View Single Post
Old 05-17-2011, 02:03 PM   #16
alwaysunny
in Brooklyn
 
alwaysunny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 2,859
alwaysunny is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posteralwaysunny is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posteralwaysunny is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posteralwaysunny is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posteralwaysunny is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posteralwaysunny is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posteralwaysunny is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posteralwaysunny is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posteralwaysunny is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posteralwaysunny is considered a brilliant InsideHoops poster
Default Re: What if Wilt played for the Celtics?

Quote:
Originally Posted by jlip
Most informed posts that I have read on this subject suggest that Wilt would obviously have won more titles, (i.e. 4-7) but his style of play and intangibles would not have meshed as well with the remaining Celtics as Russell's did preventing them from winning 11 titles as they did. Also, based upon research and Wilt's own comments I somewhat doubt if players such as K.C. Jones and Frank Ramsey would have made the Hall of Fame given that they were never even all stars during their careers. This is what Wilt had to say in an interview about this very question:

[i]"What I respected about Bill, more than anything else, was that he basically played me in a manner that I think the game of basketball should be played. He knew he couldn't out physical me and he never tried. He would try to steal the ball, he would use his quickness, he would use his agility, he would use the things that he had going for him to play wonderfully strong defense with the help from his team. No other player ever played me that way. That team wasn't so great until he got there. Once he got there, he was the piece that they were looking for. A lot of people have said to me, "Wilt, what if you had that team? Boy, you would never have lost!" Not true. If I was on their team, I would be taking away from some of what the other guys were doing. Everybody had a role on that team. (Tom) Heinsohn wouldn't be getting the same number of shots, nor would (Bill) Sharman, nor would (Bob) Cousy because I'd be shooting the ball a whole lot more. Bill Russell gave them just what they needed. I would've given them a little bit more in certain things, which I think would have made the team not as good. I've always believed that he made that team exactly what it was supposed to be. And you couldn't get any better."[/I]

http://www.nba.com/history/chamberlain_50.html
You gotta give Wilt credit for giving Russell props, but honestly there's no question the Celtics would've won more rings with Wilt instead of Russell. Take Pierce and LeBron for example. You can make the same argument that with LeBron on Celtics it may take away the team chemistry, but because LeBron is a far better player than Pierce the talent level will outweigh the team chemistry thus making them the better overall team (not to mention LeBron's superior defense which would make the Celtics even BETTER defensive team).
alwaysunny is offline   Reply With Quote