RealGM

Bill Russell missed 52 games in his career, here is how his team did without him.

26-26 W-L
1.54 MOV, 0.70 SRS
114.31 PPG against opponent D of 108.63 (+5.67)
112.77 PPG allowed against average O of 107.04 (+5.73)

So the Celtics offense was very much above average without Russell. In fact most years that offense would be at the top. The same story for the defense except the opposite. Without Russell, they are around the worst defense of that era.

Now here is how did in comparison to weighted average of the 57-69 Celtics:

Without Russell vs. overall Celtics:
0.70 SRS vs. 5.38 SRS (-4.68 SRS)

114.31 PPG vs. 110.71 PPG (+3.59)

112.77 PPG allowed vs. 104.77 PPG (-8.0)

So the offense was clearly much better without Russell which jives with my opinion that he is a net negative on offense, but Russell's impact on defense was clearly higher. That minus 8 PPG shows that Russell was the best defender of that era by a clear margin.

If you take out Russell's rookie year, the impact difference is huge. Here is how they did without him from 58-69:

10-18 W-L
-2.03 SRS
122.14 PPG vs. average D of 115.43 (+6.72)
123.18 PPG allowed vs. average O of 114.01 (-9.16)

Here is how those numbers compare to a weighted average of the 58-69 Celtics:
-2.03 SRS vs. 5.88 SRS (-7.91 SRS)

122.14 PPG vs. 115.18 PPG (+6.96)

123.18 PPG allowed vs. 108.69 (-14.49)

So once again the offense improves a lot without Russell, but the defense declines by a huge margin (almost 15 PPG).


*this doesn't take into account pace and its likely they played at a higher pace without Russell.

Shocking!

Seriously, very cool. Can you post the dates of the 28 games he missed from 58-69? Much appreciated.

What a shock, a team loses their center, a huge defensive presence and who gets their fast break started (i think most of his absence was early in his career) and they do worse defensively? Shocking!

BTW, there is something definitely wrong with Russell getting most of the credit for the Celtics' success...as in, if any player deserves credit its him, but he is getting an inordinate amount of credit for the system when his numbers just don't match it. Note that there is only one era where we attach credit to someone who didn't have the stats to back it, and lack of credit to someone who had the stat (of course taling about Russell and Chamberlain). It's of course an entirely disingenuous sort of analysis considering MUCH of the use of statistics without a historical analysis to understand why something was the way it was, particularly in Chamberlain's 65 season and his 69 season.

Someone needs to go beyond the numbers and understand why the stats don't match the "impact". Of course I think if someone did do the analysis year by year, they'd realize this nonsense that is repeatedly made on this board would disappear.

ElGee wrote:Shocking!

Seriously, very cool. Can you post the dates of the 28 games he missed from 58-69? Much appreciated.

What kind of data are you looking for?

Here is what I got 58-69. Russell missed a game every year except 67

Bos pts, Opp points, opp SRS, opp PPG, opp PPG allowed, Bos PPG, Bos PPG allowed, Bos SRS

colts18 wrote:
Here is what I got 58-69. Russell missed a game every year except 67

Ironic, the one year he didn't miss a game is a year someone on this board has repeatedly lied to the entire board about Russell's condition (that he was "injured" in 1967 and hence why he lost and why Wilt looked so good and he didn't) (BASTILLON)

He's GOAT so obviously they are a lot worse without him.

ahonui06 wrote:He's GOAT so obviously they are a lot worse without him.

Hard to be the GOAT when your offensive game is as polished as a Prime Juwan Howard.

doubtful you agree but 01-07 Ben Wallace was the most important piece to a contending team and probably the leagues best defender
as a rebounder he is up there with anyone during this time definitely in the postseason
if he could have done that from the start and continued for 11 straight seasons he would be an all-time great
shame he didn't get the Finals MVP

colts18 wrote:114.31 PPG against opponent D of 108.63 (+5.67)
112.77 PPG allowed against average O of 107.04 (+5.73)

So the Celtics offense was very much above average without Russell. In fact most years that offense would be at the top. The same story for the defense except the opposite. Without Russell, they are around the worst defense of that era.

You had some other good points, but PPG is not a really good way to judge offense or defense. Until you know the pace a team played at, you don't have a basis for saying how successful they were being at converting possessions into points (or preventing that conversion).

GetItDone wrote:

ahonui06 wrote:He's GOAT so obviously they are a lot worse without him.

Hard to be the GOAT when your offensive game is as polished as a Prime Juwan Howard.

His defensive game is unparalleled and he won 11 rings.

Doctor MJ wrote:

colts18 wrote:114.31 PPG against opponent D of 108.63 (+5.67)
112.77 PPG allowed against average O of 107.04 (+5.73)

So the Celtics offense was very much above average without Russell. In fact most years that offense would be at the top. The same story for the defense except the opposite. Without Russell, they are around the worst defense of that era.

You had some other good points, but PPG is not a really good way to judge offense or defense. Until you know the pace a team played at, you don't have a basis for saying how successful they were being at converting possessions into points (or preventing that conversion).

It's hard to say. I mean the Celtics in 1960 were at an insane 136 possessions per game. The Celtics weighted pace during this period was 121.54. For the 58-69 period, its 124.4 pace. So here is O rating and D rating based on that:

O rating 98.18 (+3.59 relative to league average)
D rating 99.02 (+4.42 to league average)

without Russell vs. Overall:
O rating 98.18 (+3.59) vs. 92.63 (-1.97) (+5.55 difference)
D rating 99.02 (+4.42) vs. 87.46 (-7.14) (+11.56 difference)

Let's say the pace was higher. Like 130 which is pretty high, here is how the difference would go:
O rating 93.96 (-0.64 to LA) vs. 92.63 (-1.97) (+1.33 difference)
D rating 94.75 (+0.16 to LA) vs. 87.46 (-7.14) (+7.30 difference)

So either way the offense was still better without Russell, but Russell made a huge defensive impact.

GetItDone wrote:Hard to win 11 titles when you're not an offensive superstar.

There, I've fixed your post and given you the appearance of insight. You're right, it's very, very hard.

Doctor MJ wrote:

GetItDone wrote:Hard to win 11 titles when you're not an offensive superstar.

There, I've fixed your post and given you the appearance of insight. You're right, it's very, very hard.

In a watered down era.

People always scream about that when gloating about an Eastern Conference superstar today, but God forbid anyone say any such claims about any holy 60s player.

You know how to calculate offensive and defensive ratings, colts18? I'd meant to ask the help of one of the advanced stats guys (wasn't sure whether to do it here or on the Statistical Analysis subforum) for something, because that isn't my area of expertise and I lack the knowledge to be able to do it for that era.

ThaRegul8r wrote:You know how to calculate offensive and defensive ratings, colts18? I'd meant to ask the help of one of the advanced stats guys (wasn't sure whether to do it here or on the Statistical Analysis subforum) for something, because that isn't my area of expertise and I lack the knowledge to be able to do it for that era.

Well Elgee's website has estimated pace numbers (not sure if they are per 49 minutes or per game) and I use that to calculate the O rating. it's not really hard. Just do pts scored/pace*100=O rating. The numbers might be off slightly because the pace number is an estimate, but I doubt its off more than 1 pt/possession.

EDIT: Here are the pace, O rating, and D rating estimates for teams pre-1974:

http://www.backpicks.com/pre-1974-estimations/

GetItDone wrote:

Doctor MJ wrote:

GetItDone wrote:Hard to win 11 titles when you're not an offensive superstar.

There, I've fixed your post and given you the appearance of insight. You're right, it's very, very hard.

In a watered down era.

People always scream about that when gloating about an Eastern Conference superstar today, but God forbid anyone say any such claims about any holy 60s player.

Funny how you went right along with my change without protest. I'd say that gets at the crux of what I find so pointless of your posts.

In the end, you don't believe Russell is a GOAT candidate because you believe guys back then weren't very good, but you spend most of your time harping about offense and defense which just seems silly, given that they had offense and defense back then, and no one thought you could win so much with a defense-focus back then until Russell did it.

In short: Russell's accomplishments aren't to be dismissed unless his era sucked, Russell's lopsided-ness toward the defensive side of the ball is NOT the proof that the era sucked. So, focus on the era, not on Russell.

Twenty eight games over ten years isn't a very big sample, particularly when we don't see the particulars of those games - why was he out, who were they playing, who else wasn't playing on either side, etc.

Bill Russell 16/25/5 in the playoffs while being the best defender in the world and winning 11 titles in 13 years.

Who cares if he's not the greatest offensive player ever? We'd all kill to have the modern equivilant on our fav team today.

Laimbeer wrote:Twenty eight games over ten years isn't a very big sample, particularly when we don't see the particulars of those games - why was he out, who were they playing, who else wasn't playing on either side, etc.

28 games missed vs ~950 games played is plenty sample space. The evidence shows that there is a difference. The second step is to show how big that difference is, which given the conditions is an impossible task.