Pt 1. Of the CEO Top 25 players of all time: Intro and the career analysis of Bill Russell

[70sFan]

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

1964 Havlicek was a 21.2 pp75 on -2.2 rTS% scorer (worse in playoffs) without his future passing game and not being fully developed defensively. That's a strong 6th man, but he was far from all-star level. You wouldn't even think about him if he wasn't named Havlicek. 1965 doesn't see much improvement in him either. He was still undeveloped as a shooter then and didn't have playmaking component either. Havlicek made a leap in 1966 and then a huge leap in 1967, but he wasn't all-star worthy in 1963-65.

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

Wait, you mean KC Jones? Are you serious now?

Tom Heinsohn was mostly a scorer and in 1964 he averaged 21.2 pp75 on -2.7 rTS% in limited minutes. He didn't bring much beyond solid, but unspectacular defense outside of scoring. That's not all-star level player.

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).

Pettit, Wilkens, Hagan, Beaty and Guerin were all arguably better than old Tom Heinsohn. I mean, why do you think Heinsohn was better than Hagan? Cliff at least could finish his actions on efficient rate. I get that Zelmo missed time, but it didn't stop you from calling 1965 Heinsohn all-star either.

And still those guys could be as low as the 7th best player on those Celtics teams (64 hawks were a solid team tbf)

No, that's absurd statement. Celtics 7th best player was old Frank Ramsey, don't be ridiculous.

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'm waiting to hear what makes KC Jones or Tom Heinsohn better than Dick Barnett or Rudy LaRusso. Barnett especially is really underrated player, I might take him over Havlicek for 1963-65 period, let alone KC Jones or Tom Heinsohn.

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

I have seen Heinsohn making valuable plays here and there, but no - I disagree, he's not "ellite defender". He's below average rebounder with average lateral movement and no rim protection ability. He can be a valuable asset, but anything above slightly positive defender is a reach.

I also have no idea where you got the idea that Heinsohn was a very good playmaker.

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

So having very good defenders with no offensive creator is the recipe for being one of the most stacked teams of all-time? I'd take 1990s Bulls rosters over that without thinking twice and I don't even think Bulls were uterlly stacked.

[70sFan]

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

Russell was infured in 1958, it doesn't prove your point.

It's just insane that you keep cherrypicking moments when Celtics barely won in the period when they won 11 out of 13 titles. Or that you choose 1967-69 period when they won 2 out of 3 titles and you call them "just another normal contender". Are you aware that you can do that to any other 3 peat teams?

[70sFan]

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

Yeah, all things concerned this is one of the most impressive title runs ever.

[ceoofkobefans]

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

1964 Havlicek was a 21.2 pp75 on -2.2 rTS% scorer (worse in playoffs) without his future passing game and not being fully developed defensively. That's a strong 6th man, but he was far from all-star level. You wouldn't even think about him if he wasn't named Havlicek. 1965 doesn't see much improvement in him either. He was still undeveloped as a shooter then and didn't have playmaking component either. Havlicek made a leap in 1966 and then a huge leap in 1967, but he wasn't all-star worthy in 1963-65.

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

Wait, you mean KC Jones? Are you serious now?

Tom Heinsohn was mostly a scorer and in 1964 he averaged 21.2 pp75 on -2.7 rTS% in limited minutes. He didn't bring much beyond solid, but unspectacular defense outside of scoring. That's not all-star level player.

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).

Pettit, Wilkens, Hagan, Beaty and Guerin were all arguably better than old Tom Heinsohn. I mean, why do you think Heinsohn was better than Hagan? Cliff at least could finish his actions on efficient rate. I get that Zelmo missed time, but it didn't stop you from calling 1965 Heinsohn all-star either.

And still those guys could be as low as the 7th best player on those Celtics teams (64 hawks were a solid team tbf)

No, that's absurd statement. Celtics 7th best player was old Frank Ramsey, don't be ridiculous.

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'm waiting to hear what makes KC Jones or Tom Heinsohn better than Dick Barnett or Rudy LaRusso. Barnett especially is really underrated player, I might take him over Havlicek for 1963-65 period, let alone KC Jones or Tom Heinsohn.

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

I have seen Heinsohn making valuable plays here and there, but no - I disagree, he's not "ellite defender". He's below average rebounder with average lateral movement and no rim protection ability. He can be a valuable asset, but anything above slightly positive defender is a reach.

I also have no idea where you got the idea that Heinsohn was a very good playmaker.

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

So having very good defenders with no offensive creator is the recipe for being one of the most stacked teams of all-time? I'd take 1990s Bulls rosters over that without thinking twice and I don't even think Bulls were uterlly stacked.

I think you’re definitely underrating Hondo’s passing and especially defense considering defense usually peaks earlier for players

??? KC Jones is by far the best guard defender in the league until and providing solid passing for the Celtics

I think we just disagree on how valuable Heinsohn’s defense was and I think the efficiency for some of these guys comes partially from playing with some pretty horrendous spacing (which is normal for a good bit of 60s teams tbf) like Russell isn’t a threat outside of 5 feet and sanders isn’t much of a jump shooting threat either.

65 Heinsohn sure but not any year before that other than maybe 63 (which I would go against outside of Pettit and Beaty) yea hagan is good offensively but he’s also likely bad defensively and Heinsohn is a huge + there imo. I didn’t call Heinsohn a good playmaker I called hondo that 65 Heinsohn isn’t all star level injuries start getting him by that point and prolly just a starter level guy at best. And how is Heinsohn a below average rebounder?? He’s t20 every year in rpg outside of 64 and 65 and that’s playing next to a guy getting 20 rpg if anything he’s a HQ rebounder. I wouldn’t say no rim protection but he’s more of a switchable big that used in the post rather as rim protection. But like even in 64 he’s 33rd in rpg and 42nd in mpg and again he’s playing with Russell getting 25 rpg that year.

Yes a team being filled to the brim with HQ defenders on a team that has a +6 SRS purely off their defense is stacked lol

How are the early 90 bulls teams stacked? And I’m prolly taking them overall over the 60s Celtics but that’s because they have arguably the best peak ever + a weak mvp in Scottie not because they have Hq players down the rotation

Btw saying they would be the 7th best player on the Celtics would put them above Frank Ramsey and behind Russell Jones sanders hondo Jones Heinsohn and even if you want to argue them above Jones and Heinsohn that still puts them at 5th best and outside of their 2 best players none of them clear KC or Heinsohn

[ceoofkobefans]

Russell was infured in 1958, it doesn't prove your point.

It's just insane that you keep cherrypicking moments when Celtics barely won in the period when they won 11 out of 13 titles. Or that you choose 1967-69 period when they won 2 out of 3 titles and you call them "just another normal contender". Are you aware that you can do that to any other 3 peat teams?

The Celtics are still a very clearly elite team outside of Russell and they were 1-2 in the games with Russell (1-1 if you take out the game he gets hurt 1-3 if you include g6 when Russell plays 20 min) and 1-1 in the games without Russell the point Is a player leading a bad team won a ring so yes it does (and still is against an elite team which further proves the point)

Can you really consider it cherry picking when it’s happening over half the time? Especially considering these celtics teams are considered outliers in the RS in terms of how good they are and it’s not the same to do that against teams in leagues with multiple 50 or even 60 win teams to a team in a league where they are considered outliers. Yes the Celtics had series where they dominated like they should but half the time they aren’t I don’t think the 90s bulls or 80s lakers / Celtics or 00s lakers aren’t struggling that often despite playing in leagues where they aren’t RS outliers

[ceoofkobefans]

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

Yeah, all things concerned this is one of the most impressive title runs ever.

I’d definitely have the 64 and 65 teams higher but I think I’d agree with that list outside of that at a glance (maybe 69 over 68? Idk)

Yea that 69 finals run is pretty impressive beating the three best teams in the league and the only real injuries being 5 minutes of wilt in g7 (which could effect the outcome of that game but also couldn’t so it’s not that big) and Cazzie Russell barely playing in the Knicks series due to injury (although sanders also missed a bit of time due to injury as well although it’s not as big of an impact but I doubt Cazzie turns the tide for the Knicks. Prolly just makes the series closer although the Celtics do have 2 1 point wins in that series so who knows)

But even with that beating the 3 best teams in the league is certainly impressive. Not sure where I’d rank it among most impressive title runs

[70sFan]

I think you’re definitely underrating Hondo’s passing and especially defense considering defense usually peaks earlier for players

I don't underrate him, because some time ago I went deep into Havlicek games to analyze his defense and I came out with the conclusion that he clearly wasn't as good early on as he became later. Not all players peaked early defensively and Hondo looks considerably more impressive even in the mid-1970s vs 1963-64.

About his passing - what in games you have seen suggest that he was already a great playmaker in the early years? I have always been very impressed with his passing skills, but they are not visible on the tape until 1966. Every crude attempt of measuring playmaking skills (apg, Passing Rating, BC) indicates that Hondo became significantly better passer later in his career. It corresponds well with what I have seen - Havlicek came to the league as a raw prospect with physical tools to become great, but it didn't materialize until 1966.

??? KC Jones is by far the best guard defender in the league until and providing solid passing for the Celtics

I wouldn't go that far, Tom Gola was probably better defensively than him, JerryWest as well and there are a few others that could compete (Al Attles, Lenny Wilkens, Larry Costello). I like his defense a lot, but small PG doesn't have enough defensive value to become all-star strictly based on that. You also forget to mention that he's arguably the worst starting PG offensively among all title-level teams in NBA history. Jones was horrible shooter, poor inside finisher and doesn't have any value beyond running the break. That's not close to an all-star level player, you vastly underrate the overall talent in the league.

I think we just disagree on how valuable Heinsohn’s defense was and I think the efficiency for some of these guys comes partially from playing with some pretty horrendous spacing (which is normal for a good bit of 60s teams tbf) like Russell isn’t a threat outside of 5 feet and sanders isn’t much of a jump shooting threat either.

Celtics defensive peak started when Heinsohn minutes went down, I don't think that's coincidence. It doesn't mean he was a negative defender, but I don't see him being super impactful, or elite as you described him.

Heinsohn played with Cousy, Sharman, Ramsey and young Jones, early Russell Celtics had decent enough spacing but he was never super efficient. Tom Sanders actually shot from outside quite a bit and even Russell took jumpers from time to time (though probably wasn't efficient shooter).

65 Heinsohn sure but not any year before that other than maybe 63 (which I would go against outside of Pettit and Beaty) yea hagan is good offensively but he’s also likely bad defensively and Heinsohn is a huge + there imo.

Why do you think Hagan was bad defensively? What do you base it on?

I didn’t call Heinsohn a good playmaker I called hondo that 65 Heinsohn isn’t all star level injuries start getting him by that point and prolly just a starter level guy at best. And how is Heinsohn a below average rebounder?? He’s t20 every year in rpg outside of 64 and 65 and that’s playing next to a guy getting 20 rpg if anything he’s a HQ rebounder.

Here are Heinsohn's percentile in rebounds per36 minutes (we don't have per possession numbers):

1957: 82th
1958: 71th
1959: 72th
1960: 73th
1961: 78th
1962: 71th
1963: 66th
1964: 49th
1965: 46th

Keep in mind that per36 numbers overstate his rebounding numbers, because Celtics played at the highest pace in the league during that time. That puts him as a relatively poor rebounder for his position in 1964 and 1965, around average in most of his prime seasons and good in his two best seasons. That's not elite rebounder, far from it.

I get that playing next to Russell could hurt your averages, but at the same time we have seen notable rebounders playing next to Wilt (Thurmond, Jackson) or Thurmond (Lucas, Lee) doing reasonanbly well, definitely better than Heinsohn.

I wouldn’t say no rim protection but he’s more of a switchable big that used in the post rather as rim protection. But like even in 64 he’s 33rd in rpg and 42nd in mpg and again he’s playing with Russell getting 25 rpg that year.

I don't think I have seen Heinsohn making high quality contest at the rim even once. I could be wrong, because I have seen a lot of Celtics footage and I might be forgetting some plays, but he's not a threat inside.

Yes a team being filled to the brim with HQ defenders on a team that has a +6 SRS purely off their defense is stacked lol

Yeah, if you call every Celtics player "HQ defender" then you may think that way. Heinsohn wasn't HQ defender, neither was Sam Jones or Willie Naulls. The ones I'd call elite are KC Jones and Tom Sanders, with Havlicek improving.

You also fail to understand that they wouldn't have anywhere near +6 SRS without Russell. Without Bill, their defense wouldn't be elite anymore (probably around average) and their offense would turn them into bad team overall.

How are the early 90 bulls teams stacked?

Exactly the same way 1960s Celtics are stacked - they have HQ defenders and GOAT-level player. Except that they also have better offensive players than Celtics.

Btw saying they would be the 7th best player on the Celtics would put them above Frank Ramsey and behind Russell Jones sanders hondo Jones Heinsohn and even if you want to argue them above Jones and Heinsohn that still puts them at 5th best and outside of their 2 best players none of them clear KC or Heinsohn

Yeah, it's absurd to think that Richie Guerin is worse than KC Jones. Sorry, but that's how I see it.

So 4th best Hawks player would be 5th best Celtics player? Wow, what a stacked team indeed...

[70sFan]

The Celtics are still a very clearly elite team outside of Russell

Just like 1994 Bulls were elite without Jordan, but you don't use it against him.

and they were 1-2 in the games with Russell (1-1 if you take out the game he gets hurt 1-3 if you include g6 when Russell plays 20 min) and 1-1 in the games without Russell the point Is a player leading a bad team won a ring so yes it does (and still is against an elite team which further proves the point)

It proves absolutely nothing. Russell played hurt, do you understand that? Who cares that he forced himself to play 20 min in the last game?

You literally pick the only Russell loss in his career and act like you found the way to criticize him for something.

Can you really consider it cherry picking when it’s happening over half the time?

What exactly? Close series? Like in case of any other dynasty? Except that Russell's dynasty lasted twice as long as the next longest dynasty? That's your point?

Especially considering these celtics teams are considered outliers in the RS in terms of how good they are and it’s not the same to do that against teams in leagues with multiple 50 or even 60 win teams to a team in a league where they are considered outliers. Yes the Celtics had series where they dominated like they should but half the time they aren’t I don’t think the 90s bulls or 80s lakers / Celtics or 00s lakers aren’t struggling that often despite playing in leagues where they aren’t RS outliers

Russell Celtics didn't play 1st rounds, so we can compare them to other dynasties without taking into account 1st rounds. Here are the numbers of 7 games series for all dynasties:

1957-69 Celtics: 9 in 13 years

1991-98 Bulls: 2 in 6 years (not counting 1994)
1980-89 Lakers: 4 in 10 years
1980-88 Celtics: 7 in 9 years
2000-03 Lakers: 2 in 4 years

1980s Celtics actually struggled a lot more than 1960s Celtics, yet you use them as the example.

[ceoofkobefans]

I think you’re definitely underrating Hondo’s passing and especially defense considering defense usually peaks earlier for players

I don't underrate him, because some time ago I went deep into Havlicek games to analyze his defense and I came out with the conclusion that he clearly wasn't as good early on as he became later. Not all players peaked early defensively and Hondo looks considerably more impressive even in the mid-1970s vs 1963-64.

About his passing - what in games you have seen suggest that he was already a great playmaker in the early years? I have always been very impressed with his passing skills, but they are not visible on the tape until 1966. Every crude attempt of measuring playmaking skills (apg, Passing Rating, BC) indicates that Hondo became significantly better passer later in his career. It corresponds well with what I have seen - Havlicek came to the league as a raw prospect with physical tools to become great, but it didn't materialize until 1966.

??? KC Jones is by far the best guard defender in the league until and providing solid passing for the Celtics

I wouldn't go that far, Tom Gola was probably better defensively than him, JerryWest as well and there are a few others that could compete (Al Attles, Lenny Wilkens, Larry Costello). I like his defense a lot, but small PG doesn't have enough defensive value to become all-star strictly based on that. You also forget to mention that he's arguably the worst starting PG offensively among all title-level teams in NBA history. Jones was horrible shooter, poor inside finisher and doesn't have any value beyond running the break. That's not close to an all-star level player, you vastly underrate the overall talent in the league.

I think we just disagree on how valuable Heinsohn’s defense was and I think the efficiency for some of these guys comes partially from playing with some pretty horrendous spacing (which is normal for a good bit of 60s teams tbf) like Russell isn’t a threat outside of 5 feet and sanders isn’t much of a jump shooting threat either.

Celtics defensive peak started when Heinsohn minutes went down, I don't think that's coincidence. It doesn't mean he was a negative defender, but I don't see him being super impactful, or elite as you described him.

Heinsohn played with Cousy, Sharman, Ramsey and young Jones, early Russell Celtics had decent enough spacing but he was never super efficient. Tom Sanders actually shot from outside quite a bit and even Russell took jumpers from time to time (though probably wasn't efficient shooter).

65 Heinsohn sure but not any year before that other than maybe 63 (which I would go against outside of Pettit and Beaty) yea hagan is good offensively but he’s also likely bad defensively and Heinsohn is a huge + there imo.

Why do you think Hagan was bad defensively? What do you base it on?

I didn’t call Heinsohn a good playmaker I called hondo that 65 Heinsohn isn’t all star level injuries start getting him by that point and prolly just a starter level guy at best. And how is Heinsohn a below average rebounder?? He’s t20 every year in rpg outside of 64 and 65 and that’s playing next to a guy getting 20 rpg if anything he’s a HQ rebounder.

Here are Heinsohn's percentile in rebounds per36 minutes (we don't have per possession numbers):

1957: 82th
1958: 71th
1959: 72th
1960: 73th
1961: 78th
1962: 71th
1963: 66th
1964: 49th
1965: 46th

Keep in mind that per36 numbers overstate his rebounding numbers, because Celtics played at the highest pace in the league during that time. That puts him as a relatively poor rebounder for his position in 1964 and 1965, around average in most of his prime seasons and good in his two best seasons. That's not elite rebounder, far from it.

I get that playing next to Russell could hurt your averages, but at the same time we have seen notable rebounders playing next to Wilt (Thurmond, Jackson) or Thurmond (Lucas, Lee) doing reasonanbly well, definitely better than Heinsohn.

I wouldn’t say no rim protection but he’s more of a switchable big that used in the post rather as rim protection. But like even in 64 he’s 33rd in rpg and 42nd in mpg and again he’s playing with Russell getting 25 rpg that year.

I don't think I have seen Heinsohn making high quality contest at the rim even once. I could be wrong, because I have seen a lot of Celtics footage and I might be forgetting some plays, but he's not a threat inside.

Yes a team being filled to the brim with HQ defenders on a team that has a +6 SRS purely off their defense is stacked lol

Yeah, if you call every Celtics player "HQ defender" then you may think that way. Heinsohn wasn't HQ defender, neither was Sam Jones or Willie Naulls. The ones I'd call elite are KC Jones and Tom Sanders, with Havlicek improving.

You also fail to understand that they wouldn't have anywhere near +6 SRS without Russell. Without Bill, their defense wouldn't be elite anymore (probably around average) and their offense would turn them into bad team overall.

How are the early 90 bulls teams stacked?

Exactly the same way 1960s Celtics are stacked - they have HQ defenders and GOAT-level player. Except that they also have better offensive players than Celtics.

Btw saying they would be the 7th best player on the Celtics would put them above Frank Ramsey and behind Russell Jones sanders hondo Jones Heinsohn and even if you want to argue them above Jones and Heinsohn that still puts them at 5th best and outside of their 2 best players none of them clear KC or Heinsohn

Yeah, it's absurd to think that Richie Guerin is worse than KC Jones. Sorry, but that's how I see it.

So 4th best Hawks player would be 5th best Celtics player? Wow, what a stacked team indeed...

Im assuming you watched a lot more film than what’s available so can you send the games you watched so I can watch them?

Here is Hondo’s MP Box OC Passer rating O Load and then Box OC/Load *100 every year of his career

John Havlicek 1963 2200 3 4.6 27.2 11.03%
John Havlicek 1964 2587 4.7 5.2 34 13.82%
John Havlicek 1965 2169 5 5.6 36.3 13.77%
John Havlicek 1966 2175 5 5.4 35.9 13.93%
John Havlicek 1967 2602 6 5.3 36.2 16.57%
John Havlicek 1968 2921 6.1 5.9 34.7 17.58%
John Havlicek 1969 3174 6.2 6.4 36.4 17.03%
John Havlicek 1970 3369 7.2 6.0 36.1 19.94%
John Havlicek 1971 3678 7.9 5.9 38.8 20.36%
John Havlicek 1972 3698 7.7 6.5 38.7 19.90%
John Havlicek 1973 3367 6.7 6.2 37.1 18.06%
John Havlicek 1974 3091 6.4 5.7 36.7 17.44%
John Havlicek 1975 3132 5.9 6.0 34.7 17.00%
John Havlicek 1976 2598 4.8 4.8 32.2 14.91%
John Havlicek 1977 2913 5.5 5.9 33.6 16.37%
John Havlicek 1978 2797 4.4 0.3 30.5 14.43%

He stays pretty constant at +5 Passer rating and box OC until 67. Even with era adjustments I feel like 60s box OC and passer rating rates (especially passer rating) can be a little underrated by 5 shots created and a +5 passer rating is very much good. Not as good as he was at his peak but it’s still good

I know of no Tom Gola film and I don’t think west as good as KC defensively

The Celtics defense is seemingly just as good without Russell in the 24 game WOWY sample we have and it’s Heinsohn leading that defense and I think that’s more Russell’s defense (and others) improving than Heinsohn not being very valuable and Heinsohn is playing ≈ 69.8 and 65.6 possessions/g in 64 and 65 so /36 minutes would actually hurt him if anything and it still has him right at average and hes still playing with Russell so adjusting for that would likely have him above average and elite in his peak. I don’t remember his rim protection as much but in the film I’ve seen as least they use him less as a rim protector but he’s still playing post defense and is a good perimeter defender (especially for a 3/4) and he has very good off ball awareness. I’d say Russell is goat Jones is all time PG defense Sanders is elite 64 Heinsohn is prolly more just very good to fringe HQ on D hondo is HQ Jones is just a + and idk about Nauls.

I 100% disagree there without Russell the Celtics 100% still have a clearly above average defense and the paint being less clogged could open up more clean shots offensively (and they still have KC and Hondo as playmakers so I don’t think they’re losing a ton of playmaking value there those two just get increased loads specifically hondo since Heinsohn and sanders are getting more 4 and 5 minutes now so the 3 spot opens up for Hondo). They’re prolly an average to below average offense and one of if not the best defense with Russell elevating them to that goat height which would make them still a good team outside of Russell. Like instead of a -2.7 rORTG they are closer to a -1.5 and they are still around like a -2.5 rDRTG which would be a +1 NRTG +.9 SOS adjustment puts them at about a +2 SRS.

The bulls have 3 HQ defenders and then a goat tier player (which the Celtics don’t have) the Celtics have 4-5 HQ defenders + the goat defender (who is an all time player). 4th best hawks players would be the 5th best Celtics player *at best*

[70sFan]

Im assuming you watched a lot more film than what’s available so can you send the games you watched so I can watch them?

For 1963/64 Celtics, this is all I have for now:

https://youtu.be/VyrTVBXC_-0
https://youtu.be/yAjz2CtUqWY
https://youtu.be/Xn_N2B3HcZY
https://youtu.be/LqZzpyhZlNM

For 1964/65:

https://youtu.be/Nw2IRWjaCF8
https://youtu.be/0VDHtmwYTKo
https://youtu.be/JoRB2aMyHVE
https://youtu.be/iu1KNvceDic
https://youtu.be/hNPYLhDa8RY
https://youtu.be/lWGL0kRsYFA

Here is Hondo’s MP Box OC Passer rating O Load and then Box OC/Load *100 every year of his career

John Havlicek 1963 2200 3 4.6 27.2 11.03%
John Havlicek 1964 2587 4.7 5.2 34 13.82%
John Havlicek 1965 2169 5 5.6 36.3 13.77%
John Havlicek 1966 2175 5 5.4 35.9 13.93%
John Havlicek 1967 2602 6 5.3 36.2 16.57%
John Havlicek 1968 2921 6.1 5.9 34.7 17.58%
John Havlicek 1969 3174 6.2 6.4 36.4 17.03%
John Havlicek 1970 3369 7.2 6.0 36.1 19.94%
John Havlicek 1971 3678 7.9 5.9 38.8 20.36%
John Havlicek 1972 3698 7.7 6.5 38.7 19.90%
John Havlicek 1973 3367 6.7 6.2 37.1 18.06%
John Havlicek 1974 3091 6.4 5.7 36.7 17.44%
John Havlicek 1975 3132 5.9 6.0 34.7 17.00%
John Havlicek 1976 2598 4.8 4.8 32.2 14.91%
John Havlicek 1977 2913 5.5 5.9 33.6 16.37%
John Havlicek 1978 2797 4.4 0.3 30.5 14.43%

He stays pretty constant at +5 Passer rating and box OC until 67. Even with era adjustments I feel like 60s box OC and passer rating rates (especially passer rating) can be a little underrated by 5 shots created and a +5 passer rating is very much good. Not as good as he was at his peak but it’s still good

Something is off, I just checked Ben's database and Hondo didn't reach +5 PR until 1969. Where did you get these numbers from?

Based on Ben's database, Hondo was around 50th percentile historically in Passer Rating until 1968 and he became much better in the 1970s. I get that these numbers shouldn't be compared across eras, but in this case it's clear that Hondo went from around average passer to very good playmaker and my eye test agrees with that. I just haven't seen much playmaking chops from Hondo in films we have from his early career.

I know of no Tom Gola film and I don’t think west as good as KC defensively

That's strange, I mean really strange. KC Jones is a pesky defender who could press opposing ball-handler all night and he could also impact the game on passing lanes, but he's not on the same level to West as a shotblocker, transition defender or help defender.

The Celtics defense is seemingly just as good without Russell in the 24 game WOWY sample we have and it’s Heinsohn leading that defense

You mean that we have 24 game WOWY sample from Russell's prime years? How?

and I think that’s more Russell’s defense (and others) improving than Heinsohn not being very valuable and Heinsohn is playing ≈ 69.8 and 65.6 possessions/g in 64 and 65 so /36 minutes would actually hurt him

How would it hurt him? Most players above him played more possessions than him, or comparably.

if anything and it still has him right at average

For the whole league, which is very bad for a bigman.

and hes still playing with Russell

Still worse than truly elite rebounders next to Wilt/Thurmond.

so adjusting for that would likely have him above average and elite in his peak.

Are you aware that even 70th percentile for a bigman isn't that good and certainly isn't elite?

I don’t remember his rim protection as much but in the film I’ve seen as least they use him less as a rim protector

They don't play him that way, because he was no vertical threat. He didn't have the length or athleticism to protect the rim. It's not a matter of decision.

but he’s still playing post defense and is a good perimeter defender (especially for a 3/4) and he has very good off ball awareness.

He had a very good off-ball awareness and was passable on perimeter (when younger, not in 1964 or 1965). That doesn't make him elite defender.

I’d say Russell is goat Jones is all time PG defense Sanders is elite 64 Heinsohn is prolly more just very good to fringe HQ on D hondo is HQ Jones is just a + and idk about Nauls.

Disagree about Heinsohn strongly.

I 100% disagree there without Russell the Celtics 100% still have a clearly above average defense

Well, not the same year but we have seen them in 1970 and they went from by far the best defense in the league to below average. Now, of course 1964 Celtics were more talented on that end, so I'd expect them to be still around -2 maybe (?), but along with their poor offense that would make them below average team overall.

and the paint being less clogged could open up more clean shots offensively

Russell didn't clog the paint, he rarely stayed inside the paint. Celtics didn't have any stretch big to make it look better.

(and they still have KC and Hondo as playmakers so I don’t think they’re losing a ton of playmaking value there those two just get increased loads specifically hondo since Heinsohn and sanders are getting more 4 and 5 minutes now so the 3 spot opens up for Hondo).

KC isn't a good playmaker, that's a pure fantasy...

They’re prolly an average to below average offense and one of if not the best defense with Russell elevating them to that goat height which would make them still a good team outside of Russell. Like instead of a -2.7 rORTG they are closer to a -1.5 and they are still around like a -2.5 rDRTG which would be a +1 NRTG +.9 SOS adjustment puts them at about a +2 SRS.

I don't see any evidences suggesting that Russell was so bad on offense that his absence would give Celtics over +1 ORtg boost.

The bulls have 3 HQ defenders and then a goat tier player (which the Celtics don’t have) the Celtics have 4-5 HQ defenders + the goat defender (who is an all time player).

If your definition of HQ defender is so loose that you include Tom Heinsohn there, then I don't see how you can only count 3 HQ defenders in Bulls teams.

4th best hawks players would be the 5th best Celtics player *at best*

4th best Hawks player in 1964 is either Cliff Hagan or Zelmo Beaty. I'd take Russell, Jones and maybe Havlicek/Sanders over them. I don't see much of a case for Heinsohn or KC Jones over tham. They would be Celtics 5th best players at absolute worst.

[Bad Gatorade]

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.

First of all, great write up, and I'm definitely interested in seeing more from you!

Secondly, I actually wonder just how good Russell was offensively. Defensively, yup, he's the GOAT (both from an impact and a pioneer standpoint). Even thrown into the modern day, I have no doubt that he'd be astonishingly good.

From what I've seen, the general offensive profile of Russell (which you seem to be aligned with) is as follows -

* Great offensive rebounder
* Great passer for a big, and used as an offensive hub
* A fairly efficient lower volume scorer early in his career (don't forget, playing as many possessions as Russell did, his scoring volume wasn't actually that high), and this tails off in the second half (as his passing role increases)
* Not the most talented scorer out there, especially in the half court
* Good screener
* Extremely smart player

I think a modern player that kind of resembles this arc is Steven Adams - not quite the same passer (although he has developed into a nice passer over the last several years, and was actually fairly high volume from there), an efficient rim-runner earlier on in his career although that's kind of dwindled, good screener, absolutely incredible offensive rebounder. Steven Adams has consistently accrued fairly good offensive impact numbers, going back to his rim-runner days (playing alongside Westbrook) vs his Memphis days (where he seems to be transitioning into later-career Dennis Rodman). Stylistically, I see no issue with regarding Russell as a serviceable, even good offensive player based on his actual qualities as a player, since we've seen Steven Adams as a (semi-rough) analogue there, and we've seen rim runners like DeAndre Jordan have decent ORAPM results too.

The crazy thing to me is just how poor some of his team offensive results are. 1967 is the only season in which the Celtics had a positive rORTG during Russell's career, and that's with the caveat of the Celtics never having to face the Celtics . The ranks across Russell's career were:

1957: 5/8
1958: 7/8
1959: 5/8
1960: 5/8
1961: 8/8
1962: 7/9
1963: 9/9
1964: 9/9
1965: 7/9
1966: 8/9
1967: 4/10
1968: 8/12
1969: 10/14

Before the team rORTG plummets after 1960, the Celtics actually had fairly decent offensive support from what I can see. Cousy wasn't quite the efficiency cesspool he became later on (in 1957 and 1959, anyway). He was an average efficiency guy whilst being an elite playmaker - this is the same rough prototype we see in guys like Isiah, Westbrook, Baron Davis, John Wall etc who have all proven to be high impact offensive players. Bill Sharman was a very efficient, high volume scorer. I don't know as much about Heinsohn (outside of his hardcore homer commentary, RIP), Ramsey etc but my cursory glance is that they generally had decent shooters on the squad, and yet they never really lit the world on fire offensively.

This is where I find it hard to reconcile Russell's offensive skillset (which is perfectly fine, and capable of reasonably high impact) and the team results (where it feels like the Celtics were flat out poor even though I feel like they shouldn't be). I've heard that the Celtics did have the tendency to "play fast" and jacked up shots in order to focus more on defence, but then I suppose the counterpoint is that if we're not criticising as much for poor rOTGs, then we can't give the same grandiose credit for poor rDRTGs.

Anybody care to shed some light here?

[70sFan]

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.

First of all, great write up, and I'm definitely interested in seeing more from you!

Secondly, I actually wonder just how good Russell was offensively. Defensively, yup, he's the GOAT (both from an impact and a pioneer standpoint). Even thrown into the modern day, I have no doubt that he'd be astonishingly good.

From what I've seen, the general offensive profile of Russell (which you seem to be aligned with) is as follows -

* Great offensive rebounder
* Great passer for a big, and used as an offensive hub
* A fairly efficient lower volume scorer early in his career (don't forget, playing as many possessions as Russell did, his scoring volume wasn't actually that high), and this tails off in the second half (as his passing role increases)
* Not the most talented scorer out there, especially in the half court
* Good screener
* Extremely smart player

I think a modern player that kind of resembles this arc is Steven Adams - not quite the same passer (although he has developed into a nice passer over the last several years, and was actually fairly high volume from there), an efficient rim-runner earlier on in his career although that's kind of dwindled, good screener, absolutely incredible offensive rebounder. Steven Adams has consistently accrued fairly good offensive impact numbers, going back to his rim-runner days (playing alongside Westbrook) vs his Memphis days (where he seems to be transitioning into later-career Dennis Rodman). Stylistically, I see no issue with regarding Russell as a serviceable, even good offensive player based on his actual qualities as a player, since we've seen Steven Adams as a (semi-rough) analogue there, and we've seen rim runners like DeAndre Jordan have decent ORAPM results too.

The crazy thing to me is just how poor some of his team offensive results are. 1967 is the only season in which the Celtics had a positive rORTG during Russell's career, and that's with the caveat of the Celtics never having to face the Celtics . The ranks across Russell's career were:

1957: 5/8
1958: 7/8
1959: 5/8
1960: 5/8
1961: 8/8
1962: 7/9
1963: 9/9
1964: 9/9
1965: 7/9
1966: 8/9
1967: 4/10
1968: 8/12
1969: 10/14

Before the team rORTG plummets after 1960, the Celtics actually had fairly decent offensive support from what I can see. Cousy wasn't quite the efficiency cesspool he became later on (in 1957 and 1959, anyway). He was an average efficiency guy whilst being an elite playmaker - this is the same rough prototype we see in guys like Isiah, Westbrook, Baron Davis, John Wall etc who have all proven to be high impact offensive players. Bill Sharman was a very efficient, high volume scorer. I don't know as much about Heinsohn (outside of his hardcore homer commentary, RIP), Ramsey etc but my cursory glance is that they generally had decent shooters on the squad, and yet they never really lit the world on fire offensively.

This is where I find it hard to reconcile Russell's offensive skillset (which is perfectly fine, and capable of reasonably high impact) and the team results (where it feels like the Celtics were flat out poor even though I feel like they shouldn't be). I've heard that the Celtics did have the tendency to "play fast" and jacked up shots in order to focus more on defence, but then I suppose the counterpoint is that if we're not criticising as much for poor rOTGs, then we can't give the same grandiose credit for poor rDRTGs.

Anybody care to shed some light here?

Ben Taylor updated the pace approximation method a few years ago and when you look at his more recent results, Celtics actually don't look nearly as bad at the beginning of Russell's career.

Here is the comparison between basketball-reference vs thinkingbasketball rORtg numbers:

1957: -0.4 vs +2.2
1958: -0.8 vs +1.4
1959: -0.7 vs +1.7
1960: -0.1 vs +2.5
1961: -3.4 vs -1.4
1962: -1.5 vs +0.9

1963: -2.9 vs -0.6
1964: -4.5 vs -2.4
1965: -2.7 vs -0.4
1966: -2.6 vs -0.5

1967: +1.4 vs +2.3
1968: -1.1 vs +0.5
1969: -1.7 vs +0.1

It actually shows us that 1957-60 Celtics were fairly good offensively (+2.0 on average), but they started to get worse after Sharman, Ramsey and Cousy got older. During Russell's peak, they were still quite weak, but not all-time bad anymore. They also were significantly better in the playoffs for what it's worth.

Of course it goes both ways and by Ben's method Russell's Celtics looks a bit worse defensively overall, but they are still historically amazing.

[penbeast0]

...

Unlike Steven Adams, by the mid 60s Russell (like Cousy) had been left behind by the league wide increase in efficiency. He was still shooting like a 50s player into the 60s plus he was a poor FT shooter.

Also,I think his passing is overrated. When I see film of the Celtics, I don't see him create much with his passing in the way a Jokic creates opportunities for others. He got assists because he handled the ball a lot for a big of his era but I wasn't that impressed with the type of assists generated.

Combine that with the fact that KC Jones is possibly the least effective offensive point guard ever and the team tendency to excuse bad shots (after all, Russell will get the offensive rebound if we just throw it up there) and it's a recipe for bad offense.

The Ortg's also may understate the offense a bit as a quick shot offense should tend to be lower turnover which wasn't a stat kept then.

[Owly]

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.

First of all, great write up, and I'm definitely interested in seeing more from you!

Secondly, I actually wonder just how good Russell was offensively. Defensively, yup, he's the GOAT (both from an impact and a pioneer standpoint). Even thrown into the modern day, I have no doubt that he'd be astonishingly good.

From what I've seen, the general offensive profile of Russell (which you seem to be aligned with) is as follows -

* Great offensive rebounder
* Great passer for a big, and used as an offensive hub
* A fairly efficient lower volume scorer early in his career (don't forget, playing as many possessions as Russell did, his scoring volume wasn't actually that high), and this tails off in the second half (as his passing role increases)
* Not the most talented scorer out there, especially in the half court
* Good screener
* Extremely smart player

I think a modern player that kind of resembles this arc is Steven Adams - not quite the same passer (although he has developed into a nice passer over the last several years, and was actually fairly high volume from there), an efficient rim-runner earlier on in his career although that's kind of dwindled, good screener, absolutely incredible offensive rebounder. Steven Adams has consistently accrued fairly good offensive impact numbers, going back to his rim-runner days (playing alongside Westbrook) vs his Memphis days (where he seems to be transitioning into later-career Dennis Rodman). Stylistically, I see no issue with regarding Russell as a serviceable, even good offensive player based on his actual qualities as a player, since we've seen Steven Adams as a (semi-rough) analogue there, and we've seen rim runners like DeAndre Jordan have decent ORAPM results too.

The crazy thing to me is just how poor some of his team offensive results are. 1967 is the only season in which the Celtics had a positive rORTG during Russell's career, and that's with the caveat of the Celtics never having to face the Celtics . The ranks across Russell's career were:

1957: 5/8
1958: 7/8
1959: 5/8
1960: 5/8
1961: 8/8
1962: 7/9
1963: 9/9
1964: 9/9
1965: 7/9
1966: 8/9
1967: 4/10
1968: 8/12
1969: 10/14

Before the team rORTG plummets after 1960, the Celtics actually had fairly decent offensive support from what I can see. Cousy wasn't quite the efficiency cesspool he became later on (in 1957 and 1959, anyway). He was an average efficiency guy whilst being an elite playmaker - this is the same rough prototype we see in guys like Isiah, Westbrook, Baron Davis, John Wall etc who have all proven to be high impact offensive players. Bill Sharman was a very efficient, high volume scorer. I don't know as much about Heinsohn (outside of his hardcore homer commentary, RIP), Ramsey etc but my cursory glance is that they generally had decent shooters on the squad, and yet they never really lit the world on fire offensively.

This is where I find it hard to reconcile Russell's offensive skillset (which is perfectly fine, and capable of reasonably high impact) and the team results (where it feels like the Celtics were flat out poor even though I feel like they shouldn't be). I've heard that the Celtics did have the tendency to "play fast" and jacked up shots in order to focus more on defence, but then I suppose the counterpoint is that if we're not criticising as much for poor rOTGs, then we can't give the same grandiose credit for poor rDRTGs.

Anybody care to shed some light here?

1 persons take ... I might be lower than the norm on Russell

Things that would influence me down on his O:

For the 60s at least, RS, in comparison to other players I deemed clearly other starting centers he tended towards the very bottom in efficiency (TS%) and volume, though Thurmond started surpassing him in inefficiency in the latter years of the decade. Scoring specific (RS) in the 60s then I do think he's relatively weak at a position that trended stronger.

My recollection of the discussion of the tiny dribs and drabs of WoWY samples (generally sans '57) was despite the monster net impact, Boston got better on O without him (that might only have been off one or two samples, I'm not sure, I know there was one huge scoring game versus LA). Very small samples overall anyway iirc, but if one buys, is happy to use, the net driven by the superb D ...

I suppose on arrival (generally already somewhat muddy) is muddied by the in season arrival and the loss of Macauley (who I personally guess was a superb scorer and awful defender - and the scoring can be seen in the numbers) but even with Jones departing at the same time and Howell collapsing (I think not due to Russell's departure, and he somewhat bounces back the next year) the offense stays steady at -1.7 (there's no expansion in the NBA to inflate teams up, I don't think the ABA gets a bunch of top tier NBA-eligible rookies at this time though Beatty misses that '70 season I suppose making the league very slightly weaker but then the incoming rookie class adds Abdul-Jabbar and they actually poach Hawkins over ... I suppose other teams offenses don't have to face Russell any more ... it's tough to aggregate, perhaps impossible but I don't think there's something simple like expansion artificially inflating it) which if you think those other guys were good means the absence of Russell (replaced with Hank Finkel) might have improved the offense ... now there's an awful lot of fuzziness in this type of thing (are holdover players "true" levels improving or declining - did Boston's system change [pace pretty constant, but that could be a defense allowing points quicker and a more deliberate O ... change of coach though Heinsohn was supposed to continuity and I think running inclined]) so even if one agrees with the statements how one interprets, aggregates it can vary.

There are those who see substantial value in his passing. I've even seen Walton used as a comp. I think, with limited info, the (lack of) team level offensive performance as he takes on more playmaking does not bode well for him here.

That's not a comprehensive picture, some (by no means all) other factors: he's probably adding substantial value on the offensive glass; one might think he added value in keeping the ball live, outlet passing, floor running (though we might expect to see these show up in the team and in the last case individual boxscore); how one weights playoffs will matter (at career level, without any weighting adjustments [longer playoffs when he's older might artificially tilt against him at first glance] his TS% is slightly up driven by better FT% - scoring at the same per 36 rate - at the margin one might not since Boston were the dominant team, traditional measures will probably say he didn't face the higher level opponents we expect in later eras, though one might also wish to look at individual matchups too ...). The percentages (especially from the field) earlier are much better.

As before this far from a comprehensive approach. My present mental aggregation would be, versus the norms at his position he's typically a negative player on offense, but (a) that doesn't prevent a substantial net positive, (b) he trended better in the playoffs and (c) with the level of data available at that time conclusions should be acknowledged as fuzzier, allowing for greater range of reasonable disagreement and that that can include matters such as the degree to which even an agreed net impact came on either end. This is coming mostly otoh, think I may have given similar such thoughts before, but regardless this is more responding to someone asking for thoughts by throwing some out, rather than an absolute stand.

gtg: May add more, just refreshed glanced at 2 responses, different versions/interpretations of team level data was something I was slightly angling at above, without knowing the detail or what people make of differing interpretations.

[Bad Gatorade]

Spoiler:

Ben Taylor updated the pace approximation method a few years ago and when you look at his more recent results, Celtics actually don't look nearly as bad at the beginning of Russell's career.

Here is the comparison between basketball-reference vs thinkingbasketball rORtg numbers:

1957: -0.4 vs +2.2
1958: -0.8 vs +1.4
1959: -0.7 vs +1.7
1960: -0.1 vs +2.5
1961: -3.4 vs -1.4
1962: -1.5 vs +0.9

1963: -2.9 vs -0.6
1964: -4.5 vs -2.4
1965: -2.7 vs -0.4
1966: -2.6 vs -0.5

1967: +1.4 vs +2.3
1968: -1.1 vs +0.5
1969: -1.7 vs +0.1

It actually shows us that 1957-60 Celtics were fairly good offensively (+2.0 on average), but they started to get worse after Sharman, Ramsey and Cousy got older. During Russell's peak, they were still quite weak, but not all-time bad anymore. They also were significantly better in the playoffs for what it's worth.

Of course it goes both ways and by Ben's method Russell's Celtics looks a bit worse defensively overall, but they are still historically amazing.

That's roughly in line with what I'd expect given the talent (and their "perception") around Russell. That's a decent change (2 to 2.5ish points better for most of his career). This makes Russell seem a bit more "realistic" to me - I feel like he's meant to be able to be a reasonable cog on a good offensive team, and that's what the results show. It also shows ATG defensive results, even GOAT level, but not so astonishingly far ahead of everybody else in history that anybody else looks like a mere peasant in comparison.

That's good to know - it makes me feel a bit more confident with how valuable I consider Russell on both ends.

Spoiler:

Unlike Steven Adams, by the mid 60s Russell (like Cousy) had been left behind by the league wide increase in efficiency. He was still shooting like a 50s player into the 60s plus he was a poor FT shooter.

Also,I think his passing is overrated. When I see film of the Celtics, I don't see him create much with his passing in the way a Jokic creates opportunities for others. He got assists because he handled the ball a lot for a big of his era but I wasn't that impressed with the type of assists generated.

Combine that with the fact that KC Jones is possibly the least effective offensive point guard ever and the team tendency to excuse bad shots (after all, Russell will get the offensive rebound if we just throw it up there) and it's a recipe for bad offense.

The Ortg's also may understate the offense a bit as a quick shot offense should tend to be lower turnover which wasn't a stat kept then.

I think one of the troubles regarding the missing data of older eras is that I'd love to have more information on things like Russell's turnover proneness/offensive rebounding percentages, but without comparing to other players in that era, it's nigh on useless information. Seeing passing turnovers/offensive board ratios relative to the league would be really interesting.

Spoiler:

1 persons take ... I might be lower than the norm on Russell

Things that would influence me down on his O:

For the 60s at least, RS, in comparison to other players I deemed clearly other starting centers he tended towards the very bottom in efficiency (TS%) and volume, though Thurmond started surpassing him in inefficiency in the latter years of the decade. Scoring specific (RS) in the 60s then I do think he's relatively weak at a position that trended stronger.

My recollection of the discussion of the tiny dribs and drabs of WoWY samples (generally sans '57) was despite the monster net impact, Boston got better on O without him (that might only have been off one or two samples, I'm not sure, I know there was one huge scoring game versus LA). Very small samples overall anyway iirc, but if one buys, is happy to use, the net driven by the superb D ...

I suppose on arrival (generally already somewhat muddy) is muddied by the in season arrival and the loss of Macauley (who I personally guess was a superb scorer and awful defender - and the scoring can be seen in the numbers) but even with Jones departing at the same time and Howell collapsing (I think not due to Russell's departure, and he somewhat bounces back the next year) the offense stays steady at -1.7 (there's no expansion in the NBA to inflate teams up, I don't think the ABA gets a bunch of top tier NBA-eligible rookies at this time though Beatty misses that '70 season I suppose making the league very slightly weaker but then the incoming rookie class adds Abdul-Jabbar and they actually poach Hawkins over ... I suppose other teams offenses don't have to face Russell any more ... it's tough to aggregate, perhaps impossible but I don't think there's something simple like expansion artificially inflating it) which if you think those other guys were good means the absence of Russell (replaced with Hank Finkel) might have improved the offense ... now there's an awful lot of fuzziness in this type of thing (are holdover players "true" levels improving or declining - did Boston's system change [pace pretty constant, but that could be a defense allowing points quicker and a more deliberate O ... change of coach though Heinsohn was supposed to continuity and I think running inclined]) so even if one agrees with the statements how one interprets, aggregates it can vary.

There are those who see substantial value in his passing. I've even seen Walton used as a comp. I think, with limited info, the (lack of) team level offensive performance as he takes on more playmaking does not bode well for him here.

That's not a comprehensive picture, some (by no means all) other factors: he's probably adding substantial value on the offensive glass; one might think he added value in keeping the ball live, outlet passing, floor running (though we might expect to see these show up in the team and in the last case individual boxscore); how one weights playoffs will matter (at career level, without any weighting adjustments [longer playoffs when he's older might artificially tilt against him at first glance] his TS% is slightly up driven by better FT% - scoring at the same per 36 rate - at the margin one might not since Boston were the dominant team, traditional measures will probably say he didn't face the higher level opponents we expect in later eras, though one might also wish to look at individual matchups too ...). The percentages (especially from the field) earlier are much better.

As before this far from a comprehensive approach. My present mental aggregation would be, versus the norms at his position he's typically a negative player on offense, but (a) that doesn't prevent a substantial net positive, (b) he trended better in the playoffs and (c) with the level of data available at that time conclusions should be acknowledged as fuzzier, allowing for greater range of reasonable disagreement and that that can include matters such as the degree to which even an agreed net impact came on either end. This is coming mostly otoh, think I may have given similar such thoughts before, but regardless this is more responding to someone asking for thoughts by throwing some out, rather than an absolute stand.

gtg: May add more, just refreshed glanced at 2 responses, different versions/interpretations of team level data was something I was slightly angling at above, without knowing the detail or what people make of differing interpretations.

I feel like I'm generally in the same ballpark as you re: his offence - there's a lot that people can disagree upon because the data is so scarce. I think most of us generally agree in what his skillset is (although the value of his passing has been somewhat contentious amongst different posters, everything else seems fairly similar) but the sheer lack of team level data/on-off data/a remotely useful box score/non-haphazard scorekeeping means that we're largely relying on our eye test for anything fruitful re: Russell, and when the majority of us are relying on tape (rather than live viewing), those eye test samples are likely to be less informative than we'd like.

[OhayoKD]

Spoiler:

Ben Taylor updated the pace approximation method a few years ago and when you look at his more recent results, Celtics actually don't look nearly as bad at the beginning of Russell's career.

Here is the comparison between basketball-reference vs thinkingbasketball rORtg numbers:

1957: -0.4 vs +2.2
1958: -0.8 vs +1.4
1959: -0.7 vs +1.7
1960: -0.1 vs +2.5
1961: -3.4 vs -1.4
1962: -1.5 vs +0.9

1963: -2.9 vs -0.6
1964: -4.5 vs -2.4
1965: -2.7 vs -0.4
1966: -2.6 vs -0.5

1967: +1.4 vs +2.3
1968: -1.1 vs +0.5
1969: -1.7 vs +0.1

It actually shows us that 1957-60 Celtics were fairly good offensively (+2.0 on average), but they started to get worse after Sharman, Ramsey and Cousy got older. During Russell's peak, they were still quite weak, but not all-time bad anymore. They also were significantly better in the playoffs for what it's worth.

Of course it goes both ways and by Ben's method Russell's Celtics looks a bit worse defensively overall, but they are still historically amazing.

That's roughly in line with what I'd expect given the talent (and their "perception") around Russell. That's a decent change (2 to 2.5ish points better for most of his career). This makes Russell seem a bit more "realistic" to me - I feel like he's meant to be able to be a reasonable cog on a good offensive team, and that's what the results show. It also shows ATG defensive results, even GOAT level, but not so astonishingly far ahead of everybody else in history that anybody else looks like a mere peasant in comparison.

That's good to know - it makes me feel a bit more confident with how valuable I consider Russell on both ends.

Spoiler:

Unlike Steven Adams, by the mid 60s Russell (like Cousy) had been left behind by the league wide increase in efficiency. He was still shooting like a 50s player into the 60s plus he was a poor FT shooter.

Also,I think his passing is overrated. When I see film of the Celtics, I don't see him create much with his passing in the way a Jokic creates opportunities for others. He got assists because he handled the ball a lot for a big of his era but I wasn't that impressed with the type of assists generated.

Combine that with the fact that KC Jones is possibly the least effective offensive point guard ever and the team tendency to excuse bad shots (after all, Russell will get the offensive rebound if we just throw it up there) and it's a recipe for bad offense.

The Ortg's also may understate the offense a bit as a quick shot offense should tend to be lower turnover which wasn't a stat kept then.

I think one of the troubles regarding the missing data of older eras is that I'd love to have more information on things like Russell's turnover proneness/offensive rebounding percentages, but without comparing to other players in that era, it's nigh on useless information. Seeing passing turnovers/offensive board ratios relative to the league would be really interesting.

Spoiler:

1 persons take ... I might be lower than the norm on Russell

Things that would influence me down on his O:

For the 60s at least, RS, in comparison to other players I deemed clearly other starting centers he tended towards the very bottom in efficiency (TS%) and volume, though Thurmond started surpassing him in inefficiency in the latter years of the decade. Scoring specific (RS) in the 60s then I do think he's relatively weak at a position that trended stronger.

My recollection of the discussion of the tiny dribs and drabs of WoWY samples (generally sans '57) was despite the monster net impact, Boston got better on O without him (that might only have been off one or two samples, I'm not sure, I know there was one huge scoring game versus LA). Very small samples overall anyway iirc, but if one buys, is happy to use, the net driven by the superb D ...

I suppose on arrival (generally already somewhat muddy) is muddied by the in season arrival and the loss of Macauley (who I personally guess was a superb scorer and awful defender - and the scoring can be seen in the numbers) but even with Jones departing at the same time and Howell collapsing (I think not due to Russell's departure, and he somewhat bounces back the next year) the offense stays steady at -1.7 (there's no expansion in the NBA to inflate teams up, I don't think the ABA gets a bunch of top tier NBA-eligible rookies at this time though Beatty misses that '70 season I suppose making the league very slightly weaker but then the incoming rookie class adds Abdul-Jabbar and they actually poach Hawkins over ... I suppose other teams offenses don't have to face Russell any more ... it's tough to aggregate, perhaps impossible but I don't think there's something simple like expansion artificially inflating it) which if you think those other guys were good means the absence of Russell (replaced with Hank Finkel) might have improved the offense ... now there's an awful lot of fuzziness in this type of thing (are holdover players "true" levels improving or declining - did Boston's system change [pace pretty constant, but that could be a defense allowing points quicker and a more deliberate O ... change of coach though Heinsohn was supposed to continuity and I think running inclined]) so even if one agrees with the statements how one interprets, aggregates it can vary.

There are those who see substantial value in his passing. I've even seen Walton used as a comp. I think, with limited info, the (lack of) team level offensive performance as he takes on more playmaking does not bode well for him here.

That's not a comprehensive picture, some (by no means all) other factors: he's probably adding substantial value on the offensive glass; one might think he added value in keeping the ball live, outlet passing, floor running (though we might expect to see these show up in the team and in the last case individual boxscore); how one weights playoffs will matter (at career level, without any weighting adjustments [longer playoffs when he's older might artificially tilt against him at first glance] his TS% is slightly up driven by better FT% - scoring at the same per 36 rate - at the margin one might not since Boston were the dominant team, traditional measures will probably say he didn't face the higher level opponents we expect in later eras, though one might also wish to look at individual matchups too ...). The percentages (especially from the field) earlier are much better.

As before this far from a comprehensive approach. My present mental aggregation would be, versus the norms at his position he's typically a negative player on offense, but (a) that doesn't prevent a substantial net positive, (b) he trended better in the playoffs and (c) with the level of data available at that time conclusions should be acknowledged as fuzzier, allowing for greater range of reasonable disagreement and that that can include matters such as the degree to which even an agreed net impact came on either end. This is coming mostly otoh, think I may have given similar such thoughts before, but regardless this is more responding to someone asking for thoughts by throwing some out, rather than an absolute stand.

gtg: May add more, just refreshed glanced at 2 responses, different versions/interpretations of team level data was something I was slightly angling at above, without knowing the detail or what people make of differing interpretations.

I feel like I'm generally in the same ballpark as you re: his offence - there's a lot that people can disagree upon because the data is so scarce. I think most of us generally agree in what his skillset is (although the value of his passing has been somewhat contentious amongst different posters, everything else seems fairly similar) but the sheer lack of team level data/on-off data/a remotely useful box score/non-haphazard scorekeeping means that we're largely relying on our eye test for anything fruitful re: Russell, and when the majority of us are relying on tape (rather than live viewing), those eye test samples are likely to be less informative than we'd like.

Feel like its important to note here, that you can't just go off srs here as you required a much lower srs to have a strong chance at a championship. Iow, Russell's "corp" is higher relative to his "plus/minus" than basically anyone else.

[ceoofkobefans]

The Celtics are still a very clearly elite team outside of Russell

Just like 1994 Bulls were elite without Jordan, but you don't use it against him.

and they were 1-2 in the games with Russell (1-1 if you take out the game he gets hurt 1-3 if you include g6 when Russell plays 20 min) and 1-1 in the games without Russell the point Is a player leading a bad team won a ring so yes it does (and still is against an elite team which further proves the point)

It proves absolutely nothing. Russell played hurt, do you understand that? Who cares that he forced himself to play 20 min in the last game?

You literally pick the only Russell loss in his career and act like you found the way to criticize him for something.

Can you really consider it cherry picking when it’s happening over half the time?

What exactly? Close series? Like in case of any other dynasty? Except that Russell's dynasty lasted twice as long as the next longest dynasty? That's your point?

Especially considering these celtics teams are considered outliers in the RS in terms of how good they are and it’s not the same to do that against teams in leagues with multiple 50 or even 60 win teams to a team in a league where they are considered outliers. Yes the Celtics had series where they dominated like they should but half the time they aren’t I don’t think the 90s bulls or 80s lakers / Celtics or 00s lakers aren’t struggling that often despite playing in leagues where they aren’t RS outliers

Russell Celtics didn't play 1st rounds, so we can compare them to other dynasties without taking into account 1st rounds. Here are the numbers of 7 games series for all dynasties:

1957-69 Celtics: 9 in 13 years

1991-98 Bulls: 2 in 6 years (not counting 1994)
1980-89 Lakers: 4 in 10 years
1980-88 Celtics: 7 in 9 years
2000-03 Lakers: 2 in 4 years

1980s Celtics actually struggled a lot more than 1960s Celtics, yet you use them as the example.

The 94 bulls SRS gets cut in half from 93 and they added multiple players and had Scottie and Grant peak. The gap between Russell and MJ isn’t as big and it’s not the same as in year WOWY.

So the only team that struggled more than them are the 80s Celtics and the others don’t struggle nearly as much despite playing in tougher eras thank you for proving my point

I don’t remember which post it was but I will admit I was absolutely waffling with my assessment of the 64 Celtics if they didn’t have BR. They probably stay the same offensively and get like 6ish points worse defensively (so they be ≈ a -2 rORTG and a -3-4 rDRTG) I was very tired earlier today that Take does not represent me as a man that was very dumb).