If there was no Russell who do you think wins those titles in place of the Celtics

[coastalmarker99]

I am going to say that 1960 would go to the warriors with Wilt he gets the MVP and all-star game Mvp along with a ring in his rookie year

1961 I think the lakers or st., Louis Hawks or warriors get this. Through I am split on who would win this year I am going to say the hawks get out of the west and beat the Warriors in the finals or Syracuse

1962 I have to say I think the Warriors beat the Lakers in the finals but, I think the finals would-be 50 50

1963 the Lakers win their first title giving west and Baylor their first ring.

1964 The Warriors win again this time against Cincinnati in the finals.

1965 The Sixers beat a lakers team without Baylor in the finals as he is injured west can't beat them by himself

1966 The lakers get revenge on the sixers with Baylor returning through you can disagree with this choice if you want.

1967 The Sixers can't be stopped this is their year

1968 I think this still goes to the sixers I think Wilt would dominate the lakers centres. Through I would be worried about the sixers being hurt in the finals against the Lakers.

1969 the lakers beat the knicks in the finals.

So in total who's legacy improves without Russell the most would have to be Baylor and West as they get three rings and maybe a fourth one in 1968 if the sixers are still injured through Wilt would feast against the lakers centres in the finals.

West has a legit claim to be viewed as a top ten player ever with four or five rings if he still won in 1972 Baylor is no longest the greatest loser in Nba history and has two rings as the man in 1963 and 1966. And two to three rings more as a sidekick and an MVP in 1963 which greatly helps his legacy Baylor likely moves up a lot in all-time ranks.

For Wilt, he ends up with seven rings in the '60s and one more MVP which gives him 5. Also, Wilt likely has 11 first-team selections and more rebounding titles. Wilt likely has a serious goat case nowadays as a result of having more achievements to his resume. Although there would be a criticism of Wilt's center competition without Russell.

It's tough to say if Wilt even goes to the lakers as he and west would be each other's rival throughout the '60s. Through I am confused where Wilt would go to if it's not the lakers what team would want him maybe New york? Or Seattle

[coastalmarker99]

Assuming everything else remains the same


in 1957 the Hawks win the title they already took the Celtics to 7 games in a very close series (4 games were decided by only 2 points) and without Russell, they'd come out on top.

1959: Nationals, while the Celtics swept the Lakers in the finals they needed 7 games to beat Schayes' Nationals. I don't think they beat the Nationals in the Eastern final without Russell.

[coastalmarker99]

I would have to say 1962 would have to be the greatest finals matchup of the decade both Wilt and Baylor going off against each other it is possible that both Average 40 plus in the series. and West would likely go off as well Wilt would need help from Tom Meschery and paul Arizin to win the series. I think it goes 7 and it's 50 50 who wins that game and the title. I think Wilt and his teammates having championship experience greatly helps them out in the 7th game.

[Kblaze8855]

Im sure Elgin Baylor goes up 5-10 spots all time because people are...kinda stupid.

[coastalmarker99]

Im sure Elgin Baylor goes up 5-10 spots all time because people are...kinda stupid.

I agree it is stupid but unfairly or not fans place such a large value on rings for someone's legacy. winning a ring does not make Baylor a better player he dropped 61 on Bill Russell's head in the finals and averaged 40 points a game in the 1962 finals despite the fact that he lost does anyone blame him for it I don't if his teammate at the end of that game 7 hits that wide-open mid-range jumper he has a ring and is likely boosted higher despite not even being involved in that play. Which shows you how fickle ranking someone on rings is

[coastalmarker99]

In all honesty, I think Wilt runs riot over the league without Russell standing in his way. It says a lot on how good Russell is as a player that he denied Wilt from likely being the undisputed goat Wilt without Russell has all of Russell rebounding records which gives him even more records 10 in fact which gives 82 records 78 to himself plus 7 to 9 rings which makes him the greatest team winner in NBA history. Wilt would have the greatest stats plus team success without Russell he would dominated his sport as only Wayne Gretzky did with his.

[Kblaze8855]

I agree it is stupid but unfairly or not fans place such a large value on rings for someone's legacy. winning a ring does not make Baylor a better player he dropped 61 on Bill Russell's head in the finals and averaged 40 points a game in the 1962 finals despite the fact that he lost does anyone blame him for it I don't if his teammate at the end of that game 7 hits that wide-open mid-range jumper he has a ring and is likely boosted higher despite not even being involved in that play. Which shows you how fickle ranking someone on rings is


Frank Selvy. This shot here....


https://thumbs.gfycat.com/SpiritedNaturalInsect-size_restricted.gif



Elgin Baylor put up like 40/18 for that series. That shot goes in it’s one of the most legendary years ever. Guy splits time between the army and nba often flying in when off duty moments before games and having to leave at the conclusion to get back to base....had a 38/19 season doing it....sets the playoff scoring record that series...and wins a title in a 40 point game 7?

Sounds like a movie.

He shot like shit in game 7 as did everyone else(he west and Sam Jones all had epic awful shooting for whatever reason). But far as just a story?

Hed be on the cover of some dvd in a half army half laker outfit under a championship banner.

[Roundball_Rock]

Im sure Elgin Baylor goes up 5-10 spots all time because people are...kinda stupid.

Wilt would be the consensus GOAT too if no Russell.

[Axe]

Lakers made the finals a total of six times in the 60s while losing all of them.

I bet they're the only team in the league to lose this number of multiple finals. What a shame for being the so-called nba's 'first dynasty'.