No bill russell

[Owly]

Howell was a terrific offensive player but played little defense

I was interested in your sources for this. By my, admittedly limited, sources the impression I got was of a comitted if not skilled defender (fouls indicate the commitment and perhaps a lack of skill, he had a rep as dirty/rough/win at all costs). For whatever it's worth The Basketball Rating Handbook (based on peaks, written in 1970) gave him a 7 out of ten on D, even with DeBusschere ( ), 1 behind Gus Johnson, even with LaRusso, Baylor and Bridges one ahead of Chet Walker, 3 ahead of Lucas, Cunningham ( ) and Cazzie Russell (that's just the first page of then active forwards, Satch gets a 10. Again fwiw Bill Simmons compared him to Artest though (a) he never saw Howell in person and I'm guessing he doesn't have a load of footage and (b) it might be with regard to an aggressive/dirty style moreso than defensive ability. I think there are other sources mainly annecdotal.

I'm not claiming these as hard evidence and for that era unless they were a clear impact player (Russell, Thurmond, Chamberlain) then it's hard to make strong claims either way. I just hadn't heard he was a notably poor defender.

A top 100 project is upcoming and the Russell argument of 11 rings is hard to beat.

So, say Russell gets hurt in the Olympics as the us wins the gold medal. He never plays in the nba.

How many championships do the celtics win?


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

So hurt at the Olympics means Boston has traded Macauley and Hagan for nothing and it's the Russell teams minus Russell.

I think they were already the best team in '57 without him and by a fair way. He did seem to improve them, (as does SRS though RS win% was worse with him) though that's an upgrade from a low base (Risen with no real center as backup to Russell with Risen as backup) and it isn't clear how much is him and how much is the return from military service of Frank Ramsey (who arrived shortly after Russell).

1958- they lost with Russell hurt, so the lose, but they lost the 2 games without Russell by 1 and 2 points, so it's pretty darn close LOSE

Actually they won 1 and lost one with Russell fully out (Games 4 and 5). They ceded HCA with Russell fully healthy (G1 and G2, though to be fair, the G1 loss was narrow, by just 2 points, whereas the G2 win was by a whopping 24). And they lost both games which Russell played partially (G3 loss by three. Hard to tell how they did without Russell. First half relatively even, 3rd quarter a big win for the Hawks, the 4th a big win for the Celtics; Russell was injured at some point in the third but unsure when. Some suggest 3 minutes in. G6 loss by 1 with Russell trying to play, went 20 minutes).

I'd favour them in '57 and '58. Though that doesn't mean they necessarily win both. That may look strange given they didn't win '58, and I'm not saying Russell held them back. What I'm saying is I'd favour Boston to win that series to a certain degree, say 9 out of 10 times with Russell/Boston fully healthy all series, maybe with Russell out it's 6.5, but they're still favourites). As it was Boston had the superior points differential over the series and that was without Jungle Jim (out all year) and Risen struggling with a badly bruised leg (now obviously they weren't as good as Russell, or even close to, but their absence exacerbated . Fwiw Boston did fine in the two games fully without Russell (a win by 11 in Boston and a loss by 2 in St Louis). St Louis were one of the flukiest champs ever (0.82 SRS, all Boston's biggest bigs injured over the finals, they were substantially outscored over the series yet they won). If Risen and Loscutoff are healthy, I think they win here. Cousy and Sharman had injuries in the playoffs too that year iirc, Red said “No club in the history of the league suffered as many serious injuries as the Celtics.” So with everyone else healthy I like them. The bigger threat here is probably the Nats who took Boston to 7 games with Russell (and based on a larger sample, had the league’s second best SRS. Still, my gut leans Boston, though possibly I can't justify this. If the series plays out as tight as it was then clearly the absence of Russell tilts the balance in the Nats favour. Over the season the gap is big enough to think Boston has at least a reasonable chance.

In '59 I think they have a chance though perhaps they don't get through Syracuse (better than their SRS and RS record , partly by having George Yardley back).

In '60 Chamberlain, Robertson and West arrive which should mean more serious completion. But Robertson is on a poor squad, West isn't West straight away (and is used off the bench for a while). So Chamberlain's Warriors are the new threat. But Boston improve substantially in SRS this year, their rotation bolstered by the emergence of the Jones boys, whilst Sharman and Cousy are still productive and Heinsohn seems to improve too. On the negative side Ramsey seems to have had the last of playoff beast runs in ‘59. I think with a competent starting center (or perhaps opting not to play one IF their players can maintain productivity) they win. If not things become more dicey. Wilt might destroy their existing centers if the Celtics can't keep the ball out of his hands (though iirc versus Boston, Chamberlain's reduced points typically came through less fga, more so than any drop in fg%, so there’s perhaps some chance that might be done without Russell).

Thereafter it gets harder (and increasingly implausible that Boston doesn’t attempt to acquire a center (and increasing butterfly effect stuff going on, draft positions change etc rendering the scenario of the league staying exactly as was a stretch).

And maybe it's putting too much stock in a small sample (24 games) but Boston looked good without Russell that year and they kept adding pieces (Ramsey, Jones and Jones). I'm trying to work out if that means with a different style they could still have been good without Russ. They had clear SRS leads over rivals each year. But If Russell had a GOAT like impact each year than obviously, they probably win none.

If his SRS impact is as suggested on other threads here (at minimum +4 in '57, thereafter larger) then they're never favourites. But I think +4 that year doesn’t fit with how well they did without him (unless Ramsey arriving shortly after was a substantial negative).

Perhaps I’m too much of a fan of the other Boston guys, perhaps I’m overcompensating for a harsh scenario (Boston get neither Hagan and Macauley nor a league average starting C) and just being blinded by that. But I think Boston has a couple of titles in them in the 50s.

[DQuinn1575]

Good stuff

Bailey Howell was considered a good defender

Snatch sanders was considered excellent

Don Nelson fair

Havlicek good


A few before my time
Heinsohn was considered weak

Sharman was considered very good

K c jones all time great defender

I think I remember hearing somewhere that Russell wasn't bad on defense


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[HeartBreakKid]

You would say zero, but the Celts being the Yankees of that era would have just bought somebody else's top center. Might have bought Wilt himself.

You must not know a lot about the Yankees if you think the Celtics were the "Yankees" of their era.

[penbeast0]

I am surprised there is evidence that Bailey Howell was a good defender; I saw him a bit toward the end of his career and read a bit about him and never saw that before. I got the impression his rep was more Carlos Boozer but I admit to having no evidence for this beyond a general impression over a lot of years of being a fan so I could very easily be wrong.

[MacGill]

Luv the old skool discussion here. By chance, anyone have an opinion on replacing Russell with Nate? How do you feel the Celtic's do with that swap?

[Johnlac1]

The Celtics during Russell's career won something like eight out of nine seven game playoff series and a number of game five of five game playoff series. Without Russell, Wilt wins the title his rookie year. His Philly team took Boston to six games in the eastern conference finals. In that series Wilt was goaded into a fight in game two and punched Tom Heinsohn in the head making Wilt almost unable to shoot with his right hand for two games. The Warriors lost both games. With a healed hand, he scored 50 pts, in game five which the Warriors won. Game six, the Celtics won on a last second shot.

That series was typical of many Celtics playoff series. Somehow, they almost always pulled out a win. And the Hawks basically won in '58 because Russell severely sprained his ankle early in the finals. I would guess that a number of teams would have more titles. Certainly the Lakers would have won a few. Wilt's teams would have won some, and maybe even Oscar's Cincy teams might have won a few. If Maurice Stokes had not suffered a career ending injury, Cincy would have had stronger teams. They might have been able to beat Boston even with Russell. They took Boston to several game five of best of give playoff series, but always lost.