Topic of Discussion 86 Boston Celtics vs 96 Bulls

Swish,

Since you seem to scour my comments so carefully, you know that I place relatively little stock in individual awards. In my mind, for purposes of this discussion, the main value of a Hall-of-Fame presence was to indicate that the player was considered unusually good. By that standard, the Boston Celtics of 1962-63 had nine unusually good players, and the Boston Celtics of 1985-86 had four unusually good players.

To use the number of years until induction in an apparent attempt to suggest HOW good one set of five players was versus another set of nine players is, in my way of thinking, irrelevant. They were all unusually good...simple as that. Comparing the defense of Russell with the offense of Larry? Impossible, bordering on the ridiculous.

Suffice it to say that the 1985-86 team had the equivalent of one full squad of unusually good players. That certainly wasn't bad. But the 1962-63 team had the equivalent of nearly two full squads of unusually good players.

That's a major reason why only one of the numerous unusually good players on the 1962-63 team was called upon to play more than 31 MPG and Red could constantly come at opponents with wave after wave of unusually good AND unusually fresh players despite playing at breakneck speed.

In comparison, four unusually good players on the 1962-63 team were called upon to play more than 31 MPG (in fact, three of them played at least 35 MPG), and they succeeded quite well at it. That made them potentially susceptible to debilitation, particularly if they were playing a fast-breaking team. That's why the Lakers of the 80s fared so well against the Celtics of the 80s. And, frankly, no single team ever debilitated other teams as much as the Russell Celtics.

Now, let's consider what were arguably the two most obvious advantages of the two teams versus one another: speed for the earlier team and height for the later team.

• A height disadvantage can be compensated for, or at least mitigated, in a number of ways—positioning, leaping ability, quickness, etc. I never intimated that Loscutoff would play McHale for an entire game. He would simply have been one of numerous options Red had to give McHale different looks—each with a different approach to offsetting a height disadvantage.

• A speed disadvantage can be compensated by....uh....uh.....uh...give me a minute, I'll think of something. I got it. Bird's and McHale's vertical leaping. Nope, I don't got it. Pretty tough to combat superior speed. Speed begets debilitation. Pure and simple. Speed and depth can be a killer...in this case, a literal giant killer. Especially when that speed is wielded with the epitome of the killer instinct.

Proponents of the 85-86 Celtics will always keep trying to compare player versus player. But individuality was simply not the hallmark of either the 1962-63 Celtics or the 1985-86 Celtics. The earlier team, in particular, was exceptionally adroit in helping one another out. As just one example, I believe Cowens said Cousy would have a hard time harassing DJ in a full-court press. Not necessarily, because Cousy's role on defense (which Cow would have known if he had actually seen those teams) was to be a pest by being willing to take defensive risks. It didn't matter if he occasionally got beaten; and, if one has to ask why, one never watched Bill Russell play.

The fact is that the 1962-63 Celtics operated as a collection of interchangeable specialists like no other team. And because they had so many unusually good players, each of them with an exceptional specialty as well as all-around ability, they had all sorts of options when it came to harassing and debilitating the other team.

Sam

It would be a great series and Bill Russell would be the difference. Wilt Chamberlain pushed Bill and even Bill admitted that he became a better player as a result of the challenge that Wilt presented. Imagine the challenge of Bird/McHale: it would have the same elevating effect and Bill Russell would figure out a way to win. He did it better than anyone.

The ’86 Celtics would never have seen a player remotely comparable to Russell. Bill would was all over the floor, blocking shots from behind, coming out of nowhere, turning up in blind spots, cutting off passing lanes. After a game, an opposing coach once said that every player on his team thought Bill was covering him. His anticipation and lateral quickness were so astounding that he could switch at the last second and block or intimidate anyone’s shot, even Larry Bird’s.

Another reason every opposing player thought Bill was covering him was because Number 16, Satch Sanders, played a similarly dominant defensive game and was almost as big and quick as Bill. In the open court, Bill and K.C. played havoc with the other teams’ offensive flow; in the halfcourt, it was Bill and Satch. And it wasn’t only their physical skills; their intelligence was a weapon as well. The ’86 Celtics were never challenged on any level the way the ’63 Celtics would challenge them.

Both Russell and Bird liked to be on the floor the entire game. Russ usually took a breather for the last 2 minutes of the first quarter. Larry - I don’t remember him coming off the floor at all. There’s a question whether Larry could play his usual iron man minutes at the breakneck pace of the ’62-62 team. All the other ’86 Celtics could not keep up and this is where Russell would ultimately intimidate them – watching Number 6 racing down the floor ahead of them. Still, Bird would find a way to keep his team close, so it would likely go 7 games.

Russell and Red and K.C. often talked about taking the heart out of the other team. Three minutes of inyaface defense and ultimate fast-breaking put a lot of teams away over the years of Tyranny. Red and Bill in particular could identify strategies to attack vulnerable points in an opponent’s game. That isn’t to say that Larry Bird could be intimidated. But what about Chief getting beaten down the floor and continually outrebounded? What about McHale having to chase Ramsey up the floor. Ramsey once covered Nate Thurmond in the Finals and turned Nate inside out.

Don’t think there wouldn’t be a whirlwind of mindgames going on, not to forget intimidation, manipulation, disinformation, deliberate confusion and overall gamesmanship. Constant coaching adjustments, relentless running, a defense that was considered almost mystical (because everyone knew what everyone else was going to do), and the unstoppable Bill Russell: on second thought, maybe I’d pick the “72-73 Celtics over both teams. LOL.

Spike,

I forgot about that. Hank Finkel would have made mincemeat out of either Russ or Larry.

The topic of 60s Celtics vs. 85-86 Celtics comes up every once in a while, and one observation I've made before but forgot to do this time was to wonder how K.C. Jones would have played for one team while coaching the other.

I'm just sayin'.

Sam

In all my years watching basketball and reading about it,that 86 Celtics team is the greatest of all time. However my favorite Celtic team was those 70's Celtics that played at a fast breakneck pace and also had a great fast defense.

Cow,

Although they were obviously not my absolute favorite, you and I agree about the 70s Celtics. I think they're the most underrated Celtics teams ever because the 60s and 80s Celts seem to get most of the ink.

Between Cowens, Havlicek, JoJo and Silas (just to mention a few), what was there not to love? And Heinsohn is possibly one of their most underrated coaches too.

Sam

swish wrote: Only 2 paragraphs in Sam's statement are worthy of comment. All the others are opinion only. Well writen as usual by Sam, who has a talent for making convincing arguments, but never the less theyn are only opinions.
Paragraph # 2
So who are these "Waves" of Hall of Famers? Its not easy to get elected to the h-O-F. as a player. Only 85 players have made it in 51 years. Thats about 1.6 per year. All were selected based on there achievements against there peers. The 8 Celts on the 62-63 were as follows. Cousy, Russell, Ramsey, Havlicek, S.Jones,Heinsohn,Lovellette and K.C. Jones. All but Havlicek played most of their career at a time when the total number of players in the league was about 100-115 per year.

The impact that a player had on the game Can to some extent be gauged by how quickly he was elected to the Hall when he was eligible to be considered. For the 62-63 Celtics the wait was as follows.
Cousy-1 yr. (The 5 yr, rule was waived because he had come out of retirement to play a few games) Russell-6yrs, Ramsey-!8 yrs. Havlicek- 6yrs, S. Jones-!5yrs, Heinsohn-21yrs. Lovellette-24yrs.and K.C Jones-22yrs.

For the 85-86 H-O-F Celts its as follows.
Walton-6yrs, Bird-6yrs, McHale-6yrs, Parish-6yrs, Johson-20yrs.
They played at a time when the competition for H-O-F came from some 325 players per year.
I will point out the huge difference in the level of competition that existed
between the 2 Generations later today. As to Loscutoff handling McHale, ( paragraph 5), I will just pointout that he was 6'5" and 220 lbs. and in 62-63 he played in 63 games, averaged 9.6 minutes per game and 3.3 points per game.
Swish

for those 9.6 minutes he would have given him hell.

seriously though did the 63 C's have post players? that 86 team took away the opponents post up game, even Kareem. Sams talking about waves of the 63 defense, that 86 defense had a BIG man rotation of well you all know, they could defend that post.

Sam

The press that 74 team threw at the Bucks is/was textbook. That team was so fast, Cowens and Silas manhandled the post, was so much fun to watch.

cow

rickdavisakaspike wrote:

It would be a great series and Bill Russell would be the difference. Wilt Chamberlain pushed Bill and even Bill admitted that he became a better player as a result of the challenge that Wilt presented. Imagine the challenge of Bird/McHale: it would have the same elevating effect and Bill Russell would figure out a way to win. He did it better than anyone.

The ’86 Celtics would never have seen a player remotely comparable to Russell. Bill would was all over the floor, blocking shots from behind, coming out of nowhere, turning up in blind spots, cutting off passing lanes. After a game, an opposing coach once said that every player on his team thought Bill was covering him. His anticipation and lateral quickness were so astounding that he could switch at the last second and block or intimidate anyone’s shot, even Larry Bird’s.

Another reason every opposing player thought Bill was covering him was because Number 16, Satch Sanders, played a similarly dominant defensive game and was almost as big and quick as Bill. In the open court, Bill and K.C. played havoc with the other teams’ offensive flow; in the halfcourt, it was Bill and Satch. And it wasn’t only their physical skills; their intelligence was a weapon as well. The ’86 Celtics were never challenged on any level the way the ’63 Celtics would challenge them.

Both Russell and Bird liked to be on the floor the entire game. Russ usually took a breather for the last 2 minutes of the first quarter. Larry - I don’t remember him coming off the floor at all. There’s a question whether Larry could play his usual iron man minutes at the breakneck pace of the ’62-62 team. All the other ’86 Celtics could not keep up and this is where Russell would ultimately intimidate them – watching Number 6 racing down the floor ahead of them. Still, Bird would find a way to keep his team close, so it would likely go 7 games.

Russell and Red and K.C. often talked about taking the heart out of the other team. Three minutes of inyaface defense and ultimate fast-breaking put a lot of teams away over the years of Tyranny. Red and Bill in particular could identify strategies to attack vulnerable points in an opponent’s game. That isn’t to say that Larry Bird could be intimidated. But what about Chief getting beaten down the floor and continually outrebounded? What about McHale having to chase Ramsey up the floor. Ramsey once covered Nate Thurmond in the Finals and turned Nate inside out.

Don’t think there wouldn’t be a whirlwind of mindgames going on, not to forget intimidation, manipulation, disinformation, deliberate confusion and overall gamesmanship. Constant coaching adjustments, relentless running, a defense that was considered almost mystical (because everyone knew what everyone else was going to do), and the unstoppable Bill Russell: on second thought, maybe I’d pick the “72-73 Celtics over both teams. LOL.

Elvin Hayes called Russell the Ghost because he said you never knew where he was and he'd appear out of nowhere and block your shot and he only went at Russell his last year. I still think we have too many skilled HoF BIGMEN on the 86 team that could do enough scoring, rebounding, defense and with great interior passing from Walton/Bird that would be just too much for the great 63 team to overcome. Theres a big difference between Chuck Nevitt and Hank Finkel and Ray Felix to our 4 HoFers. I don't see how the rest of the roster, Satch, Tommy, etc other than Russell can match up with the 86 crew.

Sam Cow

I absolutely loved those early to mid 70 Celtic teams, perhaps because they were my first real Celtic teams I remember vividly....the early 60's are to far back in the canyons of my mind aside from the 69 team to remember very much.

From 72 to 76 with Cowens running amoke and hondo still slashing and dashing.........with Jo Jo stopping and poping Chaney stopping all he guarded with Silas Scott Westphal Nellie they were my favorite teams. Unfortuately the late 70's were about as bad as any era for the C's with the likes of Wicks and Rowe and an owner that didn't give a $hit.


beat

cowens/oldschool wrote:

swish wrote: Only 2 paragraphs in Sam's statement are worthy of comment. All the others are opinion only. Well writen as usual by Sam, who has a talent for making convincing arguments, but never the less theyn are only opinions.
Paragraph # 2
So who are these "Waves" of Hall of Famers? Its not easy to get elected to the h-O-F. as a player. Only 85 players have made it in 51 years. Thats about 1.6 per year. All were selected based on there achievements against there peers. The 8 Celts on the 62-63 were as follows. Cousy, Russell, Ramsey, Havlicek, S.Jones,Heinsohn,Lovellette and K.C. Jones. All but Havlicek played most of their career at a time when the total number of players in the league was about 100-115 per year.

The impact that a player had on the game Can to some extent be gauged by how quickly he was elected to the Hall when he was eligible to be considered. For the 62-63 Celtics the wait was as follows.
Cousy-1 yr. (The 5 yr, rule was waived because he had come out of retirement to play a few games) Russell-6yrs, Ramsey-!8 yrs. Havlicek- 6yrs, S. Jones-!5yrs, Heinsohn-21yrs. Lovellette-24yrs.and K.C Jones-22yrs.

For the 85-86 H-O-F Celts its as follows.
Walton-6yrs, Bird-6yrs, McHale-6yrs, Parish-6yrs, Johson-20yrs.
They played at a time when the competition for H-O-F came from some 325 players per year.
I will point out the huge difference in the level of competition that existed
between the 2 Generations later today. As to Loscutoff handling McHale, ( paragraph 5), I will just pointout that he was 6'5" and 220 lbs. and in 62-63 he played in 63 games, averaged 9.6 minutes per game and 3.3 points per game.
Swish

for those 9.6 minutes he would have given him hell.

seriously though did the 63 C's have post players? that 86 team took away the opponents post up game, even Kareem. Sams talking about waves of the 63 defense, that 86 defense had a BIG man rotation of well you all know, they could defend that post.

Cow
To fully understand how much better the 85-86 Celtics were when compared to the 62-63 celtics ,you have to look beyond the obvious talents that both teams had and fully understand the vast differences between the talent level and the tremendous evolution that has taken place with-in the game its self. For the most part these changes are not easy to spot over the short haul, but become quite clear when viewed on a generational basis. However, there has been one major change, since the Russell years started in 1956, which took place about 1972 and within 6 years completly changed the face of basketball. In reality there were also a few other things that took place in the 70's that added to this major evolution in the game.
But before we spell out these events lets go back to basketball in the mid-50's so we can get a complete picture of what basketball was like then. Before 1956 is not even worth discussing.The arrival of Russell in 1956 spearheaded a movement that really started a basketball revolution. Before I throw out some numbers let me explain one important fact.The number of players used for this study was based on the number of teams in the league for that year multiplied by 5 (a number that repesents 5 starters on a team ) I would have liked to use 8 but its pushes the memory to the extreme to recall the color of some of the lessor known players back in the 50's and 60's. I,used points scored for the season wiith the 1st listed player having scored the most points in descendingpoint order. Since the purpose of my research is to show how Blacks have taken over what I think are the speed and quickness aspects of the game I set a top height of 6'7".
The numbers were as follows
1956-total players-40, under 6'8"=35, white=35, 88.6%
1962 45 34 18, 53%
1968 70 50 23, 46%
1979 110 65 9, 14%
1985 115 66 7 11%
2010 145 80 2 3%

These numbers agree with other sports where running and quickness are priority. Football- Running backs,Wide rceivers, Defensive backs= 85% Black, Sprinters through 440 meters- 95-100%

Draw your own conlusions about the speed-quickness of the players back then vs the mid 70's on to the present. Be back in a while with a lot more.

Swish
I noticed in the preview that the numbers got distorted. Hope you can line them up.

swish

Interesting and that 86 team was mostly white, no question the players today are superior athletically. My father tells me how in the 60's the only player that could dunk great was Elgin Baylor, now everyone can dunk. Even though todays athletes are better and better, the mid 80's was the peak and best teams in the history of the game. Look how stacked those Celtic and Laker and even Sixer teams were, you needed 3 or more HoFers just to compete. By the time Jordan was winning the talent level had already dropped and you could win it with just 2 HoFers.

The teams the Bulls beat in the Finals wouldn't even get past the second round in the 80's. I remember one year when the Bulls won in the Finals the starting Jazz frontline was Bryon Russell, Karl Malone and a white stiff Adam something, I can't remember his name. I remember talking to my friend Todd of what a joke this is, that the league had really fallen, could you imagine that Jazz frontline going against the 80 C's?

cow

Swish,

There are things happening on this board now that are light years more demanding than this conversation, so please recognize that I'm typing this without really giving it much thought.

First of all, most of the advantages you and Cow are attributing to the 85-86 Celtics are not basketball factors; they're generational factors.

• So the 80s found a higher percentage of blacks playing in the NBA than the 60s. Oops, this relevance of this one plummets with a resounding thud because, of the eight players who averaged double figures for each team, 75% of the 62-63 Celtics were black and 50% of the 85-86 Celtics were black.

• So evolution had invested the 80s with more athleticism in general than the 60s had. Oops, another thud. The 62-63 Celtics were far more athletic than the 85-86 Celtics. In fact, one could make an argument that the 62-63 Celtics had four players who were easily on par with the athleticism of present day pro basketball, while the 85-86 Celtics had exactly none.

• So the 85-86 had two tall players (one of whom couldn't jump a lick) and one semi-tall player (who also couldn't jump a lick—not even a French Lick). The 62-63 Celtics had one tall player who was an Olympic class high jumper and ran like a deer, another tall center who couldn't jump and was older, but who had Hall of Fame credentials and the ability to bang and also to draw other tall guys outside with a devastating shot from what would have been three-point range. And the 62-63 Celtics also had a semi-tall player who couldn't jump but was certainly the speed equal of the Celtics' semi-tall guy.

Add it all together, and it doesn't represent nearly as great a height advantage as is being assumed around here. And, considering the advantage the 85-86 Celtics SHOULD have gained through genetic evolution, their modest height advantage was really quite pedestrian. Moreover, I've consistently mentioned specific ways to negate a height advantage, but people only want to ignore those comments in favor of refuting them.

• In comparing eras (which is chancy at best), isn't the real point which team was the better practitioner of basketball, with extraneous factors such as evolution held constant? Any comments about a mythical contest between the two teams seem to assume that game or series would have been played in 1986, not in 1963. And yet, the assumption would be that the 1963 team wouldn't gain the nutritional, conditioning, strategic, and genetic advantages of being in the 80s. So, admit it.

• What if the game or series had been played in 1963? It's all imaginary anyway, so why not? The theory of evolution would suggest that the 85-86 Celtics would each be at least an inch shorter but would be more likely to have lost athleticism than to have gained it. So now the two teams would be about equal in height, and the 1962-63 Celtics would have a gargantuan advantage in athleticism, speed, jumping ability, (and almost certainly endurance as well).

How's your argument looking now, fellas, when the extraneous evolutionary stuff is controlled....when the teams would basically be playing an uptempo game with one team having eight or nine unusually good (and, on average, more athletic) players and the other team having five relative iron men who would probably feel more like tin men after the first half?

What I'm trying to debate is basketball prowess, not evolution. For the times in which they played, the 1962-63 Celtics were so good that they were eons ahead of their time and revolutionized the game in a number of ways. The 1985-86 Celtics? Not so much, although they were certainly exciting and hugely successful against somewhat diluted competition.

I bet the average electrician in 1986 was better than the average electrician in 1962 because the technology had improved. The average plumber ditto (although I don't want to dwell on that one). The average banker was probably more scientifically schooled. The average fireman almost certainly averaged better pressure in every squirt. The average doctor was better because of advances in medical technology. But were all of these later day people better practitioners of their crafts, in light of what they had to work with in their respective eras, or did they simply have better tools, education and other advantages with which to work? What are we discussing in comparing teams? Practitioners or extraneous advantages? On a truly neutral court, who wins? ('62-'63......virtually no contest!!!!!!) And the same would hold true in a "neutral court" contest between '62-'63 and any other team of all-time except possibly the Celtics of '64-65 (which, although you may have missed it, Swish, I've also included as possibily the greatest ever team. (Havlicek picks '62-'63; Russell picks '64-'65.)

Personally, I'm hoping to sit in my regular seats in Section 88, Row 2, Seats 3 and 4 at Boston Garden in time-machine-facilitated 1963 and film the slaughter on my stereopticon machine.

Sam

beat wrote:Swish

Very interesting take on years to get into the HOF. I only ask in reference to how one is selected and if the process was a bit different years ago than it is now. In attempting to find that out I stumbbled upon this 2007 article about some of the best players that have been overlooked for the HOF some since have made it but Jo Jo White is not one of them. Interesting take on why Jo Jo should be there.

Here is the piece

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/columns/story?id=2394981


beat

I've been saying for years he should be in the Hall, 7 time allstar, 2 time champion,Finals MVP,as sweet a stroke as any shooter in the 70's and a great ball handler.

cowens/oldschool wrote:swish

Interesting and that 86 team was mostly white, no question the players today are superior athletically. My father tells me how in the 60's the only player that could dunk great was Elgin Baylor, now everyone can dunk. Even though todays athletes are better and better, the mid 80's was the peak and best teams in the history of the game. Look how stacked those Celtic and Laker and even Sixer teams were, you needed 3 or more HoFers just to compete. By the time Jordan was winning the talent level had already dropped and you could win it with just 2 HoFers.

The teams the Bulls beat in the Finals wouldn't even get past the second round in the 80's. I remember one year when the Bulls won in the Finals the starting Jazz frontline was Bryon Russell, Karl Malone and a white stiff Adam something, I can't remember his name. I remember talking to my friend Todd of what a joke this is, that the league had really fallen, could you imagine that Jazz frontline going against the 80 C's?

cow

cow
Both Bird and McHale have been selected to the leagues 60 greatest players of all time. There are 25 players who started their career in 1979 or later. Only 3 of them are white. They are Bird,McHale,and Stockton. They made their mark at a time that the league was dominated by Blacks.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/psl_finder.cgi?request=1&match=single&type=per_minute&per_minute_base=36&lg_id=NBA&is_playoffs=N&year_min=1963&year_max=1963&franch_id=BOS&season_start=1&season_end=-1&age_min=0&age_max=99&height_min=80&height_max=91&birth_country_is=Y&birth_country=&is_active=&is_hof=&pos=&qual=&c1stat=trb_per_g&c1comp=gt&c1val=&c2stat=mp&c2comp=gt&c2val=1300&c3stat=&c3comp=gt&c3val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&c5stat=&c5comp=gt&c6mult=1.0&c6stat=&order_by=pts_per_g

Above link gives you the list of players that were 6'8" or taller and played a minimum of 1300 minutes on the 62-63 team. As you can see ,Russell was the only one. I'll get right back to you with the 1986 club.

Swish

Sam

Great post, who were those other BIGS that you mentioned on the 63 team? I really think at least it would be competive, a slaughter? sorry don't see it!!

cow

Cow
And here is the link for the 85-86 team.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/psl_finder.cgi?request=1&match=single&type=per_minute&per_minute_base=36&lg_id=NBA&is_playoffs=N&year_min=1986&year_max=1986&franch_id=BOS&season_start=1&season_end=-1&age_min=0&age_max=99&height_min=80&height_max=91&birth_country_is=Y&birth_country=&is_active=&is_hof=&pos=&qual=&c1stat=trb_per_g&c1comp=gt&c1val=&c2stat=mp&c2comp=gt&c2val=1300&c3stat=&c3comp=gt&c3val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&c5stat=&c5comp=gt&c6mult=1.0&c6stat=&order_by=pts_per_g

Swish

cowens-old school, {starting Jazz frontline was Bryon Russell, Karl Malone and a white stiff Adam something, I can't remember his name}.
The illustrious Adam Keefe!

Cow,

The other big center I mentioned was Clyde Lovellete. I think I described Clyde fairly in my post. He was 6' 9" like Russell and 234, which was big in those days. (If McHale had played in '62-'63, I imagine he might have been around 6' 9 1/2".) Clyde understudied Mikan and then anchored a championship after Mikan left in addition to his two rings with the Celtics. He was also on four all-star teams.

I realize Swish has disdain for role players because he apparently evaluated players based on their playing time. Lovellette played 9.3 MPG on that team, although being capable of much more (he had averaged 30 MPG the season before with St. Louis-Swish take notice). To be a center averaging almost 10 MPG on a team with Russell, who averaged 45 MPG, was no mean feat and meant, among other things, that Red was not averse to playing twin towers for something like 7 MPG on average—more in some games, less in others depending on the situation.

I'm sure Swish would argue that, because Lovellette didn't play huge minutes, he wasn't a factor. But, in reality, Clyde was an important role player, especially in bringing opposing big men away from the basket sometimes with his sweet outside shot and also being willing to go underneath and bang other times. Clyde ranked #2 on the Celtics that season in terms of rebounds per minute. (Loscutoff was in a virtual tie with Sanders for #3. Swish take notice.)

Role players are important in mixing up "looks" and situational strategies. In actuality, the Celtics had Russell, Heinsohn, Satch, Lovellette, Loscutoff, Havlicek and Ramsey to play the center and forward positions. They all had different strengths and, depending on the player, could be inserted for short or long periods to change up strategies.

Short stints can be important. Heck, I haven't even bothered to mention that they also had forward Gene Guarilia, who seldom played despite being a hero in the 1962 championship game by playing Baylor to a standstill in overtime after Sanders and Ramsey had fouled out.

I expect Swish would say Guarilia didn't matter because he didn't play 30 MPG, but the fallacy in that kind of thinking is to fail to recognize the depth of quality on that team. Less minutes for some players didn't mean they weren't good enough to play or couldn't have played a lot more minutes. It simply meant that the Celtics had a great abundance of even better players.

The other semi-big player I mentioned was Tom Heinsohn. At 6" 7", he might have been close to Larry's size if the game had been played in 1963.

When you compare 1962-63 heights with 1985-86 heights, your comments fall on deaf ears in this corner. It's all about evolution and genetics. In a discussion like this, it's only fair to keep extraneous factors like evolution as equal as possible.

Sam

willjr wrote:cowens-old school, {starting Jazz frontline was Bryon Russell, Karl Malone and a white stiff Adam something, I can't remember his name}.
The illustrious Adam Keefe!

thanks will, how did that frontline even get to the Finals?

Sam

Great post, you have your beliefs and this has been a fun exchange. Happened to see the 6th game from 86 Finals yesterday on NBA TV, Hakeem had his moments stealing the ball using his speed and I'm sure Russell would have many defensive moments, and I'm sure Tommy could have moments taking the ball at Larry.

For a fairly unathletic team the 86 C's ran hard and with purpose, so actual speed is overated as long as you run hard as todays players don't run hard consistantly as those 80's era teams. We'll have to agree to disagree.

cow

cowens/oldschool wrote:

willjr wrote:cowens-old school, {starting Jazz frontline was Bryon Russell, Karl Malone and a white stiff Adam something, I can't remember his name}.
The illustrious Adam Keefe!

thanks will, how did that frontline even get to the Finals?

Keefe was a reserve forward on those Jazz teams. The two years they went to the finals (1996-97 and 1997-98), the Jazz usually started Greg Ostertag at center, and he started all six games of the '97 finals.

In the '98 finals, the Jazz went with makeshift lineups that often didn't include a center, and Keefe started three games, Greg Foster two, and Ostertag one. Keefe had a total of 39 minutes in those three starts, 60 minutes in the entire series, and didn't even play in game 1. Foster played 63 minutes in six games, and Ostertag played 55 minutes in five games, so between the three of them, they didn't even fill one position. Other than Malone and Russell, it was big man by committee, with three other guys splitting time with Ostertag, Foster, and Keefe.

The Bulls' center those two seasons was Luc Longley. It's safe to say that both teams' strengths lied outside the center position.

Well, I have been away for a few days, celebrating my birthday and just getting a change of scenery! This topic has certainly taken off.

I knew that you would defend the 62-63 team, Sam. They were a wonderful
group of players who played together for a long time. Russ was still in his
prime, Havlicek was just getting started, Sam was Sam, always the same.
Cousy was at the end of his era, and KC was just getting ready to take over
for him. What a lineup!

The '86 Celtics were put together for the same reason the '07-'08 team was, to bring home a title with stars who were reaching prime and possibly
close to the end. They both succeeded reaching for the top and winning.
That '86 team was a group of personalities that still brings a smile to my
face. I have no doubt they would have beat the Bulls, but who would
win if the two Celtic teams played, It's a toss up. I would never, ever bet
against Russell. He was the most devoted player I ever watched. So, this is a really hard question to answer.

My heart says '86, but ........I think Russell would have won no matter what!

RosalieTCeltics wrote:Well, I have been away for a few days, celebrating my birthday and just getting a change of scenery! This topic has certainly taken off.

I knew that you would defend the 62-63 team, Sam. They were a wonderful
group of players who played together for a long time. Russ was still in his
prime, Havlicek was just getting started, Sam was Sam, always the same.
Cousy was at the end of his era, and KC was just getting ready to take over
for him. What a lineup!

The '86 Celtics were put together for the same reason the '07-'08 team was, to bring home a title with stars who were reaching prime and possibly
close to the end. They both succeeded reaching for the top and winning.
That '86 team was a group of personalities that still brings a smile to my
face. I have no doubt they would have beat the Bulls, but who would
win if the two Celtic teams played, It's a toss up. I would never, ever bet
against Russell. He was the most devoted player I ever watched. So, this is a really hard question to answer.

My heart says '86, but ........I think Russell would have won no matter what!

Your heart is right Rosalie. Follow this discussion and you will see why.

Cow and Rosalie, it's all in the eye of the beholder.

I guess I'm sort of satisfied with my final perspective. To make things fair in comparing two eras, the only thing to do would be to hold a seven-game series, with four games being held in one era and three games being held in the other era. I'll readily concede the odd game being held in the '85-'86 era, and I'll even throw in some balloons.

So, when the four games were held in the '85-'86 era, the Russell Celtics would get the advantages accruing to evolution, genetics, training, etc. Therefore, they would each be at least an inch taller, and even the slower guys would be faster, while guys like Russ, Sam, Havlicek and K.C. would be off the charts. And they'd jump higher too, which would put Russ somewhere near the moon.

And, when the three games were held in the '62-'63 era, the Bird Celtics would suffer the consequences of "reverse evolution." They'd each shrink an inch or more, get even slower (which would mean some of them would be in reverse), and the vertical jumps of Larry and Kevin would drop from 3 inches to 1.5 inches.

The Russell Celtics would still include nine future hall-of-famers, indicating nine unusually fine players; and the Bird Celtics would still boast five future hall-of-famers, indicating five unusually fine player. And presumably, the Russell Celtics would continue to exploit their depth advantage by coming in fast breaking waves at the less deep Bird Celtics so as to make them whither by halftime (in both eras). The Bird Celtics would barely have a height advantage (in either era), so someone will have to tell me what their point of differentiation would be.

Why anyone could think it would be much of a contest is a mystery to me. And I use this scenario to emphasize the fact that all the Bird Celtics would have going for them versus the Russell Celtics would be evolution (which really has nothing to do with basketball). The Russell Celtics were far ahead of their time, and the Bird Celtics had a very good team but were not really ahead of their time. In fact, to their credit in dealing with 1985-86 opponents, one of their competitive strengths was stylistic throwback.

And I need to emphasize once more that I'm not dissing any Celtic team because I loved the Bird teams. I'm just making what I feel are fair and unbiased comparisons based on a level playing court.

Sam

Isn't it great? Here we are talking about generations of Celtics teams. Aren't we so lucky to have had these guys playing for Boston????? Being a Celtics fan this long makes me so proud.

I love memories! Especially these that make me smile.

You win Sam, 62-23 would have won, Russell would have made sure of that!!!
(PS, it's too bad we are years apart, those balloons in LA would have been for sale cheap!)

Rosalie