How good were the 60s Celtics other than Bill Russell?

[penbeast0]

Russell wasn't the problem for Wilt. It was that Russ's teammates (and coaches) were better than his. The 60's Celtics were as stacked as the 2017 Warriors. Whether Wilt wins more in the 70's/80's than in the 60's/70's depends on what team he ends up on, but not having to face the 60's dynasty Celtics means he has a higher chance of winning chips.

Head to head, Wilt can match with Kareem easily. Wilt is a better defender than Kareem, and just as good of an offensive player. Wilt also had great touch in the post out to ~10ft at least, and clearly has more of a power game that he could utilize more in the 70's/80's than the 60's. Kareem's range was more like 15ft, but that really doesn't matter when you are as strong as Wilt. Wilt was the only person to block Kareem's skyhook, and that was an old Wilt vs a young Kareem. At the same age Wilt would have even more of an athletic edge.

Wilt would feast in the late 70's early 80's. It was a more physical league at that point, and also putting on muscle was seen as a good thing as opposed to earlier times where the consensus is that muscle will ruin your ability to shoot and brutes have no place in the league.

[penbeast0]

....

Ken said that that Celtics throughout the 60s without Russell were as good as the 2017 Warriors around Curry. That seems like a gross exaggeration to me.

(1) The early Celtics, Cousy/Sharman/Ramsey/Lotscutoff/Heinsohn, had a lot of inefficient high scoring players. Only Sharman and Lotscutoff had good defensive reps; Auerbach had complained about getting Cousy in the expansion draft that brought Cousy to Boston because he said Cousy played no defense. In Russell's rookie year, they were a below average offensive team (6th of 8) and the best defensive team in the league though they were leading the league before Russell joined the team from the Olympics. They continued this trend for the next few years ranking 7th, 5th, 5th and 8th/8 in the league on offense with the same core other than Sam Jones (the best offensive player of the Celtics during the Russell era in my opinion but weaker defensively) replacing Sharman and Satch Sanders taking Lotscutoff's place as the non-scoring defensive forward. In 63, Havlicek plays major minutes giving them another defensive stopper (and another inefficient chucker) and KC Jones starts playing roughly as many minutes as Cousy.

The guys put forward as greats in this era are Cousy, Heinsohn, and Sharman or Sam Jones with Ramsey being an instant offense off the bench guy that had some great playoffs. Heinsohn also had a couple of strong playoffs countered by Cousy consistently shooting in the sub .400 efficiency while not lowering his volume of shots. My problem is that if these are the 2017 Warriors equivalents, why are they the worst team in the league offensively? If Cousy's playmaking is so valuable, why isn't it producing even average team efficiency unlike a playmaker like Oscar, Magic, Nash, etc. who consistently ran high ranking offenses.

I don't buy that this is a particularly strong team around Russell at all, though it is both deep and stayed pretty healthy. The 2017 Warriors seem a silly and far off comparison in terms of shooting talent around the star.

(2) The late Celtics. Over the next few years, KC Jones, Sam Jones, Havlicek, and Satch Sanders became the mainstays along with reserve Don Nelson in 66 and Bailey Howell in 67. Jones and Howell (and Nelson) were near or above league average efficiency scorers (but not known as defenders). Havlicek (and Russell as he aged) were inefficient (but great defenders). KC and Satch did very little on the offensive end (but continued to provide strong defense). Without Russell, this could still be a good defensive team though his shotblocking and defensive rebounding provide the main defense in Boston. They are still overall a poor offensive team finishing 9th, 7th, 8th out of 9 teams until Howell comes in where they have their first and only above average offensive year in the Russell era! finishing 4th out of 10 before slipping back to 8th/12 and 10th/14 in Russell's final two years.

Again, this is a team that wins with defense and rebounding (ie. Russell led) and is consistently poor offensively though Bailey Howell certainly helps them at least not be last in the league any more.

Just for the comparison Kenndog is making, the 2017 Warriors were the BEST offensive team in the league (rather than worst) and 2nd best defense (where the Celtics were consistently 1st or very close to it, often by big margins).

In this era where centers had a disproportionate defensive role, it's safe to say Russell's impact in any given year other than maybe his rookie year consistently dwarfs the possible impact of Curry on making his team winners, great as Curry was. In fact, you can probably state with reasonable certainty that Russell's impact IN HIS ERA is the greatest in history which is why the Celtics are far and away the greatest title winning dynasty in NBA history.

[coastalmarker99]

Something interesting to ponder is this.

1956-57

Celtics played the first 24 games of 1956-57 w/o Russell who was at the Olympics.

In 24 first games w/o Russ, Celtics were

16-8, .66.7 % (pace of 55 W in 82 g)

Best record in NBA (Syracuse 2nd at .528)

105.2 P/G

100.6 P/G opponents

Thus, in 1956-57, the Celtics were by far the best team in NBA without Russell and also had the best defence as well.

Also how about this?

In the 57-58 Finals, in which Russell was injured, ...the series was tied 1-1 when Russell injured his ankle in the third quarter of game three.

They lost that game by three points, but they actually outscored the Hawks in the 4th period, and without Russell, by five points.

Now, surely without Russell, Boston would have no chance, right? Well, without Russell in game four, Boston won handily, 109-98. And, while they did lose game five without him, it was by two points.

Russell finally returned for game six, but could only play 20 minutes.

Boston would go on to lose that game by one point, but they outscored the Hawks in the second half, without Russell.

Furthermore.

Just going off of awards.

the Celtics were overwhelmingly more talented than the other teams of the 1960s

1959 3 1st team All NBA players Russell, Cousy, and Sharman...when else has that ever happened?

1960 Cousy 1st team All NBA, Russell, Sharman 2nd team

1961 Cousy 1st team All NBA, Russell, Heinsohn 2nd team

1962 Cousy, Russell, Heinsohn 2nd team All NBA...

4 Celtics made the All-Star Team Cousy, Russell, Heinsohn, and Jones

1963 Russell 1st team All NBA, Cousy, Heinsohn 2nd team...Havlicek Rookie team

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

1965 Russell 1st team, Sam Jones 2nd team

1966 Russell, Jones, Havlicek All NBA 2nd team

1967 Russell, Jones All NBA 2nd team

1968 Russell, Havlicek All NBA 2nd team

1969 Havlicek All NBA 2nd team

That is an amazing run of ALL NBA team honours that I don't see being matched ever again.

And people forget that other Celtic players such as KC jones and Sanders would have been on the all-defensive team every year had it existed

It is clear that the 1960 Celtics clearly always had by far, the deepest teams in the league, and aside from Russell, they could simply plug in another great player when they needed to.

As Auerbach would go out and steal players too.

How could the Celtics pick up Clyde Lovellette for their '64 title run, for nothing?

Lovellette had averaged 21 ppg on .47.1 just the year before and yet he was coming off the bench for Boston.

[dygaction]

Not very good by current standard but the best at that time. I believe that if you switch Wilt and Russell, Wilt would be the GOAT and Russell would be a greater Thurmond.

[coastalmarker99]

[tweet][/tweet]

Not very good by current standard but the best at that time. I believe that if you switch Wilt and Russell, Wilt would be the GOAT and Russell would be a greater Thurmond.

Russell not only had Auerbach, the coach, but Auerbach the GM, as well.

And while Wilt's rosters generally just got older and worse.

Auerbach was replacing super-stars with super stars, and then even adding more depth to his teams

And of course, aside from Hannum and Sharman, Wilt was either saddled with lazy, or incompetent coaches the rest of his career aside from Frank.

Swap coach's and even with lesser rosters, Wilt likely would have won at least a couple more titles.

And give Wilt the GM Auerbach...well, he likely wins almost every year.

[penbeast0]

All those 1st team All-NBA selections for Cousy strike me as some of the worst rep voting in NBA history outside of the last half of Kobe's All-Defense awards and quite possibly worse. He was a legit HOF player in the early to mid 50s but he's supposedly a guy who creates offense for others with great passing and by the 60s he was producing some of the worst offenses in the league. He also shot a lot but on poor efficiency and with massive playoff failures. Take him off those lists and realize it's an 8 team league most of this era and you have a lot better handle on team talent.

As for Lovellette, he played 45 games for the Celtics averaging less than 10 minutes a game; 5 of the Celtics 10 playoff games averaging 8 minutes a game. Probably not significant to the whole great teammates argument. And the next year he was cut loose and no one picked him up so he was basically a baked ring chaser on the bench; again, not that unusual or that important.

[coastalmarker99]

Have you ever thought that having a center who basically could do nothing on offence besides rebound and pass while messing up spacing.

Impacted Cousy.

As From 1952 to 1956, Celtics were the best offensive team in the NBA. They led in P/G all 5 years.

In ORtg those years, Celtics ranked 1, 2, 1, 1, 1, 3.

But yet-suddenly once they get Russell their offence tanks.


Meanwhile.

When Wilt went into Russell's role late into his career.

He basically doubled Russell's career shooting percentage as he averaged over 65 and 70 percent from the floor in the last seasons of his career.

Also, it should be noted that none other than Russell himself said that Wilt was playing his role better than he ever did with the Celtics.

Wilt is playing better than I used to –passing off, coming out to set up screens, picking up guys outside, and sacrificing himself for team play.’’ –Bill Russell, great moments in pro basketball, (by Sam Goldaper)p.24

This is why you can't tell me if you swap Russell and Wilt.

That the Celtics still don't win a boatload of titles throughout the 1960s.


As Boston would now be a far better offensive team while only slightly declining in defence.

[dygaction]

Something interesting to ponder is this.

1956-57

Celtics played the first 24 games of 1956-57 w/o Russell who was at the Olympics.

In 24 first games w/o Russ, Celtics were

16-8, .66.7 % (pace of 55 W in 82 g)

Best record in NBA (Syracuse 2nd at .528)

105.2 P/G

100.6 P/G opponents

Thus, in 1956-57, the Celtics were by far the best team in NBA without Russell and also had the best defence as well.

Also how about this?

In the 57-58 Finals, in which Russell was injured, ...the series was tied 1-1 when Russell injured his ankle in the third quarter of game three.

They lost that game by three points, but they actually outscored the Hawks in the 4th period, and without Russell, by five points.

Now, surely without Russell, Boston would have no chance, right? Well, without Russell in game four, Boston won handily, 109-98. And, while they did lose game five without him, it was by two points.

Russell finally returned for game six, but could only play 20 minutes.

Boston would go on to lose that game by one point, but they outscored the Hawks in the second half, without Russell.

Furthermore.

Just going off of awards.

the Celtics were overwhelmingly more talented than the other teams of the 1960s

1959 3 1st team All NBA players Russell, Cousy, and Sharman...when else has that ever happened?

1960 Cousy 1st team All NBA, Russell, Sharman 2nd team

1961 Cousy 1st team All NBA, Russell, Heinsohn 2nd team

1962 Cousy, Russell, Heinsohn 2nd team All NBA...

4 Celtics made the All-Star Team Cousy, Russell, Heinsohn, and Jones

1963 Russell 1st team All NBA, Cousy, Heinsohn 2nd team...Havlicek Rookie team

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

1965 Russell 1st team, Sam Jones 2nd team

1966 Russell, Jones, Havlicek All NBA 2nd team

1967 Russell, Jones All NBA 2nd team

1968 Russell, Havlicek All NBA 2nd team

1969 Havlicek All NBA 2nd team

That is an amazing run of ALL NBA team honours that I don't see being matched ever again.

And people forget that other Celtic players such as KC jones and Sanders would have been on the all-defensive team every year had it existed

It is clear that the 1960 Celtics clearly always had by far, the deepest teams in the league, and aside from Russell, they could simply plug in another great player when they needed to.

As Auerbach would go out and steal players too.

How could the Celtics pick up Clyde Lovellette for their '64 title run, for nothing?

Lovellette had averaged 21 ppg on .47.1 just the year before and yet he was coming off the bench for Boston.

The all-nba selections are very telling. Celtics constantly had 3 out 10 best players and then the rest of the league get the other 7. Last time when there were three all-nba in a team, it was 17 Warriors (not three first teamers though, KD and Steph on second team and Draymond on 3rd), and it was not fair to the league at all...

[Red Beast]

All those 1st team All-NBA selections for Cousy strike me as some of the worst rep voting in NBA history outside of the last half of Kobe's All-Defense awards and quite possibly worse. He was a legit HOF player in the early to mid 50s but he's supposedly a guy who creates offense for others with great passing and by the 60s he was producing some of the worst offenses in the league. He also shot a lot but on poor efficiency and with massive playoff failures. Take him off those lists and realize it's an 8 team league most of this era and you have a lot better handle on team talent.

As for Lovellette, he played 45 games for the Celtics averaging less than 10 minutes a game; 5 of the Celtics 10 playoff games averaging 8 minutes a game. Probably not significant to the whole great teammates argument. And the next year he was cut loose and no one picked him up so he was basically a baked ring chaser on the bench; again, not that unusual or that important.

Who was more deserving, in your opinion?

[kendogg]

....

Ken said that that Celtics throughout the 60s without Russell were as good as the 2017 Warriors around Curry. That seems like a gross exaggeration to me.

(1) The early Celtics, Cousy/Sharman/Ramsey/Lotscutoff/Heinsohn, had a lot of inefficient high scoring players. Only Sharman and Lotscutoff had good defensive reps; Auerbach had complained about getting Cousy in the expansion draft that brought Cousy to Boston because he said Cousy played no defense. In Russell's rookie year, they were a below average offensive team (6th of 8) and the best defensive team in the league though they were leading the league before Russell joined the team from the Olympics. They continued this trend for the next few years ranking 7th, 5th, 5th and 8th/8 in the league on offense with the same core other than Sam Jones (the best offensive player of the Celtics during the Russell era in my opinion but weaker defensively) replacing Sharman and Satch Sanders taking Lotscutoff's place as the non-scoring defensive forward. In 63, Havlicek plays major minutes giving them another defensive stopper (and another inefficient chucker) and KC Jones starts playing roughly as many minutes as Cousy.

The guys put forward as greats in this era are Cousy, Heinsohn, and Sharman or Sam Jones with Ramsey being an instant offense off the bench guy that had some great playoffs. Heinsohn also had a couple of strong playoffs countered by Cousy consistently shooting in the sub .400 efficiency while not lowering his volume of shots. My problem is that if these are the 2017 Warriors equivalents, why are they the worst team in the league offensively? If Cousy's playmaking is so valuable, why isn't it producing even average team efficiency unlike a playmaker like Oscar, Magic, Nash, etc. who consistently ran high ranking offenses.

I don't buy that this is a particularly strong team around Russell at all, though it is both deep and stayed pretty healthy. The 2017 Warriors seem a silly and far off comparison in terms of shooting talent around the star.

(2) The late Celtics. Over the next few years, KC Jones, Sam Jones, Havlicek, and Satch Sanders became the mainstays along with reserve Don Nelson in 66 and Bailey Howell in 67. Jones and Howell (and Nelson) were near or above league average efficiency scorers (but not known as defenders). Havlicek (and Russell as he aged) were inefficient (but great defenders). KC and Satch did very little on the offensive end (but continued to provide strong defense). Without Russell, this could still be a good defensive team though his shotblocking and defensive rebounding provide the main defense in Boston. They are still overall a poor offensive team finishing 9th, 7th, 8th out of 9 teams until Howell comes in where they have their first and only above average offensive year in the Russell era! finishing 4th out of 10 before slipping back to 8th/12 and 10th/14 in Russell's final two years.

Again, this is a team that wins with defense and rebounding (ie. Russell led) and is consistently poor offensively though Bailey Howell certainly helps them at least not be last in the league any more.

Just for the comparison Kenndog is making, the 2017 Warriors were the BEST offensive team in the league (rather than worst) and 2nd best defense (where the Celtics were consistently 1st or very close to it, often by big margins).

In this era where centers had a disproportionate defensive role, it's safe to say Russell's impact in any given year other than maybe his rookie year consistently dwarfs the possible impact of Curry on making his team winners, great as Curry was. In fact, you can probably state with reasonable certainty that Russell's impact IN HIS ERA is the greatest in history which is why the Celtics are far and away the greatest title winning dynasty in NBA history.

At exactly no point did I say the Celtics were an offensive powerhouse like the Warriors. I said they were similarly stacked (with talent). Their bench guys were better than many starters on other teams. And every perimeter player in that era was an inefficient chucker aside from Jerry and Oscar. That didn't matter for the Celtics because they simply ran the other teams into exhaustion and used their depth to win. They didn't need mega offensive stars to pair with Russ just a bunch of decent players. And the Celtics had far more depth than anyone, even in a league of only 9 teams. They would live with the other team shooting from the outside. They denied any easy buckets with Russ in the middle and everyone else focused on denying slashing more than shooting. Jerry West scored roughly his career average vs the Celtics (25.5 vs Celtics compared to 27.0 for his career). They were designed to shutdown easy paint buckets, and it worked because that was the dominant strategy of the time in this pre-3pt era.

Wilt got his vs the Celtics, because they really werent equipped to stop him (no team was really, just like modern day Shaq). Russ could maybe slow him down a bit on a good day. But the rest of the team got no easy looks, and Wilt couldn't win games by himself (though he came close many times in the playoffs)

[70sFan]

So another thread about raving how good KC Jones was and how lucky Russell was to play with Tom Heinsohn...

[coastalmarker99]

....

Ken said that that Celtics throughout the 60s without Russell were as good as the 2017 Warriors around Curry. That seems like a gross exaggeration to me.

(1) The early Celtics, Cousy/Sharman/Ramsey/Lotscutoff/Heinsohn, had a lot of inefficient high scoring players. Only Sharman and Lotscutoff had good defensive reps; Auerbach had complained about getting Cousy in the expansion draft that brought Cousy to Boston because he said Cousy played no defense. In Russell's rookie year, they were a below average offensive team (6th of 8) and the best defensive team in the league though they were leading the league before Russell joined the team from the Olympics. They continued this trend for the next few years ranking 7th, 5th, 5th and 8th/8 in the league on offense with the same core other than Sam Jones (the best offensive player of the Celtics during the Russell era in my opinion but weaker defensively) replacing Sharman and Satch Sanders taking Lotscutoff's place as the non-scoring defensive forward. In 63, Havlicek plays major minutes giving them another defensive stopper (and another inefficient chucker) and KC Jones starts playing roughly as many minutes as Cousy.

The guys put forward as greats in this era are Cousy, Heinsohn, and Sharman or Sam Jones with Ramsey being an instant offense off the bench guy that had some great playoffs. Heinsohn also had a couple of strong playoffs countered by Cousy consistently shooting in the sub .400 efficiency while not lowering his volume of shots. My problem is that if these are the 2017 Warriors equivalents, why are they the worst team in the league offensively? If Cousy's playmaking is so valuable, why isn't it producing even average team efficiency unlike a playmaker like Oscar, Magic, Nash, etc. who consistently ran high ranking offenses.

I don't buy that this is a particularly strong team around Russell at all, though it is both deep and stayed pretty healthy. The 2017 Warriors seem a silly and far off comparison in terms of shooting talent around the star.

(2) The late Celtics. Over the next few years, KC Jones, Sam Jones, Havlicek, and Satch Sanders became the mainstays along with reserve Don Nelson in 66 and Bailey Howell in 67. Jones and Howell (and Nelson) were near or above league average efficiency scorers (but not known as defenders). Havlicek (and Russell as he aged) were inefficient (but great defenders). KC and Satch did very little on the offensive end (but continued to provide strong defense). Without Russell, this could still be a good defensive team though his shotblocking and defensive rebounding provide the main defense in Boston. They are still overall a poor offensive team finishing 9th, 7th, 8th out of 9 teams until Howell comes in where they have their first and only above average offensive year in the Russell era! finishing 4th out of 10 before slipping back to 8th/12 and 10th/14 in Russell's final two years.

Again, this is a team that wins with defense and rebounding (ie. Russell led) and is consistently poor offensively though Bailey Howell certainly helps them at least not be last in the league any more.

Just for the comparison Kenndog is making, the 2017 Warriors were the BEST offensive team in the league (rather than worst) and 2nd best defense (where the Celtics were consistently 1st or very close to it, often by big margins).

In this era where centers had a disproportionate defensive role, it's safe to say Russell's impact in any given year other than maybe his rookie year consistently dwarfs the possible impact of Curry on making his team winners, great as Curry was. In fact, you can probably state with reasonable certainty that Russell's impact IN HIS ERA is the greatest in history which is why the Celtics are far and away the greatest title winning dynasty in NBA history.

At exactly no point did I say the Celtics were an offensive powerhouse like the Warriors. I said they were similarly stacked (with talent). Their bench guys were better than many starters on other teams. And every perimeter player in that era was an inefficient chucker aside from Jerry and Oscar. That didn't matter for the Celtics because they simply ran the other teams into exhaustion and used their depth to win. They didn't need mega offensive stars to pair with Russ just a bunch of decent players. And the Celtics had far more depth than anyone, even in a league of only 9 teams. They would live with the other team shooting from the outside. They denied any easy buckets with Russ in the middle and everyone else focused on denying slashing more than shooting. Jerry West scored roughly his career average vs the Celtics (25.5 vs Celtics compared to 27.0 for his career). They were designed to shutdown easy paint buckets, and it worked because that was the dominant strategy of the time in this pre-3pt era.

Wilt got his vs the Celtics, because they really werent equipped to stop him (no team was really, just like modern day Shaq). Russ could maybe slow him down a bit on a good day. But the rest of the team got no easy looks, and Wilt couldn't win games by himself (though he came close many times in the playoffs)

The talent disparity between their two teams made it to where Wilt had to thoroughly outplay Russell to even have a 50/50 shot at winning.

It seemed as though when Wilt thoroughly outplayed Russell was when Wilt's team won but not all the time and usually it was a close margin.

When Russ played even with Wilt or outplayed Wilt, the Celtics would blow them out.

One such example out of many is in Game 4 of the '64 Finals.

Wilt beat Russell all the way across the board with 27 points, 38 rebounds, and shot .52.2 from the floor.

While Russell had 8 points, 19 rebounds, and shot .33.3 from the floor.

Yet, the Celtics still won.

There's no way in hell in any game throughout the decade that Wilt would've been able to get away with it if those kind of numbers were flipped in Russell's favour.

As the one playoff game out of the 49 they played in.

In which Russell just destroyed Wilt on both sides of the ball.

The Warriors were utterly blown out by over 30 points.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/196003190BOS.html

[Cavsfansince84]

To me, the biggest thing that probably gets underrated about the Celtics dynasty on boards like this one is the influence and impact that Red had on the team. Which directly translates into giving the non Russell players more credit than they probably deserve. It's probably the same way with the Spurs and some other teams as well. We've just shifted in the last 10-15 years to where coaches aren't really given much credit at all. How good a player is or appears is often a by product of how they are used/coached by a coach. More so with role players. Horace Grant for instance when he came to the Bulls was terrible defensively his first couple years but Johnny Bach kept working with him until he became very good. So I think this happens with the Russell Celtics as well. We never give Red much credit at all for them becoming a dynasty other than he drafted them.

[penbeast0]

At exactly no point did I say the Celtics were an offensive powerhouse like the Warriors. I said they were similarly stacked (with talent). Their bench guys were better than many starters on other teams. And every perimeter player in that era was an inefficient chucker aside from Jerry and Oscar. That didn't matter for the Celtics because they simply ran the other teams into exhaustion and used their depth to win. They didn't need mega offensive stars to pair with Russ just a bunch of decent players. And the Celtics had far more depth than anyone, even in a league of only 9 teams. They would live with the other team shooting from the outside. They denied any easy buckets with Russ in the middle and everyone else focused on denying slashing more than shooting. Jerry West scored roughly his career average vs the Celtics (25.5 vs Celtics compared to 27.0 for his career). They were designed to shutdown easy paint buckets, and it worked because that was the dominant strategy of the time in this pre-3pt era.

Wilt got his vs the Celtics, because they really werent equipped to stop him (no team was really, just like modern day Shaq). Russ could maybe slow him down a bit on a good day. But the rest of the team got no easy looks, and Wilt couldn't win games by himself (though he came close many times in the playoffs)

I am fine with the description of the Celtics as a bunch of decent players with a consistently deep bench; I think that's quite a bit different than comparing them to the 2017 Warriors who had arguably the 2nd and 3rd best players in the league, arguably the best or 2nd best defensive player in the league (who was much more offensively with his playmaking than the offensive zero that was KC Jones) and one of the best 3 and D scoring wings in the league. That's more like the 69 Lakers who were heavy favorites over the Celtics if not better.

In fact, I would argue that Klay Thompson, the 4th best player on those Warrior teams, was roughly equivalent to Sam Jones, the 2nd best player on most of those Celtic teams. But yes, the Celtics had consistently the strongest 8-12th men in the league combined with good health an often underrated commodity and something most dynasties have been blessed with but great one or two season teams like the 67 Sixers or 71 Bucks were not.

[penbeast0]

Oh, and Wilt was THE greatest individual force the NBA has ever seen. More than Jordan, more than LeBron. He wasn't the greatest team player of his era or the most likely to produce wins because his style (early on) produced poor results for the talent around him and (later on) he tried to play like Russell so you don't get that statistical differential but without the extra degree of out on the floor coverage that made Russell special defensively.

[70sFan]

...

How is your book going on? Are you still in touch with NBA archives?

[OhayoKD]

Something interesting to ponder is this.

1956-57

Celtics played the first 24 games of 1956-57 w/o Russell who was at the Olympics.

In 24 first games w/o Russ, Celtics were

16-8, .66.7 % (pace of 55 W in 82 g)
.

And over 82 games in 1969, the team that had just vanquished 2 of the best teams of the decade en route to a title. won 35 as Russell retired despite the second best player seeing his production skyrocket.

Amazing what happens when we don't cherrypick one piece of data to stretch a narrative. Just because the Celtics were stacked at one point, does not mean they were always stacked. And for that latter claim, there is really no evidence whatsoever

[capfan33]

Something interesting to ponder is this.

1956-57

Celtics played the first 24 games of 1956-57 w/o Russell who was at the Olympics.

In 24 first games w/o Russ, Celtics were

16-8, .66.7 % (pace of 55 W in 82 g)
.

And over 82 games in 1969, the team that had just vanquished 2 of the best teams of the decade en route to a title. won 35 as Russell retired despite the second best player seeing his production skyrocket.

Amazing what happens when we don't cherrypick one piece of data to stretch a narrative. Just because the Celtics were stacked at one point, does not mean they were always stacked. And for that latter claim, there is really no evidence whatsoever

I buy Russell's in-era impact and generally agree that he was roughly an ATG-level player for a good portion of his career.

But I don't think I've actually seen someone directly address why the Celtics in 56-57 were as good as they were without him, and how that factors in terms of evaluating the quality of his teammates early on in his career.

Like, they appear to be pretty easily the best team in the league without Russell, and 24 games is more than enough of a sample to where you can't just handwave it away. Not directing this just at you, I'm open to anyone's comments on this.

[Cavsfansince84]

I buy Russell's in-era impact and generally agree that he was roughly an ATG-level player for a good portion of his career.

But I don't think I've actually seen someone directly address why the Celtics in 56-57 were as good as they were without him, and how that factors in terms of evaluating the quality of his teammates early on in his career.

Like, they appear to be pretty easily the best team in the league without Russell, and 24 games is more than enough of a sample to where you can't just handwave it away. Not directing this just at you, I'm open to anyone's comments on this.

I think its probably worth noting that there weren't really any strong teams in the league that year(the next best team in the league were the Nationals who finished 38-34). So given how small the league was that year the Celtics may have feasted on some of the weaker teams. Also, Russell being a rookie his overall impact was likely not what it would become as he got older. The Celtics didn't really break out as a dynasty level team until 1960.

[picko]

Throughout the Russell era, the Celtics had 5 of the top 15 players for points scored per 36 minutes in the playoffs (min. 1000 playoff minutes). Wilt was ranked 16th. So at the very least, the Celtics had a heap of outstanding offensive contributors who were capable of scoring rapidly in big games.

Surrounded by awful teammates, Russell wouldn't have won any more championships than Wilt or Kareem or Bird or Jordan under those same circumstances. Quite simply, every 'dynasty' was absolutely stacked. Every 'dynasty' regularly had more talent - often considerably more - than their peers. From Mikan's Lakers to Russell's Celtics and Jordan's Bulls to Curry's Warriors. The Celtics won 11 championships in 13 seasons, the collective playing group and coaching had to be exceptional for that era, even if occasionally they weren't as talented as their opposition (such as 1969).