Cavalier Owner's Open Letter Ripping LJ

Sam,

I don't know that they committed less turnovers then, but I know they took way more shots and had a much lower FG%. Russell never shot 47% from the field in a season. I am not sure why the league FG% was so much lower then it is today.

I know you skew everything in the benefit of the Celtics teams or players in the 50's and 60's so I have to take what you say about them having more endurance with a grain of salt.

Playing a hard and intense game is way more taxing then just running up and down the court. When every posession is a battle, that takes a lot out of players. 50 years ago might have been more like a track meet, not a battle like today's game.

I am going to look for some videos tonight to post. Not just playoff games, but regular season games from years ago.

Bob,

Good points about the toughness, which was much more severe way back when. When I had the chance, I used to like to get courtside seats (the max ticket was $5—unbelievable) under a basket and listen to the bodies slam together. The refs really let them play in those days. Although Loscutoff (and Bob Brannum before him and Gene Conley as well) were the unofficial Celtics policemen, I think Wayne the Wall Embry was involved in the loudest "thwack" sounds. He was just a mass of mostly muscle. He never flopped or moved a muscle when taking a charge. The guy who charged into him was the one who flopped...or, more correctly, sort of slithered off him like Wile E Coyote off a wall.

But the toughest Celtic of all just might have been Bill Sharman. He backed down to no one. One time, he was bringing the ball upcourt, and he had something against the guy who was guarding him (I don't recall who it was). So he just hauled off and cold-cocked him. He was assessed a foul, but that was it.

When TJ talks about lax on-the-ball defense, perhaps he was watching Lakers films. If he had watched Celtics films, and if he had understood those Celtics teams, he would have realized that the main job of outside defenders was (1) to gamble for steals and (2) otherwise to funnel their guys to Russell. People watching old film invariably take things out of context or, as I've said, try to impose today's contexts on the past.

And boy, how I hated all that passing. It invariably led to crummy old points. Iso ball is so much more rewarding in every way. lol.

Sam

Sam wrote:Bob,

Good points about the toughness, which was much more severe way back when. When I had the chance, I used to like to get courtside seats (the max ticket was $5—unbelievable) under a basket and listen to the bodies slam together. The refs really let them play in those days. Although Loscutoff (and Bob Brannum before him and Gene Conley as well) were the unofficial Celtics policemen, I think Wayne the Wall Embry was involved in the loudest "thwack" sounds. He was just a mass of mostly muscle. He never flopped or moved a muscle when taking a charge. The guy who charged into him was the one who flopped...or, more correctly, sort of slithered off him like Wile E Coyote off a wall.

But the toughest Celtic of all just might have been Bill Sharman. He backed down to no one. One time, he was bringing the ball upcourt, and he had something against the guy who was guarding him (I don't recall who it was). So he just hauled off and cold-cocked him. He was assessed a foul, but that was it.

When TJ talks about lax on-the-ball defense, perhaps he was watching Lakers films. If he had watched Celtics films, and if he had understood those Celtics teams, he would have realized that the main job of outside defenders was (1) to gamble for steals and (2) otherwise to funnel their guys to Russell. People watching old film invariably take things out of context or, as I've said, try to impose today's contexts on the past.

And boy, how I hated all that passing. It invariably led to crummy old points. Iso ball is so much more rewarding in every way. lol.

Sam

sam,

The Celtics oughta put together a jersey that has the number 17 (or 18) and has the name "TEAM" on the back. I don't think Hondo or Nellie would mind.

bob

.

tjmakz wrote:bob,

A 20 foot shot is not a 3 pointer unless it is in the very corner.
Kobe had no open looks even from 20 feet.
Other then an open shot, there is no bonus from shooting from 20.

I am not referencing the 1980's when you could clothesline a guy and maybe get a T. Now, the take down of Rambis is easily a Flagrant 2 at the minimum. the 1980's was very physical and you could get away with hard fouls without going for the ball. I am talking about the 1950's and 1960's.

I welcome anyone to post videos of games from the 1950's and 1960's to show what kind of on the ball defense they played.

I mean this with all sincerity that many of the games I have watched or videos that I have seen remind me of the WNBA. A lot of passing and almost everyone plays below the rim.

TJ,

Quite right about the 20 footers, but nobody was allowed to touch him (and if someone came close he, like so many others, would make sure the refs knew about it). That was my point about the defensive difference today. Back then, you were allowed to handcheck. Kobe taking a 20 footer, even with a hand in his face? Duck soup. Kobe taking a 20 footer with a hand on his hip? Not so much, and the refs wouldn't call it.

I'd like to see the videos from the 50's and 60's too. Maybe not from the same perspective as you, but I'd welcome it too.

bob

.

Bob: Nellie's # was 19, Bailey Howell, then Cowens wore # 18-MD!

Bob,

I love the NBA and respect the pioneers of the game that played many years ago.
I realize that many players back then had to work another job, they didn't have a personal trainer, nutritionist, chef, etc so of course they aren't liek the athletes of today.

If you watch the videos from the 50's there is very little contact between players. There are no hard screens that a defensive player had to fight through.

MDCelticsFan wrote:Bob: Nellie's # was 19, Bailey Howell, then Cowens wore # 18-MD!

MD,

Quite right. I misspoke.

bob

.

TJ,

Of course there were screens that defensive players had to fight through in the old days. One of the most famous was the triple screen set for Sam Jones to beat the Lakers in Game 4, 1969. It's probable that fewer screens were set than today because (1) high screens were not appropriate since the offense didn't extend out as far and (2) the old-time teams focused much more on motion than on using the crutch of a screen. Their game was to outmaneuver the opponent rather than to out-block the opponent.

Different approaches to the game lead to different styles and strategies. Today's players may have to fight (and I use the term loosely in many instances) through screens whereas yesterday's players had to run all over the place to stay with their defensive assignments (because they didn't use team defense as a crutch either).

It could EASILY be argued that the greater emphasis on motion in the halfcourt set that most teams utilized in the past created a much more fluid game than people banging into picks, bogging down the action, and creating boring game stoppages. Where the older game was rougher was under the boards.

Just another example of the fallacy of assuming that today's way is the only standard that counts.

Let's use the past as the standard for a moment. Put today's players on a court without their three-point crutch to spread the floor and without protection from hand-checking, and their offensive strategies would have to change dramatically. And, frankly, few of them would be well enough versed in the fundamentals to survive without falling over one another. It's a bit similar to the malady that can haunt today's Celtics when Ray Allen isn't hitting and the defenses are falling off Rondo.

The fact is that a little (and it is VERY little) advantage in height/athleticism can't begin to compensate for the fact that the players of the past were inherently better practitioners of the basic game of basketball. The fact that nutrition, genetics, rules, styles, pace and strategies have changed over time has nothing to do with that basic truism.

Sam

Sam,

A VERY little advantage in height/athleticism?
I was reading over Bill Russell's wiki page about how he was traded right after he was drafted.

'The St. Louis Hawks, who owned the second pick, originally drafted Russell, but were vying for Celtics center Ed Macauley, a six-time All-Star who had roots in St. Louis. Auerbach agreed to trade Macauley, who had previously asked to be traded to St. Louis in order to be with his sick son, if the Hawks gave up Russell.'

When I looked up Ed MaCauley, I saw the following as his height and weight: Height: 6-8 Weight: 185 lbs.

Are you kidding me? A center that weighs 185 lbs? I would bet that he couldn't dunk the ball as a center. Ray Allen is listed as 205 lbs and he is 3 inches shorter.

The fundamentals that were prevelant back then cannot make up for the athleticism of today. Are you impressed at the level of basketball that you see when you watch old videos? I am not.

Timakz

It seems that at least once every year this argument starts up again.

I think that it is irrelevant to compare players 40-50 years ago to players today.

I watched the Celtics since 1960 and they were exciting to watch and that excitement is still the same for me. Yes players of today can jump higher and run faster but that is only relevant to today's players. Each era has produced great players and great basketball!

Comparing players from different eras is an exercise in futility if you try to make a determination of who was better. Take a player today and transport him back in time 50 years and consider that his physical being would be consistent with the environment and everything else associated with 50 years ago. Consider that he would not have a personal trainer or fly to games on luxury chartered planes or that he would be wearing some old canvas converse sneakers. Consider that if he tore up an acl his career would be over.

I appreciate basketball period and it does not matter when it was played.

dboss

dboss,

This discussion took off after I questioned dbrown about this statement:

"Michael Jordan? Great, great player and ambassador for NBA. Greatest player ever? Certainly not, not even in the race vs. Russell. Not even open for discussion. (Or shouldn't be, should I say)"

I strongly disagree that saying Jordan is the greatest player of all time shouldn't even be open for discussion.

tymakz

Who said anything should not be open for discussion.

Let's discuss if Jordan was the greatest player ever. (assuming you think that because i disagree)
dboss

dbrown said that.
I copy and pasted his comments in my post above.

I absolutely think that Jordan was the greatest player that I saw.
I am not about to enter a debate/discussion about older players who I didn't see play. I only go back to the late 1970's.

TJ,

Who cares if Ed MacAuley "could even dunk the ball?" Nobody dunked the ball when he played. It was widely disdained and considered showboating. Even Russell generally considered it beneath him, although he occasionally did it. Elgin Baylor could jump through the moon, and he would normally drop the ball in rather than dunking it. Dunking or not dunking has no bearing on the quality of the basketball being played at the time. You're simply reiterating your assumption that today represents the standard on which the past should be judged.

I was impressed with the game real time, and I reinforce that impression when I dip into my own library of about 15-20 videos of Celtics games of the 50s and 60s. You say that knowing the game is not on a par with athleticism as a measure of basketball prowess, eh? Well you may have an opportunity to find out if Gerald Greene somehow makes the Lakers team. For the moment, that statement brings this discussion to a halt because I can't deal with fantasy.

Sam

Sam-there is no use in arguing with someone with a closed mind. It is like saying that Brad Pitt is/was a better actor than Jimmy Stewart or Burt Reynolds. He probably has never seen their movies either.

If you claim to be an "expert" on the game, then you should go out and study the history of the game before you take on someone who has lived through it all. This is a closed topic as far as I am concerned.

Sam,

Why don't you address the fact that the guy played center and weighed 185 lbs? A guy 6'8" 185 lbs wouldn't even get a look in the D league in today's game.
I didn't really comment on your claim of them knowing the game better then today's players because I took that the same as when you said they had fewer turnovers back then. Everywhere I looked including nba.com, the league did not keep track of turnovers.

I would pay you in advance if you would make copies of some of your game videos and mail them to me. Let me know if you would do this. It is very hard to get old game videos and not just clips or highlights.

Rosalie,

dbrown was the one with the closed mind who said:
"Michael Jordan? Great, great player and ambassador for NBA. Greatest player ever? Certainly not, not even in the race vs. Russell. Not even open for discussion. (Or shouldn't be, should I say)"

I have never claimed to be an "expert".
LOL at your analogy. I bet Tom Hanks is as good or better of an actor then Jimmy Stewart or Burt Reynolds.

Rosalie, you've got a good point. I guess, when some people are completely out of their element in a discussion, it's a natural tendency to try to force fit the discussion into a frame of reference they're familiar with. In this case, by steadfastly assuming implicitly that what he's used to seeing today represents the standard by which the past should be judged. For example, because playing above the rim is today's standard, the quality of the game in the past had to be poorer because the game wasn't played above the rim.

Exactly what is it that makes today's game better because it is played above the rim? Does a dunk account for more points than a layup? Are today's players awarded style points that were not available in the past? Does risking a knee injury in dunking a ball somehow add to the quality of the performance?

He has no explanation why these superlative athletic specimens of today play the game more slowly and have less endurance than the poor weaklings of a past he never witnessed. He assumes that hard picks test a defense more than a motion offense does...because he sees more picks and less motion in today's game than was true in a past he never witnessed.

He's aghast that a center in the past weighed only 185 which, by today's standards (the only standards he recognizes) is light, without considering how that player might be different if he were playing today. And, in so doing, he once again applies only today's standards without taking into account that the 185-pound future hall-of-famer was an ideal offensive partner for the greatest fast break playmaker of all-time. No, that context wouldn't fit into his frame of reference. Only today's frame of reference counts with him. Every single one of his arguments is dependent on today's game as the gold standard.

You're right, Rosalie. There's no use dragging out the discussion. Time to move on to other things.

Sam

Above the rim basketball=Varsity
Below the rim basketball=JV

You never give respect to today's players and coaches compared to those years ago and belittle the opinions of those that weren't alive to see those players.

If more players could dunk the ball in the 1950's there would have been less blocked shots and rebounds. The average Celtic player from the 1959-60 season was under 6'4" and weighed 204 lbs.

The videos on the internet are examples of how unathletic the NBA was 50 years ago. Yes, they ran up and down the court a lot, missed many shots which resulted in skewed rebounding stats.

The gold standard to me was the 80's. They played tough, above the rim bb, while keeping a fast pace.

There still hasn't been one open-minded Celtics fan that has said that dbrown was wrong and that Jordan is in the conversation of the greatest of all-time.

tj
Seen this topic before,look for the clinching game of 64 Finals,its shown once or twice a year on Classic ESPN,was beautifully played game by both teams.Wilt was on Warriors and next to him was Nate Thurmond who would develop into the 3rd best center during the Russell/Wilt era.It was the first twin towers and next to Russell starting were Tommy Heinsohn at 6'8" and Satch Saunders at 6'6".I saw the tail end of the Russell era and to see Russell battle two GIANTS is must SEE!!!!

The Celtics won with motion,better understanding and execution of teamwork,tenacity,depth,they had the better perimeter defense with KC Jones and Sam Jones who both had todays attributes of speed and athleticism that was vividly on display.Havlicek came off the bench and defended,ran and even played point for a stretch,but mostly they had Russel who expertly neutralized Wilt,beat him down the court and beat him for some valuable offensive boards and putbacks and would even come over to help out defending Nate!!!!He was a workhorse and such an effortless relentless jumper,seemed to have springs on his legs and was always head and shoulders above everyone or so it seemed.Were some great sequences where Wilt would go for a dunk and Russell would block it only to have Wilt catch the ball and dunk it over a leaping Russell.

Celtics played with all the descriptions Sam said,they flew up and down floor,got a ton of layups,didn't waste energy dunking,used motion in halfcourt to get open looks.Tommypoint himself had some great drives and finishes with hook shots,a lost art today.What ever happened to the hook shot?anyway thats another topic,but look for this game.....you'll really appreciate Russell and the way the Celtics played as a team.

cow

Just think, you didn't see all these blown out knees back then. The players were so durable.

Ah...Havlicek....could he run, and run, and run.
They claimed he had oversized lungs that gave him the capacity to just
keep going and going. He was so durable.

Dbrown expressed an opinion. He's welcome to do so on this board. As I've stated before, I happen to think a discussion of the greatest player of all-time is irrelevant because it's TEAM greatness that matters. That's MY opinion, and I'm welcome to express it on this board. Anyone who wants to embarrass himself by depending on a few clips to form opinions on something he never experienced personally is welcome to do so on this board.

For those who want old videos, one of the best is called "1966 'The Final Game' Celtics vs. Royals." It was produced by some national entity, not by the Celtics. The title's a little misleading because it wasn't a final championship game but, rather the final game of the Eastern Conference Finals.

I've mentioned this video before on the board. What distinguishes it from other is that, in addition to showing most of an entire game (while eliminating some of the non-action such as most free throw shots), it is presented as a documentary. Red Auerbach, in his final season as a coach, is "miked," and you can sometimes hear him berating the refs or yelling "Oh no" when a Royals shot is in the air. The documentary contains some instructional replays, some stop-action, and some slow motion. The voice-over is William Schallert, the father on the old Patty Duke Show, who sounds like a complete dweeb and refers to players by number rather than name throughout some of the first part of the video. But he reads the script well.

For me, this video is more representative than some happenstance bunch of old clips in conveying what an NBA game was like in those days. No you don't see a lot of dunks, although Russ jams one or two. What you see is two teams pushing the ball throughout the game (and Cousy had already retired by then). What you see are pick-and-rolls (oh my God, they actually set picks). What you see is some great passing and shooting. What you see is more transitional defense than half-court defense, due to the fact that these two teams (like many of the day) spent more time in transition than in the halfcourt set.

What you see are two teams going at one another hammer and tongs. If they were shorter than today's teams (on average), they were all in the same boat, which is what competition is all about. By the time this game occurred, many teams had become taller (Wilt, Thurmond, Bellamy, Felix, etc.), and the shorter Celtics handily took care of them too. Because good basketball is a more successful winning formula than height and athleticism. (Just as the Lakers were taller than the Celtics in both 2008 and 2010 but the Lakers didn't win the championship until they played better basketball. Duh.)

The video is available by going to: EdAgwit@aol.com He has an extensive list of videos from all eras available. Ask for his list. I just happen to think "1966 'The Final Game' Celtics vs. Royals" is a particularly representative and instructive video of the game at the time...and presumably an objective one because it was produced by an apparently impartial entity.

Sam

tjmakz wrote:Above the rim basketball=Varsity
Below the rim basketball=JV

You never give respect to today's players and coaches compared to those years ago and belittle the opinions of those that weren't alive to see those players.

If more players could dunk the ball in the 1950's there would have been less blocked shots and rebounds. The average Celtic player from the 1959-60 season was under 6'4" and weighed 204 lbs.

The videos on the internet are examples of how unathletic the NBA was 50 years ago. Yes, they ran up and down the court a lot, missed many shots which resulted in skewed rebounding stats.

The gold standard to me was the 80's. They played tough, above the rim bb, while keeping a fast pace.

There still hasn't been one open-minded Celtics fan that has said that dbrown was wrong and that Jordan is in the conversation of the greatest of all-time.

TJ,

Using your standards:

Charles Oakley = JV
Derek Fisher = JV
Steve Blake = JV
Steve Nash = JV
Glen Davis = JV
Okur = JV
David Lee = JV
Dennis Rodman = JV
Rick Mahorn = JV

I think you may have greatly oversimplified this. Above the rim has to do with athleticism and basketball is not about running faster or jumping higher. All the above are: definitely varsity, more "modern era" players and very rarely play(ed) above the rim.

bob

.

I am willing to bet that well more than 1/2 of all rebounds are taken WELL below the rim. There is actually very little action above 10 feet.

under 10 feet JV ......................yeah right

beat

beat wrote:I am willing to bet that FAR less than 1/2 of all rebounds are taken WELL below the rim. There is actually very little action above 10 feet.

under 10 feet JV ......................yeah right

beat

beat,

I think you meant to say that far more than 1/2 of all rebounds are taken below the rim, not less.

bob

.