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]

[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%.