Bill Russell forgotten carryjob

[70sFan]

Sometimes I wonder why Russell's 1963/64 season isn't talked in discussions about the greatest carryjobs ever. When you take a closer look, Celtics team looked far from great during that season:

- Bob Cousy finally retired, forcing Celtics to start KC Jones who was elite defender and all-time bad offensive starting PG,
- Tom Heinsohn had his last prime season in 1963 and became bench-minutes player and inefficient scorer,
- lack of old guard forced Havlicek to expand his offensive role to the point he wasn't ready for (posting arguably the 2nd worst scoring season of his career after 1965),
- above mentioned turned Celtics into the worst offensive team in the league,
- there was only one player on Celtics roster who was above average in terms of FG% and TS% - Sam Jones - nobody else was even close to being efficient scorer (this situation was even worse in postseason).

We often rave about offensive stars carrying defensive minded teams, but why shouldn't we talk more about Russell leading his team to the best record in the league and the title despite lack of talent on offensive end? Sure, Celtics were stacked defensively but without Russell it's almost a sure thing they wouldnt have made the playoffs. Instead they dominated two very strong teams in postseason, anchored by two of top 15 players ever at their absolute peaks.

Is Russell's imapct on 1963/64 team undervalued? He had a down offensive season, but he also played with very weak supporting cast offensively. Shouldn't we give him more credit for anchoring the GOAT defense that destroyed the league even with the worst offense in the league?

[70sFan]

By the way, for the same reason I think Sam Jones should get more credit for what he did in 1964-66 period. He had to deal with some awful offensive circumstances but he always increased his postseason production despite that.

[penbeast0]

Been banging this drum for years about a decade of awful to mediocre Celtic offenses being carried by Russell (and Lotscutoff, Sanders, KC, Havlicek) defensively to the most dominant run in the history of the NBA. People talk about all the talent on those teams and what you really see when you look at them is a bunch of low percentage gunners (except Sharman at the beginning, Sam Jones throughout, and Bailey Howell at the end) and being very overrated on that end due to that running the highest pace in the league during the highest paced era in league history.

[MartinToVaught]

This is nothing new. Russell's career in general has been unfairly diminished so that Jordan fans could safely use the ring count argument without acknowledging that Russell has more.

[feyki]

By the way, for the same reason I think Sam Jones should get more credit for what he did in 1964-66 period. He had to deal with some awful offensive circumstances but he always increased his postseason production despite that.

Yes, Sam Jones entered his prime. His 65 playoffs was kind of any Kobe championship run.

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

By the way, for the same reason I think Sam Jones should get more credit for what he did in 1964-66 period. He had to deal with some awful offensive circumstances but he always increased his postseason production despite that.

In 1964 the league shot 43.3%
Sam Jones shot 45%
Celtics as a team shot 41.3% Where would they be without Sam Jones? Without Sam Jones they could be the best defense in the league and still lose because they shot worse than their defense was good.

Havlicek was good in the fast break.
Havlicek was just a mid range chucker in the half court. His half court shots were open and modern players or even 1970s Better shooting Havlicek might have hit those open deep mid range shots. Havlicek may not have hit those shots but he was providing a 1960s version of floor spacing. Better to pull defenders out to 3 point land but pulling defenders to mid range was better than no spacing. On the other hand guards and small forwards did not seem to provide a lot of help defense in the 1960s but rather stuck to their men.

If I combine Havlicek's shooting with Sam Jones shooting I get 38 points a game at close to league average. Havlicek was about as much below league averagevpercentage as Sam Jones was above league average.

Heisohn shot undefendable circus shots but only shot at 40%. Heinsohn was useful as a bail out guy but not as a go to guy.

I heard a Frank Ramsy interview where he said that Red Auerbach had him and Tom Sanders throwing up bad shots in transition on purpose because Red believed in breaking teams with defensive pressure and Red preferred his team being on defense to trying to work their half court offense.

I liked Tom Sanders help defense and his defense in general. I don't want to give Russell and KC all the credit for that defense.

Regular season Jerry Lucas scored 17 points a game with 53% shooting but vs the 1964 Celtics in the playoffs Lucas scored 10 points a game at 27% shooting. Lucas scored 14 points a game at FG 52% vs the 76ers in the playoffs.

Regular season royals were the best offensive team and shot 45% but in the playoffs vs the celtics they shot 35% while the Celtics shot 38% Royals shot 48% vs the 76ers in the playoffs.

Regular season Oscar scored 31 points a game at 48% with 11 assists. Vs the Celtics in the playoffs Oscar shot 40% and scored 28 points a game with 5.6 assists. Oscar scored 30 points a game at 53% vs the 76ers in the playoffs

Regular season Jack Twyman scored 16 points a game at 45% . Vs the Celtics In the playoffs Twyman scored 20 points a game at 45%. It seems that while the Celtics crushed the Royals offense Twyman was immune to the Celtics defense.

[penbeast0]

...I liked Tom Sanders help defense and his defense in general. I don't want to give Russell and KC all the credit for that defense.

Remember that KC didn't get the starting nod over Cousy until halfway through the Celtics run. Sanders was generally splitting time as well rather than playing big minutes. And early on Lotscutoff was a thug (probably a good defender) and Sharman was also good even if undersized. Really, you have to credit Russell with the great majority of the defensive prowess though; his teammates always did.

I do think that the Celtics might have been a bit better than their consistently awful offensive ratings and their defensive ratings dominance might have overstated them a bit due to the constant pressure idea. Just like the idea of deliberately playing guys out of position (Amare at center, Marion at PF, etc.) to create mismatches might have given SSOL Phoenix an inflated era of offensive ratings and understated their actual defensive abilities. Still the best defense and offense in the league and possibly of all time, just that ratings might be influenced by unusual coaching choices.

Hard to build a good offense around Bill Russell and KC Jones or a good defense around Nash and Amare though.

[falcolombardi]

to put it in these terms, how much points per 100 do you guys think russel was preventing compared to an average defensive center?

5?, 6?

[feyki]

to put it in these terms, how much points per 100 do you guys think russel was preventing compared to an average defensive center?

5?, 6?

Celt defensive rating improved with Russell by 6 in the 57 and by 5,5 in the 58. CavsFTW(as I remember correctly his name) found steals and blocks numbers from newspapers, as I remember Russell had 2,5 steals and 7,0 blocks per 100. Assuming average steals and blocks 1,5 and 2, Russell was still +6 over average defensively, even without shot stoppes just with raw steals/blocks.

+6 is the minimum figure, I'd think, per100.

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

Too bad theor ate no on off numbers. In game 1 of the 1964 finals vs Wilt, Russell got into foul trouble and only played 32 minutes. Back up Clyde Lovellette played 16 miutes. You need this game for on off stats because Russell so often played 48 minutes; all on no off. But there are no on off numbers. Celtic won that game anyway despite Russell playing less minutes than normal.

In game 2 Lovellete played 11 minutes and Russell 39 minutes. Means One of them played 2 minutes of power forward.
Lovellete was known as a dirty player. In game 2 Lovellette elbowed Wilt in the mouth and the story says he damaged Wilts teeth. Wil responded by knocking Lovelette out cold with one punch. Wilt was not ejected.

[coastalmarker99]

1964 Havlicek, Russell, Heinsohn All NBA 2nd team.... Sam Jones also made the All-Star team

Also had All NBA defensive teams been around during that season.


Then it is very likely that Russell would have been joined on that team by KC Jones and Satch Sanders.


If you compare that to the help that other superstars had that season in Oscar and Wilt.


Then it does not look that impressive of a carry job at all.

Wilt for instance during that season had zero All NBA teammates surrounding him.

And Oscar only had one All NBA teammate surrounding him.








Hell Russell was able to win the title during that season while averaging just 13 PPG on 35% shooting and 55% from the line which most likely majorly contributed to the Celtics' offence getting worse in the postseason.

[dygaction]

Quite similar to 2004 Pistons in the playoffs. Offensive challenged but defensive talented. Piston had #18 offensive rating, so would not be a playoff team without their D. Their top 4 scorers in order

For Celtics:
Sam Jones 23.2ppg
Tom Heinsohn 17.4ppg
John Havlicek 15.7ppg
Bill Russell 13.1ppg

For Pistons:
Hamilton: 21.5ppg
Billups 16.4ppg
Rasheed Wallace 13.0ppg
Ben Wallace 10.3ppg

Offensively both Russell and Ben are challenged. Russell had more assists (4.4 vs. 1.9); Ben was more efficient (.454FG% vs. .356FG%), but was even worse a free throw shooter (.427FT% vs. .552FT%). Ben led the team in BPM and VORP, and ranked 2nd in WS/48 behind Billups (.203 vs .186); No BPM or VORP available for Russell, and he also ranked 2nd in WS/48 behind Sam Jones (.290 vs .199)

Russell/Sam Jones/Tom Heinsohn were all stars that year. Russell/Tom Heinsohn/John Havlicek were 2nd team all-nba. I don't seem to recall any modern nba teams had 3x 2nd team all-nba players, not even 2008 Celtics or 2011 Heat.

No all-nba selection for that entire Pistons team. Ben was the only all star and all-D player that year. They took down league best 61-win Pacers in ECF and gentlemen swept defending champion Lakers with peak Shaq and Kobe.

[70sFan]

Quite similar to 2004 Pistons in the playoffs. Offensive challenged but defensive talented. Piston had #18 offensive rating, so would not be a playoff team without their D.

Pistons had 6 players with scoring efficiency above league average, Celtics had one. It's not the same situation, Pistons were average offensive team focused on defense. Celtics were poor offensive team period.

Russell/Sam Jones/Tom Heinsohn were all stars that year. Russell/Tom Heinsohn/John Havlicek were 2nd team all-nba. I don't seem to recall any modern nba teams had 3x 2nd team all-nba players, not even 2008 Celtics or 2011 Heat.

Heinsohn didn't even play starters minutes at this point. He won it because of his reputation. There were many forwards more deserving that spot than him in 1964.

I think you should look beyond basketball reference page to understand the state of this team.

[70sFan]

Instead of looking at accolades, maybe you'll explain me why Tom Heinsohn was so valuable at this point of his career. He shot poorly, didn't rebound well and was decent, but not elite defender. He also didn't play starter minutes.

Pretty sure I'd take Tom Meschery over him at that point.

[dygaction]

Quite similar to 2004 Pistons in the playoffs. Offensive challenged but defensive talented. Piston had #18 offensive rating, so would not be a playoff team without their D.

Pistons had 6 players with scoring efficiency above league average, Celtics had one. It's not the same situation, Pistons were average offensive team focused on defense. Celtics were poor offensive team period.

Russell/Sam Jones/Tom Heinsohn were all stars that year. Russell/Tom Heinsohn/John Havlicek were 2nd team all-nba. I don't seem to recall any modern nba teams had 3x 2nd team all-nba players, not even 2008 Celtics or 2011 Heat.

Heinsohn didn't even play starters minutes at this point. He won it because of his reputation. There were many forwards more deserving that spot than him in 1964.

I think you should look beyond basketball reference page to understand the state of this team.

Similar to last thread, our discussion will not go far if you keep resorting to personal shade throwing.

I don't need to nitpick Basketball Reference page on scoring efficiency. The fact Tom Heinsohn was selected for all star and 2nd team all-nba can either mean he was a great top ~10 players at the time, or a so-so, close to top 10 player among even worse players. It was the consensus at that time with fresh memory without those advanced stats and over analysis. Russell is an all time great with 11 rings and dont have to disqualify his teammates' achievements to get that conclusion. Tom's 26.8mpg is 6th man's minutes, the same as Manu's 03-07, except Manu never made to even a 3rd team all-nba during that period, although with 3x championships and great reputation.

In regular season, I would not call a team with 2nd highest scoring and the league's best record the worst offensive team. ORtg is points produced per 100, but Celtics had ~10% more possessions per game than other teams. They were the best rebounding team (only team >70 TRB) and had the most fga @109.6. The next team had 101.5fga and the rest teams had below 100. In essence, the Celtics dominated by having the chance to throw a lot more bricks to compensate for low fg%. Of course, defensive and offensive rebounding played the dominate role there. The Lakers that year made 7438 field goal attempts, which were 1332 less than Celtics, or 16.65 less per game. The gap was too large to compensate, even with Jerry West and Elgin Baylor's efficiency.

In the playoffs, Sam Jones was the only other player with >20 ppg and >.500 FG% besides Wilt. Sam, Tom and John ranked #5, #10, and #13 in ppg in the postseason. As a comparison, Wilt only had one teammate who scored more ppg than Russell. That's called offensively challenged besides Wilt. Also, in a team everyone is playing great defense, low scoring efficiency is not a big problem as the opposing team would also suffer efficiency wise. The main goal is to outscore the other team.

[dygaction]

Instead of looking at accolades, maybe you'll explain me why Tom Heinsohn was so valuable at this point of his career. He shot poorly, didn't rebound well and was decent, but not elite defender. He also didn't play starter minutes.

Pretty sure I'd take Tom Meschery over him at that point.

I mean, Heinsohn was just all around better. I can understand your position if you take ~5% fg difference (1 more made every 20 attempts) over everything else combined...

At that point in regular seasons:
Tom Meschery gave you 13.5/7.7/1.9 in 30.3 min;
Tom Heinsohn gave you 16.5/6.1/2.4 in 26.8 min.

in the playoffs,
Tom Meschery gave you 16.8/7.3/1.8 in 33.8min;
Tom Heinsohn gave you 17.4/8.0/2.6 in 30 min.

[70sFan]

Quite similar to 2004 Pistons in the playoffs. Offensive challenged but defensive talented. Piston had #18 offensive rating, so would not be a playoff team without their D.

Pistons had 6 players with scoring efficiency above league average, Celtics had one. It's not the same situation, Pistons were average offensive team focused on defense. Celtics were poor offensive team period.

Russell/Sam Jones/Tom Heinsohn were all stars that year. Russell/Tom Heinsohn/John Havlicek were 2nd team all-nba. I don't seem to recall any modern nba teams had 3x 2nd team all-nba players, not even 2008 Celtics or 2011 Heat.

Heinsohn didn't even play starters minutes at this point. He won it because of his reputation. There were many forwards more deserving that spot than him in 1964.

I think you should look beyond basketball reference page to understand the state of this team.

Similar to last thread, our discussion will not go far if you keep resorting to personal shade throwing.

I don't need to nitpick Basketball Reference page on scoring efficiency. The fact Tom Heinsohn was selected for all star and 2nd team all-nba can either mean he was a great top ~10 players at the time, or a so-so, close to top 10 player among even worse players. It was the consensus at that time with fresh memory without those advanced stats and over analysis. Russell is an all time great with 11 rings and dont have to disqualify his teammates' achievements to get that conclusion. Tom's 26.8mpg is 6th man's minutes, the same as Manu's 03-07, except Manu never made to even a 3rd team all-nba during that period, although with 3x championships and great reputation.

In regular season, I would not call a team with 2nd highest scoring and the league's best record the worst offensive team. ORtg is points produced per 100, but Celtics had ~10% more possessions per game than other teams. They were the best rebounding team (only team >70 TRB) and had the most fga @109.6. The next team had 101.5fga and the rest teams had below 100. In essence, the Celtics dominated by having the chance to throw a lot more bricks to compensate for low fg%. Of course, defensive and offensive rebounding played the dominate role there. The Lakers that year made 7438 field goal attempts, which were 1332 less than Celtics, or 16.65 less per game. The gap was too large to compensate, even with Jerry West and Elgin Baylor's efficiency.

In the playoffs, Sam Jones was the only other player with >20 ppg and >.500 FG% besides Wilt. Sam, Tom and John ranked #5, #10, and #13 in ppg in the postseason. As a comparison, Wilt only had one teammate who scored more ppg than Russell. That's called offensively challenged besides Wilt. Also, in a team everyone is playing great defense, low scoring efficiency is not a big problem as the opposing team would also suffer efficiency wise. The main goal is to outscore the other team.

Don't see any moment when I posted anything personal, but fair enough, I'll try to restrain from any non-basketball comments.

Let's focus on boxscore numbers. Tom Heinsohn was:

- 40th out of 72 players in terms of mpg
- 22nd out of 72 players in terms of ppg
- 29th out of 72 players in terms of rpg
- 32nd out of 72 players in terms of apg
- 49th out of 72 players in terms of FG%
- 16th out of 72 players in terms of PER
- 48th out of 72 players in terms of TS%
- 19th out of 72 players in terms of WS

When you compare his boxscore numbers, he ends up being worse then not only Pettit, Baylor and Lucas (who made all-nba teams) but also Johnny Green, Howell, Meschery, Johnson and also arguably Hagan and LaRusso. I guess you can make a case that Celtics dominance should give Celtics players extra credit, but then Sanders should be taken ahead of Heinsohn because he played more minutes and was more important for their defense.

I just don't see any reason to consider Heinsohn even close to top 10 player in the league in that time, other than all-nba selection. Usually he came up stronger in postseason, but not in this case - he played worse than he did in RS. Seriously, make the case for Tom Heinsohn being top 10 (or even top 15) player in the league without using all-nba selections.

Why do you think Celtics had such a big advantage in possessions per game? It's because they created a lot of turnovers. They had the worst FG% in the league but they could score in transition because of created turnovers. Scoring a lot of points on horrible efficiency doesn't make Celtics good offensive team and they outscored their opponents because they held them to -12 ORtg, which is the best ever.

Havlicek was ranked 13th in postseason ppg out of 23 players, so he's actually below average. Heinsohn is average, Jones is of course very good. I don't think you realize that smaller league means that being inside top 15 out of playoff players or something isn't that impressive. I agree that Wilt had even worse team on offense than Russell, but it's not the point of this thread.

[70sFan]

Instead of looking at accolades, maybe you'll explain me why Tom Heinsohn was so valuable at this point of his career. He shot poorly, didn't rebound well and was decent, but not elite defender. He also didn't play starter minutes.

Pretty sure I'd take Tom Meschery over him at that point.

I mean, Heinsohn was just all around better. I can understand your position if you take ~5% fg difference (1 more made every 20 attempts) over everything else combined...

At that point in regular seasons:
Tom Meschery gave you 13.5/7.7/1.9 in 30.3 min;
Tom Heinsohn gave you 16.5/6.1/2.4 in 26.8 min.

in the playoffs,
Tom Meschery gave you 16.8/7.3/1.8 in 33.8min;
Tom Heinsohn gave you 17.4/8.0/2.6 in 30 min.

Per 75 stats for Meschery and Heinsohn:

Tom Heinsohn: 17.8/6.5/2.6 on -2.7 rTS%
Tom Meschery: 13.9/7.9/1.9 on +1.4 rTS%

Playoffs:

Tom Heinsohn: 17.2/6.5/2.5 on -1.1 rTS%
Tom Meschery: 15.3/6.5/1.6 on +3.1 rTS%

So Meschery was a better rebounder and much more efficient scorer. He was also a better defender based on reputation. Heinsohn was a better passer. My eye-test view them as comparable. Of course Meschery played far more minutes which should be a big bonus for him.

Don't see any case for him, except if you like volume scoring over anything else combined.

[dygaction]

Pistons had 6 players with scoring efficiency above league average, Celtics had one. It's not the same situation, Pistons were average offensive team focused on defense. Celtics were poor offensive team period.



Heinsohn didn't even play starters minutes at this point. He won it because of his reputation. There were many forwards more deserving that spot than him in 1964.

I think you should look beyond basketball reference page to understand the state of this team.

Similar to last thread, our discussion will not go far if you keep resorting to personal shade throwing.

I don't need to nitpick Basketball Reference page on scoring efficiency. The fact Tom Heinsohn was selected for all star and 2nd team all-nba can either mean he was a great top ~10 players at the time, or a so-so, close to top 10 player among even worse players. It was the consensus at that time with fresh memory without those advanced stats and over analysis. Russell is an all time great with 11 rings and dont have to disqualify his teammates' achievements to get that conclusion. Tom's 26.8mpg is 6th man's minutes, the same as Manu's 03-07, except Manu never made to even a 3rd team all-nba during that period, although with 3x championships and great reputation.

In regular season, I would not call a team with 2nd highest scoring and the league's best record the worst offensive team. ORtg is points produced per 100, but Celtics had ~10% more possessions per game than other teams. They were the best rebounding team (only team >70 TRB) and had the most fga @109.6. The next team had 101.5fga and the rest teams had below 100. In essence, the Celtics dominated by having the chance to throw a lot more bricks to compensate for low fg%. Of course, defensive and offensive rebounding played the dominate role there. The Lakers that year made 7438 field goal attempts, which were 1332 less than Celtics, or 16.65 less per game. The gap was too large to compensate, even with Jerry West and Elgin Baylor's efficiency.

In the playoffs, Sam Jones was the only other player with >20 ppg and >.500 FG% besides Wilt. Sam, Tom and John ranked #5, #10, and #13 in ppg in the postseason. As a comparison, Wilt only had one teammate who scored more ppg than Russell. That's called offensively challenged besides Wilt. Also, in a team everyone is playing great defense, low scoring efficiency is not a big problem as the opposing team would also suffer efficiency wise. The main goal is to outscore the other team.

Don't see any moment when I posted anything personal, but fair enough, I'll try to restrain from any non-basketball comments.

Let's focus on boxscore numbers. Tom Heinsohn was:

- 40th out of 72 players in terms of mpg
- 22nd out of 72 players in terms of ppg
- 29th out of 72 players in terms of rpg
- 32nd out of 72 players in terms of apg
- 49th out of 72 players in terms of FG%
- 16th out of 72 players in terms of PER
- 48th out of 72 players in terms of TS%
- 19th out of 72 players in terms of WS

If you take 40th out of 72 mpg into consideration, maybe everything he was doing was at an elite rate (per 100). Indeed, his WS/48 ranks at #13, and points per 36 tied #10 among all players, so the impression would be the moment you put him on, he impacted the game towards winning. That's top 10ish. Considering he was contributing on the best team, it is not outrageous to have him 2nd team.

Correct me if I am wrong, at that time most likely there was no advanced stats like PER, TS%, and WS.

How about a player:
- 72nd in terms of mpg
- 38th in terms of ppg
- 17th in terms of rpg
- 43rd in terms of apg
- 10th in terms of FG%



That's your 1st team all-nba, 2008 KG. With or without the advanced stats, people took KG as a top 5 player.




- 7th in terms of WS
- 4th in terms of PER

[dygaction]

Instead of looking at accolades, maybe you'll explain me why Tom Heinsohn was so valuable at this point of his career. He shot poorly, didn't rebound well and was decent, but not elite defender. He also didn't play starter minutes.

Pretty sure I'd take Tom Meschery over him at that point.

I mean, Heinsohn was just all around better. I can understand your position if you take ~5% fg difference (1 more made every 20 attempts) over everything else combined...

At that point in regular seasons:
Tom Meschery gave you 13.5/7.7/1.9 in 30.3 min;
Tom Heinsohn gave you 16.5/6.1/2.4 in 26.8 min.

in the playoffs,
Tom Meschery gave you 16.8/7.3/1.8 in 33.8min;
Tom Heinsohn gave you 17.4/8.0/2.6 in 30 min.

Per 75 stats for Meschery and Heinsohn:

Tom Heinsohn: 17.8/6.5/2.6 on -2.7 rTS%
Tom Meschery: 13.9/7.9/1.9 on +1.4 rTS%

Playoffs:

Tom Heinsohn: 17.2/6.5/2.5 on -1.1 rTS%
Tom Meschery: 15.3/6.5/1.6 on +3.1 rTS%

So Meschery was a better rebounder and much more efficient scorer. He was also a better defender based on reputation. Heinsohn was a better passer. My eye-test view them as comparable. Of course Meschery played far more minutes which should be a big bonus for him.

Don't see any case for him, except if you like volume scoring over anything else combined.

Interesting how you use "much better" to describe 4% in efficiency but not 28% difference in points per 75. 4% difference is 1 more made per 25, really not much. Duncan scored at 20% higher rate than Bonzi Wells, and Bonzi had 4TS% advantage in 2001. A 28% decrease in per 100 scoring will get you from Embiid down to Towns, but I doubt anyone would choose Towns for his better efficiency.