Do you Consider Bill Russell A Top Ten Player Of All-Time?

[Bos_Sports4Life]

The most important way to judge an offense is by PPG (a game was never won with the highest FG% as the criteria after all). Well the Celts averaged +4.3 more PPG than average each season over those 9 years, and averaged a ranking of 2.1/8.5 during these years.

This is possibly the most retarded logic I have ever heard in my entire life...

You are soo contradicting..

First you DISSCREDIT Russells rebound totals due to pace (Which by the way i agree with, i don't use raw stats when comparing diff era's)..Than CREDIT the celtics PPG DESPITE them having the highest pace...

'01-02 Golden state were 7th in total points/1st in rebounds yet was 26th in FG%..21st in ortg out of 29.

'04-'05 Golden state were 13th in ppg/10th in rebounds yet 28th in FG%/23rd in ORtg

Are THOSE good offenses? No, they stunk.

By your logic (not mine) the '01-'02 Golden state offense is as good as the '86 celtics offense. Because PPG? Most important offensive stat!

So in summary the Celts were well above average in:

PPG - almost elite
offensive and defensive rebounding
pace

* PPG- Means pretty much nothing...A slow down half court offense that is scoring more per possession will have less TOTAL points than a run & gun team that has awful efficiency.

* Offensive/defensive rebounding was good, In large part due to Bill

* Pace? giving credit for that is mind boggling esp when the style implimented led to crappy efficiency.

If Russell didn't flub up so many put backs with his hands of stone - or miss SO many FT's (378 misses below average in these 9 years - that's 48.9% of the team's shortfall in efficiency BTW). With normal FT shooting by Russell - maybe they make #1 in PPG on average (+4.3 -> +4.8).

Russells offense didn't need too be good, those teams were so dominate defensively it more than made up for any offensive short comings..

Drtg Rank Diff from League Avg. Diff from 2nd place
1956 90.4 6/8 -1.5 -
--------------------------------------------------------
1957 82.4 1/8 4.8 2.5
1958 82.0 1/8 5.2 3.9
1959 83.0 1/8 5.8 4.4
1960 83.9 1/8 6.2 1.8
1961 83.0 1/8 8.2 4.6
1962 84.3 1/8 8.7 6.3
1963 86.6 1/9 9.0 6.1
1964 82.7 1/9 11.5 5.6
1965 83.1 1/9 9.9 8.1
1966 87.3 1/9 7.1 4.0
1967 90.8 1/10 4.9 1.7
1968 92.0 2/12 4.6 -
1969 88.4 1/14 6.8 2.8
------------------------------------------------------------
1970 98.5 7/16 0.6



(1) The Celtics led the league in defense in 12 of Russells' 13 years
(2) From 1958-1966 they dominated the league defensively like no team I can find for a 9 year period
(3) From 1961-1965 the ran off 5 consecutive historically dominant seasons. Look at those numbers.
(4) Before Russell they were a bottom defensive team and immediately jumped 6.3 relative points and 8.0 raw points to the top.
(5) After Russell they dropped to the middle of the pack, losing 6.2 relative points and 10.1 raw points.


Now, you might be questioning how accurate this is..Well i found out how precise it really is...

If we run Neil's regression method for 1974, it estimates 4 NBA teams within 1 possessions of their actual number, with a mean error of 2.23 and a standard deviation of 2.57. Running the simple method estimates 9 teams within 1 possession of their actual number, with a mean error of 0.49 and standard deviation of 1.64.

Now THATS some convincing data..With a team defensive rating THAT low? It's easy to see why they racked up titles with meh offenses..

What is a player that has Russell's skills look like today?

* where players shoot continues to move away from the basket these days due to deep 2's and 3's (as opposed to packing it in in Russell's day) - Russell's blocks would go down.

All this tells me is he wouldn't dominate in TODAYS NBA...I really don't care about that...It's a bunch of what if's/Guessing ect ect, No proof.

* the pace of the game means less shots by at least 40% - less shots = less blocks.

So let me get this straight...More shots=more points isn't a big deal and that shouldn't be used in disscrediting ppg, However More shots=more blocks should be used to disscredit russell?

Again using change of pace (much slower), shooting accuracy (much better), and the uniformly big players at #4 and #5 today compared to Russell's time, and the fact that he would no longer play as many minutes per game, his rebounding is going to end up in the 12.5 bracket (several studies I've seen all agree).

This is comical.."your studies"

I posted the drtg chart a while back and was INSTANTLY shrugged off with you telling me how inacurate it was...Just to find out later his method is VERY accurate.

Labeling the Celts offensive players outside of Russell in various terms such as "poor", "awful", "worst or second worse in the league", can now be seen for the nonsense it is. However, Russell's FT shooting was awful - only Wilt and Shaq come to mind as worse among HOF players since 1955.

OWS AND FG% both show simmilar resaults...Bad offense most years..

are accounted for that the Celts were a poor offensive team (4.3 PPG over league average at a ranking of 2/8.5 over a 9 year period and 690 games). Busted!

Yes you proved me wrong by posting volume stats directly affected by the pace they played...you deff proved me wrong!

[bagwell368]

This is possibly the most retarded logic I have ever heard in my entire life...

You mean a team that's 2.1/8.5 and +4.3 in PPG over 9 seasons as a very good offensive team is MORE retarded than you proposing the same team that was 1.1 FT/game from having an average shooting percentage is a "garbage" offense? Please.

BTW, why don't you address my full arguments on a point? Instead you pick off some small percentage, and address that alone. Could it be you have no answer? My post that you are only partially addressing is shot through with the true actual amount the Celts were just short of being an average percentage team - a truly trivial amount as all can see, but you fear to mention or address because it means the death of your argument to all sane members of the audience.

First you DISSCREDIT Russells rebound totals due to pace (Which by the way i agree with, i don't use raw stats when comparing diff era's)..Than CREDIT the celtics PPG DESPITE them having the highest pace...

My order of mentioning those points isn't important. The fact is that they are both true from the vantage point that they are viewed from. Please don't pretend you don't look at Russell from multiple angles too. If it's good enough for you, why isn't it good enough for me?

Pace BTW is a method for attaining a goal. In Red's day, that's how he solved the issue of having a slightly below average efficiency (and 1.1 pts/game is very slight). The goal is scoring points, and the Celts did that very well over a 9 year period.

'01-02 Golden state were 7th in total points/1st in rebounds yet was 26th in FG%..21st in ortg out of 29

'04-'05 Golden state were 13th in ppg/10th in rebounds yet 28th in FG%/23rd in ORtg

Are THOSE good offenses? No, they stunk.

How are either of those similar to the Celts average PPG and FG&FT%? BTW, after I blew your use of rankings out of the water, you really should confine yourself to actual numbers or numbers and rankings for clarity sake - or is that not your goal?

By your logic (not mine) the '01-'02 Golden state offense is as good as the '86 celtics offense. Because PPG? Most important offensive stat!

Reductio ad absurdum is the technique of reducing an argument or hypothesis to absurdity. Please do try and avoid middle school debate tactics please - and please post the appropriate numbers, not rankings.

* PPG- Means pretty much nothing...A slow down half court offense that is scoring more per possession will have less TOTAL points than a run & gun team that has awful efficiency.

Thanks professor. Now look at the SRS of the Celtics in those 9 years, and argue that for them, this offense as you have said "stunk", "was the worst or 2nd worst in the league". Good luck. Any objective observer is going to conclude that the Celts in those 9 years were a #1 D, and a top 2-3 offense. Toss out the worst two years of those 9, and the offense is 1st in PPG, and UNDER 1 point a game made to having an average efficiency. Make Russell hit his free throws at a league average rate and it's clearly #1.

Please Professor tell us how a team that takes a lot more shots than average, and scores more than average, and has an efficiency around 1 point made a game below average is "poor"?

* Pace? giving credit for that is mind boggling esp when the style implimented led to crappy efficiency.

Are you having issues parsing my words? In the peak era for offensive touches per game (peaking in Russell's mid career at 152 per game average per team) - (more for the Celts on average), how can a team have "crappy efficiency", when it is down an average of 1.1 made FT per game? Your misuse of the language will not make your bogus claims true. Crappy? Really. Go ahead and keep going with that, it makes you look ridiculous.

Russells offense didn't need too be good, those teams were so dominate defensively it more than made up for any offensive short comings..

Sorry, no excuses. 48.9% of the Celts "inefficiency" compared to average in those 9 years is due to Russell's shortfall in FTM. Fact.

Now THATS some convincing data..With a team defensive rating THAT low? It's easy to see why they racked up titles with meh offenses..

Hmmmm.... now it's "meh" when before it was awful, the worst and so on? Does this reflect actual changes in your opinion? I should hope so, since a trivial amount of made shots a game (1.12 FT or 0.56 FG) makes this O virtually average in efficiency. Given that it was almost for sure the leading team in FGA these 9 years, what other conclusion can be reached than the Celts were a well above average offensive team? You do need to stop using rankings, they are clouding your arguments - badly.

Believe it or not the Celts added a number of great HOF players (3) in Russells first two years plus Russell while losing a fading scorer. You might try handing out credit to those guys too, and not just "St. Russell".

All this tells me is he wouldn't dominate in TODAYS NBA...I really don't care about that...It's a bunch of what if's/Guessing ect ect, No proof.

It's far more compelling/accurate than the random fans guess. And it does instruct fans - like you - who never saw Russell understand what he would look like today.

So let me get this straight...More shots=more points isn't a big deal and that shouldn't be used in disscrediting ppg, However More shots=more blocks should be used to disscredit russell?

Again with the reading problem. A team that took so many FG & FT above average combined that only had a 1.1 made FT shortage to have average efficiency shows how misleading rankings can be when talking about teams in the middle of the bell curve. I guess I'll have to repeat myself until you get "it".

If you claim my discrediting of Russell (or his clone) in todays NBA is invalid, why are you spending so much time trying to discredit my work in this area? Hitting too close to home?

This is comical.."your studies"

Wow. Get help. I said "studies I have seen" - not "my studies"

I posted the drtg chart a while back and was INSTANTLY shrugged off with you telling me how inacurate it was...Just to find out later his method is VERY accurate.

If true, than I'll look at it again, point it out by post #.

OWS AND FG% both show simmilar resaults...Bad offense most years..

I am looking over a 9 year period (first 9 of Russell's career). FG% is just part of the offense, the Celts FT% was above average, combine them and the difference between the Celts over 690 games and the league average in efficiency is 1.1 made FT a game. Please explain not using team ranking how that is "bad offense" - when at the same time they were 2nd out of 8.5 teams on average in PPG?

Yes you proved me wrong by posting volume stats directly affected by the pace they played...you deff proved me wrong!

BTW, it appears you don't take into consideration the advantage the Celts offensive pace gave the D (tired players on the opposing team play offense worse (sloppier, lower efficiency)) - and you fail to consider that the very minor amount below average efficiency of the Celts over these 9 years maybe just part of the cost of playing top D for the Celts. If you ever played or even paid close attention, you would know both of these factors are true - more so in a high pace era than the snail-ball pace of today.

Attempting to sever the offense and defense of a team is a difficult thing, and coming up with a conclusion that a team is #1 in D and the worst at offense (or it it meh now?) is very likely to indicate a problem with the viewer or the stats in use (like the inferior "rank") and not the reality of the situation.

[bagwell368]

As an addendum to post #160, Russell's last 4 years offensive numbers vs league and impact on his team:

year - FG% -- FT% FG/lg/ave FT/lg/ave total points vs league (for Russell)

1966 -.018 -- -.176 --- -14 + -39 = -53
1967 +.014 -- -.122 -- +11 + -35 = -24
1968 -.021 -- -.183 --- -16 + -45 = -56
1969 -.008 -- -.188 --- -05 + -38 = -43

In the final four years the Celtics offense did this vs the league average in points (Russell's impact in parens).

1965-66: -224 (BR 23.7% of Celts shortfall)
1966-67: +156 (Celts lost .29 PPG lost due Russell's offense vs league average)
1967-68: -041 (BR 1.37x Celts shortfall)
1968-69: -106 (BR 40.6% of Celts shortfall)

So, Russell was one of the prime reasons the Celts offense was below average in those 4 years. Worst in one year ('67-'68), 2nd or 3rd worst in the other 3 years. Just tying to get everyone to see exactly who Russell was.

[Bos_Sports4Life]

few points

1) Celtics dynasty was the most defensive orianted dynasty in nba history.
2) The celtics offensive system, the fast break was successful because of..Bill Russell. They lacked efficiency (even average usually isn't good enough to win titles unless the team has top notch defense) so they made up for it by forcing turnovers (Russell being a huge key) and rebounding (Russell)

3) Drtg Rank Diff from League Avg. Diff from 2nd place
1956 90.4 6/8 -1.5 -
--------------------------------------------------------
1957 82.4 1/8 4.8 2.5
1958 82.0 1/8 5.2 3.9
1959 83.0 1/8 5.8 4.4
1960 83.9 1/8 6.2 1.8
1961 83.0 1/8 8.2 4.6
1962 84.3 1/8 8.7 6.3
1963 86.6 1/9 9.0 6.1
1964 82.7 1/9 11.5 5.6
1965 83.1 1/9 9.9 8.1
1966 87.3 1/9 7.1 4.0
1967 90.8 1/10 4.9 1.7
1968 92.0 2/12 4.6 -
1969 88.4 1/14 6.8 2.8
------------------------------------------------------------
1970 98.5 7/16 0.6



(1) The Celtics led the league in defense in 12 of Russells' 13 years
(2) From 1958-1966 they dominated the league defensively like no team I can find for a 9 year period
(3) From 1961-1965 the ran off 5 consecutive historically dominant seasons. Look at those numbers.
(4) Before Russell they were a bottom defensive team and immediately jumped 6.3 relative points and 8.0 raw points to the top.
(5) After Russell they dropped to the middle of the pack, losing 6.2 relative points and 10.1 raw points.

Now, This is EXTREMELY telling data that is largely being ignored like it doesn't mean much. With Russell they were historically Dominant and without Russell? They were meh.

According to his methods (Which have been proven too be EXTREMELY accurate)? those Celtics teams are the 3rd, 5th, 6th, 8th and 14th best defensive teams of all time, relative to competition, And there's nothing remotely comparable in NBA history for such sustained defensive dominance.

[Bos_Sports4Life]

Also

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/sho...=277266&page=3

2nd post down...Even furthering what i already expected.

On average, 72% of the WS were defense...

[bagwell368]

[QUOTE=Bos_Sports4Life;25278666]few points

1) Celtics dynasty was the most defensive orianted dynasty in nba history.

And that "proves" that the offense was poor?

2) The celtics offensive system, the fast break was successful because of..Bill Russell. They lacked efficiency (even average usually isn't good enough to win titles unless the team has top notch defense) so they made up for it by forcing turnovers (Russell being a huge key) and rebounding (Russell)

Average efficiency is far greater than what you were talking about before - seems like you've altered your opinion - good. Russell as I have shown was responsible for much of the shortfall in the offensive efficiency with his FT's.

The offense was a success because of Bill Russell?

In 1958-59 Russell accounted for 28.8% of the teams rebounds
In 1961-62 Russell accounted for 29.4%
In 1967-68 Russell accounted for 25.6%

Considering Russell played almost all of every game - those percentages show that there were other players contributing heavily to the rebound haul. No dice on the rebounding argument somehow being only Russell's province.

Nice story on the steals, but with no stats, it can only go so far.

3) Drtg Rank Diff from League Avg. Diff from 2nd place
1956 90.4 6/8 -1.5 -
--------------------------------------------------------
1957 82.4 1/8 4.8 2.5
1958 82.0 1/8 5.2 3.9
1959 83.0 1/8 5.8 4.4
1960 83.9 1/8 6.2 1.8
1961 83.0 1/8 8.2 4.6
1962 84.3 1/8 8.7 6.3
1963 86.6 1/9 9.0 6.1
1964 82.7 1/9 11.5 5.6
1965 83.1 1/9 9.9 8.1
1966 87.3 1/9 7.1 4.0
1967 90.8 1/10 4.9 1.7
1968 92.0 2/12 4.6 -
1969 88.4 1/14 6.8 2.8
------------------------------------------------------------
1970 98.5 7/16 0.6

Seriously, I can't read this because I don't know what the columns mean.

(4) Before Russell they were a bottom defensive team and immediately jumped 6.3 relative points and 8.0 raw points to the top.
(5) After Russell they dropped to the middle of the pack, losing 6.2 relative points and 10.1 raw points.

Excessively poor logic, and not even an attempt to attribute credit to the right places. Tsk Tsk.

Heinsohn: HOF: earned 41.7 DWS (4.63/year) from 1956-65 (the sweet spot of the dynasty)

Ramsey: HOF: earned 25.5 DWS (3.19/year) from 1957-64

S. Jones: HOF: earned 43.7 DWS (3.64/year) from 1957-69

K. Jones: HOF: earned 37.9 DWS (4.21/year) from 1958-67

Sanders: earned 37.1 DWS (4.12/year) from 1960-1968

Havlicek: HOF: earned 34.9 DWS (5.82) from 1962-1968

All these players were at/near peak from 1962-64, earning on average 25.6 DWS per year as a group. All came at the same time as Russell or after.

In the 1962-64 period Russell's average DWS was 14.3. I didn't count subs, or Cousy who was at about 5.5 DWS in this period since he was already there before Russell. Russell even at his peak, is barely 1/3 of the DWS on the team, and so many of those guys came with or after Russell. How you missed that? I have no idea.

As for the end of the era, starting in 1967-68 season the core was very old, and players started to retire (Ramsey, Cousy, Heinsohn, Sharman, etc. gone already). The only prime starter the team had as of 1969-1970 was Havlicek. Bailey Howell was in his last year, and a very old man. Sanders and Siegfried were past their prime, and reserve forward Nelson is the only guy that kept going well outside of Havlicek due to his superb shooting. Russell's replacement was the pitiful Hank Finkel. Why would anybody attempt to make an argument about these years outside of you? Sam Jones, KC Jones, and others recently gone. It wasn't one guy. It was a team, it was the loss of the Coach, it was the aging of the players left - with two exceptions, and one was a reserve.

Now, This is EXTREMELY telling data that is largely being ignored like it doesn't mean much. With Russell they were historically Dominant and without Russell? They were meh.

Only a blind man or one misled by bogus arguments would ever fall for that crap.

According to his methods (Which have been proven too be EXTREMELY accurate)? those Celtics teams are the 3rd, 5th, 6th, 8th and 14th best defensive teams of all time, relative to competition, And there's nothing remotely comparable in NBA history for such sustained defensive dominance.

Remember, I never said that the Celts offense was better then the defense. You said the offense was inept due to the efficiency. I maintain it was a team effort and while Russell was the main defensive force, he wasn't the only defensive force, not by a long shot, just like he's not the only rebounder either.

Taking a quick look at the offense per OWS, Russell appears to be 4th or 5th most years among Celts, fairly distressing given he was on the floor constantly.

So again it's the same old conclusion:

Russell had the best GM & Coach, and the best team, leading to a parade of #1 placements in SRS. When other greats of that time had the teams, they usually won as well. Russell was given the golden opportunity and didn't squander it. Head to head Wilt dominated him, but only had the best team with him one time vs Russell - and he beat the Celts with ease.

Russell isn't the goat of his era, nor all time, nor of Centers. Certainly not of offense, and not even of rebounding. Defense - yes. That's great, but he's an incomplete player, a one way player that can only have won regularly in the situation he was in and no other.

[Bos_Sports4Life]

[QUOTE=bagwell368;25282459]

Seriously, I can't read this because I don't know what the columns mean.

Well i provided a link to basically the same data..so just read that and be amazed!

Excessively poor logic, and not even an attempt to attribute credit to the right places. Tsk Tsk.

Heinsohn: HOF: earned 41.7 DWS (4.63/year) from 1956-65 (the sweet spot of the dynasty)

Ramsey: HOF: earned 25.5 DWS (3.19/year) from 1957-64

S. Jones: HOF: earned 43.7 DWS (3.64/year) from 1957-69

K. Jones: HOF: earned 37.9 DWS (4.21/year) from 1958-67

Sanders: earned 37.1 DWS (4.12/year) from 1960-1968

Havlicek: HOF: earned 34.9 DWS (5.82) from 1962-1968

All these players were at/near peak from 1962-64, earning on average 25.6 DWS per year as a group. All came at the same time as Russell or after.

From what I have read, guys like sam jones were not really good/very good defenders...

KC Jones/Havlicek ect? Sure..

However, A defensive anchor at the #4 and #5 flat out makes much more impact than at other. It's not like Ramsey/sam jones were pippen.

Also, DWS again can be directly impacted by a defensive force down low...You can 100% ignore that if you like...but its reality.

In the 1962-64 period Russell's average DWS was 14.3. I didn't count subs, or Cousy who was at about 5.5 DWS in this period since he was already there before Russell. Russell even at his peak, is barely 1/3 of the DWS on the team, and so many of those guys came with or after Russell. How you missed that? I have no idea.

So the 13 yr stretch with russell they DOMINATE drtg, The season directly BEFORE and directly AFTER they are average and that means nothing?

As for the end of the era, starting in 1967-68 season the core was very old, and players started to retire (Ramsey, Cousy, Heinsohn, Sharman, etc. gone already). The only prime starter the team had as of 1969-1970 was Havlicek. Bailey Howell was in his last year, and a very old man. Sanders and Siegfried were past their prime, and reserve forward Nelson is the only guy that kept going well outside of Havlicek due to his superb shooting. Russell's replacement was the pitiful Hank Finkel. Why would anybody attempt to make an argument about these years outside of you? Sam Jones, KC Jones, and others recently gone. It wasn't one guy. It was a team, it was the loss of the Coach, it was the aging of the players left - with two exceptions, and one was a reserve.

The celtics in '69 led the league in drtg with howell/jones ect being old men....

Remember, I never said that the Celts offense was better then the defense. You said the offense was inept due to the efficiency. I maintain it was a team effort and while Russell was the main defensive force, he wasn't the only defensive force, not by a long shot, just like he's not the only rebounder either.

He was by far and away the best defensive force on those teams...

KG in '08 was surrounded by solid defensive peices (PP starting to play, perk doing some dirty work, Posey ect) but KG was sitll by far and away the backbone and it wasn't even close.

Russell had the best GM & Coach, and the best team, leading to a parade of #1 placements in SRS. When other greats of that time had the teams, they usually won as well. Russell was given the golden opportunity and didn't squander it. Head to head Wilt dominated him, but only had the best team with him one time vs Russell - and he beat the Celts with ease.

Its pretty easy to lead the league in SRS with historically Great defenses!

[bagwell368]

[QUOTE=Bos_Sports4Life;25283495][QUOTE=bagwell368;25282459]

From what I have read, guys like sam jones were not really good/very good defenders...

That's why he had the lowest DWS/minute of the guys I listed. It's also why WS is so flawed at this time. Rebounds are used for defense, steals were not counted.

However, A defensive anchor at the #4 and #5 flat out makes much more impact than at other. It's not like Ramsey/sam jones were pippen.

It's not like they were Rondo (I.E. poor) either.

Also, DWS again can be directly impacted by a defensive force down low...You can 100% ignore that if you like...but its reality.

No, DWS and defense prior to 1973 NBA stats are a poor estimate, even since then it has flaws. I argued with the creator over the Bird and McHale ratings, and got him to admit (in email only) that they did not use the difference between points scored in the game and vs the rest of the league. So Bird looks like a monster on D because Caldwell Jones got 6 points and McHale looks like a chump because Barkley got 21, but compared to the averages of those two players in some given year, McHale was what barkley called him - the best player and best defender he ever faced. Those sorts of nuances are so far removed with DWS before 1973 as to be laughable. DWS is an estimate today, back then, it was throwing darts blindfolded, in particular with a team so far off of the middle which is where I assume the DWS stat was aimed.

So the 13 yr stretch with russell they DOMINATE drtg, The season directly BEFORE and directly AFTER they are average and that means nothing?

If Russell were the only variable than you have an argument. But he was very far from the only change. Russell came in with 2 OTHER HOF as a rookie, and added another HOF - and the key offensive player on the Celts the next 12 years - the following year.

Then since Red was such a great GM he went from Heinsohn to another HOF - Bailey Howell, and other similar upgrades from the 1955-56 team. Finally, Red couldn't keep digging up freebie gems like Nelson constantly and the team thinned out. Russell bailed at the right time since he was in decline, and the game was over taking him. That final year the average age of the team was 30.5, oldest in the league, and well over the league average of 26.9 - and you want to pretend that there wasn't a big turnover in players and others on the wrong side of the mountain - all for glorification of Russell.

The year following a well known story is that a ref went over to Havlicek before tap off and asked "Who are all these guys"? 5 new players, 1.9 years younger team (and the remaining seven added a year), and only one that played more than 33 minutes per game in Russell's last year. The next players that remained in terms of minutes per game were all in decline. Ever hear of roster churn?

Four years years later the Celts won another title with Cowens, Havlicek, Silas, White, Nelson, Chaney, and Westphal leading the way. Four players (2 subs) remained from the 1969-70 team - given no Free Agency at the time and looking over that roster what we had was primarily aging and below average players as the prime contents of that team, it's easy to see Red had built another great team - with no Russell, and a Center that played great D and could actually shoot.

It's a mark of the ludicrous nature of many of your writings on Russell to claim it's all Russell to explain any number of events. Get a grip.

The celtics in '69 led the league in drtg with howell/jones ect being old men....

With an SRS of -1.52, a 34-48 record, and a rookie head coach, and only three players of the 7 that remained in their prime explaining it, all you can see is Russell.

He was by far and away the best defensive force on those teams...

But he wasn't the only defensive force, and in aggregate he was never near 50%.

KG in '08 was surrounded by solid defensive peices (PP starting to play, perk doing some dirty work, Posey ect) but KG was sitll by far and away the backbone and it wasn't even close.

The 2007-2008 team had a lot more talent than any Russell team, and a close look at the bench says its was vastly better then any Russell team. Centers are often backbone players, KG was a much better offensive force than Russell ever was, and a better passer too. I believe the only 20/10 player in league history with more than 5+ assists per game.

Its pretty easy to lead the league in SRS with historically Great defenses!

But if they had the worst offense as you claimed so often, it wouldn't be so, would it?

[bagwell368]

I went to your pointer, then I went to here: http://www.basketball-reference.com/about/ws.html

Both offensive win shares (doesn't even use Dean Oliver's formulas pre 1973) and defensive win shares are incredibly weak. Russell gets credit on D for minutes played and all the work he and his teammates did on defense. It's a stew, very little can be gleaned for sure in terms of attributes to which player and what value.

The offensive formula is joke because its aimed at this time, when high pace and average or slightly below average percentages are a bad thing. In Russell's time, missed shots were more common and less harmful because the other team couldn't shoot like todays teams either. So a team that averages the most or 2nd most points scored across 9 years gets dinged because it was 1.1 made FT away from an average shooting percentage? That's asinine.

Hahahahahah, I just looked at 1959-60 and OWS is a joke as all open minded souls will see.

Knicks: #1 NBA team in FG% at .421, Celts #3 a mere 4 one thousandths behind at .417. (lg/ave .410)

Knicks #2 FT team at .765, Celts at .734 in 4th place.

Celts #1 in PPG at 124.5, Knicks in 4th place at 117.4 (7.1 behind)

Knicks got 25.0 OWS and Celts had 19.1 OWS.

Multiply Celts FGA by Knicks FG% - 33 FG's difference (.44 FGM per game for the Celts and its a tie) - at 119.6 FGA per game, that's a pretty shrimpy number in the grand scheme.

FT - Celts need 78 to tie the Knicks (33.6 FTA per game by Celts)

So if we multiply FG's *2 so we can compare to FT's - we end up with 273 FT per game, and the Celts are 144 points on the season short (or 1.92 made points per game - less than a 2 point FG - one less failed putback by stone hands Russell per game (he had a ton every year) and our OWS will be above the Knicks) makes them equal - and this difference costs them 25% OWS on the season?

The 1959-60 Hawks are between the Celts and the Knicks, and have 25.7 OWS - more than the Knicks, with a lower FG% and lower FT%.

Focusing on efficiency in an era when few teams had it, and it was a legitimate strategy to run ones offense at a high pace/volume of FGA is like a historian judging the mores of Ghengis Khan by todays standards. It's misleading and it sheds no light or truth on the subject.

OWS in that era is almost useless and certainly sheds no real insight on the topic. DWS is the same thing because we are missing: blocks, offensive/defensive rebound split, steals, TOV's. Assists were handed out much more conservatively back than compared to today as well. Not enough info for % stats like USG, AST, REB, STL, TOV, BLK, DRtg, ORtg. It's even weaker than using BA, HR, and RBI for a hitter.

[Bos_Sports4Life]

I went to your pointer, then I went to here: http://www.basketball-reference.com/about/ws.html

Both offensive win shares (doesn't even use Dean Oliver's formulas pre 1973) and defensive win shares are incredibly weak. Russell gets credit on D for minutes played and all the work he and his teammates did on defense. It's a stew, very little can be gleaned for sure in terms of attributes to which player and what value.

The offensive formula is joke because its aimed at this time, when high pace and average or slightly below average percentages are a bad thing. In Russell's time, missed shots were more common and less harmful because the other team couldn't shoot like todays teams either. So a team that averages the most or 2nd most points scored across 9 years gets dinged because it was 1.1 made FT away from an average shooting percentage? That's asinine.

Hahahahahah, I just looked at 1959-60 and OWS is a joke as all open minded souls will see.

Knicks: #1 NBA team in FG% at .421, Celts #3 a mere 4 one thousandths behind at .417. (lg/ave .410)

Knicks #2 FT team at .765, Celts at .734 in 4th place.

Celts #1 in PPG at 124.5, Knicks in 4th place at 117.4 (7.1 behind)

Knicks got 25.0 OWS and Celts had 19.1 OWS.

Multiply Celts FGA by Knicks FG% - 33 FG's difference (.44 FGM per game for the Celts and its a tie) - at 119.6 FGA per game, that's a pretty shrimpy number in the grand scheme.

FT - Celts need 78 to tie the Knicks (33.6 FTA per game by Celts)

So if we multiply FG's *2 so we can compare to FT's - we end up with 273 FT per game, and the Celts are 144 points on the season short (or 1.92 made points per game - less than a 2 point FG - one less failed putback by stone hands Russell per game (he had a ton every year) and our OWS will be above the Knicks) makes them equal - and this difference costs them 25% OWS on the season?

The 1959-60 Hawks are between the Celts and the Knicks, and have 25.7 OWS - more than the Knicks, with a lower FG% and lower FT%.

Focusing on efficiency in an era when few teams had it, and it was a legitimate strategy to run ones offense at a high pace/volume of FGA is like a historian judging the mores of Ghengis Khan by todays standards. It's misleading and it sheds no light or truth on the subject.

OWS in that era is almost useless and certainly sheds no real insight on the topic. DWS is the same thing because we are missing: blocks, offensive/defensive rebound split, steals, TOV's. Assists were handed out much more conservatively back than compared to today as well. Not enough info for % stats like USG, AST, REB, STL, TOV, BLK, DRtg, ORtg. It's even weaker than using BA, HR, and RBI for a hitter.

* Efficiency matters and even though it may have not been looked at as important in the 50's/60's...Fact it was still important. Simmilar to OBP in the beginning stages, It wasn't looked at as important but it doesn't change the fact obp was in fact always important.

* If your team isn't efficient, you have to get those extra possessions to make up for it somehow..Weather it be by rebounding/Forced turnovers ect..that was the same as the 50's as it is now. In the celtics case? A below average FG% was more than enough due to the rebounding/defense they played.

Now, The defense was OBVIOUSLY "good enough" but that doesn't mean the defense was even 40% of the reason those teams won. You like to point out SRS but than in itself doesn't prove how good any 1 phase of the team was.

Having an all time defense and a high tempo team means more possessions..Makes for having a better SRS.

Lets say the celtics had a 85 drtg (Rough # of the bill russells celtics) and a 89ortg and played 150 possessions, That would come out too 6.0 SRS. Does that mean the offense was producing?



* DRtg is still very accurate..You can say its weak all you want but in reality they tested his formula for later years and it has proven to be VERY precise.

* Saber stats/guesstimates in general should be looked at if you see consistant patterns. Simmilar to saber fielding stats in baseball..It's not 100% but when there are consitant patterns it's hard to look the other way. It's not like theres these huge inconsistencies..

* While watching Basketball I have noticed there's 4 Keys to victory, PPG is NOT much of an indicator and shouldn't be used in prediciting future games...Because teams play at diff paces.

offensive efficiency, defensive efficiency, turnover differential, and rebounding differential. Thats the big 4 imo and really the only 4 that have much weight..

[Bos_Sports4Life]

another few things

* Celtics were winning ~40 games a year because of their defense alone. their offense pretty much sucked though. they were winning about 15 games with their offense.

* Celtics had a Drtg about 5% better than the rest of the league virtually EVERY YEAR; the equivalent of replacing Brad Miller with Hakeem more or less. (I saw that posted, I'll see if that true later on, very telling if true).


HAKEEM
year combined DWS
84 19.1
85 24.0
86 19.5
87 26.8
88 25.9
89 27.6
90 31.7
91 29.6
92 20.4
93 27.1
94 31.8



KAREEM
year combined DWS
70 20.7
71 23.7
72 28.8
73 33.3
74 30.6
75 19.4
76 19.1
77 21.8
78 20.0
79 22.7
80 23.6


THURMOND
year combined DWS
64 37.3
65 25.0
66 22.2
67 29.7
68 28.7
69 28.7
70 24.5
71 17.3
72 29.7
73 29.0
74 18.7
75 29.6


year combined DWS
56 14.0
57 32.0
58 32.5
59 34.3
60 35.9
61 45.2
62 45.7
63 46.8
64 55.7
65 50.1
66 41.2
67 33.7
68 33.5
69 40.6
70 22.2

Russell didn't play in 56 and 70.

"the advantage Russell has is just too overwhelming to describe it. Celtics were winning ~40 games a year because of their defense alone. their offense pretty much sucked though. they were winning about 15 games with their offense.

you have to wonder about how much Cousy/Sharman/Heinsohn meant to these teams if they were winning solely because of their defense and were horrifically bad on offense. 64 season is the greatest individual season in league history, perhaps. Celtics have a ridiculous 55.7 DWS (an estimated DRtg of -14, compared to Celtics 08 at -8) while being absolutely (Please Use More Appropriate Word) on offense (6.8 OWS is the lowest I've seen so far... of any team)... and they still won."


This all info I found and very little of it is in my words. Very interesting/telling stuff. His defensive impact looks to be far greater than anyone in nba history.

Now in THIS era? The facts you brought up (Bigger players, 3 point line ect ect) would shrink his godly defensive impact quite a bit and he'd probably be like a mutumbo. I'd agree with that 100%. However, comparing relative impact? I can't see a player have CLOSE to the impact in a single phase of the game like Russell did, shrinking the offensive disparity between him and guys like Hakeem/Drob/Shaq to a huge extent..

[bagwell368]

* Efficiency matters and even though it may have not been looked at as important in the 50's/60's...Fact it was still important. Simmilar to OBP in the beginning stages, It wasn't looked at as important but it doesn't change the fact obp was in fact always important.

It wasn't as important than because teams didn't shoot as well as today, meaning every miss was less damaging then, than now, and in the 9 year period under examination about 45% more shots per game were taken by the average team than today. How could a missed shot possibly mean the same thing - then vs now?

* If your team isn't efficient, you have to get those extra possessions to make up for it somehow..

Don't you want to stop yourself from looking ridiculous? You're trying to tell us over a 9 year period a team that:

* averaged 116 points per game (+4.3 above average, and ranked 2.1/8.5 on average)
* was 1.1 made point short of league average efficiency

Is:

a. an inefficient offense
b. something to be ashamed of?

You've obviously lost sight of the forest for the trees.

Having an all time defense and a high tempo team means more possessions..Makes for having a better SRS.

You left out "highest paced offense and most shots taken - with a mere shortfall of 1.1 made point a game from average shooting - leading to a team that scored +4.3 above league average with a ranking of 2.1/8.5.

Lets say the celtics had a 85 drtg (Rough # of the bill russells celtics) and a 89ortg and played 150 possessions, That would come out too 6.0 SRS. Does that mean the offense was producing?

Shots in the dark.

Back to 1959-60

WS = 55, Wins = 59

Team scoring average: 115.3

Points allowed: 116.2 (-0.9 worse than average - ranked 4th)

Points scored: 124.5 (+9.3 above average and easily ranked #1)

19.1 OWS
35.9 DWS

They don't have pace numbers for back then. So how did the offense which was 3rd (close to 1st) in the league in Efficiency (and above average) with such a huge scoring advantage end up with on 53.2% as much WS as the D when the D was below average? Doesn't seem to make sense.

* DRtg is still very accurate..You can say its weak all you want but in reality they tested his formula for later years and it has proven to be VERY precise.

DRtg or DWS? There is no DRtg in Russell's time, and DWS is a freaking joke. The DWS formula is like making a 8 course meal with 35% of the needed items listed w/ quantities. Please - it sucks.

* Saber stats/guesstimates in general should be looked at if you see consistant patterns. Simmilar to saber fielding stats in baseball..It's not 100% but when there are consitant patterns it's hard to look the other way. It's not like theres these huge inconsistencies..

Explain how 1.1 missing made basket in that time turns a team from average to horrible on offense. I keep asking the same question, and you keep ducking it.

* While watching Basketball I have noticed there's 4 Keys to victory, PPG is NOT much of an indicator and shouldn't be used in prediciting future games...Because teams play at diff paces.

offensive efficiency, defensive efficiency, turnover differential, and rebounding differential. Thats the big 4 imo and really the only 4 that have much weight..

No turnovers recorded in Russell's time. No records of shot location in Russell's time, no offense and defensive rebounding stats in Russells time, and you never saw Bill play, so, a one eyed poster is going to dictate his fiendish desire for Russell in spite of many contrary points? Keep at it, your island is getting smaller and smaller.

[Bos_Sports4Life]

It wasn't as important than because teams didn't shoot as well as today, meaning every miss was less damaging then, than now, and in the 9 year period under examination about 45% more shots per game were taken by the average team than today. How could a missed shot possibly mean the same thing - then vs now?

Efficiency is ALWAYS going to be more important than Volume.

You left out "highest paced offense and most shots taken - with a mere shortfall of 1.1 made point a game from average shooting - leading to a team that scored +4.3 above league average with a ranking of 2.1/8.5.



Shots in the dark.

Back to 1959-60

WS = 55, Wins = 59

Team scoring average: 115.3

Points allowed: 116.2 (-0.9 worse than average - ranked 4th)

Points scored: 124.5 (+9.3 above average and easily ranked #1)

19.1 OWS
35.9 DWS

They don't have pace numbers for back then. So how did the offense which was 3rd (close to 1szt) in the league in Efficiency (and above average) with such a huge scoring advantage end up with on 53.2% as much WS as the D when the D was below average? Doesn't seem to make sense.

They do have # of possessions/efficiency stats..They obviously have enough data that is PROVEN to be pretty accurate.

Numbers tell me the same thing I have heard everyone else say..It was a dynasty built around its dominating defense.

DRtg or DWS? There is no DRtg in Russell's time, and DWS is a freaking joke. The DWS formula is like making a 8 course meal with 35% of the needed items listed w/ quantities. Please - it sucks.

And with the formula they used? it has been used in later yrs and it proves to be accurate...Too bad for you.

Also, OWS tell the same story..The celtics offense sucked most years.

No turnovers recorded in Russell's time. No records of shot location in Russell's time, no offense and defensive rebounding stats in Russells time, and you never saw Bill play, so, a one eyed poster is going to dictate his fiendish desire for Russell in spite of many contrary points? Keep at it, your island is getting smaller and smaller.

Smaller and smaller? Im finding more and more amazing stats that show his beyond amazing defensive impact...It's quite amazing.

Also, While those stats are not "recorded" it doesn't take much of a historian to realize those teams forced a lot of turnovers.

[bagwell368]

another few things

* Celtics were winning ~40 games a year because of their defense alone. their offense pretty much sucked though. they were winning about 15 games with their offense.

See, you can't get away from stats to see common sense. How does an offense suck when it's 1.1 made point below average efficiency over a 9 year period? Come on, I know you're smart enough to see past the WS. Do you have an answer from the 1959-60 DWS/OWS split given the offense was well ahead in #1st in PPG and a mere .004 from being tied for #1 in efficiency?

* Celtics had a Drtg about 5% better than the rest of the league virtually EVERY YEAR; the equivalent of replacing Brad Miller with Hakeem more or less. (I saw that posted, I'll see if that true later on, very telling if true).

Where is the well considered response to all the missing pieces before 1973 in WS?

Defensive Rebounding from Offensive Rebounding
Blocks
Steals
TOV's

Why do you list all these players? Hakeem played for teams that won a lot less - any "WS" stat has to be looked at carefully and adjusted for the Celts winning% vs other teams. Funny that two days ago you were railing about comparing a Russell like player in todays game, but you neglect to mention that more modern players have much tougher competition, are superior athletes, have to play more games per year to win a title - etc. Shows tremendous bias on your part.

"the advantage Russell has is just too overwhelming to describe it. Celtics were winning ~40 games a year because of their defense alone. their offense pretty much sucked though. they were winning about 15 games with their offense.

I already showed that Bill came in with a number of HOF players to go with the two he had when he got there, and I also proved that Bill's DWS and Rebounding were but a fraction of team totals. Did you know according to DWS and OWS stats of his time, he got credit just for being on the floor when someone else did something?

Explain 1959-60. Explain how that offense sucked? Explain how there is anywhere near enough data to make a fair representation of Russell's era with WS?

And do explain how 3 other players in his time contributed more to their team wins when looking at WS / Wins in their 10 peak years each? You never seemed to have answered that question. So, the Celts results was a product of the team's quality, not just Russell. Those 3 players all won titles with the #1 SRS team, Russell only did it 8 out of 10 times.

you have to wonder about how much Cousy/Sharman/Heinsohn meant to these teams if they were winning solely because of their defense and were horrifically bad on offense.

1.1 point per game missed combined FG and FT is horrific? It's an unjustified (by legitimate facts) position. Nonsensical - like believing the earth is flat.

Fact: You pushed Russell as the GOAT, and failed
Fact: You pushed Russell as top 5 Center and saw him finish a weak 5th
Fact: You claimed he was the pre 1970 GOAT and failed brutally at that.

This all info I found and very little of it is in my words. Very interesting/telling stuff. His defensive impact looks to be far greater than anyone in nba history.

Didn't I just say that yesterday:

#1 defensive player
Not in top 250 all time in offense
Terrible FT% shooter for any time, even his
No range on FG%, unable to adapt to 16' lane, and larger more athletic players
Ended up on the best team for his unusual skill set thanks to Red, would never have won nearly as much in any other setting/team

That's not the GOAT.

Now in THIS era? The facts you brought up (Bigger players, 3 point line ect ect) would shrink his godly defensive impact quite a bit and he'd probably be like a mutumbo. I'd agree with that 100%. However, comparing relative impact? I can't see a player have CLOSE to the impact in a single phase of the game like Russell did, shrinking the offensive disparity between him and guys like Hakeem/Drob/Shaq to a huge extent..

Dominating slow white guys that couldn't jump says nothing vs a Hakeem. It's an insult to Hakeem to compare him with Russell head to head in modern times.

If Russell is so great, how come 3 players in his time won more WS/team wins than Russell? I checked on a ton of head to head games of Bill/Pettit and Bill/Wilt and Bill gets crunched many times. You do recall that Wilt averaged 28.7 PPG and 28.7 RPG vs Bill and the one time he had a SRS #1 team he beat Bill and Celts like a drum in the playoffs.

In the Hawks Championship win over the Celts, Petit dropped 29.3 PPG on the Celts and 30, 19, 32, 50 on Russell in the games he played in. #1 SRS, Pettit's one great team, and BAM - Celts popped in six games. . Funny the Hawks have more OWS than DWS even though they were 7/8 in FT% and 2/8 in FG%. That's what people get for trusting that stat.

[bagwell368]

Efficiency is ALWAYS going to be more important than Volume.

Nonsense you need efficiency and volume.

They do have # of possessions/efficiency stats..They obviously have enough data that is PROVEN to be pretty accurate.

Proven? By who? By you? It's just handy for you because it agrees with your view of the topic. I see no evidence that you've spent time checking this stat out. The fact that the OWS numbers are so skewed in the 1959-60 proves that in this case, the results are nonsense.

Numbers tell me the same thing I have heard everyone else say..It was a dynasty built around its dominating defense.

Yes you heard - you did not see. Having a dominant defense does not mean the offense was poor - or the idiotic word "horrific" you used several times.

And with the formula they used? it has been used in later yrs and it proves to be accurate...Too bad for you.

You don't seem to have worked deeply in this area. There are 3 sets of formulas, and the pre 1973 (first one) is by far the most inaccurate. The current one the best - but - it's still biased for players on great teams. People go around thinking Duncan crushes KG due to WS, but all you have to do is EQ for team wins and then compare... I know you're a big KG fan, and could understand this argument since it doesn't threaten to knock Russell in any way.

Also, OWS tell the same story..The celtics offense sucked most years.

You're using a flawed formula to represent FGA/FGM and FTA/FTM which are available to you and instead of examining how this stat is arrived at - and what flaws exist, you refuse to look at the numbers because you're happy with the approximation of the truth. Fine, just don't claim these stats are good (I.E. no issues around lacking data) and you understand them.