CelticsStrong

Celtics Basketball => Celtics History => Topic started by: CelticConcourse on February 24, 2013, 03:58:22 PM

Title: Bill Russell
Post by: CelticConcourse on February 24, 2013, 03:58:22 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2AlFrOj5Mc

That is all.
Title: Re: Bill Russell
Post by: hpantazo on February 24, 2013, 04:18:41 PM
pretty much makes modern highlights like Jordan's and Blake Griffin's seem dull
Title: Re: Bill Russell
Post by: BballTim on February 24, 2013, 04:35:51 PM


  Clearly he's lacking in the kind of athleticism necessary to compete in the modern nba, or so I've been told many times.
Title: Re: Bill Russell
Post by: hpantazo on February 24, 2013, 04:36:59 PM


  Clearly he's lacking in the kind of athleticism necessary to compete in the modern nba, or so I've been told many times.

Yea, from that clip, I'd say today's players are clearly lacking in the athleticism needed to compete against Bill Russell.
Title: Re: Bill Russell
Post by: Redz on February 24, 2013, 04:51:37 PM
TP - I hadn't seen that one before.  The dude was an artist.
Title: Re: Bill Russell
Post by: Celtics4ever on February 24, 2013, 04:54:58 PM
Fastest man on the team and he was 6'9", reputedly had a 48" vertical and could take quarters off the top of the backboard.

The best aspacts of his game were the mental gifts too not physical.   He got in his opponent's heads and knew how to do enough to intimidate them.  Changed the game with his defense.  But he wasn't a stat hog like Wilt, Bill did enough to win.
Title: Re: Bill Russell
Post by: oldmanspeaks on February 24, 2013, 05:10:26 PM
As an old man who watched both old and young players, Bill Russell could have competed in any era because he was incredibly athletic. Because he played almost the entire game nearly every game, he had to sometimes "slow it down". But when he wanted to he was incredibly fast (as was Wilt by the way who outraced the fastest guard on the 76s), an incredible leaper and his ability to jump straight up to block a shot has never been equaled in my opinion. In fact his shot blocking ability with his straight up jumping and not swatting at the ball puts him in another class all together as he seldom hit it out of bounds unlike most of the modern players. Russell has some offensive limitations compared to modern players but his defense was better.
Title: Re: Bill Russell
Post by: syfy9 on February 24, 2013, 05:11:48 PM
It took him 5 dribbles to go full court.....WOW.  :o

And that rebound...oh my goodness, it makes me really wish I could've seen him play in real life...


I think that he is the best basketball player of all time.
Title: Re: Bill Russell
Post by: CelticConcourse on February 24, 2013, 09:11:04 PM
I can't imagine anyone doing this in real life. o_O
Title: Re: Bill Russell
Post by: slamtheking on February 24, 2013, 09:17:11 PM
It took him 5 dribbles to go full court.....WOW.  :o

And that rebound...oh my goodness, it makes me really wish I could've seen him play in real life...


I think that he is the best basketball player of all time.
yup, anyone claiming Jordan's the best hasn't seen Bill's efforts against a league that wasn't watered down and he was winning titles against the man who could arguably be called the second best player ever (Wilt).  Jordan didn't win anything until the previous greats, Bird and Magic, were in decline and he did it in a league with diluted talent.

not saying Jordan wasn't a great player, he was, but he's not in Russell's league.
Title: Re: Bill Russell
Post by: Jon on February 24, 2013, 09:34:51 PM
Always shocks me when people dismiss the basketball players of the past.  First, Russell was obviously insanely athletic, so the notion that he couldn't compete today for that reason is insane. 

Second, people bring up the idea that he was too thin.  Clearly, anyone who has watched KG the past 18 years should learn that you don't have to be thick to be a dominant force in today's NBA.  If anything, most bigs still are thin (and always have been, see Kevin McHale).  It's really been that aberrations like Shaq and Dwight Howard who have skewed people's perceptions. 

Finally, I'd say this: Kareem Abdul-Jabbar came into the NBA the year after Russell retired.  I think it's safe to say that a year later, it was the same caliber of competition.  Kareem did dominate right away.  However, he continued to dominate even until his late 30s, and he was dominating the a league that had the likes of Larry, Magic, and Jordan.  So if the NBA really got so much better in the '80s, how could a dinosaur like Kareem who dominated the Russell's era, continue to dominate so late in his career in such an "athletic" league? 

In my opinion, the answer is because the league didn't actually get any better and that the old time stars of the '60s and '70s absolutely could dominate today. 
Title: Re: Bill Russell
Post by: CelticConcourse on February 24, 2013, 09:47:23 PM
It took him 5 dribbles to go full court.....WOW.  :o

And that rebound...oh my goodness, it makes me really wish I could've seen him play in real life...


I think that he is the best basketball player of all time.
yup, anyone claiming Jordan's the best hasn't seen Bill's efforts against a league that wasn't watered down and he was winning titles against the man who could arguably be called the second best player ever (Wilt).  Jordan didn't win anything until the previous greats, Bird and Magic, were in decline and he did it in a league with diluted talent.

not saying Jordan wasn't a great player, he was, but he's not in Russell's league.

It's simply impossible to compare head-to-head through different eras
Title: Re: Bill Russell
Post by: More Banners on February 24, 2013, 09:49:25 PM
Holy crap.

I had to hit "giveth one" for that clip.  Absolutely amazing.  Thanks.
Title: Re: Bill Russell
Post by: 33_Larry Legend_33 on February 25, 2013, 09:59:04 AM
I'm looking forward to watching Russ in "Olympus Has Fallen"...  :P

(Not sure who might get this...)
Title: Re: Bill Russell
Post by: Bankshot on February 25, 2013, 06:41:33 PM
I'm looking forward to watching Russ in "Olympus Has Fallen"...  :P

(Not sure who might get this...)

How about you tell us so we can all get it.
Title: Re: Bill Russell
Post by: SHAQATTACK on February 25, 2013, 06:48:50 PM
yeah..that poor guy...couldn't play in todays NBA.......

Title: Re: Bill Russell
Post by: GreenFaith1819 on February 25, 2013, 07:20:17 PM
It's been discussed on here before, and I tend to agree with poster "Who" (I believe)....Bill Russell could average 10-12 pts, 12-15 rebs, 3-4 blocks and probably 3-4 assists per game in today's NBA.

Not to what his leadership and bball IQ would bring to the table.

TP for the find, CC.
Title: Re: Bill Russell
Post by: Celtics17 on February 25, 2013, 08:08:33 PM
It is kind of amusing that so many young people think that athletes of 30,40, and 50 years ago were inferior. I once read that Russell was a top 5 high jumper in the world. The article said that Russ and the top jumper, again in the world, were competing against each other for fun. Both cleared a certain height, I believe it was 6'9" but I am may be off. Anyway, the top jumper wanted to call it a tie but Russ wanted both to try 7 feet. The top jumper in the world missed badly and Russ cleared it but on the way down caught his foot barely on the bar.

Athletic enough to compete in today's NBA? Now, that is funny!
Title: Re: Bill Russell
Post by: ram on February 25, 2013, 08:12:36 PM
Russell qualified for the Olympics as a high jumper but gave up his spot to a friend because he was already going as a basketball player.

Also, both he and Wilt were excellent 440 runners on their college track teams.

Russell was the best winner ever and will never be surpassed by anyone.

Title: Re: Bill Russell
Post by: Lord of Mikawa on February 25, 2013, 08:24:23 PM
A superior athlete, born winner, and model human being. Although some say he is stubborn and hard to deal with, Russell is one of my favorite people of all time. #6forever.
Title: Re: Bill Russell
Post by: syfy9 on February 25, 2013, 09:29:57 PM
It's been discussed on here before, and I tend to agree with poster "Who" (I believe)....Bill Russell could average 10-12 pts, 12-15 rebs, 3-4 blocks and probably 3-4 assists per game in today's NBA.

Not to what his leadership and bball IQ would bring to the table.

TP for the find, CC.
I disagree. If Rodman could get 18.7 rpg, I'm sure Russell could easily eclipse that.
Title: Re: Bill Russell
Post by: CelticConcourse on February 25, 2013, 09:32:18 PM
It's been discussed on here before, and I tend to agree with poster "Who" (I believe)....Bill Russell could average 10-12 pts, 12-15 rebs, 3-4 blocks and probably 3-4 assists per game in today's NBA.

Not to what his leadership and bball IQ would bring to the table.

TP for the find, CC.
I disagree. If Rodman could get 18.7 rpg, I'm sure Russell could easily eclipse that.

I can't picture anyone averaging that many rebounds unless they had a realllllllllly good defense.
Title: Re: Bill Russell
Post by: syfy9 on February 25, 2013, 09:45:12 PM
It's been discussed on here before, and I tend to agree with poster "Who" (I believe)....Bill Russell could average 10-12 pts, 12-15 rebs, 3-4 blocks and probably 3-4 assists per game in today's NBA.

Not to what his leadership and bball IQ would bring to the table.

TP for the find, CC.
I disagree. If Rodman could get 18.7 rpg, I'm sure Russell could easily eclipse that.

I can't picture anyone averaging that many rebounds unless they had a realllllllllly good defense.

Well I hope it's unanimous that Russell's defense was one of the best of all time, arguably THE best.
Title: Re: Bill Russell
Post by: 33_Larry Legend_33 on March 09, 2013, 03:58:02 PM
I'm looking forward to watching Russ in "Olympus Has Fallen"...  :P

(Not sure who might get this...)

How about you tell us so we can all get it.

This:

http://aol.sportingnews.com/nba/story/2013-01-21/bill-russell-misidentified-morgan-freeman-abc-george-stephanopoulos-inauguration

(I guess I thought this was more common knowledge). :)
Title: Re: Bill Russell
Post by: CelticConcourse on March 09, 2013, 11:24:14 PM
I'm looking forward to watching Russ in "Olympus Has Fallen"...  :P

(Not sure who might get this...)

How about you tell us so we can all get it.

This:

http://aol.sportingnews.com/nba/story/2013-01-21/bill-russell-misidentified-morgan-freeman-abc-george-stephanopoulos-inauguration

(I guess I thought this was more common knowledge). :)

That was hilarious ;D
Title: Re: Bill Russell
Post by: wahz on March 10, 2013, 12:46:00 AM
It's been discussed on here before, and I tend to agree with poster "Who" (I believe)....Bill Russell could average 10-12 pts, 12-15 rebs, 3-4 blocks and probably 3-4 assists per game in today's NBA.

Not to what his leadership and bball IQ would bring to the table.

TP for the find, CC.

I know you are trying to be complimentary but you are still selling him way short on offense. 10-12 points?? I'd go with 16+, 15+ boards, 3+ blocks, 4+ assists.

He would have so many 20 boards nights against these soft guys. He'd also play 40-48 minutes. If he got tired he wouldn't come out. He would just periodically stay
back on d.
Title: Re: Bill Russell
Post by: OsirusCeltics on March 10, 2013, 03:14:39 AM
It took him 5 dribbles to go full court.....WOW.  :o

And that rebound...oh my goodness, it makes me really wish I could've seen him play in real life...


I think that he is the best basketball player of all time.
yup, anyone claiming Jordan's the best hasn't seen Bill's efforts against a league that wasn't watered down and he was winning titles against the man who could arguably be called the second best player ever (Wilt).  Jordan didn't win anything until the previous greats, Bird and Magic, were in decline and he did it in a league with diluted talent.

not saying Jordan wasn't a great player, he was, but he's not in Russell's league.

Jeez Luweeze this is exact verbatim of what I always say to  prove Russell is the GOAT
TP

Russell won 11 titles in a 10 team league
Jordan won 6 titles in a 30 team league. Extremely watered down the talent in the 90s

Look at those teams Jordan faced in the Finals. (Lakers, Jazz, Suns, Blazers, Sonics) Were any of those runner-up  teams be considered an all time team if they had won? No way
Title: Re: Bill Russell
Post by: Moranis on March 12, 2013, 11:05:45 AM
It took him 5 dribbles to go full court.....WOW.  :o

And that rebound...oh my goodness, it makes me really wish I could've seen him play in real life...


I think that he is the best basketball player of all time.
yup, anyone claiming Jordan's the best hasn't seen Bill's efforts against a league that wasn't watered down and he was winning titles against the man who could arguably be called the second best player ever (Wilt).  Jordan didn't win anything until the previous greats, Bird and Magic, were in decline and he did it in a league with diluted talent.

not saying Jordan wasn't a great player, he was, but he's not in Russell's league.

Jeez Luweeze this is exact verbatim of what I always say to  prove Russell is the GOAT
TP

Russell won 11 titles in a 10 team league
Jordan won 6 titles in a 30 team league. Extremely watered down the talent in the 90s

Look at those teams Jordan faced in the Finals. (Lakers, Jazz, Suns, Blazers, Sonics) Were any of those runner-up  teams be considered an all time team if they had won? No way
Have you seen some of the teams Boston beat during that run.  They all weren't against the best.  I mean the first title Boston beat a team that was 34-38 and had to win two tiebreakers just to make the playoffs and sure the Hawks had Petit, but that team was far from an all time great team.  They added some players and got more experienced and then beat Boston the next year, but again far from an all time great team.  After that Boston beat the Minneapolis Lakers, which was Elgin Baylor and a bunch of scrubs.  Then the Hawks two more times (much better teams than the first time, but far from all time greats). Then the Lakers twice with a very young West added to Baylor and a bunch of scrubs, but far from an all time great team.  By 63-64 they finally faced a Wilt led team, but that Warriors team was Wilt and a very young Nate Thurmond and not much else, again not an all time great team.  Lakers again, but still just Baylor and West and no one else.  Now the 65-66 Lakers team added Goodrich, but he missed 3 games in the playoffs and was a 22 year old rookie.  That was not an all time great team.  C's lost in 66-67 before reaching the finals to the Sixers team that is one of the best teams ever.  Beat the Lakers again in 67-68 but again just the 3 wings and Baylor was pretty old by then.  That was also a team that won just 52 games, so wasn't anywhere near an all time great team and the Sixers team that Boston beat in 7 in the east lost Cunningham in the playoffs (just 3 games played) so was essentially just Wilt and Greer and a bunch of scrubs.  68-69 was the only time Boston won a title against a team that could have potentially gone down as one of the all time greats had they won.  That was the year the Lakers still had Baylor and West and added Wilt (though didn't have Goodrich). 
Title: Re: Bill Russell
Post by: Moranis on March 12, 2013, 12:15:31 PM
And people need to stop with this nonsense that the league was watered down and it wasn't back in the old days.  I mean have people actually looked at some of the teams from the 67-68 season.

The San Diego Rockets may be one of the worst teams ever from that year.  http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/SDR/1968.html (http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/SDR/1968.html)

How about the Seattle Supersonics http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/SEA/1968.html (http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/SEA/1968.html)

How about this 29 win team that actually made the playoffs that year http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/CHI/1968.html (http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/CHI/1968.html)

Or the Baltimore Bullets http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/BAL/1968.html (http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/BAL/1968.html)

In other words 4 of the 12 teams that year were just down right awful.  The Royals, Warriors, and Pistons had some good players, but had an awful lot of scrubs as well.  Now granted that was the first year of the ABA, but there wasn't much difference the prior year when there were 10 teams as the Bullets weer horrid in 66-67 and the Bulls and Pistons weren't much better (so 3 of 10 that weren't exactly stellar teams).  The reality is there will always be great teams and there will always be awful teams.  It is just the nature of sport.
Title: Re: Bill Russell
Post by: Donoghus on March 12, 2013, 12:34:16 PM
And people need to stop with this nonsense that the league was watered down and it wasn't back in the old days.  I mean have people actually looked at some of the teams from the 67-68 season.

The San Diego Rockets may be one of the worst teams ever from that year.  http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/SDR/1968.html (http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/SDR/1968.html)

How about the Seattle Supersonics http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/SEA/1968.html (http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/SEA/1968.html)

How about this 29 win team that actually made the playoffs that year http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/CHI/1968.html (http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/CHI/1968.html)

Or the Baltimore Bullets http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/BAL/1968.html (http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/BAL/1968.html)

In other words 4 of the 12 teams that year were just down right awful.  The Royals, Warriors, and Pistons had some good players, but had an awful lot of scrubs as well.  Now granted that was the first year of the ABA, but there wasn't much difference the prior year when there were 10 teams as the Bullets weer horrid in 66-67 and the Bulls and Pistons weren't much better (so 3 of 10 that weren't exactly stellar teams).  The reality is there will always be great teams and there will always be awful teams.  It is just the nature of sport.

Who cares?

I don't think it diminishess anything Russell & the Celtics accomplished during that time period.
Title: Re: Bill Russell
Post by: CelticConcourse on March 12, 2013, 12:35:23 PM
And people need to stop with this nonsense that the league was watered down and it wasn't back in the old days.  I mean have people actually looked at some of the teams from the 67-68 season.

The San Diego Rockets may be one of the worst teams ever from that year.  http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/SDR/1968.html (http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/SDR/1968.html)

How about the Seattle Supersonics http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/SEA/1968.html (http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/SEA/1968.html)

How about this 29 win team that actually made the playoffs that year http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/CHI/1968.html (http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/CHI/1968.html)

Or the Baltimore Bullets http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/BAL/1968.html (http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/BAL/1968.html)

In other words 4 of the 12 teams that year were just down right awful.  The Royals, Warriors, and Pistons had some good players, but had an awful lot of scrubs as well.  Now granted that was the first year of the ABA, but there wasn't much difference the prior year when there were 10 teams as the Bullets weer horrid in 66-67 and the Bulls and Pistons weren't much better (so 3 of 10 that weren't exactly stellar teams).  The reality is there will always be great teams and there will always be awful teams.  It is just the nature of sport.

Who cares?

I don't think it diminishess anything Russell & the Celtics accomplished during that time period.

You can't really blame Russell and Co. for playing in a bad era, can you?
Title: Re: Bill Russell
Post by: Moranis on March 12, 2013, 01:49:28 PM
And people need to stop with this nonsense that the league was watered down and it wasn't back in the old days.  I mean have people actually looked at some of the teams from the 67-68 season.

The San Diego Rockets may be one of the worst teams ever from that year.  http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/SDR/1968.html (http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/SDR/1968.html)

How about the Seattle Supersonics http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/SEA/1968.html (http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/SEA/1968.html)

How about this 29 win team that actually made the playoffs that year http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/CHI/1968.html (http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/CHI/1968.html)

Or the Baltimore Bullets http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/BAL/1968.html (http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/BAL/1968.html)

In other words 4 of the 12 teams that year were just down right awful.  The Royals, Warriors, and Pistons had some good players, but had an awful lot of scrubs as well.  Now granted that was the first year of the ABA, but there wasn't much difference the prior year when there were 10 teams as the Bullets weer horrid in 66-67 and the Bulls and Pistons weren't much better (so 3 of 10 that weren't exactly stellar teams).  The reality is there will always be great teams and there will always be awful teams.  It is just the nature of sport.

Who cares?

I don't think it diminishess anything Russell & the Celtics accomplished during that time period.

You can't really blame Russell and Co. for playing in a bad era, can you?
No.  My point was merely there are crappy teams in every generation.  Look at this thread and the amount of times people talk about how watered down the league is today and how it was different back then.  My point was merely it is hogwash.  There are good teams and bad teams in every generation.  None is different than any other.  That is my point.
Title: Re: Bill Russell
Post by: fairweatherfan on March 12, 2013, 02:13:34 PM
I honestly think the league is deeper now than it's ever been.  Can't underestimate that basketball is now a truly global sport, with the NBA as its unquestioned pinnacle.  And everyone from stars to role players are staying effective through their mid-to-late 30s a lot more often than they used to.  It was significantly shallower 15-20 years ago at Jordan's peak, though.

I don't like speculating on how good Russell would be today overall, but I'm very confident that he wouldn't win 11 titles in 13 years.  It's just too unlikely in the modern era.  For someone to do that again you'd need a much smaller league with much less player movement, which is precisely what Russell had.
Title: Re: Bill Russell
Post by: mmmmm on March 12, 2013, 03:03:33 PM
I don't think its easy to say that the league is deeper now or then.

The league is bigger, with more teams, so the pool of top-level basketball players is spread among a lot more teams.

That said, there are also a lot more players available from more colleges as the NCAA has grown and the international pool of players as the international game has grown.   

On the other hand, the NFL and MLB both are also much bigger (as is international football/soccer) so those sports would draw away from the pool.

In the end, it is probably a wash.   The selective nature of NBA basketball talent that Russell competed against was probably similar to that which is in the NBA today.

You might try to argue that today's athletes are better trained and taken care of (nutrition, medicine, etc.).   But if you magically transported a player from one era to the other, you have to assume he'd get those sort of benefits of the new era.

Same point has to be made about rule changes.

Thus my take is that just as Russell and Wilt dominated their era, they would probably have dominated this modern era.    Maybe not to the tune of winning quite so many of those championships - because it is simply structurally more difficult for a team to repeat as a title winner year after year these days.   But as a player, I'm certain Russell would be just as dominant.
Title: Re: Bill Russell
Post by: CelticConcourse on March 13, 2013, 07:25:54 AM
And then there's that thing called the "CBA" ;D I wonder how much Russell or Wilt would have been paid in today's NBA
Title: Re: Bill Russell
Post by: Celtics4ever on March 13, 2013, 07:36:07 AM
Quote
I honestly think the league is deeper now than it's ever been.

The league was not deeper then.   Lesser teams means better players top to bottom.   There would not be scrubs on the old league.

Quote
  Can't underestimate that basketball is now a truly global sport, with the NBA as its unquestioned pinnacle.  And everyone from stars to role players are staying effective through their mid-to-late 30s a lot more often than they used to.  It was significantly shallower 15-20 years ago at Jordan's peak, though.

Global = more fanbase not better players.  The league was weak in the Jordan years.   But in Russell's era, which I might add was a full twenty between Jordan and Russell almost, teams were loaded with all americans.

How old are you, Fairweather?

Teams were loaded in the 80s  too.   This three all star thing happened all the time then.   C's , 76ers and Lakers were loaded and you could have made two of today's teams with their talent levels.   I beat their benches could tear up half the league.
Title: Re: Bill Russell
Post by: Moranis on March 13, 2013, 09:11:07 AM
Quote
I honestly think the league is deeper now than it's ever been.

The league was not deeper then.   Lesser teams means better players top to bottom.   There would not be scrubs on the old league.

Quote
  Can't underestimate that basketball is now a truly global sport, with the NBA as its unquestioned pinnacle.  And everyone from stars to role players are staying effective through their mid-to-late 30s a lot more often than they used to.  It was significantly shallower 15-20 years ago at Jordan's peak, though.

Global = more fanbase not better players.  The league was weak in the Jordan years.   But in Russell's era, which I might add was a full twenty between Jordan and Russell almost, teams were loaded with all americans.

How old are you, Fairweather?

Teams were loaded in the 80s  too.   This three all star thing happened all the time then.   C's , 76ers and Lakers were loaded and you could have made two of today's teams with their talent levels.   I beat their benches could tear up half the league.
But have you actually looked at the teams I posted links to in this thread.  Sure there were some great teams in the 60's, as there were in the 70's, and 80's, and 90's, and 00's, and today, and there were also a lot of crappy teams.  I mean this is the Knicks from 85-86  http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/NYK/1986.html (http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/NYK/1986.html).  Ewing and Gerald Wilkins as rookies (and Ewing played in just 50 games) and absolutely no one else of note unless you count Cartwright as note.  I mean the Bulls made the playoffs that year and were 30-52.  The Bucks were the 2nd best team in the East that year and not only didn't have a single all time great on their team, they didn't even have a single HOFer. 

Everybody always looks back on teams of yore with a greater appreciation and always just remembers the greats without remembering the dredge that is always at the bottom of the league. 

If this years Heat team actually does what it should and wins the title it would be a top 2 or 3 team in every single year in NBA history.  They have 3 HOFers in their prime (James, Wade, Bosh) one of which is by far the best player in the league.  They add a 4th HOFer that is still a very effective shooter (Allen).  They have some very strong and effective role players like Battier, Haslem, and Chalmers.  Heck even Cole, Miller, Anderson, and Lewis are pretty darn good when you consider they are the 8th, 9th, 10th, and 11th players on the Heat.  I wouldn't count them out against any of the greatest teams in history. 
Title: Re: Bill Russell
Post by: fairweatherfan on March 13, 2013, 09:34:40 AM
Quote
I honestly think the league is deeper now than it's ever been.

The league was not deeper then.   Lesser teams means better players top to bottom.   There would not be scrubs on the old league.

I can't parse this - are you saying the league isn't deeper now, and fewer teams means better players top to bottom?  That isn't necessarily true, if fewer people are playing the game.  A simple example - there are about 2x as many Americans now as in the 50s.  If all else is equal, you'd expect about 2x as many good players today from America just based on sheer numbers.  Bigger talent pool = more high-level players.

And there have been scrubs in every era of the league; we just don't remember them because, well, they're scrubs.  And the Celtics of old didn't have many.

Quote
  Can't underestimate that basketball is now a truly global sport, with the NBA as its unquestioned pinnacle.  And everyone from stars to role players are staying effective through their mid-to-late 30s a lot more often than they used to.  It was significantly shallower 15-20 years ago at Jordan's peak, though.

Global = more fanbase not better players.  The league was weak in the Jordan years.   But in Russell's era, which I might add was a full twenty between Jordan and Russell almost, teams were loaded with all americans.

How old are you, Fairweather?

Teams were loaded in the 80s  too.   This three all star thing happened all the time then.   C's , 76ers and Lakers were loaded and you could have made two of today's teams with their talent levels.   I beat their benches could tear up half the league.

No, a global sport also means a broader talent pool for players.  The major influx of foreign players over the last 20 years speaks for that.  Ginobili, Kirilenko, Yao, Bogut, Ibaka - 5 very good recent players from 5 different continents.  And those are just off the top of my head - there are dozens of other examples.

When a few teams are stacked like you're mentioning, it's offset by how unstacked the bad teams in the league are.  Like Moranis said, look at the rosters and records for the worst teams in the 80s.  The league being top-heavy doesn't mean the entire league was deeper. 

Bottom line, the NBA has the biggest talent pool it's ever had, and more longevity across the board too.  That's led to a major increase in depth over the past couple of decades.
Title: Re: Bill Russell
Post by: Lightskinsmurf on March 13, 2013, 09:49:42 AM
Might be the biggest homer thread I've read on here, not sure.
Title: Re: Bill Russell
Post by: mmmmm on March 13, 2013, 09:57:49 AM
Quote
I honestly think the league is deeper now than it's ever been.

The league was not deeper then.   Lesser teams means better players top to bottom.   There would not be scrubs on the old league.

I can't parse this - are you saying the league isn't deeper now, and fewer teams means better players top to bottom?  That isn't necessarily true, if fewer people are playing the game.  A simple example - there are about 2x as many Americans now as in the 50s.  If all else is equal, you'd expect about 2x as many good players today from America just based on sheer numbers.  Bigger talent pool = more high-level players.

And there have been scrubs in every era of the league; we just don't remember them because, well, they're scrubs.  And the Celtics of old didn't have many.

Quote
  Can't underestimate that basketball is now a truly global sport, with the NBA as its unquestioned pinnacle.  And everyone from stars to role players are staying effective through their mid-to-late 30s a lot more often than they used to.  It was significantly shallower 15-20 years ago at Jordan's peak, though.

Global = more fanbase not better players.  The league was weak in the Jordan years.   But in Russell's era, which I might add was a full twenty between Jordan and Russell almost, teams were loaded with all americans.

How old are you, Fairweather?

Teams were loaded in the 80s  too.   This three all star thing happened all the time then.   C's , 76ers and Lakers were loaded and you could have made two of today's teams with their talent levels.   I beat their benches could tear up half the league.

No, a global sport also means a broader talent pool for players.  The major influx of foreign players over the last 20 years speaks for that.  Ginobili, Kirilenko, Yao, Bogut, Ibaka - 5 very good recent players from 5 different continents.  And those are just off the top of my head - there are dozens of other examples.

When a few teams are stacked like you're mentioning, it's offset by how unstacked the bad teams in the league are.  Like Moranis said, look at the rosters and records for the worst teams in the 80s.  The league being top-heavy doesn't mean the entire league was deeper. 

Bottom line, the NBA has the biggest talent pool it's ever had, and more longevity across the board too.  That's led to a major increase in depth over the past couple of decades.

Per my post up above, I don't contend that the talent pool in the 60s was deeper or thinner than today.   I think there are contributing factors to both directions.   Just as there are more athletes to draw from to feed the NBA pool, they are spread across a larger pool and there are also other sports competing for their talents.

Even if we accept that the overall quality is about the same though, there is an effect of expansion that has been overlooked so far in this conversation.

In an 82 game season, in an expanded league, all other things equal, you play each team less often.  So you get less exposure to both the scrub teams and the elite teams.  You tend to play more games against the middle.

I'll leave to to folks to think about how that might affect your assessment of the play of guys like Russell and Wilt.   And obviously, whether a schedule is 'balanced' or loaded affects this.
Title: Re: Bill Russell
Post by: Moranis on March 13, 2013, 10:04:37 AM
Quote
I honestly think the league is deeper now than it's ever been.

The league was not deeper then.   Lesser teams means better players top to bottom.   There would not be scrubs on the old league.

I can't parse this - are you saying the league isn't deeper now, and fewer teams means better players top to bottom?  That isn't necessarily true, if fewer people are playing the game.  A simple example - there are about 2x as many Americans now as in the 50s.  If all else is equal, you'd expect about 2x as many good players today from America just based on sheer numbers.  Bigger talent pool = more high-level players.

And there have been scrubs in every era of the league; we just don't remember them because, well, they're scrubs.  And the Celtics of old didn't have many.

Quote
  Can't underestimate that basketball is now a truly global sport, with the NBA as its unquestioned pinnacle.  And everyone from stars to role players are staying effective through their mid-to-late 30s a lot more often than they used to.  It was significantly shallower 15-20 years ago at Jordan's peak, though.

Global = more fanbase not better players.  The league was weak in the Jordan years.   But in Russell's era, which I might add was a full twenty between Jordan and Russell almost, teams were loaded with all americans.

How old are you, Fairweather?

Teams were loaded in the 80s  too.   This three all star thing happened all the time then.   C's , 76ers and Lakers were loaded and you could have made two of today's teams with their talent levels.   I beat their benches could tear up half the league.

No, a global sport also means a broader talent pool for players.  The major influx of foreign players over the last 20 years speaks for that.  Ginobili, Kirilenko, Yao, Bogut, Ibaka - 5 very good recent players from 5 different continents.  And those are just off the top of my head - there are dozens of other examples.

When a few teams are stacked like you're mentioning, it's offset by how unstacked the bad teams in the league are.  Like Moranis said, look at the rosters and records for the worst teams in the 80s.  The league being top-heavy doesn't mean the entire league was deeper. 

Bottom line, the NBA has the biggest talent pool it's ever had, and more longevity across the board too.  That's led to a major increase in depth over the past couple of decades.

Per my post up above, I don't contend that the talent pool in the 60s was deeper or thinner than today.   I think there are contributing factors to both directions.   Just as there are more athletes to draw from to feed the NBA pool, they are spread across a larger pool and there are also other sports competing for their talents.

Even if we accept that the overall quality is about the same though, there is an effect of expansion that has been overlooked so far in this conversation.

In an 82 game season, in an expanded league, all other things equal, you play each team less often.  So you get less exposure to both the scrub teams and the elite teams.  You tend to play more games against the middle.

I'll leave to to folks to think about how that might affect your assessment of the play of guys like Russell and Wilt.   And obviously, whether a schedule is 'balanced' or loaded affects this.
Fair point, but it also means you are less familiar with the teams which works both ways and the teams you do play are more up to play the top teams than they might have been if they had 8 games as opposed to just 2.  Also, for much of the Celtics run in the 60's they were winning titles by winning 2 playoff series.  It is a heck of a lot easier to win 2 series than 4.
Title: Re: Bill Russell
Post by: mmmmm on March 13, 2013, 10:22:56 AM
Quote
I honestly think the league is deeper now than it's ever been.

The league was not deeper then.   Lesser teams means better players top to bottom.   There would not be scrubs on the old league.

I can't parse this - are you saying the league isn't deeper now, and fewer teams means better players top to bottom?  That isn't necessarily true, if fewer people are playing the game.  A simple example - there are about 2x as many Americans now as in the 50s.  If all else is equal, you'd expect about 2x as many good players today from America just based on sheer numbers.  Bigger talent pool = more high-level players.

And there have been scrubs in every era of the league; we just don't remember them because, well, they're scrubs.  And the Celtics of old didn't have many.

Quote
  Can't underestimate that basketball is now a truly global sport, with the NBA as its unquestioned pinnacle.  And everyone from stars to role players are staying effective through their mid-to-late 30s a lot more often than they used to.  It was significantly shallower 15-20 years ago at Jordan's peak, though.

Global = more fanbase not better players.  The league was weak in the Jordan years.   But in Russell's era, which I might add was a full twenty between Jordan and Russell almost, teams were loaded with all americans.

How old are you, Fairweather?

Teams were loaded in the 80s  too.   This three all star thing happened all the time then.   C's , 76ers and Lakers were loaded and you could have made two of today's teams with their talent levels.   I beat their benches could tear up half the league.

No, a global sport also means a broader talent pool for players.  The major influx of foreign players over the last 20 years speaks for that.  Ginobili, Kirilenko, Yao, Bogut, Ibaka - 5 very good recent players from 5 different continents.  And those are just off the top of my head - there are dozens of other examples.

When a few teams are stacked like you're mentioning, it's offset by how unstacked the bad teams in the league are.  Like Moranis said, look at the rosters and records for the worst teams in the 80s.  The league being top-heavy doesn't mean the entire league was deeper. 

Bottom line, the NBA has the biggest talent pool it's ever had, and more longevity across the board too.  That's led to a major increase in depth over the past couple of decades.

Per my post up above, I don't contend that the talent pool in the 60s was deeper or thinner than today.   I think there are contributing factors to both directions.   Just as there are more athletes to draw from to feed the NBA pool, they are spread across a larger pool and there are also other sports competing for their talents.

Even if we accept that the overall quality is about the same though, there is an effect of expansion that has been overlooked so far in this conversation.

In an 82 game season, in an expanded league, all other things equal, you play each team less often.  So you get less exposure to both the scrub teams and the elite teams.  You tend to play more games against the middle.

I'll leave to to folks to think about how that might affect your assessment of the play of guys like Russell and Wilt.   And obviously, whether a schedule is 'balanced' or loaded affects this.
Fair point, but it also means you are less familiar with the teams which works both ways and the teams you do play are more up to play the top teams than they might have been if they had 8 games as opposed to just 2.  Also, for much of the Celtics run in the 60's they were winning titles by winning 2 playoff series.  It is a heck of a lot easier to win 2 series than 4.

The 'less familiar' and getting 'up to play' factors work both ways, though.  Ultimately, talent vs talent is going to be the decider in the long run.

I think what the main effect of the expanded league (that otherwise has, say the same average level of talent) on the schedule is that it allows elite teams to rack up more wins.   That's because they play more games against crappy and mediocre teams, both of whom they will usually beat, and fewer games against elite teams against which things might be more 50/50.

Similarly, it makes the crappy teams rack up even more losses.

This means, by corollary that elite players will tend to have amplified regular season stats in an expanded league.

On the other hand, I do agree that the expanded levels to the playoffs make it more difficult for teams to dominate year after year in the playoffs.   Winning just one title means your team has to both be healthy and play 'hot' for several weeks in a row - and hope no other team is playing hotter at the same time.   Doing it multiple years in a row is tough.
Title: Re: Bill Russell
Post by: Lord of Mikawa on March 13, 2013, 10:34:06 AM
Might be the biggest homer thread I've read on here, not sure.
Doubtful. Players like West, Baylor, Wilt among others could have played in today's league. Most NBA players are straight up garbage as a team unit.
Title: Re: Bill Russell
Post by: Donoghus on March 13, 2013, 11:08:47 AM
Might be the biggest homer thread I've read on here, not sure.
Doubtful. Players like West, Baylor, Wilt among others could have played in today's league. Most NBA players are straight up garbage as a team unit.

Basically, I look at it this way.  Guys like West, Baylor, Russell, Wilt, etc... are either playing with 2010s conditioning and modern medicine or you have to throw the modern guys back to 1950s-1960s conditioning.

You wouldn't be dropping a 1963 Bill Russell into 2013.

That's why I think the elite of the elite could very possibly play in today's NBA. 

 
Title: Re: Bill Russell
Post by: Moranis on March 13, 2013, 11:18:22 AM
Quote
I honestly think the league is deeper now than it's ever been.

The league was not deeper then.   Lesser teams means better players top to bottom.   There would not be scrubs on the old league.

I can't parse this - are you saying the league isn't deeper now, and fewer teams means better players top to bottom?  That isn't necessarily true, if fewer people are playing the game.  A simple example - there are about 2x as many Americans now as in the 50s.  If all else is equal, you'd expect about 2x as many good players today from America just based on sheer numbers.  Bigger talent pool = more high-level players.

And there have been scrubs in every era of the league; we just don't remember them because, well, they're scrubs.  And the Celtics of old didn't have many.

Quote
  Can't underestimate that basketball is now a truly global sport, with the NBA as its unquestioned pinnacle.  And everyone from stars to role players are staying effective through their mid-to-late 30s a lot more often than they used to.  It was significantly shallower 15-20 years ago at Jordan's peak, though.

Global = more fanbase not better players.  The league was weak in the Jordan years.   But in Russell's era, which I might add was a full twenty between Jordan and Russell almost, teams were loaded with all americans.

How old are you, Fairweather?

Teams were loaded in the 80s  too.   This three all star thing happened all the time then.   C's , 76ers and Lakers were loaded and you could have made two of today's teams with their talent levels.   I beat their benches could tear up half the league.

No, a global sport also means a broader talent pool for players.  The major influx of foreign players over the last 20 years speaks for that.  Ginobili, Kirilenko, Yao, Bogut, Ibaka - 5 very good recent players from 5 different continents.  And those are just off the top of my head - there are dozens of other examples.

When a few teams are stacked like you're mentioning, it's offset by how unstacked the bad teams in the league are.  Like Moranis said, look at the rosters and records for the worst teams in the 80s.  The league being top-heavy doesn't mean the entire league was deeper. 

Bottom line, the NBA has the biggest talent pool it's ever had, and more longevity across the board too.  That's led to a major increase in depth over the past couple of decades.

Per my post up above, I don't contend that the talent pool in the 60s was deeper or thinner than today.   I think there are contributing factors to both directions.   Just as there are more athletes to draw from to feed the NBA pool, they are spread across a larger pool and there are also other sports competing for their talents.

Even if we accept that the overall quality is about the same though, there is an effect of expansion that has been overlooked so far in this conversation.

In an 82 game season, in an expanded league, all other things equal, you play each team less often.  So you get less exposure to both the scrub teams and the elite teams.  You tend to play more games against the middle.

I'll leave to to folks to think about how that might affect your assessment of the play of guys like Russell and Wilt.   And obviously, whether a schedule is 'balanced' or loaded affects this.
Fair point, but it also means you are less familiar with the teams which works both ways and the teams you do play are more up to play the top teams than they might have been if they had 8 games as opposed to just 2.  Also, for much of the Celtics run in the 60's they were winning titles by winning 2 playoff series.  It is a heck of a lot easier to win 2 series than 4.

The 'less familiar' and getting 'up to play' factors work both ways, though.  Ultimately, talent vs talent is going to be the decider in the long run.

I think what the main effect of the expanded league (that otherwise has, say the same average level of talent) on the schedule is that it allows elite teams to rack up more wins.   That's because they play more games against crappy and mediocre teams, both of whom they will usually beat, and fewer games against elite teams against which things might be more 50/50.

Similarly, it makes the crappy teams rack up even more losses.

This means, by corollary that elite players will tend to have amplified regular season stats in an expanded league.

On the other hand, I do agree that the expanded levels to the playoffs make it more difficult for teams to dominate year after year in the playoffs.   Winning just one title means your team has to both be healthy and play 'hot' for several weeks in a row - and hope no other team is playing hotter at the same time.   Doing it multiple years in a row is tough.
Boston in 65-66 schedule

Knicks 10-0
Warriors 8-2
Lakers 7-3
Bullets 7-3
Hawks 7-3
Pistons 6-4
Royals 5-5
Sixers 4-6


And the standings that year:

Sixers 55-25
Celtics 54-26
Royals 45-35
Lakers 45-35
Bullets 38-42
Hawks 36-44
Warriors 35-45
Knicks 30-50
Pistons 22-58

You tell me, what schedule would you rather have, that one where you play each of the other 8 teams 10 times (many times back to back), or the schedule of today where you play your division 4 times, other conference teams 3 times, and the other conference 2 times.  In which schedule do you have more games against awful teams?  In which schedule do you have more games against great teams?  In which schedule do you have more games against the middle of the road teams?

It would seem to me that despite playing teams like the Sixers 10 times, that Boston in 65-66 in fact played a pretty darn easy schedule because you balance those Sixers games with 10 games against the Knicks and 10 games against the Pistons (who inexplicably Boston had the third worst record against despite them being the worst team in the league).
Title: Re: Bill Russell
Post by: td450 on March 13, 2013, 11:46:51 AM
There are no bigs in the league today who have anything close to his leaping ability and speed. As others have said, he was a world class high jumper, and a major college level 440 runner despite not being a dedicated track athlete. His vertical leap was probably 6 inches higher than Blake Griffin's is today.

Even more important, you could make a case for him as the smartest player ever to play.
Title: Re: Bill Russell
Post by: kozlodoev on March 13, 2013, 11:56:41 AM
There are no bigs in the league today who have anything close to his leaping ability and speed. As others have said, he was a world class high jumper, and a major college level 440 runner despite not being a dedicated track athlete. His vertical leap was probably 6 inches higher than Blake Griffin's is today.

Even more important, you could make a case for him as the smartest player ever to play.
He was great compared to the field. Except the field has moved. Blake Griffin has a 35-inch max vertical, and he's not even the most athletically gifted center in this respect (Noah's max vertical is 37.5, Gortat's is 36, Howard, Horford, Favors, Love, and Stoudemire also have 35+ verticals).

And then you have guys like Jeff Pendegraph in the D-League (a 7-footer with 40+ inch vertical), and Jason Smith/Arnet Moultrie who are big forwards with 37+ inch verticals.

Title: Re: Bill Russell
Post by: mmmmm on March 13, 2013, 12:37:44 PM
In which schedule do you have more games against awful teams?  In which schedule do you have more games against great teams?  In which schedule do you have more games against the middle of the road teams?

As I said, if a schedule is 'balanced' or 'loaded' (such as the way the NFL does it) has an effect and any particular team's individual schedule for given year has to be looked at in particular.

But my assertion is that, on average, in an expanded league - all other things being equal including the total number of games played in a season (82) - an elite team will play a greater share of games against mediocre and crappy teams than against elite teams.   This should follow straightforward from the math, assuming talent is similarly distributed in each era and has a similar 'average' level of talent.

Quote
It would seem to me that despite playing teams like the Sixers 10 times, that Boston in 65-66 in fact played a pretty darn easy schedule because you balance those Sixers games with 10 games against the Knicks and 10 games against the Pistons (who inexplicably Boston had the third worst record against despite them being the worst team in the league).

THe crux of my point is not based on how many times an elite team gets to play the 'patsies'.  As you point out, fewer/more games against patsies is balanced against fewer/more games against elites.  The difference in an expanded league scheduled over the same 82 game schedule is that they will end up playing more games against the medium teams.   And on average, an elite team will win matchups with medium teams.

In the data you posted, 5 of the 8 teams the C's would face were mediocre or worse and they accounted for 50 of the 80 games.  30 of 80 games, or 37.5% were against teams with 45 wins or more.

Anecdotally, the 92-93 Bulls (just picking a random Jordan championship) played just 23 of their 82 games against teams with 45 wins or more (28%).

To do this right, of course, we'd have to compare a bunch of seasons in each era, but I suspect that pattern is the norm.  In an expanded league, an elite team will play a smaller share of it's games against other elite teams.    Thus it will tend to rack up more regular season wins (since we assume other elite teams have a ~50/50 chance against them while lesser teams do not).

This doesn't mean the talent is deeper or thinner in either league.
Title: Re: Bill Russell
Post by: Moranis on March 13, 2013, 12:52:50 PM
In which schedule do you have more games against awful teams?  In which schedule do you have more games against great teams?  In which schedule do you have more games against the middle of the road teams?

As I said, if a schedule is 'balanced' or 'loaded' (such as the way the NFL does it) has an effect and any particular team's individual schedule for given year has to be looked at in particular.

But my assertion is that, on average, in an expanded league - all other things being equal including the total number of games played in a season (82) - an elite team will play a greater share of games against mediocre and crappy teams than against elite teams.   This should follow straightforward from the math, assuming talent is similarly distributed in each era and has a similar 'average' level of talent.

Quote
It would seem to me that despite playing teams like the Sixers 10 times, that Boston in 65-66 in fact played a pretty darn easy schedule because you balance those Sixers games with 10 games against the Knicks and 10 games against the Pistons (who inexplicably Boston had the third worst record against despite them being the worst team in the league).

THe crux of my point is not based on how many times an elite team gets to play the 'patsies'.  As you point out, fewer/more games against patsies is balanced against fewer/more games against elites.  The difference in an expanded league scheduled over the same 82 game schedule is that they will end up playing more games against the medium teams.   And on average, an elite team will win matchups with medium teams.

In the data you posted, 5 of the 8 teams the C's would face were mediocre or worse and they accounted for 50 of the 80 games.  30 of 80 games, or 37.5% were against teams with 45 wins or more.

Anecdotally, the 92-93 Bulls (just picking a random Jordan championship) played just 23 of their 82 games against teams with 45 wins or more (28%).

To do this right, of course, we'd have to compare a bunch of seasons in each era, but I suspect that pattern is the norm.  In an expanded league, an elite team will play a smaller share of it's games against other elite teams.    Thus it will tend to rack up more regular season wins (since we assume other elite teams have a ~50/50 chance against them while lesser teams do not).

This doesn't mean the talent is deeper or thinner in either league.
07-08 Boston played 28 games and had they been in the west more than half of their games would have been against teams with 45 wins or more.  It obviously goes in cycles and a lot of the time today it matters more which division/conference you are in than anything.  Back in the old days you just played every team the same amount so that sort of thing didn't matter as much.
Title: Re: Bill Russell
Post by: Lightskinsmurf on March 13, 2013, 12:54:13 PM
Might be the biggest homer thread I've read on here, not sure.
Doubtful. Players like West, Baylor, Wilt among others could have played in today's league. Most NBA players are straight up garbage as a team unit.

Opinion, never said they couldn't. Still, when I read things like "Jordan isn't even in russells league" forgive me if I declare that a huge homer and ridiculous statement. You're all entitled to your opinion tho, and mine is jordan  is the greatest of all time.
Title: Re: Bill Russell
Post by: CelticConcourse on March 13, 2013, 05:10:23 PM
Why can't we just stop with the hypotheticals... you can't just compare two eras. It's like calculators to computers.