Duncan VS Russell

[penbeast0]

His teammates just weren't that great; they got their rep from playing with Russell though the Celtics tended to be very deep and they weren't dogs; but wihtout Russell and the rings, only Havlicek and maybe Cousy (As the first true PG) would be in the HOF. It's the 11 titles that got relatively unimpressive players like KC Jones and Frank Ramsey into the HOF.

That's kind of underselling Russell's teammates, don't you think? I mean, if his teammates weren't that great, then who has had great teammates in the history of the game?

Like you said, Cousy and Havlicek are HOFers no matter what, but what about Bill Sharman? If Russell never showed up, he would have been in the Hall regardless. What about Sam Jones? His numbers don't look great in his first couple of years, but keep in mind that Sharman and Cousy had the backcourt spots locked down, so there weren't a lot of minutes to go around. His production after his first three years was excellent. Jones would have been a HOFer on another team where he didn't need to share minutes early on. Have him switch places with Hal Greer and both are still in the Hall. Heinsohn...probably not, but that's not a shabby piece to have in the lineup with all of those other guys. Howell was another probably not without the benefit of same late years with Boston, but again, not a bad piece. KC and Ramsey definitely not.

If Russell wasn't a Celtic, then a solid center most likely would have fallen into place for them through the draft at some point to give them a couple of championships given the players already in place and the number of teams in the league at the time...Reed, Thurmond, Kerr, Bellamy, Beaty, someone.

They had a HOF center for the 4 years before they traded him as part of the deal to get Russell's draft rights. And, playing Cousy, Sharman, and HOF center Ed McCauley (a pretty good offensive player -- keep in mind that pretty much any one who ever made an All-Star team before 1960 is in the HOF) they were a non-contender, never making a serious playoff run and finishing 2nd, 3nrd, 3rd, and 2nd in a 4 team division for the four years before Russell . . . then they finished 1st for 11 of the next 13 years despite pretty much complete personnel turnover before diving into the cellar (despite still having John Havlicek in his prime) when Russell left. It wasn't his teammates.

[ThaRegul8r]

Completely ignoring the fact, of course, that Russell didn't get complacent when it came to winning.

Playing 4 rounds vs 2 rounds would have made things more interesting. That would be double the time out there on the court yearly in the playoffs.

Quantity =/= quality. People act like more teams means that all of those teams have an equal chance of winning. They do not. As I've already stated, the major upsets in NBA history took place in either the first round, the conference finals, or NBA Finals. This is what we know. If the Celtics were going to be upset, it would have been by a team that they in actuality beat. The only time the would have lost is when they did—to the '58 Hawks and '67 Sixers. They even won when they had no business winning at all, being the team that pulled off the upset. If what we know is that they literally beat everyone put in front of them, where the upset was going to occur that didn't happen. Cincinnati came close a couple times, but didn't do it. So if the teams that actually had a legitimate opportunity of doing it didn't do it, then where was the upset going to happen? First round, conference finals and finals is where they happen. Adding a couple of middle rounds isn't going to make much of a difference based on the history of what actually happened in NBA playoff history and not "what coulds" or "what ifs."

It's like saying you have to win 4 rounds to win the superbowl vs having to win 2 rounds to win it all.

The Super Bowl is a horrible example. In the NFL, you only need to win one game to advance. Literally anyone can win one game. In a "best of" series, the better team is going to win more often than not. I can't believe you'd use a "one and done" sport as an example.

[JordansBulls]

Completely ignoring the fact, of course, that Russell didn't get complacent when it came to winning.

Playing 4 rounds vs 2 rounds would have made things more interesting. That would be double the time out there on the court yearly in the playoffs.

It's like saying you have to win 4 rounds to win the superbowl vs having to win 2 rounds to win it all.

Quantity =/= quality. People act like more teams means that all of those teams have an equal chance of winning. They do not. As I've already stated, the major upsets in NBA history took place in either the first round, the conference finals, or NBA Finals. This is what we know. If the Celtics were going to be upset, it would have been by a team that they in actuality beat. The only time the would have lost is when they did—to the '58 Hawks and '67 Sixers. They even won when they had no business winning at all, being the team that pulled off the upset. If what we know is that they literally beat everyone put in front of them, where the upset was going to occur that didn't happen. Cincinnati came close a couple times, but didn't do it. So if the teams that actually had a legitimate opportunity of doing it didn't do it, then where was the upset going to happen? First round, conference finals and finals is where they happen. Adding a couple of middle rounds isn't going to make much of a difference based on the history of what actually happened in NBA playoff history and not "what coulds" or "what ifs."

You missing the point. The point that was being made is that having to go thru 4 rounds yearly changes everything. It is not to say the Celtics are going to lose a bunch of times, but the fact you have to continue to beat 2 more teams yearly in the playoffs meaning at least another 10-12 games extra a year of postseason play and between 400-500 minutes logged in postseason time.

[TheBoss333]

Bill russell had MULTIPLE hall of fame teammates, at a time when there weren't as many teams, so its not that much of a surprise he won as much as he did. The guy was a 40 percent shooter, as a center, and he definetly wasn't as impactful as duncan. Theres nothing that bill russell was better at than tim duncan, and don't give me that leadership ish either

[ThaRegul8r]

edit: I'm going to disagree vehemently with those saying extra rounds wouldn't make a difference. Almost every title in NBA history has involved some level of good luck at some point along the way, and the longer the playoffs, the more opportunity you have to get hit with some bad luck. The Celts escaped a lot of series in 7 games, and a lot of those decided in the final minutes. Double the amount of playoff series they have to play, and your chance of someone getting injured will go way way up, and the likelihood increases that in one series Sam Jones' wild shot doesn't go down, or Hondo doesn't steal the ball, etc.

As I said, the major upsets in NBA history have taken place in the first round, the conference finals, or the NBA Finals. The other rounds have been irrelevant as far as upsets taking place are concerned. If the Celtics were going to be upset, it would have been by one of the teams that they in actuality beat. Cincinnati came close a couple of times, but they got beat. So who, exactly was going to beat Boston other than the teams that actually beat them? Adding extra rounds is not going to change that. Basically, then, what you're banking on is injuries, which of course, would be acting like the Celtics didn't already have to deal with that. The Celtics lost in '58 with Russell with an injured ankle, and they won in '66 with Russell with a broken foot.

Later as an exercise, I should perhaps go through the rounds of the dynastic teams who played with four rounds and see who were actually a legitimate threat to beat them in these extra rounds other than the teams that did (if they did), which would come in the conference finals, or they'd get upset in the first round. In the case of the Showtime Lakers, the extra round didn't really make much difference because the competition came in the Finals anyway. LA got upset in '81 by Houston in the first round. Philadelphia got upset in '84 in the first round by New Jersey. I've already mentioned Denver over Seattle, Golden State over Dallas, and Golden State over Milwaukee. The other big upsets came in the conference finals or NBA Finals (I neglected to mention Boston over LA in '69). So why is this not being mentioned when people talk about how tough extra rounds make winning when it's only the first round and conference finals where upsets happen prior to the Finals?

[ThaRegul8r]

You missing the point. The point that was being made is that having to go thru 4 rounds yearly changes everything. It is not to say the Celtics are going to lose a bunch of times, but the fact you have to continue to beat 2 more teams yearly in the playoffs meaning at least another 10-12 games extra a year of postseason play and between 400-500 minutes logged in postseason time.

Who are these teams? I don't like speaking in generalities. If these extra teams wouldn't have a chance of legitimately beating them, then it doesn't make a difference in the big scheme of things as far as the bottom line—winning—goes. What doesn't change is that you have to beat everyone in front of you in order to win a championship. If those extra teams in these extra rounds do not have a legitimate chance of beating you, then what difference does it make? Everyone who had a legitimate chance of beating them, they beat.

What, say in '62, the Celtics had to face the last-seeded team in the Eastern Division—the Knicks—and someone else, you really think that would have adversely affected their chances of winning? What, they beat Wilt at the height of his scoring powers, then beat West and Baylor—who dropped 61 on them—but having a couple extra rounds against a sub-.500 team or a team just over .500 would change anything? Let's get real here.

[ThaRegul8r]

Duncan was easily better. He was a legit number 1 option on offense, was at least as good on D if not better.

There is literally no statistical evidence that we have that will support that assertion, so it's only basis is bias.

[JordansBulls]

You missing the point. The point that was being made is that having to go thru 4 rounds yearly changes everything. It is not to say the Celtics are going to lose a bunch of times, but the fact you have to continue to beat 2 more teams yearly in the playoffs meaning at least another 10-12 games extra a year of postseason play and between 400-500 minutes logged in postseason time.

Who are these teams? I don't like speaking in generalities. If these extra teams wouldn't have a chance of legitimately beating them, then it doesn't make a difference in the big scheme of things as far as the bottom line—winning—goes. What doesn't change is that you have to beat everyone in front of you in order to win a championship. If those extra teams in these extra rounds do not have a legitimate chance of beating you, then what difference does it make? Everyone who had a legitimate chance of beating them, they beat.

What, say in '62, the Celtics had to face the last-seeded team in the Eastern Division—the Knicks—and someone else, you really think that would have adversely affected their chances of winning? What, they beat Wilt at the height of his scoring powers, then beat West and Baylor—who dropped 61 on them—but having a couple extra rounds against a sub-.500 team or a team just over .500 would change anything? Let's get real here.

I didn't say those teams would win, but the fact the Celtics players would get worn down more so having to beat more teams is the point I was making. For instance, some teams had to play 3 rounds already so really the Celtics were a fresh team having to play a team that had to play a round before them.
Now if every team came into the playoffs without a round off, then that changes the schematics of things. Afterall the Minny Lakers who were 25-50 took the Hawks to 7 games despite the Hawks being 46-29.

[ThaRegul8r]

Who are these teams? I don't like speaking in generalities. If these extra teams wouldn't have a chance of legitimately beating them, then it doesn't make a difference in the big scheme of things as far as the bottom line—winning—goes. What doesn't change is that you have to beat everyone in front of you in order to win a championship. If those extra teams in these extra rounds do not have a legitimate chance of beating you, then what difference does it make? Everyone who had a legitimate chance of beating them, they beat.

What, say in '62, the Celtics had to face the last-seeded team in the Eastern Division—the Knicks—and someone else, you really think that would have adversely affected their chances of winning? What, they beat Wilt at the height of his scoring powers, then beat West and Baylor—who dropped 61 on them—but having a couple extra rounds against a sub-.500 team or a team just over .500 would change anything? Let's get real here.

I didn't say those teams would win, but the fact the Celtics players would get worn down more so having to beat more teams is the point I was making. For instance, some teams had to play 3 rounds already so really the Celtics were a fresh team having to play a team that had to play a round before them.

More generalities. Who? That's what I keep asking, but you're not answering. Who do you propose would be wearing them down? Playing against Wilt? That wears you down. That'll take it's toll on you. Facing West and Baylor? That'll wear you down. Oscar Robertson? That'll wear you down. But you mean to suggest that a sub-.500/barely .500 team is going to wear them down as opposed to who they actually faced? You seem to be fixated on quantity rather than quality.

And if those teams are not going to beat them, then what's the point? Presumably, everyone who talks about extra rounds does so because these extra rounds will present you with more opportunities to get beat. Despite the fact that I've already said that the big upsets either occur right off the bat (first round, I've provided numerous examples) or in the Conference or NBA Finals.

[Chicago76]

They had a HOF center for the 4 years before they traded him as part of the deal to get Russell's draft rights. And, playing Cousy, Sharman, and HOF center Ed McCauley (a pretty good offensive player -- keep in mind that pretty much any one who ever made an All-Star team before 1960 is in the HOF) they were a non-contender, never making a serious playoff run and finishing 2nd, 3nrd, 3rd, and 2nd in a 4 team division for the four years before Russell . . . then they finished 1st for 11 of the next 13 years despite pretty much complete personnel turnover before diving into the cellar (despite still having John Havlicek in his prime) when Russell left. It wasn't his teammates.

The Celtics team the year before Russell arrived had the second best record in the league. The reason they went nowhere in the playoffs is that they had very poor frontcourt rebounding prior to his arrival. There were 6 premier frontcourt rebounders in an 8 team league that rebounded better than anyone on the Cs on a per minute basis. Keep in mind the Cs played at a much faster pace than anyone else in the league. If we could adjust for pace, the Cs probably had no one in the top 10-12 in rebounding...in an 8 team league. That was their undoing against about any team in the playoffs.

Russell filled the void nicely, but then again, so did Heinsohn in his absence...remember, the Celtics were 13-3 before Russell even came to the team in the middle of his rookie year. That hardly seems like a bad team: two sure HOFers and the best backcourt in the league in Sharman + Cousy and better frontcourt rebounding than the prior year. Without Russell, they were a major contender that year. Replace him with a good, but historically lesser big man (Stokes, Schayes, Lovellette, Johnston, etc.) and they walk away with the title.

And yeah, they did retool over the course of his career, but they did it with players like Sam Jones, who I still have a hard time believing was not at least a peer of someone like Greer. I will readily admit that what Russell and the Cs accomplished in his last year was nothing short of extraordinary. And then they collapsed after Russell (and Jones) left. Havlicek was left with a core of over 30 guys on the downslide: Howell, Siegfried, Bryant, and Sanders. That team was going nowhere without some combination of Russell, Jones, and a youth infusion. They got that infusion within two years, won 56 games, then a title the following year and the rest is history.

We can agree to disagree, but I see no possible way that playing with guys like Cousy, Sharman, Havlicek, and Sam Jones for big stretches of their primes (not to mention the Howells, Heinsohns, etc of the world) would not have quite a bit to do with Bill Russell walking away with all of those championship rings.

[therealbig3]

People saying that Russell won so much because he had a bunch of HOFs and only had to play 2 rounds aren't really understanding the impact of expansion. First of all, a bunch of those HOFs are in the HOF because of Russell. Second of all, playing only 2 rounds means he's playing against 2 very stacked teams, comparably stacked to his Celts. If you increase the number of teams, and take away some HOF players from his team, you have to take away some pretty good players from everyone else's team too. Thus, you are now left with Russell playing 4 pretty good teams, with a pretty good supporting cast, instead of playing 2 elite teams, with an elite supporting cast. It's not too much of a difference imo. Sure, if Russell had to play against 4 elite teams instead of 2, then he definitely wouldn't have won as much as he did. But that's not what would have happened if you increased the number of teams.

Russell is underrated if anything. How is 15/22/4, with 11 championships, 2 of them as player-coach, not GOAT material?

[Mamba Venom]

If Wilt wasnt around back then I could buy the argument that the talent at Center wasnt there. But there was another monster. And Russell played D while Wilt never stepped his D to Russell's level.

If Duncan was lucky he might be able to do what Russell did back then.
If Russell was lucky he might have been able to do what Duncan did from 99 to 2007.

Russell gets an extra bump for repeating in the complacent argument ALTHOUGH I don't think Duncan ever was too complacent. There are just too many repeat champions in NBA history not to hold it against Duncan a little. Just about half the titles come in pairs in the NBA.

I don't think Russell was a Rodman like rebounder and I think Duncan actually had amazing D in the MVPs years.

I'm STILL SO CONFUSED

[Chicago76]

People saying that Russell won so much because he had a bunch of HOFs and only had to play 2 rounds aren't really understanding the impact of expansion. First of all, a bunch of those HOFs are in the HOF because of Russell. Second of all, playing only 2 rounds means he's playing against 2 very stacked teams, comparably stacked to his Celts. If you increase the number of teams, and take away some HOF players from his team, you have to take away some pretty good players from everyone else's team too. Thus, you are now left with Russell playing 4 pretty good teams, with a pretty good supporting cast, instead of playing 2 elite teams, with an elite supporting cast. It's not too much of a difference imo. Sure, if Russell had to play against 4 elite teams instead of 2, then he definitely wouldn't have won as much as he did. But that's not what would have happened if you increased the number of teams.

Russell is underrated if anything. How is 15/22/4, with 11 championships, 2 of them as player-coach, not GOAT material?

Remember that you need to offset dilution of talent through expansion against the growth in talent due to things like population growth, greater access of the game to more people etc.

I'd take Russell over Duncan by a little, but both sides of the 8-team league vs. increase in players needs to be examined.

If you believe that the overall talent pool was the same from the 60s to today, then obviously that means that the talent on each team was ridiculously high in a smaller league. Imagine taking the top 3 player on a team today or the top 4 in the mid-80s and assigning those guys roster spots on an 8 team league. Your #3 guy today or your #4 guy 25 years ago would be no better than a #9 or #10 guy on a roster in an 8 team league. If this was the case, then Russell is facing a huge amount of competition. Every roster would be stacked. We know it only takes 1 or 2 true stars to make a team a contender today, so that means Russell would have been the best of a league of nothing but very good players at a minimum. Rosters must have been stacked, and therefore only playing 2 playoff rounds would have been extremely difficult. It also means we are severely underrating an average starter on those 60s rosters--they would be all-star caliber or better today.

If you believe that the overall talent pool has roughly kept up with expansion, then that means the talent level by team is roughly the same throughout history. An 8-team league in the mid 60s would have roughly the same level of talent as a 1.5 divisions today or in the mid-80s. If that's the case, then it would be quite easy to see a team like the Lakers reeling off a lot of titles if they only competed with the Pacific and Northwest divisions for the NBA championship in a 2 round playoff system. The quality per team is roughly the same, but there are fewer teams to compete amongst for a title.

Personally, I think it is somewhere between the two following this timeline:

Late50s to first year or two of ABA: a lot of growth in talent with minimal expansion = very strong league

Year 3+ of ABA to mid/late 70s: too much expansion with new league and talent dilution as the ABA began to retain legit mid 60s NBA level star talent = weak leagues

Late 70s to 88: talent pool continues to grow, pro ball only has 23 teams, which is less than it did for most of the ABA v. NBA days = very strong league

1989-2006 or so: talent growth can't keep up with expansion. A consistent decline from 89 to 2006 with the talent level in the mid aughts = talent during ABA competion.

2007-present: talent catches up to prior era's expansion, league starting to strengthen to 60s and 80s levels.