Feel-good Celtics Stories and Better Times Brewing

I agree fully with Rosalie about Jeff Green.

People had unrealistic expectations for him. Yes, he's athletically gifted, but he lacks the skills that a top of the line SF would have (superior ball handling and better shooting). Jeff is really a 3rd option that people were expecting to be a 1st option.

Can Jeff become better? Well, now that Rondo's back its only a matter of time before he gets rolling. He does look better when in transition, because his lack of ball handling skills hurts his half court game.



KJ

bob I believe I used the word role player, Perk couldn't carry Bill Walton's jockstrap.....in no way did I ever say hes more than a Beast or role player, but I did say valuable role player and he did a great job making KG's job easier, as he does for Ibaka, Collison and Durant.

You don't have to use stats to back up Perks limitations, he doesn't always get alot of minutes, but there are 7-8 rebound games that he comes up with and you always get that lunch pail slambam defense and hard picks and hes a load in the paint.

I know Perk has limitations and quite frankly am surprised a hard nosed role player like him has been so hard to replace, Jason Collins couldn't do it, Thabeet, while younger and taller cannot do what Perk does either....I don't even want to bring up Fab Melo, whoops I just did, well none of those role players could carry Perks jockstrap. There is degree of role players and Perk takes on the biggest guys in the paint and relishes it, I'll take a guy like that watching my back anytime.

Funny how threads get off on tangents like this one. I even tried to laugh it off, but it didn't work. Whatever!

Bob, I don't believe the balance of a roster is determined by the number of players at each position. It's determined by the number of players who can do a really representative job of playing each position. When Rondo returned, it was not a matter of one guard replacing three. It was a matter of having a real point guard replacing three players who were not real point guards.

At that point, and even more so as Rondo get his "C" legs (wasn't that a clever play on letters?), I feel they moved from being roughly 60% balanced to being roughly 80% balanced. It should be pretty obvious where the other 20% resides.

That doesn't mean they're anywhere near 80% of peak competence. But at least they're reasonably functional at four positions. And when they become at least reasonably functional at all five positions, they'll be able to play better basketball because they won't be forced into so many compromises because they lack a competent specialist at one of the five positions.

Then it will be a matter of tweaking and fine-tuning the personnel at the various positions in order to get the most out of each position and the right mix for the collective whole. Easy, right?

Sam

sam wrote:Funny how threads get off on tangents like this one.  I even tried to laugh it off, but it didn't work.  Whatever!

Bob, I don't believe the balance of a roster is determined by the number of players at each position.  It's determined by the number of players who can do a really representative job of playing each position.  When Rondo returned, it was not a matter of one guard replacing three.  It was a matter of having a real point guard replacing three players who were not real point guards.

At that point, and even more so as Rondo get his "C" legs (wasn't that a clever play on letters?), I feel they moved from being roughly 60% balanced to being roughly 80% balanced.  It should be pretty obvious where the other 20% resides.

That doesn't mean they're anywhere near 80% of peak competence.  But at least they're reasonably functional at four positions.  And when they become at least reasonably functional at all five positions, they'll be able to play better basketball because they won't be forced into so many compromises because they lack a competent specialist at one of the five positions.

Then it will be a matter of tweaking and fine-tuning the personnel at the various positions in order to get the most out of each position and the right mix for the collective whole.  Easy, right?

Sam

sam,

Championship teams, nowadays, have at least 2 all-stars, probably 3.  They also have at least 3-4 solid role players coming off the bench.  You don't usually see teams going 10 deep in the playoffs, certainly not more than 10.  It's nice to have good solid players capable of representing their positions, but if the other team has an all-star going against them, it's a losing proposition.  The fact that our bench guy is better than their bench guy doesn't have the same impact in the playoffs because starters play longer minutes, so no matter which of your solid role players you put in they will still be going against an all-star most of the time.

So, your point is well-taken, it's not how many players you have at each position, it's the quality of those players at the top of the depth chart at each position, assuming your goal is winning a championship.  As Celtic fans that is, of course, the only goal worth pursuing.

Rondo is an all-star.  Sully is a star in the making.  Is Bradley an all-star or likely to be one?  Is Jeff Green?  Bass or Hump?  Are we likely to land an all-star center?  No, not unless Danny has sold his soul to the devil, so we need these guys to do it.  Aside from our lack of a legit NBA center, we need at least one of the latter four to step up or we're still a player short.  


bob


.

Bob,

In one sense, I rather hope the Celtics don't land an all-star center. I'd much rather have a lunch pail defensive rebounder who may make neither the headlines nor the all-star team but who may turn out to be the most appreciated teammate among all the Celtics. Let the headlines and the all-star credentials be tied to the two shooting positions, the power forward position (Sully?) and Rondo. Besides, if Mr. Lunch Pail doesn't gain a boatload of notoriety, he may be easier to re-sign at a reasonable price when the time comes.

Sam

Re: "Bob Cousy, who was not the world's greatest athlete"

He had phenomenal peripheral vision. Stan Lee could put him on his people with superpowers show.

Worcester,

Cooz also had exceptionally long arms and hands that wouldn't take a back seat to Rondo's.  But those are physical characteristics rather than the types of things people typically describe as indicators athleticism.

He arrived in the league with no jump shot but developed one within a couple of years.  However, his feet were seldom more than two inches off the floor on that shot.  Perhaps if he'd been a faster runner, he would have over-dribbled like some PGs of today and wouldn't have been forced to develop his phenomenal passing ability to the degree that he did.  One thing he did have going for him physically was extraordinary coordination, to the extent that he developed new, unorthodox moves and shots out of the flow of ballgames.

My favorite word to describe Cooz will always be "creative."  I would argue to the death that no one who ever has played pro basketball has ever been so creative in so many ways as Bob Cousy.

Imagine developing five distinctly different styles of shooting his long shots so as to throw off the rhythm of defenders.  Imagine developing his air dribble so his progress up the floor wouldn't be interrupted by lunging defenders.  Imagine working for an entire winter to develop that "jump" shot that, a few months later, would help him score five points in the last five seconds of the third overtime to send the deciding playoff game into a fourth overtime that they would win.  Imagine the practice it took to develop the only running lefty and righty hook shots from up to 15 feet that I've ever seen used as a regular part of his repertoire (he even sank both in his very last game).  Imagine the sheer number of little tricks he played to motivate teammates to develop and sustain winning habits.  Imagine the way he didn't just showboat with all his behind-the-back and over-the-shoulder  stuff but used it to avoid opponents' defensive traps and/or to open lanes up for driving recipients of his passes.

I just hope he's getting back on an even keel after becoming somewhat of a recluse when his wife, Missie, died.  Without Cousy's arrival on the Celtics scene, I would never have been stimulated to experience what a beautiful and inspiring game basketball can be.

Sam

Sam

To this day whenever watching any game on any level, I love a great pass (assist) over the basket that follows, even if its an earthshaking dunk. A great move to the hoop is nice but give me the guy that can pass the ball and get it to where it needs to go.

Always felt bad for the passer when he sets up his teammate for a bunny and the guy showboats and blows the shot.

beat

Sam, I don't have to imagine Cooz doing all the things. I saw him doing them. I think the 5 point 5 second game you're talking about was against Syracuse, right? Before Bill Russell was on the team.

FYI, Cousy's home was about 1/4 mile from mine in Worcester, and his daughter Patricia went to high school with my sister. I met her ten years ago for the first time and almost asked her out but didn't, thinking "If this weren't Bob Cousy's daughter would I ask her out? Would that be fair to her?" I've since regretted missing that opportunity because my sister later told me Patricia's a really special gal. With parents like she had that makes sense. Cooz was also a Director of Home Federal Savings bank in Worcester with my dad (who never saw a basketball game in his life). They met all the time. My other regret is that despite my extreme proximity to Cooz, I never met him, and the closest I ever got to him was watching the Celts play the Royals from the second row in the Garden in 1960.

My boyhood friends told me that some weekend mornings he and Heinsohn would show up at the Newton Square public basketball courts (long since bulldozed away in the name of progress) to play a little ball with the youngsters. I was never lucky enough to be there for those magical moments, although I was lucky enough to be coached as an 8 year old by Andy Laska, Cooz's Holy Cross teammate.

Heinsohn lived a mile away from me in the other direction, another person I never met, although he was the next door neighbor to my parents' god-daughter. Oh well, at least I can say I've met you.

Worcester, unfortunately meeting me counts as a minus.  I met Cooz only once, when he was sitting behind one basket watching a game when he was retired.  He signed a blowup photo the Boston Herald gave me of him crying at his retirement afternoon that the Boston Herald gave me.  I recall he said, "Imaging, a grown man crying like that."  He obviously had to have a substantial ego to do the things he did, but he always came across as self-effacing.  I met Heinsohn once when practice was open to the media and I had sold my company to the Boston Globe.  (I later got it back.)  Heinie stayed after practice to shoot the breeze with the attendees, and he and I got into a debate on some issue (I can't recall what it was).  It wound up a standoff, which is probably a good thing because, even in retirement, he was a tad bigger than I was.

Sam

Both are men of real character, a hallmark of former Celtics players (Sidney Wicks excluded).

Wow, still talking about the Perkins trade.

At the time I thought that it was a reasonable decision though not without its risks and I hated to see Perkins go because, as Cowens has said, he and KG could provide some spectacular interior defense and I just plain liked the guy.

But the team had been playing great even with Perk out recovering from his knee injury since Shaq was providing all-star level play albeit in reduced minutes.

When the trade went down, Shaq had gone down with an injury but everyone thought that he would return. So it seemed like a nice move since we got an athletic, young, talented guy who could play multiple positions while keeping a guy who manned the center position quite well.

Of course, Shaq was never again effective.

But at the time, trading Perk for Green was a reasonable move. If Shaq had been able to continue to contribute at a level he had been during the first half of that season, the team still could have contended for a title while buffing up the roster for both the playoff run and the future.

Sloopjohnb wrote:Wow, still talking about the Perkins trade.

At the time I thought that it was a reasonable decision though not without its risks and I hated to see Perkins go because, as Cowens has said, he and KG could provide some spectacular interior defense and I just plain liked the guy.

But the team had been playing great even with Perk out recovering from his knee injury since Shaq was providing all-star level play albeit in reduced minutes.

When the trade went down, Shaq had gone down with an injury but everyone thought that he would return.  So it seemed like a nice move since we got an athletic, young, talented guy who could play multiple positions while keeping a guy who manned the center position quite well.

Of course, Shaq was never again effective.

But at the time, trading Perk for Green was a reasonable move.  If Shaq had been able to continue to contribute at a level he had been during the first half of that season, the team still could have contended for a title while buffing up the roster for both the playoff run and the future.

sloop,


Cowens has a shrine for Perk in his garage. LOL.


bob


.

A shrine to Perk. Harrr!!!


Interesting thread that has diverged into memories of Cousy.

Unfortunately I have no memories of Cousy or even of those great Russell teams that won 11 rings in 13 years.

I will say though that it seems to me that a great point guard is not a necessary requirement to contend.  Great, unselfish, smart players are.

After Cousy retired, the C's went on to win five titles in the next six years with KC Jones, Larry Sigfried and Emmet Bryant playing Cousy's old position ( guards were just guards then;the first time I heard the term "pointguard" was in the mid 1970's when it was applied to Kevin Porter).

Not denigrating KC or Siggy or Bryant but they obviously weren't in Cousy's league as playmakers.

In the 1970's we won two titles with JoJo and Charlie Scott playing what we now call pointguard.  Great players to be sure but not your classic pointguards.

In the 1980's we had Archibald--a classic pointguard-- for one title and DJ--great player but no classic pointguard--for two titles.

I think Bill Simmons in his "Basketball Book" had a quote form John Havlicek that the year after Russell retired what the team missed the most was'nt  his defense or rebounding but his decision making with the ball.

They ran their half court offense through Russell.

The skillset of a great pointgurd is rare indeed but teams have won without one.

bob I have a shrine of you

Sloop,

Whether "great" (however that term is defined) or not, I believe the PG is the linchpin of a developing team because he affects the other four players more than anyone else on the team does.

In terms of the Russell Celtics, I suggest that you're looking at the wrong end of the Tyranny by focusing on KC, Siggy and Bryant.  Where the Celtics needed a great point guard was before Russell even came to town.

Because it was in the pre-Russell developmental years that Red and Cousy established an up-tempo-dominated, offensive, ball-sharing model that would arguably endure through the eighties—so much so that additions to the team through decades of play simply had to fit into the model rather than to be major factors in designing new models.  It was through Red and Cousy that the revolutionary idea was hatched of a game-long up-tempo offense could be sustained in dominant fashion.  That scheme of playing became more of a culture than just a model.

And in perpetuating the model without after Cousy's departure, the Celtics were fortunate to have gifted passers at other positions in the form of guys like Russell, Havlicek, and Bird.  Without passers of that caliber, it's likely that the Celtics championships in the late 60s, 70s and 80s would not have been so plentiful.  Without the offensive blueprint of which Red and Cooz were the unquestioned architects, it's likely that the Celtics—even with Russ aboard—could have become more of a one-trick pony: a defensive juggernaut that had a marginally effective offense that was seldom-to-nevernever quite able to put them over the top.

The Celtics are currently in a developmental situation in which, if they have a tried-and-true offensive model they've been following, I certainly haven't seen any evidence of it.  It seems as though they're sort of starting from scratch as Danny and Brad, respectively, tinker with the roster and the best system of play.  They need to develop both a successful offensive model and a viable defensive model.

On the offensive side, I believe Rondo's leadership and ball distribution abilities will be instrumental in identifying whatever offensive model will be best for this team going forward.  I believe the right center's defensive abilities will be instrumental in identifying whatever defensive model will be best for this team going forward.

Numerically, each of the five positions accounts for 20% of the players on the floor.  In terms of being the most important driving forces in building and sustaining successful models of offense and defense, I believe the point guard and center each account for no less than 25-30 per cent of the total importance.  One could perhaps quarrel with my figures, but you get my point.

Sam

People forget that as great as the Celts defense was during those 11 championships, they still scored a LOT of points and won many series by the thinnest of margins. I really believe that talent was better then. The pool was less diluted as there were many fewer teams, and almost all players had 4 years in college to hone their basketball fundamentals. Plus there was no 3 point line to inebriate players to the point of basketball buffoonery as exists today. Funny thing is that the centers were bigger then than today. How did that happen?

Where are all the great centers today? Many of them are playing PF. Players like Garnett, Duncan, Pau Gasol, etc would have been playing center in the 60's and 70's.

Which is all the more reason that having a legitimate center could give these Celtics a competitive edge.

Sam

Yes, but they're still not the blocks of granite I remembered we had in the 60's...Wilt, Wayne Embry, etc.

Upon further review, these are the heights and weights I found for those memorable centers - not too out of line with what today's PF's run. Still, they just SEEMED bigger and tougher. Maybe they'd been measured in their bare feet.
Redd Kerr - 6'9" -230
Clyde Lovelette - 6'9" - 234
Willis Reed - 6'9" - 235
Nate Thurmond - 6'11" - 225
Jerry Lucas - 6'8" - 230
Walt Bellamy - 6'11 -225
Wayne Embry - 6'8" - 240
Wes Unseld - 6'7" - 245
Bill Russell - 6'9.5" -220
Wilt Chamberlain - 7'1 - 275

Adding a legitimate center is Dr. Outside's Miracle Tonic.

• It cures chronic eyestrain caused by repeatedly rolling your eyes every time some puny guard strolls through the lane for an easy bucket.

• It instantly adds vitality to Sullinger and Humphries, who can be more productive playing the positions nature intended them to play.

• It's a superior glue that sticks to all manner of Hibberts, Boshes, Noahs, and Jeffersons.

• It seals leaks in the Celtic defense all the way out to the three-point line because defenders can extend pressure out instead of always having to collapse back in.

• It makes fastbreaks bloom even in winter by collecting more rebounds and sending outlet passes up the court.

It's a miracle cure! Get it now while supplies last!

Offer expires February 20 at 3 p.m. Eastern Time.

Outside wrote:Adding a legitimate center is Dr. Outside's Miracle Tonic.

• It cures chronic eyestrain caused by repeatedly rolling your eyes every time some puny guard strolls through the lane for an easy bucket.

• It instantly adds vitality to Sullinger and Humphries, who can be more productive playing the positions nature intended them to play.

• It's a superior glue that sticks to all manner of Hibberts, Boshes, Noahs, and Jeffersons.

• It seals leaks in the Celtic defense all the way out to the three-point line because defenders can extend pressure out instead of always having to collapse back in.

• It makes fastbreaks bloom even in winter by collecting more rebounds and sending outlet passes up the court.

It's a miracle cure! Get it now while supplies last!

Offer expires February 20 at 3 p.m. Eastern Time.

Hah! Excellent, outside, excellent.


bob


.

excellent outside!!!

Nicely done, Outside.

Ditto.

Sam

Sloop,

Those guys wouldn't necessarily have played center in the 60s and 70s because, based on the law of genetics, they all would have been an inch or two shorter.

To dispel the absolute myth that, compared with today's centers, the centers of the 60s and 70s were relative shrimps, here are some stats:

The players who are currently playing the most minutes at center for their respective 30 teams in today's NBA average exactly 6' 11" based on the stats displayed by Basketball Reference.

The players who played the most minutes at center for their 9 respective teams in the 1962-63 regular season (which I selected because it was the season of my favorite Celtics team) averaged slightly more than 6' 10".  Big deal.  A one inch difference, which is easily explained because people in general are taller nowadays. The odds are great that the relative height gap between centers and players at other positions was no smaller in 1962-63 than it is nowadays. In fact, I would be willing to put serious money behind a premise that the height gap between centers and other players was actually considerably larger back then than it is now.

In my research, I ran across the following stats from Wikipedia.  I don’t know the original source, and sometimes Wikipedia can be less than totally accurate, but I know of no reason why someone list such precise numbers unless they were based on some specific source.

These data tell the average size of NBA players (not just centers—all players in the league) during each of the listed seasons.  They only take us up through 2007-08.  But the trend since the early 80s to the late 00s is indisputable.

NBA players (not just centers—all players) are experiencing shrinkage!

Not the most dreaded form of shrinkage in the Seinbergian sense.  But the average player today is now a bit shorter than in the early 80s.

The average height of the seasons on the list was in excess of 6” 7’ with downturn tendencies between 1982 and 2007. In 2007-08, the average height dropped down through the 6' 7" "barrier."

I don’t claim to know the reason for the trend, which is not huge but is directionally interesting.  I’d welcome more recent figures.  But I like to think that perhaps pro basketball is realizing that placing huge emphasis on height is not necessarily the best way to improve the quality of basketball.  The trend toward "going small" would seem in keeping with this theory.

1985-86 6’ 7.36”
1986-87 6’ 7.62” (the high point)
1987-88 6’ 7.38”
1988-89 6’ 7.31”.
1989-90 6’ 7.09”
1990-91 6’ 7.16”
1991-92 6’ 7.04”
1992-93 6’ 7.06”
1993-94 6’ 7.34”
1994-95 6’ 7.19”
1995-96 6’ 7.27”
1996-97 6’ 7.20”
1997-98 6’ 7.11”
1998-99 6’ 7.10”
1999-00 6’ 7.26”
2000-01 6’ 7.03”
2001-02 6’ 7.26”
2002-03 6’ 7.40”
2003-04 6’ 7.31”
2004-85 6’ 7.26”
2005-06 6’ 7.18”
2006-07 6’ 7.30”
2007-08 6’ 6.30” (the low point)
2008-09 6’ 6.98”


Sam