.

We will never know how the injuries would have played out, but we do know that Magic could have scored more if Wilt were scoring less.

Interesting speculation, though.

[stanlove1111]

From '60 thru '65, Wilt would have easily won every one. That is 6-0 right there.

'66? Well, if Wilt's teammates, who played brilliantly against Boston in the regular season (going 6-3 against them), and then played as miserably as they did in the post-season (shooting a collective .352 without Wilt), that is now 7-0 Wilt.

'67? Both teams, sans Wilt and Russell were comparable. BUT, Wilt was a FAR better player than Russell. And he would have been far better than a younger Russell, as well. 8-0 Wilt.

'68? For the second straight season, Wilt had a roster that was comparable to Russell's. And had they not been DECIMATED by injuries (SEVEN of their EIGHT key players, including Wilt himself, were playing with significant injuries, or not playing at all.) Give Russell THAT post-season roster... 9-0 Wilt.

'69? This would be the one arguable one for me. I suspect that Russell would have been a Van Breda Kolff favorite. Still, is Baylor going to blow chunks all over the court in the Finals? And who is coaching Wilt in Boston? Is that coach going to shackle a near-prime Wilt, or will he unleash him on either an old Russell, or as in your analogy, a younger, more prime one? If 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...while Chamberlain would have been playing with a stacked roster that included an Em Bryant putting up 20 points in game seven. I'll just say... tie.

'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. So, no way does that roster, with a one-legged Russell, at best, beat the '70 Knicks. In fact, they don't make the playoffs.

'71? Is a 34 year old Russell, and only a year removed from major knee surgery, have to battle a PEAK Kareem and a loaded 66-16 Bucks team...and without BOTH West and Baylor? Sorry, but there is no way a 34 year old Russell outplays a peak a Kareem, which Wilt did, and with that injuiry-plagued roster, they don't even advance to the WCF's, where they would have been annihilated.

'72? Russell is now 35. And we know that a PRIME Russell has admitted that he never played like THIS Wilt. And does West suddenly fall in a post-season slump (and after one of the best regular seasons of his career)? His he going to shoot .368 against the Bucks, and if they even get to the Finals, is he going to shoot .325? No way does a 35 year old Russell lead that roster past a peak Kareem's Bucks.

'73? Russell is now 36. How well was he playing at age 36? Hell, was he playing as well as a 36 year old Wilt was, when he was 34? No way. And if a 36 year old Wilt playing with an injured roster couldn't beat the Knicks...well, they wouldn't beat them with a 36 year old Russell, either.

There's your answers.

One thing that goes on with Laz posts is he study every stat everywhere until he finds something to cherry pick. He knocks Wilt's teammates always and blames then but basically assumes that Russell's teammates always played great. I just checked 64-65 playoffs first one I checked and Havlicek shot awful in those playoffs. I am sure if I put 1/100 time into it that he does I could find all kinds of examples of this.


66 is a maybe..Russell might have won that..

67 and 68 easy wins for Russell.

69- No way is Russell losing with all NBA first team Baylor and West on his team. Lets face it the fight between VBK was because Wilt refused to leave the post area on offence to give Baylor more room. Russell would have had no problem at all with that, its what he did his entire career to make things easier for his teammates..Laz will now say it didn't hurt Baylor and go into stats but Baylor resented himself and said it hurt his game..

70- Wilt was 90% in the playoffs. A 90% Russell doesn't lose to this Knicks team. In 1969 at 35 years old with a Celtics team that barely made the playoffs even with Russell he beat this exact Knicks team who were actually winning at a better rate after the Debusshure trade then they were in 1970. Russell destroyed them on the defensive end in 1969 and the Knicks said so. I have read the articles on the series..Russell's too determined to not win this, and like he said if Reed insulted him by coming out to play on one leg he wouldn't have been intimidated he would have taken it at him like nobody ever has..

71. Russell wouldn't win with that roster against the Bucks. Would have lost in the WCF just like Wilt.

72. Easy title for Russell. 72 Laker teammates were a lot better then the 69 team he had in Boston that beat a better knicks team in 6.

73. See 1972...

[G.O.A.T]

One thing that goes on with Laz posts is he study every stat everywhere until he finds something to cherry pick. He knocks Wilt's teammates always and blames then but basically assumes that Russell's teammates always played great. I just checked 64-65 playoffs first one I checked and Havlicek shot awful in those playoffs. I am sure if I put 1/100 time into it that he does I could find all kinds of examples of this.


66 is a maybe..Russell might have won that..


Many people have pointed out exactly that and so much more and it just keeps going. I used to debate with him like five years ago, got real frustrating then multiple people from this site showed me five more years of him doing the same thing all over the internet. I didn't know he had changed his name and got into a short debate last month until something made me think this has to be him, no one else is this delusional...sure enough...Needless to say, I don't go down that road anymore.

[nba_55]

I dont see the point of this thread, honestly. You are asking posters to speculate what would happen. Their their speculations could right or wrong. We will never know. What's the point really?

[LAZERUSS]

One thing that goes on with Laz posts is he study every stat everywhere until he finds something to cherry pick. He knocks Wilt's teammates always and blames then but basically assumes that Russell's teammates always played great. I just checked 64-65 playoffs first one I checked and Havlicek shot awful in those playoffs. I am sure if I put 1/100 time into it that he does I could find all kinds of examples of this.


66 is a maybe..Russell might have won that..

'66 was interesting. Wilt's Sixers had to win their last 11 games to edge the Celtics by one game. But, the reality was, the Celtics were still a better team. Boston had a TON of games missed by their key players. Satch Sanders missed 8 games, Havlicek missed 9 games, KC Jones missed 10, and Sam Jones missed 13. Even most of their key bench players missed games, as well.

And Wilt's Sixers went 6-3 against Boston in the regular season. (BTW, Wilt missed one othr game, and Boston routed the Sixers.)

During the regular season, and in those nine games, Wilt averaged 28.3 ppg, 30.7 rpg, 4.1 apg, and shot .473. Russell was at 9.3 ppg, 21.2 rpg, 4.9 apg, and shot...get this... .301 from the field. (BTW, he scored 19 points on 9-11 shooting in the game Wilt missed.)

Then, in the five game EDF's, Boston routed Philly, 4-1. However, Wilt played almost exactly the same in that series, as he did in their nine regular season H2H's. He averaged 28.0 ppg, 30.2 rpg, 3.0 apg, and shot .509 from the field. But, his teammates collectively shot .352 from the field (and that explains Wilt's drop in apg.) To Russell's credit, he did play better in the EDF's, than he did in the regular season H2H's. He averaged 14.0 ppg, 26.2 rpg, 5.6 apg, and shot .407 from the field.

Still, there was simply no rational explanation for the dramatic drop by Wilt's teammates. And, as always, Russell's teammates just shelled them. Sam Jones averaged 25.8 ppg, and Havlicek averaged 25.4 ppg. Wilt's two best teammates, were Hal Greer, at 16.4 ppg on a .325 FG%, and Chet Walker at 14.6 ppg on a .375 FG%.

[Marchesk]

I dont see the point of this thread, honestly. You are asking posters to speculate what would happen. Their their speculations could right or wrong. We will never know. What's the point really?

We need a quantum computer for this shit. And a time machine. A quantum computing time machine. Then we can know all the counter factuals and computer the GOAT of GOATs, Wilt the Stilt Chamberlain.

[unknowns8]

... and you get Russell Chamberlain and Bill Wilt :confusedshrug: :confusedshrug: :confusedshrug: :hammerhead:

[SHAQisGOAT]

Imho, Russell wins more than 2 and Wilt wins less than 11, although most likely it would be close (or not ALL that though)... Just my two scents but really just what-ifs.

[That_Admiral]

Imho, Russell wins more than 2 and Wilt wins less than 11, although most likely it would be close (or not ALL that though)... Just my two scents but really just what-ifs.


Exactly what I was thinking; Bill Russell has the competitiveness/willpower to make his team better (and possibly win)

[LAZERUSS]

One thing that goes on with Laz posts is he study every stat everywhere until he finds something to cherry pick. He knocks Wilt's teammates always and blames then but basically assumes that Russell's teammates always played great. I just checked 64-65 playoffs first one I checked and Havlicek shot awful in those playoffs. I am sure if I put 1/100 time into it that he does I could find all kinds of examples of this.


66 is a maybe..Russell might have won that..

67 and 68 easy wins for Russell.

69- No way is Russell losing with all NBA first team Baylor and West on his team. Lets face it the fight between VBK was because Wilt refused to leave the post area on offence to give Baylor more room. Russell would have had no problem at all with that, its what he did his entire career to make things easier for his teammates..Laz will now say it didn't hurt Baylor and go into stats but Baylor resented himself and said it hurt his game..

70- Wilt was 90% in the playoffs. A 90% Russell doesn't lose to this Knicks team. In 1969 at 35 years old with a Celtics team that barely made the playoffs even with Russell he beat this exact Knicks team who were actually winning at a better rate after the Debusshure trade then they were in 1970. Russell destroyed them on the defensive end in 1969 and the Knicks said so. I have read the articles on the series..Russell's too determined to not win this, and like he said if Reed insulted him by coming out to play on one leg he wouldn't have been intimidated he would have taken it at him like nobody ever has..

71. Russell wouldn't win with that roster against the Bucks. Would have lost in the WCF just like Wilt.

72. Easy title for Russell. 72 Laker teammates were a lot better then the 69 team he had in Boston that beat a better knicks team in 6.

73. See 1972...


I don't have much time, so I will make this quick.

The year before the Lakers traded for Wilt, Baylor averaged 26.0 ppg on a .443 FG%. With Wilt in 68-69, he averaged 24.8 ppg on a .447 FG%. If anyone sacrificed, it was Wilt, whose scoring dropped from 24.3 ppg down to 20.5 ppg as a Laker.

Then, in the playoffs, Chamberlain shot even less. And all of a sudden, Baylor couldn't hot the ocean from a life-boat and was LA's worst shooter in the Finals and in fact, in the entire playoffs. On an 11 man roster. Baylor, along with the incompetent VBK, COST the Lakers the title.

As for '70, I'll grab this from another topic...


Reed came in second in the MVP voting in '69. His Knicks went 54-28 (just behind Wilt's Lakers, who went 55-27.) However, the Knicks conducted a mid-season trade in which they shipped out Bellamy in return for DeBusschere, and the results were a 36-11 record after the deal.

Reed's numbers were excellent all season (21.1 ppg, 14.5 rpg, 2.3 apg, and on a .521 FG%.) He was also second team all-defense. But after the trade, Reed averaged 24.3 ppg and 15.6 rpg.

However, Wilt's Lakers enjoyed a 5-1 W-L record against those Knicks, including a 2-0 mark when Reed was their center. In their entire seasonal H2H's, covering all six games (again, with Bellamy at center in four of them), Reed averaged 15.0 ppg and 12 rpg, while Wilt averaged 23.7 ppg, 22.3 rpg, and shot an amazing .712 from the field. In their two H2H's when it was Reed vs. Wilt, Reed averaged 20.0 ppg and 9.5 rpg, while Wilt averaged 28.0 ppg, 22.0 rpg, and shot an eye-popping .688 from the floor. Clearly, Wilt dominated Reed in their career H2H's before his knee surgery, and this was yet another example.



So, Wilt and his Lakers DOMINATED the 68-69 Knicks, both with Bellamy at center, and then with Reed at center. Oh, and just the year before in the 67-68 playoffs, and with an injured roster, Wilt led his Lakers to a 4-2 win over the Knicks, and just crushed Bellamy in that series. In that series Wilt led BOTH teams in scoring, rebounding, FG%, and assists.

More on the above reply later...

[Helix]

If you put Russell on Wilt's teams at the same age that Wilt was when he played with them, and Wilt on Russell's teams at the same age Russell was when he played with his teams, how many titles do you predict Russell would have won.. I predict 5 or 6. I predict Wilt would have 7 or 8..


I believe Russell would have titles in 67,68.69,70,72, and 73..


I think you're being pretty optimistic saying Russell 5 or 6.

67 - Don't forget, Russell and the Sixers have to get past Chamberlain and the Celtics. What made that Sixer team so good was Wilt. His defense was outstanding, and he was the centerpiece of the offense. Could Russell have replaced Wilt as the centerpiece of that Sixer offense? I think this one is a toss-up.

68 - Considering the devastating injuries the Sixers suffered, NO WAY.

69 - With Wilt at 35 with the Celtics and Russell at 32 with the Lakers, I think Russ might win this one. He's probably a better fit with VBK's Lakers.

70 - Russell back in 4 or 5 months from knee surgery? Not likely.

72 - A 35 year old Russell trying to hold down Jabbar at his most dominant. I doubt it.

73 - Russell at 36 against a very good Knicks team. The Lakers had some key injuries, too. I lean towards the Knicks on this one.


I think Russell even getting two or three rings from those years is being pretty optimistic.

[G.O.A.T]

This is always a strange exercise and bias typically shows quite a bit, so here goes my attempt...

1957 Celtics with Wilt - Things start out good, but eventually Wilt's frustration with the fouling and heckling and his teammates frustration with Wilt's style of play cause disharmony. The Celtics edge out the Nats and fall 4-2 to the St. Louis Hawks in the Final.

1958 Celtics with Wilt - Wilt having contemplated retirement instead decides to return, but there is still great dissension in Boston and the Celtics struggle to stay over .500. In the playoffs their are unseated by Syracuse and St. Louis wins it's second straight title.

1959 Celtics with Wilt - Having gone through two seasons of disharmony the Celtics trade Heinsohn and Sam Jones to the Lakers for Vern Mikkelsen who they were shopping at that time. Mikkelsen, having played with Mikan, figures to be a good compliment to Wilt, the Celtics turn it around and win the title over the surprise Lakers who paired Jones and Heinsohn with a rookie named Elgin Baylor.

1960 Celtics with Wilt - Mikkelsen retires leaving the Celtics vulnerable in the pivot. With Cousy & Sharman aging and Ramsey as well, Wilt takes on his biggest role, too big and the Celtics return to disharmony. In the playoffs though they rally, Cousy and Sharman play well and they meet the Warriors in the Eastern Finals.

1960 Warriors with Russell - Russell brings defense to the Warriors like the league has never seen. Arizin, Gola and Rodgers are all in their prime in provide excellent scoring and play making. In the postseason Arizin is phenomenal, his offense and Russell's defense provide the difference as Philadelphia wins the title beating Boston then St. Louis en route.

1961 Celtics with Wilt - Wilt, more mature now, buys into a system where he trusts his teammates more. Ramsey, Cousy and Sharman are a great scoring combination and the mix of defensive minded forwards compliments Wilt well. The Celtics win a record 66 games with just 13 defeats.

1961 Warriors with Russell - Now considered the most loaded team in the league the Warriors with Russell, Arizin, Rodgers, Gola, Johnson and Conlin all averaging double figures and Attles showing his defensive prowess, stun the Celtics in five games, Sharman retires and the finger pointing begins. Prss starts wondering aloud if Wilt can beat Russell?

1962 - Celtics with Wilt & Warriors with Russell - The Lakers take the league by storm with the best pair of guards (West and Sam Jones) and forwards (Baylor and Heinsohn) but they used undersized Rudy Larusso and a parade of stiffs at center to little avail. The Celtics begin to struggle, their depth depleted. Wilt becomes the first NBA player to average 40 points per game and drags Boston to 53 wins. Meanwhile Russell's Warriors are still a deadly balanced seven deep and defensively they are setting the league on fire. A third straight title is claimed by Russell and his Warriors.

1963 - The Warriors move Russell home to San Francisco, Russell convinces Gola and Arizin to stay for one more season to help him bring a title home and of course they do. Easily, Russell holds a mentally depleted Wilt to zero points in all four games, on 0/1 shooting. The Celtics are disbanded and Wilt takes up pro Volleyball.

1964-1973 - Russell teams with Nate Thurmond and later Rick Barry as the Warriors win ten consecutive titles, brining the total to 14 titles in 14 years for Russ while Wilt is setting records on Coney Island in a hot dog eating contest.

[LAZERUSS]

I'll take a close look at the Wilt swap now...

A little back ground first...

[QUOTE]During summer vacations Chamberlain worked as a bellhop in Kutsher's Hotel. Subsequently, owners Milton and Helen Kutsher kept up a lifelong friendship with Wilt, and according to their son Mark, "They were his second set of parents."[19] Red Auerbach, the coach of the Boston Celtics, spotted the talented teenager at Kutscher's and had him play 1-on-1 against Kansas University standout and national champion, B. H. Born, elected the Most Valuable Player of the 1953 NCAA Finals. Chamberlain won 25

[LAZERUSS]

Continuing...

Russell's '58 Celtics romped to the best record in the league in '59, going 52-20. And then when Baylor's Lakers stunned the Hawks in the WDF's, it was clear sailing for Boston. They shelled the Lakers 4-0, and easily won a title. Russell certainly didn't have to score in that series, either, posting 9.3 ppg, 29.5 rpg, and on a ...get this... .316 FG%. However, from that point on, he would face the Lakers in the Finals again six more times, and not including his last Finals against them, when he went up against Wilt, he put up some truly impressive offensive performances.

Which brings me back to Wilt. Put him on the '59 Celtics, in a league with no Russell, and then have him face the Lakers in the Finals, and one can only wonder what kind wreckage he would have left in his path. Keep in mind that a '59 Wilt would have now been the equivalent of a '62 Wilt. A Chamberlain who brutalized the Lakers during his nine H2H's against them that season.

How overwhelming was Chamberlain against the Lakers in his regular season H2H's against them from '60 thru '68?

First of all, how dominant was Russell against them in those post-seasons?


Here were Russell's numbers against LA in those five series:

'62:

Russell averaged 18.9 ppg on a .457 FG% in his regular season against the NBA.

Against LA in the Finals: 22.9 ppg on a .543 FG%. Which included a game seven of 30 points and 40 rebounds.

BTW, against Wilt in the '62 EDF's: 22.0 ppg on a .399 FG%


'63:

Russell averaged 16.8 ppg on a .432 FG% in his regular season.

Against LA in the Finals: 20 ppg on a .467 FG%


'65:

Russell averaged 14.1 ppg on a .438 FG% against the NBA.

Against LA in the Finals: 17.8 ppg on a .702 FG% (yes, .702.)

BTW, against Wilt in the EDF's: 15.6 ppg on a .447 FG%


'66:

Russell averaged 12.9 ppg on a .415 FG% against the NBA.

Against LA in the Finals: 23.6 ppg on a .538 FG%

BTW, against Wilt in the EDF's: 14.0 ppg on a .423 FG%


'68:

Russell averaged 12.5 ppg on a .425 FG% against the NBA

Against LA in the Finals: 17.3 ppg on a .430 FG%

BTW, against Wilt in the EDF's: 13.7 ppg on a .440 FG%


Oh, and here were Russell's stats in the '69 Finals against Wilt:

Regular season against the NBA: 9.9 ppg on a .433 FG%

Against Wilt in the Finals: 9.0 ppg on a .397 FG%


Now here was the carnage that Chamberlain shelled them with...


Again, had Wilt faced the Lakers in any of his nine seasons in the league from '60 thru '68, and he likely would own at least some, (if not a vast majority), playoff and perhaps Finals, scoring records (and perhaps FG% records, as well, since Russell shot .702 against LA in '65.)

And once again, in Wilt's regular seasons, he was facing LA between 7 to 12 games in each season, with an average of about 10.

Also keep in mind that the Lakers were in the Western Conference, and Wilt only had two seasons in the Western Conference from '60 thru '68, and in one of those, his team was so bad, that he didn't make the playoffs, despite a 44.8 ppg season on .528 shooting.


Ok, here we go:

'59-60:

Against the entire NBA that season: 37.6 ppg on a .461 FG%

Against the Lakers in 9 H2H's: 36.8 ppg on a .430 FG%

High games of 41, 41, 41, 45, and 52.


'60-61:

Against the entire NBA: 38.4 ppg on a .509 FG%

Against the Lakers in 10 H2H's: 40.1 ppg on a .506 FG%

High games were 41, 41, 43, 44, 46, and 56 points.


'61-62:

Against the entire NBA: 50.4 ppg on a .506 FG%

Against LA in 9 H2H games: 51.6 ppg on a .503 FG%

High games of 48, 56, 57, 60, 60, and 78 (with 43 rebounds.)


'62-63: Against the entire NBA: 44.8 ppg on a .528 FG%

Against LA in 12 H2Hs: 48.6 ppg on a .541 FG%

High games of 40, 40, 42, 53, 63, and 72 points.


'63-64: Against the entire NBA: 36.9 ppg on a .524 FG%

Against LA in 12 H2Hs: 44.3 ppg on a .484 FG%

High games of 40, 41, 47, 49, 50, 55, and 59 points.


'64-65: Against the entire NBA: 34.7 ppg on a .510 FG%

Against LA in 8 H2Hs: 29.9 ppg on a .476 FG%

High games of 40, 40, and 41 points.


'65-66: Against the entire NBA: 33.5 ppg on a .540 FG%

Against LA in 10 H2Hs: 40.8 ppg on a .559 FG%

High games of 42, 49, 53, and 65 points.


'66-67: Against the entire NBA: 24.1 ppg on a .683 FG%

Against LA in 9 H2Hs: 26.4 ppg on a .759 FG%

High games of 32, 37, and 39 points.


'67-68: Against the entire NBA: 24.3 ppg on a .595 FG%

Against LA in 7 H2Hs: 28.1 ppg on a .638 FG%

High games of 31, 32, 35, and 53 points.


Overall, in those 86 games:

40 Point Games: 42

50 Point Games: 19

60 Point Games: 7

70 Point Games: 2

High game of 78 points.

In any case, by year three Chamberlain is cruising along with three straight rings, and the league is now seriously thinking about adding even more "Anti-Wilt" Rules.


Continued...

[DatAsh]

Now, how talented was that Celtic team in '57? Well, Russell missed the first 24 games due to his Olympic committment. Boston went 16-8 withOUT him. In fact, they fared worse WITH him, only going 28-20.

Little known fact, Russell actually made teams worse. Crazy to think how unstoppable they would have been without him.

[GODbe]

They played in some of the weakest eras ever. Switch them with eachother...Kevin Love...JaVale McGee...Tyler Zeller...Chris Bosh. Any of them will win multiple rings whilst putting up nice stats.

[Marchesk]

They played in some of the weakest eras ever. Switch them with eachother...Kevin Love...JaVale McGee...Tyler Zeller...Chris Bosh. Any of them will win multiple rings whilst putting up nice stats.

Baylor > Kobe

[LAZERUSS]

Continuing...

While I am not exactly sure where Russell really would have been drafted in '59, let's pretend that he goes to the LAST PLACE Warriors. Again, Wilt was actually drafted by the Philadelphia Warriors as a "territorial pick" while still in HIGH SCHOOL. As great a college career as Russell had, his high school career was nothing to write home about.

How about these comparisons...

[QUOTE]As a player for the Overbrook Panthers, Chamberlain averaged 31 points a game during the 1953 high school season and led his team to a 71

[LAZERUSS]

Continuing...

Keep in mind that Wilt is about three years older than Russell in these scenarios, and by the time Russell joins the NBA, he would be nearing his prime.

Furthermore, the reality was, Russell had a TON of help in defending Chamberlain.


In Chamberlain's first year, and for several years afterward, opposing teams simply didn't know how to handle him. Tom Heinsohn, the great Celtics forward who later became a coach and broadcaster, said Boston was one of the first clubs to apply a team-defense concept to stop Chamberlain. "We went for his weakness," Heinsohn told the Philadelphia Daily News in 1991, "tried to send him to the foul line, and in doing that he took the most brutal pounding of any player ever.. I hear people today talk about hard fouls. Half the fouls against him were hard fouls."

And...


K.C. Jones, arguably the savviest team player in the history of the game, was also a rookie that year and had a front row seat for Bill and Wilt's encounters. "Bill didn't do it all. We just used TEAM. That's a word that's thrown out all over the place, but the total personification of team is what we used. We used everybody's ability, and everybody had a role out there that was natural for them. Whoever was guarding the ball had four guys back there helping his ass out. The whole is bigger than the sum of the parts; we wrote that without knowing the phrase. We knew how good we were. And we knew how to use one another because we knew one another. The most important part of it was the understanding that we had of each teammate - what this guy likes and what that guy doesn't like and who can't play defense and who shoots the ball well. We used all that. If a guy couldn't play defense, we were there, picking him up. Let each guy do what he does best."

Years later, Wilt proved that he never quite understood what K.C. was saying. "What people don't realize," he opined, "is that it was never Wilt versus Russell. I never got, or needed, any help guarding Russell. But for Russ, it was always one or two other guys helping him. He never guarded me straight up."

Now, does anyone here honestly believe that Russell's Warriors would have been capable of doubling and tripling Wilt all game long, with Chamberlain having teammates like Sam Jones, Tommy Heinsohn, Bill Sharman, and later John Havlicek and Bailey Howell...to go along with Cousy in the first half of his career?

Continued...

[LAZERUSS]

Continuing...

In 60-61 Wilt would again have been playing a HOF-laden roster. Meanwhile, Russell would be toiling with a roster that just did not have enough firepower. Arizin was also nearing the end of his career, and while I suspect that he could have scored maybe 5 ppg more with Russell taking less shots than Wilt, I just don't think they could have scored enough.

Then, the other question would be: While that roster played reasonably well with Wilt in the regular season, they were simply awful in the post-season. In the '61 playoffs they were atrocious. Aside from Wilt, Chamberlain's teammates collectively shot .332 from the field in the first round of the playoffs. His three "HOFers" shot .368, .325, and .206 respectively.

Wilt is now 5-0.

[LAZERUSS]

Continuing...

Here is what we do KNOW about Wilt's actual 61-62 season. He single-handedly carried a roster that was on it's last legs, thru the first round of the playoffs, and then to a game seven, two point loss to a 60-20 Celtic team. Not only that, but how about this unbelievable statistic...his teammates collectively shot .354 from the field in that post-season.

Of course, in this scenario, Wilt would actually be in his sixth season, or the equivalent of his '65 season. In the real world, Chamberlain was traded at mid-season, for three players, and a then boat-load of cash, to the Sixers...a team that had gone 34-46 the year before, and did not make the playoffs.

Chamberlain then single-handedly took THAT 40-40 team, to a first round playoff romp over Oscar's stacked 48-32 Royals, 3-1. And then to a game seven, one point loss to Russell's 62-18 Celtics in the EDF's. A Celtic team that was at it's apex. And in that series Wilt just abused a helpless Russell. He outscored him, per game, 30.1 ppg to 15.6 ppg; outrebounded him, per game, 31.4 rpg to 25.2 rpg; and outshot him from the field by a .555 to .447 margin (in a post-season NBA that shot an eFG% of .429.)

Take THAT Wilt, put him on the 61-62 Celtics, with players like Cousy, Heinsohn, Sam Jones, and solid role players and defensive specialists like KC Jones and Satch Sanders...and the rest of the league, including Russell's crappy '62 Warriors, are simply cannon-fodder. The only team that could have possibly given them trouble would have been Baylor's (and West's) Lakers. But, keep in mind, that in the '62 Finals, Russell averaged 23 ppg on a .543 FG% against LA. I have already given you Wilt's staggering numbers against the Lakers in the decade of the 60's. If need be, that Wilt would have hung 40+ ppg on that Laker roster.

6-0.

[LAZERUSS]

Continuing...

Now, think about this: Chamberlain is now a perfect 6-6 in titles. And a third-year Russell is 0-3, and perhaps not even making the playoffs.

It will get even worse for Russell.

Of course this entire topic is pure speculation, but if things played out the same for Russell, as it did for Wilt...

In the 62-63 season, the Warriors move to San Francisco. Arizin, the ONE quality teammate that Wilt actually had in his three years to that point, retired. And Gola is quickly traded away. THAT Warrior roster, aside from Wilt, was arguably the worst in NBA history. How can I say that? The very next year their new head coach, Alex Hannum, conducted a pre-season scrimmage, sans Wilt, against some rookies and scrubs. Guess which team won? Hannum was horrified.

So back to that '63 season. While a prime Russell would now be saddled with a awful roster...Chamberlain would be surrounded by ... EIGHT other HOF players!

Russell, himself not nearly the offensive force that Wilt was (44.8 ppg on a .528 FG% in '63...and BTW, easily led the NBA in Win Shares)...has absolutely no one on his roster that can shoot, nor rebound. His best teammate is Tom Meschery, a player who played better under Wilt, than at any other time in his career, and the reality was, he was able to score 16 ppg playing with Wilt, simply because he wasn't being defended. Oh, and he would only play 64 games that season.

Sorry, but there is NO WAY that Russell "elevates" that roster.

Meanwhile,a now PEAK Chamberlain destroys the Lakers in the Finals.

7-0.

[fpliii]

Continuing...

Now, think about this: Chamberlain is now a perfect 6-6 in titles. And a third-year Russell is 0-3, and perhaps not even making the playoffs.

It will get even worse for Russell.

Of course this entire topic is pure speculation, but if things played out the same for Russell, as it did for Wilt...

In the 62-63 season, the Warriors move to San Francisco. Arizin, the ONE quality teammate that Wilt actually had in his three years to that point, retired. And Gola is quickly traded away. THAT Warrior roster, aside from Wilt, was arguably the worst in NBA history. How can I say that? The very next year their new head coach, Alex Hannum, conducted a pre-season scrimmage, sans Wilt, against some rookies and scrubs. Guess which team won? Hannum was horrified.

So back to that '63 season. While a prime Russell would now be saddled with a awful roster...Chamberlain would be surrounded by ... EIGHT other HOF players!

Russell, himself not nearly the offensive force that Wilt was (44.8 ppg on a .528 FG% in '63...and BTW, easily led the NBA in Win Shares)...has absolutely no one on his roster that can shoot, nor rebound. His best teammate is Tom Meschery, a player who played better under Wilt, than at any other time in his career, and the reality was, he was able to score 16 ppg playing with Wilt, simply because he wasn't being defended. Oh, and he would only play 64 games that season.

Sorry, but there is NO WAY that Russell "elevates" that roster.

Meanwhile,a now PEAK Chamberlain destroys the Lakers in the Finals.

7-0.
Just a note, Rodgers was a very good player. Wilt himself said he had the best handles of any player he'd ever seen.

Not a supporting star to put next to Wilt by any means (since you need shooters to space the floor...I think Meschery was the player with the most range on that roster, but I could be wrong), but a great dribbler and passer.

Wilt's first few years would be a lot more interesting if he played with a Sam Jones, or hooked up with Hal Greer earlier.

[LAZERUSS]

Continuing...

In this 63-64 season, we are actually getting a '67 Wilt, who probably had the most dominant season in NBA history. Furthermore, he is paired up with SEVEN other HOFers. That roster had lost Cousy from their 62-63 team. BUT, luckily for Boston, Wilt would put up a staggering 7.8 apg in '67, and then 9.0 apg in the playoffs.

Meanwhile, Russell would be playing with essentially the same pure crap roster that he would have had in '63. They did add rookie Nate Thurmond, but he was a natural center, that played part-time, and out of position.

In REAL LIFE, Wilt single-handedly carried THAT roster to a 48-32 record, and then a game seven win over a Hawks team, with a better roster players 2-6, and in a series in which he averagd 39 ppg, 23 rpg, and on a .559 FG%.

Chamberlain's Celtics waltz to a title.


Then, it comes down to what happens next for Russell.

In his 64-65 season, his team would probably be floundering. Would Warrior ownership trade him away, as they did with Wilt (whom they thought had a heart condition)?

Or would he stay a Warrior?

If he remains a Warrior, and his team finished dead last, they would draft Rick Barry. They would also have the luxury of trading Thurmond away.

If he was traded to the Sixers, they were certainly a team with potential. They had Greer, Jackson, and Walker. And they would add Billy Cunningham the very next season.

Either way, things are finally looking up for Russell...

But in the meantime, thru 63-64...Wilt is now 8-0.

Continued...

[B-hoop]

Why all the details when everyone knows the end result in your mind will be Wilt 10000-0?

[LAZERUSS]

Just a note, Rodgers was a very good player. Wilt himself said he had the best handles of any player he'd ever seen.

Not a supporting star to put next to Wilt by any means (since you need shooters to space the floor...I think Meschery was the player with the most range on that roster, but I could be wrong), but a great dribbler and passer.

Wilt's first few years would be a lot more interesting if he played with a Sam Jones, or hooked up with Hal Greer earlier.

The problem with Rodgers was, and again, he was a horrible shooter. But to make matters even worse, he would STILL shoot.

As bad as he was with Wilt, the year after the Warriors traded Wilt away, Rodgers then took 20 FGAs per game, and shot .373! A couple of years after that, and playing 20 mpg, he shot .347. Before Ricky Rubio came along, Rodgers was arguably the worst shooter, against league average, of all-time.

And the second half of game four of the '64 NBA Finals is available on YouTube. Chamberlain actually had a very good half (for the game, he absolutely crushed Russell, outscoring him 27-8, and outrebounding him, 38-19), BUT, Rodgers repeatedly runs down the floor, and just takes shot-after-horrific-shot. Even airballs. The Warriors, who had probably had no chance in that series anyway, lose that game by a 98-95 margin. And they would go on to lose the clinching game five in the last minute, as well, 105-99.

Again, it was just amazing that Wilt could take such putrid rosters so far in the first half of his career. I just can't possibly believe that he wouldn't have swept Russell in rings in the first six years of his career (as Russell's teams would do to him, had they swapped rosters.

[LAZERUSS]

Wilt, in what would have been his 67-68 season, in a year in which he led the league in assists (and was now the best defensive player in the league), and all while scoring 24 ppg with 24 rpg, and on a 60% effciency, would have easily buried Russell's '64-65 Warriors, or Sixers, depending on what would have transpired in that year.

9-0.


I have already covered the rest of the topic.

A quick run-down:

Do Russell's '66 Sixers puke all over the floor in the EDF's, as they did for Wilt?

Can a prime Russell take an equal supporting cast, that was healthy in '67, past a 68-69 Wilt who would probably not have been so poorly coached, as he actually was in that season? I believe a Celtic Wilt, at age 32, would still have overpowered a prime 29 Russell. Possibly close, though.

Are Russell and his '68 Sixers just decimated by injuries in the playoffs, and particularly the EDF's, and against a relatively healthy Celtic team? If so, they have no chance.

Is Russell traded to the Lakers for three players, and does LA also lose Gail Goodrich in the expansion draft in 68-69? And does Baylor go AWOL in the middle three games, and then shot-jack his team right out of game seven of the Finals?


In the ninth game of the '69-70 season, does a 33 year old Russell shred his knee, and have major knee surgery a short time later? And does he miraculously come back way ahead of schedule, and then play at considerably less than 100%, and still put up a historic Finals,...and against a heavily-favored 60-22 Knicks team in the Finals?

Does a 34 year old Russell go into the 70-71 WDF's, and against a peak Kareem and his 66-16 Bucks, and without BOTH West and Baylor?

Does a 35 year old Russell put up a DPOY-type season in '72, as well as leading the league in rebounding and FG%, and average 15 ppg, and then taking over in the Finals offensively when West couldn't hit the Grand Canyon from the ledge (.325 in the Finals)?

And finally, does a 36 year old Russell, who in reality was done at age 35, take an injury-riddled Laker team to a Finals, in a season in which he would average 13.2 ppg, 18.6 rpg, and on an all-time record .727 FG%...all while being the best defensive center in the league?