Comparing Eras

tjmakz wrote:gyso,

I said that it was a fact that NBA players are measured barefoot or in their socks. That is an absolute fact. I posted different measurements that are done to draft eligible players. Two of them are in socks and sneakers. Not sure why you think I am wrong about how they measure players.

Please see my last post above about Bill Russell's height.

tj,

so now i'm on topic? should we even be discussing this here?

you were not wrong about the measuring, just wrong about which numbers are used in the NBA player pages. The height used now is with sneakers and, as bobh just pointed out, sometimes rounded up almost an entire inch.

read my posts, will you? my point has always been about the final reported heights that are used in NBA player pages. read and comprehend, please!!

gyso

ps: i have read articles that say russ gave up 3 inches (and dozens of pounds) to wilt. wilt was 7'-1" in bare feet. that would make russ 6'-10", wouldn't it?

pps: if wilt was really 7'-1 1/4" in bare feet, would he be listed in today's NBA as 7'-3"?

TJ and Others,

A whole lotta stuff going on in this thread. Who knew?

First the playoff configurations fluctuated all over the place in the 50s and 60s. For example, in 1953 each division had a best-of-3 semi and a best-of-5 final, and there was the best-of-7 championship game. The following year (1954), there was only a best-of-3 division final and the best-of-7 championship game. Thereafter, and throughout Russell’s rein, the changes occurred as follows (maximum number of games per series shown):

’57 3-3-7 (plus two preliminary one-game tiebreakers in the West)
’58 3-5-7
’60 3-7-7
’66 5-7-7
’69 7-7-7

I believe there's a very important point being missed in the discussion of height.

It really doesn't matter if, technically, players of today are measured both with and without shoes. Because it's today's figures WITH shoes that the league chooses to publicize for promotional purposes, and therefore it's today's figures WITH shoes that fans reference when they compare the heights of the players of the present with the heights of the universally shoeless players of the past.

Most stats are not a good comparison between eras for a number of reasons:

1. For some stats, the contexts under which they were achieved have changed over time. Rondo may pass Cousy for assists in a season, but that stat doesn't take account the huge change in the way that stats are recorded. In Cousy's day, if the receiving player took even one dribble after receiving the pass, there was no assist. That changed in the 70s, I believe. (Maybe Sinus can include the date in his research; the one source I looked up just now simply referred to the change.)

2. Changes in the stylistic nature of the game have altered the relative impact of certain stats. As you and others have pointed out, rebounds were in more plentiful supply years ago because the game was so much faster, and shots were taken (on average) so much earlier in the shot clock.

3. Of course, the biggest reason why stats don’t begin to tell the story is that most of them weren’t kept years ago. Not offensive vs. defensive rebounds, not steals, not blocks, not turnovers. John Hollinger (whom I consider a “pop stat” fraud) concocted the PER as an alleged way to measure performance of players. He actually has had the effrontery to post (on BasketballReference.com and probably other places) his PER for all players of all-time. The PER is based on a host of stats, many of which were not available back in the 60s, so Hollinger has rigged up some kind of bogus method of estimating (I can’t believe I’m even typing this crap) how the old guys would have done in each of the missing categories. The entire nucleus of the team that won eight consecutive championships and, for several of those seasons, numbered either seven or (in 1962-63) eight future hall-of-famers is depicted as being moderately above-average in career PER. (The league average is supposed to be 15.)

Bob Cousy: 19.8 (wonder if Hollinger adjusted for the “no-dribble” assist definition)
Bill Russell: 18.9 (Shaq = 26.6)
Tom Heinsohn: 17.8
Sam Jones: 17.5
John Havlicek: 17.5

It’s a joke!

TJ, as for Russell’s unique greatness, I’ll mention something about that below. But I have to preface that by reiterating that I feel it’s almost totally irrelevant to evaluate players irrespective of the teams on which they played. For example, to conjecture as to how good Russ would be today, tell me whom he would be playing with…the Nets?...the Celtics? One simply cannot disassociate player and team. I feel that Russell, Auerbach, and the cast around Russell represented the “perfect storm” of factors. Each was an ideal match for the other. Add to that the fact that the lack of a CBA allowed them to play together so long, and the sum total is obscenely incredible.

But, if forced to participate in the conjecture, I’d raise these points. First, Russell’s shooting (other than his foul shooting, which was 56% lifetime and must have been around 70%-80% whenever it really counted—no exaggeration) his shooting was not all that bad. Compare his 44% against Cousy’s 38% (regular season lifetime) as far as shooting percentages go. I just looked up one year (1964-65, which Russ says was the best team on which he ever played), and Sam Jones led the team with a 45% percentage. Russ was second on the team at 44% in those days of generally lower shooting percentages. And, since Russ generally disdained the dunk as a cheap shot, he wasn’t just dumping the ball in the hoop. In fact, a fairly large portion of his shots consisted of either lefty (his natural side) or righty hooks, and he also had a jumper with a form that reminded me of a pelican hitting the water when going after a fish—every part of his body going in a different direction. When the chips were down, he was eminently capable of averaging 30 points. He seldom had to on teams that included Sam Jones, Heinsohn, Havlicek, Frank Ramsey, Bailey Howell, Nellie, Willie Naulls, and others. That’s one reason why the team context is so important in evaluating Russ.

One factor about Russ that isn’t mentioned much is his passing ability. He usually operated out of the high post and was a rather exceptional passer. The ball went through him on a large number of their plays. He averaged more than four assists regular season and closer to five in the playoffs. And, when he felt the need, it was one huge step to the hoop.

Aside from his defense (and I hope I don’t have to explain that there will never, never, never be another of his ilk on defense—physically, mentally, and psychologically) his sheer speed was something I’ve never seen approached by any big man all-time. He covered huge chunks of the court with each stride, and that is the reason why Shaq and many other physical centers would simply have been buttah by halftime against Russ.

As for his slight build, I’m not quite sure why one has to go beyond his dominance in games against Wilt Chamberlain to offer proof of Russ’ ability to play bigger guys. One key was that he didn’t care if Wilt got his stats. In fact, when the game was well in hand, he’s intentionally allow Wilt to score a raft of points in garbage time so Wilt wouldn’t be angry next time they met. (The psychological Russell) Russ knew that Wilt would never beat the Celtics all alone, so he and the rest of the team focused on stopping everyone else. (There’s that team context again.)

But none of that is the reason why a Shaq, for instance, would never succeed in pushing him around when he was on defense. The reason is simple. He would have “fronted” them often enough to keep them off-balance. He’d play behind them on one play, beside them on another play, and in front of them on many plays. In effect, he was employing his “invisible man” philosophy. The thread of an action is often as powerful as the action itself. Keep them guessing. (The cerebral Russell) Basically, he’d be saying to his man’s teammates, “Let’s see you pass the ball over this high-jumper, suckas.” (The calculating Russell)

But people shouldn’t think that, just because he weighed about 215-220, he was not strong. In fact, one of his favorite ploys was to push Wilt about one foot farther out than Wilt’s comfort zone. Russ swears Wilt didn’t know he was doing it. Wilt would try that bank jumper, and the angle would be just a little different from what he was used to. Brick after brick would make Wilt angry at himself; and, once he turned on himself. His production dropped dramatically and he was sometimes a liability on the court.

As for Russ’ rebounding, he certainly wouldn’t have so many rebounding opportunities today. But he’d be playing against big guys who are not nearly as strategically sound as people like Nate Thurmond, Bob Petit, or Wilt. You know what Russ’ favorite part of the game was? Its geometry. He was always intrigued with the geometry of the game. He studied bounces and angles until it was all second-nature to him, which is why he got most of his rebounds because of great positioning rather than great leaping (although he wasn’t shabby at leaping if required).

I agree with those who say that winning alone is not a good indicator of how great a player is because it always has been, is now, and always will be all about the team. But, if there were one all-time exception, it would be Bill Russell. And you put your finger on exactly why when you said that Russ probably didn’t want to win any more than Shaq did. That’s the fallacy! Simply wanting to win couldn’t begin to describe the least important 10% of what Bill Russell was all about. Desire was only his launching pad. His insistence on winning, and utter refusal to lose all of the big ones was something that most people find it difficult to fathom. Unless, perhaps, they saw that “Coleman Play” in his very first game 7 championship contest. In case you don’t know about it, I delight in telling it again and again.

Seventh game of a hard-fought series. Final minute of play in regulation. (Obviously no three-point field goals in 1957.) Cousy leads Russ for the go-ahead basket that put the Celts up 103-102 with 39 seconds left. Russ’ momentum carried him out-of-bounds behind the basket. I’ll let The Cooz explain the rest: “It was the most incredible physical act I’ve ever seen on a basketball floor. I had just led him down the floor for a basket, and his momentum had actually carried him off the floor. Then I looked up and (Jack) Coleman already had an outlet pass at midcourt, and he was a good four or five steps ahead of everybody. He was going to score, and they were going to get the lead back with 40 seconds or so left to play. Russell took off with those loping steps and they must have been six or seven of the longest steps ever seen. He covered the entire 94 feet in no time at all and blocked Coleman’s shot. Coleman was no speed demon, but he was very athletic and could move.”

That kind of stuff doesn’t show up in the stats, so actually stats are close to irrelevant in comparing eras. There’s only one kind of comparison that I think is appropriate. Which era produced the best brand of basketball? And, even then, the definition of “best” has evolved over time. I’m sure there’s now much more emphasis on entertainment and commensurately less emphasis on quality of execution in a rapid-fire atmosphere.

As for all this athleticism stuff, verticality leads to entertainment value (which I know is a major enjoyment criterion of many of today’s fans). Ball-handing and seamless play led to far better quality of execution, despite a racehorse pace. If there’s one stat I most wish they had kept decades ago, it would be turnovers. Because then people’s minds would now be boggled at the low ratio of turnovers to possessions in those days, compared with today. And a large proportion of the turnovers that did occur in those days was forced by pressure defense, seldom by sloppiness. I personally believe that ball-handling and taking care of the ball under often-frenetic conditions is the single biggest difference between the eras.

I very much appreciate today’s game and today’s Celtics team. I wouldn’t have started a basketball message board otherwise. And I feel very fortunate to have been a rabid fan since 1950…and (in all humbleness) I believe a reasonably keen observer of the game then and now. All eras have had their greatness and their stars. The main reason I posted the initial article (however valid it is) was because it put a different perspective on comparative athleticism claims that have always seemed inconclusive to me.

Now about this "easier with only eight or nine teams" myth, forget it! Every single night, every team in the NBA of the sixties was facing hall-of-famers. The schedule was compressed and did include stretches of playing as many as five games in five nights. It wasn't easy for any of the eight or nine teams, but even the lousiest among them was closer to parity with the best than is now the case. And, by the way, the quality of the coaches wasn't diluted back then as much as it is now.

Sure, in a strictly mathematical sense, a 1 in 9 chance of winning a championship is better than a 1 in 30 chance. But winning a championship is not a matter of probability, which is based on chance. There's nothing "chance" about a basketball season. Each game has its own probability of winning and losing, and the probability of winning becomes greater as the quality of the opposition is diluted.

And the quality of many, many of today's teams is severely diluted by not only the lack of enough elite school players to meet the needs of up to 450 nba roster slots but also the comparatively low level of their backgrounds in terms of trying to learn fundamentals and growing into their skins in one or two years, rather than four years, of college.

Take care,

Sam

P.S. If you wade through this post, you get some special sort of award that I haven't figured out yet. Maybe a free drink if I can figure out where in Florida you're located. Pete and Worcester are in Sarasota, Tark is in Florida much of the time, I believe there are other Florida members as well as Georgia members, and I like to visit St. Pete Beach. Pete and his wife and my wife and I have gotten together twice during this vacation, and we were talking of thinking about a Forum Party in Florida next year. So I'm not kidding about that drink.

http://hoopedia.nba.com/index.php?title=Russell_vs._Wilt

And another

http://blackathlete.net/artman2/publish/BASN_Focus_On_History_4/Bill_Russell_The_Ultimate_Winner_in_Any_Sport.shtml

Sam, Let me know off site where Pete lives and I'll go have a drink with him. I didn't realize he was here in SRQ. Worcester

Sam,

P.S. Your last post was eloquent as always.

Sam,

I read the entire post & I'm thirsty too!

Worcester, I'll send you a PM with my info.

Pete

Worcester,

Thanks. At least it had length going for it. I've had some practice on that subject. And, as a statistician by trade, my eyes always light up when people raise the matter of probability. I think TJ would benefit from doing a little reading on the topic of "weighting." I understand where he and the many who agree with him are coming from. Some of the problem, as you know, is the old "You have to have been there" argument, and that usually seems like idle puffery to people (perhaps with good reason). But it's true that one couldn't begin to fathom what Russ or teams of that era were all about simply by reading and watching a couple of highlight videos.

One of my ambitions is to throw a Celtics party at which the only objective (aside from eating and drinking, of course) would be to show excerpts from the probably 15-20 videos I have pertaining to the Russell Celtics. I'd like to arrange it so I could do replays, stop-action, and slow-motion to make certain points about what really made them tick. It'll probably never happen because people are very rightfully anxious to focus on getting to know (or renew acquaintances with) one another when we all get together. And the editing would require a lot of work.

I try not to belabor the old Celtics on this forum because we should all be focusing on this year...this team can use all the support it can get. But sometimes I can't help it. I'm surprised there is so much interest in this thread.

Pete and his wife are very anxious to meet you. I told them what a Renaissance Man you are. They've only been living there for a month or so, and they're looking forward to meeting people. I'll contact you off the board.

Sam

Sam,

I'm sorry to make your head explode, but a thread with this opener is currently at the top of BDC:

Rondo better than Cousy?

Rondo has already broken the Celtics' single-season record for steals, is on track to break Cousy's single-season Celtics record for assists (even though Cousy played with more Hall of Famers), and is a better shooter than Cousy, both inside AND outside - is it time to say that Rondo is better than the Houdini of the Hardwood?

bob

Bob, To be fair to Cooz, Rondo is playing with 3 future HOF'ers... The biggest difference I see between the two of them is that Rondo lacks the emotional maturity of Cooz who in my memory was more consistent game to game and quarter to quarter. Rondo, whose game I love, is super special indeed, but he doesn't approach his work like Cooz did - with an even emotional tone, day after day - and with dependably reproduceable results. Rondo does get discouraged and frustrated and this shows up in his play. Having said that, I do think Cousy had another huge advantage over Rondo: a better coach for his style of play. Red was all about an up tempo offense which suited Cooz just fine. I think Rondo would have flourished and done even better with Red as his coach, but Doc prefers more half court sets, and this is not the best use of Rondo's talents IMHO.

Bob,

I read that thread on BDC, finishing about 5:00 yesterday afternoon. I stopped laughing shortly before midnight. So any head-exploding has already occurred.

They both have one thing in common. The Cooz was my favorite Russell-era player. Rondo is my favorite Garnett-era player.

I have to repeat my usual disclaimer at the outset. I don't believe in comparing players without thoroughly considering the context of the teams with which they played. With that having been said:

• I believe that thread was spurred by the fact that Rondo is likely to surpass Cousy's one-year assist record by the end of this season. And I would never try to devalue that considerable accomplishment. But, as I outlined earlier in this thread, the definition of "assist" is very different (and far more liberal) today than in Couz' day. So trying to utilize their one-year assist records as a basis for comparing their overall games is spurious at best.

• I believe some person on that BDC thread claimed Rondo is a far better shooter than Cousy. Ridiculous. See me when Rondo sinks 30 of 32 free throws in the arguably most draining game in Celtics history. Again there's an important context that's ignored. The games back in Cousy's era were like greased lightening. There was seldom anything remotely approaching a 24-second violation because the entire game was predicated on volume shooting. Everyone’s shooting percentage was lower, partly (as I’ve explained many times) because of the tighter rims of the day.

• Moreover, just take a look at this video to get a tiny inkling of the vast arsenal of outlandish shots that Cousy took and made. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMdGcmHPrRI Penetration, long running right-handed and left-handed hooks, outside shots, you name it. I have video of him using six different styles for his perimeter shooting so he wouldn’t become predictable. Cousy was a dramatically better shooter than Rondo is, although I hope Rondo will increase his repertoire. I have come to like his little floater that he has worked very diligently to perfect. That’s the type of thing Cousy would have invented spontaneously in the midst of a game, as he did with his behind-the-back dribble. The matter of predictability is a bit of a problem with Rondo because he’s more likely to try penetration than any other shot in crunch time. The Cooz had ganas sprouting out his ears in terms of his willingness to try any shot at any time (and make it if the chips were down).

• Rondo and Cousy have another similarity. Both entered the pros without a jumper. Rondo has been working on his since he arrived. Cousy began practicing a jumper (more of a pop shot) during the summer after his second season (1952). Rondo’s still working on his jumper in his fourth (can that be true?) season. Cousy had his perfected in his third season. In fact, during that playoff game when he hit 30 of 32 from the line, he scored five points in the last 15 seconds of the third overtime to send it into a fourth overtime (dominated by the Celtics). And what shot did Cooz hit at the buzzer to tie the game in that third overtime? A running jumper, variously estimated at 18 to 35 feet (the 18 is probably more correct).

• Rondo often makes fine passes. Not nearly with the versatility of Cousy, but fine nonetheless. The difference is that Cousy was equally adept in the open court and the halfcourt. He was a coach on the floor virtually all of his career. His ability to strategize and think three or four steps ahead of his opponents was legendary. He ran a superior offense. How many times do we complain on the game-on thread that the Celtics’ offense is bogging down? That seldom happened with Cousy on the floor. He was a virtual genius at picking apart and exploiting defenses. What sets Bob Cousy apart from all other point guards who ever lived was that he was a superior floor general. That cannot yet be said of Rondo. Not even close.

• There’s also the matter of protecting the ball. Cousy seldom committed turnovers unless they were intentional. I know that sounds weird, but he had the philosophy that teammates who put out on the court should be rewarded. I’ve previously used Satch Sanders as an example. Satch couldn’t see very far without his glasses; but The Cooz deliberately led him with long passes when he filled lanes…even though there was a good chance a turnover would ensue. I have video of Satch (who usually played outside) slashing to the basket and scoring as a result of having honed that instinct due in part to Bob Cousy.

• Defensively, Rondo probably has the edge due to his quickness. BUT Cooz probably would have led the league in steals if the stat had been kept back them because he was a terror in the passing lanes. His gambles were safer than many of Rondo’s, and Cousy also had the advantage of just having to funnel his defensive charge into the Russell Zone. Splat!

• Rondo’s working hard and is slowly developing more confidence in a game that’s slowly showing more diversity. Diversity was Cousy’s second nature when he arrived, and yet he made it a point to develop a new shot every offeseason. Because he could. He was actually a very fine low post player (against anyone not more than 3 inches taller than himself) and possessed a greater variety of shots from the pivot than most pivot players of the time. Sometimes, when Russell got into foul trouble, Auerbach would install Cousy in the low post—usually with excellent results.

And I believe I was among the first who said, after Rondo’s very first exhibition game with the Celts, that his open-court game bore resemblance to Cousy’s. But, as far as the entire player goes, Rondo’s got a lot of proise and The Cooz has a boatload of existing credentials.

Sam

Sam, The one area where Rondo exceeds Cooz's performance is in rebounds. We have to give Rajon his props for that. W

Sorry Worcester,

Bob Cousy lifetime: 5.2 rebounds per game

Rajon Rondo lifetime: 4.4 rebounds per game

Sam

Sam, Your memory bank is rich indeed. I am humbled. All hail Cousy! All hail Cousy! That's an amazing lifetime rebound stat, on top of everything else he achieved. Cousy outshines Roindo hands down, plus he got a Holy Cross education. W

W,

I'm certainly not dissing Rondo. I really like Rondo, and I see him as a bona fide future leader of the Celtics (maybe a present leader). The BDC thread was much like the outcry that this year's Celtics could be the greatest team of all-time when they had a 23-5 record. Perhaps reports of births as well as deaths can be greatly exaggerated (or at lease prematurely so).

I discovered that rather startling stat about Cousy sometime during the last year. I had to check it two or three times before I could allow myself to believe it. I attribute some of it to the fact that, as soon as opponents shot the ball, three Celtics would be filling lanes, leaving Russ and Cooz alone on the defensive end—Russ for rebounding and Cooz for the outlet pass. There were so many rebounds in those days that Russ couldn't get them all, leaving Cousy to mop up his leftovers as the other team went chasing after the three Celtics lane-fillers..

Sam

Sam, I don't see any reason why that style of basketball rebounding couldn't work now, with Kevin playing Russ's role and Rondo Cousy's and the other three Celtics running back on to fill the lanes.

Worcester

Gosh with the issues we have rebounding now to send three guys down the court when the opposition shoots would be murder.
Think we would give up a ton of offensive boards and a multitude of second chance points, much more so than the times we get the ball and get easy hoops.

HOWEVER I always liked when running out to cover an outside shooter that was actually shooting the ball, to run right by him towards their own basket. This may cause the shooter to worry a bit about you rather than following thru on his release.

beat

Actually Beat, my sense is that now we only have 1 rebounder back when we take a shot, and it's usually Rondo.

W

I think our transition from offense to defense is OK but our transition from defense to offense is lacking. ATTACK ATTACK ATTACK everyone runs. You can't gaurd your man very well if your looking for him and he's a couple steps ahead of you to boot. We could get so many more easy shots plus those VAST scoring droughts we currently seem to go into would fanish perhaps. Big guys would just be trailers and are easy outlets if things get tied up.

No I don't want Perk taking 18-20 footers like Cowens did when he followed the break up the floor. But he could be an outlet.

beat

(dreaming of the 70's again and wishing we'd run)

I wonder what the players we all speak of (Bird, cous, russ, cow) would say if they were to speak unfiltered about these topics.

worcester wrote:Bob, To be fair to Cooz, Rondo is playing with 3 future HOF'ers... The biggest difference I see between the two of them is that Rondo lacks the emotional maturity of Cooz who in my memory was more consistent game to game and quarter to quarter. Rondo, whose game I love, is super special indeed, but he doesn't approach his work like Cooz did - with an even emotional tone, day after day - and with dependably reproduceable results. Rondo does get discouraged and frustrated and this shows up in his play. Having said that, I do think Cousy had another huge advantage over Rondo: a better coach for his style of play. Red was all about an up tempo offense which suited Cooz just fine. I think Rondo would have flourished and done even better with Red as his coach, but Doc prefers more half court sets, and this is not the best use of Rondo's talents IMHO.

worcester,

How many future HOFers did Cousy play with?

I don't know if Doc prefers half court sets, or if he's working with what he's got and what he's got is a center and an aging, recovering-from-surgery power forward that don't run full-out full court and a SF and SG that are comfortable trailing the fast break and parking at the 3 point line. Put Rondo with Tony or Marquis and we might see a different tempo.

bob


/

Yes, but neither Tony nor Quis can shoot well from outside and would compete for space driving to the basket. Too bad we don't have someone with Tony's speed who can also shoot from the outside.

We don't need the best shooters to break at all we just need the mindset to go uptempo when we gain possession. A guy fills the lanes and if not open go right on thru and set up outside not ness at the 3 range either. Secondary break might result in a lay up or a wide open look from 15 AND we'd have at least a person or 2 on the Off boards to boot.
If done quickly enough Perk may not even get across 1/2 court.

We have a deep bench so use it.

I would think it would be less wear than butting heads and banging all the time.

beat

I love comparing era's. Of course, I'm an old guy so I like the other old guys too. lol No one compares with Wilt or Rus at center. They just can't do it. Wilt may be the greatest overall athlete of all time with only Jim Thorpe coming to mind. There has never been a basketball player the equal of Russell. He is clearly the greatest of all time and if you MJ fans have never seen Bill's game, you need to just keep quiet like the good little youngster's your momma wanted you to be. For everyone who says something like "but they could never equal that against today's competition" I say why not? Who is to say? It's all speculation. It's one of the things that makes discussions like this so interesting because there is now and never will there be, any proof, one way or t'other. Let's face it, Babe Ruth used performance detracting substances and he is still the greatest baseball player of all time. The only people who have come close either used roids or played in more games. Each generation thinks its got the greatest "whatever". It keeps it fun. Even though we all know I'm right and yur wrong. lol

Sam,

Regarding your comments about Hollinger's PER for previous era players, Hollinger ADMITS that his PER stat doesn't do a good job with defensive play and yet he produces a PER for defensive superstars like Russell without a disclaimer or caveat.

What professional statistician wouldn't couch every presentation with the appropriate context and parameters? I realize that Hollinger and ESPN don't want to give the impression that this is a bunch of small-print legalese mumbo-jumbo, but to talk about PER without mentioning its admitted foibles when it comes to defense is misleading at best.

How does Hollinger measure shots intimidated? How does he account for pick-and-roll penetrations prevented?

bob

/