Djoker wrote:Owly wrote:Djoker wrote:Rookie Russell is here and let's just say he changed the game is played forever. Before him, guys rarely played the vertical game and stayed on the ground to contest shots but boy oh boy did Big Bill change that. However, my preliminary thought is that he won't be my #1 maybe not even top 2. He missed too much time, exactly one third of the season, and the team didn't really suffer without him unlike the rest of his career when his teams completely collapsed around him. Didn't happen this year as the team was only marginally better in terms of point differential in games Russell played. Then again, they did become a way better playoff team and went on to win a ring. Tough to rank Russell this year.
24 RS Games without Russell: 16-8, +4.6 MOV
48 RS Games with Russell: 28-20, +5.8 MOV
10 PS Games with Russell: 7-3, +7.2 MOV
Another thing to note is that despite winning Game 7 of the Finals in double OT, the Celtics did outscore the Hawks by 5.1 points per game in the Finals so they were very likely the better team and deserving winners.
Even that presentation of the points differentials is generous.
On the "without" side in "with/without" terms that 24 game spell includes 8 without Sharman (oto. Through 18 games they are 14-4 and +7.166666667. Sharman plays 9 minutes in one game in the middle of the spell he's broadly absent overall they're 2-4 and -3.333333333 there (though the Sharman, minimal presence was one of the wins). He returns with Russell's arrival.
Then there's Frank Ramsey who arrives about a month after Russell iirc. My surface recollection is that "with" him (RS) is worse than the "just Russell added" sample but it would seem to be another quality rotation player at least and he is part of the playoffs.
These are very noisy measures on small samples ... that said they aren't something, in concert with missed time, that support Russell as PoY-ish right away.
Ya for sure. Thinking Basketball's WOWY has the Celtics 0.5 points better with Russell or 1 Pythagorean Win... That's isn't a lot!
Then again, I do think you have to assess his impact in the playoffs too. The Celtics went from a non-contender to winning a championship with him. Either his impact is much greater than the small sample WOWY indicates and/or his style is also more conducive to championship basketball. Maybe having Russell just freed others to run the break and not worry about grabbing rebounds knowing he will handle that and it unleashed the team. Sometimes the presence of a player simplifies the game for everyone else. He really fit that team like a glove because Cousy could always handle the offense well and just needed the rebound secured to fuel the deadly break.
The other thing is Petit is not exactly killing it in wowy either(though a much smaller sample so i suppose it's easier to ignore)
1954 -> 1955
5-win improvement for a
26-win team, 1.5 srs improvement
1957 -> a bad team with the 71 games, win the game he misses
1958 -> has taken 4 seasons to cross .500, a little bit above with him (38-31), win both games he misses
1961 -> 51-28 with him, 2-1 in the 3 games without him
1962 -> collapse to 29-49 with him, but team does lose both of the game he misses
1963 -> 48-32 with, team loses the 1 game he misses
finally in
1965 we get a decent signal with Petit clearly past it (6 minute drop!)
firstly, it's notable to me that despite said 6 minute dropm the hawks suffer by only a single win and actually gain a point of SRS.
Secondly the team goes from a 50-win pace with Petit to a 41-win pace without him.
in
1966 we get the most impressive 1-year removed signal for Petit with the Hawks falling by 9 wins and 2 points of srs with his depature despite him clearly being past it in 1965.
A couple takeaways here:
-> By this approach, for his career, Petit looks like a positively impactful player though perhaps not an atg one. Keep in Mind that SRS movment was much harder during this time period
-> Noisy they may be, Petit's worst signals are concentrated around the season being voted for with the Hawks going perfect without Petit in both final runs. Perhaps there is more than just noise here. In comparison to 1963(best in-season signal), 1957 Petit is less efficient on significantly lower volume
The positive point in comparison with Russell is over this early stretch "small-sample theatre" is a more effective explanation.
The negative point is that to the degree you put faith in surrounding years or the whole portfolio in evaluating this one, Russell's is much stronger with
-> Celtics looking bad without him(35-win) over a 2.2 games/season sample
-> stronger team improvement if you take the previous year vs the rookie year
-> stronger improvement on the side of the floor the player's production would theoretically boost (7-point improvement)
-> wins b2b ncaa with team that doesn't make the tournament prior to his arrival the previous 2 years
-> sets point-differential record in the previous olympics (
53! points) that stands to this day
-> 68-71 (bad without him, average replacing him well, though dubious how relevant this is)
This is not to say it's ridiculous to not take rookie Russell when we're about to see his points, rebounds, assists, and fg% all go up the following season, but I do think it's important to remember this is a comparison and late 50's Petit is not exactly killing it in terms of statistical impact either. Additionally in terms of visible "production" (unfortunately there's not footage to track I'm aware of), there is some difference between what we'll eventually be able to observe from Petit and what we can see now.
Petit and Russell are both in a similar empirical boat in my mind with negative rs signals that don't track with how they were covered and our theoretical placements of them and then a significant playoff jump and plenty of evidence of what they offered afterwards.
On that note, I am curious if there are any other parties here worth considering for that 1 spot over pre-prime Petit and Bill. Feeling some pull towards Schayes to be honest.
Yea Macauley leaving might have been some addition by subtraction. Heinsohn largely (though not fully) replaced his offensive output and he wasn't the same liability defensively. The small sample... I don't know what to make of it to be honest. Still even if I wave it off, Russell still did miss a third of the season and Pettit had an amazing year start to finish despite narrowly losing
.
I do think it's possible Mcauley's offense offered more than his defense took away.
