Just a Reminder: Larry Bird Could Really Pass the Rock

Matty and Rosalie,

Well, if I'm true to the hypothetical situation I laid out, I'd have to say that, if the 1986 Celtics players were to play the 1961 Celtics back in 1961, the Bird guys would have had equal educational credentials.  I believe that all of the 1986 team attended four years of college.  I doubt the '61 guys were gym rats any more than the '86 guys would have been if they had gone back in time.  So I couldn't claim any advantage for the '61 guys in terms of intelligence.

I will say that, if those two teams had played one another, Sam Jones' eyes would have lit up like a bonfire.  Only if he and Russ had been ordered to run backwards throughout the game would the more recent team have had a chance.

One thing I wouldn't feel comfortable conjecturing about would be the teams' relative abilities to avoid injuries.  Certainly, the Celtics of the 80s were more brittle than the Celtics of the 60s.  But I'm trying to think of some reason why the 80s teams might have been less predisposed to injuries simply by the fact that they had (hypothetically) gone back in time.

As I think about it, there's one more way in which the earlier teams would have had an advantage regardless of era.  They had the greatest ability of any team in NBA history (including the Celtics of the 80s) to rise to the occasion and absolutely refuse to lose.  I believe the Bird Celtics had equal motivation; it's just that physically they weren't consistently able to back it up with dominant play when the chips were down (largely due, I believe, to their vulnerability to speed—especially Lakers speed.)

Don't get me wrong.  I loved the Celtics of the 80s.  And Larry Bird was arguably as phenomenal in his way as Bill Russell was in his way.  But I believe that, with all things considered and the genetics/conditioning/etc. factor held equal, the older teams had a decided edge.

Sam

Bird was the best passing PF ever.

He was also the 3rd best passer on the Celtics ever.

Them Celtics sure know how to pass the ball

dboss

I brought up the 80's in general because one of the most important aspects of discussions in comparing different generations is the level of competition within each generation. It sure is true that the 80s had many advantages because of technological advances etc. All the more reason why the 80s teams were better.But this is about a comparison of teams as is, not about a hollywood attempt to level the playing field.

As to the tight rims. Just flat out not true. Prove it and I'll believe it. Same goes for Celtic speed of the 60s. Prove to me that the Celtics of the 80s didn't face equal speed.

Ball handling skills of the 60s.If they didn't have a non shooting hand they would not have missed it.

A lot of opinions.Time to back them up with prove.

swish

86 Celtics team is the best I've ever seen, team won without key sub Scott Wedman and still crushed Rockets in Finals. The 80's teams were bigger than todays teams, so just because there are 20-25 year difference doesn't mean height has to be affected, it had more to do with Red putting the personnel together than genetics. Russels Celtics could attack in waves, but so could 86 Celtics and no team could attack with size and intelligence like the 86 team. Bird, Parish, McHale and Walton ran circles around the best of that years bigs with size and skill, thats an all NBA team just on the frontline with Bird and McHale at their peak. Those 4 together as a core could beat most all star teams....sorry Sam, Russell couldn't stop all 3, the other 2 would eat up Tommy and Satch, and I love Tommy and Satch!! Agreed 60 C's would have their moments on the break, but in half court 86 C's shutdown everybody at the rim with their size.

....just wanted to add, wherever he played, 60's, 80's or as he is now Chris Bosh would still be a wus, a softie. Paul Pierce could play in 60's, 70's, 80's, he has an oldschool game with brass balls and toughness. Bird for all his skills and vision, I heard McHale say on some documentary that the one thing that separated him from the rest was his toughness....that you don't get from better nutrition or advanced training.

Here's another vote for the 1960's Celtics over the 1980's Celtics.

The Bird Celtics may have had an advantage in height and the half-court game -- and I think any supposed advantage in the half-court game is debatable -- but that's about it. The best way to negate a height advantage is with speed, endurance, and a running game, and the Russell Celtics had clear advantages in all three areas.

It's like a heavyweight championship bout -- if you're going up against a power puncher (the Bird Celtics' height advantage), you don't beat the guy by standing still and trading punches. Instead, you use your quickness, speed, endurance, and skills to negate that advantage. The Russell Celtics would be like Muhammad Ali.

There's also one other difference. Both teams had Red Auerbach as their general manager, but only one of them had him as their coach.

Birds C's had finesse too, they were not just powerpunchers, they had vision and passed the ball better than any team of that era, setting new standards in how the game was played at that time.. That 86 team also ran hard all the time, go look at the film, they didn't just pound you in the paint, they ran and ran relying more on tenacity and vision than speed in their running game. Even todays players know those 80's team, Celtics and Lakers would crush todays teams.

Speed and endurance and a running game. What proof is there that the Celtics of the 80s did not face the speed and endurance of the Celtics of the 60s ?
swish

I'm getting confused with all the switching back and forth between the 80s Celtics and the 80s in general—whichever seems to offer the most favorable evidence to the poster.  As for PROOF, I hate to shoot fish in a barrel, but that's the chance one takes:

]PROOF ABOUT THE TIGHT RIMS FROM ONE WHO WAS INTIMATELY INVOLVED IN BOTH ERAS:

www.nba.com/celtcs/history/Where_Are_They_Now_with_Bill_-119123-25.html

The key paragraph as spoken by Bill Sharman

"When I played, and not to make an excuse, they had the original baskets that were bolted right into the backboard.  Then later, they put in the break-away baskets and some days I hit the rim and some would fall in.  I wish I had those (breakaway) rims when I was playing because I would hit all iron (with the old rims) and it would bounce off."

PROOF OF THE 80s CELTICS VULNERABILITY AGAINST FASTER TEAMS.

Of course the Celtics of the 80s played fast teams.  They just did more poorly against them.  Take the Lakers as the best fast-breaking team of the decade.  In the 80s, the Celtics had a .435 winning percentage against the vastly faster Lakers.  That's vulnerability.  And the Celtics lost two of the three finals series they played against the Lakers (not even going to 7 games in those two series).  That's vulnerability.

So there's some proof.  Any more questions?

Sam

Matty wrote:Sam..

Actually I Love the aroma of a bull, especially cooked over charcoal after a thorough maranade in some whiskey... Mmm mmm mmm

 While a big fan of those 86 celtics (since I got to watch them) I'm more than happy to concede a russel lead team or two would have the upper hand in a who's bester contest.

However I can't agree that the 80's team has a genetic evolutionary advantage, despite many medical and technilogical "advances" I'm pretty sure that humanity is rapidly decaying on a mental/moral/physical leval.

We still can't figgure out how the pyramids were built, the average Greek Dood of 2500 years ago could think circles around most people today- heck most people today could not pass an 8th grade profencency test for an Kansas student.

Heck a high school kid could read everything in print that comes from Red in coaching and watch the videoes and interviews of him and likely learn as much from those as the current champions coach knows...

Nope I'm pretty sure that geniticallly speaking, advantage would go to the 60's celtics.

Matty,

I'm not sure you were mixing these, but the Greeks of 2500 years ago did not build the pyramids.  They were built, at the orders of the Egyptian Pharaoh, by Jewish slave labor.  Furthermore they're older than 2500 years old, since Jerusalem just celebrated its 3000th anniversary as a city (not as a town, which it was before King David, but as a city) and David lived after the Jews fled Egypt.  Your overall point, however, is well taken.  They knew how to do stuff with a lot fewer and weaker tools than we have now.  Then again, maybe that's what it is.  None of their skills could be allowed to atrophy.  I'm amazed at how many of today's kids can't do simple math in their head when the numbers run into 3 digits, they need a calculator.  They're not teaching how to write using cursive script (what we called penmanship) in some schools anymore because nobody writes long handwritten letters anymore, they're all typed on a phone or keyboard.


To Sam, Swish, etal,

Why not really turn this into a tail-chaser by saying the hypothetical point in time this hypothetical game is played in is, oh let's just say, 2013.  Do we make both teams taller and faster and by how much?  Do we take away the Jungle Jim Luscotoffs and McHale clotheslines because today's league would have them collecting splinters for large chunks of the season?  How about the 3 pt line?  Do we just add 3-4' onto every '60s Celtics' range, even though we've seen so many players who have grown up with the 3 pt shot that still just can't extend beyond 17'?  Do we concoct a 60's stretch 4? What about handchecking?  Picture KC and DJ not being able to handcheck.  Bird with Sully's back surgery. Walton and McHale receiving the benefits of Oden's 21st century foot microsurgery. At some point, when you make enough adjustments, it's not the same beast anymore.  You just go down the path where you've created a unicorn, some mythical creature that combines qualities of various other animals but which none of us have actually ever seen.  Personally, if I'm going to go down that path, I'd rather visualize Victoria Secrets models on a topless beach in the south of France.

The Miami Heat are a center-less team.  They are also back-to-back champions, so it isn't a fluke (even if they didn't win this year, the fact that they made it to the Finals two straight years proves their concept).  Danny's got it right, you build your team for the era you're in and not for the era you'd like to be in. This discussion smacks of the latter to me.

I, for one, don't really care whether the '60s Celtics could run the '80s Celtics off the court or if the '80s Celtics' could pound the '60s Celtics into paste.  What I love is that, for their respective eras, they were built to dominate and they did.

I love being a Celtics fan.  Other than the Lakers there is no other basketball franchise that could even consider having this conversation.  Bulls fans would compare the Jordanaires with ???  Spurs fans debate the better of the the Duncan era with ???  Hakeem's Dream Team vs ???  Only the Celtics and the Lakers have had multiple eras of greatness to be able to do this.  It might be a meaningless discussion, but it's worth appreciating that it is even possible.

bob


.

Tight rims By sharman. Thats an opinion-not proof.

Lakers over the Celts. I hope that the fact that lakers did just that doesn't lead you to conclude that the 60s Celtics would do the same.

Swish

Bob I was just comparing different groups of people..

The Egyptians building methods- the thinking of Greeks...

Compared to the old ones most modern day people's intellect is quite suspect.

As for ol Jerusalem, I've never bought into the idea that its only 3000 yrs old, if Melchizedek's story is to beleived, and the Jews are right abooot him being Shem, I'm disposed to aging the town if Salem to closer to 4000 yrs...

There is a legend that has Shem killed by nimrod and later Esau killing nimrod in an act of revenge... But I don't think the time lines match up, but if nimrod was a bad guy then I could see Salem being built up as a source of defense by worshipers of Elohim and led by Shem, that could put Jerusalems age back even further though mebbe..

Matty wrote:Bob I was just comparing different groups of people..

The Egyptians building methods- the thinking of Greeks...

Compared to the old ones most modern day people's intellect is quite suspect.

As for ol Jerusalem, I've never bought into the idea that its only 3000 yrs old, if Melchizedek's story is to beleived, and the Jews are right abooot him being Shem, I'm disposed to aging the town if Salem to closer to 4000 yrs...

 There is a legend that has Shem killed by nimrod and later Esau killing nimrod in an act of revenge... But I don't think the time lines match up, but if nimrod was a bad guy then I could see Salem being built up as a source of defense by worshipers of Elohim and led by Shem, that could put Jerusalems age back even further though mebbe..

Matty,

Ok, I thought that's what you were saying about the Greeks and the pyramids, but wasn't sure.

Jerusalem existed before King David, but he's the one who built a wall around it, turning it from a smallish trading town into a walled city, and his capital. So, Jerusalem did pre-exist that date, perhaps as far back as 4000 B.C., but not as a city.

According to Wikipedia, Nimrod was the great grandson of Noah, by way of Ham. That would make him Shem's grand nephew. Possible? Perhaps, but he'd be beating up on a pretty old man. There is a jewish tradition that says that Abraham met Nimrod, but that's about it. There is also a jewish tradition that says that Esau, the grandson of Abraham, ambushed and killed Nimrod but others claim that prize as well.

Regardless, Nimrod's empire was in Babylon (ergo The Tower of Babel), which is modern day Iraq, not Israel/Palestine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nimrod


bob


.

Sam I'm talking 86 Celtics, that team swept Lakers during regular season, that team was healthy with Bird and McHale at their peak and a healthy Bill Walton who added HoF ability and size to the 4-5 position that year. The greatest frontline ever.

Swish, I congratulate you because you've obviously regressed to your second childhood. Calling Sharman's knowledgable and experiential assertion only an opinion is in that mode. You're the one who made a bold statement about my comment on tight rims: "As to the tight rims. Just flat out not true. Prove it and I'll believe it." Ballsy challenge. And I met it head on, but you apparently don't have the constitution to admit it. So let's spice up the offseason with my answering challenge: Provide some proof that there were no tight rims in the 60s. If you can't put up, well, you know the alternative.

In my hypothetical inter-era game, yes, I'm quite sure the 60s Celtics would turn the 80s Celtics into buttah. Yes, that is an opinion, but based on intense personal observation of both eras with an analytical eye in which I have great confidence. But what I was actually talking about was the 80s Celtics in a non-hypothetical scenario. In the 80s, they actually played the Lakers in the games I'm talking about. They lost more than half of those games and two of three finals series. That's vulnerability in an actual, not hypothetical, setting.

Cow, it's no surprise you'd pick the 1986 team, and it was a great team. But they didn't have to play the fast-break Lakers in the finals. I believe the Celts did beat the Lakers in both games of the regular season. But playing two games weeks apart is a lot different from a relatively slow team playing as many as 7 debilitating games against those Lakers in 14 days.

I will grant that I thought Larry Bird might have made the greatest Celtics quote of all-time, after the 81 Houston finals win, in talking about Moses Malone's dietary habits.

Sam

Sam

Cousy sees it differently and I agree with Cousy. Check out below statement by Cousy.

However, toss an entire team of yore into today's NBA and.... Well, even the 1961 Celtics—the team Cousy considers the best he played on, the one that featured the Cooz, Bill Sharman, K.C. Jones and Sam Jones (all of whom wound up in the Hall of Fame, and that was just the backcourt)—couldn't hope to replicate their 57-22 record and NBA title in the '90s. Says Cousy, "Only fools could look at basketball and not say that, physically at least, the jock today is far superior. We shot 40, 41 percent. That wouldn't get you by in a Division III college game today. Shooting skills have gone through the ceiling. I watch the All-Star Came and don't recognize the sport
we played 20 or 25 years ago."

However thats only a Cousy opinion. In my next post I'll back up his opinion with some facts.
swish

Sam that 86 team would have destroyed that Laker team just as easily as they steamrolled the whole league that year, its not the C's fault the Lakers couldn't hold up their end of the deal and meet us in the Finals. That C's team could also run, their break wasn't Lakeresque, wasn't as fast, but the way they moved the ball as they beat teams up the court getting wide open looks and easy finishes was still breathtaking to watch. People seem to just remember how much size that 86 team had and forget how they had shooters, could pass....but their strength was the way they controlled the paint and beat you up on the boards and they had the ultimate do everything superstar who was playing with a chip on his shoulder to make up for the 85 loss in Finals.

Those early 60 C's would be in trouble, they would be the team that never faced a big skilled deep frontline like 86. In 62 here are all the starting centers: Russell, Wilt, Walt Bellamy, Johnny Kerr, Clyde Lovellette, Darrall Imhoff, Walter Dukes, Ray Felix....thats it, impressed? I wonder how much an athletic non all star like say Marcus Camby would have done against this crew night after night. I think Camby would be a perrenial all star and might be regarded in almost the same class as Russ and Wilt if he played in that era. Also that was still an era of mostly white players in the league. The 61-62 C's team would have been ill prepared to face our 86 team in the paint, wouldn't know how to deal with the size and skill level of the greatest frontline ever and that wouldn't be their only problem. Who was the best SF in that era? the great Baylor was considered more a PF in his day....that team had never faced anything like Larry Bird and everything he could do from anywhere on the floor. Putting the multifaceted Bird on a frontline with all those 7 footers, I can't see the 61 or 62 C's coming up with the right solutions, just can't. Sorry Sam the more I look into this, the more I think the 86 team has too much size, skill, firepower, everything that the early 60's teams for all their greatness just does not match up to that level. 86 team would own that paint, just like they did to everybody in their era that year.

Cow, I wasn't critiquing the Celtics' fast break offense of the 80s. It was pretty good despite their lack of speed. I was commenting on their DEFENSE that was vulnerable against speed.

I understand that it's difficult to grasp the concept that genetic evolution is not a basketball strategy or an indicator of basketball prowess. In comparisons between eras, the only fair thing is to leave genetics out of it and focus on basketball playing ability. Being tall is a genetic benefit. The irony is that in an area in which the Celtics of the 80s should have had a genetic advantage over the Celtics of the 60s—SPEED—the 80s guys actually wound up at a dramatic disadvantage compared with the the old guys.

So let's see:

Wilt Chamberlain—Hall of Famer (9-or-so games per season against his team)—13-tiime All Star
Clyde Lovellette—Hall of Famer (9-or-so games per season against his team) — 4-time All Star
Walt Bellamy—Hall of Famer (9-or-s0 games per season against his team)—4-time All Star
Nate Thurmond (forget about him?)—Hall of Famer (9-or-s0 games per season against his team)—7-time All Star
Ray Felix 1-time All Star
Darrell Imhoff 1-time All Star
Walter Dukes 2-time All Star
Johnny Kerr 3-time All Star

Total: 4 Hall-of-Famers and 35 All-Star appearances

The Celtics of the early 60s played roughly 36 games per season (almost half the schedule) against Hall-of-Fame caliber centers. And every game of the season against an All-Star caliber center. Yeah, I’d have to say I’m pretty impressed. What percentage of the games played by the 1985-86 Celtics were against Hall-of-Fame centers? What percentage were against All Star caliber centers?

You say it’s not the 1986-86 Celtics’ faults that the Lakers couldn’t reach the finals. By the same token, neither was it the fault of the Celtics of the early sixties that they consistently won championships with the opposition featuring mere Hall of Famers and All Star Caliber players center position. They beat the best in the land at the time.

As for the front line of the Celtics of the 80s, remember that I'm completely discounting the genetic height advantage of the 80s players. I'd certainly expect a front line of Russell, Conley or Lovellette, Heinsohn, Sanders, Ramsey, and Naulls or Havlicek (as many as five Hall of Famers depending on the year) at least to neutralize them while the absolute withering oldie but goodie backcourt, also consisting of five future Hall of Famers, would absolutely decimate that of Ainge and DJ.

Not a problem. Not in the least.

Sam

Swish, Cousy didn't refute my assertion about the tight rims. He's always most gracious in complementing present day players, and he did refer to the differences in shooting percentages between eras. But that's an effect, not a cause, and Cooz didn't really have anything to say about the cause. Tighter rims were one reason, and I believe volume basketball and pace was another. The 1960-61 Celtics averaged 27.69% more shots per game than the 1985-86 Celtics, who had more time to get squared away for the shot.

Speaking of Sharman, his was known far and wide as one of the best shooters of his time, and yet his career shooting percentage was only 43%. Yet, when he took the time to square himself away at the free throw line, he averaged 88% for his career. If that's not evidence that volume, high-paced basketball lowers field goal shooting percentages, I don't know what is. (And, of course, I still maintain that the tight rims also contributed.)

I'll be interested in your further evidence because—whether or not we agree—I always respect the time you take to research information for your posts, and you're a great person to debate with. Sometimes I think we're just two old codgers who should be on some front porch, perched on adjoining rocking chairs and counting our breaths for kicks. Of course, you'd want the 1986 rocker model, and I'd want the 1961 version.

Sam

come on Sam, Thurmond wasn't in the league in 61-62, out of those centers, Wilt and Bellamy are the only ones that resemble a modern center, that Russell actually had to get ready to play hard against, those other guys are stiffs and you know it, theres 8 teams full of unathleltic short white guys that can't shoot for the most part. On defense Bird could handle Satch, McHale would be a force Tommy never had seen, a 6'11" freak with that arm length and would be shutdown. No one could handle Bird, whos gonna defend him? 60's Celtics backcourt better score cause with Tommy being shutdown, they'd get no scoring out of their own frontline. Ainge and DJ are 2 6'5" guards with speed and DJ has defensive credentials that match up with any 60's guards.

It is a proven fact that tightened rims make for more difficult shooting. To suggest otherwise would be to entirely disregard physics, an essential function of nature.

--

For shooters, home is where the bounce is
By Rick Schwartz, Yahoo! Sports
Thursday, Nov 6, 2008

Two hundred fifty-one NBA games were decided by four points or less last season, lending some credence to the league’s long-held cliché: One or two good or bad bounces of the ball can make a huge difference in who wins and loses – and even who makes the playoffs.

The NBA takes great pains to ensure its official basketballs carom off its official rims in similar fashion, whether a shot is taken in Los Angeles or Boston, Oklahoma City or Orlando. But do all NBA rims, which have been manufactured by Gared Sports for the past 25 years, react exactly alike?

Depends on who’s answering the question. Ask the league and you’ll hear a resounding yes. Ask some players and…not so much.


“I think it’s hard for two rims to be alike everywhere,” said Utah Jazz point guard Deron Williams. “Some are dunked on more than others, some have more jump shots than others.

“They’re just like cars. All models don’t break down at the exact same time even though it’s the same parts in each car.”

That’s not the impression the NBA wants its players and fans to have. Former Jazz forward Scott Padgett once said the team purposely overinflated its game balls to make it more difficult to hit jump shots. While Utah’s offense was predicated on backdoor cuts and layups, Padgett claimed opponents typically had to rely on perimeter shots. Jazz officials, noting that Jeff Hornacek and John Stockton had become accomplished long-range shooters using the same balls, laughed off the accusation.

While true that visitors and hosts compete on the same baskets, all 18 inches in diameter, the prevailing wisdom remains – the home team is accustomed to its own bounce. So if the feel differs from city to city, it’s a perceived disadvantage to the visitors.

Christopher Arena, the NBA’s vice president of apparel and sporting goods, said every rim is thoroughly tested and measured. A contractor named Drew Sorensen travels to all 30 NBA arenas in the preseason to set each rim. Sorensen uses something called the ERTG Rim Tester, which measures the “rim flex,” a computation based on energy absorption. A weight is dropped from each rim and a tiny microprocessor calculates the flex. The higher the rim-flex number, the softer the bounce, and the more likely your shot will roll in when maybe it shouldn’t have.

Each NBA team is required to buy new rims at the outset of every season – new backboards must be purchased every five seasons – and the league mandates a rim-flex reading of 20 to 35. Once Sorensen signs off on the measurements, he theoretically locks that number in place for the season by placing pieces of tape over the brackets that connect the rim to the backboard brace. Those pieces of tape each have a seal with holographic imagery. If a visiting team were to complain about the flex, the NBA can “go to the tape” to discover whether the rim has been illegally altered.

Sorensen returns to each arena once during the regular season, once during each playoff round and then resets the rims for every NBA Finals game.

Sounds fairly foolproof, but it doesn’t explain why our small sampling of NBA players believes rims feel different in different arenas.

Raja Bell, resident marksman of the Phoenix Suns, said today’s NBA rims are “the same (in) that they are the same dimensions. But act the same and give the same? No.”

“They’re supposed to be the same,” Jazz guard Kyle Korver added, “but they’re not.”

NBA rims are set at 200 pounds of pressure. That means the rim will snap back to its original position with 200 pounds hanging on it. Whether repeated beatings from guys like Orlando Magic center Dwight Howard affect the bolts and how tightly they’re attached is anyone’s guess.

Just by virtue of the fact that Sorensen returns to check them out, one could surmise that at some point, the rim-flex numbers change naturally. Or that teams would have an interest in manipulating the numbers.

It’s not exactly Notre Dame growing its football turf high enough for Knute Rockne to smell in the heavens, but the NBA knows it really can be a competitive advantage.

Tracy McGrady complained about the Rockets’ rims last season after shooting better on the road.

Rim-flex issues can occasionally, but rarely, work against the home team. Last January, Tracy McGrady of the Houston Rockets complained that the rims in his home arena, the Toyota Center, were too tight. McGrady shot 43 percent on the road but only 40 percent at home. His 3-point percentage was not great on the road (32.7 percent), but he was a much-worse 25.7 percent at home. Free throws? Also better on the road (71.4 percent) than at home (63.4 percent).

The Rockets’ overall stats, however, didn’t entirely support McGrady’s claim. Only the team’s free-throw percentage was worse at home than on the road.

Interestingly, college basketball is a completely different game when it comes to standardized rims. Schools buy from different suppliers. Each institution functions within conference rules, and most conferences set the rim-flex range between 35 and 50.

That means that, depending on the school, college players could be shooting on rims up to 150 percent softer than what they’ll see in the NBA. Ever wonder why some shooters don’t transition well? Better defenders are obviously the biggest factor, but some players also could need time to adjust to tighter rims. That’s one reason for teams to bring in college prospects for a home workout before the draft.

Los Angeles Lakers big man Pau Gasol doesn’t see the inconsistencies in the rims which some other players see. The biggest difference in arenas, Gasol said, is the court. The league allows teams to use multiple suppliers for its hardwood floors, and the batches can feel very different.

“At the end of the day, there are little things in arenas that favor the home teams because of their familiarity with them,” Gasol said. “But, in general, usually the better team wins.”

A favorable bounce or two also doesn’t hurt.
---

As you can see, different rims can and will produce different results.

KJ

Cow,

You said "early 60s." Thurmond was in the league in the "early 60s" (1963 to be exact). I could just as easily have substituted he 196s-63 Celtics team that boasted eight Hall of Fame players.

You can call those other Hall-of-Famers and all stars "stiffs" (although you never once saw one of them play in those days). I call them the best the rest of the league could offer at the time. Seriously, a good book on genetics would be something you might consider. More productive than playing the "woulda, coulda, should" game.

Track meet. Track meet. Track meet.

Sam

That little 60's team would be going against an inside force it was not equipped to handle, teams didn't have 6'9" PF's in those days and heres a team with a SF that size that can rebound and do everything that a 60's team had never seen and would have to deal with. This 86 team can run too and pass and post up, play virtually too many styles. DJ would destroy Sharman and Ainge is faster than Sharman or Cousy end to end. Your backcourt would have its moments, but not enough to compensate for all the balls that would be swatted back in their faces everytime the frontline tries to get a shot off. My backcourt has seen a 6'1" and 6'3" slow white backcourt, they would relish it. Ainge can stay in front of Cousy and Sharman couldn't fend off DJ, a modern defensive force Sharman had never seen before. McHale would make life miserable for Tommy or whoever the scoring SF or PF of that team, they also hadn't ever dealt with a force like that.

The only reason those one hit wonders ever made an all star team is because of the level of players in a league in such early stages, I give them credit for being the pioneers, but they couldn't come close to making an all star team now or in 80's.

You can say track meet all you want, but in man to man match ups, 86 team has too many advantages, and they are orchestrated by the best team player in sports, hes gonna shred that defense. Matchups against your 61-62-63 frontline are nothing he hasn't faced before, your guys would be facing skilled 2 way players very capable of shutting them down that they never faced before.

Those 8 HoF players you mentioned were made by Russell, because they played on those teams with him, maybe 3 get in on their own without Russell. Cousy, Hondo, Sam Jones.

k_j_88 wrote:It is a proven fact that tightened rims make for more difficult shooting. To suggest otherwise would be to entirely disregard physics, an essential function of nature.

--

For shooters, home is where the bounce is
By Rick Schwartz, Yahoo! Sports
Thursday, Nov 6, 2008

Two hundred fifty-one NBA games were decided by four points or less last season, lending some credence to the league’s long-held cliché: One or two good or bad bounces of the ball can make a huge difference in who wins and loses – and even who makes the playoffs.

The NBA takes great pains to ensure its official basketballs carom off its official rims in similar fashion, whether a shot is taken in Los Angeles or Boston, Oklahoma City or Orlando. But do all NBA rims, which have been manufactured by Gared Sports for the past 25 years, react exactly alike?

Depends on who’s answering the question. Ask the league and you’ll hear a resounding yes. Ask some players and…not so much.


“I think it’s hard for two rims to be alike everywhere,” said Utah Jazz point guard Deron Williams. “Some are dunked on more than others, some have more jump shots than others.

“They’re just like cars. All models don’t break down at the exact same time even though it’s the same parts in each car.”

That’s not the impression the NBA wants its players and fans to have. Former Jazz forward Scott Padgett once said the team purposely overinflated its game balls to make it more difficult to hit jump shots. While Utah’s offense was predicated on backdoor cuts and layups, Padgett claimed opponents typically had to rely on perimeter shots. Jazz officials, noting that Jeff Hornacek and John Stockton had become accomplished long-range shooters using the same balls, laughed off the accusation.

While true that visitors and hosts compete on the same baskets, all 18 inches in diameter, the prevailing wisdom remains – the home team is accustomed to its own bounce. So if the feel differs from city to city, it’s a perceived disadvantage to the visitors.

Christopher Arena, the NBA’s vice president of apparel and sporting goods, said every rim is thoroughly tested and measured. A contractor named Drew Sorensen travels to all 30 NBA arenas in the preseason to set each rim. Sorensen uses something called the ERTG Rim Tester, which measures the “rim flex,” a computation based on energy absorption. A weight is dropped from each rim and a tiny microprocessor calculates the flex. The higher the rim-flex number, the softer the bounce, and the more likely your shot will roll in when maybe it shouldn’t have.

Each NBA team is required to buy new rims at the outset of every season – new backboards must be purchased every five seasons – and the league mandates a rim-flex reading of 20 to 35. Once Sorensen signs off on the measurements, he theoretically locks that number in place for the season by placing pieces of tape over the brackets that connect the rim to the backboard brace. Those pieces of tape each have a seal with holographic imagery. If a visiting team were to complain about the flex, the NBA can “go to the tape” to discover whether the rim has been illegally altered.

Sorensen returns to each arena once during the regular season, once during each playoff round and then resets the rims for every NBA Finals game.

Sounds fairly foolproof, but it doesn’t explain why our small sampling of NBA players believes rims feel different in different arenas.

Raja Bell, resident marksman of the Phoenix Suns, said today’s NBA rims are “the same (in) that they are the same dimensions. But act the same and give the same? No.”

“They’re supposed to be the same,” Jazz guard Kyle Korver added, “but they’re not.”

NBA rims are set at 200 pounds of pressure. That means the rim will snap back to its original position with 200 pounds hanging on it. Whether repeated beatings from guys like Orlando Magic center Dwight Howard affect the bolts and how tightly they’re attached is anyone’s guess.

Just by virtue of the fact that Sorensen returns to check them out, one could surmise that at some point, the rim-flex numbers change naturally. Or that teams would have an interest in manipulating the numbers.

It’s not exactly Notre Dame growing its football turf high enough for Knute Rockne to smell in the heavens, but the NBA knows it really can be a competitive advantage.

Tracy McGrady complained about the Rockets’ rims last season after shooting better on the road.

Rim-flex issues can occasionally, but rarely, work against the home team. Last January, Tracy McGrady of the Houston Rockets complained that the rims in his home arena, the Toyota Center, were too tight. McGrady shot 43 percent on the road but only 40 percent at home. His 3-point percentage was not great on the road (32.7 percent), but he was a much-worse 25.7 percent at home. Free throws? Also better on the road (71.4 percent) than at home (63.4 percent).

The Rockets’ overall stats, however, didn’t entirely support McGrady’s claim. Only the team’s free-throw percentage was worse at home than on the road.

Interestingly, college basketball is a completely different game when it comes to standardized rims. Schools buy from different suppliers. Each institution functions within conference rules, and most conferences set the rim-flex range between 35 and 50.

That means that, depending on the school, college players could be shooting on rims up to 150 percent softer than what they’ll see in the NBA. Ever wonder why some shooters don’t transition well? Better defenders are obviously the biggest factor, but some players also could need time to adjust to tighter rims. That’s one reason for teams to bring in college prospects for a home workout before the draft.

Los Angeles Lakers big man Pau Gasol doesn’t see the inconsistencies in the rims which some other players see. The biggest difference in arenas, Gasol said, is the court. The league allows teams to use multiple suppliers for its hardwood floors, and the batches can feel very different.

“At the end of the day, there are little things in arenas that favor the home teams because of their familiarity with them,” Gasol said. “But, in general, usually the better team wins.”

A favorable bounce or two also doesn’t hurt.
---

As you can see, different rims can and will produce different results.

KJ

KJ,


EXCELLENT find. Thanks.

It doesn't take into account the pre-Darryl "Chocolate Thunder" Dawkins non-breakaway rims but it does touch on the subject well. If the rim tensions can be set and change over a season of use and have to be re-set for the playoffs that means that, even at their tightest, they weren't as tight as rims with no springs in them at all.


bob


.