Celtics/Lakers what Rivalry

When Bird played we met 4 times a year...that was good but not great...

The 1961-62 Russell led team played LA 8 times in the regular season and finished them off in a crueling 7 game championship. Game 7 went to OT.

The Celtics averaged 117.7 PPG

15 games is a true Rivalry.

Would love to see the league go to a new scheduling system where more head to head matchups could occur and havings years where we do not have to play every team.
Sort of how the Patriots will play against all teams in a conference.

Dboss

dboss wrote:When Bird played we met 4 times a year...that was good but not great...

The 1961-62 Russell led team played LA 8 times in the regular season and finished them off in a crueling 7 game championship. Game 7 went to OT.

The Celtics averaged 117.7 PPG

15 games is a true Rivalry.

Would love to see the league go to a new scheduling system where more head to head matchups could occur and havings years where we do not have to play every team.
Sort of how the Patriots will play against all teams in a conference.

Dboss

When teams play 82 games, I think they should play every team at least once.
It is pretty fair how all teams play teams in the other conference once at home and once on the road each year.

Having an unbalanced schedule like they have in MLB doesn't seem to be the fairest way to build a schedule.
Teams like Baltimore have had to play 18 games a year against NY, Bos and Tampa while the central division teams have usually had a much weaker schedule due to weaker teams in their division.

In 1961-62 there were only 9 teams, there are 30 now.
I don't think adding two more regular season games would add much to the Lakers/Celtics rivalry.
Their rivalry is due to the Finals and carries over to the regular season.

The Lakers and Celtics rivalry is not as strong right now because neither is an elite team.

TJ,

It would be interesting to get some comparative ratings. I wouldn't be surprised if the upcoming Celtics-Lakers game were one of the highest-rated NBA weeknight national telecasts of the regular season. I believe there's still a lot of cachet in the rivalry. Maybe they should label this game, "The Battle of the Underdogs."

Sam

TJ

I pretty much disagree with most of your response.

First there were 8 teams I believe

Also I am not suggesting that we play the Lakers 8 a times year., I do agree that we should play every team at once. That would leave 53 games to develop a scheduling system that would include more than 2 games against LA.

2 bad teams can still have a rivalry.

Dboss

Here are the standings for the 9 teams in the league in the 1961-62 season.

Team W L W-L% GB PS/G PA/G SRS
Eastern Division
Boston Celtics* 60 20 .750 — 121.1 111.9 8.25
Philadelphia Warriors* 49 31 .613 11.0 125.4 122.7 2.63
Syracuse Nationals* 41 39 .513 19.0 120.7 118.4 2.24
New York Knicks 29 51 .363 31.0 114.8 119.7 -3.98
Western Division
Los Angeles Lakers* 54 26 .675 — 118.5 116.3 1.80
Cincinnati Royals* 43 37 .538 11.0 123.1 121.3 1.28
Detroit Pistons* 37 43 .463 17.0 115.4 117.1 -1.72
St. Louis Hawks 29 51 .363 25.0 118.9 122.1 -2.96
Chicago Packers 18 62 .225 36.0 110.9 119.4 -7.54

Ok 9 it is. But who are thr Nationals now?

dboss wrote:I pretty much disagree with most of your response.

First there were 8 teams.

Also I am not suggesting that we play the Lakers 8 a times year., I do agree that we should play every team at once. That would leave 53 games to develop a scheduling system that would include more than 2 games against LA.

2 bad teams can still have a rivalry.

Dboss

My opinion is that the NBA schedule is very fair.
Teams play other teams in the conference (usually closer in mileage) more then out of conference teams.
I don't think that adding two more head to head regular games to the Lakers/Celtics would add much to the rivalry.
Sure, I would like to see it.
Post Kobe, Gasol, Pierce and Garnett, how strong will the rivalry be over the next 10 years?


I'm not saying your idea is wrong, I just don't like to artificially try to develop or to keep a rivalry going through regular season games.

dboss wrote:Ok 9 it is. But eho are thr Nationals now?

1962–63: With an aging team the Nationals were expected to fade, however with the scrappy play of Johnny Kerr the Nationals remained a strong contender finishing in 2nd place with a record of 48–32. In the playoffs the Nationals would face the Cincinnati Royals, getting off to a 2–1 series lead. However, needing a win to advance to the Eastern Finals again the Nationals would lose 2 straight dropping the decisive 5th game at home in overtime 131–127. That overtime loss on March 26 would prove to be the last game for the Syracuse Nationals, as investors Irv Kosloff and Ike Richman purchased the team from Danny Biasone moving the team to Philadelphia to become the 76ers, filling the void left by the Warriors.

The league is diluted and that diminshed historical rivalries.

Dboss

Yes

It's still a rivalry, regardless of their records. Of course it's a rivalry.

For fans of both teams, their hearts beat a little faster knowing they're playing each other.

The rivalry can fade if one team goes through a years-long slump, as happened during Boston's drought prior to 2007, or if both teams are truly mediocre, as I suppose has happened sometime along the way. But there is too much history for the rivalry to truly die. Of 67 championships, these two franchises have 33 of them, and they've played each other for the title 12 times.

On top of all the history from the '60s, '70s, and '80s, these teams have won the title three of the last five seasons and played each other twice for the championship during that time. Both teams obviously have their issues this season but still have great players and are capable of more than their records thus far. I expect what I've always seen since the Celtics franchise was revived with the arrival of KG in 2007 -- a compelling game with playoff intensity.

For something this ingrained into the league's DNA, the rivalry only hibernates during down times. It will take more than an off year to kill this rivalry. It is always waiting.

Outside...

Funny. I started watching the Celtics in 1960.

I am still in amazment when I view the historical data.

The most amazing thing is the amount of points averaged per game. If you review shooting percentages players today have higher shooting percentages yet teams rarely score 120 piints. I am still trying to wrap my mind around that.

Could it be the 3 for 2 at the line vs the 3 point shot of today?

I am perplexed.

Dboss

Also how were the old Celts able to put up 40 more shots per game than the current Celtics team???

Even when we run we do not get cliose to those numbers.

Dboss

Dboss,

I think it's a variety of factors. Sam can probably pull up something from his archives that explains it all.

Regarding shooting percentages being so much higher today, I'll point to a few factors. In the old days, rims were MUCH tighter and muggings were common for players attempting to shoot in the key. As with all pro sports, rules have changed to encourage scoring since scoring is more effective at attracting a larger audience, so you have things like the hand-check being outlawed, defensive three seconds, and the restricted area around the basket, all of which encourage athletic slashers to drive to the hoop for a high-percentage shot (and get on SportsCenter).

As for why all those factors increase shooting percentages but we still have lower-scoring games compared to the old days, I'll point to these things:

• Pace mentality. Players in the old days ran up and down the court, and a team playing like D'Antoni's Suns with their "eight seconds or less" mentality was the rule rather than the exception. That kind of pace is a mindset, and most coaches nowadays don't have that mindset.

• Stopping fast breaks. It used to be that teams could get out and run and score easy baskets in just a few seconds. Now, coaches have at least three guys fall back on defense as soon as a shot is taken. That means two things -- fewer points for your team because you're giving up offensive rebounding opportunities, and fewer points for the other team because they don't get easy transition baskets.

• The evolution of half-court defense. In the old days, man-to-man defense meant you either fought through picks or you switched. Now, defenses are complicated schemes with a dozen different ways to defend screens and team-wide rotations when an offensive player gets past his man. Today's defenses are far more effective from a team/scheme standpoint than the old days. A lot of teams aren't good enough or disciplined enough to play good team defense for 24 seconds, so the offense many times will eventually get off a good shot, but it will be late in the shot clock.

• Hero ball. As we all know, too many teams resort to this for much of their offense. What it does is slow the game down -- ineffectual passing or dribbling followed by an isolation move or high screen/roll late in the shot clock.

I'm sure others on the board can point out additional factors, but that's what comes to mind for me.

Dboss, I guess nobody believes me (although I'm definitely right on this), but the reasons the old Celtics had so many possessions and scored so many points were numerous. Here are a few:

(1) Run like hell on most possessions (including many made baskets); and pass, rather than dribbling, as much as possible to make the ball really fly.

(2) Either get a basket off the break (by taking only good shots and/or finishing very well and/or always hitting the open man) or get into the halfcourt offense before the defense was set, thereby being able to run two or three options on the same possession when necessary.

(3) Play volume basketball—shooting as early (in the clock) and often as possible—on the theory that 40% of 110 shots (even with no three-pointers in those days) adds up to 10% more points than 50% of 80 shots

(4) Offensive rebound like crazy. Lordy, I wish that stat had been kept in those days. There was no neglecting the offensive boards by backtracking to protect against the other team's transition. Guys like Russell, Heinsohn, Sanders and Loscutoff just banged relentlessly on the offensive boards; and, if the opponents took off on a break, guys like Russ, Sam, KC and Havlicek would simply beat them down to their own end.

(5) In fact, rebound like crazy on both ends. Just run your eyes over the average number of Celtics rebounds per game and the average number of Celtics points per game during the entirety of Russell's career, and just conjecture on the number of fast breaks fueled by the rebounds.

1956-57 69 Reb. 105.5 Pts.
1957-58 75 Reb. 109.9 Pts.
1958-59 78 Reb. 116.4 Pts.
1959-60 80 Reb. 124.5 Pts.
1960-61 78 Reb. 119.7 Pts.
1961-62 76 Reb. 121.1 Pts. > Decrease in rebounds, increase in points
1962-63 73 Reb. 118.8 Pts.
1963-64 72 Reb. 113.0 Pts.
1964-65 72 Reb. 112.8 Pts > Level in rebounds, insignifant decrease in points.
1965-66 70 Reb. 112.7 Pts.
1966-67 70 Reb. 119.3 Pts. > Level in rebounds, increase in points
1967-68 69 Reb. 116.1 Pts.
1968-69 59 Reb. 111.0 Pts.

Rather than taking a statistical approach to describing the correlation between rebounds and points, I'll point out that—in most cases—when the rebounds increased compared with the previous season, so did the points. And, when the rebounds decreased, so did the points. (I noted the three exceptions, although there were really only two of any note.) Even without the stats, there was obviously an extremely high correlation between boards and points.

(5) Take care of the ball. Despite flying all over the place, they made mostly high-percentage passes, didn't dribble into traffic (except for Cousy, and god help the traffic), and came to the ball to make the passer's job easier. That's what the weave that I've mentioned was all about.

(6) Attack, attack, attack. The basket was their main focus of offensive focus. Of their several plays and multiple options (including the weave, by the way), many involved shaking someone loose in penetration. They had no three-pointers tempting them, and outside shots were generally taken either because of the inability to penetrate or the desire to mix it up a little. And their attack mode got them a lot of foul shots, which is why Tom Heinsohn genuinely cannot comprehend why today's Celtics often get outshot at the line. Attacking is simply a given to Mr. H.

7. They were also very good shooters, despite the fact that the urgency of volume basketball (plus the tighter rims in those days) tended to lower their shooting percentages. And, in the clutch, they (especially Cousy) became more conservative, with less emphasis on volume, and took mainly good shots.

Well, there are seven reasons. And I probably didn't scratch the surface. Don't get me started on the value of chemistry.

In all of pro basketball, there's never been anything close to the perfect storm represented by those teams.

Sam

Sam

Thanks for sharing your indepth analysis. Really great information.

Dboss