RealGM

Hello I am ceo! I have been trying to use this forum more often and want to get some heavy interaction discussions and I thought no better way to do that than to do my own career evals for my top 25 greatest players ever (I’ll prolly include 2-5 HMs depending on how much traction this gets) Go into how good they were why they were so good and where I think they should rank all time (it’ll prolly give off vibes to BTs top 40 list)

So I will do this in chronological order outside of Kareem MJ and LeBron who will be the obvious top 3 players. So I will start with Bill Russell then go to Wilt Chamberlain then go to Oscar Robertson and so on and so forth. I’ll try and have a certain structure to this where I give like a summary of how their career went and then a peak analysis based on film and data then give a statistical profile

This first installment begins with Bill Russell. The revolutionary defensive mastermind that changed the way we play defense today.

I will give a disclaimer that with the first few players on the list we’ll see it’s a lot harder to give full career evals since we never get a full box score for them and we have very little film of them (especially in their developmental years).

Russell was drafted in 1956 2nd overall to the Boston Celtics after their owner gave the Royals owner the rights to a skating franchise he owned. In turn the Celtics were gifted Bill Russell and went on to start the greatest dynasty in the history of basketball. The Celtics traded offensive Star Ed McCauley and the 20th pick in the draft (which became Cliff Hagan) to Atlanta for the second pick in the draft which let them draft Bill Russell. Russell was apart of a rookie class with Star Tom Heinsohn and 2nd year guard Frank Ramsey who was returning from Military service (they also added an old Andy Phillip to come off the bench at PG)

The Celtics soared to greatness in 1957 going from a 43 win team based on SRS in 1956 to a 55 win team in 1957. Russell missed the first 24 to start the season while he was participating in the Olympics and the Celtics played very well without him with a win differential of 4.54 per game (54 win pace) and went 16-8 (55 win pace). In the 48 games they had a 5.57 win differential per game (57 win pace). The Celtics were led by their defense which was led by Russell. The Celtics rDRTG was 5 points better than the league average in 1957 thanks to their new duo in Heinsohn and Russell. Russell is not yet polished offensively in 1957 and not very good on that end. He couldn’t score very well at all only averaging 15.8 IA PTS/75 on +.1 rTS% and likely wasn’t as advanced with his playmaking. The Celtics were greatly improved from 56 to 57 despite already having one of the best players in the league in Bob Cousy and on the of the better players in the league in Bill Sharman which shows that Russell is adding a good bit of value to this team. He likely improves steadily every year of his career until 1962 where he is peaking offensively and probably giving the same value defensively as well. By 1962 Russell has really improved as a playmaker and peaked as a scorer averaging 13.6 IA PTS/75 on +1 rTS and improving in the PO (don’t have the exact number sadly). He also averaged 3.2 IA AST/75 despite the Celtics still having Bob Cousy as the primary playmaker (9 IA AST/75). Russell is also defying defensive impact by this point. I don’t think he’s at the level where his defense is more impactful than any offensive player is but I think he’s about as valuable as a t5 offensive player ever (with how little film and data we have ig this just comes down to opinion and how much value you think one player can have on defense). From 62-65 he’s about the same level of impact (which I think is that of a clear all time player) and then he starts to regress steadily from 66-69 where he likely retires around where he starts as a weak mvp to a fringe mvp. Russell went out with a bang leading the Celtics to a 54 win pace in his final season and edging out the lakers in 7 games (although a wilt injury in game 7 may make a difference in that outcome) and then he retired

Peak wise there is no doubt in my mind that bill Russell is a top 15 peak ever and could even be argued as high as a top 8 peak ever based on the information we have in my opinion. Offensively he was a transition beast that would regularly run the break and he was best used as a scorer in the fast break. He’s one of the most athletic bigs ever and was able to showcase that in transition. In the half court he wasn’t very good. He didn’t have a handle at all which is a given and he didn’t have many moves in his bag either (his best and most used move was a post hook which wasn’t very effective). He was best used as an offensive rebounder where he’s one of the best ever. The most effective part of his game in the half court was his put back ability. He didn’t have much a jumper (not really reliable outside or like 5-8 feet). He’s an ok scorer but that’s really it. He’s an elite playmaker and of the best Playmaking bigs ever. After Bob Cousy retired he was used as the Celtics primary playmaker and he’s a very good one. I think he would be a little too quick to pass at times and he was prone to turnovers it seemed but he usually made solid reads and is a better passer than most bigs. He was a good screener as well by 60s standards and combined with offensive rebounding ability he’s a very good off ball player as well. He did a great job of getting positioning. Defensively Russell is the best ever. His IQ is unmatched (especially for the 60s) and combined with his insane timing and awareness just makes it so hard to top him defensively. I question just how valuable one defender can truly be to a defense but he’s about as valuable as one can be (and this gets intensified by playing before the 3 second violation was implemented). Russell also was switchable and had the ability to stick guards without getting burnt. You don’t want him manning Jerry west or Oscar Robertson but that certainly isn’t a - in his game (there’s very few Bigs you would want doing that). Overall I think his solid offensive value combined with his goat defense gets you an all time peak in the ranks with some other guys you’ll see me talk about sooner. For me he ranks in the 8-9 range normally but I could hear our arguments for him in the 6-7 range and dare I say the 4-5 range even (which is crazy to hear coming from my mouth if you know me). I think I have been underrating his longevity a bit. He gives you weak mvp+ longevity for 13 straight years and that goes until he’s 36 years old and he’s doing that in the 60s which is very hard. He may very well have t5 longevity ever comparable to Kobe Bryant Kevin Garnett and Tim Duncan although I think I’d put them over him except for prolly kg.

A statistical profile for him In his peak (I go by multi year peaks) which for Russell is 1962-1965

* 12 IA PTS/75
* 3.5 IA AST/75
* 17.9 IA TRB/75
* -1.2 rTS%
* 2.5 Box OC
* 6.1 Passer Rating
* 14.1 WS/100
* 5.7 BP BPM

So that’s my career analysis on Bill Russell! Let me know what y’all think!

It should be worth mentioning how he has argusbly the greatest impact ever (gonna copy ben taylor data a bit for this)

Using all the teams in the league, the 1993 Knicks had the best z-score in NBA history (2.9). But if we calculate the league average without the top team, the best z-score in history is the 1962 Celtics at 4.2 (!), and only eight teams have a score above 3.0, four of which were Russell’s Celtics

So russel celtics srs actually underates them (their srs and defensive rating were essentially the same thingh usually) as their defense was so good it moved the league average down by around a bit over a point in average (effectively depressing their own separation from the pack) due to the small league size

Even adjusting for that Their net ratings actually still underate their separation from their rivals most of those years due to how packed in net ratings those early smaller leagues were, as seen heee

>

At the height of their dynasty, the Celtics were comically dominant. From 1962-65, their average margin-of-victory (MOV) was over 8 points per game. During the same time span, only two other teams even eclipsed 4 points per game

And russel was a constant signal in their success

>

Tom Sanders, KC Jones and John Havlicek made up an excellent supporting cast of defenders, although Boston lacked a second big man to play next to Russell. When he retired in 1969, along with Sam Jones — who was down to 26 minutes per game by then — the Celtics dropped a whopping 8 points in SRS (from a 59-win full-strength pace to a 36-win one) despite returning the rest of their eight-man rotation

They went from championship to below average when a 35 year old russek and a limited minutes sam jones left in 69

And this 1970 drop off correlates with the limited sampke we have of russel celtics without him across his career

>

Boston was a 35-win team (-1.9 SRS) in 28 games he missed from 1958-69, and for the other 915 games of his career they played at a 59-win pace (6.4 SRS). This is a tiny piece of evidence – the years are spread out, teams change, and so on — but it echoes the same story as Russell’s other value signals

.

Russel was the only constant (not even auerbach) in the court for a team that won 11 rings in 13 years and may have gone 12/13 if healthy

And this is without accounting for the intangibles of doing all this while suffering racial abuse from his own team city and fans. Fighting for civil righrs and nba union and even coaching the team while playing

Or all the monster impact signals pre nba like leading the most dominant usa olympic team ever (yes, more than 92) or tsking a no name school to back to back ncaa titles

Literally all he ever did was winning

falcolombardi wrote:It should be worth mentioning how he has argusbly the greatest impact ever (gonna copy ben taylor data a bit for this)

No he doesn’t? We have no impact metrics signaling he has anywhere near goat tier impact including WOWY data (using BTs WOWYR and WOWY score database he grades out in like the early 20s).

falcolombardi wrote: Using all the teams in the league, the 1993 Knicks had the best z-score in NBA history (2.9). But if we calculate the league average without the top team, the best z-score in history is the 1962 Celtics at 4.2 (!), and only eight teams have a score above 3.0, four of which were Russell’s Celtics

Z scores will tend to have higher margins in smaller sample sizes yes the Celtics lowered the league average DRTG but using Z scores skews things too far in their favor because standard Deviation (what Z scores are based off of) are easily skewed by small sample sizes and 8 teams is a very small sample size. It would be smarter to just compare the Celtics LA DRTG to the LA outside of their own which isn’t the same as using Z scores.

falcolombardi wrote: So russel celtics srs actually underates them (their srs and defensive rating were essentially the same thingh usually) as their defense was so good it moved the league average down by around a bit over a point in average (effectively depressing their own separation from the pack) due to the small league size

I mean not really and certainly not enough to say that Russell has the goat impact without contributing the entirety of the Celtics success to Russell which is very silly especially at the peak of their heights where the Celtics have some of the best help ever (this probably peaks at the beginning of the dynasty thanks to Cousy still being at or near his peak but as he declines other players start to improve so I don’t think losing him is making a drastic difference it’s not until most of the core retires that Celtics help is really starting to decrease but even by then hondo is starting to near his peak which may be Similar to peak Cousy).

falcolombardi wrote: Even adjusting for that Their net ratings actually still underate their separation from their rivals most of those years due to how packed in net ratings those early smaller leagues were, as seen here

At the height of their dynasty, the Celtics were comically dominant. From 1962-65, their average margin-of-victory (MOV) was over 8 points per game. During the same time span, only two other teams even eclipsed 4 points per game

Well yes the 62-65 Celtics are among the best teams ever that doesn’t mean bill Russell is a goat tier peak/player (you wouldn’t call Magic or bird goat tier peaks for leading all time teams/dynasties or Julius Erving for a lesser example). But we see other teams in a similar time period get near that level like the 67 76ers who are another all time great team so it’s not like they reached unreachable heights.

falcolombardi wrote: And russel was a constant signal in their success

>

The 70 Celtics aren’t the same team as the 69 Celtics and like pointed out the Celtics also lost Sam Jones who is not some - impact player (tbf he isn’t as good as he was in his peak but he’s still adding value to that team). The Celtics also had injury issues in 1970

They went from championship to below average when a 35 year old russek and a limited minutes sam jones left in 69

And this 1970 drop off correlates with the limited sampke we have of russel celtics without him across his career

> .

As BT even mentions in the quote this is a tiny piece of evidence that isn’t near enough evidence to make a claim off of. This also removes the 24 game sample from 1957 where the Celtics played at a 54 win pace without Russell (they improved to a 57 win pace with him in that year). This shows that the 57 Celtics are very much an elite team outside of Russell and I don’t see how they are much less elite for the next few years at least. They kept a pretty constant core of Russell Heinsohn Sanders and the two Jones from 57-65 with Cousy from 57-62 sharman from 57-61 and hondo from 62 onward.



Ok but after the help starts to regress the Celtics also regress and then winning rings doesn’t prove Russell being a goat tier player fringe mvp players can win rings with solid help in 2/3 years (especially in the 60s where the gap between a solid team and a championship team isn’t as big). Yes we start to get inflation in 68 with expansion but if anything this proves that the Celtics weren’t as good as their SRS signals indicate in 68 and 69 because of inflation due to expansion.

We aren’t seriously using Olympics and college ball to discuss NBA impact are we?

ceoofkobefans wrote:

falcolombardi wrote:It should be worth mentioning how he has argusbly the greatest impact ever (gonna copy ben taylor data a bit for this)

No he doesn’t? We have no impact metrics signaling he has anywhere near goat tier impact including WOWY data (using BTs WOWYR and WOWY score database he grades out in like the early 20s).



Z scores will tend to have higher margins in smaller sample sizes yes the Celtics lowered the league average DRTG but using Z scores skews things too far in their favor because standard Deviation (what Z scores are based off of) are easily skewed by small sample sizes and 8 teams is a very small sample size. It would be smarter to just compare the Celtics LA DRTG to the LA outside of their own which isn’t the same as using Z scores.



I mean not really and certainly not enough to say that Russell has the goat impact without contributing the entirety of the Celtics success to Russell which is very silly especially at the peak of their heights where the Celtics have some of the best help ever (this probably peaks at the beginning of the dynasty thanks to Cousy still being at or near his peak but as he declines other players start to improve so I don’t think losing him is making a drastic difference it’s not until most of the core retires that Celtics help is really starting to decrease but even by then hondo is starting to near his peak which may be Similar to peak Cousy).



Well yes the 62-65 Celtics are among the best teams ever that doesn’t mean bill Russell is a goat tier peak/player (you wouldn’t call Magic or bird goat tier peaks for leading all time teams/dynasties or Julius Erving for a lesser example). But we see other teams in a similar time period get near that level like the 67 76ers who are another all time great team so it’s not like they reached unreachable heights.

We aren’t seriously using Olympics and college ball to discuss NBA impact are we?

No, but i wanted to shout out that trivia

falcolombardi wrote:

ceoofkobefans wrote:

falcolombardi wrote:It should be worth mentioning how he has argusbly the greatest impact ever (gonna copy ben taylor data a bit for this)

We aren’t seriously using Olympics and college ball to discuss NBA impact are we?

No, but i wanted to shout out that trivia

Ok good lol I was about to say

Btw I hope you respond to the rest of that post

ceoofkobefans wrote:

falcolombardi wrote:It should be worth mentioning how he has argusbly the greatest impact ever (gonna copy ben taylor data a bit for this)

No he doesn’t? We have no impact metrics signaling he has anywhere near goat tier impact including WOWY data (using BTs WOWYR and WOWY score database he grades out in like the early 20s).



Z scores will tend to have higher margins in smaller sample sizes yes the Celtics lowered the league average DRTG but using Z scores skews things too far in their favor because standard Deviation (what Z scores are based off of) are easily skewed by small sample sizes and 8 teams is a very small sample size. It would be smarter to just compare the Celtics LA DRTG to the LA outside of their own which isn’t the same as using Z scores.



I mean not really and certainly not enough to say that Russell has the goat impact without contributing the entirety of the Celtics success to Russell which is very silly especially at the peak of their heights where the Celtics have some of the best help ever (this probably peaks at the beginning of the dynasty thanks to Cousy still being at or near his peak but as he declines other players start to improve so I don’t think losing him is making a drastic difference it’s not until most of the core retires that Celtics help is really starting to decrease but even by then hondo is starting to near his peak which may be Similar to peak Cousy).



Well yes the 62-65 Celtics are among the best teams ever that doesn’t mean bill Russell is a goat tier peak/player (you wouldn’t call Magic or bird goat tier peaks for leading all time teams/dynasties or Julius Erving for a lesser example). But we see other teams in a similar time period get near that level like the 67 76ers who are another all time great team so it’s not like they reached unreachable heights.

We aren’t seriously using Olympics and college ball to discuss NBA impact are we?

No he doesn’t? We have no impact metrics signaling he has anywhere near goat tier impact including WOWY data (using BTs WOWYR and WOWY score database he grades out in like the early 20s).

Wowy and wowyr rely on net rating points which makes it tricky to use in cross era comparisions between leagues so different like the 60's vs 90's or 00's

In the 60's the teams were almost all tightly packed, teams with +3 srs's being rare (in the 60-66 period there is like just 2 non celtics teams to pass the +4 mark) while celtics averaged near a +8 srs , They just lapped the field in separation

A +7 team in a league where #2 is at +3 is more of a outlier than a +9 team in a league where other 3 teams are close to +8

I mean not really and certainly not enough to say that Russell has the goat impact without contributing the entirety of the Celtics success to Russell

No one has ever led a dinasty without talent around, not jordan, lebron, curry, magic, duncan, shaq. This is not a dig on russel, who led the greatest dinasty of all

have some of the best help ever (this probably peaks at the beginning of the dynasty thanks to Cousy still being at or near his peak but as he declines other players start to improve so I don’t think losing him is making a drastic difference it’s not until most of the core retires that Celtics help is really starting to decrease but even by then hondo is starting to near his peak which may be Similar to peak Cousy

Why do you think russel had some of the best help ever?

Not to discredit his teammates but remember that a lot of the reason for why so many of them made the hall of fame was the rings they won on the back of russel anchored defense, a defense that came and went with him

Havlicek only truly reached his statistical and consensus peak post russel (and sam jones) retirement increasing his load and efficiency in 1970 and matured past his first seasons roughly as russel peak was ending circa 65

I respect cousy legacy as one of the league first stars but i have some questions if he really had the impact in era of a mvp winner, let alone past his peak as he got older (russel celtics peaked as havlicek was a young player off the bench and cousy was old)

He was a offensive player (not much of a strong defensive reputation and he is a small guard) whose claims to fame came in big part from flashyness and high pace offense when the league still overated face paced teams in O (they didnt use off rating but points per game)

not to say he was not good, but would you feel confident enough i your knowledge of the era to say a late/post prime cousy was a top impact guy? I have serious doubts on that before someone more knowledgeable as 70'sfan or docmj comments

70sFan

Doctor MJ

falcolombardi wrote:

ceoofkobefans wrote:

falcolombardi wrote:It should be worth mentioning how he has argusbly the greatest impact ever (gonna copy ben taylor data a bit for this)

We aren’t seriously using Olympics and college ball to discuss NBA impact are we?

No he doesn’t? We have no impact metrics signaling he has anywhere near goat tier impact including WOWY data (using BTs WOWYR and WOWY score database he grades out in like the early 20s).

Wowy and wowyr rely on net rating points which makes it tricky to use in cross era comparisions between leagues so different like the 60's vs 90's or 00's

In the 60's the teams were almost all tightly packed, teams with +3 srs's being rare (in the 60-66 period there is like just 2 non celtics teams to pass the +4 mark) while celtics averaged near a +8 srs , They just lapped the field in separation

A +7 team in a league where #2 is at +3 is more of a outlier than a +9 team in a league where other 3 teams are close to +8

I mean not really and certainly not enough to say that Russell has the goat impact without contributing the entirety of the Celtics success to Russell

No one has ever led a dinasty without talent around, not jordan, lebron, curry, magic, duncan, shaq. This is not a dig on russel, who led the greatest dinasty of all

Yea that’s fair but the samples on his WOWY aren’t very big when looking at a career scale so I stay away from them for him for the most part

This really onto applies to 62-65 (I think 65 is the only year where they are +8 SRS) by 66 they certainly aren’t outliers anymore.

Yea you need help to lead dynasties but I think Russell has more help outside of maybe Duncan at the peak of his help and then obviously Steph at the peak of his help. I don’t think it’s about who led the best dynasty but more is he the only one to be capable of leading such a dynasty. It’s also not like he’s leading goat tier teams or something he’s just consistently leading elite all time teams (Duncan does this as well). I think I was underrating Russell a little bit and that is argument to be in that 4-7 tier is a bit stronger than I had been thinking. I still like him more like 8-9 but if you’re higher on his peak and especially his earliest and latest years his 4-5 argument is stronger. His longevity is a legitimate t5 argument when you consider era

ceoofkobefans wrote:

falcolombardi wrote:

ceoofkobefans wrote:
We aren’t seriously using Olympics and college ball to discuss NBA impact are we?

No he doesn’t? We have no impact metrics signaling he has anywhere near goat tier impact including WOWY data (using BTs WOWYR and WOWY score database he grades out in like the early 20s).

Wowy and wowyr rely on net rating points which makes it tricky to use in cross era comparisions between leagues so different like the 60's vs 90's or 00's

In the 60's the teams were almost all tightly packed, teams with +3 srs's being rare (in the 60-66 period there is like just 2 non celtics teams to pass the +4 mark) while celtics averaged near a +8 srs , They just lapped the field in separation

A +7 team in a league where #2 is at +3 is more of a outlier than a +9 team in a league where other 3 teams are close to +8

I mean not really and certainly not enough to say that Russell has the goat impact without contributing the entirety of the Celtics success to Russell

No one has ever led a dinasty without talent around, not jordan, lebron, curry, magic, duncan, shaq. This is not a dig on russel, who led the greatest dinasty of all

Yea that’s fair but the samples on his WOWY aren’t very big when looking at a career scale so I stay away from them for him for the most part

This really onto applies to 62-65 (I think 65 is the only year where they are +8 SRS) by 66 they certainly aren’t outliers anymore.

Yea you need help to lead dynasties but I think Russell has more help outside of maybe Duncan at the peak of his help and then obviously Steph at the peak of his help. I don’t think it’s about who led the best dynasty but more is he the only one to be capable of leading such a dynasty. It’s also not like he’s leading goat tier teams or something he’s just consistently leading elite all time teams (Duncan does this as well). I think I was underrating Russell a little bit and that is argument to be in that 4-7 tier is a bit stronger than I had been thinking. I still like him more like 8-9 but if you’re higher on his peak and especially his earliest and latest years his 4-5 argument is stronger. His longevity is a legitimate t5 argument when you consider era

They led the league in srs comfortably from 58 to 65 which is as many years as jordan bulls, shaq lakers and curry warriors combined

Their +8 srs also lapped the closest competitor by more than double the net rating and once you consider they lifted the league srs by a point by themselves it was actually like a +9 srs

But this is not as relevant, remember, the net ratings are not a number you can directly compare between leagues so different as the 60's nba and later eras

Srs literally just matters to show how far above your league average you are, and celtics stack up to anyone at the purpose of srs

I'd love to hear the case for 1963/64 Celtics being stacked.

[quote=“falcolombardi”] No one has ever led a dinasty without talent around, not jordan, lebron, curry, magic, duncan, shaq. This is not a dig on russel, who led the greatest dinasty of all

have some of the best help ever (this probably peaks at the beginning of the dynasty thanks to Cousy still being at or near his peak but as he declines other players start to improve so I don’t think losing him is making a drastic difference it’s not until most of the core retires that Celtics help is really starting to decrease but even by then hondo is starting to near his peak which may be Similar to peak Cousy

Why do you think russel had some of the best help ever?

Not to discredit his teammates but remember that a lot of the reason for why so many of them made the hall of fame was the rings they won on the back of russel anchored defense, a defense that came and went with him

Havlicek only truly reached his statistical and consensus peak post russel (and sam jones) retirement increasing his load and efficiency in 1970 and matured past his first seasons roughly as russel peak was ending circa 65

I respect cousy legacy as one of the league first stars but i have some questions if he really had the impact in era of a mvp winner, let alone past his peak as he got older (russel celtics peaked as havlicek was a young player off the bench and cousy was old)

He was a offensive player (not much of a strong defensive reputation and he is a small guard) whose claims to fame came in big part from flashyness and high pace offense when the league still overated face paced teams in O (they didnt use off rating but points per game)

not to say he was not good, but would you feel confident enough i your knowledge of the era to say a late/post prime cousy was a top impact guy? I have serious doubts on that before someone more knowledgeable as 70'sfan or docmj comments

70sFan

Doctor MJ

[/quote]


With lack of info we have on these guys how good they are can be debated but I think that Heinsohn Sanders both Jones and Hondo are all at least sub all star guys and by 65 I think sam Jones is a clear all star sanders and Heinsohn are an elite defensive duo that could guard multiple positions and were very switchable (especially for the era being 3/4s) (especially at the beginning of that 62-65 run) hondo was likely always a HQ defender KC Jones is peaking around here and is likely an all time defensive guard. I don’t think hondo is his weak mvp self by this point in time but I’d say he’s certainly the best bench player in the league.

Cousy I think is still likely near his peak performance in that 57-59 range (57 could very well be his peak). We have 21 games of WOWY data from 57-59 where the Celtics were a full point worse in point differential/g without Cousy (4.57 to 5.81) with Russell. This shows that while the Celtics are still a very good team (which should be the case with how good those 57-59 teams are) without Cousy he’s certainly helping them reach that top
Level (for reference we have 28 games of Russell WOWY in that same range showing the Celtics go from a 5.96 Point diff/g with him to a 3.86 without him which is +2.1 vs +1.24 which isn’t a huge difference. To put it in win pace terms it’s only a +6 win differential for Russell vs a +3 differential for Cousy). Cousy is likely one of the best offensive players of that era and I’d confidently say he’s still in his prime from 57-59 at least given the little info we have on him so I definitely think he’s helping and 57-59 could also be peak Heinsohn. Russell not being as good in 57-59 could explain why the Celtics don’t peak until he does since he’s the best player (although I don’t think that makes him a goat tier player a guy going from weak mvp or fringe mvp to clear all time is still a big jump and the Celtics still having that elite help boosts them to the heights we see and then as they decrease so do the Celtics overall then Russell starts regressing and we see the Celtics being human).

70sFan wrote:I'd love to hear the case for 1963/64 Celtics being stacked.

Kinda explained that on the post I just responded to falco on

ceoofkobefans wrote:

70sFan wrote:I'd love to hear the case for 1963/64 Celtics being stacked.

Kinda explained that on the post I just responded to falco on

You said that Jones was an all-star, while Havlicek and Heinsohn are sub all-stars in 1964-66 period. My response:

1. Having 3 low all-star level teammates isn't much in the 1960s. The league was far smaller back then and teams had more condensed talent in general. 1964 Hawks for example had full starting lineup of all-star level players (and Bob Pettit), but they weren't "stacked" by the standards of that era. Lakers had two MVP-level players along with Rudy LaRusso and Dick Barnett who weren't really worse than Heinsohn or Havlicek.

2. I see no case for Heinsohn being all-star level player after 1963 and especially after 1964. No, Heinsohn wasn't "elite defensively" and he couldn't guard multiple positions. To be honest, I have no idea where you got it from. Heinsohn was a smart defender who could rotate well, but he wasn't much of a man defender and he had certain physical limitations at that point.

3. What exactly makes 1964 Havlicek an all-star? I don't see that either.

4. The fact is that 1964 Celtics had total of one player with above average efficiency - Sam Jones. All Celtics player shot with below average efficiency and none of them were high level playmakers either. It was extremely limited team offensively and they played in the same season with teams full of offensive talent like Lakers Royals or Hawks.

You see, the problem is that you see names in roster and conclude that Celtics were stacked. In 1964-66 period, I think the only legit all-star teammate Russell had was Sam Jones. Maybe you can make a case for 1966 Havlicek, but definitely not earlier. Celtics had solid roleplayers, but come on - it's not anything close to superteam.

I agree that Celtics had clearly the moet talented rosters in 1957-62 period, but Russell played beyond that and he kept dominating. Not to mention 1967-69 period, when Celtics definitely didn't have the best rosters in the league and yet Russell still did extremely well both individually and in terms of team success.

ceoofkobefans wrote:

falcolombardi wrote:It should be worth mentioning how he has argusbly the greatest impact ever (gonna copy ben taylor data a bit for this)

No he doesn’t? We have no impact metrics signaling he has anywhere near goat tier impact including WOWY data (using BTs WOWYR and WOWY score database he grades out in like the early 20s).



Z scores will tend to have higher margins in smaller sample sizes yes the Celtics lowered the league average DRTG but using Z scores skews things too far in their favor because standard Deviation (what Z scores are based off of) are easily skewed by small sample sizes and 8 teams is a very small sample size. It would be smarter to just compare the Celtics LA DRTG to the LA outside of their own which isn’t the same as using Z scores.



I mean not really and certainly not enough to say that Russell has the goat impact without contributing the entirety of the Celtics success to Russell which is very silly especially at the peak of their heights where the Celtics have some of the best help ever (this probably peaks at the beginning of the dynasty thanks to Cousy still being at or near his peak but as he declines other players start to improve so I don’t think losing him is making a drastic difference it’s not until most of the core retires that Celtics help is really starting to decrease but even by then hondo is starting to near his peak which may be Similar to peak Cousy).



Well yes the 62-65 Celtics are among the best teams ever that doesn’t mean bill Russell is a goat tier peak/player (you wouldn’t call Magic or bird goat tier peaks for leading all time teams/dynasties or Julius Erving for a lesser example). But we see other teams in a similar time period get near that level like the 67 76ers who are another all time great team so it’s not like they reached unreachable heights.

We aren’t seriously using Olympics and college ball to discuss NBA impact are we?

we don't have much to work off for this time period, so every piece of info helps. As it is, the olympics/college stuff supports what we get from the nba stuff(most impactful player ever), and the gap between college and nba ball wasn't nearly as big as it is in later periods.

To successfully sell what you're trying to sell for Russell here, we'd need to assume, for whatever reason, that the celtics were always as good as they were in 57 and there's no real reason to assume that. 1970 is as good of a sample as you can get here, and even the sparse wowyr stuff we've seen supports that.

70's broke things down granularly quite well, but there's really no reason to assume russell always had a stacked supporting cast. Given the celtics won every time Bill was healthy, the celtics at least, sometimes, not being stacked should suffice for a "most impactful prime ever" case

70sFan wrote:

ceoofkobefans wrote:

70sFan wrote:I'd love to hear the case for 1963/64 Celtics being stacked.

Kinda explained that on the post I just responded to falco on

You said that Jones was an all-star, while Havlicek and Heinsohn are sub all-stars in 1964-66 period. My response:

1. Having 3 low all-star level teammates isn't much in the 1960s. The league was far smaller back then and teams had more condensed talent in general. 1964 Hawks for example had full starting lineup of all-star level players (and Bob Pettit), but they weren't "stacked" by the standards of that era. Lakers had two MVP-level players along with Rudy LaRusso and Dick Barnett who weren't really worse than Heinsohn or Havlicek.

2. I see no case for Heinsohn being all-star level player after 1963 and especially after 1964. No, Heinsohn wasn't "elite defensively" and he couldn't guard multiple positions. To be honest, I have no idea where you got it from. Heinsohn was a smart defender who could rotate well, but he wasn't much of a man defender and he had certain physical limitations at that point.

3. What exactly makes 1964 Havlicek an all-star? I don't see that either.

4. The fact is that 1964 Celtics had total of one player with above average efficiency - Sam Jones. All Celtics player shot with below average efficiency and none of them were high level playmakers either. It was extremely limited team offensively and they played in the same season with teams full of offensive talent like Lakers Royals or Hawks.

You see, the problem is that you see names in roster and conclude that Celtics were stacked. In 1964-66 period, I think the only legit all-star teammate Russell had was Sam Jones. Maybe you can make a case for 1966 Havlicek, but definitely not earlier. Celtics had solid roleplayers, but come on - it's not anything close to superteam.

I agree that Celtics had clearly the moet talented rosters in 1957-62 period, but Russell played beyond that and he kept dominating. Not to mention 1967-69 period, when Celtics definitely didn't have the best rosters in the league and yet Russell still did extremely well both individually and in terms of team success.

Gun to your head, where would you guesstimate bill's various casts to be at(i'd appreciate estimating it in terms of wins though i understand there are other variables to consider) throughout his career

70sFan wrote:

ceoofkobefans wrote:

70sFan wrote:I'd love to hear the case for 1963/64 Celtics being stacked.

Kinda explained that on the post I just responded to falco on

You said that Jones was an all-star, while Havlicek and Heinsohn are sub all-stars in 1964-66 period. My response:

1. Having 3 low all-star level teammates isn't much in the 1960s. The league was far smaller back then and teams had more condensed talent in general. 1964 Hawks for example had full starting lineup of all-star level players (and Bob Pettit), but they weren't "stacked" by the standards of that era. Lakers had two MVP-level players along with Rudy LaRusso and Dick Barnett who weren't really worse than Heinsohn or Havlicek.

2. I see no case for Heinsohn being all-star level player after 1963 and especially after 1964. No, Heinsohn wasn't "elite defensively" and he couldn't guard multiple positions. To be honest, I have no idea where you got it from. Heinsohn was a smart defender who could rotate well, but he wasn't much of a man defender and he had certain physical limitations at that point.

3. What exactly makes 1964 Havlicek an all-star? I don't see that either.

4. The fact is that 1964 Celtics had total of one player with above average efficiency - Sam Jones. All Celtics player shot with below average efficiency and none of them were high level playmakers either. It was extremely limited team offensively and they played in the same season with teams full of offensive talent like Lakers Royals or Hawks.

You see, the problem is that you see names in roster and conclude that Celtics were stacked. In 1964-66 period, I think the only legit all-star teammate Russell had was Sam Jones. Maybe you can make a case for 1966 Havlicek, but definitely not earlier. Celtics had solid roleplayers, but come on - it's not anything close to superteam.

I agree that Celtics had clearly the moet talented rosters in 1957-62 period, but Russell played beyond that and he kept dominating. Not to mention 1967-69 period, when Celtics definitely didn't have the best rosters in the league and yet Russell still did extremely well both individually and in terms of team success.

No hondo is better than that by 64-66 62-63 he’s prolly sub all star Ish but he’s def better than that by 64-65 and definitely 66

It wouldn’t be 3 it would be 5 in Heinsohn sanders Jones Jones hondo

The 64 hawks only had 2 players make the team (Bob Pettit and Lenny Wilkins) and other than Hagan and Beaty who missed 23 games I don’t see who would he all star caliber on that team (Idek if Wilkins was All star caliber unless his defense was super nice). And still those guys could be as low as the 7th best player on those Celtics teams (64 hawks were a solid team tbf) lakers had 2 MVP guys but Barnett and LaRuso aren’t as good as the Celtics guys (the lakers are also around a +2 team despite west and Elgin missing a lot of time between 62-65)

I certainly disagree there. I haven’t watched the Celtics in a minute but I only really remember good things from Heinsohn defensively especially in the 62 and 63 finals film we have (iirc he looked good in the 64 finals film as well) he’s prolly not as good in 64 and 65 tbf. But I think he’s a solid man defender and he played solid defense on west and Baylor in 62 and 63 who are two of the best offensive players of that era. 64 he may not be but 65 he certainly is I’m not sure how much he’s improving. He’s likely an elite defender in 64 and is a very good playmaker already

Yea the Celtics weren’t very good offensively they lived in transition but tried too many jumpers in the HC which kinda killed their offense. But like I said they were filled with good defenders which helps them reach those insane defensive heights along with having the best defender ever

OhayoKD wrote:

ceoofkobefans wrote:

falcolombardi wrote:It should be worth mentioning how he has argusbly the greatest impact ever (gonna copy ben taylor data a bit for this)

We aren’t seriously using Olympics and college ball to discuss NBA impact are we?

we don't have much to work off for this time period, so every piece of info helps. As it is, the olympics/college stuff supports what we get from the nba stuff(most impactful player ever), and the gap between college and nba ball wasn't nearly as big as it is in later periods.

To successfully sell what you're trying to sell for Russell here, we'd need to assume, for whatever reason, that the celtics were always as good as they were in 57 and there's no real reason to assume that. 1970 is as good of a sample as you can get here, and even the sparse wowyr stuff we've seen supports that.

70's broke things down granularly quite well, but there's really no reason to assume russell always had a stacked supporting cast. Given the celtics won every time Bill was healthy, the celtics at least, sometimes, not being stacked should suffice for a "most impactful prime ever" case

No you don’t because as we see from 66-69 the Celtics don’t keep this same dominance over the league as the help starts to get worse and worse (as well as Russell getting worse tbf) to successfully argue what you’re selling the Celtics would’ve had to stay constant as a 35 win team at best outside of Russell for the entirety of the dynasty to where the only thing effecting their dominance is Russell’s progression or regression which I think is a lot less realistic to attribute the entire success of 1 team over 13 years to one player than to giving at least some credit to the rest of the team also going through progressions and regressions or straight up leaving and being replaced

ceoofkobefans wrote:

OhayoKD wrote:

ceoofkobefans wrote:
We aren’t seriously using Olympics and college ball to discuss NBA impact are we?

we don't have much to work off for this time period, so every piece of info helps. As it is, the olympics/college stuff supports what we get from the nba stuff(most impactful player ever), and the gap between college and nba ball wasn't nearly as big as it is in later periods.

To successfully sell what you're trying to sell for Russell here, we'd need to assume, for whatever reason, that the celtics were always as good as they were in 57 and there's no real reason to assume that. 1970 is as good of a sample as you can get here, and even the sparse wowyr stuff we've seen supports that.

70's broke things down granularly quite well, but there's really no reason to assume russell always had a stacked supporting cast. Given the celtics won every time Bill was healthy, the celtics at least, sometimes, not being stacked should suffice for a "most impactful prime ever" case

No you don’t because as we see from 66-69 the Celtics don’t keep this same dominance over the league as the help starts to get worse and worse (as well as Russell getting worse tbf) to successfully argue what you’re selling the Celtics would’ve had to stay constant as a 35 win team at best outside of Russell for the entirety of the dynasty to where the only thing effecting their dominance is Russell’s progression or regression which I think is a lot less realistic to attribute the entire success of 1 team over 13 years to one player than to giving at least some credit to the rest of the team also going through progressions and regressions or straight up leaving and being replaced

I don't think you understand what I'm selling here. My position is not that the celtics were anything for the "entirety" of the dynasty. It's that they weren't stacked for at least "some" of it. Given how rare winning with 1969-1970 level teams is sustaining that for any period at all, let alone when you're about to retire makes for a pretty good GOAT case.

The only similar examples we really have for this would be the 2016 cavs, the 1967 lakers, and...maaybe the 1971 bucks if you want to make extrapolations based on 72 and 75. I guess you could guess 03 duncan, but we really don't have much to extrapolate an "off there". None of the players really sustain this beyond a year(maybe if you make accommodations for not actually winning, or a rs/playoff drop-off you can extend this). Russell at least pulls the trick off once when he should be post-rime and is leading the most dominant team ever at the presumed peak of his powers and is at least winning each and every time save for when he's injured. There's no real way to make a positive case for a non-russell player against the man. He won every time, and everything we have seems to indicate at least some of that was with limited help. Not easy to top.

OhayoKD wrote:Gun to your head, where would you guesstimate bill's various casts to be at(i'd appreciate estimating it in terms of wins though i understand there are other variables to consider) throughout his career

I don't feel comfortable enough to give you wins estimations for them (way too few games available), but in terms of the strength of supporting cast I would rank Celtics this way:

1957-59 Celtics
1960 Celtics
1962 Celtics
1961 Celtics
1963 Celtics
1966 Celtics
1968 Celtics
1965 Celtics
1964 Celtics
1969 Celtics

It's just a quick guess, I didn't make a lot of analysis on that.

70sFan wrote:

OhayoKD wrote:Gun to your head, where would you guesstimate bill's various casts to be at(i'd appreciate estimating it in terms of wins though i understand there are other variables to consider) throughout his career

I don't feel comfortable enough to give you wins estimations for them (way too few games available), but in terms of the strength of supporting cast I would rank Celtics this way:

1957-59 Celtics
1960 Celtics
1962 Celtics
1961 Celtics
1963 Celtics
1966 Celtics
1968 Celtics
1965 Celtics
1964 Celtics
1969 Celtics

It's just a quick guess, I didn't make a lot of analysis on that.

Kind of crazy 1969 was probably the most impressive run when you consider opponents. Knicks and Lakers are probably the best(taking away the russell celtics) team in most of the years russell is in the league(at least if you go by their srs). League gets tougher, cast gets worse, russell is about to retire and....wins anyway with one of the more dominant playoff runs of the celtics dynasty

OhayoKD wrote:

ceoofkobefans wrote:

OhayoKD wrote:we don't have much to work off for this time period, so every piece of info helps. As it is, the olympics/college stuff supports what we get from the nba stuff(most impactful player ever), and the gap between college and nba ball wasn't nearly as big as it is in later periods.

To successfully sell what you're trying to sell for Russell here, we'd need to assume, for whatever reason, that the celtics were always as good as they were in 57 and there's no real reason to assume that. 1970 is as good of a sample as you can get here, and even the sparse wowyr stuff we've seen supports that.

70's broke things down granularly quite well, but there's really no reason to assume russell always had a stacked supporting cast. Given the celtics won every time Bill was healthy, the celtics at least, sometimes, not being stacked should suffice for a "most impactful prime ever" case

No you don’t because as we see from 66-69 the Celtics don’t keep this same dominance over the league as the help starts to get worse and worse (as well as Russell getting worse tbf) to successfully argue what you’re selling the Celtics would’ve had to stay constant as a 35 win team at best outside of Russell for the entirety of the dynasty to where the only thing effecting their dominance is Russell’s progression or regression which I think is a lot less realistic to attribute the entire success of 1 team over 13 years to one player than to giving at least some credit to the rest of the team also going through progressions and regressions or straight up leaving and being replaced

I don't think you understand what I'm selling here. My position is not that the celtics were anything for the "entirety" of the dynasty. It's that they weren't stacked for at least "some" of it. Given how rare winning with 1969-1970 level teams is sustaining that for any period at all, let alone when you're about to retire makes for a pretty good GOAT case.

The only similar examples we really have for this would be the 2016 cavs, the 1967 lakers, and...maaybe the 1971 bucks if you want to make extrapolations based on 72 and 75. I guess you could guess 03 duncan, but we really don't have much to extrapolate an "off there". None of the players really sustain this beyond a year(maybe if you make accommodations for not actually winning, or a rs/playoff drop-off you can extend this). Russell at least pulls the trick off once when he should be post-rime and is leading the most dominant team ever at the presumed peak of his powers and is at least winning each and every time save for when he's injured. There's no real way to make a positive case for a non-russell player against the man. He won every time, and everything we have seems to indicate at least some of that was with limited help. Not easy to top.

I mean we see Pettit win in 58 with a team that is very likely a clear - SRS team against Russell and he competes with Russell with Similar strength in surrounding years. Plenty of teams that are - SRS teams outside of their bets player are making the finals in that era so it’s probably just easier to do in that era thanks to parity. Yes the league is more similar to other eras in terms of SRS disparity due to expansion by 68 69 but the Celtics also aren’t outliers by then hell they aren’t even the best team by then. And for PO They don’t make the finals in 67 they barely make the finals in 68 and beat the lakers in 6 without Goodrich and in 69 they barely win the 69 finals despite wilt missing the last 5 minutes of g7 which they lost by 2. The Celtics were just another normal contender