post wrote:70sFan wrote:post wrote:
they lost sam jones too. and bailey howell declined a lot. and they didn't replace russell with anybody good at all
Sam Jones was washed up in 1969, his loss wasn't a good explaination of Celtics collapse.
Celtics also didn't win anything before Russell.
it looks like a combination of the things i said. jones was the third leading scorer russell's last year. the second leading scorer next year nelson averaged less than jones. and howell averaged 7 less ppg and his fg% was 6 points lower. so they don't look like they had a scoring threat other than havlicek. nelson was a career 10.3 ppg player. not an adequate replacement as a second option. and i never even heard of any of the guys that played center the year after russell retired. they look like a bunch of bench/role players. nothing impressive stands out
they picked up heinsohn in russell's rookie year to replace ed macauley. heinsohn was a much better playoff scorer than macauley. 22.9 ppg vs. 10.0 ppg. that's a huge difference. and frank ramsey was in the military the year before so getting him back added depth. ramsey's fg% went up 7 points in the playoff compared to regular season that year. and of course picking up russell mattered. it wasn't the only noticeable thing that happened though
Do you know anything else other than ppg averages? Do you know that ppg stats are meaningless without context and further analysis?