Lex Nihil Novi - Fitch Deploys "Four Bigs and Archibald" Strategy

http://lexnihilnovi.blogspot.com/2017/01/fitch-deploys-four-bigs-and-archibald.html



Fitch Deploys "Four Bigs and Archibald" Strategy








November 29, 1980



The Boston Celtics, playing their big men in various combinations, overwhelmed the Knicks, 120-106, tonight before a capacity crowd of 15,320 at the Boston Garden.

Robert Parish, Kevin McHale, Rick Robey, Larry Bird and Cedric Maxwell came at the Knicks in droves as the Celtics won the eighth of their last nine games and improved their season mark to 15-6. Bill Fitch, the Celtic coach, used his big men two, three and four at a time and they had one aim: pass the ball inside for layups. And they succeeded.

In the second quarter, Fitch played four men 6 feet 9 inches or taller with Nate (Tiny) Archibald. The front line was Kevin McHale, 6-11; Rick Robey, 6-11, and Cedric Maxwell, 6-9. Larry Bird, 6-9, was in the backcourt. That group accounted for 73 points, with Bird getting 23 and McHale, the rookie out of Minnesota, scoring a career high of 20 points to go with 10 rebounds.

The Celtics outrebounded the Knicks, 56-31, including 16 offensive rebounds which they often turned into easy layups.
Too Tall for Knicks

''I think we are starting to put it all together now, '' said Robey. ''We're starting to know how to position ourselves and use our height to our best advantage. We're a very big team.

''We knew we could take advantage of their forwards because we were so much bigger and that's just what we did. When Bill Cartwright was playing the center, we ran at him. When they used him with Marvin Webster, we were just too quick for them.''

Of the big men, the Knicks were hurt most by McHale, who was 9 for 15 from the field in 22 minutes of playing time. He also blocked three shots and brought his season total to 45. He leads the National Basketball Association in that category for minutes played.

As McHale changed after the game, Red Auerbach, the Celtic president and general manager, smiled and said, ''How about that kid?. He's going to be something. If he were playing with any other team in this league, he would be a starter and a candidate for rookie of the year honors.''

Fitch, who overheard the conversation, said , ''This is the first time I have disagreed with Red since I came h ere. I don't think he could start for a lot teams, and I don't thin k he would be a rookie of the year candidate. Red wasn't in training at the beginning. Kevinis just starting to come into his own and lea rning what he can and can't do. Besides, I don't want to spoil him. I have to coach him andall Red will have to do is sign him again in four or five years.''
Making Up for Losses

The Celtics traded the first and 13th choices in last June's college draft to the Golden State Warriors for Parish and the No. 3 choice in the draft. They chose McHale on that pick. With Dave Cowens's retirement before the season and M.L. Carr's broken foot after the first seven games, the play of Parish and McHale has taken up the slack impressively.

Parish scored 17 points, hitting on seven of his 10 shots, grabbed 15 rebounds and with five blocked shots brought his season total to 59, third best in the league. He accomplished those statistics in 28 minutes of play. After scoring 10 points in the first period, Parish hurt his back and underwent heat treatments on the bench. Fitch used him sporatically thereafter.

The Knicks trailed, 62-61, at halftime. The Celtics began to put the game out of reach in the third period and midway in the final quarter led by 17 points.

During a 37-point third quarter that gave Boston a 99-86 advantage, the big men put on a passing, and scoring, show. Maxwell scored 11 points, including 9 in a row, and Bird and McHale each had 8.
Holzman Unhappy

''Boston played one hell of a game,'' said Holzman. '' They did a very good job off the boards, and they passed the ball very well, but you can only pass the ball well when the other team lets you and we did not play very well defensively tonight. We stayed with them for a half, and then they just seemed to run away with it.''

The Knicks, whose record dropped to 15-7, still are not playing together the way they did at the start of the season, when they won 12 of their first 16 games. Their passing game, which Michael Ray Richardson directs, seems to have disappeared. The had 23 assists; the Celtics had 36, including nine by Bird and eight by Archibald.

The Knicks went to Cartwright at the start of the game, and he scored two qu ick baskets. After that they seemed to forget about him.He took only four more shots for the half and 12 in the game, including one in the final quarter.

Why are you not getting the ball?, Cartwright was asked. ''That's a good question,'' he said, ''but I don't really have the answer. I know a lot more teams are doubling up on me than they did last season.''



bob



.

cowens/oldschool wrote:did you weigh them pesonally?

Cow,

McHale's Wikipedia pages lists him as 210#.  Same with his basketball-reference.com page.  If you google 'how heavy was Kevin McHale' the answer you get is 216#.  Here, McHale is listed as 225#.  http://www.nba.com/history/players/mchale_bio.html  That is the heaviest I find him listed at anywhere.  It is, therefore, unlikely he weighed more than 230# - 235#, because it would have shown up somewhere.  A 6'10"/6'11", <235# PF in today's league would be a toothpick.  In fact, at that weight, he would probably be expected to play SF. Maxwell, who played with Bird, was 6'8", 205#. Draymond Green, whom you like to talk smack about, is 6'7", 230#. 1" shorter and 25# heavier. How would Max box him out? Paul George is a 6'9", 220# SF. 1" taller and 15# heavier than Max and can shoot from 3 and drive to the hoop.

Bird is listed at 220#, Parish at 231#.  Once again, compare them at those weights and the positions they played at to today's players playing those positions.

Kelly Olynyk is 7'0", 1" - 2" taller than McHale, but is 238# or more (238# coming out of college, might have put on a few pounds since then).  2" and 13# heavier than McHale, assuming we go with the MUCH heavier 225# weight, and Kelly has strength issues against today's players. Yeah, I know that McHale had skills and ridiculously long arms, I'm not saying Kelly is as good a player, but McHale at that height and weight would be physically outmatched against today's players.

Where the '86 team can beat just about anybody was in passing. They may have been the greatest passing team of all time, but physically? The Big 3 were 7'0, 230#; 6'11", 225# (being generous); and 6'9", 230# (once again, being generous).

Today's LA Clippers front court is DeAndre Jordan (6'11", 265#), Blake Griffin (6'10", 250#) and Luc Mbah a Moute (6'8", 230#). Comparable in height to the '86 Celtics but MUCH heavier, and quicker. Hell, Paul Pierce, playing for Doc in LA, is 6'7" 235#. He weighs as much or more than Robert Parish and he's 5" shorter.

The '86 Celtics back court was Danny Ainge (6'5", 195#) and DJ (6'4", 185#). The GSW back court is Steph Curry (6'3", 190#) and Klay Thompson (6'7", 215#). Danny's taller but only 5# heavier and DJ is 3" and 30# lighter than Thompson.

The '86 Celtics had mad skills, 4 HOFers starting, but in today's NBA they would need every single one of those skills just to offset their physical limitations.

Comparing eras is a waste of time, in my opinion, anyway. Different rules (handchecking, physical play), different training regimens (modern training programs today) and just the march of time producing better physical specimens. You compete against who you compete against and not some fantasy league.


bob


.

cowens/oldschool wrote:show me a team that won with just speed, you still need skill and size !!

Cow,

Have you been watching the last two Finals? Andrew Bogut and Timofey Mozgov? Bogut only played 23mpg in the playoffs the year GSW won and 16mpg last year's playoffs. Mozgov averaged 26.5mpg in 2015 and <6mpg in 2016. Where was that size you you say you need to win?


bob


.

cowens/oldschool wrote:

bobheckler wrote:

cowens/oldschool wrote:show me a team that won with just speed, you still need skill and size !!

Cow,

Have you been watching the last two Finals?  Andrew Bogut and Timofey Mozgov?  Bogut only played 23mpg in the playoffs the year GSW won and 16mpg last year's playoffs.  Mozgov averaged 26.5mpg in 2015 and <6mpg in 2016.  Where was that size you you say you need to win?  


bob


.

those teams might not have skilled bigs

Cow,

Ok, then name me some teams that do have skilled bigs, and then tell me why they weren't in the Finals against these two teams with no skilled bigs.  And what is the definition of a "skilled big"?  Some might say that shooting from distance, including from 3pt range, is a basketball skill, a skill that Kelly and Horford have and McHale and Parish did not.  Some might say that dribbling is a basketball skill, a skill that Kelly and Horford have and that McHale and Parish did not.  Some might say that court vision and passing is a basketball skill, a skill Kelly and Horford have and McHale and Parish did not.  What is your definition of a "skilled big"?


bob


.

cowens/oldschool wrote:

bobheckler wrote:

cowens/oldschool wrote:

bobheckler wrote:

cowens/oldschool wrote:show me a team that won with just speed, you still need skill and size !!

Cow,

Have you been watching the last two Finals?  Andrew Bogut and Timofey Mozgov?  Bogut only played 23mpg in the playoffs the year GSW won and 16mpg last year's playoffs.  Mozgov averaged 26.5mpg in 2015 and <6mpg in 2016.  Where was that size you you say you need to win?  


bob


.

those teams might not have skilled bigs

Cow,

Ok, then name me some teams that do have skilled bigs, and then tell me why they weren't in the Finals against these two teams with no skilled bigs.  And what is the definition of a "skilled big"?  Some might say that shooting from distance, including from 3pt range, is a basketball skill, a skill that Kelly and Horford have and McHale and Parish did not.  Some might say that dribbling is a basketball skill, a skill that Kelly and Horford have and that McHale and Parish did not.  Some might say that court vision and passing is a basketball skill, a skill Kelly and Horford have and McHale and Parish did not.  What is your definition of a "skilled big"?


bob


.

well for starters Anthony Davis sure seems like a skilled big, too bad he has no help/talent around him.

I think its pretty easy what is a skilled big? then there are levels of their abilities too, the 80's Celtics had 3 HoFers on their frontline, and that is without Bill Walton, who joined the block party in 86. So they could obviously score, defend, play both ends, do they let anybody in the all star game and HoF? HoF ability is different than a players weight, I don't think Rick Mahorn or James Donaldson or Mark Eaton ever made an all star team, so they obviously didn't get a sniff of the HoF....and they all outweighed Parrish and McHale, so don't quote me a players weight cause it really don't mean shit!!!

any other questions bob? and please don't bring up KO's weight or abilities, hes a nice kid with nice hair that will never be a core starter, don't embarrass yourself putting him into a conversation with the abilities of a HoF frontline.

Cow,

Rick Mahorn is listed at 6'10", 240#.  That's not particularly big and sturdy by today's standards but he was considered a bruiser back then.  Remember Jeff Ruland?  Another bruiser back in the day.  6'11", 240#.  Laimbeer was 6'11" 245#.  These were the "bigs" back then.  They are PFs today.  PFs that can't stretch the floor with 3s.  Mahorn and Ruland would be thought of as Amir Johnson is today.  A solid player, but not one that will take you to the promised land.  6'9", 240#.  Slightly shorter but the same weight and NOT considered a bruiser.  Not in today's league.

Anthony Davis is a skilled big.  He is also one of, if not the, #1 big in the league today.  KAT, in a few years, will be on his level.  Once you get past them, who else can you name?  Embiid?  Maybe, if his body doesn't crap out on him.  He's being treated by the Sixers' medical staff like he's made of fine china, and for good reason.  So, that's 3.  In the league.  No, Whiteside is NOT a skilled big and neither is Gobert.  They are long.  Take away their physical gifts and they aren't in the league.  You could make the same argument for almost all of today's bigs.  Without their physical attributes they lack the skills to be NBA ballplayers.  But they do have those physical attributes and those attributes makes 2-dimensional players like DeAndre Jordan feared.  

We don't have many skilled bigs in the league anymore.  The traditional center position has been replaced with 4/5s who take turns getting in the low blocks and bombing away from 3.  You cannot even vote for a center for the All-Star team anymore, the choices are either frontcourt or guards.

DJ always guarded their top scoring guard.  How do you think he'd do against IT?  Bradley on Ainge?  Bradley, all day.  Danny wouldn't get a shot off without Bradley draped all over him like a cheap suit and he couldn't outrun Bradley neither.  Personally, I think Rozier could have handled Ainge.  Ainge on IT?  Same result. Offensively, DJ averaged .5 3pt fgas/game over 11 seasons.  A guard taking only .5 3pt fgas in today's NBA wouldn't survive.  You talk about the front court of the '86 Celtics, and they were great, but our back court of DJ, Ainge, Sam Vincent and Sichting would get creamed.  How do you think DJ, at 6'4" 185#, would do with Marcus Smart in the low post?  Same height but at least 35-40# difference.  Smart on Wedman?  Wedman looks like a black-and-blue polka dot man.  Want Smart on Ainge or DJ?  No problem, put Jaylen Brown on Wedman.  Uberathlete rookie Jaylen Brown, 6'7" 225#, guarding slow 6'7" 215# Scott Wedman.  6'2", 190# 6'8+" wingspan Terry Rozier on 6'1", 168# Sichting.   The '86 Celtics bench, and their starting back court, gets shut down on offense.  Which means that the highly skilled front court has to do it all.

Walton played 19mpg during the season.  He played 18mpg in the playoffs.  Behind him was the immortal Greg Kite.  Parish could, and did, run.  Neither Walton nor Kite ran.  Horford, Kelly and Zeller all run.   Running isn't a skill, but it does score buckets.  Remember how we used to oooh and ahhh every time Parish outran his man down court?  I just listed 3 bigs on today's team that can do that.  That might not be enough to offset the superior skills of the '86 front court but it might cut their advantage by a bit.  Take away the front court's legs by running our bigs and shut down their back court as I described, and they will lose some of their effectiveness.  DJ and Ainge were an effective back court back then.  Today?  Not so sure.  What do you get when you have a good front court and a lousy back court in today's league?  The Sixers.  Ok, so the '86 front court is better than Embiid, Okafor and Noel for sure (a LOT better), but the concept is sound.  Basketball is a 5-man sport and that includes the back court.  As you pointed out, it's too bad Davis doesn't have anybody to help him.  Well, it would be too bad if the '86 front court didn't get any help from their back court because our back court today is physically bigger, faster and has longer range on their shooting than the '86 players.  Drop off DJ to help out on McHale and DJ couldn't hit the 3 to make them think twice about doing that again.  Back in '86 you didn't need to be able to do that but the league has changed, significantly, since then.


The '86 team is physically overmatched.  Where they had the edge, over everybody else, is with their passing.   Yes, passing is a skill and, as a team they were were the best ever, but in a half court game with only Bird taking 3pt fgas?  Bird was the only player on that team that took more than 1 3pt fga/game.  Who stretches the floor?  Think of how much more compact, dense and effective the defense can be if you only have to worry about running one player off the arc.  And, if you are not stretching the defense out to the arc then passing becomes more difficult because there is less space to pass into.  The '86 team took only 4.8 3pt fgas/game, and that made them the #4 team in the league in 3pt fgas.  We're averaging 32.5 3pt fgas/game.  They averaged 35% from 3.  We're averaging 37.1%.  '86 averaged 51.7% from 2.  This year we're averaging 50.4% 2pt fg%, so not much of a difference.  I know you're not a stat guy but fg% is fg% is fg%.  Believe it or not, we give up almost exactly the same number of points this year as in '86.  So, our defense, with an inferior back court, is still doing as good a job as the '86 team. You say "yes, but that's because we're not defending against a front court like that!". True, but then they aren't defending against a team that shoots 37% from 3 and takes a lot of those, so you must respect it and go out to them.  


This is one of the reasons I don't like comparing eras.  They never played against each other.  You cannot match IQ up against each other.  You cannot measure ganas against each other.  You cannot time suicide drills against each other, so you don't know who can keep up with the other players and who would look like their feet were stuck in cement.  Hell, they didn't even measure wingspans back then.  It was a different game, with hand checking and physical play, but the players were toothpicks in comparison.  If there are only a small handful of skilled bigs in the league, then that is who we are competing against, not the '86 Celtics or anybody else from the past.


bob


.

cowens/oldschool wrote:Good points bob, I actually love our teams present backcourt and agree Avery Bradley would shutdown Ainge in a perfect world, but Danny wasn't a top 3 scoring option on that team, he kinda just drifted to open spots in the halfcourt playing off the Big 3 and Mo Cheeks was alot faster than Ainge, it didn't make a difference because its a team game. I don't think DJ was only 185, but it doesn't matter, Smart on his own can't score half the time right now, hope he can improve on that and again DJ wasn't expected to carry our offense, just play off the Big 3. As good as our backcourt is they have not been able to shutdown elite scorers this year and I don't see anybody on C's or Warriors or Cavs that can handle Larry Bird or Kevin McHale or Robert Parrish, not Draymond Green, not Tristian Thompson....but its not one on one either and playing as a team and getting easy baskets was a clinic for that team too.

On weight, Haheem Olajuwon totally outplayed a much bigger and heavier Shaq when the Rockets swept the Lakers in 90's, do you really think the weight of Mozgov or Bogut is gonna stop the frontline of 80's Celtics....I don't, if you really do, you must be  on something alot better than I'm on.

Cow,

Just to be clear, I do think we need some upgrades to our front court.  

DJ averaged 15.6ppg in '86, which put him just behind Parish's 16.1 for 4th highest scorer.  I doubt he'd score more than 12-13 now.  His lack of range would limit his scoring.  Basketball-Reference.com says his weight was 185.  NBA.com, which seems to consistently weigh players heavier (e.g. they are the ones who said McHale was 225 instead of 215) says DJ was 200#.  DJ's Wikipedia page lists him at 182#.  By comparison, AB is listed at 180#.  So, 2" shorter and about the same weight =  stronger, especially with today's advanced training techniques.

A little confused here.  Houston won back-to-back Championships in 93-94 and 94-95.   In 93-94 the Lakers didn't make the playoffs.  In 94-95 the Lakers played Seattle in the first round (won) and San Antonio in the Conference Semis (and lost).  They didn't play the Rockets that year either.

Hakeem had 9 years experience in 93-94.  31 years old.  A veteran, and one of the greatest centers to ever play the game, not just "good" or even "perennial all-star".  In 93-94 Shaq was a 21 year old sophomore playing in Orlando.  In 98-99, the Lakers beat the Rockets, in the first round 3-1, but Hakeem was 36 years old.  Shaq was 26.


bob


.

cowens/oldschool wrote:bob

I must have been confused, that was Magic, not Lakers.

No way Rick Mahorn was 240, I've heard they list Lebron at 260 and Mahorn is alot wider, hell just his butt makes him 50 pounds heavier than Bron. I'd say Mahorn was easily 275 just by my eyeball test. Back to Hakeem, he and KG for example were not Shaq like in bulk, but you can't deny their HoF numbers and career. KG had more career rebounds than Shaq, so they would so easily outplay a Mozgov or Bogut, it really wouldn't be fair and their weight would be no factor, a primetime Kevin McHale would do the same thing to them. The reason those guys got so little minutes in the Finals recently was because there was no monster big that their team needed them to neutralize, had a Cousins or Anthony Davis been in a different team situation, with much better talent around them, you can bet they would have needed them and had to play more minutes.

cow

Cow,

"There was no monster for them to neutralize".  So, if the other team doesn't have a monster, then you not having a monster isn't a requirement.  On the other hand, if having a monster is an advantage, then why didn't monster Mozgov or Bogut play, either against each other or when one was on the bench so they could "monsterize" the opposition?

Sure, put Cousins and Davis on teams with all-stars and their team would do better.  No argument with that.  Of course, that's true with any player put on a team with a couple of all-stars, isn't it?

1.  great players, of any position, surrounded by shit don't win (e.g. Cousins, Davis, Barkley, Ewing, CP3, Westbrook, Maravich).
2.  teams without great front courts, but great guards/wings, can still win championships (e.g. The Jordanaires, 2015 GSW, 2016 Cavaliers)
3.  Teams without great guards, but with great front courts, can still win championships (Spurs with Robinson, Duncan; '86 Celtics)

Bottom line:  having talent is a requirement to win a championship, but it doesn't require greatness in a specific position or positions, but rather across the board quality with at least 1-2 superstars that can carry the team through bad spells.  Teams with 1 superstar and nobody else do not have a track record of winning championships.  An exception to that might be the 2003-2004 Pistons, also known as "a long shot".  

As far "fag ball" (the way you describe today's Championship teams) goes:

GSW last year shot 52.8% from 2, 41.6% from 3; #1 in both categories.  They gave up 47.2% from 2 (4th) and 33.2% from 3 (2nd).  Elite offense AND elite defense.  The year before, the year they won the Championship, they shot 51.4% from 2 (2nd) and 39.8% from 3 (1st).  They gave up 45.8% from 2 (1st) and 33.7% from 3 (5th).  So, once again, elite offense AND elite defense.  And shooters have MUCH better range now, so getting a hand in their face is harder if you are helping to defend the paint.

By comparison, the 2008 Boston Celtics shot 50.6% from 2 (5th) and 38.1% from 3 (5th).  Good, even very good offense, but not as elite as GSW's.  They gave up 45.2% from 2 (2nd) and 31.6% from 3 (1st).  An elite defense, that is marginally better at defending 3s  than GSW but comparable to them in defending 2s.  If the 2008 World Champion Boston Celtics were such a great team because of their defense, and they were, then why the disrespect for GSW's defense?  It's pretty damn close, Cowens, and the GSW offense was much better.

The 2008 Celtics scored about 100ppg and gave up about 90ppg.  A 10 point differential.  GSW scored 110ppg and gave up 99ppg.  About the same difference in domination of their opponents. When you win, on average, by 10 points you own the league and both the 2008 Celtics and 2015 GSW did that. The '86 Celtics, btw, had about a 9.5 point/game differential. So, they are all peers in this (the '86 Celtics gave up 104ppg, so they were about 14-15 ppg worse than the 2008 Celtics on defense. 2015 GSW also gave up 104ppg. The same as '86 Celtics). Let me hit that one again: the 2015 GSW, whose defense you do not like or respect, gave up the same number of points as the '86 Celtics. This is why the eyeball test, when dealing with things that tug at your heartstrings, is not always a reliable basis for opinions.

As far as Mahorn's weight goes, if you can find any evidence, anywhere, that backs your eyeballs up I'd love to see it. Loved the comment about the size of his butt. 50#. LOL.

If you cannot deny Hakeem and KG's numbers, then don't deny GSW's numbers. Ball don't lie, and they won 1x and should have won 2x but they melted down because Draymond Green has a anger control problem that got him suspended from the key Game 5.


bob


.

cowens/oldschool wrote:bob I don't know why you brought up the 08 Celtics, so whatever.

I brought up KG just because he was slender in build and still had some major impact on the floor and accomplishments, part of my ammunition to prove that weight is not the deciding factor in whos a better player.....as there were plenty of PF's and centers that might have weighed more than him, but he was still all NBA and I lost count 14 or 15 all star teams in a row worthy.

On all your team stat shit, you can find/slant stats to prove any point you want, I could add that those stats don't mean that much to me because the league has also been so watered down with so many bad teams, if you want to keep blabbing stats and more stats go ahead. IMHO Stephon Curry was a defensive liability in last years Finals, Draymond Green is too short to handle the elite championship PF's from other generations and Warriors got really really lucky that every team they faced on their road to Finals in 15 had a major injury to that teams starting line up. You can be good, sometimes its better to be lucky and healthy.

Cow,

I brought up the -08 Celtics because they were a great team, a championship team, a team that both you and I love, that played great defense above all else and that is relatively recent so we aren't comparing eras that have different rules or players that are significantly different in size.

Perhaps the league is watered down.  So what?  We (and GSW and Cleveland etal) aren't competing against the '86 Celtics or the '68 Celtics or anybody else except the '17 NBA.  There used to be TONS of skilled bigs, and there were new ones arriving seemingly every year.  Mikan, Wilt, Russell, Kareem, Thurmond, Cowens, Robinson, Duncan.  Every one of those are HOFers.  Now there isn't.  The reasons why we aren't getting flooded with skilled bigs like we used to is an excellent topic for a sports board.  Maybe you should start a thread about that?  As Donald Rumsfeld said "you go to war with the army you have".  This is the league we have, this is the league we have to draw talent from, this is the league we are going to war against in '17.  Whether this army could kick the crap out of Douglas MacArthur and Dwight Eisenhower is irrelevant.  If Curry and Green are defensive liabilities and couldn't handle players from yesteryear may or may not be true, but name me a player from yesteryear that could defend Stephen Curry.  Name a player who could defend out to 30' and yet still be quick enough to stay in front of as good a dribbler as I have seen.  Draymond Green is short by yesteryear's standards but he shoots 3s well and can easily outrun any PF from yesteryear.  Fast break points count for 2 points too.  Regardless, it is still irrelevant.  If you are disgusted with the NBA because they aren't playing good ol' East Coast Smash Mouth basketball anymore that is a whole other issue and does not change the fact that this is the league we are trying to win a championship in today.  Who, on the '86 Celtics, could handle LeBron?  

Yes, being lucky never hurts.  And being unlucky sucks.  Losing Perk in Game 6 was unlucky, but it still counted.  Same thing with KG going down with his knee the previous year.  Bad luck for us, good luck for someone else, and that's how it is.

Some stats are worthless, especially ones that transcend eras since there are also rule changes that change the game.  Taking away hand checking, for example, was a rule that significantly changed the game.  Same with adding a 3pt shot.  There were NO shooters like Steph Curry and Klay Thompson back in '86.  None, not even Bird who had perhaps the best range in the league.  Some stats, however, are relevant because the standards and measurements have not changed.  Weight, for example.  A pound is still a pound.  You look at Mahorn and add 35# onto his published weight but who are you comparing him too?  Other players of his era, that's who, since you have never seen a young, in game shape Rick Mahorn standing next to Tristan Thompson.  You see him standing next to Parish and you say "Parish is 7', he has to weigh 250# and is slender, so Mahorn has to weigh 25# more than him".  But Parish didn't weigh 250#.  NOWHERE will you find ANY claim of that.  NOWHERE.  Well, unless you read a certain poster on a certain Celtic sports board.

I do have a memory from the '80s, a clear one, of hearing that Bird went from 235#, where he started his career, down to 225# towards the end to extend the life of his body.  That was then.  So, he wasn't 245# or 250#.  He was between 225# - 235#, and HE decided that 235# was too much for him as he got older.  A 6'9+", 225# player in today's league is NOT a bruiser.  Yeah, I know all about Bird's legendary toughness, but it is still tough to play against guys like 6'8" 260# LeBron James.  Paul George is 6'9" 220#.  Same height, 5# less, and he's a SF, NOT a PF.

A short story here:

I was on the island of Borneo about 15 years ago with my then girlfriend.  I am about 5'8", as you know, and she was 5'10", dirty blond hair, green eyes, fair-skinned and well-built.  The MEN of Borneo are maybe 5'6", and those are the tall ones.  Most of them are 5'3" - 5'4" and are very dark, like most people who live on or near the equator.  I was a giant among them and my statuesque girlfriend was stared at like the Circus was in town.  I come back to the USA and I'm short again and she is just "on the tall side".  The moral?  Nothing means anything without context.  Talking about players and teams from different eras, teams and players who never played against each other and played with different rules, is a lack of context.  Stats may, may, add some context but even then they should be used judiciously precisely because of things that cannot be correlated and extrapolated reliably and accurately.  But to ignore stats completely is to deny objectivity.  "It's hot in here" is a purely subjective opinion.  Someone else might feel cool.  Maybe the temperature is fine, just as it always is in a climate controlled environment, but you might be coming down with the flu and that's why you feel hot.  How can you know what the truth is?  What would you do?  Wouldn't one of the first things you'd do is to check the objective, non-personal, measurement provided by the thermostat and then go from there?


bob


.