Just a Reminder: Larry Bird Could Really Pass the Rock

Swish,

I endorse the use of fga as an indicator of page (in the absence of anything better). I simply don't know what your figures prove. So the fg percentages increase by 3 points over five seasons without dunks being a factor. Dunks became a factor just after those five seasons, leading to even more increases in fg percentages. What was more of a factor in the measly 3 point increase in the second half of the 50s was the increased presence of the fast break, creating more fga and an increasing number of easy baskets (leading to a rising fg percentage).

I'm not certain how you believe you know so much about my early years, but I'm sorry to tell you that you're way, way off the track. For one thing, it happens that my memory is fortunately extremely acute and not at all "blurred." Before my parents died about five years ago, I gave them a list of visual memories I had about our first apartment in 1937, and they verified that all of them were accurate. The kicker is that we moved from that apartment when I was age one. When I was 15, I was a cashier in a supermarket. We were told to be on the lookout for a phony $20 bill with a certain serial number. I still recall that serial number.

I've recounted, on this board, all sorts of minuscule details I recall from the Russell years. All my life, I've taken very few photos and only a few videos. The reason is that I prefer to sear an image into my memory. I started that practice when Bob Cousy came to town. And I'm fortunate to be able to recall on demand the images of hundreds of Russell-era game and practice snippets.

I could provide more tidbits—actually many more—about my memory; but, frankly, I don't feel the need to justify further the clarity of my memory.

Your claim about my age is as accurate as your comments about my memory. When Russ "came to town," I was not age 14, and I was two years through my first college degree program, majoring in statistics as an outgrowth of an analytical orientation that was spawned by my fanaticism for the late 40s Red Sox and early 50s Celtics. Two years earlier, I had already demolished my second copy of Red's "Basketball for the Player, the Fan and the Coach." By the time Russ hit Boston, I had already applied for a part-time statistician's job with the Celtics' Bill Mokray,—the team's p.r. director and a noted statistician. It turned out that I didn't get the job (nor did anyone else); and Bill, himself, was much more involved with p.r. than with statistics—both for the same reason. Red didn't care about stats.

But I had a great discussion with Bill, who seemed genuinely interested in some of my ideas for new (at the time) basketball statistics, including: recording steals (which I called "takeaways"); calculating +/- figures; and correlation of game pace (based on fga by both teams) with the performance of different player combinations. In fact, he encouraged me to take my statistical ideas to local newspapers. But, if the ideas wouldn't have been a direct benefit to the Celtics, I didn't care about trying to publicize them.

Perhaps you think this kind of stuff is what all teenagers did in the 1950s, but I believe you'd be mistaken. In those days, I wouldn't be surprised if most 24-year-olds weren't nearly that advanced in terms of basketball analysis and strategy.

Sam

Cow,

You haven't "made" me "reach" for anything.  Any astute person would recognize that, in an intergenerational discussion, there should be an attempt at leveling the table.  Of course you don't need an edge because you already have an edge in the form of refusing to recognize that non-playing factors favor the 80s team unfairly.

Hey, why not stage a hypothetical game right now between any of several Russell teams now in their 80s and the 86 team now in their 50s?  That would be fair, wouldn't it?  The passage of time shouldn't make any difference, right?

Of course I keep talking about genetics as well as improved conditioning approaches, training methods, strategic advances, improved shooting techniques, etc., because those non-playing factors are practically all you're talking about—especially genetic advances such as height.

A discussion such as this should be about playing the game of basketball—not the non-playing advantages associated with the passage of time.  And the pure and simple fact is that any of several Russell teams played better basketball, in a greater variety of ways, and with more quantity and quality of interchangeable parts, than the 86 Celtics.  Transportated magically into the 80s and its many non-playing advantages the Russell Celtics would latch onto those non-playing advantages  to amp up their performance so that they could still play better basketball, in a greater variety of ways, and with more quantity and quality of interchangeable parts, than the 86 Celtics.

As far as the abilities of Conley and Lovellette, I'll leave it up to you. What did you think of them when you saw them play? Oh wait..............
Okay given your lack of personal knowledge, I'll answer for you. "You're right, Sam, and I apologize for being so short-sighted. Conley and Lovellette were good enough to cope with Wilt quite well, and they did particularly well against plodders."

Sam

Really Sam, they helped limit Wilt in the game he got 55 rebounds against the Celtics? okay so Tommy is 2 inches taller, Hondo is 2 inches taller, heck give everyone better shooting touches too and give them higher FG% and ofcourse they would master the 3 too.

Now you happy? you obviously feel this needs to be done since your guys can't compete at the level seared in your memory, so go ahead, I'll give it all to you.

The greatness of Larry Bird was he could dominate and play his all world game and beat the quicker faster and better jumping guys that also could outrun him too, but at the end of the game Birds master of the fundamentals would lead his team to victory as he piled up every stat category. It was more fun watching a guy dominate without all the athletic advantages than say an MJ or Lebron who have such a speed and leaping advantage over basically all they faced.....could they do it without those athletic advantages? Bird could, thats what made it so fun and made him so great, guy had vision, touch, brass balls and toughness.

If you had real balls you wouldn't be clamoring for all these 80 genetic evolutions that you are claiming the 61 C's would need, it shouldn't be in the discussion, Bird wouldn't bring it up if we compared his best team to some great team in 2040, he wouldn't need to. He'd feel confident in his natural game as it was, so would Hondo.

Does not justify a response.

Sam

Russell doesn't need to have extra height or 25 pounds to stifle Parrish or McHale, hes fine as is, hes Bill Russell god dam it....you had me at hes Bill Russell, but if hes the only big going against Parrish, Walton and McHale, well thats something he never dealt with before, 3 2-way bigs of that quality....I love Bill Russell.

bobheckler wrote:

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


.

LOL you pitbull

Sam.

I've been aware for many years that your about 5 years younger than me. My below statement had nothing to do with you and was nothing more than my pointing out to other board members, who may not be aware of my age, the fact that I was not in my early teens during the Russell years. Congratulations on your fantastic memory.


"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"
Swish

Swish, I would feel deeply sorry for such an unfortunate youth.

Sam