If BR was drafted in 70 instead of 57 How would that affect both WC and KAJ legacies.

[coastalmarker99]

This hypothetical scenario has me thinking about how having Russell drafted in 1970 to the Celtics in place of Cowens.


Would have changed both Wilt's and Kareem’s legacies.



As Wilt's known rate of winning series against everyone but Boston is just over 80% (a little bit higher than that of Michael Jordan.

he probably wins 5 to 8 titles from 1959 to 1970 to go along with 5 to 6 MVP awards.

And even if Russell beats him back to back in the finals in 1972 and 1973 to end Wilt's career.

Wilt most likely gets given the age excuse by most fans.



As for Kareem.


The Celtics with Russell and Havlicek most likely dominate throughout the 1970s and win anywhere from 4 to 6 titles.


And If Russell gets a couple of regular-season MVPs and Finals MVPs to go along with his rebounding and shot-blocking titles.


While Kareem is missing the playoffs in back to back years.


Then it most likely leaves a large dent in Kareem's legacy.


As people would argue if he truly was the best player of the 1970s compared to Russell who would have the edge on him in terms of rings and accolades.

[3ba11]

BR wouldn't have any rings in the 70's because he wouldn't get lucky and get drafted by a team that had 8 HOF teammates to carry him to a bunch of titles

[coastalmarker99]

BR wouldn't have any rings in the 70's because he wouldn't get lucky and get drafted by a team that had 8 HOF teammates to carry him to a bunch of titles


Prime havlicek and Russell surrounded by players such as paul Silas are winning titles.

[SouBeachTalents]

Prime havlicek and Russell surrounded by players such as paul Silas are winning titles.
He clearly doesn't know those Celtics teams won multiple titles in the 70's.

[coastalmarker99]

He clearly doesn't know those Celtics teams won multiple titles in the 70's.


It could be argued that if Havlicek does not get hurt in 1973 that those Celtics teams win 3 titles in four years from 1973 to 1976.


For 3ball to say that Russell wouldn't win a single title with those teams is just ignorant

[dankok8]

Russell wouldn't win 11 titles if he got drafted in 1970 but considering this was still an era with no 3pt line and good offenses were paint-focused, he would have a monster impact. Given Havlicek's aging, Boston's title window would close around 1977 or so but the Celtics would get 5-6 titles with Russell instead of the 2 titles they got with Cowens. And Russell gets 3-4 MVP's instead of 1 MVP for Cowens. I have very little doubt about that. And yes Wilt's legacy would be affected in that he probably wins 2-3 more titles. With his stats, he's probably the GOAT in a lot of more people's eyes. Kareem's legacy wouldn't really be affected. Kareem's teams weren't championship caliber in the 70's anyways. He would probably still win in 1971 over a rookie Russell and still get like around 5 MVP's.

[coastalmarker99]

Russell wouldn't win 11 titles if he got drafted in 1970 but considering this was still an era with no 3pt line and good offenses were paint-focused, he would have a monster impact. Given Havlicek's aging, Boston's title window would close around 1977 or so but the Celtics would get 5-6 titles with Russell instead of the 2 titles they got with Cowens. And Russell gets 3-4 MVP's instead of 1 MVP for Cowens. I have very little doubt about that. And yes Wilt's legacy would be affected in that he probably wins 2-3 more titles. With his stats, he's probably the GOAT in a lot of more people's eyes. Kareem's legacy wouldn't really be affected. Kareem's teams were championship caliber in the 70's anyways. He would probably still win in 1971 over a rookie Russell and still get like around 5 MVP's.



Wilt probably wins 6 to 8 titles to go along with 5 to 6 MVP awards.


But I think a lot of people would decide to pick Russell and Kareem over him based on competition.



His legacy would be basically seen as similar to Federer's in tennis.


I mean with no great center rival for most of his prime except Walt Bellamy or Nate.


Wilt would basically get to feast as Rodger did on a weak field before both Kareem and Russell arrive in the NBA and then put a stop to an old Wilt.

[coastalmarker99]

Russell wouldn't win 11 titles if he got drafted in 1970 but considering this was still an era with no 3pt line and good offenses were paint-focused, he would have a monster impact. Given Havlicek's aging, Boston's title window would close around 1977 or so but the Celtics would get 5-6 titles with Russell instead of the 2 titles they got with Cowens. And Russell gets 3-4 MVP's instead of 1 MVP for Cowens. I have very little doubt about that. And yes Wilt's legacy would be affected in that he probably wins 2-3 more titles. With his stats, he's probably the GOAT in a lot of more people's eyes. Kareem's legacy wouldn't really be affected. Kareem's teams were championship caliber in the 70's anyways. He would probably still win in 1971 over a rookie Russell and still get like around 5 MVP's.


Wilt without Russell standing in his way would dominate the Lakers' mediocre frontline in the finals throughout the 1960s


Wilt with 6 to 8 rings to go along with his stats would make him the most mythical figure in sports history.


'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.

[dankok8]

Wilt probably wins 6 to 8 titles to go along with 5 to 6 MVP awards.


But I think a lot of people would decide to pick Russell and Kareem over him based on competition.



His legacy would be basically seen as similar to Federer's in tennis.


I mean with no great center rival for most of his prime except Walt Bellamy or Nate.


Wilt would basically get to feast as Rodger did on a weak field before both Kareem and Russell arrive in the NBA and then put a stop to an old Wilt.

I don't think Wilt wins that many titles even without Russell. In 1960, his team wouldn't beat the Hawks, in 1961 he lost to the Nats, in 1963 he missed the playoffs, in 1968 with all the injuries they wouldn't beat the Lakers etc. He could win in 1962, 1965, 1966 and 1969 but he wouldn't get all of them. I think Wilt gets 4-5 titles if Russell didn't exist. MVP's yea... he would have won 5-6 for sure. Like I said his GOAT case would get a lot better.

Federer beasting on a weak field is the most overblown narrative ever by the way. Nadal won his first slam when Fed only had four. And Fed still had to beat Sampras, Agassi etc. early in his career. But I don't want to expand on tennis here.

[coastalmarker99]

I don't think Wilt wins that many titles even without Russell. In 1960, his team wouldn't beat the Hawks, in 1961 he lost to the Nats, in 1963 he missed the playoffs, in 1968 with all the injuries they wouldn't beat the Lakers etc. He could win in 1962, 1965, 1966 and 1969 but he wouldn't get all of them. I think Wilt gets 4-5 titles if Russell didn't exist. MVP's yea... he would have won 5-6 for sure. Like I said his GOAT case would get a lot better.

Federer beasting on a weak field is the most overblown narrative ever by the way. Nadal won his first slam when Fed only had four. And Fed still had to beat Sampras, Agassi etc. early in his career. But I don't want to expand on tennis here.



Without Russell.


Wilt wins titles in

1960

1962

1964

1965

1966

1967

1968

1969


Wilt owned the Hawks throughout his career and they had no matchup for him.


Plus with Baylor's decline due to injury past 1965.


Those 76er teams are most likely four peating.

In 1966 the Lakers (2.76 SRS) didn't have the front line to matchup with the Sixers (4.16 SRS). I know the Sixers had a meltdown against Boston in the playoff series, but I feel they would have beat the Lakers more easily than Boston did.


Even in the 10 regular season games, the Sixers were 8-2 against them with a MOV of 6.4 ppg.

I know Baylor missed 4 of those games but West did not miss any.

Plus they had no answer for Chamberlain.

Below we can see his averages in 10 regular-season games against the Lakers, where he saw an increase in every category from his regular-season averages including efficiency.

40.8 ppg, 26.1 rpg, 6.6 apg, 53.5% FG, 62.0% FT, 56.4% TS

[dankok8]

Without Russell.


Wilt wins titles in

1960

1962

1964

1965

1966

1967

1968

1969


Wilt owned the Hawks throughout his career and they had no matchup for him.


Plus with Baylor's decline due to injury past 1965.


Those 76er teams are most likely four peating.

In 1966 the Lakers (2.76 SRS) didn't have the front line to matchup with the Sixers (4.16 SRS). I know the Sixers had a meltdown against Boston in the playoff series, but I feel they would have beat the Lakers more easily than Boston did.


Even in the 10 regular season games, the Sixers were 8-2 against them with a MOV of 6.4 ppg.

I know Baylor missed 4 of those games but West did not miss any.

Plus they had no answer for Chamberlain.

Below we can see his averages in 10 regular-season games against the Lakers, where he saw an increase in every category from his regular-season averages including efficiency.

40.8 ppg, 26.1 rpg, 6.6 apg, 53.5% FG, 62.0% FT, 56.4% TS

1960: Yea this matchup is actually a wash. However Wilt's Warriors were 3-5 against the Hawks that season and Wilt actually struggled against them going 30.9/21.9/2.4 on 43.1 %FG. The Hawks had a lot of HOFers. I'd say 50/50.

1962: The Lakers in the games Baylor played were a 60-win team. They would be heavily favored over the Warriors.

1964: Oscar's Royals had a much better record and more talent than the Warriors. Again, they would be favored.

1965: West's Lakers had a better record than the Sixers. Wilt's team would have a chance here but again, the Lakers are favored.

1966: Good chance at a title here. But given how bad the Sixers were against Boston, it's not a guarantee.

1967: Obviously a title.

1968: With injuries they had, they don't beat the Lakers IMO or at least it would be tough.

1969: A likely title against the Knicks. This is probably the best chance.

All in all, a very likely title in 1969, two good chances in 1960 and 1966, and outside chances in 1962, 1965 and 1968.

So yea 4-5 titles is likely.

[coastalmarker99]

1960: Yea this matchup is actually a wash. However Wilt's Warriors were 3-5 against the Hawks that season and Wilt actually struggled against them going 30.9/21.9/2.4 on 43.1 %FG. The Hawks had a lot of HOFers. I'd say 50/50.

1962: The Lakers in the games Baylor played were a 60-win team. They would be heavily favored over the Warriors.

1964: Oscar's Royals had a much better record and more talent than the Warriors. Again, they would be favored.

1965: West's Lakers had a better record than the Sixers. Wilt's team would have a chance here but again, the Lakers are favored.

1966: Good chance at a title here. But given how bad the Sixers were against Boston, it's not a guarantee.

1967: Obviously a title.

1968: With injuries they had, they don't beat the Lakers IMO or at least it would be tough.

1969: A likely title against the Knicks. This is probably the best chance.

All in all, a very likely title in 1969, two good chances in 1960 and 1966, and outside chances in 1962, 1965 and 1968.

So yea 4-5 titles is likely.

Baylor missed the entire 1965 postseason so the 76ers 100 percent win a title that season against Jerry West who would be basically by himself in the finals.

[John8204]

I don't think Russell would have had that big of an impact in the 70's. He would have been a great addition but a big reason for the Celtics success in the 60's was they had a consolidation of talent from 1-8 on the roster. It would have been very good for Wilt Chamberlain and Jerry West because they were close to winning titles. But I think the biggest impact would be Robert Parish who joined the Celtics in 1980, if they have Bill Russell in 1970 the team likely doesn't shop a center in 80', Moses Malone was a free agent in 82' which means The Celtics likely try and bring him in