Prime Bill Russell In Today's NBA

[GreenHat]

Russell is no more skilled at dunking lobs than Chandler. Saying that because Chandler shot 60% then so could Russell is a gigantic leap of faith considering when Russell did play he was a low 40s shooter. He was also the "smartest" basketball player of the time, so we have to assume he was smartly taking good shots. Why would such a smart player take bad shots on purpose? And taking dumb shots is never required of you.

Because the Celtics' gameplan wasn't to take efficient shots, it was to take more shots than their opponent regardless of their makes.

That plan makes no sense at all and, if true, shows how primitive the game was back in the 50s

[mopper8]

Russell is no more skilled at dunking lobs than Chandler. Saying that because Chandler shot 60% then so could Russell is a gigantic leap of faith considering when Russell did play he was a low 40s shooter. He was also the "smartest" basketball player of the time, so we have to assume he was smartly taking good shots. Why would such a smart player take bad shots on purpose? And taking dumb shots is never required of you.

Because the Celtics' gameplan wasn't to take efficient shots, it was to take more shots than their opponent regardless of their makes.

That plan makes no sense at all and, if true, shows how primitive the game was back in the 50s

That was how Red phrased it, which made it sound pretty dumb, but I think it was a little more sophisticated than that. I think the Celts understood that they were generally more efficient per possession than other teams, because their D was so good. So if they exaggerated # of possessions per game, the per-possession difference would be exaggerated and they'd get big separation.

At least, that's how I understand it after reading about it a little more and thinking about it. But it was Red or Tommy Heinsohn or someone who said yeah, they were trying to get up more shots, and it sounded really really bad.

[GreenHat]

Because the Celtics' gameplan wasn't to take efficient shots, it was to take more shots than their opponent regardless of their makes.

That plan makes no sense at all and, if true, shows how primitive the game was back in the 50s

That was how Red phrased it, which made it sound pretty dumb, but I think it was a little more sophisticated than that. I think the Celts understood that they were generally more efficient per possession than other teams, because their D was so good. So if they exaggerated # of possessions per game, the per-possession difference would be exaggerated and they'd get big separation.

At least, that's how I understand it after reading about it a little more and thinking about it. But it was Red or Tommy Heinsohn or someone who said yeah, they were trying to get up more shots, and it sounded really really bad.

Well yeah that makes perfect sense. If you are more efficient than the more possessions there are the better it is for you.

The parts that didn't make sense to me was taking more shots than your opponent by taking less efficient shots. Taking more shots than your opponent is good strategy but you do that through turnovers and offensive rebounds (as I know you know lol) not purposely taking quick inefficient shots, especially with your defensive center.

[penbeast0]

I always figured it was about depth. The Celtics always had outstanding depth on their team -- one of the things Red did really really well. Combine that with Russell and Havlicek having great motors and stamina and you can leave opponents dragging at the end of games or force matchups with your good bench v. their weak bench.

[Owly]

Other possible factors (don't know just hypothesizing):

- Celtics were trading fg% for lower turnovers (might be plausible given some Boston players offensive reputations, but their apparent struggles on O, without turnovers and based largely on mediocre percentages, and not giving away any easy points on turnovers might be a small part of explaining how apparently ridiculously good all-time their defense was).

- Celtic didn't mind missing as much if Russell was a threat to crash the offensive boards.

But yes I think I think Heinsohn reffered to it as "offensive pressure" and the notion that they were looking to exhaust the opposition is on the money.

Given how dominant they were it certainly seems to have been strategic (exhaustion and perhaps the other reasons offered, it would be odd if they were as dominant as they were whilst apparently squandering offensive talent e.g. Heinsohn was a decent pure shooter, twice finishing top 5 in ft% and once more in the top 10).

[mrsocko]

Bill Russell stats today

14 points .498 fg .600 ft 15 rebounds 4 assists 3.5 blocks

All based off relative stats to the league average while he played. He shot .440 league average .421 so a 6% higher than average. Today league average is about .470 so Russell should be .498.

[SNPA]

So much about his size in this thread.

Here’s a story I’ve posted before…Jerry Reynolds held just about every role beside player in the NBA (scout, assistant coach, head coach, GM, player personnel, color analyst, etc.) and he worked with Russel when he was coach of the Kings. Jerry tells a story of when the Kings traded for Ralph Sampson. Russell calls Sampson into his office, and during the meeting at one point he ask Sampson to put his hand in the air. Jerry says Russell stood right next to him and put his hand in the air and his hand was almost wholly over the top of Sampson’s. Jerry says that’s when he started to understand how Russell did what he did.

Bill Russell is the perfect size for a center in todays game.