RealGM

This is the Bill Russell thread for the Wins Added by Season Survey Project. viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1241811 Please read the project guidelines before posting in the thread.

For those who have already read the guidelines, just copy and paste the years below and fill in your answers.

Bill Russell
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969

Celtics team trends

Year SRS [ORtg] DRtg (relative to league)

1956 0.7 [1.5] 0.9
---------------------------
1957 4.8 [-0.5] -5.0
1958 5.0 [-1.1] -5.5
1959 5.8 [-0.5] -5.6
1960 7.6 [-0.1] -6.2
1961 4.9 [-3.5] -7.6
1962 8.3 [-1.6] -8.7
1963 6.4 [-3.1] -8.8
1964 6.9 [-4.6] -10.9
1965 7.5 [-3.0] -9.8
1966 4.3 [-2.7] -6.8
1967 7.2 [1.8 ] -4.8
1968 3.9 [-1.5] -4.9
1969 5.4 [-1.6] -6.4
---------------------------
1970 -1.6 [-1.9] -0.3

SRS:
1957 6.0
1958 6.5
1959 7.0
1960 6.5
1961 7.5
1962 7.5
1963 8.5
1964 8.0
1965 8.0
1966 7.0
1967 7.0
1968 7.5
1969 6.5

1957 - +3.0 WS (44.0)
1958 - +8.0 WS (49.0)
1959 - +9.0 WS (50.0)
1960 - +12.0 WS (53.0)
1961 - +14.0 WS (55.0)
1962 - +15.0 WS (56.0)
1963 - +14.0 WS (55.0)
1964 - +18.0 WS (59.0)
1965 - +17.5 WS (58.5)
1966 - +13.0 WS (54.0)
1967 - +14.0 WS (55.0)
1968 - +7.5 WS (48.5)
1969 - +5.5 WS (46.5)

Bill Russell
1957: 4.0
1958: 6.0
1959: 6.5
1960: 7.5
1961: 8.0
1962: 8.5
1963: 7.5
1964: 8.5
1965: 8.5
1966: 7.5
1967: 6.5
1968: 6.0
1969: 6.0

'62, '64 and '65 were unreal from start to finish. Not tooo certain about the last three seasons, may re-evaluate those later.

57- +6.0
58- +6.5
59- +6.5
60- +7.0
61- +6.0
62- +7.5
63- +7.0
64- +7.5
65- +7.5
66- +6.5
67- +6.0
68- +5.5
69- +5.5

ardee wrote:Bill Russell
1957: 4.0
1958: 6.0
1959: 6.5
1960: 7.5
1961: 8.0
1962: 8.5
1963: 7.5
1964: 8.5
1965: 8.5
1966: 7.5
1967: 6.5
1968: 6.0
1969: 6.0

'62, '64 and '65 were unreal from start to finish. Not tooo certain about the last three seasons, may re-evaluate those later.

I'd love to see you defend the notion that Russell was "unreal" from start to finish in '64. There comes a point when you simply cannot disregard his woeful offensive production in the post season. 13ppg on 41ts% is bad anyway you look at it (especially at the pace they played at back then....and the high minutes he totaled). It's just silly to say, "well he won the title anyway so it doesn't matter". Yes, it does matter. As far as I can tell, he got steamrolled by Wilt on both both ends of the floor in the finals (with the exception of game 1). So much so that I would feel very uncomfortable giving the FMVP to Russell. It just so happens that Wilt was lumbered with extreme mediocrity (I could make the case that this was Wilts peak, his greatest all-around season, even ahead of '67).

'64 may have been his defensive peak, but, don't forget, defense is only half the game.

oolalaa wrote:

ardee wrote:Bill Russell
1957: 4.0
1958: 6.0
1959: 6.5
1960: 7.5
1961: 8.0
1962: 8.5
1963: 7.5
1964: 8.5
1965: 8.5
1966: 7.5
1967: 6.5
1968: 6.0
1969: 6.0

'62, '64 and '65 were unreal from start to finish. Not tooo certain about the last three seasons, may re-evaluate those later.

I'd love to see you defend the notion that Russell was "unreal" from start to finish in '64. There comes a point when you simply cannot disregard his woeful offensive production in the post season. 13ppg on 41ts% is bad anyway you look at it (especially at the pace they played at back then....and the high minutes he totaled). It's just silly to say, "well he won the title anyway so it doesn't matter". Yes, it does matter. As far as I can tell, he got steamrolled by Wilt on both both ends of the floor in the finals (with the exception of game 1). So much so that I would feel very uncomfortable giving the FMVP to Russell. It just so happens that Wilt was lumbered with extreme mediocrity (I could make the case that this was Wilts peak, his greatest all-around season, even ahead of '67).

'64 may have been his defensive peak, but, don't forget, defense is only half the game.

Yes and no. Yes, Wilt was the greater off and def. force, but Russell was still a very valuable off. player. Because he played within the system and was a vital cog in the Celtic's system...which was the best combined off. and def. system for the the time Russell played. He could have been a bigger scorer, but I doubt he cared much about scoring or other stats. And like most of the players from that era, he probably never practiced in the off-season. He was a poor shooter, but he looked like he might have had a decent jump shot if he worked at it. But if you win 11 titles in 13 years, you probably don't feel the need to improve your game.

57 - +10
58 - +12
59 - +16
60 - +17
61 - +15
62 - +17
63 - +18
64 - +18
65 - +19
66 - +15
67 - +19
68 - +15
69 - +13

Bill Russell-related In/Out

1957: +6.0
1958: +6.5
1959: +6.5
1960: +7.0
1961: +7.5
1962: +8.0
1963: +7.5
1964: +8.0
1965: +8.0
1966: +6.5
1967: +5.5
1968: +5.5
1969: +6.0

If I'm understanding those numbers correctly, from '58-69 the Celtics were a -2.3 SRS team without Russell, and +6.1 with him? Only 28 games without him over that span, but still, that's telling of Russell's incredible impact.

thebottomline wrote:If I'm understanding those numbers correctly, from '58-69 the Celtics were a -2.3 SRS team without Russell, and +6.1 with him? Only 28 games without him over that span, but still, that's telling of Russell's incredible impact.

Correct -- There was a general belief for the decade of the 60's that when Russell was out Boston wasn't the same. That's literally the actual change -- in all (just 28) non-Russell games, they were a bad team. In all the rest, dominant. Doesn't "prove" anything, but it's what people have been referring to all these years (or all those Celtic players kept referring to)...

Even without the advance stats, you only have to look at what happened the next year after Russell retired. From winning the title , the next year they only won 34 games and gave up more than 10 more ppg. than the previous year.

1957: +5.0
1958: +5.5
1959: +5.5
1960: +6.0
1961: +7.5
1962: +8.0
1963: +7.5
1964: +8.5
1965: +8.5
1966: +7.0
1967: +6.0
1968: +6.0
1969: +6.0

Johnlac1 wrote:Even without the advance stats, you only have to look at what happened the next year after Russell retired. From winning the title , the next year they only won 34 games and gave up more than 10 more ppg. than the previous year.

Isn't it interesting that In/Out (WOWY) has been dubbed an advanced stat? You add up all the points a team scores and allows and compare that to the same team when they are missing one guy, and that's "advanced?" Is it advanced to notice the Lakers lost 22 more games the year Shaq left?

The biggest reason why I post In/Out or team trends isn't because they are advanced, it's simply because people haven't been told the (basic) information.

In SRS:

1957 +4.5
1958 +4.0
1959 +4.5
1960 +5.0
1961 +8.0
1962 +9.5
1963 +9.0
1964 +10.0
1965 +9.5
1966 +8.5
1967 +6.0
1968 +5.5
1969 +6.5

EDIT: Updated 11/13/13