Just a Reminder: Larry Bird Could Really Pass the Rock

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
Thanks for the above kind words. One small correction however. Like you my favorite Celtics teams are also the Russell years Celtics. If it appears to be otherwise its simply because in my looking back at the Russell years I have tried to remove the nostalgia that goes hand in hand with the good old days. Its not easy to do. As to a day spent together talking about the GOOD OLD DAYS. I bet we would agree a lot more frequently than disagree. I believe you are also a big time Red Sox fan. As a life time Yankee fan (1947) we sure could toss out a lot of names of the past.

Now back to the RIMS. When Russell entered the league in 1956 the league average for fg% was .380. The year he retired(1969) it had gone up to .441. The last year of the old rim(1980-81) the league average was .486. Enter the new rim in 1981-82 and the league fg% was.491. Five years later(1985-86) the league average was .493.
I don't see any evidence there to suggest that the rims were a factor.

swish







Posts: 10728
Join date: 2009-10-10

I wonder about the rim that helped Don Nelson make the shot against the Lakers.  You know the one that bounced straight up in the air and still made it through the rim.

There is an assumption that the rims were tighter in the old days than they are now.  There is a reality that no two rims are exactly alike.

In my opinion, the shooting percentages are better now than they were in the 60's because players are better shooters.

I have always thought it is an impossible argument to debate about a player or team of the 60's and compare them to present day players.  Can the 86 Team beat the 61 team.  How about the 74 team could it beat any of the 60's teams?  Who the hell knows.

Speculating about evolution and magical time capsules can never really be included in a hypothesis because they are not real.  

Are there any players of the 60's who could play in today's game based on who they where back then?

I think so.

dboss

Swish, if you're in the Boston area, let's have that lunch.  I'll gladly buy.

Shooting percentages are not proof about tightness of rims because shooting percentages are functions of too many other variables in addition to tight or loose rims—for example, pace of the game and popularization of the dunk.  Why is it that, when people dump on the shooting percentages of the older players compared with newer players, they never mention the fact that many older players thought the dunk was a cheap shot that was against some unspoken code—and they didn't want to get opponents angry for showing them up.  Certainly Russell generally adhered to the code, although he'd very occasionally dunk.  Certainly Sam Jones almost never dunked, although he was eminently capable of dunking as he proved in practice.  Same for Havlicek.  Even Wilt frequently eschewed the easy dunk in favor of a fallaway jumper, partly because he didn't want to be stigmatized as just a tall freak.  As basketball became more entertainment oriented, and after players found that entertainment produced more money than good basketball, dunking became so popular that now they have a stupid dunk contest on All Star Weekend.  And, golly gee shooting percentages rose with the advent of dunking popularity.

Cow, I can understand how important it is to you that you personally saw the greatest team in history.  But I'm incredulous at how you absolutely insist on comparing players as they were in the 80s with players as they were in the 60s.  Is today's soldier a better fighter than those in World War II just because today's soldier has more destructive weapons at his disposal?  Give the GIs of WWII today's weapons, and who knows how much more quickly  the resolution of the war might have occurred?  Give the Celtics of the 60s the genetic advances and challenges of the 80s, and see how the most innovative pro basketball team in history would have responded.

Let's see, what's arguably the best offense against wing span?  Yup, it's a hook shot, and being successful with it even on the dead run from the corner would make it even more dangerous.  Mr. McHale, meet Mr. Heinsohn, who will promptly take you away from your defensive basket with a fusillade of jumpers and long hooks.

How do you know DJ would destroy Sharman, whom you never saw play a game?  Actually, Sharman was the toughest guy on those teams, and that includes Loscutoff.  DJ would never out-tough Sharman, and toughness was arguably DJ's strongest attribute.  Are you implying Ainge and DJ would play the entire game?  What about when Sam and KC were in there?  Whether against a thoroughly fatigued Ainge and a gassed DJ or against their subs, what would you have? That's right.  Track meet.  Track meet.  Track meet.

Havlicek wasn't as fancy as Larry, but he was at least equally effective in all departments of the game—and surely much better on defense.  As at most positions, the older Celtics would run numbers against Larry, giving him differing looks: Satch to blanket him and make him work harder for his points; Havlicek to defend him like a glove and run away from him on offense; Loscutoff to sap Larry's energy with toughness.

Cow, please note that, in my comments, I don't specify whether a given player was black or white.  I think that's a pretty good policy, don't you?  There were very gifted stars of both colors in the league in the early 60s.

As for Hall of Fame credentials (and I actually did see those eight Hall of Famers play for many many years:

Clyde Lovellette couldn't have gone into the HOF on Russell's coattails.  He was a complementary player (9+ MPG) backing up Russell for the Celtics, but he entered the Hall of Fame on the strength of his performances with the Lakers and Cincinnati.  In the 8 seasons when he played big minutes, he averaged 20+ PPG and 11+ RPG and won one ring along with four all star selections.  He would have been great at the three-point line as he could score from great distance, which was invaluable to the Celtics in spacing the floor for their number one (scissors) play.  He was a supporting player with Hall of Fame credentials.

KC Jones was simply an elite defender, and it could be argued that, but for him, Jerry West's heroics could have led the Lakers to multiple titles over the Celtics.  He certainly had as much right as Dennis Rodman to enter the HOF.  You don't have to appreciate defense, but then you never saw K.C. Jones play.

Frank Ramsey was the Celtics' first sixth man—an innovation that gave them an unmatchable advantage.  He played both forward and guard.  I just looked up his 1960-61 season because we've been talking about that season.  He was third on the team in points per minute, and had to have competed with Cousy for the leadership in steals.  Only in his first season did he score fewer than 19 points per 36 minutes.  But none of that was the most important element of Frank Ramsey.  He was always the designated Celtics catalyst, whether it came to a 6' 3" guy successfully guarding Elgin Baylor in a foul-induced emergency or a dynamic wing on the fast break or someone to take (and make) a clutch, often low-percentage shot or a tide-turning assist.

If one doesn't believe Tom Heinsohn was a bona fide Hall of Famer from virtually any perspective, I'm sorry but one just doesn't get greatness unless it's dressed up with a ribbon for the entertainment bozos.  From the time in his rookie (of the year, over Russell) season, when his 37 points in the double-overtime championship game propelled the Celts to their first championship, he never looked back.  He was hard-nosed (all those Celtics were), a MUCH better passer than his nicknames would suggest, and he shares (with Sam Jones of course) the all-time Celtics lead in points per minute of floor time.

The unparalleled success of the Russell Celtics never was based on individuality, and fans who like to look at greatness with individualized tunnel vision find it difficult to realize that ONLY because the entire team was happy to play roles were the Russell Celtics a bona fide tyranny.  Any of them had the ability to become major stars on an individual basis, but they sacrificed that opportunity in favor of winning, winning, winning.  What that meant was that each Celtic was able to compress his ability and energy into the minutes of a role player.  Only Russell was ever stretched thin, and (for some reason), that didn't matter; and he did have very capable backups during the early sixties—one a future Hall of Famer.

Cow, you are fond of saying, "Larry did this, Larry did that," and you're absolutely right.  But all that "doing" was tiring, which made him even slower in the clutch than he usually was.  Same for all the starters on that team, with the exception of Parish in the one year when Walton spelled him so well.  But, against a team that promised a track meet, track meet, track meet, a team gets worn down by the fourth quarter.  The Russell Celtics' depth of greatness feasted on that proposition.

The Celtics of 1960-61 played only two guys more than 30 minutes—Russell (off the charts) and Cousy (32+).  The 1985-86 Celtics played four guys over 30 minutes, Bird, McHale, Parish and D.J., and Ainge was right at 30 minutes.  Track meet. Track meet.  Track meet.

So why don't you come back and tell me how each 1985-86 Celtic made more money than each 1960-61 Celtic, which makes the '86 guys much better.  And I'll come back with the same six words that I'll abbreviate from now on.  TM, TM, TM.

Oh, and by the way, remember the stuff you posted about how DJ and Danny would take care of sharman and Cousy. Actually, in that year (60-61), Sam jones started, not Sharman. Wanna talk speed? Wanns talk shooting greatness? Arguably the best ball distributor of all-time and an absolute scoring machine. Wanna talk TM, TM, TM?

Sam

Compared to other members of this board, my basketball knowledge is far less expansive so I don't really have much of a dog in this fight.

KJ

KJ,


This topic is far from a first on this forum.  And it will never be settled to everyone's satisfaction.  We all have our favorites; so, every once in a while, we trot it out, polish all the old arguments; and, once in a great while, we identify a new slant.  And, in the meantime, we hopefully learn a lot.

Guys like Swish and Cowens are a major part of what makes this forum tick because they do their research, aren't afraid to speak their minds, and don't lose sight of conviviality along the way.  Unfortunately, the written word can sometimes come off as more stern than it's intended to be.  I think many of us have tried to insert a little levity only to have it backfire and be considered sarcasm.  Sometimes, I think some of us should be required to depict a huge "LOL" at the top of every post so as not to convey the wrong impression.

Your comments are always welcome.

Sam

Sam

Boston is way out of my range. My power wheel chair limits me to about a one mile radius. If your ever in the North Attleboro area( about 25 miles south of Boston right on route 95) look me up. Perhaps I could fill you in on the early years of baseball and basketball.

Your right that many factors can determine fg%. Certainly Dunking can be one but to what degree? Pace of game.Would have to do considerable research before passing judgment on that possibly.
First dunking. From 1956- 57 through 1960-61, with dunking the exception, fg% went up as follow. 1956,.380 to.383 to .395 to.410to.415 in 1960.

Pace ( fga). Starting in 1956-57 with fga at 94.6 and fg% at .380. both fga and fg% rose each and every year to 1960-61 when fga reached 109.4 and fg% reached .415.

To me Sam its nothing more than a sport in its early years making a steady climb up the skill ladder.

swish

This has little to do with this subject but:

Rifleman is first to shatter an NBA backboard

Updated: October 14, 2005, 4:44 PM ET

By Larry Schwartz | Special to ESPN.com

Nov. 5, 1946

Before Chuck Connors made his mark as "The Rifleman" on television, he already played a starring role on the basketball court. Tonight, before the first home game of the Boston Celtics, Connors makes history: He is the first player to shatter a backboard in the NBA (though it was called the Basketball Association of American until 1949).

Connors, a 6-foot-6½ inch center from Seton Hall, doesn't break the glass with a resounding dunk. No, it happens when he takes a two-handed shot in pregame warmup in Boston Arena. The ball catches the front of the rim and the backboard crumbles because a worker hadn't installed a piece of protective rubber between the rim and the backboard.

The game against the Chicago Stags is delayed an hour while a truck is dispatched to pick up another glass backboard in Boston Garden, where Gene Autry's rodeo is playing to a packed house.

In 53 games with the Celtics, Connors will average 4.5 points and shoot 25.2 percent from the field. He will play one game for the Brooklyn Dodgers in 1949 and 66 for the Chicago Cubs in 1951 - hitting .238 - before going into show business.

--


KJ

regardless of whose opinion I agree with, I'm enjoying this discussion thoroughly...

Hey Sam that was a good post, was hoping you were gonna comeback strong, hope your not losing your fastball....on 60's to 80's, there is a lot of new science involved, the game is also more athletic today then the 80's, but todays game and top teams pale in comparison to the 80's historic great teams. I don't hear any pundits talk about the last 5 NBA champions being historic all time great teams....I used to hear that alot during the mid 80's as the championship games were unfolding. On comparing whatever the military soldiers used years ago to today? could we just stick with basketball, I think thats what this Forum is about. I'm not gonna try to use an argument that if we got that team from 86 to use TODAYS vitamins, advanced training or advanced therapy that they could compete with todays teams...I don't have to. That 86 team kicks the crap out of Lebron and D Wade as they were and very thoroughly. If C Bosh struggled against 36 year old Tim Duncan, can you imagine how completely beaten up and shutdown he would have been by the 86 frontline? We are talking tag team HoFers with the still great Bill Walton coming off the bench.

You still haven't answered how the 61 C's neutralize the 86 teams dominance in the paint, Russell couldn't cover both 7 footers. I never said Ainge and DJ were a better backcourt than your 4, but against your 2, Cousy and Sharman those 2 60's guys don't scare me, say we decided to put DJ on the Cooz for stretches, I dare say DJ is a long active defender that could defend the Cooz to the point that it would be the best defender he had ever faced, as the Cooz never faced a defender with DJ's acumen either. Ainge is 6'5", I don't mind putting him on the other dude either. At the time before the arrival of MJ, DJ was the best defensive guard of his era from late 70's to mid 80's, he was revolutionary at the time and took the mantle of the best backcourt defensive stalwart from Walt Frazier, Jerry Sloan and Jerry West. I have to believe he could give the great Cooz a real run for his money and make his life miserable in a seven game series, just like he used to do to Magic Johnson.

We didn't just have Ainge and DJ in the backcourt either, we had 2 snipers in Scott Wedman and Jerry Sichting, both were sharpshooters that spread the floor and got wide open looks because of the passing offense and pressure the frontline could put on opposing defenses. I can't take anything away from the Jones Boys, saw Sam at the tail end, he still had a burst and was a player that could play and get his points in any era. You used the Lakers of the 80's as a reference that running teams gave that Bird team trouble, well Magics crew gave everybody trouble, but they didn't just run. They had great post up players, Kareem was the greatest scorer in the game, his sky hook was unstoppable, Worthy had a post up game as did Magic....sooner or later the game slows down, those Lakers could still play and dominate teams in the halfcourt whenever the running game got bogged down.

Could the 61 C's frontline give them enough offense against this 86 monster frontline? Against other 60's teams I'm sure they could, but this is a different team from a different era, that 86 Celtic team took away every teams inside offense, I'll give you a few Tommy hook shots, hes not gonna hit so many over McHale that its a mismatch, like what McHale would do to a Chris Bosh. The pre 87 McHale could cover any forward from Elvin Hayes to Dr J to James Worthy, I think he'd get the best of that match up once he figured when Tommy was going for the hook shot....I shudder to think what he would do offensively to poor Tommy or Satch. Your 61 C's would have their moments, I still give them their due and respect, Celtics of 86 just such a beast on both sides of the ball, too much size, too much movement and vision, too much defense, too much of Larry who had his best year in 86 and was indefatigable that year, I don't even want to get into FG%.....sorry Sam, not happening.

hey matty hope you enjoy that last post, I'm just calling it the way I see it, that great 86 team isn't even my favorite team. My fav was the 72-73-74 Celtics. cow

Well, as someone who saw both the '60s and '80s Celtics, they're like two of my kids and I can't pick one over the other. I think generational sports' comparisons are subjective, no matter which facts are marshaled, something like comparing Billie Holiday and Nora Jones, trying to make a case based on range, clarity and breath control. Still, it's enjoyable, so keep it up!

I like 90s basketball more than the way the game is today.

That is mostly because referees have zero credibility now.

KJ

cowens/oldschool wrote:hey matty hope you enjoy that last post, I'm just calling it the way I see it, that great 86 team isn't even my favorite team. My fav was the 72-73-74 Celtics. cow

cow,

This might be your most comprehensive post I've seen in a while. I enjoyed it.


bob


.

Thanks bob, I always enjoy your posts, by the way whats your opinion, 86 or 61?

cow

cowens/oldschool wrote:Thanks bob, I always enjoy your posts, by the way whats your opinion, 86 or 61?

cow

cow,

Have you ever seen me play deaf and dumb?  Well, you're in for a treat, because that's what I'm about to do.

I'll just copy-and-paste part of a post I wrote earlier in this thread, and then STFU:


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


.

bob

R u afraid of Sam? LOL

Seriously though was looking forward to your opinion, as you have knowledge to make a compelling case either way....and you know that.

I must say Sams comments about the Lakers and their running game being the team that gave us the most trouble has some definite merit and it made me look deeply into that era and that team. Those Lakers were a hell of a team, a really great team. If not for us and Moses upseting them and later joining Dr J, that team could have got to 8 titles in 80's and really been a dynasty.

And this discussion has made me appreciate Red and his genius as a coach and GM even more. He was a step ahead of everybody and he did it so right....a real visionary and genius. It wasn't Reds fault Len Bias had a bad night, with Bias we would have had that young athletic stud phenom to go right at the Worthys, Jordan, Barkley, Dominique....the whole Jordan era might have never taken off, Red did everything right on that one, that Bird team with Bias could have went for 6-7 titles.

cow

k_j_88 wrote:I like 90s basketball more than the way the game is today.

That is mostly because referees have zero credibility now.

KJ

very good point, its gotten the point its a joke and u know its coming.....

cowens/oldschool wrote:bob

R u afraid of Sam? LOL

Seriously though was looking forward to your opinion, as you have knowledge to make a compelling case either way....and you know that.

I must say Sams comments about the Lakers and their running game being the team that gave us the most trouble has some definite merit and it made me look deeply into that era and that team. Those Lakers were a hell of a team, a really great team. If not for us and Moses upseting them and later joining Dr J, that team could have got to 8 titles in 80's and really been a dynasty.

And this discussion has made me appreciate Red and his genius as a coach and GM even more. He was a step ahead of everybody and he did it so right....a real visionary and genius. It wasn't Reds fault Len Bias had a bad night, with Bias we would have had that young athletic stud phenom to go right at the Worthys, Jordan, Barkley, Dominique....the whole Jordan era might have never taken off, Red did everything right on that one, that Bird team with Bias could have went for 6-7 titles.

cow

cow,

Maybe it's you I'm afraid of.


bob


.

Cow you're still arguing not about team comparisons but comparisons in the life and times of eighties pro basketball against the life and times of sixties pro basketball. I'll say this just one more time because repeating it is becoming embarrassing.

Give the 60 Celtics the same advantages of the passage of time as the 86 Celtics enjoyed, the sixties Celtics would have capitalized on those advantages because innovation was their metier. They would have been taller and stronger. They would have been faster (at least the relatively slower guys would because Russell, Sam and Havlicek of even the early 60s could have slaughtered any Celtic of the mid-80s in a foot race). They would have taken full advantage of the evolution of shooting techniques, conditioning, game strategy, etc., etc., etc.

So why don't you try comparing the 1985-86 team with the Russell team as it would certainly have been transformed in the 80s by taking advantage of the intervening quarter century of evolution?

• Do you really think Cousy, Sam and Havlicek wouldn't have increased their range to become excellent three-point shooters?

• Do you really think Russell, with another inch-or-so of height and 25-or so pounds wouldn't be able to stifle either Parish or McHale? (And, to answer your earlier question, actually Russ could have thwarted both Paris and McHale simultaneously near the rim. But, if this doesn't satisfy you, read my comments on Russ' backups, who often played in tandem with Russell.)

• Do you really think a faster Heinsohn and Sanders wouldn't team up to leave McHale's tongue lolling by halftime?

• As to confronting the Twin Towers of Paris and McHale, do you really think a taller, heavier, faster Gene Conley (a raw-boned son of a bitch on defense) or Clyde Lovellette (a heavy, tall, rough player who could cause offensive mayhem inside or out) couldn't either play along with or spell Russell for 10 minutes (more time than he needed) and use their respective strengths to create their own brand of havoc as a change of pace from Russell? (Note: Even in their respective last seasons as backups with the Celtics, Conley ranked #2 on the team in terms of rebounds per minute and #7 in terms of points per minute. Lovellette ranked #2 in terms of rebounds per minute and #3 in points per minute on a team with 7 other Hall of Famers.)

• Do you really think that a faster, taller Bob Cousy, armed with greater speed and the superlative jumper he'd surely have perfected, would fail to fake either DJ or Ainge out of their respective jocks repeatedly while he'd pinpoint-pass the 86 guys to death?

• Do you really think an even faster 60 Celtics team would fail to run their 80s counterparts off the court in the transition game?

• Do you really think the constant motion in the 60s Celtics team-oriented halfcourt game—especially given added height and speed—would fail to turn the 80s frontcourt into Tanglefoot, Inc.?

I always admired the 80s Celtics teams but frankly, I could never get used to their style of play. It was too "George Mikanish" for me. To me, they tended to be plodders whose primary offensive strategy involved trying to crush other teams by virtue of their superior height. Actually, that tactic was one that was often practiced by opponents on the 60s Celtics, who nonetheless won the championship virtually every year. The actual height measurement doesn't matter; it's the techniques that count. In fact, the taller the opponent, the easier he is to move in many cases because of his higher center of gravity. And the Celtics of the 60s were experts at moving behemoths (especially Wilt, the biggest behemoth of all) out of their comfort zones. And that ability included Heinsohn, Sanders, Loscutoff, Conley and Lovellette as well as Russell.

Bottom line: You can do all the player vs. player analysis you want, and you can persist in comparing the Celtics as they were in 86 with the Celtics as they were in the primitive days of 61. But all of that hard work misses the entire point. Heck, why not compare the 86 Celtics to the Original Celtics of the twenties? You could assert that the 86 Celtics were better dribblers because the rocks in the twenties had jagged edges on them.

Sam

Swixh, I used to live in Sharon and drive to my weekly Army Reserve meetings in Attleboro. Gettiing to that area is no big deal for me. I'm entertained by hours of sports radio. Actually, we're considering moving off-Cape to Duxbury, from where an Attleboro trip would restrict the sports radio mention of "football" to only 400-500 times. So it may take a while to make up our minds and get settled if we do move; and I'd love to have that lunch with you. I wonder whether anyone else might join us, or should we restrict it to "geezers?"

As I inidicated earlier, shooting percentages are not a good indicator of much of anything because there are so many variables involved. Pace is a biggie.

For example, you mentioned that both fga and FG % increased between 1956 and 1960, and I assume you're saying that this somehow proves there were no tight rims in the 50s and 60s. But what it really proves is that, once the 24-second rule was instituted and the excellence of the Celtics' fast break of the started peaking when Russell joined the team in 1956 and commanded the boards, other teams began realizing the value of a good fast break and began becoming less deliberate on offense. So fas increased, and the shooting percentage increased because of the number of easy baskets produced by the fast break.

So, I'm not quite sure what your conclusion was in the stats you quoted. But I do believe it was possible for FG percentages to increase despite the same old tight rims.

I agree that basketball is just a game. I also believe that life is a form of a game. But both hold great importance to me. The only reason I joined a basketball board (something like eight years ago) was to try to counter the tendencies toward revisionist Celtics history as old fogies like us wither and go away. (Since that time, my basketball interests have mushroomed in many directions, and but the crusade against Celtics revisionist history is still out front by a significant margin.)

I learned to much about life, as well as basketball, from the Russell Celtics—as a spectator but more on a personal level—that I will always feel I owe a huge debt to them. So, whenever I see something that suggests there's less appreciation of that team than is warranted, I always speak up. I don't believe I've ever once missed an opportunity. If you ever see me overlook something of that type, you can assume that as Cowens said, I've "lost my fastball."

In the meantime, Cow, watch out for the high hard one. And please recognize that one of the joys of my life is the proliferation of so much incredible knowledge, coupled with quality people, associated with this forum. It's a lot harder to disagree with a member than it used to be—not (I hope) because I've "lost my fastball" but because of the breadth of basketball (and other) intelligence that is demonstrated so widely here on a daily basis.

Sam

Swish, I just had a thought that has made me curious. I know you've considerable research on rims. Have you found, anywhere, an indication of what rim design the collapsible rims replaced?

Sam

Sam

I sure am enjoying this Generational chit chat. Getting together for a rehash of the good old days sounds great to me. First got interested in generational sports comparisons about 5 years a go. It has become a big time hobby for me and now that my research on the NBA is complete its on to baseball. I realize that most fans believe that you can't compare generations but I'm very confident that it can be done. But first you must take personal opinions out of the equation and let the facts lead the way.

About the rims Sam. I have not seen a word on the old rims other than the fact that the metal bracket attached to the rim was bolted directly to the back board. A lot of technical data about the new rims none of which was of interest to me.

As to the numbers that I posted. They were a response to your mention of pace and dunking as factors in fg%. Simply stated the
fg% rose each and every year without dunking being a factor. As defined in basketball terms pace is the number of ball posessions. Since that stat was not available in the early years I took the liberty to use the fga figure. Correct me if Im wrong but the more fga taken equal more posessions. The numbers I presented on that subject showed an increase in fg% even while the pace (fga) increased.

Let me make it very,very clear Sam. This is not in any way an attempt on my part to lesson the achievements of those fanstastic, unbelievable Celtics of the Russell years.I was pushing 25 when Russ came to town so my memories of all those years are more than the blurred memories of a 14 year old. So this is nothing more than a Generational comparison where you and I tend to disagree.

swish

Sam

I'm sorry buddy, I made you reach, you keep on bringing up genetics....I don't need that as an edge, you feel you do. I'm happy with this 86 team as is vs Jordans best, Lebrons, doesn't matter I don't need to make the playing field more level. Just because a team is assembled 25 years later doesn't mean they will be bigger, stronger, etc...The Heat are 28 years after the 86 team, only 2 players you could say have a genetic advantage, otherwise overall were alot bigger than the Heat and more than capable of punishing them inside and raining 3's despite 28 years of evolution or genetics. Its more about how the team is assembled and Red made deals and drafted to make a big bruising team. Lawrence Taylor played in the 80's, same era as Bird. I know I'm changing sports, but I've never seen a faster, more physical do everything linebacker since he played.....25 years later does not mean the attributes of athletes has to change dramatically, generally speaking it can to a certain degree. I think I proved my point, I don't feel I've embarrassed myself and I hope you haven't by constantly reaching to make things more even.

I'll give you Hondo even though he was still at Ohio St in 61. Theres no way you can convince me Gene Conley and Clyde L could handle or give Russell enough help to overcome the greatest frontline in history. The player you would actually need next to Russell that would make things alot more interesting inside would be Dave Cowens...that I'd pay to see.

cow

The Celtics teams of the 60's were significantly better than any team that has played basketball over the past 50 some odd year.  This applies to every championship that has been won including those by the Celtics in 74, 76, 81, 84, 86 and 2008.

Those old teams played a pure game of basketball both on offense and defense that defines what great basketball is all about.  They had some great players  but they beat teams all the time and every time that sometimes had even better players.

I loved the 86 team although I thought the 84 team  was better but neither of those team were as complete as the teams of the 60's.

I know people may disagree but I was there.  I saw those teams play and it was simply magnificent.  

dboss

Sam I was joking when I mentioned losing your fastball. LOL