How much of the Russell-era Celtics' record in important games was inherent to them, and how much of it was variance?

[golden009]

(apologies for the clunky title but you get what I'm going for)

from 1957-1969, the Celtics were:
10-0 in game 7s (8-0 at home)
17-2 in elimination games (12-0 at home)

Even accounting for that they were favored in most of these games, that's still an absurd record, and my initial reaction is that a lot of it has to be variance-there's no way a team could win that consistently in big games, even as good as the Celtics were, without a decent bit of good fortune. That being said, Auerbach was a great coach who probably would've had the prep advantage on anyone else in the league at that point, most of those games were at home (because Boston was also a historic regular-season dynasty), and Russell was an outlier in, like, five different ways-why couldn't he also be the most clutch player ever? Interested in hearing y'alls opinions.

[Tim Lehrbach]

It's an important question. As one of the biggest Russell GOAT supporters around, I absolutely think there is luck to their astounding records in playoff situations. I think it can both be true that Russell is the most clutch, intimidating, and unshakable player ever AND the Celtics could definitely have lost in the playoffs more often had the ball bounced the other way. I don't have the numbers in front of me, but my recollection is that a good number of their elimination game victories were close, too.

[Dr Positivity]

I think the first part of their dynasty the Celtics had by far the best team and if it went to 7 it was as much the other team overperforming. For example the Hawks in 1960 are not full strength (no Slater Martin) and they lose by 20+ in game 7. The Royals in 63 were a 42-38 team and push them to 7. I don't believe in the 50ppg Wilt version of the Sixers. I think Syracuse in 59 when they get George Yardley are underrated, but not on Celtics level. In 65 Wilt is immediately oil and water with his new coach and the Celtics have a dominant season, so I think the Sixers also overperformed to make it 7 game series. Then in 62, which is one of the series the Celtics could've lost and the supporting cast wasn't that clutch, they got the big Russell saves them series, add in 57 coin toss finals and those two series help pad the Celtics title count a bit.

Starting in 66 is where you can say they come up clutch to win 3 more titles. They seem pretty vulnerable in 66 as they flirt with getting eliminated by the Royals and then the Lakers with a mid roster for them imo with largely failed Dick Barnett for Bob Boozer trade had no business getting that close, and the Sixers choke, there is no great team to beat them this year or take advantage of off playoff run. In 68 they might get a little luck from Sixers injuries and Wilt being less clutch, and in 69 they are more experience than Knicks and the Lakers like 04 version are probably a bit flawed despite their talent.

The Celtics get clutch performances from players like Heinsohn, Jones, Ramsey, but it's easier to look clutch when the team is making the right passes to get you open, making the right adjustment against opponents, they have Russell setting picks and making passes instead of early Wilt standing near the rim to pad rebounds, etc.

[Cavsfansince84]

I don't see it as having much to do with luck or being fortunate. I think it all starts with mental toughness. Russell was fortunate to play with a guy like Jones who could step up and take and make a lot of those shots but it's never really luck when someone is able to do something under a lot of pressure imo. The Celtics as a team just really believed in themselves and their ability to find a way to win games. Not every team can do that in those kinds of games. It's just sort of hard to put any of that into numbers and fans like it better when everything can be.

[Owly]

First glance ... (without checking)

A bit unlucky to have gone that long in quite a few series.
A lot favored in a given game, on average. (Often significantly better team, often homecourt, so quite often both).
Some psychological advantage over time from the titles and winning past games.
Taking as a given that they to so many game 7s and game 5s (for best of 5) (and see point 1) ... significant luck in that you can be significantly favored for each individual "deciding" game that doesn't mean you should win them all.


Random thought regarding homecourt
Remember reading that the old Garden parquet had dead spots and that Boston guys guarded their men towards them. I don't know whether that would be (1) a false memory or embellishment for guys that were asked to talk about achievements long ago giving color to stories, (2) a headgame from Auerbach to mess with opponents. Don't know if Boston had a notably strong HCA in general. Of course it could be true but mitigated by a weak crowd (Boston were certainly less of a draw than their winning would suggest, based on what I've read) or it could be false and if it were a Red thing ... you might still see some advantage.

[Doctor MJ]

(apologies for the clunky title but you get what I'm going for)

from 1957-1969, the Celtics were:
10-0 in game 7s (8-0 at home)
17-2 in elimination games (12-0 at home)

Even accounting for that they were favored in most of these games, that's still an absurd record, and my initial reaction is that a lot of it has to be variance-there's no way a team could win that consistently in big games, even as good as the Celtics were, without a decent bit of good fortune. That being said, Auerbach was a great coach who probably would've had the prep advantage on anyone else in the league at that point, most of those games were at home (because Boston was also a historic regular-season dynasty), and Russell was an outlier in, like, five different ways-why couldn't he also be the most clutch player ever? Interested in hearing y'alls opinions.

So, regarding your title question, I'd note that the question of variance is something that applies to all of NBA basketball not just those Celtics.

So however much impact we think variance can have, it makes sense to "downgrade" our sense of those Celtics under the assumption they got all the lucky rolls possible...but I don't believe that leads to something like a .500 record in these games.

[tsherkin]

(apologies for the clunky title but you get what I'm going for)

from 1957-1969, the Celtics were:
10-0 in game 7s (8-0 at home)
17-2 in elimination games (12-0 at home)

Even accounting for that they were favored in most of these games, that's still an absurd record, and my initial reaction is that a lot of it has to be variance-there's no way a team could win that consistently in big games, even as good as the Celtics were, without a decent bit of good fortune. That being said, Auerbach was a great coach who probably would've had the prep advantage on anyone else in the league at that point, most of those games were at home (because Boston was also a historic regular-season dynasty), and Russell was an outlier in, like, five different ways-why couldn't he also be the most clutch player ever? Interested in hearing y'alls opinions.

So, regarding your title question, I'd note that the question of variance is something that applies to all of NBA basketball not just those Celtics.

So however much impact we think variance can have, it makes sense to "downgrade" our sense of those Celtics under the assumption they got all the lucky rolls possible...but I don't believe that leads to something like a .500 record in these games.

I think the real question is more "what if they had to play a contemporary number of games/rounds per postseason" than anything else, no? They were 7-3 in their first title year and that type of setup maintained for a long time. It's a consequence of league size and all that, but any conversation about their success in the playoffs must be framed within that box. They really only had to win one 7-game series a year for a while.

EDIT: It behooves me to note that they DID continue to win as the postseason lengthened, but variance does matter some.

[Doctor MJ]

(apologies for the clunky title but you get what I'm going for)

from 1957-1969, the Celtics were:
10-0 in game 7s (8-0 at home)
17-2 in elimination games (12-0 at home)

Even accounting for that they were favored in most of these games, that's still an absurd record, and my initial reaction is that a lot of it has to be variance-there's no way a team could win that consistently in big games, even as good as the Celtics were, without a decent bit of good fortune. That being said, Auerbach was a great coach who probably would've had the prep advantage on anyone else in the league at that point, most of those games were at home (because Boston was also a historic regular-season dynasty), and Russell was an outlier in, like, five different ways-why couldn't he also be the most clutch player ever? Interested in hearing y'alls opinions.

So, regarding your title question, I'd note that the question of variance is something that applies to all of NBA basketball not just those Celtics.

So however much impact we think variance can have, it makes sense to "downgrade" our sense of those Celtics under the assumption they got all the lucky rolls possible...but I don't believe that leads to something like a .500 record in these games.

I think the real question is more "what if they had to play a contemporary number of games/rounds per postseason" than anything else, no? They were 7-3 in their first title year and that type of setup maintained for a long time. It's a consequence of league size and all that, but any conversation about their success in the playoffs must be framed within that box. They really only had to win one 7-game series a year for a while.

EDIT: It behooves me to note that they DID continue to win as the postseason lengthened, but variance does matter some.

Well I actually I think Best-of-7 series are actually make it a lot more likely that the favorite wins the series so the fact that some of the Celtic wins came in shorter series only makes what they did harder. But as I say that, we're only talking about 3 of Russell's 27 series wins that required less than 4 wins to advance, so I don't think it's really a big difference.

Of course, the fact that the league was smaller and the playoffs were shorter did make it easier in other ways - most objectively, relating to injury concerns, because the longer the playoffs, the more likely your team has a major injury and one of your opponents doesn't.

[tsherkin]

Well I actually I think Best-of-7 series are actually make it a lot more likely that the favorite wins the series so the fact that some of the Celtic wins came in shorter series only makes what they did harder. But as I say that, we're only talking about 3 of Russell's 27 series wins that required less than 4 wins to advance, so I don't think it's really a big difference.

I think that variance and endurance eventually interrupt them enough to break up the 8 in a row. They're clearly still the dominant team of the era, so they'd still have a whole parcel of titles, no doubt about that. But yeah, as you note, the health concerns grow over time and I think it impacts a couple of those big "this is why they're the best" things like that streak. To what extent, I couldn't say obviously, but it's worth thinking about and is rarely mentioned.

[penbeast0]

I think you can say that about Jordan and the two 3 peats, Magic and the Lakers, probably even Duncan and the Spurs. You can look at any of the great long term winning teams in NBA history and see that they had unusual good health, caught a lot of breaks (Havlicek stole the ball!, Paxson for 3!, etc.), and generally could have been less successful than they were quite easily.

I have no problem with this question, I just don't think it's possible to have a good answer. The most you can say is that a particular dynasty didn't look as dominant as another dynasty (margin of victory, etc.). I don't think you can get to the question of when something was more clutch, or had advantages over their opponents in key situations, or sometimes just caught more breaks with any kind of certainty. Appreciate people trying though.

[tsherkin]

I think you can say that about Jordan and the two 3 peats, Magic and the Lakers, probably even Duncan and the Spurs. You can look at any of the great long term winning teams in NBA history and see that they had unusual good health, caught a lot of breaks (Havlicek stole the ball!, Paxson for 3!, etc.), and generally could have been less successful than they were quite easily.

That's true. It's prerequisite to some degree, although obviously that wasn't quite the case with the last of the Chicago titles.

I guess more my point was that the Boston dynasty started out in an environment so different from modern ball, but the thing about them we speak of most frequently is titles... and the route there was very, very different for them compared to the last 50 years or so. Still impressive, and again I reiterate that they did well as the league (and the postseason) grew. But I wonder if we'd look at them quite the same way if they didn't have 8 in a row, and had maybe 9 titles in 13 years instead of 11/13 with 8 in a row. Probably not a lot differently, because that's still a crap-ton of titles, so I suppose I'm just musing.

Still, 1966 was the first year they played more than two series in the postseason, the 8th title in their streak. Makes you wonder.

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

Russel era dominance was dominant for it’s length and clutchness more than for outright dominance of the NBA in any one season. 2nd 3rd and 4th best teams were competitive with the Celtics. The Celtic dynasty was not dominant enough to win series 4 to zero in playoffs. Celtics played in many game 7s. Many of the game 7s were close but the Celtics won all the game 7s.

[capfan33]

I think they benefited from variance more than almost any other dynasty in NBA history, and somewhat underperformed in the playoffs compared to the regular season, but with the number of teams and games in the 60s, higher variance makes sense.

[Tim Lehrbach]

(apologies for the clunky title but you get what I'm going for)

from 1957-1969, the Celtics were:
10-0 in game 7s (8-0 at home)
17-2 in elimination games (12-0 at home)

Even accounting for that they were favored in most of these games, that's still an absurd record, and my initial reaction is that a lot of it has to be variance-there's no way a team could win that consistently in big games, even as good as the Celtics were, without a decent bit of good fortune. That being said, Auerbach was a great coach who probably would've had the prep advantage on anyone else in the league at that point, most of those games were at home (because Boston was also a historic regular-season dynasty), and Russell was an outlier in, like, five different ways-why couldn't he also be the most clutch player ever? Interested in hearing y'alls opinions.

So, regarding your title question, I'd note that the question of variance is something that applies to all of NBA basketball not just those Celtics.

So however much impact we think variance can have, it makes sense to "downgrade" our sense of those Celtics under the assumption they got all the lucky rolls possible...but I don't believe that leads to something like a .500 record in these games.

I don't think anybody needs to be "downgraded." Rather, we should always have luck and limited sample in mind when we dole out credit for playoff accomplishments. Personally, this tempers considerably how I weigh playoff wins and championships on a team or player's résumé.

Also, as I said in another thread and will be bringing up in a new topic, a team or player's share of championship credit should probably be awarded proportionately to the extent to which they advance towards the title, not a 1-or-zero assignment of ring-or-no-ring. We can quantify this, and I'm going to ask for help doing so soon.

[Gant]

Tommy Heinsohn talked about why the Boston always won these types of situations. He said the reason was that the Celtics were always confident they would win because they had Russell.

So the factor that put them over the top so consistently is much more than luck, and maybe even more than just skill alone. It was psychological; they won all those clutch games because they knew they were going to win and the other team didn't.

Russell thought the game as well or better than anyone ever. He was always playing mind games. This is an example of that.

[SportsGuru08]

I think you can say that about Jordan and the two 3 peats, Magic and the Lakers, probably even Duncan and the Spurs. You can look at any of the great long term winning teams in NBA history and see that they had unusual good health, caught a lot of breaks (Havlicek stole the ball!, Paxson for 3!, etc.), and generally could have been less successful than they were quite easily.

That's true. It's prerequisite to some degree, although obviously that wasn't quite the case with the last of the Chicago titles.

I guess more my point was that the Boston dynasty started out in an environment so different from modern ball, but the thing about them we speak of most frequently is titles... and the route there was very, very different for them compared to the last 50 years or so. Still impressive, and again I reiterate that they did well as the league (and the postseason) grew. But I wonder if we'd look at them quite the same way if they didn't have 8 in a row, and had maybe 9 titles in 13 years instead of 11/13 with 8 in a row. Probably not a lot differently, because that's still a crap-ton of titles, so I suppose I'm just musing.

Still, 1966 was the first year they played more than two series in the postseason, the 8th title in their streak. Makes you wonder.

This is the refutation to make when Bron fans use Russell's 11 rings to discredit Jordan. Since the playoffs were expanded past two rounds, no team has won more than three in a row and 70% of Boston's dynasty came when it was just two rounds.

[ShaqAttac]

russ just built different

[tsherkin]

This is the refutation to make when Bron fans use Russell's 11 rings to discredit Jordan. Since the playoffs were expanded past two rounds, no team has won more than three in a row and 70% of Boston's dynasty came when it was just two rounds.

Yeah, I don't think it should be about discrediting. I guess I just wanted some context when people use the 11 rings to go after players in other eras and different postseason environments, you know?

Russell was a legit demon in his own time, the archetype-setter for the defensive center and just an absolute beast of a winner. He, and Mikan before him, sort of set the tone for me in the sense of why I really don't like cross-era comparisons when the eras are not adjacent and sufficiently similar, because so much changes that you can't make reasonable comparisons. No one really wants to talk about the GOAT of the 60s and the GOAT of the 80s and so forth, they just want one stand-alone GOAT, but that simply doesn't work well in my head. penbeast and I go back and forth about Mikan from time to time, but in the end, he's closer to right than I am. I have little faith that Mikan would even be in the league today, but even if that were true, what does it matter? He was a multiple MVP, multiple title-winning beast who forced the league to change the rules to adapt to his dominance. The first true superstar. In his day, he was king. What does it matter how he might port forward? He dominated when he actually played. Had he racked up those credentials today, he'd immediately be considered one of the best players ever, so it's really more recency bias than anything which keeps him out of those discussions, you know? And the more I reflect on that, the more it seems disrespectful to those who came before to be so dismissive of them. But you can't really compare them forward, so the only way to do it right seems to be to leave it in their own time.

[penbeast0]

The idea that it's harder to win 6 titles out of 13 playoff appearances with a 3 series requirement v. 11 out of 13 with a 2 series requirement seems wrong on its face. There are many other factors involved but that isn't enough.

[Djoker]

Most of the series Russell's Celtics played including the ones with close Game 7's, they had a strongly positive point differential. As such I think very little of it was variance and they likely really were the best team in every series except the 1969 Finals which is the only time they were slightly outscored. So if their playoff runs were repeated a thousand times, Celtics probably still win a minimum of 9-10 rings on average.

1957 Finals: won Game 7 by 2 points in OT; outscored Hawks by 5.1 points/game
1959 EDF: Won Game 7 by 5 points; outscored Nationals by 6.2 points/game
1960 Finals: Won Game 7 by 19 points; outscored Hawks by 7.8 points/game
1962 EDF: Won Game 7 by by 2 points; outscored Warriors by 5.5 points/game
1962 Finals: Won Game 7 by 3 points in OT; outscored Lakers by 4.1 points/game
1963 EDF: Won Game 7 by 11 points; outscored Royals by 5.6 points/game
1965 EDF: Won Game 7 by 1 point; outscored Sixers by 2.9 points/game
1966 ECSF: Won Game 5 by 9 points: outscored Royals by 4.6 points/game
1966 Finals: Won Game 7 by 2 points; outscored Lakers by 3.5 points/game
1968 EDF: Won Game 7 by 4 points; outscored Sixers by 2.5 points/game
1969 Finals: Won Game 7 by 2 points; outscored Lakers by -0.4 points/game