Ten questions with Bob Ryan

just a sidenote, the young Cowens got up for games vs Wilt and just out sped and out worked the giant....wish I could see those games, my cousins and uncle used to describe those games to me when we were kids.

Cowens used to grab 20 boards going right at Wilt in the paint, and in one of Wilts autobiographies he called Cowens superb.

cowens

Below are the numbers on Cowens vs Wilt---Head to head.
enjoy.
swish

http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/h2h_finder.cgi?request=1&p1=chambwi01&p2=cowenda01

In 1970-71 at age 34 Wilt more than held his own. But in 1971-72 it was all Cowens as age took its toll on Wilt and Cowens was on his way to elite player status.

It's so difficult to compare players in teams from different eras. As I have said in previous posts, the idea that humans have actually evolved in a half-century is just not true. What is true, as others have also noted, is that as the game became more popular and accessible, more people grow up playing. As a result, there is a greater pool from which players can be selected. This phenomenon is accelerated by the development of dedicated scouting teams that scour the country (and now the planet...) for talent. From this logic, one might indeed think that today's players are athletically superior, albeit by a mechanism different than "evolution". However, the league is also MUCH bigger than it used to be, so the "concentration" of talent is likely similar, if not actually diluted relative to the 60's.

The thing that makes it so hard to compare is that the game has changed. The game has gotten more physical (and yes, I know hard fouls were more tolerated in the past, but I'm talking about the moment to moment jostling and pushing). Hence, yes modern players maybe a little taller, but more importantly, they tend to be heavier and stronger. This is a body type suited to the modern game. Of course, there is cost -with the exception of freaks like Lebron and Mohammed Ali, size comes at the expense of quickness. I wouldn't be surprised if players from the past might have been a little quicker and faster. This would suit the faster game played back in the day. The other thing is the emphasis on defense (which partially explains the need for stronger players...) and the emphasis on 3-point shooting in the modern game.

I would guess that if both teams were playing 60's style ball, Russell's teams would wipe the floor with just about anyone. If both teams were playing modern ball, the 86 Celtics, or the 87 lakers (or the 96 Bulls for younger posters...) would dominate most teams. The really interesting question is which style of ball would win given that the teams playing each style were stacked with the players most suited for that style? But that's another can of worms entirely.....

"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)"


If that '85-'86 team was "a little too plodding" and "vulnerable to speed" it was hard to notice as they won 67 regular season games, went 40-1 at home and compiled a 15-3 playoff record (undefeated on its homecourt) as they steamrolled to title #16.

Sinus,

No, it is most emphatically NOT true that the only great center Russell faced in 1964-65 was Wilt.  In fact, NOT counting Wilt, 71% of his games in 1964-65 were against centers who averaged (between them) 18.6 PPG and 14.9 RPG.

* Nate Thurmond, San Francisco 16.5/18.1
* Walt Bellamy, Baltimore 24.8/14.6
* Jerry Lucas, Cincinnati 21.4/20.0 and Wayne Embry, Cincinnati 12.7/10.0
* Willis Reed, New York 19.5/14.7
Zelmo Beatty, St. Louis 16.9/12.1

* Wilt, of course, averaged 30.1/22.3.

Of the listed opposing centers, the five with asterisks (plus Wilt) made the Hall of Fame, which means Russ faced future Hall of Fame centers (including Wilt) in 75% of his games during 1964-65.  (All data regular season.)

What so many people overlook is the fact that the Celtics played each of the other eight teams in the league 10 times a season.  Quality competition at center was vastly closer to unremitting than to nonexistent.

I wasn't aware, by the way, that Shaq and Howard played against the 1985-86 Celtics.  How the heck did they get into the conversation?  The question should not be how Russ would have fared against them.  The question should be how behemoths beaten by Russ (like Wilt, Nate Thurmond and Walt Ballamy) would have fared against them.

I'll tell you one thing.  If Russ and Shaq had played one another in their prime, and since Shaq wasn't much of a jumper, Russ would have driven him crazy by alternately "fronting" him "siding" him and "backing" him.  Shaq would have scored some points, but he would have had real difficulty getting the ball.  Moreover, Shaq would have been buttah by halftime because Russ could play 46 minutes and be beating any other center upcourt on virtually every possession.

Frankly, the author of this article sounds like some neophyte whose diapers hadn't even been manufactures well after Russell retired.

This is sheer fun!

Sam

Sloop, the Bird Celtics won largely because they played to their strength—height.  They continuously forced the ball down low, and Chief, McHale, Walton and Bird (from anywhere on the floor) forced the ball through the hoop.  When they won, it was because their height beat speedier teams.  When they lost, it was the other way around.

I'm not saying they couldn't fast break, because they ran some beautiful ones.  But it wasn't (as Brad might say) in their DNA like it was in the Lakers' DNA and definitely in the Russell Celtics' DNA.

If they faced the Russell Celtics, the Bird Celtics wouldn't have done much, if any, running after halftime.  If anything, they'd be sucking oxygen in the heat of the Garden.

Postscript: One area in which the Bird Celtics would have had difficulty forcing the ball inside is that the average weight of their four top big men (Bird, Chief, McHale and Walton) is listed as 217.5 pounds.  The four top big men of the Russell Celtics (Russ, Heinsohn, Sanders and Naulls) is listed as 217.0 pounds.  Mexican standoff, except that three of the four Russell Celtics (excepting Heinsohn) were faster than any of the four Bird Celtics.

Sam

if Russell could deal with Wilt, then he would have had no trouble dealing with Shaq or Howard. Wilt benched over 500 lbs in his prime (even benched 465 in his late 50's), was a world class high jumper, and a track star. He was probably the most physically dominant specimen to ever play the game. And we all know how Russell fared against Wilt. Either Wilt or Russell would dominate Shaq and make Dwight look like a clown.

So, why don't teams run any more? Guys like Heinshon have said that teams just don't have that sort of mentality. But that begs the question of why this is so.

Perhaps one reason is that many defenses are geared to prevent a team from attacking the basket with a numbers advantage. The recent Doc Rivers teams were always last or close to last in offensive rebounds but always at or near the top in points allowed.

These two factors were of course connected as the team by design often didn't send players to the offensive boards but preferred to have them run back to present a well-organized team defense with one of the chief aims to prevent easy fastbreak baskets.

The Knicks of the early 70's did this as a matter of necessity since they knew they could not contest the C's on the boards.

Those Knick teams also did what we now call defensive rotations. The basic idea was to swarm the ball with a double team while evrey other player switched defensive assignments leaving the opponent furthest away from the ball open.

Sloop,

Your question may be the best one of the season, if not the decade.  Why don't teams run any more?  Some theories (just hypotheses with no proof).

• Despite the advances in conditioning methods, teams aren't as well conditioned as those in the past.  Could any single player at any single position in today's NBA play 44.4 MPG in the '64-'65 regular season and 46.8 MPG in the '64-'65 playoffs minutes at breakneck speed as Russell averaged in 1964-65?  How many of today's players, at the end of a 13 year breakneck career could average 46.1 MPG as Russ did in the 1969 playoffs and 47.2 MPG as Havlicek at "only" 28 did in those same playoffs?

• The practice culture of the NBA has shifted from an emphasis on scrimmages to an emphasis on strategy.  Chalk talk and video watching (with or without buttered popcorn) doesn't condition a player nearly as well as playing the game at high levels of speed.

• Players gain muscle from today's conditioning—especially in the weight room; and muscle is heavy, meaning today's players have more weight to drag around.  The muscles help them jump higher, but they don't yield the high speed endurance enjoyed by many players of the past.

•The game has morphed from volume basketball to efficient basketball, with the action showed down and a premium placed on accuracy as well as setting up for three point shots.

• A rather "way out" possibility is that, the more emphasis is placed on metrics, strategy and thinking rather than just running like hell (but with purpose), the more the game is slowed down.

I'm sure there other theories, and I do not claim any of these is absolutely correct.

You'll find old guys (like my grandson, dboss) who are just dying to see racehorse basketball return to the Celtics.  With the league in general going in a slower direction, if a team could be fast, deep and sufficiently instinctive so as to make instantaneous decisions, it would conceivably outscore almost any other team while fatiguing them as well.  But that's a huge IF.  IF any sigle team deserves to go in that adventurous direction by birthright or squatter's rights or some kind of "right," it is the Celtics.

Sam

" When they won, it was because their height beat speedier teams.  When they lost, it was the other way around."

Sam, my point was that the 85-86 TEAM (as distinct from the Bird era TEAMS in general)  didn't lose much. (come to think of it that can be said about the Bird era in general but the results achieved by that '86 team stands out even by the lofty standards of the Bird
era).

"They continuously forced the ball down low, and Chief, McHale, Walton and Bird (from anywhere on the floor) forced the ball through the hoop."

Well, with strong inside players like McHale, Parish, Bird, Walton, and even DJ a team would have to be fools not to play to their strength.  

That team was the most dominant SINGLE team I'VE ever seen.

"If they faced the Russell Celtics, the Bird Celtics wouldn't have done much, if any, running after halftime.  If anything, they'd be sucking oxygen in the heat of the Garden."

That may or may not be true; the only way we'll find out for sure is after someone invents a time machine.

Sam, you may not have found that team pleasing in a stylistic way but it's hard to argue with the results.

sinus007 wrote:Sam, is it really true that besides Wilt there was no competition to Russ?

I have an abiding interest in the center position, so I'll jump in and give an answer to this one.

No, it is definitely not true that Wilt was the only competition to Russell. In fact, there was more excellent competition at the center position during the 1960s than we've seen at any other time in the history of the NBA. I call it the golden age of NBA centers.

The top echelon was Russell, Wilt, Nate Thurmond, and Walt Bellamy. Russell and Wilt are among the greatest ever, and Bellamy and Thurmond are just a notch below. The next level down included Wayne Embry and Zelmo Beaty. All except Beaty are in the Hall of Fame, and Beaty was an all-star twice in the NBA and three times in the ABA.

Nate Thurmond is my favorite center (he played for the Warriors, and I grew up in the Bay Area). He was a great all-around player -- great, great defender and rebounder, very capable scorer, and also known for his passing and screens. He, Russell, and Wilt are the greatest shot blockers to ever play the game, but blocked shots (and steals) weren't tracked as statistics until 1973-74. Highlights of his career:

• Career averages: 15.0 points and 15.0 rebounds. One of only five players to average at least 15 rebounds over his career.

• Career bests: 21.4 points and 22.0 rebounds. One of only five players to average 20 rebounds for a season (did it twice).

• Holds the NBA record for rebounds in a quarter -- 18.

• Regular season high of 42 rebounds in a game. One of only four players to get 40 rebounds in a game.

• In 1996, voted one of the 50 greatest NBA players.

• Had the first recorded quadruple-double (points, rebounds, assists, blocks), but that was late in his career, and he (and others) would have had quadruple-doubles if blocks and steals had been recorded prior to 1973-74.

• One of only three players to have 20 or more rebounds every game of the finals (six games of the 1967 finals; Wilt also did it for Philly in the same finals).

I take every opportunity I can to educate people about Thurmond. My avatar photo has Kareem, Russell, Walton and Thurmond, and if Wilt had been there, it would've been the greatest centers of all time.

I won't go into detail, but Walt Bellamy was also a great center who averaged 20.1 points and 13.7 rebounds for his career and 31.6 points and 19.0 rebounds during his remarkable rookie season. Wayne Embry and Zelmo Beaty were very good centers.

Their careers didn't start and end at the same time, but there were years in the mid-sixties when they did all play at the same time. So, if you pick a season like 1965-66, there were nine teams in the league, and four of them had all-time great centers, and two others had very good centers. During the regular season, Russell faced one of those guys (Wilt, Thurmond, Bellamy, Emby, and Beaty) 48 out of 80 games.

None of that mentions other great centers like Wes Unseld, Elvin Hayes, and Willis Reed who came along at the end of Russell's career or other great big men like Bob Pettit, Dolph Schayes, and Jerry Lucas who were more power forwards than centers.

So, yeah, it wasn't just Russell and Wilt. There were more great centers than at any other time in NBA history, and with far fewer teams, they played each other a lot more than teams do now.

sam wrote:Sloop,

Your question may be the best one of the season, if not the decade.  Why don't teams run any more?  Some theories (just hypotheses with no proof)...

I promote additional theories besides the ones Sam listed. In particular, the prevalent defensive philosophy now is to drop back at least two players when a shot is taken, sometimes more, in order to prevent fast breaks off rebounds. Doc is a great example of this, as his teams are typically poor in offensive rebounding because almost everyone is dropping back on defense. There is no way to have a team like the Russell Celtics or Showtime Lakers that run all the time because defenses won't allow it.

Instead of fast breaks, we now have "transition opportunities," which are simply better (unguarded) shots that you can get before all five guys have time to set up on defense. Some teams get a lot of threes in transition. That's the new "fast break."

swish wrote:cowens

Below are the numbers on Cowens vs Wilt---Head to head.
enjoy.
swish

http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/h2h_finder.cgi?request=1&p1=chambwi01&p2=cowenda01

In 1970-71 at age 34 Wilt more than held his own. But in 1971-72 it was all Cowens as age took its toll on Wilt and Cowens was on his way to elite player status.

That's incomplete because it only shows points and doesn't consider other factors, such as that Wilt's role was defense and rebounding more than scoring. In 1971-72, Wilt led the league in rebounding at 19.2 per game and field goal percentage at 64.9%, and did again in his '72-73 (his last season) with with 18.6 rebounds and 72.7% on field goals. We can't see how Cowens and Wilt fared against each other in rebounds, blocks, or field goal percentage because those stats aren't available on a per-game basis.

It's not my intention to denigrate Cowens, who was a great, great player and a favorite of mine, but instead to rebut the statement that "in 1971-72 it was all Cowens" or that Wilt was a shell of his former self due to age. There's more to the game than points, and Wilt played at an exceptionally high level, even in the last years of his career.

Outside,

Actually, if you'll look back to my post to Sinus, you'll see that Reed entered the NBA in 1964-65, which wasn't really near the end of Russ' career.  In fact, Russ could have been in his prime about then, and Russ anoints the Celtics of that year as the best he played on.  In his rookie year, Reed averaged 19.5 and 14.7.  I believe he belongs on the list of all-time greats with whom Russ had to contend.

Moreover, Cincinnati had a two-headed center named Jerry Lucas/Wayne Embry.  Yes, Jerry also played power forward, but he spent a fair amount of time that year at the center position.  I have video of games with him at center for Cincinnati.  Embry played only at center and averaged 30 MPG.  Someone named George Wilson (???) averaged 7 to 8 MPG at center probably leaving about 10 minutes for Lucas.  In 10 minutes, it's reasonable to guess that 23% of his 44 MPG output was at the center position.  That would add 5 points and 5 rebounds to Embry's totals of 13 and 10—a total of 18/15.  I believe the two-headed center (one of them a Hall of Famer) deserves to be put on the list too.

Not a big matter; but, as a self-appointed guardian of the past (certainly far from the only one I trust), I try to be a bug on historic details.

Sam

Outside wrote:

sam wrote:Sloop,

Your question may be the best one of the season, if not the decade.  Why don't teams run any more?  Some theories (just hypotheses with no proof)...

I promote additional theories besides the ones Sam listed. In particular, the prevalent defensive philosophy now is to drop back at least two players when a shot is taken, sometimes more, in order to prevent fast breaks off rebounds. Doc is a great example of this, as his teams are typically poor in offensive rebounding because almost everyone is dropping back on defense. There is no way to have a team like the Russell Celtics or Showtime Lakers that run all the time because defenses won't allow it.

Instead of fast breaks, we now have "transition opportunities," which are simply better (unguarded) shots that you can get before all five guys have time to set up on defense. Some teams get a lot of threes in transition. That's the new "fast break."

outside,

Very astute observation.



bob


.

Sam,

For some reason, I had it in my head that Reed came along later. Add another to the list.

I should just save these posts since these questions come up every year or two. There were so many great centers during that time, but many people don't know anything other than Russell and Wilt. I toot my horn every chance I get for Nate Thurmond, but Walt Bellamy was really, really good, and it's like he's lost to history. If Maurice Stokes had had his head injury properly diagnosed and treated, he likely would have been another great.

There have been great centers since then, but always with an expanded league where playing another great center wasn't as common. The closest era I can think of with great centers is the early 80's, with Kareem, Moses Malone, Artis Gilmore, Robert Parish, and Bob Lanier, all excellent centers, though Lanier was at the end of his career at that point. Then there was a group of very good centers -- Alvin Adams, Dan Issel, Mychal Thompson, Jack Sikma, and Jeff Ruland -- plus a few other guys who weren't pushovers -- Swen Nater, Bill Laimbeer (ugh), and Bill Cartwright. So there may have been more quality centers at that time, but with 23 teams in the early '80s compared to 8-12 in the '60's, they didn't play each other as often. To me, that's the only other time that can compare to the '60s, but even many of those guys in the '80s are fading into history. Most fans today don't even know who half those guys were.

We're at a low point for center play. Hopefully, the pendulum will swing, and we'll see a resurgence of great centers at some point again. But man, those guys in the '60s were the best. The '80's comes the closest, but I'll take the top echelon from the '60's of Russell, Wilt, Thurmond, and Bellamy over any four from any other era.

Bob,

Sloop mentioned dropping guys back on defense in his post where he asked the question. I just expanded on the idea a bit and added the notion of transition opportunities.

sam wrote:Moreover, Cincinnati had a two-headed center named Jerry Lucas/Wayne Embry.  Yes, Jerry also played power forward, but he spent a fair amount of time that year at the center position.  I have video of games with him at center for Cincinnati.  Embry played only at center and averaged 30 MPG.  Someone named George Wilson (???) averaged 7 to 8 MPG at center probably leaving about 10 minutes for Lucas.  In 10 minutes, it's reasonable to guess that 23% of his 44 MPG output was at the center position.  That would add 5 points and 5 rebounds to Embry's totals of 13 and 10—a total of 18/15.  I believe the two-headed center (one of them a Hall of Famer) deserves to be put on the list too.

Not a big matter; but, as a self-appointed guardian of the past (certainly far from the only one I trust), I try to be a bug on historic details.

And just to be a bug on historic details back atcha, both of Cincinnati's two-headed center (Embry and Lucas) are in the Hall of Fame, not just one.

One other point about the height difference between the eras is that the heights listed in the old days were typically actual heights without shoes and even undersold, in some cases. For example, Russell was 6' 9 5/8" but often listed as 6' 9". Dwight Howard is 6' 9" without shoes but is listed as 6' 11". So much of the height difference is not really a difference at all.

Outside,

I used this alphabetical listing of Hall of Fame members, and Wayne was not on it.  Then I went to his Basketball Reference site, and he was inducted as a contributor (probably because of his work as a general manager), not a player.  Much like Tom Sanders.

It suits me to include him as a Hall of Fame member without asterisk because I thought he was a great player.  It could be argued that he was most responsible for the Celtics' beating the 76ers (in Philly) in the deciding game of the Eastern Finals on their way to championship #10.

I had the pleasure of happening to sit next to Wayne on a plane trip from Boston to some place in the midwest (probably Chicago).  He was obsessed with the subject of marketing; and he really grilled me about the discipline.

When he was wish the Celtics for a couple of seasons, Wayne and Don Nelson used to be real hellraisers after games.  Their exploits were legendary.

Thanks for the input.

Sam

Sam,

Thanks for educating me on the details. I just saw "Hall of Fame" listed on his basketball-reference.com page and didn't think to look up what category he fell into. I just assumed it was as a player, although his numbers were less than spectacular.

Outside,

In the twilight of his career, Embry was the perfect backup for Russell—the latest in a progression of older veterans including Arnie Risen, Gene Conley (he was a little younger and won titles with the Celtics and as a pitcher for the Braves), Clyde Lovellette and Wayne.  When beef was needed, "Wide Wayne" (thank you Johnny Most) could fill the bill.  He used to set picks that opponents probably still remember.  Many's the time an opponent would slam into Wayne's pick and you'd hear a huge SPLATTT!!!  And the opponent would sort of slide off and take the rest of the possession off.

Sam

"Sloop mentioned dropping guys back on defense in his post where he asked the question. I just expanded on the idea a bit and added the notion of transition opportunities."

Back in the seventies there were "transition opportunities" but they were called "baskets of opportunity."  How many times did we see Havlicek pull up at the foul line and launch a leaning jumpshot?  Or Cowens coming down as a trailer--now called the "secondary break"-- and get open 15-18 foot jumpers?

The difference now is that "baskets of opportunity" have been pushed out to the three point line.

Another thing: foregoing offensive rebounds and dropping guys back to present a well organized defense is easier to accomplish with a halfcourt offense that ensures good court balance.  So, successfully defending against the fast break not only slows down the opponent but also slows down the offense as well.  It can feed on itself.

Some teams play a style where the defense triggers the offense. These days I sometimes get the feeling that the offense triggers the defense.

bobheckler wrote:

Outside wrote:

sam wrote:Sloop,

Your question may be the best one of the season, if not the decade.  Why don't teams run any more?  Some theories (just hypotheses with no proof)...

I promote additional theories besides the ones Sam listed. In particular, the prevalent defensive philosophy now is to drop back at least two players when a shot is taken, sometimes more, in order to prevent fast breaks off rebounds. Doc is a great example of this, as his teams are typically poor in offensive rebounding because almost everyone is dropping back on defense. There is no way to have a team like the Russell Celtics or Showtime Lakers that run all the time because defenses won't allow it.

Instead of fast breaks, we now have "transition opportunities," which are simply better (unguarded) shots that you can get before all five guys have time to set up on defense. Some teams get a lot of threes in transition. That's the new "fast break."

outside,

Very astute observation



bob


.

the new 3 off fastbreaks is part of the game I don't care for, as well as the lack of post up players....