RealGM

viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1130900&start=60#p28837069

We're having a vigorous discussion in the RealGM 100 project about the quality of the Celtics' offense led by Cousy, and of Cousy as an offensive player in particular. Stats seemingly show that the Celtics were pathetic in FG% and in the number of FTs taken, yet excellent in points scored. Obviously, this means they had a lot more possessions than other teams, which can come in two ways:

* Faster pace
* Offensive rebounding

The low FG% could be due to various factors:

* Lack of skill
* Bad system
* System that plays down accuracy at the cost of rebounding position
* Fatigue from the high pace

Can anybody shed light on these issue?

1. Bill Russel is the king of Offensive rebounding in his era. Celtics enjoyed extra possession advantage.

2. Celtics' FG% is not terrible in that era. Every team shoot bad % in today's standard.
For example:
Celtics shooting % is 42% in 1961-1962 seasn, but was ranked 5 (of 9 teams).
http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/BOS/1962.html

Celtics shooting % is 45% in 1966-1967 seasn, but was ranked 4 (of 10 teams).
http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/BOS/1967.html

The shooting skills developed a lot in 70s to be the modern NBA skills set we have today.

Bluewhale wrote:1. Bill Russel is the king of Offensive rebounding in his era. Celtics enjoyed extra possession advantage.

2. Celtics' FG% is not terrible in that era. Every team shoot bad % in today's standard.
For example:
Celtics shooting % is 42% in 1961-1962 seasn, but was ranked 5 (of 9 teams).
http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/BOS/1962.html

Celtics shooting % is 45% in 1966-1967 seasn, but was ranked 4 (of 10 teams).
http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/BOS/1967.html

The shooting skills developed a lot in 70s to be the modern NBA skills set we have today.

1966-7 is not actually in the Cousy era.

I don't have any fancy stats or anything to back this up but the early Celtic teams were all about the fast break!

That was the key to their success!

The rest of the league played a more deliberate style of offence simular to what a modern day Greg Popovitch or a Jerry Sloan coached team might play (though far less sophisticated perhaps). And back then, everyone played a man to man defence. But the Celtics simply had the horses and the up-beat tempo to just "run and gun" their opponents off the court for what seemd like the entire sixty minutes!

They routinely got the break going after Russell would collect one of his (perhaps 30 or occasionally 40 rebounds) per game (and with help from the defensive minded Satch Sanders) they made that outlet pass to Cousy who would then find someone who was running the floor with him. If there were no easy layups to be had, Cousy found Bill Sharman, Heinson, Frank Ramsey or perhaps Sam Jones for open looks or took the shot himself. Or he would feed Heinson underneath for a classic hook shot or a wide open Bill Russell around the rim for a stuff! Mind you, Russell was not a great shooter like Wilt...but he got his 15-20 per night mostly off easy baskets on the break.

Noone, it seemed, could consistantly match them offensively or had the defence and the legs to stop them. It was relentless!

Even when the shooters had off nights, they found a way to simply out hustle their opponents. If the Celtics starters got down a dozen or so, Red would bring in the Jones boys guard tandum (KC and Sam) off the bench to press their opponents into mistakes and the Celts would roar back from behind. That was the classic formula for Celtic success that dominated that era!

But realisticly and obviously, the calibur of the league play and the over-all athleticism or even the sophistication level of the coaching back then, was not what it is today. But it sure didn't make the games any less enteratining! (At least for this Celtic fan!)

Tenbomber wrote:I don't have any fancy stats or anything to back this up but the early Celtic teams were all about the fast break!

That was the key to their success!

The rest of the league played a more deliberate style of offence simular to what a modern day Greg Popovitch or a Jerry Sloan coached team might play (though far less sophisticated perhaps). And back then, everyone played a man to man defence. But the Celtics simply had the horses and the up-beat tempo to just "run and gun" their opponents off the court for what seemd like the entire sixty minutes!

They routinely got the break going after Russell would collect one of his (perhaps 30 or occasionally 40 rebounds) per game (and with help from the defensive minded Satch Sanders) they made that outlet pass to Cousy who would then find someone who was running the floor with him. If there were no easy layups to be had, Cousy found Bill Sharman, Heinson, Frank Ramsey or perhaps Sam Jones for open looks or took the shot himself. Or he would feed Heinson underneath for a classic hook shot or a wide open Bill Russell around the rim for a stuff! Mind you, Russell was not a great shooter like Wilt...but he got his 15-20 per night mostly off easy baskets on the break.

Noone, it seemed, could consistantly match them offensively or had the defence and the legs to stop them. It was relentless!

Even when the shooters had off nights, they found a way to simply out hustle their opponents. If the Celtics starters got down a dozen or so, Red would bring in the Jones boys guard tandum (KC and Sam) off the bench to press their opponents into mistakes and the Celts would roar back from behind. That was the classic formula for Celtic success that dominated that era!

But realisticly and obviously, the calibur of the league play and the over-all athleticism or even the sophistication level of the coaching back then, was not what it is today. But it sure didn't make the games any less enteratining! (At least for this Celtic fan!)

How did opponents deal with the Celtics' fast break? Did they simply try to run along? Or did they leave a big man back to try to defend against it?

Fencer reregistered wrote:

Tenbomber wrote:I don't have any fancy stats or anything to back this up but the early Celtic teams were all about the fast break!

That was the key to their success!

The rest of the league played a more deliberate style of offence simular to what a modern day Greg Popovitch or a Jerry Sloan coached team might play (though far less sophisticated perhaps). And back then, everyone played a man to man defence. But the Celtics simply had the horses and the up-beat tempo to just "run and gun" their opponents off the court for what seemd like the entire sixty minutes!

They routinely got the break going after Russell would collect one of his (perhaps 30 or occasionally 40 rebounds) per game (and with help from the defensive minded Satch Sanders) they made that outlet pass to Cousy who would then find someone who was running the floor with him. If there were no easy layups to be had, Cousy found Bill Sharman, Heinson, Frank Ramsey or perhaps Sam Jones for open looks or took the shot himself. Or he would feed Heinson underneath for a classic hook shot or a wide open Bill Russell around the rim for a stuff! Mind you, Russell was not a great shooter like Wilt...but he got his 15-20 per night mostly off easy baskets on the break.

Noone, it seemed, could consistantly match them offensively or had the defence and the legs to stop them. It was relentless!

Even when the shooters had off nights, they found a way to simply out hustle their opponents. If the Celtics starters got down a dozen or so, Red would bring in the Jones boys guard tandum (KC and Sam) off the bench to press their opponents into mistakes and the Celts would roar back from behind. That was the classic formula for Celtic success that dominated that era!

But realisticly and obviously, the calibur of the league play and the over-all athleticism or even the sophistication level of the coaching back then, was not what it is today. But it sure didn't make the games any less enteratining! (At least for this Celtic fan!)

How did opponents deal with the Celtics' fast break? Did they simply try to run along? Or did they leave a big man back to try to defend against it?

They did not deal with it very well at all. There were no big men who could even think of keeping up with Russell on the run.

Wilt seemingly had the physical tools ( he was very fast baseline to baseline and had been a very respectable hurdler at Kansas) but he lacked Russell's psychological drive and will to win. There were rumors of the heart condition that eventually killed him as far back as his SF years.

The Celtic break came in waves of usually 3 to 4 players - sometimes 5 - and even a big man back could not deal with that (unless his name was Russell)

Plus other teams played a much slower offense that depended on their big man to be in the post so when the Celtics took off on the break the opponent's big man was very often caught up court (including Wilt) and was usually a non-factor in how the opponent reacted to the Celtic break.

Thanks. I once saw Walton stop a well-executed 3-on-1 break, and a superbly executed 2-on-1, but he WAS hanging back at the time.

A couple of things are confusing, however. One is that Cousy shot with low efficiency, relative to his teammates, the league, or most other standards, yet kept shooting. Why was that? Also, by the stats the Celtics played at just as hectic a pace after Cousy retired as when he led them.

So how much did Cousy really contribute to the offense? Was it like Rondo today (who obviously is more skilled if we don't adjust for era)? More? Less?

Five or six years ago JB of Celtics Stuff Live put together a series of clips of Cousy that were almost unbelievable. It wasn't one or two or three clips. It was 10-15 minutes from dozens of games. He was doing stuff routinely in terms of ball handling and passing that only a few players have ever done, and none, to my knowledge, so routinely. The passing was from the Maravich, Bird, Magic, Rondo highlight reel, on steroids. The dribbling was astonishing.

It completely changed my view of Cooz, and made it in accord with Tommy Heinsohn's longstanding position. Cousy wasn't just ahead of his time; he still is ahead of his time.

The paradox for me is why Cousy's six pre-Russell teams did not fare better. He had two other top 10 players --Sharman and Macauley-- yet they never won a title. They never even made it to the finals, even though there were only 4 teams in the division. In 1955 the Cs finished at .500. Players of that quality in all eras tend to have better performing teams.

Hell, in today's game the coach of those pre-Russell teams probably would have been fired as an incompetent. Fortunately, that did not happen.

The accusation is that Cousy was, in effect, a poor decision-maker -- doing flashy things in place of simpler ones that would have been more productive.

Fencer reregistered wrote:The accusation is that Cousy was, in effect, a poor decision-maker -- doing flashy things in place of simpler ones that would have been more productive.

people forget that he had to be flashy on purpose and do the things that he did just so people would watch. Nobody back then knew what an NBA was, or what professional basketball was. He played flashy to get people in the seats.

Bluewhale wrote:1. Bill Russel is the king of Offensive rebounding in his era. Celtics enjoyed extra possession advantage.

Here's one instance in the 1960-61 season in which Russell grabbed three consecutive offensive rebounds in the last minute of the game, but after his teammates repeatedly failed to convert, he dunked the game-winning basket himself:

Bill Russell Persistent And Pulls Out a Victory

BOSTON (AP)—Boston Celtics coach Red Auerbach was talking about his great center, Bill Russell, recently named the National Basketball Association’s most valuable player.

“He has played fabulous basketball for us. He gives you that great defense and a rising scoring average. Bill really deserved it,” Auerbach said before Boston’s game in Syracuse yesterday.

So big Bill promptly showed again why rival players in a weekend poll picked him for the President’s Cup.

With less than a minute to go in an overtime period, Boston and syracuse were tied 134-134. Swift Sam Jones, putting on one of the greatest offensive displays of his career, blazed down the court and put up a shot. It missed, but Russell surrounded the rebound and fired it right back to Sam for another try.

Three Re-bounds

Again he missed, and again Russell had the rebound. This time the pass went to Tom Sanders. With 13 seconds left, he put up a shot. Again it missed and again Russell rebounded. This time Bill took matters in his own hands, and dunked the winning basket.

Boston’s 136-134 triumph enabled them to close out the season with a string of seven straight victories and a 57-22 record, 11 games ahead of second place Philadelphia.

What I saw (and have read) suggested that Cousy was a lot closer to Rondo than to a circus clown. He seemed to see the floor and make great passes for good shots. He was absolutely devastating on the break. (Lord, I wish Rondo were this good in transition.) The skills he had meant he could get to anywhere he wanted to go on the floor pretty easily.

Tommy makes the point that assists were recorded by a more stringent standard back in the 50s. He argues that Cousy would have had as much as 50 percent more by modern scorekeeping. I have no way of knowing if this is the case, but it is worth noting. For those who might understandably think Tommy is prone to hyperbole, he does not blow smoke for all his old teams. He is oddly quiet about touting the magnificent teams he coached in the early-mid 1970s, by way of comparison. And those teams deserve love.

The overall skill level was pretty low in the Cousy era. NBA shooting was way down - and many players were not even full time ballers.. So you can't really judge Cousy by the modern era numbers. He didn't play with anything like modern era finishers.

Good points. Cousy didn't exactly have the break finishers that Magic or Kidd did ...

They did have good fast break finishers back then, they just were not very fast and finished from below the rim.

I have been on a ESPN classic binge. Athleticism, quickness, dribbling, shooting and even height were less in the past. The fast break execution and passing in general looked better back then.

In the 1960 the time allowed for foul shots was really long and slowed the game down and gave people more time to rest. I always heard about how rugged the game was back in the day but that is not what I saw. The game was actually called tighter. Especially offensive fouls. They called offensive fouls that now are no-calls or even defensive fouls. Flagrant fouls were not penalized as severely as now but otherwise contact was called fouls more then. People were very conscious of their pivot foot back then because traveling was also called tighter.

The fast break was very important to all teams because the half court scored at such a low percentage. It looked like most players could not hit open 17 footers at a decent percentage so once the fast break was gone they had to work the ball inside against a sagged in defense which explains why they had to master screens and interior passing.

SinceGatlingWasARookie wrote:They did have good fast break finishers back then, they just were not very fast and finished from below the rim.

With all due respect to your opinion,

Can you name one player 6' 10" or taller faster, end to end, than Bill Russell? I think not. In 1956 the Olympic Committee (not the U.S. Olympic Commitee, the Olympic Committee) measured basketball players barefoot, and rounded down. Russell was listed 6' 10" in the Olympic Program, which means he measured that barefoot. In addition, Russell high jumped 6' 11" in the Olympic trials, but DECLINED to jump higher, since he felt the two track stars he was competing against would adequately represent the U.S., and Russell already had a spot on the basketball team.

As for SG Sam Jones, again, Sam was 6' 4" barefoot, and routinely shot from 22-23 before the 3 point shot. You will be VERY, VERY hard pressed to name ANY players faster than Sam.

As for the rest of the COUSY era team (1963 and earlier) being somewhat slow of foot you are correct, but that doesn't hold for Bill Russell or Sam Jones. Russell's sheer quickness has never been equaled in anyone his size.

Elrod is Back wrote:
...

The paradox for me is why Cousy's six pre-Russell teams did not fare better. He had two other top 10 players --Sharman and Macauley-- yet they never won a title. They never even made it to the finals, even though there were only 4 teams in the division. In 1955 the Cs finished at .500. Players of that quality in all eras tend to have better performing teams.

....

I think the answer for that is defense (points allowed) – just some numbers that back up Red’s assertion that he need Russell for defense (and rebounding).


1950-51 (Cousy’s rookie year) – 4th on offense, 7th on defense in an eleven team league

1951-52 - 1st on offense, 8th on defense in a ten team league

1952-53 - 1st on offense, 8th on defense in a ten team league

1953-54 - 1st on offense, last on defense in a nine team league

1954-55 - 1st on offense, last on defense in an eight team league

1955-56 - 1st on offense, last on defense in an eight team league

1956-57 (Russell’s rookie year) - 1st on offense, 4th on defense in an eight team league (Cousy MVP, Heinsohn rookie of the year)

1957-58 - 2nd on offense, 2nd on defense in an eight team league (Russell MVP)

1958-59 – 1st on offense, 6th on defense in an eight team league

1959-60 – 1st on offense, 4th on defense in an eight team league

After this, the Celtics were never less than 2nd in team defense the rest of Russell’s career

1960-61 – 3rd on offense, tied for 1st on defense in an eight team league (Russell MVP)

1961-62 – 3rd on offense, 1st on defense in a nine team league (Russell MVP)

1962-63 – 3rd on offense, 2nd on defense in a nine team league (Russell MVP)

1963-64 – 2nd on offense, 2nd on defense in a nine team league

1964-65 – 3rd on offense, 1st on defense in a nine team league (Russell MVP)

1965-66 – 7th on offense, 1st on defense in a nine team league

1966-67 – 4th on offense, 1st on defense in a ten team league

1967-68 – 8th on offense, 2nd on defense in a twelve team league

1968-69 – 10th on offense, 2nd on defense in a fourteen team league