Ten questions with Bob Ryan

Came across this interview with Bob Ryan:

http://www.si.com/nba/2014/10/06/bob-ryan-scribe-review-michael-jordan-lebron-james-larry-bird-celtics

Always respected Ryan, and its interesting to hear his thoughts about the evolution of the league and which teams and players were the greatest. Enjoy...

Bob, I've always thought you were the best basketball writer ever. That's why I don't try to embarrass you about your opinion of the best team ever. You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but you put far too much emphasis on entertainment value for my taste. The Bird Celtics had height (which is more a genetic thing than a skill thing) and a wondrous catalyst who loved to rise to the occasion. But as far as being the most superb practitioners of the art of basketball......well.....again you're entitled to your opinion.

As for the early 1970s practices, you were the only scribe at most of them; but I can personally testify to the fact that, on many, many occasions, you were not the only person watching them.

Sam

Sam, thought you might have something to say about this.... I am so envious that you lived through the Russell era. Not only because those teams were a force of nature, but also that the times allowed fans access to practices and players that is no longer possible. I can't imagine anything cooler than chilling with your buddies during a Red-run practice.

On a more personal note, I am a big fan of Bob. Not sure if you remember the death of the Vikings player Korey Stringer in the early 2000's - he died of heat exposure during a summer practice. I was appalled - from the descriptions and articles, it was clear that he was pushed too hard (i.e. he was vomiting, appeared disoriented, etc, etc). Although everyone acknowledged it was a tragedy, no writers were questioning the NFL culture where players are expected to "play though it". Bob was the only writer to point out this tragedy could have and should have been avoided. I actually wrote him a personal note thanking him for his common sense, and he was kind enough to write back, noting that although it was a tragedy, the "neanderthal mentality" of some aspects of sports culture almost guaranteed something similar would happen again. He didn't have to write me back, and I have always appreciated that he did....

Shamrock,

I've always felt far more blessed than has been warranted; and the Russell teams were one of the main reasons—but far from the only one.

Bob Ryan is an interesting mixture of someone who cares deeply while pulling no punches. He was also not a bad player, although I don't know whether he played at the college level. At one of those practices you mention, I had the pleasure of watching him scrimmage as part of a collection of Celtics. (I can't recall who, but I believe one of them was Jim Ard.) Bob definitely held his own.

One of my favorite practices was Cowens' first. Several writers were there out of curiosity but not expecting a whole lot. I heard Red (who was no longer the coach—Heinsohn was) asked about Cowens, and he would only say something noncommittal like, "I think he'll be okay."

So they walked through a few drills and then held a scrimmage. And, all of a sudden, this redheaded projectile was banging, leaping, and smashing like there was no tomorrow. The writers were incredulous. And there was Red, sitting with a stogie and just smiling knowingly.

Sam

Nice Sam. Would have loved to have seen Bob scrimmaging with the C's - my respect for him just went through the roof. How about you? Ever get a shot off against the green???

And man, it must have been something to see the debut of Cowens. Unfortunately he was before my time, but I remember my old man loved him, and I love reading stories about Cowens the man....

When on BDC I once sent an email to Bob Ryan questioning one of his viewpoints. He very politely responded and clarified his thoughts. That amazed me, and I've held him in high esteem ever since.

Worcester,

Yes, he has always been very approachable. I've had a number of phone conversations with him—more on baseball than basketball.

Sam

Shamrock,

The closest I got was after practice one day when I engaged in a shootaround with several of the team members. They were very nice to me and even applauded when I made shots. (They were probably so shocked that they just put their hands together as reflex action.)

The Tobin Gym was one of those that had six baskets around the perimeter. When the Celtics were up at one end of the court, I would shoot hoops at the other end. But, when the action stopped, I always stopped so as not to be an irritant for whoever was speaking.

Access was pretty easy in those days as long as one respected the integrity of the practice routine. I couldn't understand why I never saw another fan at practice. But I didn't mind at all because, with more fans crowding around the court, we'd probably have become more intrusive and less welcome.

Sam

Having seen the Celtics of the glory days in the 1960s only on film, I dont have a full appreciation for their greatness nor a sense of what the rest of the NBA was like. I consider Bill Russell the greatest player who ever played and love Tommy, Satch, Sam and KC - as well as Hondo, Big Red, Reggie, Pierce, KG and Rajon.

But my team and the team I believe is the greatest not only in Celtics history, but NBA history is the 1986 Celtics....with Kevin McHale leading the way for me, as the most unstoppable low post player in history. I worked at the Garden in HS and saw 45 or so games a year in 1984, 85, 86, 87.

I have always liked and respected Bob Ryan and tend to agree with most of what he said in the article attached here.

That 85-86 team was the best I've ever seen.  40-1 at home, 15-3 in the playoffs with no home losses.

Of their 15 regular season losses 10 were to sub-.500 teams.  So, they lost mostly when they got bored.  That team could have easily won over 70 games.

That team also had one of the most surreal displays of basketball I've ever witnessed.  They had missed a chance for a  quarter finals sweep when they dropped game 4 to the Hawks.* So in game five they took off on a 36-6 3rd quarter  run that looked like it was mere mortals against a raging force of nature.  They won by something like 40 points.

That put them into the Eastern finals where they took game one from the Bucks by over 30 points.  That series ended in four with Bird remaining on the floor after the issue was decided draining a bunch of "eff-you"  three's because he was mad at a Milwuakee writer who had accused the C's of using drugs on the bench (it was ammonia tablets).  What a display of sheer arrogance.



* That Hawk team won 57 games and had Dominique Wilkens, Kevin Willis, Tree Rollins, Doc Rivers and Randy Wittman.

If I was to pick a team that I enjoyed watching the most, give me any Celtic team from 73-76, simply loved Hondo Cowens White Nellie Silas and all. I know people that are younger tend to go with 86.... I know Cowens more than held his own against a young Bill Walton when they played Portland.

I also had the large satellite dish and got to see much of the Bird years too and remember thinking "better enjoy every minute of this as you won't see this again in a long time"....... Well it sure was been a long time to get to 08.... now if this bunch can grow together and with some additions have there own legacy in Celtic lore? So far 2 exhibition games have been fun to watch but that's a long way from raising a banner, a very long ways.

beat

I loved those Havlicek-Cowens-JoJo White-Paul Silas teams.

I never saw the Russell teams so the 1974 post Russell title was the first one I could say that I witnessed.

I think that '86 team was the best I've ever seen but the '84 team is my favorite of the Bird era simply because they beat LA when they should have been swept.

Sam, don't mean to nitpick, but human genetics haven't changed since the 1960s (and well before). One could argue nutrition has changed, such that people are more likely to reach their genetic potential. One could also argue that as basketball became more popular, greater numbers of kids played, ultimately resulting in the selection of taller, stronger, faster kids due to the nature of the game. Regardless, I get your point. Even though I didn't live through the Russell years, I try and watch old games that I can find, and there is no doubt in mind that stars back then were absolutely sick athletes (as are the stars today)...

sam wrote:Honestly, Ryan or not, there's no valid argument in favor of the '86 Celtics over either the '63 or '65 Celtics.  Sam

Great post and I was with you up until this part.

Valid by whose criteria?  You dont get to play judge and jury here Sam.

There are plenty of valid arguments in favor of any particular year or group of years.  You dont have to agree with them, but that does not make them invalid.

*They were one win away from topping the best win-loss record in NBA history, and lost only 3 games the entire playoffs.  Finished 63-19 on the season.
*They averaged 114 PPG and allowed only 104 PPG, one of the best offensive teams of their era.
*Basketball Reference rates them with an offensive rating (points scored per 100 possessions) 111.8 (3rd in the NBA) / Defensive Rating of 102.6 (1st in the NBA) - that is a much bigger points for vs points against differential than any Celtics team from the 1960s.
*It was Larry Birds best season by far - winning Regular Season MVP, Finals MVP, Associated Press Athlete of the Year, All NBA First Team.  
*McHale was first team all defensive, DJ was Second team, Bill Walton was 6th man of the year, the Celtics had the starting front court on the east all star team

I am not saying without question they were the best Celtics team - because as you said, it is hard to compare eras for lots of reasons.  But I so absolutely no reason to say that claiming the 85-86 Celtics is invalid.  Opinions vary.

Shamrock,

Thanks for your response.  But I don't believe the genetics of the entire country are the issue.  The genetics of the players who gravitate to the NBA during a particular season are more important.  The average height in the NBA for the 85-86 season was 6' 7.36".  The average height in the NBA for the '62-'63 season was 6' 5.61"  Whether via genetics or nutrition of whatever, I believe my statement that the Russell Celtics would have probably gained 1 or 2 inches on the '85-'86 Celtics, had they played at a mythical point in time, is justified.  And they certainly would have gained in athleticism and speed if all the stuff I read about the super athletes of today is correct.

Moreover, the '62-'63 Celtics were shorter than any other single team in the league.  So much for any theory that the Russell Celtics were functionally disadvantaged by lesser height.

Sam

Mrkleen,

I never once even intimated that I should be the only person picking the criteria.  As you, yourself just proves, anyone else is obviously welcome to pick criteria.  But I did state that there's no valid argument favoring the Bird Celtics in a hypothetical comparison.

In comparing the merits of the two teams, I believe the most important factor involves how well they play(ed) the game.  And I believe the 1962-63 Celtics (just to pick one of several Russell teams that could qualify) won the championship playing against better quality opponents FOR THE TIME (with less dilution of talent league-wide) than the 1985-86 Celtics.  For example, they played each team (including the best ones) 8 or 9 times a season, not just twice against many teams.  It's easier to fatten your winning percentage when you have to play a team like the '85-'86 Lakers only twice.

I believe individual player stats and honors don't prove anything about a team as a whole.  In fact, it could be argued that the weaker the team the more likely one standout player will have less "competition" from his own team in terms of stats.

They were both (or "all" in the case of the Russell Celtics) great teams.  To each his own.  At least I had the opportunity to watch both intently, for which I'm grateful.  I realize people think I'm biased because I felt so close to the Russell Celtics.  Of course, that discounts the possibility that I 
made it a point to become close to the Russell Celtics partly because of their unimaginable greatness as a team.

Sam

Genetics shouldn't be part of the debate one way or the other, the 86 Celtics were also bigger than todays teams, its more about selecting and building the team, so it was more about Red putting that 86 team together than just genetics on height. Red could have acquired Manute Bol and Chuck Nevitt, but that extra height wouldn't make them better.

86 Celtics just too big and skilled and deep for any team, and Larry Bird was at his absolute best, his talents and will were never better, he had all the pieces on that team and could beat you/anyone so many different ways.

As great as that team was, my favorite is still the hardnosed smallball Cowens, Silas, Hondo, JoJo White teams.

cowens/oldschool wrote:Genetics shouldn't be part of the debate one way or the other, the 86 Celtics were also bigger than todays teams, its more about selecting and building the team, so it was more about Red putting that 86 team together than just genetics on height. Red could have acquired Manute Bol and Chuck Nevitt, but that extra height wouldn't make them better.

86 Celtics just too big and skilled and deep for any team, and Larry Bird was at his absolute best, his talents and will were never better, he had all the pieces on that team and could beat you/anyone so many different ways.

As great as that team was, my favorite is still the hardnosed smallball Cowens, Silas, Hondo, JoJo White teams.

Cow I could not agree with you more on your last sentence.

As I posted earlier... I'm not saying they were the best team, That's always up for a good debate But one thing I can attest to is that my favorite team to watch play were the C's from 73-76.

beat

Guys, just to be clear, players genetics have absolutely not changed since 1960. As I said, nutrition and training might make it more likely that athletes reach their genetic potential, but the actually genetic make-up of players has not changed. I make this point because I often hear people erroneously say that modern athletes have evolved (in the biological sense of the word) relative to their predecessors in the 20th century. The time scale of evolution is extraordinarily vast, not a few generations. Furthermore, if anything, the selective pressure for physically gifted individuals would be less than it was, say 10,000 years ago, since physical prowess is no longer necessary for survival in modern societies.

beat wrote:

cowens/oldschool wrote:Genetics shouldn't be part of the debate one way or the other, the 86 Celtics were also bigger than todays teams, its more about selecting and building the team, so it was more about Red putting that 86 team together than just genetics on height. Red could have acquired Manute Bol and Chuck Nevitt, but that extra height wouldn't make them better.

86 Celtics just too big and skilled and deep for any team, and Larry Bird was at his absolute best, his talents and will were never better, he had all the pieces on that team and could beat you/anyone so many different ways.

As great as that team was, my favorite is still the hardnosed smallball Cowens, Silas, Hondo, JoJo White teams.

Cow I could not agree with you more on your last sentence.

As I posted earlier... I'm not saying they were the best team, That's always up for a good debate  But one thing I can attest to is that my favorite team to watch play were the C's from 73-76.

beat

Loved watching Cowens and Silas outwork bigger players and watch each others back.....

Shamrock,

Your comments about genetics are very interesting.  I tried to look up heights of U.S. males from 1963 and 1986, and I couldn't find any such references.  I did find one that said men have increased by only a little over an inch in 1987 versus a hundred years earlier.

It also said that 1987 was the peak height in the NBA and that heights since that year were lower.  The average height for 1986 was given as something likt 6' 7.36 inches  That's what gave me the idea of looking at heights in the NBA for "86 and '63, and I derived those heights for 1963 by calculating the height of every player in the NBA in that '62-'63 season (6' 5.61).

I believe that, when people claim today's players are much more athletic than those of yesteryear, much of their claim is that today's league includes many players who are extremely athletic but would have been too disadvantaged to be in college decades ago.  That viewpoint seems to have merit, especially since it appears that way to me too, based on observation.  I usually counter that one by noting how much better versed in the fundamentals the older players were by having toiled in the "minor leagues" (aka college) for all four years.

Moreover, the Celtics of Russell, Sam Jones, Havlicek and K.C. Jones took a back seat to no one—then and now—in athleticism.....just in height.  Which seems to me the most valid advantage proponents of the Bird teams can justifiably claim over the Russell Celtics.  And the Russell Celtics combatted taller teams in their own era and almost always won the championship.  Their relentless (KJ, I've adopted your word because it's perfect), withering attack and depth had taller but slower teams exhausted by the fourth quarter.  I believe that, the more today's Celtics can emulate that attack, the better they'll be against all comers.  I hope they'll move strongly in that direction because their fans will see an exciting brand of basketball in which the whole equals more than the sum of the parts.

Sam

Beat and Cow,

You guys make great points.  We can argue about the relative merits of the Russell and Bird Celtics, and the Cowens Celtics always seem to assume the role of a lost generation.  Perhaps because they only won two championships.

But, for my taste, the Cowens Celtics rank second only to the Russell Celtics and ahead of the Bird Celtics in terms of the enjoyability in watching them.  Notwithstanding Larry's extraordinary greatness, I always considered his teams to be a little too plodding and vulnerable to speed (e.g. as the Lakers' Showtime) to be as exciting as the other two.  The mixture of Cowens's energy and resolve, Havlicek's all-around greatness, Nelson's steadiness, Silas' consistent effectiveness on the boards and defense, Jo Jo's steadiness and clutch shooting, and Coach Heinsohn's insistence on pace, pace, pace gave the Celtics of the early-to-mid 70s a very exciting core.  In fact, the only reason I don't rank them right up there with the Russell Celtics in terms of "watchability" is their lack of depth.  The Russell Celtics could keep their feet on the pedal constantly, whereas the Cowens Celtics' running game became less effective when much of their "core five" were out of the game.

Watching Dave Cowens operate was, for me, more of a treat than watching Larry Bird operate.  Larry was more entertaining in an outlandish, "did he just do that?" way.  But I'd pay money just to watch Cowens slide across the floor or rip a rebound from the opposition.

By the way (and, although it's unrelated, I'm putting this here rather than adding a separate post), one thing that was a very real advantage for the Russell Celtics—and all the more remarkable because medical science was nowhere what it was in the 80s—was that they only had two serious injuries in the 13 years they ruled the league.  Russ's bad ankle in 1968 wasn't that debilitating, but the timing was awful (toward the end of the only championship series the Russell Celtics lost).  And Loscutoff missed something like half a season one year (but they won the championship anyway).  Perhaps Buddy Leroux was an even better trainer than I thought.  (After all, he did open a successful rehab facility when he left the Celtics.)

Sam

Sam

Russell won in 68, believe you must mean 58.

beat

Also not speaking for Cow (who could) but I know I only really remember the final Russell years last 3-4 tops, and back then getting access to watch games was the luck of whatever game ABC wanted to show once a week. Yeah I listened to Johnny Most on the radio but until the Cowens era actually arrived watching more than a handful of games was impossible. If he and I had the experiences that you had watching those early years we both could feel a lot different.

As I have mentioned, My favorite player was Hondo, yours is Cousy, Aside from Rosalie there just are not too many members on this board that even were alive when he played let alone saw him in other than grainy black and white film.

Cowens was just one of those players that you knew would not nor could not last long, like Bird in some ways the constant pounding they took a fast toll. And mentally once Cowens even began to break down and not preform as well as he needed to, he walked away and was never quite the same when he came back, mentally or physically. When given the coaching job, it still didn't light a fire that had burned out. Of course those were indeed perhaps the darkest ages of the C's, just prior to Birds arrival. The "Brown " era!

beat

Hi,
Here is a related item about the best Celtics team on Celticsblog. Even a poll.
Unfortunately I couldn't vote because I couldn't watch 85-86 team let alone Russell's teams of the 60's.

Sam, is it really true that besides Wilt there was no competition to Russ?

AK