Author Topic: Bill Russell  (Read 10723 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Bill Russell
« Reply #45 on: March 13, 2013, 11:46:51 AM »

Offline td450

  • Gordon Hayward
  • Posts: 546
  • Tommy Points: 42
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.

Re: Bill Russell
« Reply #46 on: March 13, 2013, 11:56:41 AM »

Offline kozlodoev

  • JoJo White
  • ****************
  • Posts: 16474
  • Tommy Points: 1174
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.

« Last Edit: March 13, 2013, 12:52:12 PM by kozlodoev »
(Formerly) managing Rilski Sportist to glory at http://www.buzzerbeater.com

Re: Bill Russell
« Reply #47 on: March 13, 2013, 12:37:44 PM »

Offline mmmmm

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3097
  • Tommy Points: 467
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.
NBA Officiating - Corrupt?  Incompetent?  Which is worse?  Does it matter?  It sucks.
#OneCitizenOneVote - True Election Reform:  Eliminate the anti-democratic Electoral College farce now.

Re: Bill Russell
« Reply #48 on: March 13, 2013, 12:52:50 PM »

Offline Moranis

  • Global Moderator
  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17164
  • Tommy Points: 816
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.
Ohio State 2014/15 National Champions.

Re: Bill Russell
« Reply #49 on: March 13, 2013, 12:54:13 PM »

Offline Lightskinsmurf

  • NCE
  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1949
  • Tommy Points: 134
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.

Re: Bill Russell
« Reply #50 on: March 13, 2013, 05:10:23 PM »

Offline CelticConcourse

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6162
  • Tommy Points: 382
  • Jeff Green
Why can't we just stop with the hypotheticals... you can't just compare two eras. It's like calculators to computers.
Jeff Green - Top 5 SF

[Kevin Garnett]
"I've always said J. Green is going to be one of the best players to ever play this game"