coastalmarker99 wrote: 1959 3 1st team All NBA players Russell, Cousy, and Sharman...when else has that ever happened?
Well, perhaps never exactly that, but.....
The '72 Lakers had three All-Stars and two All-NBA Teamers (one 1st, one 2nd)........and this in a league that's more than TWICE as large as the league of 1959 (17 teams vs 8 teams). The number of All-Stars per conference expanded by 40% [from 10 to 14], but the number of All-NBA Teamers didn't expand at all (while the league expanded by 112.5%).
The '17 Warriors had FOUR All-Stars, TWO All-NBA 2nd Teamers, and one All-NBA 3rd Teamer: in a 30-Team league. The league is 275% larger compared to '59, while the number of All-Stars on the West team is only 20% larger than '59, and the number of All-NBA Teamers had expanded by only 50%.......yet they still [more or less] matched the '59 Celtics in terms of accolades.
The '83 Sixers had FOUR All-Stars, TWO All-NBA 1st Teamers (one of them the MVP), THREE All-Defensive 1st Teamers, and the 6MOY. The All-Star squads were only 20% bigger than in '59, the All-NBA teams NO BIGGER, while the league was 187.5% larger.
The '86 Celtics had THREE All-Stars, one All-NBA 1st Teamer (the MVP, in fact), an All-Defensive 1st Teamer (who realistically was easily All-NBA 2nd/3rd Team level), plus the 6MOY and an entirely decent Dennis Johnson. Size of league and accolade groups was same as in '83.
"The fact that a proposition is absurd has never hindered those who wish to believe it." -Edward Rutherfurd "Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
OhayoKD wrote:The second best player very much did the opposite of stepping back.
Quite literally the only guy not to do so
West went super-nova. Celtics beat two of the best teams of the decade. Even the "late mj" comp is a stretch.
Yeah, in the first half of the series lmao. Pulled his hamstring halfway through and wasn't the same after that.
Maybe because no one's been able to provide a lick of proof? Also, "majority" isn't enough, because again, Russell won 11 rings. We have a 28 game sample of them being stacked at the beginning, an 82 game sample of them being the opposite at the end(sorry but your 2020 warriors comparison makes no sense), plenty of evidence for them remaining league-best as teammates dropped, and the sparse amount of data for the celtics without Russell without Celtics throughout puts them at 35-wins. Considering you just tried to equate a 28 mpg player with losing iggy, klay, curry, dray, and kd for a season, maybe you should be less hasty with these claims you're making.
And much like MJ, the bar for "league-best" dropped the further the decade carried on as his competition fell off and random injury luck swing in his favor. And more like me equating him losing guys like Bob Cousy, KC Jones, Tommy Heinsohn, and Sam Jones over the years to "losing Iggy, klay, curry, dray, and kd for a season". Which again is hilarious to me that people are arguing that he didn't have a stacked team in his prime.
Hmm...
Though, just so we're clear, Bill Russell was voted greatest player ever after the 1969 win and Russell>Wilt was considered dusted as Russell proved to everyone he could win with mid help on his last legs(try to compile a list of players who've done that even once, at their peak). So I don't know what you're calling revisionist history, but this became the understanding of the time period and now we have some better approaches to figuring out things like "help" as well as understanding the outsized influence of defense in the 60's. Debate here is "healthy", especially when the other side is trying to call sam jones kevin durant
Contrary to popular belief one can have the most stacked team of their era while also being the best player of their era. Hell, it's not even contrary to popular belief because that's literally what we do with Jordan . Also I'm gonna need these receipts of me calling Sam Jones KD because I've been consistent with my view that the Russell Celtics were the late 2017-19 Warriors with Jimmy Butler instead of KD. You're too good of a poster to be using all of these disingenuous arguments my man. I type lengthy enough posts as it is so I don't find it necessary for you to put words in my mouth.
LeBron's NBA Cup MVP is more valuable than either of KD's Finals MVPs. This is the word of the Lord
The second best player very much did the opposite of stepping back.
Quite literally the only guy not to do so
Uh no...
70sFan wrote:
Heej wrote: Quite literally the only guy not to do so
That's not true, why do you ignore my previous post? Don Nelson had a career season up to that point. Larry Siegfried had a better season as well.
Correction #1
Yeah, in the first half of the series lmao. Pulled his hamstring halfway through and wasn't the same after that.
Yeah, not really:
1-3 games: 39.3 ppg and 8.0 apg 4-7 games: 36.8 ppg and 7.0 apg
He literally had 42/13/12 game 7. What are you talking about?
Correction #2
Maybe because no one's been able to provide a lick of proof? Also, "majority" isn't enough, because again, Russell won 11 rings. We have a 28 game sample of them being stacked at the beginning, an 82 game sample of them being the opposite at the end(sorry but your 2020 warriors comparison makes no sense), plenty of evidence for them remaining league-best as teammates dropped, and the sparse amount of data for the celtics without Russell without Celtics throughout puts them at 35-wins. Considering you just tried to equate a 28 mpg player with losing iggy, klay, curry, dray, and kd for a season, maybe you should be less hasty with these claims you're making.
And much like MJ, the bar for "league-best" dropped the further the decade carried on as his competition fell off and random injury luck swing in his favor.
Again, literally the opposite happened. The bar for "league best" got higher. The Knicks and Lakers were a completely different level to almost all the competition from 62-65:
At the height of their dynasty, the Celtics were comically dominant. From 1962-65, their average margin-of-victory (MOV) was over 8 points per game. During the same time span, only two other teams even eclipsed 4 points per game – the ’64 Royals and the ’64 Warriors. And all of Boston’s separation was created by its historic defense, anchored by Russell:
What actually happened(you seem to have a trouble separating head-canon and reality on this subject) was that the league got better, yet the Celtics continued to win. And as 70's covered, Jerry west "went off" throughout the 7 games. There was more "injury help" involved with Lebron's wins in 2016 and 2020, yet I don't see you trying to dismiss those as "easier".
And more like me equating him losing guys like Bob Cousy, KC Jones, Tommy Heinsohn, and Sam Jones over the years to "losing Iggy, klay, curry, dray, and kd for a season". Which again is hilarious to me that people are arguing that he didn't have a stacked team in his prime.
Bruh. Bob Cousy left the Celtics in 1963, Boston would go on to win 5 of the next 6 championships. Again your equivalency is garbage. As 70's noted(and you conveniently ignored), the roster from 1970 was virtually identical to the roster from 1969 with the exception of Russell. So no, sorry. If you're actually looking for an equivalency, it would be the 1994 Bulls. Except the Bulls won 55 games and were a contender while the Celtics won 35 games and missed the playoffs..
Though, just so we're clear, Bill Russell was voted greatest player ever after the 1969 win and Russell>Wilt was considered dusted as Russell proved to everyone he could win with mid help on his last legs(try to compile a list of players who've done that even once, at their peak). So I don't know what you're calling revisionist history, but this became the understanding of the time period and now we have some better approaches to figuring out things like "help" as well as understanding the outsized influence of defense in the 60's. Debate here is "healthy", especially when the other side is trying to call sam jones kevin durant
Contrary to popular belief one can have the most stacked team of their era while also being the best player of their era. Hell, it's not even contrary to popular belief because that's literally what we do with Jordan .
The Bulls played at a 50-win srs without their best and 3rd best player. The Celtics lost a 28 mpg role player and instantly became bad. Again, your equivalency is laughable. Russell knocked off two of the best teams of the era with the same level of help Jordan needed to simply win a playoff series(and trust me "the other team got injured" applies far more here).
Also I'm gonna need these receipts of me calling Sam Jones KD because I've been consistent with my view that the Russell Celtics were the late 2017-19 Warriors with Jimmy Butler instead of KD. You're too good of a poster to be using all of these disingenuous arguments my man. I type lengthy enough posts as it is so I don't find it necessary for you to put words in my mouth.
Oh sorry, you called a 28 mpg guy Jimmy Butler. So much better. How about I do you better and post receipts of all the times you've had to be corrected because you have no clue what you're talking about:
penbeast0 wrote:
Heej wrote:
OhayoKD wrote:The 2017 Warriors without Durant made and lost a contentious finals. The Celtics without Russell won 35 games and missed the playoffs. This is a reach me thinks.
Stop it. The only guy left over from their core in 69-70 was Havlicek. This is extremely disingenuous lmao. This is much more akin to the season where KD left and Curry+Klay got injured and the Warriors tanked so hard they got the #2 pick lol
Actually all their other starters returned plus one of their top 2 reserves. Sam Jones, who was a reserve that season, is the other one to move on. They added Jo Jo White and Don Chaney at guard. This critique is just factually incorrect.
70sFan wrote:
Heej wrote: Quite literally the only guy not to do so
That's not true, why do you ignore my previous post? Don Nelson had a career season up to that point. Larry Siegfried had a better season as well.
Yeah, in the first half of the series lmao. Pulled his hamstring halfway through and wasn't the same after that.
Yeah, not really:
1-3 games: 39.3 ppg and 8.0 apg 4-7 games: 36.8 ppg and 7.0 apg
He literally had 42/13/12 game 7. What are you talking about?
And much like MJ, the bar for "league-best" dropped the further the decade carried on as his competition fell off and random injury luck swing in his favor.
Again, literally the opposite happened. The bar for "league best" got [i]higher. The Knicks and Lakers were a completely different level to almost all the competition from 62-65
You literally brought up a guy who retired in 1963 to discredit evidence from 1970. You're too good a poster to -> get basically everything wrong -> provide zero positive evidence for your stance -> claim everyone else is "revising history" because they're not trying to base their takes of an obsolete narrative from 60 years ago. Like, let's be real, if you were carefully reading, you would have dropped this a page ago.
OhayoKD wrote:The second best player very much did the opposite of stepping back.
Quite literally the only guy not to do so
West went super-nova. Celtics beat two of the best teams of the decade. Even the "late mj" comp is a stretch.
Yeah, in the first half of the series lmao. Pulled his hamstring halfway through and wasn't the same after that.
Maybe because no one's been able to provide a lick of proof? Also, "majority" isn't enough, because again, Russell won 11 rings. We have a 28 game sample of them being stacked at the beginning, an 82 game sample of them being the opposite at the end(sorry but your 2020 warriors comparison makes no sense), plenty of evidence for them remaining league-best as teammates dropped, and the sparse amount of data for the celtics without Russell without Celtics throughout puts them at 35-wins. Considering you just tried to equate a 28 mpg player with losing iggy, klay, curry, dray, and kd for a season, maybe you should be less hasty with these claims you're making.
And much like MJ, the bar for "league-best" dropped the further the decade carried on as his competition fell off and random injury luck swing in his favor. And more like me equating him losing guys like Bob Cousy, KC Jones, Tommy Heinsohn, and Sam Jones over the years to "losing Iggy, klay, curry, dray, and kd for a season". Which again is hilarious to me that people are arguing that he didn't have a stacked team in his prime.
Hmm...
Though, just so we're clear, Bill Russell was voted greatest player ever after the 1969 win and Russell>Wilt was considered dusted as Russell proved to everyone he could win with mid help on his last legs(try to compile a list of players who've done that even once, at their peak). So I don't know what you're calling revisionist history, but this became the understanding of the time period and now we have some better approaches to figuring out things like "help" as well as understanding the outsized influence of defense in the 60's. Debate here is "healthy", especially when the other side is trying to call sam jones kevin durant
Contrary to popular belief one can have the most stacked team of their era while also being the best player of their era. Hell, it's not even contrary to popular belief because that's literally what we do with Jordan . Also I'm gonna need these receipts of me calling Sam Jones KD because I've been consistent with my view that the Russell Celtics were the late 2017-19 Warriors with Jimmy Butler instead of KD. You're too good of a poster to be using all of these disingenuous arguments my man. I type lengthy enough posts as it is so I don't find it necessary for you to put words in my mouth.
It's weird how you're talking about the 1960s but bringing up Bob Cousy. Cousy was not even there for the majority of the 60s. You're mentioning him and John Havilcek when Bob Cousy retired the year John Havilcek turned pro. They were barely even teammates.
Even Tommy Heinsohn had retired by 1965 and he is the same age as Bill Russell.
KC Jones...never even averaged double digits a single time in his career. He averaged nearly as many fouls as he did assist some seasons. KC Jones is only in the HOF because he was on the same team as Bill Russell.
The league was way more competitive in the 60s than in the 50s and Bill only lost once that entire decade. He wasn't the only good player on the team but I fail to see how a big 3 of him with Hondo and Jones is somehow a major advantage over what most all time greats had.
I agree with almost everything OhayoKD wrote but I think the one point about Sam Jones is a bit off. The poster wasn't just talking about 1969 when he compared Sam Jones to Jimmy Butler but about the team as a whole. It's a fair comparison, they are both midrange shooters with good not great efficiency who have a rep as clutch and can score in volume. Butler adds defense and playmaking relative to Jones but it is a pretty reasonable take over the decade of the 60s v. the last decade for Butler.
The KD comment was the one quoted in the OP, which was not Heej but kendogg.
“Most people use statistics like a drunk man uses a lamppost; more for support than illumination,” Andrew Lang.
penbeast0 wrote:I agree with almost everything OhayoKD wrote but I think the one point about Sam Jones is a bit off. The poster wasn't just talking about 1969 when he compared Sam Jones to Jimmy Butler but about the team as a whole. It's a fair comparison, they are both midrange shooters with good not great efficiency who have a rep as clutch and can score in volume. Butler adds defense and playmaking relative to Jones but it is a pretty reasonable take over the decade of the 60s v. the last decade for Butler.
The KD comment was the one quoted in the OP, which was not Heej but kendogg.
Hard to imagine a team that wins 8 straight titles having anything other than one of the greatest supporting casts of all time.
Bill Russell being amazing and the Celtics having an incredible supporting cast/coach don't have to be mutually exclusive--both can be true. After all, they won 11 titles, and it takes a team, not a single player, to win.
The Celtics Offense & The Cousy Conundrum
It's absolutely true that the Celtics were a defensively-minded team that played through Russell and relied on that side of the ball to win championships. With that being said, it is worth noting that Ben Taylor's own data is more favorable towards the Celtics offense compared to Basketball Reference's data:
Spoiler:
ZeppelinPage wrote:Thread on why Basketball Reference underestimates the Celtics offense:
Ben Taylor's own data supports this theory as he likely has differing pace estimations that account for the specific context of the Celtics touched on in the thread above.
According to Taylor's data, the Cousy-era Celtics are more often than not a plus offensive team (with 4 of 7 seasons ranked in the top 4):
1957 Celtics rORTG: +2.2 (2nd of 8) 1958 Celtics rORTG:+1.4 (3rd of 8) 1959 Celtics rORTG: +1.7 (4th of 8) 1960 Celtics rORTG:+2.5 (2nd of 8) 1961 Celtics rORTG:-1.4 (7th of 8) 1962 Celtics rORTG: +0.9 (5th of 9) 1963 Celtics rORTG: -0.6 (5th of 9)
Following Cousy's departure, the offensive outlook is split, but nonetheless more favorable compared to Basketball Reference:
1964 Celtics rORTG:-2.4 (8th of 9) 1965 Celtics rORTG:-0.4 (6th of 9) 1966 Celtics rORTG:-0.5 (6th of 9) 1967 Celtics rORTG:+2.3 (2nd of 10) 1968 Celtics rORTG:+0.5 (5th of 12) 1969 Celtics rORTG:+0.1 (8th of 14)
This data paints the Celtics as (for the most part) a more balanced team. A fraction of the credit the defense receives is simply given to the offense. They still had a fantastic defense for their era and on an all time scale--this defense was the backbone of their team and was key to their championships. But with a more accurate possession estimate, it's likely that the Celtics offense contributed to winning more than previously thought.
As far as Cousy falling off because he "couldn't keep up with times"--I feel like that is such an easy way to explain something that requires more context and research.
Comparing Cousy's '55 season (105 TS+) to '58 (92 TS+) and '59 (99 TS+) one can see a noticeable drop off in his efficiency, but that's less to do with the "league getting better" and more to do with aging and the personnel (Russell) that impacted the teams offense. Continuing off this point, the league average TS% in '55 (.455) is virtually the same as in '58 and '59 (.449 and .457, respectively.)
It's not hard to believe that Russell impacted the offense in a negative way, but in particular it seems to have hurt Cousy's ability to get to the rim and therefore his efficiency:
Looking deeper into Cousy's splits for the 1957 season, the addition of Russell and how it impacted Cousy becomes more clear:
Spoiler:
First 24 Games Played (Pre-Russell): 23.2 PPG/8.7 FTA (Career highs) Next 24 Games Played (With Russell): 20.4 PPG/5.8 FTA Total in 40 Games Played (With Russell): 19.1 PPG/5.8 FTA (Lowest since rookie season)
14 Games of Full Box Score Data (Pre-Russell): 48.69 TS% (Career high) 28 Games of Full Box Score Data (With Russell): 44.32 TS% (Lowest since rookie season)
Something similar can be seen in John Havlicek, who was also the main offensive option for the Celtics before Russell's departure:
Havlicek has a substantial increase in FG%, rising to nearly 5-6% for the rest of his career following Russell. One thing to note is Havlicek’s increase in FT% is in part due to the ball change during the 1970 season that caused an increase in league wide FT%, although no other player had the increase in FG% that Havlicek did. While one could argue this increase in efficiency is due to Havlicek growing as a player, I do think his jump coinciding with Russell leaving is notable and is an interesting comparison to Cousy’s situation.
With the lack of spacing and Auerbach's shoot-at-will strategy, Cousy's efficiency was negatively impacted. The Celtics as a whole had few players that could actually create their own shot like Cousy, and in an effort for Russell to feel more involved, Auerbach made it a point to get him touches. It's clear why the offense gets worse with Russell when watching Celtics film: Russell hand-off into a contested jumper, Russell screen into a contested jumper, or a clogged lane into a contested jumper. The Celtics wanted to be in transition as much as possible because of this--their offense was most successful with the ball in Cousy's hands and the team running with him.
The Celtics won mostly on defense and winning the possession battle with Russell, but it seems like efficiency was going to take a hit as a cost. Essentially, the Celtics (and Cousy) sacrificed offense for a boost in defense. In this regard, I wouldn't be as harsh on Cousy's low efficiency because, well, someone on the team had to be taking shots and the options were limited. I think he was making up for it with the high value playmaking he made throughout the game. This playmaking was able to keep their offense afloat and also led to 6 titles, so I would like to think there is some impact in his passing and shot generation that the numbers of the day aren't really showing.
The Celtics Defense: How Good was Russell's Supporting Cast?
I do disagree with this notion that Bill Russell was carrying a team of mainly average to poor defenders. I would say he anchored a team of good to great defenders. His ability to rim protect and rebound was exactly what the Celtics had been missing. When Russell joined, it allowed for the Celtics to unlock their potential and become one of the greatest defensive teams in NBA history. Auerbach often stressed defense and if you couldn't contribute on this end you wouldn't see much playing time. This is why the Celtics were, more often than not, a defensively sound team from top to bottom. This can be exemplified by the '57 teams strong showing before Russell ever arrived, where they held that years #1 offense, the Philadelphia Warriors, to 83 and 78 points en route to a 10-game winning streak. Had there been All-Defensive Teams during this period, it's likely that players such as Loscutoff, Sharman, Cousy, Heinsohn, Ramsey, Sanders, and both the Jones' would have been members at various times.
Cousy himself would probably take an entire separate post but simply put he was a risk taker that was often among the league leaders (likely outright leading) in steals. Which isn't to incorrectly say steals = good defense, but given quotes I've found on Cousy and his defensive abilities it seems as though it was more of an effort thing for him. Cousy had such a massive offensive usage rate that (and Slater Martin has mentioned this before) he had less overall energy to give on defense. When Cousy was needed on the defensive end, he would definitely step up, and based on clips and different quotes I've found I would say he was a good man defender that was prone to off-ball mistakes. His risk taking mentality would allow him to have extravagant 9-steal games but also hurt him at certain times by losing his man through ball watching. Overall, Auerbach trusted in Cousy's defense throughout his career and believed in him as a defender. This is why Cousy would sometimes match-up against the opposing teams best guard. I certainly wouldn't call Cousy an elite defender though, rather an inconsistent one with potential to be good to below average depending on the night. It just so happens that he also had the vision and quick hands that allowed for him to be an elite ball stealer.
I've found mentions of young Sam Jones' defensive play by sportswriters, Cousy, and Auerbach. Cousy in particular mentions in a Sports Illustrated article how having both Sam and K.C. off the bench helps slow the opposing guards down. Before he aged, Sam Jones was actually very quick early into his career, which aided him on the defensive side of the ball. This is what helped separate Jones and allowed him to receive minutes off the bench early into his career:
"Perfect two-way job by Sam...became a part of Jack McMahon's uniform on defense."
Spoiler:
"Ballhawking and pressing game was sensational."
Spoiler:
"Ballhawking tactics gave Los Angeles fits."
Spoiler:
Frank Ramsey was an aggressive defender that could ballhawk and defend bigger players. In the 1958 EDF, Auerbach put Frank Ramsey on Dolph Schayes, who proceeded to shoot 37% from the field, he later gives credit to Ramsey for his defense. The next season, Auerbach matched Ramsey up against rookie phenom Elgin Baylor, who finished the series shooting a 33 FG%. Here are some various quotes on Ramsey's defense:
Dolph Schayes compliments Ramsey (and Heinsohn) for defensive play: "He plays in a zone out there and he gobbles up everything that comes at him...I've got to say he's really great at his type of game."
Spoiler:
Dolph Schayes:"Guess Ramsey is the only man in the league his size who plays me...He dogs me, I'll say that for him."
Spoiler:
Schayes scores only two baskets on Ramsey in two games.
Spoiler:
Bob Cousy:"Men like...Frank Ramsey...have been really hard to score against."
Spoiler:
"Ramsey set the pace offensively and defensively...stole the ball six times."
Spoiler:
Ramsey guards Elgin Baylor:"I'm not saying a thing until the series is over...I don't want to jinx him." - Red Auerbach
Spoiler:
How about Tom Heinsohn? In Auerbach's book Basketball for The Player, The Fan, And The Coach--he lists Heinsohn as one of the great defensive cornermen, and for good reason. On top of being a relentless rebounder, he actively played for the ball and used his hands to poke, strip, and deflect. He could switch 1 through 4 with ease and play tough man-to-man defense, often contesting shots and getting blocks on players like Jerry West.
Clips showcasing Heinsohn's defensive abilities:
G6 '63 NBA Finals -- Heinsohn steal on Jerry West in a 2-point game with 2 minutes remaining
Spoiler:
Heinsohn Defensive Sequence
Spoiler:
Steal on Wilt Chamberlain
Spoiler:
Strips on Rudy LaRusso and Guy Rodgers
Spoiler:
Spoiler:
Blocks on Jerry West
Spoiler:
Spoiler:
George Yardley on Heinsohn's Defense:
"There were two defensive players that never got enough credit for it, Tom Heinsohn and Jack Twyman." -- pg. 176, From Set Shot to Slam Dunk by Charles Salzberg
Needless to say anything more--the Boston Celtics were quite a talented group of defenders! Auerbach made sure of that.
ZeppelinPage wrote:Hard to imagine a team that wins 8 straight titles having anything other than one of the greatest supporting casts of all time.
Bill Russell being amazing and the Celtics having an incredible supporting cast/coach don't have to be mutually exclusive--both can be true. After all, they won 11 titles, and it takes a team, not a single player, to win.
Thank you for collecting and sharing this wealth of information. It was enjoyable to read your post. It was also very cool to see the old newspaper clippings, which give us a good idea of existing sentiments from that time. You have me fully convinced me that the 60s Celtics had an incredible and deep team. I do not understand why some are trying to say differently. All players on those teams deserve their flowers, they won 11 titles as a collective. It is quite possibly the most amazing team accomplishment in any sport.
ZeppelinPage wrote:Hard to imagine a team that wins 8 straight titles having anything other than one of the greatest supporting casts of all time.
Bill Russell being amazing and the Celtics having an incredible supporting cast/coach don't have to be mutually exclusive--both can be true. After all, they won 11 titles, and it takes a team, not a single player, to win.
Thank you for collecting and sharing this wealth of information. It was enjoyable to read your post. It was also very cool to see the old newspaper clippings, which give us a good idea of existing sentiments from that time. You have me fully convinced me that the 60s Celtics had an incredible and deep team. I do not understand why some are trying to say differently. All players on those teams deserve their flowers, they won 11 titles as a collective. It is quite possibly the most amazing team accomplishment in any sport.
It didn't really talk about most of Bill's teammates. I mean who has ever said Frank Ramsey wasn't good?
Frank and Cousy were either old or retired for a lot of Bill's career. They are essentially 1950s players. Frank was out of his prime after 1961 - so was Cousy. Bill retired in 1969.
Bill did have a great team the first half of his career. All three of those players mentioned are from his first half. His second half wasn't bad but it wasn't the same team.
I mean you are fully convinced that he had a great team in the 1960s by articles talking about players whos prime ended in 1961? If you had said you are fully convinced that Frank Ramsey was a good player then I would agree but the fact that an article citing that him and Bob Cousy were good has convinced you of the quality of Bill's entire 1960s career when they are not 1960s players proves why there is so much misconception about Bill Russell.
Players from that long ago are just glossed over so easily and stretched. We may as well say Frank Ramsey was on the 1969 team team. It's just lazy tbh.
The reason why "people are trying to say differently" is because there is nuance to teams. like most players, Bill Russell's teammates were not the exact same every year or the same age. There is this idea that Bill Russell played with the superfriends, like he had 9 MVP caliber teammates all on his team which isn't true. Bill Russell did not play with another "superstar". Even if we cut out the years where Bill Russell's teams were insanely more talented than their opposition Bill Russell would still have like 6 rings.
ZeppelinPage wrote:Hard to imagine a team that wins 8 straight titles having anything other than one of the greatest supporting casts of all time.
Bill Russell being amazing and the Celtics having an incredible supporting cast/coach don't have to be mutually exclusive--both can be true. After all, they won 11 titles, and it takes a team, not a single player, to win.
Thank you for collecting and sharing this wealth of information. It was enjoyable to read your post. It was also very cool to see the old newspaper clippings, which give us a good idea of existing sentiments from that time. You have me fully convinced me that the 60s Celtics had an incredible and deep team. I do not understand why some are trying to say differently. All players on those teams deserve their flowers, they won 11 titles as a collective. It is quite possibly the most amazing team accomplishment in any sport.
It's a great write-up, but it only covers roughly half of the Celtics dynasty. The Celtics won 5 titles after Cousy left, and continued to win as Sam Jones became a role player. The claim was that the Celtics were "not always" stacked. Frankly you being "fully convinced" by clippings covering half of the Celtics dynasty while "not understanding" a stance where the reasoning has been explained several times makes me think you might be looking for a specific answer here.
ZeppelinPage wrote:Hard to imagine a team that wins 8 straight titles having anything other than one of the greatest supporting casts of all time.
Bill Russell being amazing and the Celtics having an incredible supporting cast/coach don't have to be mutually exclusive--both can be true. After all, they won 11 titles, and it takes a team, not a single player, to win.
Thank you for collecting and sharing this wealth of information. It was enjoyable to read your post. It was also very cool to see the old newspaper clippings, which give us a good idea of existing sentiments from that time. You have me fully convinced me that the 60s Celtics had an incredible and deep team. I do not understand why some are trying to say differently. All players on those teams deserve their flowers, they won 11 titles as a collective. It is quite possibly the most amazing team accomplishment in any sport.
It's a great write-up, but it only covers roughly half of the Celtics dynasty. The Celtics won 5 titles after Cousy left, and continued to win as Sam Jones became a role player. The claim was that the Celtics were "not always" stacked. Frankly you being "fully convinced" by clippings covering half of the Celtics dynasty while "not understanding" a stance where the reasoning has been explained several times makes me think you might be looking for a specific answer here.
I'm new here but this post is really unfair. The previous poster provided very interesting information regarding the defensive talents of Russell's teammates. These were contemporaneous accounts from journalists as well as other players dispelling any real or perceived notion that Russell had poor defensive colleagues, particularly during his earlier period which is less known. You then go on to state that this is only for half of the Celtics dynasty and accuse the man of having an agenda. Which I found puzzling as I thought he presented a very balanced argument by acknowledging Russell's greatness.
While I find the ad-homonym argument to be cheap and unnecessary, what irks me more is that I can only assume that someone with your historic knowledge would know that the second half of the Celtics dynasty had players renowned for their defensive prowess. It would be hard to contest that Havlicek, Sanders and KC Jones would all have been on All-Defensive first or second teams if the award existed at the time (Sam Jones possibly too). After KC Jones left, Larry Siegfried took over at point guard and was primarily known for his defensive ability as well. There would be very few teams in history that would have four All-Defensive caliber players in the starting five. Of course, having Russell as the back stop would create a multiplier effect to the enhance the efforts of the others. As great as Russell was defensively, and he was great, it cannot be denied that he played with excellent defensive teammates and an all-time great coach that maximised his tremendous talents for all of his career.
. Also I'm gonna need these receipts of me calling Sam Jones KD because I've been consistent with my view that the Russell Celtics were the late 2017-19 Warriors with Jimmy Butler instead of KD. You're too good of a poster to be using all of these disingenuous arguments my man. I type lengthy enough posts as it is so I don't find it necessary for you to put words in my mouth.
