If Chamberlain was playing for the Celtics instead of Bill Russell, would he be GOAT?

[LAZERUSS]

Read what Wilt, himself, had to say about switching teams with Russell.

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/sho...6&postcount=34

Chamberlain is not disagreeing with the OP. He merely states that Russell blended in better with his Celtic teammates, than they might have with Wilt. So what? Wilt was a much better offensive player than Russell, including passing, a better rebounder, and only marginally worse defensively. He also proved that he was capable of adapting to his coach's and teammates (and urely would have with Auerbach.) And speaking of Red...he did everything in his power to try and draft Chamberlain.

[LAZERUSS]

Different system? Better coach? We wouldn't see him taking 30+ shots a game like we did under guys like McGuire. We'd probably see something along the lines of what we saw when he was playing under Alex Hannum. I imagine his career ppg would drop 7-10 points, his efficiency would likely skyrocket, and he'd probably be better defensively. He'd definitely be a better player.

100% agreed.

[LAZERUSS]

No, Wilt was obsessed with his own stats, Russell was obsessed with winning. Wilt would dominate the ball in offense and mess up the teams chemistry.

Hmmm...give me the examples of Chamberlain hogging the ball (and actually shooting it) in the post-season, from his '66-67 season thru his final season in 72-73...or seven straight seasons. If anything, he probably should have demanded the ball more often in those years.

[senelcoolidge]

I'm not so sure about young Wilt, but Wilt was a guy that did what was asked of him. I think there is a misconception that Wilt was this uncoachable selfish player. If he was asked to score he scored, if he was asked to be more of a facilitator he did that, asked to shut down other teams offenses..he did that. I'm not sure the Celtics would have won that many championships with Wilt, he had a point about Russell really being the perfect fit for those teams. But they would have won multiple titles either way.

[LAZERUSS]

I'm not so sure about young Wilt, but Wilt was a guy that did what was asked of him. I think there is a misconception that Wilt was this uncoachable selfish player. If he was asked to score he scored, if he was asked to be more of a facilitator he did that, asked to shut down other teams offenses..he did that. I'm not sure the Celtics would have won that many championships with Wilt, he had a point about Russell really being the perfect fit for those teams. But they would have won multiple titles either way.

Excellent post.

[LAZERUSS]

Of course, a lot depends on where Russell lands in that time-frame, as well. Had he somehow played for the Lakers in the decade of the 60's, he would have probably won several rings, even with Chamberlain on the Celtics. Same with the Hawks...who were loaded almost the entire dcade, but just never quite had enough firepower.

And, I am not saying that Wilt would have gone 10-10 in that decade with Boston, either. But, I do believe that, at the very least, he would have won a few more rings.

And where would a Chamberlain, with 5-6 rings, be considered in the all-time "rankings?"

[LAZERUSS]

His stats would look completely different under Auerbach.

You bring up a very good point.

Had Chamberlain played for Auerbach, he most certainly would not have approached 40-50 ppg, and likely would not have even averaged 30. All of which would have meant that the scoring marks in the record book would definitely look different than they do today.

[fpliii]

Question -- Does Russ not exist in this hypothetical?

[LAZERUSS]

Question -- Does Russ not exist in this hypothetical?

See my post above...

[fpliii]

See my post above...

Good points. I guess he would stay with the Hawks? Sounds like an interesting scenario, would be fun to simulate.

FWIW I'm not sure if Auerbach would be Wilt's best option since we don't know what he'd ask him to do. I think having Hannum for most of his career would do wonders (not that Red would hurt obviously, I just think it's a better fit). In 63-64, that Warriors defense was one of the top 15 ever:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/...rowsperpage=25

Though Boston had the GOAT defense that season, so it doesn't stand out as much unless you look closely. Very impressive stuff. I think we'd see several more seasons of that with a Wilt/Hannum pairing early on.

[millwad]

No, he wouldn't.

Wilt's teammates are always getting underrated like crazy by idiots like Jlauber.

[LAZERUSS]

No, he wouldn't.

Wilt's teammates are always getting underrated like crazy by idiots like Jlauber.

Not only were his teammates last place rosters for the first half of his career, they played even worse in the post-season. Even Wilt's 65-66 Sixers played horribly in the post-season. In Chamberlain's first six post-seasons, his teammates had post-seasons of .382, .354, .352 (his 55-25 '66 Sixers), .352, and .332.

Of course, he almost always faced great teams in his entire post-season career, as well. He routinely battled Celtic teams with 6-9 HOFers, Knick teams with four, five and six HOFers, and a two Bucks teams that were statistically among the greatest teams ever.

[steve]

No, he wouldn't.

Wilt's teammates are always getting underrated like crazy by idiots like Jlauber.

Maybe, but here's the thing, players like Tommy Heinsohn, Bob Cousy, Bill Sharman, Frank Ramsey, John Havlicek, Sam Jones, and Bailey Howell are legit Hall of Famers no matter where they would have played (and Russell played with no fewer than 3 of them). This is before you count great role players like KC Jones, Tom Sanders, Willie Naulis, Larry Siegfried, and Don Nelson. There's a reason those Celtic teams were great and that's because they had great players (outside of Russell) and not only that, but there was a level of consistency in terms of turnover, which allowed a great collection of talent to get even better through familiarity.

[millwad]

Not only were his teammates last place rosters for the first half of his career, they played even worse in the post-season. Even Wilt's 65-66 Sixers played horribly in the post-season. In Chamberlain's first six post-seasons, his teammates had post-seasons of .382, .354, .352 (his 55-25 '66 Sixers), .352, and .332.

Of course, he almost always faced great teams in his entire post-season career, as well. He routinely battled Celtic teams with 6-9 HOFers, Knick teams with four, five and six HOFers, and a two Bucks teams that were statistically among the greatest teams ever.

You whine so much about Wilt's teammates, it gets silly.

And I like how you always spam about the Celtic HOF:ers, you know very well that plenty of them got inducted due being on that team and not for being superstars. Just look at KC Jones..

The fact that you concentrate so much on blaming Wilt's teammates for Wilt's failures is the greatet proof of how insecure you are.

Just look at the '73 playoffs - Wilt had 3 teammates who averaged 20 points or more in the playoffs.

'72 playoffs - Wilt had 3 teammates who averaged 19 points or more in the playoffs.

'71 playoffs - Wilt had 4 teammates who averaged 15 points or more in the playoffs.

'70 playoffs - Wilt in the playoffs played with West who averaged 31 points per game in and Baylor who averaged 19 points per game.

'69 playoffs - Jerry West averaged 31 points and Baylor averaged 15 points.

'68 playoffs - Wilt played with 3 players who averaged 19 points or more.

'67 playoffs - Wilt played with 4 players who averaged 15 points or more and two of them scored 20 points or more per game.

'65 playoffs - Wilt played with two players who averaged 20 points or more in the playoffs.

It's so lame how you always blame Wilt's teammates for Wilt's failures when Wilt in fact played with very good players during his career.

I've never seen anyone blame the teammates of his favourite player as much as you.

[CavaliersFTW]

Different system? Better coach? We wouldn't see him taking 30+ shots a game like we did under guys like McGuire. We'd probably see something along the lines of what we saw when he was playing under Alex Hannum. I imagine his career ppg would drop 7-10 points, his efficiency would likely skyrocket, and he'd probably be better defensively. He'd definitely be a better player.

I think 30 is still reasonable, it's of course only a guess but I think it's a reasonable guess because he would have a much lower offensive "peak" but a much more stable offensive role during his career, and I almost think Aurbach would be silly not to ask for at the very least, 25 a night from Wilt given Wilt's abilities. 30 a night was an easy number for Wilt. With none of the radical-change-of-game antics brought about by coaches trying to figure out how to trump the Celtics (seeing as how he'd be on the Celtics) he'd have much more stable, linear looking season-by-season statlines throughout his career probably falling right in between the extremes he went to... which for him is about 30