why do ppl think russ didnt carry?

[ShaqAttac]

70 bos:
https://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/BOS/1970.html

71 bos:
https://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/BOS/1971.html

bos aint good when he left so why some ppl still act like russ wasnt the one carryin the celts when they beat the wilt west supersquad.

[rk2023]

70 bos:
https://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/BOS/1970.html

71 bos:
https://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/BOS/1971.html

bos aint good when he left so why some ppl still act like russ wasnt the one carryin the celts when they beat the wilt west supersquad.

Baylor and Wilt were helping carry Boston past Jerry West and friends...

In all seriousness, agree and feel Russ' WOWY / Boston's tail-off on defense and not being able to replicate such results (which is no knack, there's only 1 Bill Russell ) doesn't get talked about. I'm starting to feel higher on him in a ranking sense where (imo) he could be argued as the goat floor-raiser with an era-relative impact approach in mind. This is under the rationale that Russ' defense is going to, more often than not, guarantee a league best SRS. Using a random team / guesstimated impact approach as well, Russell also has GOAT-level scalability (in theory) considering his defense could provide an obscene spark on the more offensively slanted teams - while his Offensive production really isn't going to be subtractive.

[ShaqAttac]

70 bos:
https://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/BOS/1970.html

71 bos:
https://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/BOS/1971.html

bos aint good when he left so why some ppl still act like russ wasnt the one carryin the celts when they beat the wilt west supersquad.

Baylor and Wilt were helping carry Boston past Jerry West and friends...

In all seriousness, agree and feel Russ' WOWY / Boston's tail-off on defense and not being able to replicate such results (which is no knack, there's only 1 Bill Russell ) doesn't get talked about. I'm starting to feel higher on him in a ranking sense where (imo) he could be argued as the goat floor-raiser with an era-relative impact approach in mind. This is under the rationale that Russ' defense is going to, more often than not, guarantee a league best SRS. Using a random team / guesstimated impact approach as well, Russell also has GOAT-level scalability (in theory) considering his defense could provide an obscene spark on the more offensively slanted teams - while his Offensive production really isn't going to be subtractive.

idk what ur saying but u spittin

[Harry Palmer]

I don’t actually know how or if Russell is viewed the way you describe, but if he is I suspect it has something to do with having 7 Hall of Fame teammates. Even if you are successfully isolating him, isn’t there a very real probability that at some point sheer saturation will come into play?

[Colbinii]

I don’t actually know how or if Russell is viewed the way you describe, but if he is I suspect it has something to do with having 7 Hall of Fame teammates. Even if you are successfully isolating him, isn’t there a very real probability that at some point sheer saturation will come into play?

How many of those players would be Hall of Famers had Russell not played?

[Harry Palmer]

I don’t actually know how or if Russell is viewed the way you describe, but if he is I suspect it has something to do with having 7 Hall of Fame teammates. Even if you are successfully isolating him, isn’t there a very real probability that at some point sheer saturation will come into play?

How many of those players would be Hall of Famers had Russell not played?

Impossible to say, mostly, but of course you can invert that. It’s akin to the argument of how few teams there were, it can be argued for and against him unless you assume (reasonably imo) that talent pools are progressively expansive.

[Colbinii]

I don’t actually know how or if Russell is viewed the way you describe, but if he is I suspect it has something to do with having 7 Hall of Fame teammates. Even if you are successfully isolating him, isn’t there a very real probability that at some point sheer saturation will come into play?

How many of those players would be Hall of Famers had Russell not played?

Impossible to say, mostly, but of course you can invert that. It’s akin to the argument of how few teams there were, it can be argued for and against him unless you assume (reasonably imo) that talent pools are progressively expansive.

Exactly. So citing the 7 HoF teammates as a rationale doesn't really hold weight.

[Harry Palmer]

How many of those players would be Hall of Famers had Russell not played?

Impossible to say, mostly, but of course you can invert that. It’s akin to the argument of how few teams there were, it can be argued for and against him unless you assume (reasonably imo) that talent pools are progressively expansive.

Exactly. So citing the 7 HoF teammates as a rationale doesn't really hold weight.

I can’t see if you are saying ‘having 7 Hall of Fame teammates is irrelevant to how he’s perceived’ with a straight face or not, but I’ll assume so. Try saying it out loud, see if it sounds okay to you. I mean…all things being equal (I know, not necessarily total overlap) with him starting that leaves 3 Hall of Famers coming off the bench.

[ShaqAttac]

I don’t actually know how or if Russell is viewed the way you describe, but if he is I suspect it has something to do with having 7 Hall of Fame teammates. Even if you are successfully isolating him, isn’t there a very real probability that at some point sheer saturation will come into play?

How many of those players would be Hall of Famers had Russell not played?

Impossible to say, mostly, but of course you can invert that. It’s akin to the argument of how few teams there were, it can be argued for and against him unless you assume (reasonably imo) that talent pools are progressively expansive.

i mean aint the point at lookin his teammates without russ that we can see who is makin who hof?

[ShaqAttac]

How many of those players would be Hall of Famers had Russell not played?

Impossible to say, mostly, but of course you can invert that. It’s akin to the argument of how few teams there were, it can be argued for and against him unless you assume (reasonably imo) that talent pools are progressively expansive.

Exactly. So citing the 7 HoF teammates as a rationale doesn't really hold weight.

ppl def look at hofers. dont cap now

[Harry Palmer]

How many of those players would be Hall of Famers had Russell not played?

Impossible to say, mostly, but of course you can invert that. It’s akin to the argument of how few teams there were, it can be argued for and against him unless you assume (reasonably imo) that talent pools are progressively expansive.

i mean aint the point at lookin his teammates without russ that we can see who is makin who hof?

The danger is identifying the saturation point imo. Like say take someone like Durant. Then add another HOFer. Then another. Then another. Then another. Then another. Then another. Then another. At what point along this continuum do we isolate which HoFers are independently propelling success? Do we have enough data of him playing without several HoF teammates to be ~ clear? I just think that kind of pretty unique saturation leads to automatic muddiness. But I need to stipulate I am a data dinosaur, so very possibly am missing the point.

[ShaqAttac]

Impossible to say, mostly, but of course you can invert that. It’s akin to the argument of how few teams there were, it can be argued for and against him unless you assume (reasonably imo) that talent pools are progressively expansive.

i mean aint the point at lookin his teammates without russ that we can see who is makin who hof?

The danger is identifying the saturation point imo. Like say take someone like Durant. Then add another HOFer. Then another. Then another. Then another. Then another. Then another. Then another. At what point along this continuum do we isolate which HoFers are independently propelling success? Do we have enough data of him playing without several HoF teammates to be ~ clear? I just think that kind of pretty unique saturation leads to automatic muddiness. But I need to stipulate I am a data dinosaur, so very possibly am missing the point.

well pretty much all the hofs were gone or not peakin when he beat a superteam in 69. also his teams dont really seem to suffer when his teammates miss games.

and he looks awsome in that moonbeam thing

what do u mean by stauration point

[Colbinii]

Impossible to say, mostly, but of course you can invert that. It’s akin to the argument of how few teams there were, it can be argued for and against him unless you assume (reasonably imo) that talent pools are progressively expansive.

Exactly. So citing the 7 HoF teammates as a rationale doesn't really hold weight.

I can’t see if you are saying ‘having 7 Hall of Fame teammates is irrelevant to how he’s perceived’ with a straight face or not, but I’ll assume so. Try saying it out loud, see if it sounds okay to you. I mean…all things being equal (I know, not necessarily total overlap) with him starting that leaves 3 Hall of Famers coming off the bench.

We can see how much better the Celtics were when Russell joined and how they dropped off when he left. We have minimal WOWY data which shows him as a highly impactful player [and WOWY data of his teammates showing less of them compared to Russell].

Em Bailey and Larry Siegfried were big contributors to the 1969 title team--neither are in the HoF. Don Nelson was also on the 1969 team, but he wasn't able to get into the HoF until 2012, and this was as a coach.

It is really easy to say one-liners like "He had 7 Hall of Famers, of course he won!" without actually looking at the context of his team(s). Is anyone really going to be taken seriously if they say the 2022 Lakers should have won a title because LeBron had "4 Hall of Famers, 1 1st Team All-NBA, 1 2nd Team All-NBA and 1 3rd Team All-NBA teammates?"

Yes, Bill Russell had a lot of teammates who made the hall of fame, but that is because they were part of the drink stirred by Bill Russell. A Strawberry is excellent in a fruit smoothie but it isn't desirable in a soup.

[Harry Palmer]

i mean aint the point at lookin his teammates without russ that we can see who is makin who hof?

The danger is identifying the saturation point imo. Like say take someone like Durant. Then add another HOFer. Then another. Then another. Then another. Then another. Then another. Then another. At what point along this continuum do we isolate which HoFers are independently propelling success? Do we have enough data of him playing without several HoF teammates to be ~ clear? I just think that kind of pretty unique saturation leads to automatic muddiness. But I need to stipulate I am a data dinosaur, so very possibly am missing the point.

well pretty much all the hofs were gone or not peakin when he beat a superteam in 69. also his teams dont really seem to suffer when his teammates miss games.

and he looks awsome in that moonbeam thing

what do u mean by stauration point

https://interq-research.com/what-is-data-saturation-in-qualitative-research/

Basically, in the way I’m applying it here, is the more HoF players on one team the less we can determine about each one. Ie, diminishing credibility because at some point being on a team that had several times the talent level of their opposition it becomes a different kind of rubric, and is potentially more determined by say which HoF player the coach chooses to build around. The same kind of question you can ask about any player, of course, but those conversations are ~ normalized by ~ parity. When you get that kind of talent stacked together, though, those norms become less and less reliable and we are more prone to misinterpretation. But like I said, data analysis has leapt ahead of me so possibly it’s better able to account for this extreme of an outlier.

To be clear, I don’t actually have a position for or against Russell being thought of as able to carry, I’m completely open to either conclusion and if forced to bet would probably bet he did carry, I was just offering what imo would be the most likely explanation for why he’s harder to gauge.

[ShaqAttac]

Exactly. So citing the 7 HoF teammates as a rationale doesn't really hold weight.

I can’t see if you are saying ‘having 7 Hall of Fame teammates is irrelevant to how he’s perceived’ with a straight face or not, but I’ll assume so. Try saying it out loud, see if it sounds okay to you. I mean…all things being equal (I know, not necessarily total overlap) with him starting that leaves 3 Hall of Famers coming off the bench.

We can see how much better the Celtics were when Russell joined and how they dropped off when he left. We have minimal WOWY data which shows him as a highly impactful player [and WOWY data of his teammates showing less of them compared to Russell].

Em Bailey and Larry Siegfried were big contributors to the 1969 title team--neither are in the HoF. Don Nelson was also on the 1969 team, but he wasn't able to get into the HoF until 2012, and this was as a coach.

It is really easy to say one-liners like "He had 7 Hall of Famers, of course he won!" without actually looking at the context of his team(s). Is anyone really going to be taken seriously if they say the 2022 Lakers should have won a title because LeBron had "4 Hall of Famers, 1 1st Team All-NBA, 1 2nd Team All-NBA and 1 3rd Team All-NBA teammates?"

Yes, Bill Russell had a lot of teammates who made the hall of fame, but that is because they were part of the drink stirred by Bill Russell. A Strawberry is excellent in a fruit smoothie but it isn't desirable in a soup.

ur attackin him for somethin he didnt say but smoothies r fun

[ShaqAttac]

The danger is identifying the saturation point imo. Like say take someone like Durant. Then add another HOFer. Then another. Then another. Then another. Then another. Then another. Then another. At what point along this continuum do we isolate which HoFers are independently propelling success? Do we have enough data of him playing without several HoF teammates to be ~ clear? I just think that kind of pretty unique saturation leads to automatic muddiness. But I need to stipulate I am a data dinosaur, so very possibly am missing the point.

well pretty much all the hofs were gone or not peakin when he beat a superteam in 69. also his teams dont really seem to suffer when his teammates miss games.

and he looks awsome in that moonbeam thing

what do u mean by stauration point

https://interq-research.com/what-is-data-saturation-in-qualitative-research/

Basically, in the way I’m applying it here, is the more HoF players on one team the less we can determine about each one. Ie, diminishing credibility because at some point being on a team that had several times the talent level of their opposition it becomes a different kind of rubric, and is potentially more determined by say which HoF player the coach chooses to build around. The same kind of question you can ask about any player, of course, but those conversations are ~ normalized by ~ parity. When you get that kind of talent stacked together, though, those norms become less and less reliable and we are more prone to misinterpretation. But like I said, data analysis has leapt ahead of me some possibly it’s better able to account for these extreme of an outlier.

im confuses how that would effect the celts without russ

how does bein in the hof or not affect how bos played in 70 and 71?

[penbeast0]

Maybe because the HOF starters from 69 were still playing in 70 (Havlicek and Howell, Sam Jones was a reserve in his final year in 69) and yet the team still fell apart.

Nor are some of those so-called HOF players true HOF players. Cousy and Sharman got in because of what they did before Russell, they were both on the downside by 58. Ramsey got in because he was the first 6th man and they were honoring a role (read the voters at the time, they are pretty clear about it); he was a nice player and a terrific playoff riser but he's still a career reserve and not one that comes up to the Ginobili level. Sanders got in as a "contributor," not a player; Heinsohn probably did too though they voted on him as a player. Actually, the only ones that make a modern, more competitive, HOF ballot solely for what they did when Russell was there are Sam Jones and Havlicek and even Havlicek was a much better player in the 70s. That undersells his support as a younger player a bit but is pretty accurate for his late career.

Now if you want to make the argument that Magic and Bird shouldn't be in the HOF because they played on stronger superteams than Russell, go ahead. I would take Kareem/Wilkes/Nixon etc. from early Magic over Cousy/Sharman/Heinsohn, etc. from early Russell and (it's closer but) Kareem/Worthy/Cooper/Green/Scott, etc. over Havlicek/S.Jones/Howell/KC/Sanders from their later champions.

[homecourtloss]

I don’t actually know how or if Russell is viewed the way you describe, but if he is I suspect it has something to do with having 7 Hall of Fame teammates. Even if you are successfully isolating him, isn’t there a very real probability that at some point sheer saturation will come into play?

Take a look here, please, i.e., @Moonbeam’s WoWY data. Some of the players could be off the court missing games, some of them haven’t started playing yet, some of them play after Bill Russell, but it doesn’t seem to matter as long as Bill Russell is on court the Celtics are winning and when he’s not on court they are not, those Hall of Fame players are playing or not.

Here is a spreadsheet with up to 100 positive coefficients for each 5-year window for Ridge, Lasso, and ENet.

- Boston Celtics
Key players: Bob Cousy, Ed Macauley, Bill Sharman, Bill Russell, Tom Heinsohn, Frank Ramsey



- Boston Celtics
Key players: Bill Russell, Sam Jones, John Havlicek, KC Jones, Tom Sanders, Bailey Howell



- Boston Celtics
Key players: John Havlicek, Dave Cowens, Jo Jo White, Paul Silas, Don Chaney, Don Nelson

Exactly. So citing the 7 HoF teammates as a rationale doesn't really hold weight.

I can’t see if you are saying ‘having 7 Hall of Fame teammates is irrelevant to how he’s perceived’ with a straight face or not, but I’ll assume so. Try saying it out loud, see if it sounds okay to you. I mean…all things being equal (I know, not necessarily total overlap) with him starting that leaves 3 Hall of Famers coming off the bench.

We can see how much better the Celtics were when Russell joined and how they dropped off when he left. We have minimal WOWY data which shows him as a highly impactful player [and WOWY data of his teammates showing less of them compared to Russell].

Em Bailey and Larry Siegfried were big contributors to the 1969 title team--neither are in the HoF. Don Nelson was also on the 1969 team, but he wasn't able to get into the HoF until 2012, and this was as a coach.

It is really easy to say one-liners like "He had 7 Hall of Famers, of course he won!" without actually looking at the context of his team(s). Is anyone really going to be taken seriously if they say the 2022 Lakers should have won a title because LeBron had "4 Hall of Famers, 1 1st Team All-NBA, 1 2nd Team All-NBA and 1 3rd Team All-NBA teammates?"

Yes, Bill Russell had a lot of teammates who made the hall of fame, but that is because they were part of the drink stirred by Bill Russell. A Strawberry is excellent in a fruit smoothie but it isn't desirable in a soup.

Absolutely this.

[One_and_Done]

70 bos:
https://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/BOS/1970.html

71 bos:
https://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/BOS/1971.html

bos aint good when he left so why some ppl still act like russ wasnt the one carryin the celts when they beat the wilt west supersquad.

So Russell is only worth 14 wins in a bad league. Is that your contention? I wouldn't be boasting about that. It compares poorly to the Duncans and Lebrons of carrying teams. After Lebron left the Cavs dropped from 61 wins to 19. The 02 Spurs wouldn't have won 25 games without Duncan. With him they won 58.

FYI the celtics were a league leading 16-8 when Russell joined them in 1957. They were 28-20 in games Russell played that year (so a worse win%).

[rk2023]

70 bos:
https://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/BOS/1970.html

71 bos:
https://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/BOS/1971.html

bos aint good when he left so why some ppl still act like russ wasnt the one carryin the celts when they beat the wilt west supersquad.

So Russell is only worth 14 wins in a bad league. Is that your contention? I wouldn't be boasting about that. It compares poorly to the Duncans and Lebrons of carrying teams. After Lebron left the Cavs dropped from 61 wins to 19. The 02 Spurs wouldn't have won 25 games without Duncan. With him they won 58.

FYI the celtics were a league leading 16-8 when Russell joined them in 1957. They were 28-20 in games Russell played that year (so a worse win%).

A -7 SRS drop is elite (9ish points on defense, at that).