PDA

View Full Version : Bill Russells teammates



Bos_Sports4Life
03-01-2011, 02:47 PM
Ok, just curious about thoughts/opinions about Bill Russells teammates. IMO they are over valued and here's why,

(Keep in mind, Russell career was 56-57 too 1968-69)

People always mention he had Havlicek, cousy, the 2 jones, ramsey,sharmen ect but im going too break it down, and im asking you, were his teammates REALLY that great?



* Bob Cousy- He has 38.5 career offensive win shares and his best season after his 30th birthday? It was 1.9 offensive win shares in 1959-1960 and after that, he never even had a 1.0 offensive win share in a single season

*Sam Jones- He had a career 48.6 offensive win shares in his career, reaching 7 only once


*John Havlicek- Career 57.6 offensive win shares BUT before 1970, he only had a SINGLE SEASON with 5+ offensive win shares



* KC Jones- Get this, He has a Career 0.7 career offensive win share


*Tommy Heinsohn- He has 18.3 Career offensive Win shares, NEVER reaching 4 in a single season


* Bill Sharmen- Great shooter/60.1 offensive win shares HOWEVER he only had 1 season with over 6 once russell got there and his last season was 1960-1961



Now, in some seasons such as 1962 i believe, The FULL TEAMS COMBINED for less than 6 offensive win shares.

So, in conclusion, why do his teammates get a lot of the credit??

JordansBulls
03-01-2011, 04:02 PM
Sam Jones, John Havlicek and Tom Heinsohn all at different times led the team in Scoring.

Sam Jones and John Havlicek at times led the team in PER and/or Win Shares. They even shot a higher FG% than Russell despite being shorter and playing on the outside.

Bos_Sports4Life
03-01-2011, 04:29 PM
Sam Jones, John Havlicek and Tom Heinsohn all at different times led the team in Scoring.

Sam Jones and John Havlicek at times led the team in PER and/or Win Shares. They even shot a higher FG% than Russell despite being shorter and playing on the outside.

I was hoping to get other opinions


You can't tally up total win shares. The players defensive win shares is Due LARGELY due too Bill russell, so using total win shares is VERRRRY flawed.

Whats smarter is using Offensive win shares, considering most of these guys are known for offensive ability. Also, one year his team COMBINED for 5.5 offensive win shares, only 5.5!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The teams defense the year before and year After was in the middle of the pack, during the 13 yrs russell played, they were 1st in drtg 12 times and 2nd once. So again, these players weren't very good defenders (havlicek was.) so again, using defensive win shares is FLAWED, look at OFFENSIVE WIN SHARES

JordansBulls
03-01-2011, 04:57 PM
I was hoping to get other opinions


You can't tally up total win shares. The players defensive win shares is Due LARGELY due too Bill russell, so using total win shares is VERRRRY flawed.

Whats smarter is using Offensive win shares, considering most of these guys are known for offensive ability. Also, one year his team COMBINED for 5.5 offensive win shares, only 5.5!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The teams defense the year before and year After was in the middle of the pack, during the 13 yrs russell played, they were 1st in drtg 12 times and 2nd once. So again, these players weren't very good defenders (havlicek was.) so again, using defensive win shares is FLAWED, look at OFFENSIVE WIN SHARES

I love you dude.:hi5:

But truth be told the Celtics dominated defensively because they had good defensive players as well. HONDO is mentioned as probably the greatest SF defender ever.

Bos_Sports4Life
03-01-2011, 07:01 PM
I love you dude.:hi5:

But truth be told the Celtics dominated defensively because they had good defensive players as well. HONDO is mentioned as probably the greatest SF defender ever.


I agree, Hondo was a VERY good defensive player..Tommy? Nope

The turnaround came when BILL came along, hondo a very good defensive player and i'll give you that. But, Russell was by far and away more key too the D as when Russ left, The defense went to #1 to mid-pack

bagwell368
03-07-2011, 07:34 PM
The teams defense the year before and year After was in the middle of the pack, during the 13 yrs russell played, they were 1st in drtg 12 times and 2nd once. So again, these players weren't very good defenders (havlicek was.) so again, using defensive win shares is FLAWED, look at OFFENSIVE WIN SHARES

The first four years Bill was on the Celts the D was average or below using points allowed vs average of the league, and the offense was far in the lead. So much for the poor overall offense and the great defense out of the box. Myth.

As for the use and over use of FG% and OWS and DWS as an item of rating in 1956-1969 - as tools of judgment - they are hampered by several things:

WS before 1974 is missing a good deal of data and a number of multipliers are used which is supposed to supply a norm. Look at how they figure out steals (ouch). But the FG% being so important is baffling. This is an era when teams shot worse overall then they do now. A team with high FGA, and poor D and/or poor rebounding is just another high pace team of no interest. But a team that plays a high pace by design, leads the league in rebounding and PPG - AND - has a good/great defense - how do you justify a low OWS with this reality? Because the numbers say so? Observation trumps the numbers easily in this case.

The Celts were also the #1 rebounding team almost every year (by a wide margin most of the time) which supported the high FGA. From my time watching Bill live and later on tape, the Celts were a great offensive rebounding team, which the records does not report). The fast break/high pace model they followed until near the end also paid large benefit to the Celts defense - where is the stat for that?

Bos_Sports4Life
03-07-2011, 08:31 PM
The first four years Bill was on the Celts the D was average or below using points allowed vs average of the league, and the offense was far in the lead. So much for the poor overall offense and the great defense out of the box. Myth.

As for the use and over use of FG% and OWS and DWS as an item of rating in 1956-1969 - as tools of judgment - they are hampered by several things:

WS before 1974 is missing a good deal of data and a number of multipliers are used which is supposed to supply a norm. Look at how they figure out steals (ouch). But the FG% being so important is baffling. This is an era when teams shot worse overall then they do now. A team with high FGA, and poor D and/or poor rebounding is just another high pace team of no interest. But a team that plays a high pace by design, leads the league in rebounding and PPG - AND - has a good/great defense - how do you justify a low OWS with this reality? Because the numbers say so? Observation trumps the numbers easily in this case.

The Celts were also the #1 rebounding team almost every year (by a wide margin most of the time) which supported the high FGA. From my time watching Bill live and later on tape, the Celts were a great offensive rebounding team, which the records does not report). The fast break/high pace model they followed until near the end also paid large benefit to the Celts defense - where is the stat for that?



Teams shot worse, but in that era, the celtics were awful at shooting % relative to there competition.

You valuing volume scoring over efficiency is a complete and utter joke, and using volume stats is moronic too say the least. A team that is higher paced will have more chances too have better raw numbers. Ur using an extremly missleading/flawed argument too say the least. More possessions means more pts for and more points against. did you learn math as a kid??

More possessions=more chances at pts/boards/assists ect, i mean, its realllly not rocket science. While advanced stats are flawed for 60's bball, its a decent estimation


I'll even treat you with a few examples how pace can make a team LOOK LIKE a good team


2010-2011

Timberwolves (#1 ranked in pace this yr)

- 28th in fg %

-10th in ppg

- 1st in total rebounds

- 7th in FG Made







2008-2009 knicks

(#2 ranked in pace)

-28th in fg %

-4th in ppg

- 8th in total rebounds

- 5th in total fg's made


2008-2009 pacers (#3 ranked in pace

- 19th in fg %

- 5th in ppg

- 2nd in total rebounds

- 4th in fg's made




Higher paced will make a bad offense look decent, and a decent offense look good ect based on raw numbers, its simple math more possessions= More numbers..

bagwell368
03-07-2011, 10:43 PM
Teams shot worse, but in that era, the celtics were awful at shooting % relative to there competition.

You were using team rank I noticed. So as I pointed out one year the Celts finished 3/8 which sounds pretty mediocre. However with a .421, .419, and .417 for the top 3 spread it works out to one more missed shot per 250 between the Celts and the #1 team that year.


You valuing volume scoring over efficiency is a complete and utter joke, and using volume stats is moronic too say the least. A team that is higher paced will have more chances too have better raw numbers. Ur using an extremly missleading/flawed argument too say the least. More possessions means more pts for and more points against. did you learn math as a kid??

So Mr. Math (kind of funny since I'm a retired software architect) a team that finishes 1st in PPG with the highest FGA and highest TRB, and middling FGM% on average is worse then a team with the best FG%, below average rebounding, and PPG?

The problem with your "analysis" is you have found one stat that supports your desired position as Bill Russell as the GOAT and the Celtics that played with him generally overrated hacks. What you have not done and show no signs of understanding as important is to look at the Celtic system. You have said Red is the smartest Coach of all time. If you believe he was also a top GM then why would he allow the Celts to have a low FG% if he thought that was a problem?


More possessions=more chances at pts/boards/assists ect, i mean, its realllly not rocket science. While advanced stats are flawed for 60's bball, its a decent estimation

Clearly more possessions means more chances. Please to show from the existing stats how the Celts had more possessions then average? How do you know that they didn't have a very high offensive rebound edge over all other teams (my contention) and so that one possession for them wasn't one shot, but often two or three or four.


I'll even treat you with a few examples how pace can make a team LOOK LIKE a good team

I bet this will be a Waterloo for our friend


2010-2011

Timberwolves (#1 ranked in pace this yr)

- 28th in fg % how is this like the Celts on average?

-10th in ppg How the **** is this like the Celts?

- 1st in total rebounds

- 7th in FG Made







2008-2009 knicks

(#2 ranked in pace)

-28th in fg % Celts were nowhere near this on average in BR's 13 years - and yes I'm allowing for the different team count

-4th in ppg

- 8th in total rebounds - not Celt like at all

- 5th in total fg's made


2008-2009 pacers (#3 ranked in pace

- 19th in fg %

- 5th in ppg -

- 2nd in total rebounds

- 4th in fg's made

last example is FINALLY similar to some of the last 4 Celt teams - but nothing like earlier Celtic teams.

Well, I was right. All you can do is look up numbers and make a total hash out of it. Try watching some live action.



Higher paced will make a bad offense look decent, and a decent offense look good ect based on raw numbers, its simple math more possessions= More numbers..

Who told you that? Out of what book did you get it? Now, tell me about your actual experiences in determining that this is true? Yeah, what I thought, I'm arguing a theorist with no actual experience, with the soul of a fanatic.

Bill Russell is still Bill Russell. You are trying to leverage stats with huge gaping holes in them in a jury rigged fashion to fit your belief.

Bos_Sports4Life
03-07-2011, 11:44 PM
You were using team rank I noticed. So as I pointed out one year the Celts finished 3/8 which sounds pretty mediocre. However with a .421, .419, and .417 for the top 3 spread it works out to one more missed shot per 250 between the Celts and the #1 team that year.



So Mr. Math (kind of funny since I'm a retired software architect) a team that finishes 1st in PPG with the highest FGA and highest TRB, and middling FGM% on average is worse then a team with the best FG%, below average rebounding, and PPG?

The problem with your "analysis" is you have found one stat that supports your desired position as Bill Russell as the GOAT and the Celtics that played with him generally overrated hacks. What you have not done and show no signs of understanding as important is to look at the Celtic system. You have said Red is the smartest Coach of all time. If you believe he was also a top GM then why would he allow the Celts to have a low FG% if he thought that was a problem?



Clearly more possessions means more chances. Please to show from the existing stats how the Celts had more possessions then average? How do you know that they didn't have a very high offensive rebound edge over all other teams (my contention) and so that one possession for them wasn't one shot, but often two or three or four.



I bet this will be a Waterloo for our friend


2010-2011

Timberwolves (#1 ranked in pace this yr)

- 28th in fg % how is this like the Celts on average?

-10th in ppg How the **** is this like the Celts?

- 1st in total rebounds

- 7th in FG Made







2008-2009 knicks

(#2 ranked in pace)

-28th in fg % Celts were nowhere near this on average in BR's 13 years - and yes I'm allowing for the different team count

-4th in ppg

- 8th in total rebounds - not Celt like at all

- 5th in total fg's made


2008-2009 pacers (#3 ranked in pace

- 19th in fg %

- 5th in ppg -

- 2nd in total rebounds

- 4th in fg's made

last example is FINALLY similar to some of the last 4 Celt teams - but nothing like earlier Celtic teams.

Well, I was right. All you can do is look up numbers and make a total hash out of it. Try watching some live action.




Who told you that? Out of what book did you get it? Now, tell me about your actual experiences in determining that this is true? Yeah, what I thought, I'm arguing a theorist with no actual experience, with the soul of a fanatic.

Bill Russell is still Bill Russell. You are trying to leverage stats with huge gaping holes in them in a jury rigged fashion to fit your belief.



* Well when you win titles on a yearly basis, There's nothing you really have too fix...But a lot of Reds greatness imo has to do with constructing 3 differint era's of celtic basketball greatness




* I NEVER said the Celtics offense sucked all 13 yrs, If your mid pack shooting %/1st in ppg, Ill give you thats an above avg offense...However, when your LAST or 2nd too LAST in fg %, thats a differint story



* Also, Teams now being 7th in 8th in ppg and 28th or whatever in fg % is still simmilar, 7th right now is still in the top 25%, so its still somewhat simmilar



* By all accounts the Celtics ran a VERY high paced offense, everything from what ive heard/read, so if you run a VERY high paced offense, your naturally going to have more total shots at yrs end, i don't need an official stat to prove that. Now, How many more possessions did they get becaus of the high pace? Well, who knows...

NJBASEBALL22
03-08-2011, 01:30 AM
* Well when you win titles on a yearly basis, There's nothing you really have too fix...But a lot of Reds greatness imo has to do with constructing 3 differint era's of celtic basketball greatness




* I NEVER said the Celtics offense sucked all 13 yrs, If your mid pack shooting %/1st in ppg, Ill give you thats an above avg offense...However, when your LAST or 2nd too LAST in fg %, thats a differint story



* Also, Teams now being 7th in 8th in ppg and 28th or whatever in fg % is still simmilar, 7th right now is still in the top 25%, so its still somewhat simmilar



* By all accounts the Celtics ran a VERY high paced offense, everything from what ive heard/read, so if you run a VERY high paced offense, your naturally going to have more total shots at yrs end, i don't need an official stat to prove that. Now, How many more possessions did they get becaus of the high pace? Well, who knows...

Pace can't be defined without turnovers. So offensive efficiency cannot really be calculated. You just have to go by accounts. Which by all accounts, the Celtics were a very good offensive team. I already pointed all of the holes in win shares yet you continue to use them. Win shares were estimated prior to 1977 and very heavily favor fg%. So win shares tell you that Cousy wasn't a good offensive point guard, however, by ALL ACCOUNTS, he was the first great point guard. He was THE point guard of that era. Just look at the numbers, do you really buy that in Cousy's best season after 30 years old, he was only worth 1 win a year offensively??? Is a 19.5/4.7/9.5 really only worth 1.9 wins??? Obviously it is flawed. You live in fairy-tail land if you thing it is concrete evidence.

Bos_Sports4Life
03-08-2011, 01:56 AM
Pace can't be defined without turnovers. So offensive efficiency cannot really be calculated. You just have to go by accounts. Which by all accounts, the Celtics were a very good offensive team. I already pointed all of the holes in win shares yet you continue to use them. Win shares were estimated prior to 1977 and very heavily favor fg%. So win shares tell you that Cousy wasn't a good offensive point guard, however, by ALL ACCOUNTS, he was the first great point guard. He was THE point guard of that era. Just look at the numbers, do you really buy that in Cousy's best season after 30 years old, he was only worth 1 win a year offensively??? Is a 19.5/4.7/9.5 really only worth 1.9 wins??? Obviously it is flawed. You live in fairy-tail land if you thing it is concrete evidence.



I'd like to question how important cousy really was, Most times when real impactful players retire in the nba, there's a pretty big dip in win total, but instead the c's win the following 3 NBA Titles and 5 out of the next 6..


Obviously early on, Cousy may have saved the celtics... later on though when the celtics really got going, He doesn't seem like he was too key...

Which is kinda my point, in such a small league (8-12 teams) scorers weren't hard too find, at all. So they were able to replace the old with the new like it was no big deal. The 1 constant was Russell, and they surrounded him with guys who for the most part, were replaceable..

NJBASEBALL22
03-08-2011, 02:48 AM
I'd like to question how important cousy really was, Most times when real impactful players retire in the nba, there's a pretty big dip in win total, but instead the c's win the following 3 NBA Titles and 5 out of the next 6..


Obviously early on, Cousy may have saved the celtics... later on though when the celtics really got going, He doesn't seem like he was too key...

Which is kinda my point, in such a small league (8-12 teams) scorers weren't hard too find, at all. So they were able to replace the old with the new like it was no big deal. The 1 constant was Russell, and they surrounded him with guys who for the most part, were replaceable..

They didn't "replace" Cousy. Other players at different positions started scoring more. Tommy Heinsohn continued to score, he was one of the best scoring forwards and Sam Jones started getting more time at the 2 guard and his game matured. Obviously someone is going to make up for it but nobody "replaced" the point guard position at the level that Cousy played it. He was very valuable part to those first 5 or so championships. When you replace Bill Sharman with Sam Jones, that isn't an everyday replacement. Same with Hondo replacing Heinsohn. That just doesn't happen everytime someone retires. Russell was lucky that Red constructed those rosters so completely. But what you are saying is about Cousy is like saying Ted Williams wasn't that good because Yaz was able to replace him pretty well.

Bos_Sports4Life
03-08-2011, 03:13 AM
They didn't "replace" Cousy. Other players at different positions started scoring more. Tommy Heinsohn continued to score, he was one of the best scoring forwards and Sam Jones started getting more time at the 2 guard and his game matured. Obviously someone is going to make up for it but nobody "replaced" the point guard position at the level that Cousy played it. He was very valuable part to those first 5 or so championships. When you replace Bill Sharman with Sam Jones, that isn't an everyday replacement. Same with Hondo replacing Heinsohn. That just doesn't happen everytime someone retires. Russell was lucky that Red constructed those rosters so completely. But what you are saying is about Cousy is like saying Ted Williams wasn't that good because Yaz was able to replace him pretty well.


imo, Big Men with Russells skill set is MUCH HARDER to replace than a player that can score.

How hard is it too replace a guy like Tommy, a player who shot a career .405? also, a player who shot .400 or below during 6 of his 9 seasons? I realize %'s were down during those yrs, but less than .400 wasn't any good, even for that era. Than factor in its a 10 team league or whatever it was, Than It becomes increasingly easy too Find a volume scorer, which is all what tommy was, from basically everyone ive heard from

bagwell368
03-08-2011, 07:55 AM
imo, Big Men with Russells skill set is MUCH HARDER to replace than a player that can score.

Off topic. This thread is about his teammates.


How hard is it too replace a guy like Tommy, a player who shot a career .405? also, a player who shot .400 or below during 6 of his 9 seasons? I realize %'s were down during those yrs, but less than .400 wasn't any good, even for that era. Than factor in its a 10 team league or whatever it was, Than It becomes increasingly easy too Find a volume scorer, which is all what tommy was, from basically everyone ive heard from

Everyone you've heard it from says ALL Heinsohn was is a volume scorer? Even a blind man - of which there is no shortage of - could look at a guy with this line:

18.6 / 8.8 / 2.0 and see more then a volume scorer. 8.8 rebounds per game in 29.4 minutes per game. In 36 min per game that's 22.8 / 10.7 / 2.5.

FG% again. .405 in his time was not bad by any means, it was well within the bell curve - let's look year by year.

But I guess you don't care about FT? Well he was a .790 which is well above average, after that is factored in, Heinsohn turns out to be ABOVE average on his shooting percentages.

FG% vs Lg -------- FT% vs Lg ----- Points Above/Below league

.397 (+.017) ------ .790 (+.039) --- +15 + +10 = +25 PAL
.382 (-.001) ------ .746 (+.000) --- -0.5 + +00 = -0.5 PAL
.390 (-.005) ------ .798 (+.042) --- +06 + +13 = +19 PAL
.423 (+.013) ------ .733 (-.002) --- +18 + -.5 = +17.5 PAL
.400 (-.015) ------ .767 (+.034) --- -19 + +11 = -08 PAL
.429 (+.003) ------ .819 (+.092) --- +04 + +33 = +37 PAL
.423 (-.018) ------ .835 (+.093) --- -20 + +32 = +12 PAL
.398 (-.035) ------ .827 (+.105) --- -34 + +30 = -04 PAL
.383 (-.043) ------ .795 (+.074) --- -31 + +13 = -19 PAL

So, except for his last two years, his FG% was right on league average. Tommy's superb FT shooting gives him a net combined shooting percentage of above average. 79 more points scored then the average NBA player in his entire career. Above average, with his PPG, TRB, and AST earn him a place in the Celtics and NBA HOF.

Hugely important is also the fact that his 4 best FG% years are the years he took the most shots (by far):

692, 673, 627, 550 - .429, .423, .400, 423 (soak that in, what a bum of a volume scorer during 4 Championships when he was a key guy - as in top 4 in importance each and every year (actually 3rd one year)). Put it this way he was more important to his team then Perk will ever be so far in his career and in the future. Or put it this way for the 80's Celtics he wasn't as key as Bird or McHale but someplace between DJ and Parish - both HOF'ers.

His worst two FG% years he hoisted the least FG in his career, and 4th least: 365, 468 - .383, .382

Tommy's worst flaw is that he liked his linguine and beer too much, which is why he retired early.


Did you check out this Celtic from that time?

FG% ---- FT% -------------- PAL

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

talk about pathetic offensive player. His name? William Felton Russell, what a stiff with the ball. Heinsohn's lowest mark in his career was a -19. Next time you decide to besmirch Heinsohn keep that in mind that Bill's last 4 years were below that, and 3 of them were more then double that - two nearly triple of that. Obviously Russell's worth was primarily on the D. But you have said how really good his offense was (put backs, Mikan shots, lay-ups and 3 foot jump shots). My next target is to take his FT the rest of his career along with his FG% and show his true value on offense - less for sure then you have indicated it is.

bagwell368
03-08-2011, 08:09 AM
I'd like to question how important cousy really was, Most times when real impactful players retire in the nba, there's a pretty big dip in win total, but instead the c's win the following 3 NBA Titles and 5 out of the next 6..

Obviously early on, Cousy may have saved the celtics... later on though when the celtics really got going, He doesn't seem like he was too key...

Which is kinda my point, in such a small league (8-12 teams) scorers weren't hard too find, at all. So they were able to replace the old with the new like it was no big deal. The 1 constant was Russell, and they surrounded him with guys who for the most part, were replaceable..

Cousy was a point guard. To label him a scorer or easily replaceable is just unbelievable. To question his value to the 1956-1962 era Celtics offense in terms of PPG and FG% compared to what happened later (less PPG relative to itself and league, and lower FG%) gives a good indication of Cousy's value.

Your theory on shooters being easily available is wrong. Take a close look at the rosters looking at minutes played, and the various stats and you'll see a stratification very like today or 1980. Top 1-3 players, top 8 overall, and the end of the bench. Perhaps you do not know that there were no over seas presence in the NBA, and that basketball was far less popular with less players at all levels in say 1959 then what it's grown into since then.

The vigour with which you have conducted yourself on this topic in multiple threads outstrips your reach by a great deal. Learn more, argue less is good advice.

JordansBulls
03-08-2011, 09:43 AM
Off topic. This thread is about his teammates.



Everyone you've heard it from says ALL Heinsohn was is a volume scorer? Even a blind man - of which there is no shortage of - could look at a guy with this line:

18.6 / 8.8 / 2.0 and see more then a volume scorer. 8.8 rebounds per game in 29.4 minutes per game. In 36 min per game that's 22.8 / 10.7 / 2.5.

FG% again. .405 in his time was not bad by any means, it was well within the bell curve - let's look year by year.

But I guess you don't care about FT? Well he was a .790 which is well above average, after that is factored in, Heinsohn turns out to be ABOVE average on his shooting percentages.

FG% vs Lg -------- FT% vs Lg ----- Points Above/Below league

.397 (+.017) ------ .790 (+.039) --- +15 + +10 = +25 PAL
.382 (-.001) ------ .746 (+.000) --- -0.5 + +00 = -0.5 PAL
.390 (-.005) ------ .798 (+.042) --- +06 + +13 = +19 PAL
.423 (+.013) ------ .733 (-.002) --- +18 + -.5 = +17.5 PAL
.400 (-.015) ------ .767 (+.034) --- -19 + +11 = -08 PAL
.429 (+.003) ------ .819 (+.092) --- +04 + +33 = +37 PAL
.423 (-.018) ------ .835 (+.093) --- -20 + +32 = +12 PAL
.398 (-.035) ------ .827 (+.105) --- -34 + +30 = -04 PAL
.383 (-.043) ------ .795 (+.074) --- -31 + +13 = -19 PAL

So, except for his last two years, his FG% was right on league average. Tommy's superb FT shooting gives him a net combined shooting percentage of above average. 79 more points scored then the average NBA player in his entire career. Above average, with his PPG, TRB, and AST earn him a place in the Celtics and NBA HOF.

Hugely important is also the fact that his 4 best FG% years are the years he took the most shots (by far):

692, 673, 627, 550 - .429, .423, .400, 423 (soak that in, what a bum of a volume scorer during 4 Championships when he was a key guy - as in top 4 in importance each and every year). Put it this way he was more important to his team then Perk will ever be so far in his career and in the future.

His worst two FG% years he hoisted the least FG in his career, and 4th least: 365, 468 - .383, .382

Tommy's worst flaw is that he liked his linguine and beer too much, which is why he retired early.


Did you check out this Celtic from that time?

FG% ---- FT%

-.018 -- -.176
+.014 -- -.122
-.021 -- -.183
-.008 -- -.188

talk about pathetic offensive player. His name? William Felton Russell, what a stiff with the ball.

:clap:

Bos_Sports4Life
03-08-2011, 04:26 PM
Cousy was a point guard. To label him a scorer or easily replaceable is just unbelievable. To question his value to the 1956-1962 era Celtics offense in terms of PPG and FG% compared to what happened later (less PPG relative to itself and league, and lower FG%) gives a good indication of Cousy's value.

Your theory on shooters being easily available is wrong. Take a close look at the rosters looking at minutes played, and the various stats and you'll see a stratification very like today or 1980. Top 1-3 players, top 8 overall, and the end of the bench. Perhaps you do not know that there were no over seas presence in the NBA, and that basketball was far less popular with less players at all levels in say 1959 then what it's grown into since then.

The vigour with which you have conducted yourself on this topic in multiple threads outstrips your reach by a great deal. Learn more, argue less is good advice.


If you win a title the following 5 out of 6 yrs after replacing someone, i dont see how he was thaaaat key in the last couple titles he was on the team for. He left, they kept winning, simple as that


The celtics didn't have a lot of good shooters lol, seems like they had guys that could run the fast break, looking at most of there shooting %'s, seems to be they were league avg

bagwell368
03-08-2011, 09:51 PM
If you win a title the following 5 out of 6 yrs after replacing someone, i dont see how he was thaaaat key in the last couple titles he was on the team for. He left, they kept winning, simple as that


The celtics didn't have a lot of good shooters lol, seems like they had guys that could run the fast break, looking at most of there shooting %'s, seems to be they were league avg


Just because you don't or didn't see it, doesn't mean these guys were not very good/great. After all you tried to pole axe them with stats, but, you don't delve deeply enough. That's your bad. So now you keep a vague suspicion on these guys? Why because they were not good (which you haven't proven), or because you've been called out for making baseless claims?

BTW, we have primarily been talking about the 7 HOF's Russell played with, not some 1 or 2 year 11th man off the bench. Nice try to muddy up the team when you failed the besmirch the 7.

Again, you'll stop at nothing in defending Russell and if that means you can convince some poor soul that his teammates were lame, you'll do it - even though I ran that to ground. Do take an objective look at the arguments, would you?

bagwell368
03-08-2011, 11:57 PM
Bill Russell PAL (Points above league average) using FG% & FT% of BR vs league year by year

YEAR - FG% --- FT% -------------- PAL

1957 +.047 -- -.259 --- +46 + -39 = +07
1958 + .059 -- -.227 -- +54 + -52 = +02
1959 + .062 -- -.158 -- +56 + -41 = +15
1960 + .057 -- -.123 -- +63 + -30 = +33
1961 + .011 -- -.183 -- +12 + -47 = -35
1962 + .031 -- -.132 - +36 + -38 = -02
1963 -.009 -- -.177 -- -10 + -51 = -61
1964 +.000 -- -.172 -- +00 + -41 = -41
1965 +.012 -- -.160 -- +10 + -39 = -29
1966 -.018 -- -.176 --- -14 + -39 = -53
1967 +.014 -- -.122 -- +11 + -35 = -24
1968 -.021 -- -.183 --- -16 + -45 = -56
1969 -.008 -- -.188 --- -05 + -38 = -43

So, in Bill's career if he shot FG + FT at an average level, the numbers would be 0. They are not. He's minus 287 points in his career. Not a lot really, unless of course he's been proclaimed as some great FG percentage shooter.

Guys like Sam Jones, Heinsohn, Cousy shot the ball far from the basket. Bills offense was put backs, Mikan shots, lay-ups and 4 footers. That does usually result in a good percentage.

Notice Bill FG% numbers are good his first four years. But then look who shows up:

Chamberlain showed up in 1959-1960
Howell (big rebounding PF) showed up in 1960-61
Bellamy showed up in 1961-62
Nate Thurmond showed up in 1963-64
Jerry Lucas (big rebounding forward) showed up in 1963-64
Willis Reed in 1964-65

then Bill's offense dries up as the competition gets better. Russell's offensive game was elemental as I have said in dozens of threads. He was an effective offensive rebounder (but not the equal of Wilt), he was the best passing Center of his time, and his shooting at FG was OK for a Center, but his FT% was poor (but better then Wilt). He was equal to the time. He simply isn't the GOAT.

Bos_Sports4Life
03-09-2011, 07:24 PM
Just becaus someone is a better 2 way player, doesn't mean 1 is greater. Ted Williams was by all accounts an average player at best outside of hitting, Yet People generally put him top 5 Player of all time (excluding pitchers.) Becaus he was so Great at 1 part of the game.

bagwell368
03-09-2011, 10:22 PM
Just becaus someone is a better 2 way player, doesn't mean 1 is greater. Ted Williams was by all accounts an average player at best outside of hitting, Yet People generally put him top 5 Player of all time (excluding pitchers.) Becaus he was so Great at 1 part of the game.

Not the same.

In baseball for a LF in the live ball era (after 1920), all the aspects of the game:

base running
stealing bases
fielding
throwing

are not equal to the importance in batting for a LF. In fact all those things together are not even a 1/10 of the value of Williams batting.

No, let's stick with basketball:

The number one defender of all time and the the number one offensive player of all time by WS (sorry to use that stat, but, it makes it quicker to discuss):

Jabbar OWS: 178.92 (23 guys over 95)
Russell DWS: 133.64 (only guy over 95)

So what does that mean? Defensive is less important in the NBA, or not measured or scaled as well?

Overall WS 16th
WS/48 23rd
PER 97th
Offensive Win Share < 250th

The only thing Bill is 1st in in Banners. But in a team sport, with great teammates, a great team and a great coach, how much was Russell worth? Linch pin? You bet GOAT? **** no

Guys with more WAR:

Jabbar 273 *
Wilt 247 *
K Malone 234
Jordan 214 *
Stockton 207
Gilmore 189
Oscar 189
Shaq 181 *
Erving 181
M Malone 179 *
Robinson 178 *
Barkley 177
Miller 174
Garnett 172 *
Duncan 168 *
Russell 163
Hakeem 162 *
West 162
...
Magic 155 *
Kobe 154
Bird 145 *

The guys I marked are all guys I'd be willing to try for the Celts circa 1956-1969 instead of Russell with Red as the Coach. At their best they were all better. They would have to concentrate to get 11, that is a big deal after all.

Bos_Sports4Life
03-10-2011, 02:23 AM
Not the same.

In baseball for a LF in the live ball era (after 1920), all the aspects of the game:

base running
stealing bases
fielding
throwing

are not equal to the importance in batting for a LF. In fact all those things together are not even a 1/10 of the value of Williams batting.

No, let's stick with basketball:

The number one defender of all time and the the number one offensive player of all time by WS (sorry to use that stat, but, it makes it quicker to discuss):

Jabbar OWS: 178.92 (23 guys over 95)
Russell DWS: 133.64 (only guy over 95)

So what does that mean? Defensive is less important in the NBA, or not measured or scaled as well?

Overall WS 16th
WS/48 23rd
PER 97th
Offensive Win Share < 250th

The only thing Bill is 1st in in Banners. But in a team sport, with great teammates, a great team and a great coach, how much was Russell worth? Linch pin? You bet GOAT? **** no

Guys with more WAR:

Jabbar 273 *
Wilt 247 *
K Malone 234
Jordan 214 *
Stockton 207
Gilmore 189
Oscar 189
Shaq 181 *
Erving 181
M Malone 179 *
Robinson 178 *
Barkley 177
Miller 174
Garnett 172 *
Duncan 168 *
Russell 163
Hakeem 162 *
West 162
...
Magic 155 *
Kobe 154
Bird 145 *

The guys I marked are all guys I'd be willing to try for the Celts circa 1956-1969 instead of Russell with Red as the Coach. At their best they were all better. They would have to concentrate to get 11, that is a big deal after all.


lol, so your allowed too use winshares becaus its "quicker too discuss" but when I do it, It's terribly flawed, I don't get it...

Going by win shares, Russell played with what looked like a bunch of crackheads, combining for 5.5 offensive win shares, i know that only 1 season, but winning a title with that? Now thats impressive...

bagwell368
03-10-2011, 07:49 AM
lol, so your allowed too use winshares becaus its "quicker too discuss" but when I do it, It's terribly flawed, I don't get it...

Yeah I qualified it "sorry to use that stat, but, it makes it quicker to discuss" - I was using it to generate a quick list. BTW WS after 1974 is more useful. You want to get back on topic now? Your attempted pole axing of Russell's teammates and subsequent failure to prove it, or even resist my detailed arguments is the story of the thread.


Going by win shares, Russell played with what looked like a bunch of crackheads, combining for 5.5 offensive win shares, i know that only 1 season, but winning a title with that? Now thats impressive...

It's already been debunked. You have already been caught trying to minimize your cretinous words. Is this all you have? Discredited arguments? Pitiful.

BTW, what happened to your Ted Williams argument? Classic. Ever hear of the artist Jackson Pollock? He painted these massive 20 x 10 foot canvases that look like someone flinging paint at a wall. Well you keep flinging, and nothing keeps sticking....

Rentzias
03-10-2011, 03:30 PM
A thread that is yet another attempt to reverse engineer a lost argument for Russell as GOAT. You should've stopped at the Jordan GOAT thread. Just come out and say that if Russell was on a team full of Muggsy Bogues, Spud Webbs and Earl Boykins(es) that he would championships. I mean they're not crackheads, but they're small.

NJBASEBALL22
03-10-2011, 05:18 PM
BosSports4Life hasn't shown one solid piece of evidence yet. Anything you use to refute him is either wrong, really doesn't matter or just doesn't get addressed. As in me pointing out that Win Shares prior to 77 are extremely flawed because they are almost completely estimated. To which he would respond "well Russell still has more DWS than anyone and all is teammates sucked so"

Then I say, "his teammates didn't suck, Cousy was the best point guard of the era." To which he will respond, "I never said they sucked but he never played with 7 hall of famers."

Then you get someone who says, "Russell didn't add anything on offense!" to which BosSports4Life adds "There team sucked on offense, nobody did! 5 OWS all 68 season! It was the best defensive team ever. Russell had 11 championships!" So at this point I am thinking, "wow. Boston must have won every game 5 to nothing." Then, out of nowhere, in come FRANKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK, BosSports4Life's little lapdog. FRANKKKKKKKKKKKKKK adds. "Damn BosSports4Life owned all of yous!!!!!!!!!"

Bos_Sports4Life
03-10-2011, 07:52 PM
The following are Undisputed FACTS


* Russell was the driving force of a team that won 11 titles in a 13 yr stretch. (This isn't a FACT, but its more so common sense)



* Russell was a 5 Time League MVP (Same as MJ, 1 away from Kareem)


* Back in the '62 season, Russell took himself out for 4 games and the Celtics lost 4 straight games even with Red Auerbach, Cousy, Sharman, the Joneses, Ramsey and other HoF's.

Back in '69, Russell took himself out for 5 games because of an injury and the Celtics lost 5 straight even with HoF's Sam Jones, Havlicek, Satch Sanders, and Bailey Howell.

The instances that i mentioned are the two worst losing streaks of the Russell-era Celtics.



*The Celtic dynasty started and ended, at least the first part pre-Cowens, Silas etc., of the 70's with Bill Russell.



*Bill Russell played in 11 deciding games during his 13-year career. In those games? Hes a flawless 11-0, with a line of 18 pts/29.45 rebounds




Also, You guys like too bash his offense becaus of shooting ability, Too me, is ridiculous, and is basically over oversimplifying the game too an extreme.

What about offensive rebounding? Pick setting? Ball movement? His Good ball handling skills for a man at his position?

Not only that, but what about his greatest offensive quality. generating his team’s offense from his own defense..but yes, lets ignore that too...




Also, a few quotes on opposing teams/coaches



"That’s quite a twist, isn’t it, having a defensive player mean the difference?” said Kundla. “We don’t fear the Celtics without Bill Russell. Take him out and we can beat them … He’s the guy who whipped us psychologically. Russell has our club worrying every second. Every one of the five men is thinking Russell is covering him on every play. He blocks a shot, and before you know it, Boston is getting a basket, and a play by Russell has done it.”-
Laker coach John Kundla said after watching Russell lead the Celtics to a sweep of his team in the 1959 Finals.



Or Game 3 of the ’63 Finals against L.A., when he had 38 rebounds and six assists? Or Game 3 of the 1965 Eastern Conference Finals against Philadelphia, when he held Chamberlain to a pair of field goals in the first three quarters? Or Game 5 in that same series, when he had 28 rebounds, 10 blocks, six steals and seven assists? Said Schayes, who had become the Philadelphia 76ers coach: “The Celtics can thank the Good Lord for Bill Russell.”

bagwell368
03-10-2011, 09:41 PM
Also, You guys like too bash his offense becaus of shooting ability, Too me, is ridiculous, and is basically over oversimplifying the game too an extreme.

His Good ball handling skills for a man at his position?



It's sour grapes time. The man can't admit he was wrong about the other Celtic players. Can't admit he defamed them in the most base way possible. Can't admit WS pre 1977 is a deeply flawed stat. Can't admit he claimed Russell was the best offensive player on the Celts because of FG% while ignoring his crap FT%. His offense was below league average - FACT. I proved it. Below league average with a bunch of little guys to contend with before 1960. Worse after 1960 when some real Centers and power forwards showed up his rates went right down the tubes, while other players around the league were perfecting their art.

We like to bash Russell? Nobody was actively bashing Russell around here until you tried to strong arm anyone you could to buy in Russell uber alles. So of course we are going to pick at his offensive game, which outside of offensive rebounding (no match for Wilt) and passing was meh at best.

BTW chum, ball handling means dribbling and he wasn't any great shakes at that, get your story straight.

You don't even have the good grace to issue an apology here or for that baiting post #41 in the GOAT thread. Even your lap dog bailed out on you. Just stop.

NJBASEBALL22
03-10-2011, 10:27 PM
The following are Undisputed FACTS


* Russell was the driving force of a team that won 11 titles in a 13 yr stretch. (This isn't a FACT, but its more so common sense)

No one said he wasn't an important part. YOU are saying he is the only reason. Also only 2 rounds of the playoffs. Jordan won 24 consecutive playoff series without a legit center. I think that is a bigger accomplishment. Wait. Can I state that as a fact because I believe it like you? Yes I can. FACT. Bigger Accomplishment then Russell. Fact.

* Russell was a 5 Time League MVP (Same as MJ, 1 away from Kareem)

In a smaller league with 8 teams and where the players voted. Wilt wasn't respected at all. It was a big mans game at the time of course a dominant big was gonna win. and not many players respected Wilt. Only 2 guards won an MVP award prior to 87 when Magic and Jordan won 4 in a row. Cousy and Oscar were the other 2 guards. So obviously Cousy sucked offensively.:rolleyes:

* Back in the '62 season, Russell took himself out for 4 games and the Celtics lost 4 straight games even with Red Auerbach, Cousy, Sharman, the Joneses, Ramsey and other HoF's.

Back in '69, Russell took himself out for 5 games because of an injury and the Celtics lost 5 straight even with HoF's Sam Jones, Havlicek, Satch Sanders, and Bailey Howell.

Already debunked. The C's had a losing record against 4 of the 5 teams anyway.

The instances that i mentioned are the two worst losing streaks of the Russell-era Celtics.



*The Celtic dynasty started and ended, at least the first part pre-Cowens, Silas etc., of the 70's with Bill Russell.

Also started with the best back-court and Heinsohn and Ramsey too. And then picked up Sam Jones and Hondo. Not too shabby but they all suck too. :rolleyes:

*Bill Russell played in 11 deciding games during his 13-year career. In those games? Hes a flawless 11-0, with a line of 18 pts/29.45 rebounds

Sam Jones was 9-0 while scoring about 30 a game in game 7's as well. He wasn't a part of that. Okay.


Also, You guys like too bash his offense becaus of shooting ability, Too me, is ridiculous, and is basically over oversimplifying the game too an extreme.

We weren't BASHING him. We were pointing out his flaws. He should have been dominating in on the offensive side.

What about offensive rebounding? Pick setting? Ball movement? His Good ball handling skills for a man at his position?

Except he couldn't put the ball in the basket. He had solid skills in the areas you listed but nobody would claim Shane Battier is the GOAT and he does similar things. Wes Unseld too. BTW pick setting isn't a great skill but using picks is an even better skill, Russell couldn't do that.

Not only that, but what about his greatest offensive quality. generating his team’s offense from his own defense..but yes, lets ignore that too...




Also, a few quotes on opposing teams/coaches



"That’s quite a twist, isn’t it, having a defensive player mean the difference?” said Kundla. “We don’t fear the Celtics without Bill Russell. Take him out and we can beat them … He’s the guy who whipped us psychologically. Russell has our club worrying every second. Every one of the five men is thinking Russell is covering him on every play. He blocks a shot, and before you know it, Boston is getting a basket, and a play by Russell has done it.”-
Laker coach John Kundla said after watching Russell lead the Celtics to a sweep of his team in the 1959 Finals.



Or Game 3 of the ’63 Finals against L.A., when he had 38 rebounds and six assists? Or Game 3 of the 1965 Eastern Conference Finals against Philadelphia, when he held Chamberlain to a pair of field goals in the first three quarters? Or Game 5 in that same series, when he had 28 rebounds, 10 blocks, six steals and seven assists? Said Schayes, who had become the Philadelphia 76ers coach: “The Celtics can thank the Good Lord for Bill Russell.”

I added the bold.

NJBASEBALL22
03-11-2011, 03:53 PM
Since this is a thread on Russell's teammates, lets start actually talking about this teammates instead of turning this into another Russell GOAT thread.

Cousy was the first great point guard in the NBA. He was the first to master the art of passing but he also excelled in scoring. He was just an all around play maker.

From a absolute stand point, Cousy gets lost in history because his numbers don't look that impressive now. But in his time he was the best. He lead the league in assists 8 consecutive years. He was definitely ahead of his time too. That is a fact and I'll prove this.

Years he lead in assists:
1953. 7.7 apg. He was one of 3 players that had more than 4.9 apg.
1954. 7.2 apg. One of 4 with more than 4.5 per game.
1955. 7.9 apg. Had two teammates in the top 10 in apg.
1956. 8.9 apg. No one else had more than 6.5 a game.
1957. 7.5 apg. 50% more assists than runner up (5.1)
1958. 7.1 apg. Only 4 other players with over 4.6 per.
1959. 8.6 apg. Ninth in scoring and had 2.4 more assists than runner up.
1960. 9.5 apg. Only one other with over 6.3 apg.

What does this list prove. It proves Cousy was head and shoulders above everyone else at passing. Also proves the league was difficult to compile assists in and that Cousy wasn't the lone facilitator on his team.

Here is how hard it was to get assists, in Cousy's era, assists were credited on 50% of FGM. In the 80's and on, assists were credited on over 60% (and growing) of FGM. Not to mention it was harder in general to get buckets in Cousy's era. Teams shot around 38% during Cousy's era. Starting at 35.8% in 1951 and working its way up to 41.2 percent in 1962. Compare that to the 45% plus or so that teams shot come the 1980's.

Here is what Heinsohn had to say about assists being awarded, "You know why Cousy didn't have many more assists? IF YOU DRIBBLED THE BALL, YOU WEREN'T GETTING AN ASSIST. It had to be a catch and shoot situation. Plus guys weren't give assists on fast breaks. If you dribbled the ball and dished it to someone who scored, no assist." Wow. So that shoots a hole in the idea of Celtics getting so many more assists from running so many fast breaks. I don't know if that is incredibly accurate. I mean Heinsohn is the same guy that said Russell was worth 70-80 points a game defensively and also called Leon Powe the next Moses Malone. So I guess you need to take it all with a grain of salt.

To compare Cousy to Stockton, Stockton regularly registered more than 50% of his teams total assists for the season. Whereas Cousy was usually under 40% of his team assists. This shows the type of play of Cousy's time, this was normal to have more than one player as the main facilitator. It was more of a team game than in the 80's with Magic and then Stockton when they were the only facilitators. Hell, even Oscar was the main facilitator. The Celtics were a offense based on ball and player movement.

Just think if Cousy's era regularly award assists and Cousy was given full reigns of his team. He would be able to put up Stockton-esque numbers imo.

Then what happened? The assist gradually became easier to get and people began to forget about Cousy and his assist number that all of a sudden didn't look that great.

Aside for assists, Cousy was the first really great scoring "little guy." It was definitely a big man's game in his day. More reason Russell should've dominated by scoring. Anyway, it was a big man's game but more in the range of 6'7-6'10. There weren't any legit 7 footers until Wilt. Anyway Cousy was the first point guard to really start scoring. He was 6' even. He was scoring more than all of the other point guards of his day while racking up more assists. He has to get credit for that. You can forgive the OWS and FG% numbers based on everything he brought to the team. He was a main scorer with a slightly below average shooting percentage and the best passer in the game. OWS was estimated by making up a turnover rate and places strong emphasis on FG%. When Cousy retired, he was 4th in history in scoring and 1st in assists. Those are some serious numbers. And BosSports4Life, you are the first to admit that a player should be judge against era competition rather than across history. Cousy wa the best point guard there was.

bagwell368
03-17-2011, 09:35 AM
Nice post. Too clear and air tight for anyone to argue it, which is probably why nobody has tried.