Why were the 1960s celtics below average on offense?
Moderators: PaulieWal, Doctor MJ, Clyde Frazier, penbeast0, trex_8063
Why were the 1960s celtics below average on offense?
-
- Junior
- Posts: 376
- And1: 141
- Joined: Feb 26, 2021
Why were the 1960s celtics below average on offense?
Hey,
A lot has been said on these forums about the unmatched defensive dominance of the Bill Russell -led Celtics of the 1960s but I wonder whether anyone here has insight on why the same teams seemed to range anywhere from bad (-4.5 rORTG in '64; incidentally also their best defensive season) to slightly below average (-0.1 rORTG in '60; around -1 or -2 for a couple of seasons) on offense. Funnily enough, the one season they had a positive rORTG (+1.4 in '67) they didn't win the title and lost to the Sixers in the ECF.
How did their personnel and coaching, perhaps contrasted with other more successful teams, limit their offensive success (in case you do think so; I would love to hear from somebody who thinks that the offenses actually weren't that bad and that regular season rORTG paints an inaccurate picture)?
All data from basketball reference.
I would appreciate all input, be it more theoretical conjecture or more evidence-based arguments. Thank you in advance.
A lot has been said on these forums about the unmatched defensive dominance of the Bill Russell -led Celtics of the 1960s but I wonder whether anyone here has insight on why the same teams seemed to range anywhere from bad (-4.5 rORTG in '64; incidentally also their best defensive season) to slightly below average (-0.1 rORTG in '60; around -1 or -2 for a couple of seasons) on offense. Funnily enough, the one season they had a positive rORTG (+1.4 in '67) they didn't win the title and lost to the Sixers in the ECF.
How did their personnel and coaching, perhaps contrasted with other more successful teams, limit their offensive success (in case you do think so; I would love to hear from somebody who thinks that the offenses actually weren't that bad and that regular season rORTG paints an inaccurate picture)?
All data from basketball reference.
I would appreciate all input, be it more theoretical conjecture or more evidence-based arguments. Thank you in advance.
Re: Why were the 1960s celtics below average on offense?
- WestGOAT
- Starter
- Posts: 2,458
- And1: 3,292
- Joined: Dec 20, 2015
Re: Why were the 1960s celtics below average on offense?
were they actually below average offense for the pace they played at, at least during the regular season? Courtesy of LA_Bird:
viewtopic.php?f=64&t=2068650
viewtopic.php?f=64&t=2068650
spotted in Bologna
Re: Why were the 1960s celtics below average on offense?
-
- Junior
- Posts: 376
- And1: 141
- Joined: Feb 26, 2021
Re: Why were the 1960s celtics below average on offense?
WestGOAT wrote:were they actually below average offense for the pace they played at, at least during the regular season? Courtesy of LA_Bird:
viewtopic.php?f=64&t=2068650
Thank you for this. Very interesting, will be reading it.
Re: Why were the 1960s celtics below average on offense?
-
- Starter
- Posts: 2,229
- And1: 2,172
- Joined: Nov 07, 2019
Re: Why were the 1960s celtics below average on offense?
The regular season rORTG paints an inaccurate picture.
As BBRef likely overestimates the number of poss by 1957-69 Celtics.
This is because the Celtics were likely a high ORB due to Russell and low TOV team compared to average
A 2% decline in poss would lead to:
Higher average relative ORtg: -1.6 to 0.3 (ave 1957-69)
Higher (worse) relative DRtg: -6.9 to -5.1
As BBRef likely overestimates the number of poss by 1957-69 Celtics.
This is because the Celtics were likely a high ORB due to Russell and low TOV team compared to average
A 2% decline in poss would lead to:
Higher average relative ORtg: -1.6 to 0.3 (ave 1957-69)
Higher (worse) relative DRtg: -6.9 to -5.1
Reggie Jackson is amazing and a killer in the clutch that's all.
Re: Why were the 1960s celtics below average on offense?
- WestGOAT
- Starter
- Posts: 2,458
- And1: 3,292
- Joined: Dec 20, 2015
Re: Why were the 1960s celtics below average on offense?
coastalmarker99 wrote:The regular season rORTG paints an inaccurate picture.
As BBRef likely overestimates the number of poss by 1957-69 Celtics.
This is because the Celtics were likely a high ORB due to Russell and low TOV team compared to average
A 2% decline in poss would lead to:
Higher average relative ORtg: -1.6 to 0.3 (ave 1957-69)
Higher (worse) relative DRtg: -6.9 to -5.1
Good point, they indeed use league-average TO and ORB rate to fill in the missing values for teams:
The basic idea is to estimate possessions by applying blanket league-average turnover and offensive rebounding rates that make sense within the context of the game as we might imagine it was played in the 1950s, 60s, and early 70s.
https://www.sports-reference.com/blog/2013/12/estimating-pace-and-per-possession-ratings-1951-1973/
spotted in Bologna
Re: Why were the 1960s celtics below average on offense?
-
- Starter
- Posts: 2,229
- And1: 2,172
- Joined: Nov 07, 2019
Re: Why were the 1960s celtics below average on offense?
Evidence Celtics had relatively high ORB%:
Russell, along with Wilt, was by far the best rebounder of his generation.
Russell played lots of MP.
But even per MP, he & Wilt finished 1-2 every year except 1968, 69 (Russ was 3rd each yr).
They were usually far above all other REB/MP
Russell replaced Ed Macauley as Celtics center.
In 1956, Ed averaged 6.5 REB/36 MP.
In 1957, Russell averaged 20.0 REB/36 MP!
Russell tripled the number of Celtics' center's rebs!
Likely, many were ORB as Russ had more height, reach, quickness, athleticism, & jumping ability than Ed.
The very best ORBs ever (except for M. Malone & Barkley) shot infrequently, like Russell.
So it's likely that Russ was a great ORB.
Also, Satch Sanders fits the profile of an ORB.
Bailey Howell is possibly a good ORB, too.
If Russell was more likely to get ORB, then it's also likely that his teammates might have shot more because they knew misses would be rebounded by Russell
The Celtics' relative FG% did drop:
Cs 1st in FG% in 1953, 54, 55, & 2nd in 56.
1961-69, the average FG% rank was 7.4, and 3x were last.
·
Drop in FG% was partly to new Celtic players, who were not as good shooters.
But the relative FG% of older players (Cousy, Sharman, Ramsey, Heinsohn, Russell himself) also dropped as Russell played more MP.
Based on all of the above, Celtics' ORB% was likely higher than typical. So their (offensive) possessions were fewer than expected.
Russell, along with Wilt, was by far the best rebounder of his generation.
Russell played lots of MP.
But even per MP, he & Wilt finished 1-2 every year except 1968, 69 (Russ was 3rd each yr).
They were usually far above all other REB/MP
Russell replaced Ed Macauley as Celtics center.
In 1956, Ed averaged 6.5 REB/36 MP.
In 1957, Russell averaged 20.0 REB/36 MP!
Russell tripled the number of Celtics' center's rebs!
Likely, many were ORB as Russ had more height, reach, quickness, athleticism, & jumping ability than Ed.
The very best ORBs ever (except for M. Malone & Barkley) shot infrequently, like Russell.
So it's likely that Russ was a great ORB.
Also, Satch Sanders fits the profile of an ORB.
Bailey Howell is possibly a good ORB, too.
If Russell was more likely to get ORB, then it's also likely that his teammates might have shot more because they knew misses would be rebounded by Russell
The Celtics' relative FG% did drop:
Cs 1st in FG% in 1953, 54, 55, & 2nd in 56.
1961-69, the average FG% rank was 7.4, and 3x were last.
·
Drop in FG% was partly to new Celtic players, who were not as good shooters.
But the relative FG% of older players (Cousy, Sharman, Ramsey, Heinsohn, Russell himself) also dropped as Russell played more MP.
Based on all of the above, Celtics' ORB% was likely higher than typical. So their (offensive) possessions were fewer than expected.
Reggie Jackson is amazing and a killer in the clutch that's all.
Re: Why were the 1960s celtics below average on offense?
- WestGOAT
- Starter
- Posts: 2,458
- And1: 3,292
- Joined: Dec 20, 2015
Re: Why were the 1960s celtics below average on offense?
Max123 wrote:WestGOAT wrote:were they actually below average offense for the pace they played at, at least during the regular season? Courtesy of LA_Bird:
viewtopic.php?f=64&t=2068650
Thank you for this. Very interesting, will be reading it.
These are the calculations provided by Elgee I believe, and are the same as on basketball reference:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_AdaCB40YpgZGY1cGZheV8xcHM/edit?resourcekey=0-Jd5VNN_1blt--rbI_bVQGA
EDIT: Oops my bad, these are playoffs netratings, not regular season!
spotted in Bologna
Re: Why were the 1960s celtics below average on offense?
-
- Starter
- Posts: 2,229
- And1: 2,172
- Joined: Nov 07, 2019
Re: Why were the 1960s celtics below average on offense?
The Celtics had a lot of players with good offensive reputations, including:
Cousy
Sharman
Heinsohn
Ramsey
Sam Jones
Havlicek
Howell
In the footage, they are going to release to the general public in Russell's documentary.
https://about.netflix.com/en/news/documentary-feature-about-nba-legend-bill-russell-heading-to-netflix
Sam Jones looks amazing and it backs up my claim that Jones is so underrated
As the Celtics likely finish with only 6 rings from 1957 to 1969 had they not gotten Jones as they lose in 1963 1964 1965 1966 1969.
Cousy
Sharman
Heinsohn
Ramsey
Sam Jones
Havlicek
Howell
In the footage, they are going to release to the general public in Russell's documentary.
https://about.netflix.com/en/news/documentary-feature-about-nba-legend-bill-russell-heading-to-netflix
Sam Jones looks amazing and it backs up my claim that Jones is so underrated
As the Celtics likely finish with only 6 rings from 1957 to 1969 had they not gotten Jones as they lose in 1963 1964 1965 1966 1969.
Reggie Jackson is amazing and a killer in the clutch that's all.
Re: Why were the 1960s celtics below average on offense?
-
- Senior
- Posts: 698
- And1: 550
- Joined: May 21, 2022
Re: Why were the 1960s celtics below average on offense?
If I remember correctly, Elgee came up with a better way to predict ratings for seasons before 1974 and basketball reference hasn't been updated to reflect this. Here are the updated numbers for the Celtics. (Not sure if this is allowed but I do feel like it's very interesting data that a lot of people would find relevant)
ORTG DRTG rORTG rDRTG
56-57 91.6 86.9 2.2 -2.5
57-58 90.1 85.6 1.4 -3.1
58-59 92.8 87.6 1.7 -3.5
59-60 92.8 86.6 2.5 -3.7
60-61 87.7 83.5 -1.4 -5.5
61-62 92 85 0.9 -6.1
62-63 94 88.3 -0.6 -6.3
63-64 90.1 83.8 -2.4 -8.7
64-65 91.5 84.7 -0.4 -7.2
65-66 92.2 88.2 -0.5 -4.5
66-67 96.9 90.4 2.3 -4.3
67-68 95.4 92 0.5 -2.8
68-69 93.4 88.7 0.1 -4.6
Essentially, the Celtics weren't as bad offensively, and weren't as good defensively as we previously thought. How that changes your perception of Russell and/or his supporting cast is up to you, but it is interesting.
ORTG DRTG rORTG rDRTG
56-57 91.6 86.9 2.2 -2.5
57-58 90.1 85.6 1.4 -3.1
58-59 92.8 87.6 1.7 -3.5
59-60 92.8 86.6 2.5 -3.7
60-61 87.7 83.5 -1.4 -5.5
61-62 92 85 0.9 -6.1
62-63 94 88.3 -0.6 -6.3
63-64 90.1 83.8 -2.4 -8.7
64-65 91.5 84.7 -0.4 -7.2
65-66 92.2 88.2 -0.5 -4.5
66-67 96.9 90.4 2.3 -4.3
67-68 95.4 92 0.5 -2.8
68-69 93.4 88.7 0.1 -4.6
Essentially, the Celtics weren't as bad offensively, and weren't as good defensively as we previously thought. How that changes your perception of Russell and/or his supporting cast is up to you, but it is interesting.
Re: Why were the 1960s celtics below average on offense?
- WestGOAT
- Starter
- Posts: 2,458
- And1: 3,292
- Joined: Dec 20, 2015
Re: Why were the 1960s celtics below average on offense?
capfan33 wrote:.
Code: Select all
Year ORTG DRTG rORTG rDRTG
56-57 91.6 86.9 2.2 -2.5
57-58 90.1 85.6 1.4 -3.1
58-59 92.8 87.6 1.7 -3.5
59-60 92.8 86.6 2.5 -3.7
60-61 87.7 83.5 -1.4 -5.5
61-62 92.0 85.0 0.9 -6.1
62-63 94.0 88.3 -0.6 -6.3
63-64 90.1 83.8 -2.4 -8.7
64-65 91.5 84.7 -0.4 -7.2
65-66 92.2 88.2 -0.5 -4.5
66-67 96.9 90.4 2.3 -4.3
67-68 95.4 92.0 0.5 -2.8
68-69 93.4 88.7 0.1 -4.6
fixed the formatting a bit for myself
spotted in Bologna
Re: Why were the 1960s celtics below average on offense?
-
- Senior
- Posts: 698
- And1: 550
- Joined: May 21, 2022
Re: Why were the 1960s celtics below average on offense?
Forgot you could format like that, I'm new here.
Re: Why were the 1960s celtics below average on offense?
-
- Starter
- Posts: 2,482
- And1: 1,948
- Joined: Feb 18, 2021
Re: Why were the 1960s celtics below average on offense?
Max123 wrote:Hey,
A lot has been said on these forums about the unmatched defensive dominance of the Bill Russell -led Celtics of the 1960s but I wonder whether anyone here has insight on why the same teams seemed to range anywhere from bad (-4.5 rORTG in '64; incidentally also their best defensive season) to slightly below average (-0.1 rORTG in '60; around -1 or -2 for a couple of seasons) on offense. Funnily enough, the one season they had a positive rORTG (+1.4 in '67) they didn't win the title and lost to the Sixers in the ECF.
How did their personnel and coaching, perhaps contrasted with other more successful teams, limit their offensive success (in case you do think so; I would love to hear from somebody who thinks that the offenses actually weren't that bad and that regular season rORTG paints an inaccurate picture)?
All data from basketball reference.
I would appreciate all input, be it more theoretical conjecture or more evidence-based arguments. Thank you in advance.
It appears they were indeed very poor offensively. I posted this awhile ago:
So, in that light....I ran another study. "Teammates' True Shooting Added.". Since TS Added is already adjusted for Era/Offensive Context, I though it might be instructive/useful to look at the quality of teammates, offensively, for Kareem, Russell, and Wilt.
Here are the results. I committed the offensive contributions of all three, for every season, from the team offensive output. Summed up teammates' TS Added. 0 would be league average offensive teammates, negative, poor offensive teammates, etc.
Code: Select all
Kareem Teammates' TS Added
1970 182
1971 405
1972 154
1973 271
1974 153
1975 -85
1976 -126
1977 -276
1978 -3.1
1979 197
1980 289
1981 -46
1982 -1
1983 256
1984 337
1985 513
1986 380
1987 520
1988 395
1989 587
Sum +4102
Code: Select all
Wilt Teammates' TS Added
1960 -404
1961 -407
1962 -295
1963 -435
1964 -419
1965 -377
1966 -221
1967 226
1968 -14
1969 145
1970 13
1971 182
1972 385
1973 77
Sum -1544
Code: Select all
Russell Teammates TS Added
1957 -31.8
1958 -116
1959 -163
1960 -102
1961 -383
1962 -207
1963 -268
1964 -465
1965 -296
1966 -222
1967 150
1968 -39
1969 -168
Sum -2310
Re: Why were the 1960s celtics below average on offense?
-
- Senior Mod
- Posts: 50,806
- And1: 19,506
- Joined: Mar 10, 2005
- Location: Cali
Re: Why were the 1960s celtics below average on offense?
Max123 wrote:Hey,
A lot has been said on these forums about the unmatched defensive dominance of the Bill Russell -led Celtics of the 1960s but I wonder whether anyone here has insight on why the same teams seemed to range anywhere from bad (-4.5 rORTG in '64; incidentally also their best defensive season) to slightly below average (-0.1 rORTG in '60; around -1 or -2 for a couple of seasons) on offense. Funnily enough, the one season they had a positive rORTG (+1.4 in '67) they didn't win the title and lost to the Sixers in the ECF.
How did their personnel and coaching, perhaps contrasted with other more successful teams, limit their offensive success (in case you do think so; I would love to hear from somebody who thinks that the offenses actually weren't that bad and that regular season rORTG paints an inaccurate picture)?
All data from basketball reference.
I would appreciate all input, be it more theoretical conjecture or more evidence-based arguments. Thank you in advance.
So, let's look at this from another perspective:
Consider looking at their actual ORtgs rather than their relative.
If you do that through the Russell years, what you'll generally see is the team getting a more and more effective offense in the absolute sense. They just weren't gaining in effectiveness as fast as the rest of the league.
Why? Quite possibly because they were so focused on winning with defense than the rest of the league was.
This isn't to say that there weren't specific things to be pointed to - guys retired, roles shifted around a bit - that had some effects, but I think oftentimes it's worth considering whether there's another lens that makes what we're taking in make more sense. The impression that the Celtic offense essentially broke down like a machine losing power is, I would say, quite problematic.
Better would be to say that their offense weren't keeping up with the offensive state of the art...while their defense defined the state of the art for both defense and offense (after all, everyone knew you'd have to get through the Celtic D to win a title).
Getting ready for the RealGM 100 on the PC Board
Come join the WNBA Board if you're a fan!
Come join the WNBA Board if you're a fan!
Re: Why were the 1960s celtics below average on offense?
-
- Starter
- Posts: 2,482
- And1: 1,948
- Joined: Feb 18, 2021
Re: Why were the 1960s celtics below average on offense?
WestGOAT wrote:capfan33 wrote:.Code: Select all
Year ORTG DRTG rORTG rDRTG
56-57 91.6 86.9 2.2 -2.5
57-58 90.1 85.6 1.4 -3.1
58-59 92.8 87.6 1.7 -3.5
59-60 92.8 86.6 2.5 -3.7
60-61 87.7 83.5 -1.4 -5.5
61-62 92.0 85.0 0.9 -6.1
62-63 94.0 88.3 -0.6 -6.3
63-64 90.1 83.8 -2.4 -8.7
64-65 91.5 84.7 -0.4 -7.2
65-66 92.2 88.2 -0.5 -4.5
66-67 96.9 90.4 2.3 -4.3
67-68 95.4 92.0 0.5 -2.8
68-69 93.4 88.7 0.1 -4.6
fixed the formatting a bit for myself
Great stuff, man! Thank you for taking the time to find this and post it!!
Re: Why were the 1960s celtics below average on offense?
-
- RealGM
- Posts: 28,535
- And1: 23,518
- Joined: Aug 11, 2015
Re: Why were the 1960s celtics below average on offense?
It's a combination of two things:
1. Celtics played at extreme fast pace and they maximized their system through their strengths. They run fast and tried to force turnovers, but they didn't have elite halfcourt offense, because they tried everything to finish their offensive possessions before the defense was set.
2. People vastly overestimate how good Russell teammates were offensively. If you take a look at 1964-65 period, Celtics had literally one above average scorer in that period (judged by TS Add). Other years weren't nearly as bad, but people often think that Russell played with 4-5 stars on his team, but when Sam Jones became a star, Sharman and Ramsey were done. Heinsohn was done just a few years later and Havlicek didn't become an all-star on offense until 1966/67.
1. Celtics played at extreme fast pace and they maximized their system through their strengths. They run fast and tried to force turnovers, but they didn't have elite halfcourt offense, because they tried everything to finish their offensive possessions before the defense was set.
2. People vastly overestimate how good Russell teammates were offensively. If you take a look at 1964-65 period, Celtics had literally one above average scorer in that period (judged by TS Add). Other years weren't nearly as bad, but people often think that Russell played with 4-5 stars on his team, but when Sam Jones became a star, Sharman and Ramsey were done. Heinsohn was done just a few years later and Havlicek didn't become an all-star on offense until 1966/67.
Re: Why were the 1960s celtics below average on offense?
-
- Senior Mod
- Posts: 50,806
- And1: 19,506
- Joined: Mar 10, 2005
- Location: Cali
Re: Why were the 1960s celtics below average on offense?
were they actually below average offense for the pace they played at, at least during the regular season? Courtesy of LA_Bird & Westgoat:
viewtopic.php?f=64&t=2068650
So, I'm going to bring up the objection I always do to this approach - just so people realize this is something they need to think about:
Let's remember that Offensive Efficiency (ORtg) is a possession-rate stat, which means it doesn't need a further pace-adjustment in order to do what we typically use pace-adjustment for. Why? Because what pace-adjustment does to something like "Points Per Game" is create "Points Per Possession", aka, a possession-rate stat.
What folks are doing with this stat here is thus effectively a 2nd-Order adjusting for pace, from the perspective that since pace can be said to affect offensive success, who has the most success relative to the expectations of their pace might be said to be the truly most impressive offense.
But there's a major issue with this:
When the offense wins a possession, they end their possession, and thus speed-up their calculated pace more than a miss would have.
The way to max out performance on this 2nd Order stat is to drag out your possession as long as possible without reducing your chance to score...but this isn't something that actually makes basketball sense the same way ORtg does ("score the most points you can each possession").
Then there's the matter that the theory behind playing fast is that you're trying to attack the defense before they are able to get to their strongest defending position. There's certainly value in capturing effectiveness against half-court defense, but certainly doesn't make you a better offense if you insist on only attacking your opponent at their strongest.
Now, the guys who made/use this stat are smart guys who trying to do cool things, and I and them have been over this plenty so I don't mean to stir the hornet's nest here, but this is something I think people need to be really grasping as they are looking at data this abstract.
Getting ready for the RealGM 100 on the PC Board
Come join the WNBA Board if you're a fan!
Come join the WNBA Board if you're a fan!
Re: Why were the 1960s celtics below average on offense?
-
- Senior Mod - NBA Player Comparisons
- Posts: 28,447
- And1: 8,679
- Joined: Aug 14, 2004
- Location: South Florida
Re: Why were the 1960s celtics below average on offense?
coastalmarker99 wrote:The Celtics had a lot of players with good offensive reputations, including:
Cousy
Sharman
Heinsohn
Ramsey
Sam Jones
Havlicek
Howell
In the footage, they are going to release to the general public in Russell's documentary.
https://about.netflix.com/en/news/documentary-feature-about-nba-legend-bill-russell-heading-to-netflix
Sam Jones looks amazing and it backs up my claim that Jones is so underrated
As the Celtics likely finish with only 6 rings from 1957 to 1969 had they not gotten Jones as they lose in 1963 1964 1965 1966 1969.
Of those, while Cousy (and Havlicek) were good passers, only Sharman, Sam Jones, and Bailey Howell were above league average shooters for the 60s. Cousy added to this by shooting even worse (while maintaining volume)in the playoffs though Ramsey and Heinsohn each had playoff runs that were very strong. I do agree that Sam Jones is probably the most valuable player that Russell played with although Havlicek's 70s years (and possibly Cousy/Sharman's 50s years) make them stronger overall HOF candidates.
I would also say that the theory of shooting fast before defenses get set should produce higher, not lower, efficiency if defenses getting set makes them better. If it doesn't, why do it? One last point is that this only works well with offensive rebounding if your big rebounder(s) get up the court fast consistently which many didn't/don't do.
“Most people use statistics like a drunk man uses a lamppost; more for support than illumination,” Andrew Lang.
Re: Why were the 1960s celtics below average on offense?
-
- Junior
- Posts: 376
- And1: 141
- Joined: Feb 26, 2021
Re: Why were the 1960s celtics below average on offense?
coastalmarker99 wrote:The regular season rORTG paints an inaccurate picture.
As BBRef likely overestimates the number of poss by 1957-69 Celtics.
This is because the Celtics were likely a high ORB due to Russell and low TOV team compared to average
A 2% decline in poss would lead to:
Higher average relative ORtg: -1.6 to 0.3 (ave 1957-69)
Higher (worse) relative DRtg: -6.9 to -5.1
Given the possibility of the Celtics being better at offensive rebounding than your average team back then and also having less turnovers, I can understand the adjustment for the Celtics offensive rating being better than the basketball reference estimates. However, how do you explaing their defense being worse than the bk ref estimates?
Edit: Silly me, I guess what I'm getting at is what was the Celtics effect on their opponents offensive rebounding and turnovers and how did that impact their pace?
Re: Why were the 1960s celtics below average on offense?
-
- Junior
- Posts: 376
- And1: 141
- Joined: Feb 26, 2021
Re: Why were the 1960s celtics below average on offense?
capfan33 wrote:If I remember correctly, Elgee came up with a better way to predict ratings for seasons before 1974 and basketball reference hasn't been updated to reflect this. Here are the updated numbers for the Celtics. (Not sure if this is allowed but I do feel like it's very interesting data that a lot of people would find relevant)
ORTG DRTG rORTG rDRTG
56-57 91.6 86.9 2.2 -2.5
57-58 90.1 85.6 1.4 -3.1
58-59 92.8 87.6 1.7 -3.5
59-60 92.8 86.6 2.5 -3.7
60-61 87.7 83.5 -1.4 -5.5
61-62 92 85 0.9 -6.1
62-63 94 88.3 -0.6 -6.3
63-64 90.1 83.8 -2.4 -8.7
64-65 91.5 84.7 -0.4 -7.2
65-66 92.2 88.2 -0.5 -4.5
66-67 96.9 90.4 2.3 -4.3
67-68 95.4 92 0.5 -2.8
68-69 93.4 88.7 0.1 -4.6
Essentially, the Celtics weren't as bad offensively, and weren't as good defensively as we previously thought. How that changes your perception of Russell and/or his supporting cast is up to you, but it is interesting.
I can understand the Celtics being better offensively than basketball reference estimates due to their potential offensive rebounding prowess and low turnover numbers as a team but how do you explain them having a lower defensive rating than estimated by basketball reference?
Edit: Silly me, I guess what I'm getting at is what was the Celtics effect on their opponents offensive rebounding and turnovers and how did that impact their pace?
Re: Why were the 1960s celtics below average on offense?
- ZeppelinPage
- Head Coach
- Posts: 6,384
- And1: 3,326
- Joined: Jun 26, 2008
Re: Why were the 1960s celtics below average on offense?
Ben Taylor's data shows that while the Celtics defense was still consistently finishing 1st, the offense should get more credit. Compared to Basketball Reference, his data exchanges DRtg for ORtg, taking points off their historically high defense and adding it onto their offense. This results in more seasons with the Celtics closer to a league average offense than before, and a few seasons (57, 60, 67) where they are 2nd in the entire league.
Some more research on this topic was done by grisingTRS on Twitter:
Some more research on this topic was done by grisingTRS on Twitter: