Re: 2015 Playoff Thread

[Sloopjohnb]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wEzEHPZi3w

Link to part 3.

[Sloopjohnb]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wEzEHPZi3w

Part 1.

Russell has said that the '64 Celtic team (the year after Cousy retired) was the best he played on. Jerry West said that the '64 team was the best he had seen (West sid this back around 1970).

[worcester]

TJ is correct. there was much less physical play back in the day as evidenced by these videos. What struck me the most is what great passers these vintage Celtics were. All of them. Smooth, slick, precise, and frequent. Russell could have been an NFL QB with his arm.

[Sloopjohnb]

I heard Havlicek say that the year after Russell retired he expected the team to miss his defense and rebounding but he was really surprised to find out how much they missed Russell's offense.

And it was not just his outlet passes to trigger the fastbreak. Most of the Celtic halfcourt offense ran through Russell and it was only after Russell retired that Havlicek fully appreciated how Russell almost always made the correct passes and set the correct screens in the halfcourt.

[bobheckler]

I can't claim to have watched a lot of '50s and '60s games, so I cannot comment on that (although I do wonder how "Jungle Jim" Loscutoff got his nickname.  I don't think he got it because he swung on vines from the rafters), but I think any claim that today's players are more physical than the '70s and '80s because they are bigger stronger and faster today is pure poppycock.  

1.  Today, you cannot handcheck.  It's a lot harder to free yourself up for a jumpshot with someone riding your hip than if they cannot even nick your forearm without one of the three refs blowing something.  Two refs, easier to miss stuff.  Three refs, with whistles in their mouths...?  Jerry West, 27ppg career and zero from 3; Kobe Bryant, 25ppg career with 4 of those points coming from 3.  Credit to Kobe for having the range (although I have no doubt that if you gave West the incentive to shoot from out there he would have been a hellaciously good 3pt shooter, if not right away then no later than the next season) but 3pt shots are taken away from contact and not going into it.  Kobe also is averaging 7.6ftas/game with 3 refs looking for contact and his defender not allowed to lay a finger on him.  Literally, you cannot put your hand, with its fingers, on today's players.  West took 9.4ftas/game with only 2 refs trying to cover the whole court and with his defenders allowed to have a hand on him to subtly slow him down and maybe knock an inch off his vertical.  That's not "more physical"?  

2.  I don't know about the '50s and '60s, as I said up front, but there is little boxing out today.  There is a school of thought in NBA coaching circles that say that today's athletes are so big and fast that you cannot box them out, so just use your athleticism to go straight to the ball.  So, if boxing out means "physically putting a body on a player and physically resisting his efforts to get past you" then today's game is not more physical than the '70s and '80s.  Faster?  Perhaps.  More physical?  Not if the definition of physical includes a requirement for making contact with an opponent.

3.  Little to no contact is allowed on players in the air or going in for layups.  That is certainly not the way it was in the '70s and '80s, especially in the "no free layups" playoffs.  Remember McHale clotheslining Rambis?  He got a foul for that (and almost a black eye after Rambis bounced right up off the floor).  That's less physical than today?  Baloney.  McHale was not ejected, was not suspended.  Nowadays he'd be gone for a minimum of one game.  One of my favorite memories of the old Gahden was Dave Cowens, after being called for two offensive fouls by a flopping Mike Newlin, sprinting across the court to two-arm shiver Newlin into the 3rd row and turning and screaming at the ref "NOW THAT'S A FOUL!!", and then sitting down with his 3rd foul (I was sitting 2nd row, floor, mid-court.  Cowens ran from my side across to the other sideline to do the dirty.  I heard him yell that to the ref and fell off my chair).  No flagrant foul, no ejection, not even a technical (which were usually reserved for when you mouthed off to an official too caustically) and certainly no league suspension.  It took punches, usually landed, like the ones thrown by Kermit Washington at Rudy T (which was like pulling the ears off a cute little bunny rabbit) and Ron Artest going into the stands after a fan at The Palace in Detroit, to earn suspensions.

3.  Speaking of technicals, players get them now for "taunting".  Larry Bird would be flat-broke today if he got T'd up for "taunting".  And don't give me the "today's players are meaner and stronger now so they need to be reined in more" line.  Nobody in their right mind messed with Cowens.  Hell, even crazy people thought twice after they took a good look at his game face.  Laimbeer wasn't afraid to mix it up either.  John Stockton was a chippy little bastard for a half-pint and you played rough with Jerry Sloan only if you thought black-and-blue was a nice color combination on you.  Moses?  He pounded people into paste nightly.  Even beanpole Jabbar didn't back down and threw his share of elbows.  I didn't get to watch much Wilt, but was a man who is considered one of the strongest men to ever play in the NBA, and who played most of his career in the '60s, really to be thought of as a "non-contact player"?

4.  You didn't see flopping back then either.  Doing that earned you a free trip to the concession stand like Mike Newlin received courtesy of Dave Cowens.  Now, it's so endemic they had to create a special review and fine for it because it was getting as bad as soccer.  If you didn't look closely, though, you'd see some contact and you'd see the defender fly backwards like he was shot out of a cannon.  The offensive player moves left and miraculously suddenly goes flying in the exact opposite direction.  Where do those express trains come from?  There was none, it was just them faking out the refs into thinking he was hammered when in fact there was minimal contact, if any.  Using their more athletically gifted bodies to enhance their acting career.  Looked brutally physical, though, didn't it?

The players may be bigger and stronger than in years past (yes, the '70s and '80s qualify as "years past" as well) but the game has been wussified.  They're expected to fly through the air with the greatest of ease, but almost any physical contact with the player they are defending is blown for a foul and, when it's not, they whine like a bunch of little bee-atches.

Unless you're Dwight Howard.  Then you can punch someone in the mouth and elbow them in the neck and only get called for normal fouls.  Horford, Smith and Olynyk aren't immune.  That's because we're still in the era of the Exaltation of the Superstar thanks to The Dictator.

What's so special about being bigger and stronger if the league only lets you use it on offense?


bob



.

[Sloopjohnb]

"Little to no contact is allowed on players in the air or going in for layups. That is certainly not the way it was in the '70s and '80s, especially in the "no free layups" playoffs. Remember McHale clotheslining Rambis? He got a foul for that (and almost a black eye after Rambis bounced right up off the floor). That's less physical than today? Baloney. McHale was not ejected, was not suspended. Nowadays he'd be gone for a minimum of one game."

Bob, the most surreal no-call I've ever seen was when Parish took out Laimbeer with a series of punches to the back of Laimbeer's head putting him on the floor on the fetal position during '87's game five (the Bird STEAL).

All this happening right in front of the refs.

Chief stayed in the game though he was suspended for the next one.

[worcester]

Chief had been practicing that move on his wife.

[swish]

Bob

I believe that the comparison being made here is with the 50's and 60's compared to the present. You indicate that your not that all familiar with the 50's and 60's. I have 4 tapes of Celtic games of the 60's ( Not high light clips.) Watch them and then I would be interested in your comment.

swish

[bobheckler]

Bob

I believe that the comparison being made here is with the 50's and 60's compared to the present. You indicate that your not that all familiar with the 50's and 60's. I have 4 tapes of Celtic games of the 60's ( Not high light clips.) Watch them and then I would be interested in your comment.

swish

swish,

I'd love to see them. As you may or may not know, I live in the San Francisco bay area. So I can't just "drop by".


bob


.

[bobheckler]

So much for the league replay office.  How they could NOT call this a flagrant on Dwight Howard is beyond me.  He OBVIOUSLY lifts his forearm at the last second and jams it, and his elbow, into Iggy's neck.

JVG got it right last night when he said "I don't know what a flagrant foul is anymore".  This isn't called a flagrant, of any kind (if it had, Howard would have been ejected).  Howard's obvious reach-back punch at Bogut isn't called a flagrant 2 but what Horford did is?





Regardless, GSW advances and Howard goes home.  All in all, a fine evening was had by all out here in the golden state.


bob
btw,  I think it's really funny that the person who posted this video to youtube called it "Dwight Howard shoves Andrew Iguadala".  Must be a Rockets fan...


.

This has been upgraded to a Flagrant 1 by the league.

So, the refs didn't call it, they stopped the game and reviewed it and still didn't call it, but the league finally catches up after it doesn't matter anymore?

Howard will be suspended one game next season because of too many flagrant fouls.  BFD.  


Jessica Camerato: Dwight Howard suspended one game for fourth Flagrant Foul point of postseason. His common foul on Andre Iguodala was upgraded to Flagrant 1. Twitter @JCameratoNBA


bob


.

[worcester]

Yes, calling flagrant fouls is way too subjective. Moving on, that performance by James Harden was the biggest choke by any superstar that I can remember in a playoff game. It even surpasses John Starks's 1994 1-19 outing in 1994, because Starks was no superstar. Harden had 12 turnovers - 12! - and only 14 points. That's a playoff record.

Add that to his bonehead play in the final seconds of Game 4 and you can imagine why Kevin McHale must be paraphrasing Charles Dickens: This was the best of players; this was the worst of players. Twelve turnovers. Horrid.

[swish]

Bob

I believe that the comparison being made here is with the 50's and 60's compared to the present. You indicate that your not that all familiar with the 50's and 60's. I have 4 tapes of Celtic games of the 60's ( Not high light clips.) Watch them and then I would be interested in your comment.

swish

swish,

I'd love to see them.   As you may or may not know, I live in the San Francisco bay area.  So I can't just "drop by".


bob


.

bob
I acquired the following dvd's a few years ago. They were game 6 1963 Celtics - Lakers, game 4 1964 Celtics - Warriors , Game 4 1966 Celtics - Royals , Game 4 1967 Celtics - Sixers . They were acquired from--- EdAgwit@aol.com I emailed him a while ago and he's still in business. To all board members: If interested in acquiring dvd's of nba games of the past-- Ed Agwit is your man.

swish

[Sloopjohnb]

The footage mentioned on Swish's post are at least partially available on the Youtube links on my posts.

For instance, the entire game six of the 1963 finals is on youtube.

[swish]

Sloopjohnb

Thanks for pointing that out. There is no charge there while there is a modest fee for acquiring them through my source.

swish

[Sam]

Swish,

What are the dates and teams involved in the four complete game videos of the 60s that you have?

Sam

[swish]

Sam

See above reply to bob Only the Lakers game is a complete game. The other 3 are a half of the game.

Swish

[Sam]

Swish,

Oh, I thought so.

I'm taking care of the Lakers game (Cousy's last) in another post (still in preparation).  And, as I slowly sift through other videos that are being floated here, I'm getting a clear vision of the combination of myopia and lack of context that pervades a lot of opinions.  Read my post on the Lakers game, and perhaps what I have to say will become meaningful.

Thanks.

Sam

[Sam]

Swish,

I've obtained at least 30 videos of different descriptions through Ed Agwit, and I used to mention him frequently on BDC and here.  However, I haven't done so lately because he told me he prefers to keep a low profile.  I'll leave others to conjecture about his reasons.

Sam

[swish]

Sam

Highlights be damn. Uninterrupted coverage of either the first or second half.


swish

[swish]

Sam
In my email to him I asked him if he still was involved in dvd's of past nba seasons. I mentioned that I knew people people that might be interested in acquiring some. His response was ------ Yes. thanks, Ed

swish

[Sam]

Swish,

Not sure what your previous response means.

But I'm glad Ed has changed his stance.

Sam

[worcester]

I've got a box full of video cassettes from the Bird era 80's if anyone has the ability to turn the into DVD's.

[Sam]

Sloop, it was actually the 1964-65 team that Russ thought was his best—two years after Cousy retired.  Havlicek felt the 1962-63 team was his best (and that happens to be my choice.  I mean nine future hall-of-famers (one for contributions) and a hall of fame coach.  Arguably one of the best playmakers of all-time.  Arguably the best defender, rebounder and winner of all-time.  Arguably the best sixth man of all-time.  Arguably one of the best clutch shooters of all-time.  And a host of hall-of-fame support players.

I've always said that the main reason the all-too-frequent "best team ever" debates don't pick a Celtics team of the 60s is that there are too many greatest Celtics teams of the 60s and they actually compete with one another in the voting.  If all that voting support were put behind just one of the Celtics' 60s teams, (like the '86 Celtcs were obviously their best of the 80s), it would be likely to win in a walk.

Sam

[Sam]

With all due respect to one and all, I keep preaching the value of context, and my very valuable advice keeps getting ignored.  This entire debate (like most era-to-era debates) is all too symptomatic of the tendency of today’s society to ignore matters of context in far too many important situations.  Basketball, then and now, is one of them.


I just looked at the first quarter of video on Cousy’s last game, and it does indeed appear to be the full game.


TJ, unless I’m misinterpreting your comments (and I’m sure you’ll let me know if that’s so), I’m wondering if there was something wrong with your screen.  I don’t believe you’re the type of person who would force your mind not to recognize something that you don’t want or expect to see.


In the first place, did you not see Sam Jones dogging Jerry West all over the court?  When Avery Bradley does that (although less and less these days), today’s fans ooh and aah all over the place at his wondrous defense.  That’s a very arduous form of defense, TJ, and it required even more toughness in an uptempo game.
The first 1:30 (the time is running time, not game time) saw three fouls involving drives, which suggested to me that—right from the outset—the players weren’t stepping aside and letting guys cruise by them.


Great steal by Heinsohn about 2:00.  And he wasn’t known for his defense.  True, he didn’t have to bludgeon someone in order to make the steal; but some people would call that a victory of finesse over brawn.


Almost a great steal but a foul by Cooz about 3:20.  The result of what you call “nonchalant defense?”


Classic Russell block at 4:00.  Funny how Russell’s name is studiously avoided by those who desire to extol today’s physicality and defense over yesteryear’s.


Classic block-out by Russ to grab a defensive board at 7:15.  (Oh, but they never blocked out did they?)


Around 11:38, Sam guarding West top of key; bumps Jerry (oops, I forgot, there was no contact in those days) then hangs on Jerry’s shooting hand, but Jerry makes a long jumper anyway.  No way could better defense have been executed on that play.  Today, that bump would have been called a foul because the shooter might have gotten a boo boo.


Around 14:05, beautiful Celtics interception (not sure who it was—Heinsohn?) in the passing lane.  For a team playing “nonchalant defense,” the Celtics certainly were giving it all they had, forcing several Lakers turnovers in the quarter.


15:00 A Laker pursued Heinsohn downcourt on a full-court breakaway pass from Cousy and made a beautiful block of the type we’ve become used to seeing Lebron make.  Yup, it was a Laker, but credit where it’s due.  The important thing is that when credit is due it’s not fair to withhold it—not even if it’s an entire era that deserves the credit.


16:15 Sanders absolutely stonewalling Baylor on defense.  And he does it again at 18:15.  (Remember, all times are running time.)
 
I didn’t watch the rest of the video, although I own it and have watched it many, many, many times before.  One of the great Celtics finishes on a foreign court, with the home team making a furious rush as a Celtics star goes down with a sprained ankle.  Minus the Pierce wheelchair, Cooz hobbles off only to return minutes later and reverse the momentum, finally flinging the ball up into the Forum rafters in the ultimate victory gesture.  He knew the ankle would balloon up and he’d never play in a Game 7.  Heck, I may have to watch the whole game again, if only to witness once more the single greatest offensive weapon in the history of the NBA (in my opinion, naturally): two running Cousy hook shots (one righty, one lefty) from at least 15 feet.
 
As I watched that one quarter wind down, I marveled at the fact that it seemed they must have played two quarters and yet there was still a minute left in the first.  Finally, I concretized the two main reasons for the errant perception:
 
(1) The incredible pace.  The two teams combined for 67 possessions in that one quarter.  That would project to 268 possessions over a 48 minute game.  Average time of possession was a scant 10.7 seconds (including time for bringing the ball upcourt).
 
(2) Virtually each possession was absolutely loaded with motion.  Especially side to side.  Every player was moving the great majority of the time.
 
These facts led me to realize the fallacy of the three precepts some people seem to feel should be the Holy Grail of yesteryear’s defense: crouching, bodying up the offensive player, and battling for the ball.  On the face of things, they certainly look like admirable traits today.  But who ordained that they should have been admirable in the 50s and 60s?  IT’S ALL ABOUT CONTEXT:
 
1. Why crouch if you’re only going to have to uncrouch a nanosecond later to follow your one-on-one assignment as he functions in the motion offense?  Remember that switching was more of a last ditch move rather than a routine crutch as in today’s game.
 
2. Why body up your one-on-one assignment if the main danger he presents is getting by you for a high-percentage two-point shot?  If you have any feel for the game, you play off your man to guard against the drive, while preferring that he try a longer, lower-percentage two-point shot.
 
3. When the offense was moving at warp speed, there was little time for strategies such as collapsing into the lane, hedging and recovering, etc.  It’s a lot different today, when a player can knit a mittens for his kid while waiting for his defensive assignment to go into his iso move.  In 10.7 seconds (including time to bring the ball upcourt), things tended to happen in a flash.  In the halfcourt, all players were a dribble or three away from the basket, and offensive moves were a matter of surprise more than anything else.
 
The main reason most of us want today’s Celtics to push the ball up the floor is to catch the defensive team unprepared.  Well, in the old days, catching the defensive team unprepared was the rule and rather than the exception.  Today’s fans are used to seeing a lot of maneuvering and adjusting that can be accommodated by a more deliberate game.  (The number one NBA team in 2014 in terms of number of possessions per game had 25% fewer possessions per game than the projected number based on the first quarter of that Celtics-Lakers game.)  THEN IS NOT NOW.  CONTEXT.  CONTEXT.  CONTEXT.
 
The reason the Russell Celtics were considered such great defensive teams was NOT because they played great defense in the mold (or is it mould?) of today’s teams.  Heck, the Russell Celtics’ opponents (who normally lost to the Celtics) routinely scored more points per game against the Celts than today’s leading teams score per game.  The reason the Russell Celtics were such great defensive teams was that, despite a then-extant game model geared to running, gunning, surprising with quick-hitting offense, and catching the defense unprepared, the Russell Celtics consistently managed to rise above those obstacles to keep opponents’ scores below their own.  To judge the defensive play of the 50s and 60s within the context of today’s game and the artifacts of the slowed pace and complexified strategies of today’s game is beyond ludicrous.
 
But not quite as ludicrous as conjectures on toughness.  Quick, define what “toughness” consisted of in the 50s and 60s.  If anyone can’t do it quickly, why would he/she feel equipped to compare toughness of those times with toughness of these times.  Because he/she lacks—guess what?–CONTEXT.
 
For one thing, I can almost guarantee that definitions of yesteryears’ “toughness” by many of today’s fans would omit the factor of durability.  Playing race horse basketball, with primitive conditioning methods, no special nutrition, and practically nothing but your own ingenuity to prepare you for the grind, adds up to a challenge that can only be vaguely imagined by today’s fans.  And talking about playing injured would only serve to embarrass today’s on-floor dilettantes and their fans.
 
Maybe they should ask Cousy about the time he suffered a severe thigh injury (I believe it was during the playoffs—possibly in 1959).  He knew he had to play, but he didn’t think it would be possible.  The trainer (I think it was Jack Fadden at the time) concocted this bulging (nine inches thick) plaster block (at least 25 pounds in weight) that was held in place by an ace bandage.  Cousy took one look at the monstrosity and thought Madden was crazy.  H said, “I just need something that will keep me from getting more injured if it gets hit again.”  So Madden fetched a baseball bat, commanded Cooz to put on the contraption, and took a full swing at it.  Nothing but smiles from Cooz, who went on to orchestrate another win, although I often wondered how he avoided listing to starboard as he played.  He didn’t bring a briefcase or a Walkman to the game.  He didn’t flop looking for fouls.  He didn’t do many of the things that today’s fans confuse with toughness.  He was simply tough when and where it counted.
 
Some comments on the videos that were so kindly posted:
 
Minneapolis-Syracuse Spring, 1954: The last of the really primitive years.  The shot clock came into effect the following season.  Doesn’t shed much light on this discussion, although I was actually surprised they pushed the pace as much as they did and shot as quickly as they did.
 
Celtics-Cincinnati, 1966:  Unfortunately, the URL for the Minneapolis-Syracuse game (above) was repeated for this game.  I believe the correct 43 minutes are a fraction of a full game (minus free throws) played between the Celts and the Royals and actually recorded in its full hour+ entirety as a documentary (with tutorials, Red “miked” for sound, stop-action, slow motion, replays, etc.).  If it’s the one I think it is (I own the full version), it’s unquestionably the best video game of all-time for the purpose of getting a feel for the game of the 60s.  The edited versions aren’t nearly as informative.  If the full video doesn’t cement one’s allegiance to the Green, nothing will.  I play it at least once a month.  In fact, I wore out one copy and had to buy another copy.  My dream has been to play the full version for an audience of Sam’s Celtics Forum fans, and to hold a discussion on it; but there hasn’t been much interest.
 
Celtics-Warriors 1964: Unfortunately, the Minny-Syracuse URL was also repeated for the first citation of this one.  But, the next two combined to show the entire second half, in which the Celts emerged victorious.  This is another example of how CONTEXT can shift.  For one thing, the transition from a primarily Cousy-Sam Jones backcourt to a Sam-KC-Havlicek triumvirate changed the emphasis in Boston a bit away from offense and a bit toward defense.  Over the 1963-64 season, the Celtics averaged 5.8 fewer points scored per game and 6.5 fewer points allowed per game.  One can see the difference in defensive intensity between the Celtiics-Lakers 1963 game and this one.  Closer guarding, more trapping, more deflections, but (based on observation) fewer steals.  (I believe the latter fact was due to the loss of Cousy and his risk-taking tendencies with Russell backing him up.)  So a little more conservative but also a little more intense.
 
Another difference in CONTEXT is the Wilt factor.  The Celtics did appear to pack it in a little more than normally in this one, and Russ had to focus more on defending Wilt.  So the rest of the team couldn’t depend as much on Russ’ backing them up.  Very few blocks (if any) for Russ (and at least one goaltend) in this half a game.  More fouls for both teams in this one too, reflecting tighter and more physical guarding.
 
If a CONTEXT can shift between seasons and even between games, think about how different it can be between eras.
 
Sam

[cowens/oldschool]

To no one in particular

I thought there was minimal force and contact/physicality throughout that era compared to todays pushing and shoving that is so constant. I also thought the 60's game looks very primitive, sometimes its just guys taking shots as soon as they got the ball past halfcourt. The ball handling everywhere is so much better now. Even though I'm sure its a higher volume of shots, the players running up and down look pretty slow to me, KC Jones actually looked like a modern finisher. The Lakers and 76ers teams of the 80's were way faster. I couldn't believe how skinny Ray Felix was, he might have been 210, just guessing. I know they were the pioneers, but you could look at pro football, that sport also had a natural evolution and growth, its obvious how much faster and stronger the players are in both sports from the 60's to right now in time.

Elgin Baylor was a great player in his time, look at him closely....right now every starting caliber wing can soar higher and faster than what I've seen from him on tape.

[Sponsored content]