When Schedules Were Really Fierce!

This year, NBA teams will be playing 66 regular season games in 124 days. Every team has at least one stretch during which it plays on three consecutive days. Some teams have two such stretches. Boy, that's tough. Or is it?

Consider the following excerpts from the Celtics schedule in 1960-61:

Played four consecutive days (Nov. 23, 24, 25, 26, 1960)

Played four consecutive days (Nov. 29, 30, Dec. 1, 2, 1960)

Played four consecutive days (Dec. 7, 8, 9, 10, 1960)

So far, that's three stretches of four consecutive games in 18 days. Not including, of course, numerous other single games and back-to-backs also played during those 18 days.

But wait, there's more:

Played four consecutive days (Jan. 12, 13, 14, 15, 1961)

Played four consecutive days (January 29, 30, 31, Feb. 1, 1961)

That's a total of five stretches of four consecutive games (including 9 home games and 11 games away from home) during that season. (By the way, they played .700 ball during those 20 games.)

And I didn't even count the NUMEROUS times when they played three days in a row. That was as common as breathing.

But wait, there's more.

In 1959-60, the Celtics played several series of four consecutive games, a HOST of three consecutive games, and this:

Jan. 1, 1960 Away from home
Jan. 2, 1960 Away from home
Jan. 3, 1960 Away from home
Jan. 4, 1960 At home
Jan. 5, 1960 Away from home

If I extend that stretch a bit, they played a total of 5 games in 5 days, 6 games in 7 days, 7 games in 9 days, 8 games in 10 days, and 9 games in 12 days.

I didn't go to the trouble of checking out other teams, but I assume they had equally rigorous schedules. My point is that the current season would have been considered a veritable vacation to players with the stamina and endurance those guys had. I suppose a rejoinder might be that perhaps there was a tradeoff of speed for endurance. Then, of course, I'd have to trot out comparative stats on points and/or possessions per game.

All of this came to light because, as I was driving to an appointment in Boston this morning, I received a phone call from Sam Jones. He was in Venice, Florida for a celebrity golf tournament which was to include a lot of Red Sox players of the past (I believe he was to be paired with Rico Petrocelli). I asked him what he thought of the league this year. "Too many games too fast" was his first remark. So I mentioned that I had done some research and had found that his Celtics teams had played as many as five games in five days. "No kidding?" he replied. "I didn't even know that." I bet today's players will be telling their grandkids about the three-game torture tests they faced way back in 2011-12.

Just a little perspective I thought might (or might not) be of interest.

Sam

Sam

Sam

One comment.

How many of those games were in more accessible locations? Playing 4 games in 4 nights is tough either way - but if those 4 games are in Rochester, Syracuse, NYC and Philly - it is certainly less wear and tear on players than 4 games in Chicago, Dallas, Sacramento and Phoenix.

Sam, Mrkleen

They probably traveled by luxury TRAINS then to, and stayed at PLUSH hotels. ( insert sarcasum here)

After "riding" from Syracuse to Boston to see a game last spring on Amtrack I can't imagine doing that from City to City even if it is a bit of a shorter ride, then going out and playing. And repeating the same thing for 2-3 more days.

beat

Yes, travel was less accommodating back in those days. But traveling back and forth across multiple time zones cant be easy on a body, no matter how plush the seats are getting you there.

Mrkleen

Wondered the other day why basketball (NBA) doesn't do a little like baseball and when we travel to a city in our conference/division like the Knicks/Nets ect why we don't play 2 games? If every team played at least some of their conference foes this way it sure would cut down on travel.

This would obvioulsy work better over a regular 82 game schedule than this season with the shortend schedule.

beat

mrkleen09 wrote:Yes, travel was less accommodating back in those days. But traveling back and forth across multiple time zones cant be easy on a body, no matter how plush the seats are getting you there.

Heck Mrkleen

I rode on the damn train last year.... and it sucked. And if it has improved then what must of it been like then. And don't forget the black/white race issue in many citys these guys had to deal with too.

Do not most teams travel charter now?

I think it makes a big difference. IMHO

beat

beat wrote:

mrkleen09 wrote:Yes, travel was less accommodating back in those days. But traveling back and forth across multiple time zones cant be easy on a body, no matter how plush the seats are getting you there.

Heck Mrkleen

I rode on the damn train last year.... and it sucked. And if it has improved then what must of it been like then. And don't forget the black/white race issue in many citys these guys had to deal with too.

Do not most teams travel charter now?

I think it makes a big difference. IMHO

beat

Yes, I bet most teams have private planes at this point.

Not suggesting that travel was easy in those days. Just saying - flying back and forth across vast distances takes its toll. First class or not.

Mrkleen

I have not flown a lot but right after college went to Hawaii. Big jets and many timezones, up and down 14 times in 17 days. And we sure were not first class.

I was about the age of many of these guys and I was in decent shape ( 3hour marathon back then) No I didn;t play a game at the end of it but I don't recall having it (flights) taking any toll, I still ran my 5-10 miles most days even in Hawaii.
About the only time I remember anny "toll" was getting up early and going up to the top of one of the mountans to watch the sunrise. 10,000 feet up there is NO FRIGGIN AIR up there, I ran across the parking lot and could not suck in enough, though I was going to pass out. Found out right there why the Kenyans make such great runners!

Back to hoops...........
These guys have it much easier than in the 50's and 60's IMHO

And we can agree to disagree on this a bit too. Thats fine.

beat

NOTE: changed the dates a bit as we were gone 17 days and took off and landed 14 (had it backwords) times total Syracuse to Chicago to LA to Honolulu then Island hoping and the return to LA, Chi, and Syr.

Mrkleen,, the shorter the trip, the more likely it would be by bus rather than by train. Moreover....

• ....whatever the mode of travel, it consumed far more time then than it does now. Sometimes, in the winter, the rubber bands would get cold and stiff and plane travel could be "iffy" at best.

• ....as far as I know, moving to a different city every day required as much repacking and uprooting time as it does now. And that factor is a biggie in travel fatigue.

• ....the great majority of games these days involves teams in the same conference, so the impact of the "vast distances" thing is considerably exagerrated. Back then, each team played every other team eight or nine times per regular season.

• ....trips to distant cities are "batched" nowadays so that a team has relatively short travel to many of those games, such as during the "Texas trips" the Celtics have taken most years recently. They're going from Boston to Houston to Dallas to San Antonio (short "legs" of the same trip)...not from Boston to Houston to Boston to Dallas to Boston to San Antonio.

• ....all things considered, a trip from Boston to Detroit on a commercial plane in coach class back then was at least as arduous as a trip from Boston to Los Angeles on a charter is now. One set of four consecutive games in 1960-61 took the Celtics from Boston to St. Louis to Detroit to New York to Boston on consecutive nights.

• ....because each team played each other team in the league eight or nine times a regular season, four or five of those eight or nine games were away from home. Therefore, the Celtics played the Lakers away from Boston at least four or five times a year. There was one instance that year of the Celtics playing at Los Angeles on two consecutive days. It's the only time I've ever known of that happening. And they did play some doubleheaders in those days, which scheduled some Celtics-Lakers games on neutral courts (east of the Mississippi) to which both teams would have had to travel.

Sam

Here is some data which you might find of interest

http://weaksideawareness.wordpress.com/2011/12/14/journey-through-miles-of-nba-travel-history/

Mrkleen

Prior to about 1962 most passenger airliners were Prop jobs. Not sure of the relative speed vs jetliners but had to be close to half as fast. Thus although the 1950's trips were shorter milage wise they were probably about as long on average timewise as average trips today.

Actually with the expansion from the late 60's I would have thought the graph would have jumped more after. Merger with ABA was in 1976 I think and it dipped after?? Interesting.

Still think playing 2 games on 2 nghts in some citys would be feasable.

beat

Whatever the right figures, miles traveled then and now is no indication of relative travel fatigue. Duration of travel is a much better barometer, as is roughness of travel (being able to fly high enough to escape bad weather). I actually traveled by air back then, and I travel by air now. I'm much less fatigued after a trip to Paris now than I was back then after a trip to Chicago.

Even on the Celtics' last trip to Los Angeles in 1969, I'll never forget the sight of Siggy trying to cram himself into three seats in the middle of the plane to get some sleep. In their charter, I'm quite sure all they have to do is flip their seats back. Absolutely no comparison.

And, if the charts were relevant (which, in a vacuum, they aren't), the average number of miles per trip in 2011-12 looks to be about 550, versus 370 in 1960, which would make the average NBA trip in 2011-12 48% longer (in miles) than in 1960. But I guarantee that the average MPH traveled by plane nowadays if far greater than 48% more than was the case in 1950. So I'm willing to bet the farm that the average NBA trip nowadays is shorter (in time) than it was back in 1960.

And, if one compares the average mileage per NBA in 2011-12 with 1961, the current trip is only 10% longer (in miles) than it was in 1961.

And, in 1969, the average NBA trip was actually 30 miles LONGER than the average trip is now.

Nice looking charts though. Just of little to no value in supporting a premise that there is somehow anything remotely approaching equal or greater hardship in NBA travel nowadays than back in the era this thread is about.

Sam

sam wrote:Nice looking charts though. Just of little to no value in supporting a premise that there is somehow anything remotely approaching equal or greater hardship in NBA travel nowadays than back in the era this thread is about

I didn't take Kleen's point to be that NBA travel now was as hard as travel in the old days, just that when you look at, say, 10 factors that make travel difficult, there are one or two that are harder now. All he's saying is that it's 9-1 or 8-2, which is clearly the old days having the harder travel, but that it's not a complete shutout in favor of every single factor you can think of being harder in the old days. That seems like a reasonable argument to me.

Outside,

I understand completely. And what I'm saying is that it's a complete shutout.

I just haven't seen anything to contradict that opinion. The miles per trip certainly don't do it, because they must be considered within the context of knots per hour that the planes travel(ed). And what one of the charts says is that, by 1961, which is certainly within the framework of my original post, the difference in miles per trip was only 10%...which obviously would be far more than offset by lower speeds and various inconveniences of the time (e.g. commercial versus charter travel).

I'm certainly open to reading other viewpoints on the subject, as long as the people who express them are open to reading my rejoinders, and I know Mrkleen fits that description. He can always be counted on to do his homework and support his viewpoints with facts. I just don't happen to believe this particular evidence is sufficient to the task.

Believe me, I wouldn't present an opinion like the one expressed in my initial post without first challenging it from every conceivable angle in my own mind. I've considered less tangible factors, such as the potential stress associated with access of the press to the players, because members of the today's press ride the same charters as the players. But members of the press rode the commercial planes with the players in the 60s. I've considered the pressure today's players endure from the much greater visibility they have among fans who might recognize them when they're out in public. But I believe that's offset by the huge difference in how today's players (as compared with players of years gone by) are shielded from the public.

The conversation has strayed somewhat from my initial post, which is fine. But my original claim was that a schedule including as many as five instances of four consecutive games, a number of instances of three consecutive games, and routine instances of back-to-backs was extremely rigorous. That's my belief, and I'm definitely sticking to it...10-0.

Sam

Sam, although travel in the good old days was much less comfortable and games were more often played back to back, one feature you've overlooked is that today's players suffer ongoing and extreme digital stress from frequent texting. I wonder what kind of careers Cous and Russ would have had if they had to endure such hardship.

Sam,

You won't even make a concession for jet lag because the league is spread across four time zones instead of two? Particularly for teams on either coast who more frequently have to travel across all four time zones? Whenever someone in the media talked about the Lakers breaking the season record for wins, Phil Jackson brought up an excellent point when he said if anyone was going to do it, it would be a team from the Midwest because being centrally located made travel easier and meant they wouldn't be traveling across so many time zones. He always thought that was a factor in the Bulls favor when they set the record.

There's also the vastly increased demands on modern NBA players by the media before the team can even think about getting out of the arena, thereby delaying when travel can begin, thereby delaying when they arrive in the next city. Or that travel to another city may not just be travel to the arena, but also to promotional events, community service, photo sessions, sponsor meetings, and all kinds of other appearances and activities that are required by the teams and the league or are part of promoting the league, team, or player brand. You can argue about whether players bring this on themselves or it's self-serving or whatever, but the fact is that this is what is expected of players today.

And when it comes to distance, it's both longitude and latitude. The early NBA was concentrated in the Northeast and Upper Midwest. 1960-61 was the first year the Lakers were in L.A., which made them both the team that was farthest west and south, but Boston made only three trips to L.A. Other than the Lakers, St. Louis was next farthest west and south. Here are the distances from Boston to other NBA cities in 1960-61:

Eastern Division
New York 190
Syracuse 262
Philadelphia 270

Western Division
Detroit 612
Cincinnati 739
St. Louis 1,036
Los Angeles 2,593

Compare that with the distances that the most geographically isolated team today, Portland, has to travel within its division:

Utah 635
Denver 982
Minnesota 1,424
Oklahoma City 1,486

I made a post fairly recently where I pointed out that teams in the 1960's played three games in three nights, four games in four nights, and even five games in five nights during the regular schedule, so I'm well aware of how rigorous the schedule was then. But it is not a shutout. That's my belief, and I'm sticking to it, too.

Outside

"I didn't go to the trouble of checking out other teams, but I assume they had equally rigorous schedules. My point is that the current season would have been considered a veritable vacation to players with the stamina and endurance those guys had. I suppose a rejoinder might be that perhaps there was a tradeoff of speed for endurance. Then, of course, I'd have to trot out comparative stats on points and/or possessions per game."

Sam,
Is it possible that this stamina and endurance that you speak of is a product of the game being played in a far different manner back in the early years when compared to the present game? As you are well aware, an awfull lot of changes have taken place in the last 40-60 years that may have changed drastically the way the games are played now.
Swish

The stamina and endurance were probably greater back in the day - at least on the Celtics - because the team was run, run, run - rebound, rebound, rebound - pass, pass, pass. Imagine a whole team hustling like Larry Bird. That was the Celtics from 1956-69 that I remember.

Outside

I tend to side with Sam. As for today's players demands after the game is minimal plus if it is a road game the plane is a charter and will wait. Back in the day I believe Red was also the travel sec too. And as for the "demands" of the public relation things, most if not all of these occur on off days and are in the "home" city. To me these are non factors.

Interesting debate, but 10-0 for Sam, IMHO

beat

Outside, you began your post with an implied question. The answer is "Nope." I believe I had already addressed most of the contents. Distance between cities and four time zones is pretty much the same as Mrkleen's "vastness" comment. Easily offset by speed and comfort factors of today. I alluded to (and dismissed) media demand factors. You should have seen how the players of the past were beseiged by the fans when they exited the locker rooms on the way to the planes with rubber band props or cereal box jet motors, whereas nowadays fans are politely ushered out of the arena and players are spirited away to the waiting superjets.

And I didn't even start to go into the primitive conditions under which they played back then (which I've done before). Sorry, it's a flat out shutout, with no quarter given.

Swish, I'm not ignoring your post, but I believe Beat covered it nicely. I agree that the game is played differently today...slower and much less demanding. But a human being is a human being, and I'm constantly reminded about what comparative superhumans today's players are. So I just as constantly wonder why they can't be superhuman enough to withstand back-to-backs without it being a big deal whenever they're played. I miss old time comics like Jack Benny and even Jerry Lewis, but at least I still am given to fits of laughter when I read about the murderous back-to-back-to-backs being confronted once or twice in the same season.

And, except perhaps for placing too much emphasis on jumping ability and bulk vis a vis endurance in their conditioning, I'm not criticizing today's players. They're dealing with the schedule they're given, and frankly I don't hear them moaning about how arduous it is as much as I read and hear the media and fans moaning about it.

And I'm not even dumping on the media and fans for reflecting on the alleged rigors of today's schedule. That's their right. But I have the right to voice my opinion, and I'm definitely sticking to it.

Sam

If anyone adds to this thread today, I'm not ignoring your posts. I'm leaving rather early to go to the funeral of a friend in Boston.

Sam

Sam

And besides all that THE ARENAS back then were filled with vile smoke!!
Sorry to hear about your friend.

beat

Sam,

So sorry to hear about your friend.

Outside

Sam,

At this point, I can't see any argument changing anyone's mind. People have staked their positions and aren't being swayed, so this has run its course. But I want to point out one aspect of the argument that has played a part.

Your passion on the subject is admirable, but I believe it's driven in part because you personally spent time with the Celtics in the Russell years and even traveled with them. You use the inside information gained through that special relationship to trump any arguments that anyone presents. Perhaps there are arguments that could be raised in favor of today's players by someone with that same kind of special access, but we don't have anyone here with that knowledge. That unfairly skews the playing field.

Thanks for your time and your passion.

Outside

outside,

"Perhaps there are arguments that could be raised in favor of today's players by someone with that same kind of special access, but we don't have anyone here with that knowledge. That unfairly skews the playing field"

While I lack the personal ties to the Celtics that Sam enjoyed I assure you I am well versed on the sports scene as it existed in the 50's and 60's especially as related to the Russell years. On a couple occasions I have engaged in conversatons with Sam on this subject only to find that there was zero interest from other board members. Now there is one thing I am 100% sure of. Sam will forever maintain the superioity of the brand of basketball as played during the Russell years with a couple of those Celtic teams being the greatest of alltime. And I have absolutely no interest in trying to alter his opinions. However if other board members are interested in the other side of the story, I would be happy to give a unbiased view of the generational differences that exist between the basketball of the 50's-60's vs the years starting in the late 70's to the present. These are not memories taken through the eyes of a 13 or 14 year old since I was 24 years old when Russell played his first game in Boston and 18 when Cousy put on the green for the first time. By the way, my points of view will be collaborated by statistical data rather than unbacked opinions.

Sam,
I think this would be a fun thing for the board if they show any interest. You have voiced your opinion on this subject many, many, times and I would look forward to your rebuttals to the "other side of the story"

Swish