The Greatest Team

I think I have the answer to Sam's playful question. He's got to be thinking of the Trail Blazers with Bill Walton. They weren't expected to win it, but they did so with unselfish teamwork reminiscient of the Celtic tradition.

I'm not sure which early 60 Celtic team Sam speaks off. I know he has said this on other similar threads over on BDC in the past.
I think they had about 8 playeres that were eventually elected to the HOF plus a Coach and an Owner that were elected also.

Just can't quite pin down the year but It has to be 60-61-62 I think.

beat

So the answers are 60-61-62 BC's, Portland with Walton (i actually have an autographed from Walton that year), and mine the, 2008 Celtics. So which, if any, is it?

Sam L

There are no "answers" per say.
Only said I thought Sam's opinion was that an early Celtic team from the early 60's was his "best" team due to the numbers of HOF on it.
I know it wasn't the Portland team with Dr. Jack.
Sam will have to specify which.
And if I'm wrong...................shoot me.

beat

There have been so many great Celtic teams. If you go back to the early '60's, Cousy's last year (62-63) saw a team with future HOF'ers Heinshon, Russell, Cousy, Sam Jones, KC Jones, John Havlicek and Frank Ramsey.

For good measure there were also non HOF'ers who could play a little, like Tom Sanders, Loscutoff and Clyde Lovellette--or is Lovellete in the HOF?

I think that you could make an argument that several of the teams from that period is the greatest ever. They certainly would rank up there.

Russell has said that he himself feels that the best team he played on was the 1964 group--AFTER Cousy retired.

I heard that before that season, there was a story in a local paper about how the team would now fall apart since Cousy had retired. Russ confronted the writer and asked if he really believed that the team would come apart.

When the writer said that he did, Russ replied, "Son you're really going to get an education this season."

Russ went on to win the MVP--one of the five he won--and the team crushed Wilt's SF Warriors in the finals.

Some interpret Russ's choice as a slap at Cousy. But I've never heard him say anything denigrating Cousy. Maybe Russ was just more motivated that year to be recognized without qualification as the greatest player on the greatest team.

NickFaldo wrote:I think I have the answer to Sam's playful question. He's got to be thinking of the Trail Blazers with Bill Walton. They weren't expected to win it, but they did so with unselfish teamwork reminiscient of the Celtic tradition.

Nick, the Walton Trailblazers were just about my favorite non-Celtic team. Walton was something and the team's off the ball movement provides an eloquent argument against the three point shot.

The year after they beat Philly they were 50-10 before Walton went down and they finished 58-24.

I thought of Walton as simpley the natural. He wasn't just fundamentally sound but had an instinctive ability to make the right play like he was born with the rhythm of basketball inplanted in his DNA. That team was just beautiful to watch.

In my opinion, the 1962-63 Celtics were the greatest NBA single-season team of all-time. Congratulations for finally mentioning them, Carpe.

They had a 10-man rotation—all veterans except for a rookie named Havlicek, who fit right in:

Bill Russell (future hall-of-famer)
Bob Cousy (future hall-of-famer)
Tom Heinsohn (future hall-of-famer)
John Havlicek (future hall-of-famer)
Sam Jones (future hall-of-famer)
K.C. Jones (future hall-of-famer)
Frank Ramsey (future hall-of-famer)
Clyde Lovellette (future hall-of-famer)
Tom Sanders (arguably a hall-of-fame candidate)
Jim Loscutoff (in the tough guys hall-of-fame)

For the most part, these guys were in their primes. Only The Cooz and Lovellette were at the end of their careers. The average age of the 10-man rotation was 29.1.

The statistics are incidental…four NCAA champions…seven men in double figures…five players with 5+ rebounds a game (led by Russell’s 24)…four men with 3+ assists a game (led by Cousy’s 7)…scored 119 PPG…went 58-22 (.725)…easily outdistanced the Lakers in the finals 4-2…collectively won 78 championship rings as players in their careers.

One reason the stats really didn’t mean anything was the quality of night-after-night competition. Even the weakest teams had great players. The schedule was murderous (including games on as many as five consecutive nights—see November 20-24, including an away game in St. Louis). The following list will give an idea of key opponents faced during the Celtics’ typical rotating schedule. Eventual hall-of-famers are shown in bold print:

Game 1: Hal Greer, John Kerr, Chet Walker, Dolph Schayes
Game 2: Oscar Robertson, Jack Twyman, Wayne Embry
Game 3: Richie Guerin, Willie Naulls, Tom Gola, Gene Shue
Game 4: Jerry West, Elgin Baylor
Game 5: Bob Petit, Cliff Hagan, Lenny Wilkens, Zelmo Beatty
Game 6: Bailey Howell, Dave DeBusschere
Game 7: Wilt Chamberlain, Guy Rodgers, Al Attles
Game 8: Walt Bellamy, Terry Dischinger

They played the best of the West (the Lakers) not twice but nine times during the regular season.

But none of this is close to the best thing about this team.

• The best thing was the seamless depth of interchangeable parts that had better chemistry than any other team I’ve ever seen. They just flowed instinctively at both ends of the floor. They all knew one another’s positions. They ran multiple options of the seven basic plays instinctively (arising out of the flow of the game), with no signals being required.

• The best thing was the greatest fast break of all-time, which absolutely withered opponents.

• The best thing was that their incredible individual versatility meant they could play any style of basketball and win at it. You name it: shootout, tempo, rebounding, toughness, defensive intimidation. It simply didn’t matter. And they were dedicated to playing within their roles and enabling one another, so that the total became so much greater than the sum of the parts. They had not one but TWO topnotch sixth men. (I added that one after my initial post.)

• The best thing was that their team intensity when the chips were down is still unmatched (sorry KG). It’s one thing to exhibit intensity. It’s another simply to refuse to lose.

• The best thing was their collective IQ, which resulted in an unimaginable combination of instinct, anticipation and creativity.

• The best thing was that they were coached by Red Auerbach with a number of assistant coaches on the floor. The majority of them became coaches at some level (Russell, Cousy, Heinsohn, K.C. and Sanders head coaches in the NBA).

Sorry if I mentioned six “best things,” but it’s impossible to prioritize them.

Havlicek considers this squad the best he’s ever played with. The only one I think comes close is the squad Russell considered his best: 1964-65. The 1962-63 team was better offensively and garnered more assists and rebounds, while the 1965-65 team was faster and a little better defensively.

I feel that the 1962-63 iteration boasted a larger number experienced interchangeable parts, as the last two in the 10-man rotation during 1964-65 were kids (Counts and John Thompson). This gives '62-'63 the edge in my eyes.

Sam

Great post Sam. It makes me laugh when someone says that it was easier to win then because there were fewer teams.

The opposite is true as the concentration of talent shows.

I think that Sam has said that it might be a team that we would not consider
"great", not a Celtic team or a Laker team.

My thought is that is who ever you feel in your mind is the greatest team ever,is who is the greatest team for you. If you feel that strongly about one team, Sam is not going to change your mind. I know how I feel, and I know who I think is the best.

If it is the Cousy's last year that many are referring to, he was on the floor with seven future hall of famers. If it is the year before, add one, but take away Havlicek. Andy Phillips was on that team. Havlicek came in l962.

What a topic!!

You can make a case for several of those early 60's teams being the greatest. Before Havlicek came on board there were several years when the backcourt had FOUR future HOF'ers in Cousy, Sharman, Sam and KC Jones.

The rest of the bunch wasn't too shabby either with Heinshon, Russell and Ramsey as other future HOF'ers.

With free agency and the salary cap it is hard to imagine one team stockpiling so much talent these days.

And the talent was the tip of the iceberg. It was the way they played together that was the real difference.

Isn't that the truth! And what they had to go through during those years with segregation, racism, and pure hatred. Look what Russ went through when he bought a house in Reading, they all banned together and tried to get him out of there. Today, you would be proud that a guy like that lives next door to you.

So, the fact that they stuck together, played such fantastic ball and still consider each other friends is a marvel. I hope that in twenty or thirty years, they still talk about the 2007-on team the same way. At least as long as Garnett, Pierce and Allen are together. It is an honor to say that I am a devoted Celtic fan!

Who started this post???? Did you ever think you would get this reaction?
It has gone on so long I forgot who was the first poster! I think we all have given our thoughts on this. LET'S GET THE SEASON STARTED!!!!

Rosalie, your mention of the current team brings the discussion full-circle for me. I happen to believe that, of all the Celtics teams that have followed the Russell Years, the current edition comes closest to the Russell Celtics in its composition and its versatility.

Versatility is at the top of the reasons I feel the Celtics have a great shot at the title this season. Interchangeable and complementary parts are HUGE. Multi-source on-floor leadership is HUGE. Basketball IQ is HUGE. Depth is HUGE. Coaching to accommodate players's abilities, rather than force-fitting the players to the coaches whims, is HUGE.

I only hope the ultimate results will mirror those of the Russell Celtics (except in 1958 and 1967). LOL.

Sam

I guess it's time to wrap this up---no "right" answers ever on a query such as this.
I imagine if we posed this to those NBA historians with no "allegiance" that the discussion might not be as "celtic heavy"-----but still everyone laid out there case pretty well here.
That was fun-----LET'S GET IT ON!!!

Great topic DJ. Well done. In that spirit I am playing ping pong at three against the best player I have ever played. I beat him 3-0 last series but he usually owns me. Prolly 600-400 lifetime. WIcked garage setup.

Jeb

Sam wrote:I would be sorely disappointed in Babyskyhook if he changed his mind. He's obviously a person of good judgment and great conviction.

Sam

Thanks Sam.

Although I haven't (and won't be) changing my mind about the '87 Lakers, I can't believe everyone on this board, including myself, has up till now overlooked the one team that was truly unbeatable in NBA history.


When these guys played together, no one could touch them. And what's most remarkable, there were only two players on the team.


That's right, I'm talking about Dwayne Wade and Bennet Salvatore.


With Wade's ability to take it to the rack and Salvatore's unmatched willingness to call anyone breathing on DWade a foul, they were truly unbeatable in the '06 Finals.

jeb65 wrote:Great topic DJ. Well done. In that spirit I am playing ping pong at three against the best player I have ever played. I beat him 3-0 last series but he usually owns me. Prolly 600-400 lifetime. WIcked garage setup.

Jeb

Just remember,at around the 30th consecutive volley it's a giggle---at 50,with at least two phenomenal plays----it's an out and out riot.

DJ

Cant let the laughter effect the point though.

Jeb