Re: 2015 Playoff Thread

by **cowens/oldschool** Fri May 29, 2015 10:28 pm

I saw Sam Jones staying in front of West, I wouldn't use the term he was dogging him. I hate to pick apart Sam Jones, but he wasn't in much of a crouch to me.

by **worcester** Sat May 30, 2015 11:47 am

Sam, When you say "Arguably the best sixth man of all-time" are you talking about John Havlicek or Frank Ramsey, who was certainly the first sixth man? I think of Hondo more as a starter.

Regarding the pace of the 50's and 60's, whew, I get tired just looking at them run. Durability plus.

by **Sloopjohnb** Sat May 30, 2015 7:27 pm

"I couldn't believe how skinny Ray Felix was, he might have been 210, just guessing."

I don't know a thing about Ray Felix but Jerry West remembers him well. I was browsing The Profile's new autobiography one day and West told a story about being in the locker room after they had lost game 7 in OT to Boston (a partial tape of that game is in one of the links on this thread). Felix, apparently undaunted, said, "Don't worry guys we'll get them the next game."

Over 50 years later and West still chose to include that comment.

I got a big kick from the footage of the games from that era, especially seeing certain shots that no one takes any more. Heinshon sure liked the running hook, Satch Sanders launched several half jump, half set shots off the dribble from the outside while standing on one foot. I seem to recall that it was called a "runner", or "runnah" in the Garden. And of course there were the two hand set shots.

At least three players--Felix, Guy Rodgers and Wilt himself shot free throws underhanded. The fact that Wilt was a horrible FT shooter no matter how he shot them refutes Rick Barry's claim that anyone can hit at least 70% if they shot underhanded.

by **Sam** Sat May 30, 2015 9:53 pm

Sloop,

I believe that one foot from which Satch shot was the so-called "wrong" foot or, for him, the right (not correct) foot. In practice, John Havlicek used to do the most hilarious imitation of that shot, undulating his body back and forth several times while aiming the ball and finally launching it. He never did the imitation near the basket—usually at midcourt—so the the question of the shot's accuracy never was part of the imitation.

Sam

by **Sam** Sat May 30, 2015 11:12 pm

W,

I deliberately left that ambiguous because both Frank and John, along with Kevin McHale, have to be in the discussion of best 6th man ever.

In doing a little research, I came upon an interesting fact. Although Red is credited with making Frank the 6th man in 1957 (I assume it was 1957-58 because Frank played in only 35 regular season games and all 10 playoff games in 1956-57 due to military obligations. And yet, it wasn't until 1961-62 that Frank's minutes per game ranked lower than 5th on the team. He was a pretty important cog in a lot of those championship years.

Sam

by **Sam** Sat May 30, 2015 11:18 pm

Dogging a man full court does not necessarily mean ball-hawking. It's very often a tactic used to keep pressure on a key opponent, make him work harder for what he gets, make it harder for the team to get him the ball, and sometimes prevent him from being the one who brings the ball upcourt and initiates plays. What crouching has to do with that strategy is absolutely nothing unless the defensive player feels a need to relieve himself. Speed and agility to stay with the opponent are the key ingredients of this strategy, and one usually runs faster while not doing the duck walk.

Sam

by **Sloopjohnb** Sun May 31, 2015 12:20 am

"Dogging a man full court does not necessarily mean ball-hawking. It's very often a tactic used to keep pressure on a key opponent, make him work harder for what he gets..."

That pretty much describes what Don Chaney did to Oscar Robertson in '74, the first post-Russell title. Chaney made Oscar work for every inch of the floor with the goal of cutting down on Abdul Jabbar's touches.

Chaney had a great series and there would have been no title in '74 without him.

Great sixth men are increasingly rare I think because teams can't afford them. Ramsey, Havlicek, McHale were better players than those that started ahead of them but it was more difficult for them to get bigger pay dates else where.

Now, it's harder to keep a great sixth man, at least in his prime. Look how OKC had to deal Harden because they knew they couldn't afford to pay him what he could get else where.

by **cowens/oldschool** Sun May 31, 2015 12:27 am

Having your knees wider in a bent legged stance is better for almost all defensive purposes in basketball, look at Dave Cowens or Michael Jordan, they were in classiic bent legged stances on that side of the ball. Theres a reason even at the elementary school level coaches are always telling kids to get low on defense all the time. Ofcourse its easier to stand straight legged, but then its also so much easier for the offensive player to move/blow by that defender. Not only is your lateral movement faster and stronger, your leaping is much better with legs bent than if they are straight.

by **Sam** Sun May 31, 2015 10:13 am

There was no "standing straight-legged" involved on the part of either player when Sam Jones was dogging West full court. When the average possession, from pass-in or rebound, through the process of bringing the ball upcourt, to completion of an offensive option, lasts only 10.7 seconds, there's not a lot of standing around, period. Moreover, "having your legs wider in a bent legged stance" is the antithesis of the speed and agility that are essential for a defender in a full court press designed to exert pressure and nothing more. A player covering the entire length of the court in something like 4 seconds while "having his legs wider in a bent-legged stance" would look more like he's wetting his shorts than playing basketball. Spreading the legs and crouching is more appropriate for half-court situations, particularly if the opponent is a strong iso player and/or is equally likely to drive of pull up and/or is in a deliberate offensive set.

For the fan, recognition of situational context is so much more important than tunnel vision and blind insistence that one solution fits all situations and all eras.

Sam

by **swish** Sun May 31, 2015 12:29 pm

TJ Four days after the issue of physicality was first brought up it appears that there is an unanimous agreement by those that voiced an opinion , that the physicality of the present game is greater than it was in the 50's-60's.

swish

by **bobheckler** Sun May 31, 2015 12:35 pm

http://probasketballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/05/31/one-handed-no-look-over-the-head-halfcourt-shot-no-problem-for-stephen-curry/

One-handed, no-look, over-the-head halfcourt shot? No problem for Stephen Curry.

He is ridiculous.

bob

.

by **Sam** Sun May 31, 2015 2:49 pm

Why is is that an 11-1 jury vote for the death penalty often does not result in the death penalty's being executed? There's nothing magic about a majority. The magic is not in the numbers. The magic resides in the rationales. The magic comes in the willingness of a given participant to respond to EVERY SINGLE assertion of others and to present solid rationale in doing so......rather than simply ignoring comments for which (s)he has no comeback and/or changing the subject.

Two examples of ignored comments (paraphrased here):

1. "Quick now, how was toughness defined in the 50s and 60s?" Dead silence!!!!! Presumably because no one could furnish that bit of context. Without an awareness of the criteria for toughness, how equipped is someone to evaluate how tough the players of the 50s and 60s were? Answer: They're not! Which is why they lapse into using today's context instead. In other words, then is now. Not!

2. Although the league actually felt that blood and guts attracted fans to games of the 50s and 60s, most (perhaps all) of the many examples of out-and-out brawls are excluded in the videos people present as "representative" of those times because videos are produced for entertainment and offense is what entertains most. Dead silence to that one too. I guess it should have been expected. After all, it's only logic. And of what use is is logic when it can just be ignored anyway?

Spare me the "majority" crud. This is a board that doesn't have to depend on crutches such as "majority rules" to make its points. This is a board that doesn't have to depend on sidestepping compelling arguments in order to make solid points.

Sam

by **worcester** Sun May 31, 2015 3:17 pm

Sam, you're too old to be wise beyond your years, but you're pretty damn wise.

by **Sam** Sun May 31, 2015 4:08 pm

W,

Tell my wife. Please.

Sam

by **cowens/oldschool** Sun May 31, 2015 4:51 pm

sam wrote:There was no "standing straight-legged" involved on the part of either player when Sam Jones was dogging West full court. When the average possession, from pass-in or rebound, through the process of bringing the ball upcourt, to completion of an offensive option, lasts only 10.7 seconds, there's not a lot of standing around, period. Moreover, "having your legs wider in a bent legged stance" is the antithesis of the speed and agility that are essential for a defender in a full court press designed to exert pressure and nothing more. A player covering the entire length of the court in something like 4 seconds while "having his legs wider in a bent-legged stance" would look more like he's wetting his shorts than playing basketball. Spreading the legs and crouching is more appropriate for half-court situations, particularly if the opponent is a strong iso player and/or is equally likely to drive of pull up and/or is in a deliberate offensive set.

For the fan, recognition of situational context is so much more important than tunnel vision and blind insistence that one solution fits all situations and all eras.

Sam

I never said one stance or technique covers all situations, so please don't imply thats what I said.

by **cowens/oldschool** Sun May 31, 2015 5:14 pm

sam wrote:Why is is that an 11-1 jury vote for the death penalty often does not result in the death penalty's being executed? There's nothing magic about a majority. The magic is not in the numbers. The magic resides in the rationales. The magic comes in the willingness of a given participant to respond to EVERY SINGLE assertion of others and to present solid rationale in doing so......rather than simply ignoring comments for which (s)he has no comeback and/or changing the subject.

Two examples of ignored comments (paraphrased here):

1. "Quick now, how was toughness defined in the 50s and 60s?" Dead silence!!!!! Presumably because no one could furnish that bit of context. Without an awareness of the criteria for toughness, how equipped is someone to evaluate how tough the players of the 50s and 60s were? Answer: They're not! Which is why they lapse into using today's context instead. In other words, then is now. Not!

2. Although the league actually felt that blood and guts attracted fans to games of the 50s and 60s, most (perhaps all) of the many examples of out-and-out brawls are excluded in the videos people present as "representative" of those times because videos are produced for entertainment and offense is what entertains most. Dead silence to that one too. I guess it should have been expected. After all, it's only logic. And of what use is is logic when it can just be ignored anyway?

Spare me the "majority" crud. This is a board that doesn't have to depend on crutches such as "majority rules" to make its points. This is a board that doesn't have to depend on sidestepping compelling arguments in order to make solid points.

Sam

people may ignore because they might be tired of beating a dead horse/topic to death, no one is saying the 60's was not great basketball or the Celtics of the 60's were not great, they're record speaks for itself....with all due respect please show some class and don't be a sore loser, when I see Chamberlain vs Russell, I love seeing the contrasting styles and everything involved in the skill and dynamics of the matchup, it could easily be the greater match up. But if you see Shaq vs Motumbo or Howard vs Jordan of recent vintage, those guys are using alot more physical force on each other and thats obvious by the eye test. It doesn't take away any of the raw beauty and skill of Chamberlain vs Russell.

by **swish** Sun May 31, 2015 5:18 pm

I can't speak for the others but my only issue was with the physicality of the game.

swish

by **Sam** Sun May 31, 2015 7:06 pm

Cow,

So your latest statement to me is, "You're criticizing me for I never said one stance or technique covers all situations, so please don't imply thats what I said."

I'm terribly sorry if you think I implied something you didn't state. When you said, "Having your knees wider in a bent legged stance is better for almost all defensive purposes in basketball," I made the mistake of thinking you meant that having your knees wider in a bent legged stance is better for almost all defensive purposes in basketball. My bad!

Man, it just gets increasingly absurd.

Sam

by **Sam** Sun May 31, 2015 7:37 pm

Cow,

"Sore loser?" Umm, I didn't realize some people viewed participating in a basketball message board as a matter of winning and losing. Funny, I don't feel like a loser—sore or otherwise. I feel most (maybe all) of my carefully supported points on this thread have either been ignored or not disproven. On the other hand, I have ignored nothing; I've tried to respond to every singly opposition point; and I'm pretty proud of the result. If that makes me a loser, perhaps we really are speaking German and I just didn't know it. (And, by the way, thanks for tacking on more name-calling to your resumé.)

Perhaps people don't want to beat a dead horse, and that's their right. I don't feel the horse is dead as long as incorrect perceptions exist and I'm in a position to contest them civilly and with what I hope is compelling evidence.

I've brought up the matter of context umpteen times on this thread, and I don't believe I've received any responses to the effect that context is the bunk. Perhaps at least part of what I've said has clarified some perspectives, which would be great because my single biggest goal as a Celtics fan has always been to discourage revisionist history.

Sam

by **cowens/oldschool** Sun May 31, 2015 7:47 pm

Okay Sam whatever

by **Sam** Sun May 31, 2015 9:01 pm

Swish,

I understand that your interest is in physicality, and (as I mentioned earlier) I agree that, by todays' standards, today's game is more physical than that of the 60s. What I don't agree with is whether it's fair to use today's standards in evaluating the physicality of the 60s. Of course it's not!

It could be argued that one reason a lot of board fans aren't seeing as much contact as they'd expect in videos of the 60s is because the players of the 60s were more skilled in the fundamentals and in knowing how to compete with finesse rather than bluster.

And, ironically, competing with finesse was a means of conserving the element of physicality that was the single biggest weapon of good teams of the 60s—a weapon that significantly differentiates teams of the 60s from teams of today. The weapon of endurance!

The number one reason I believe teams of the 60s would beat more recent teams in a hypothetical playoff on a hypothetically level playing field is that I feel the teams of the 60s would have the versatility, resources and smarts to neutralize any advantages of more recent teams. I do not feel today's teams would have a prayer of neutralizing the endurance and tempo advantage of the teams of the 60s.

So your interest in physicality is a most reasonable and interesting one, but an analysis of the topic comes down to recognizing the different contexts for what represent(ed) physicality than and now.

Sam

by **Sam** Sun May 31, 2015 9:03 pm

Cow,

Don't be sore.

Sam

by **cowens/oldschool** Mon Jun 01, 2015 10:01 am

sam wrote:Cow,

Don't be sore.

Sam

you obviously are

by **cowens/oldschool** Mon Jun 01, 2015 10:10 am

swish wrote:Sam

I've got to learn to be more specific. Since the person you quoted used the word toughness I viewed his comment as meaning rougher or more violent. As to your numbers Sam very accurate for sure. The problem is that they don't indicate the hardness of the foul. While I can't come up with any numbers to back my opinion ( fouls are not listed by degree of violence - hardness ) it is my opinion that basketball in the 50's 60's is to basketball of the present as touch football is to tackle football. The best proof that I can offer is to suggest to the board members that they visit me in North Attleboro Ma. and view my tapes of basketball in the 1960's. Stay as long as you wish and lunch is on me. Then you can view first hand why basketball in those days was considered a non contact sport.

swish

Thanks for offering lunch swish, but I have seen enough video to enjoy those games and its obvious to everyone except one stubborn knowledgeable expert who will out work/out write everyone, that I don't have to come all the way out to your home to be in agreement that this present era while it may not be the best, is much more physical than the 60's.

by **cowens/oldschool** Mon Jun 01, 2015 10:25 am

What Don Cheney did to Oscar in the 74 Finals, I would term dogging him as he was in that wide legged defensive stance and he made it very difficult for Oscar to bring the ball up the court as he was in his face, so you can use that stance when applying full court pressure. Sam Jones, one of our favorite players, was not in this bent legged stance to the degree that Cheney was or to the degree modern players use this stance when in half court or full court.

by Sponsored content