Raw meat for Sam (and probably lots of others)

hahaha funny Steve!!

It's easier to respond to the height thing than to the inane musings of Jeff Van Gundy, so (in my post-travel trance), I'll respond to the height thing first.

In the one year-to-year comparison I was able to find concerning player heights, published by the same company that publishes Basketball Reference, and immune to refutation by anyone as far as I know, the mid-80s accounted for the peak average height of players (6' 7 1/2").  Between then and 2001 (when the reference ended), there was no year in which heights were taller; and, in fact, in most of those years, heights were smaller.

I don't know how much genetics may have played a part in changes between the 60s and the 80s.  I suspect nutritional and training methods were more influential; and there were also differences in the racial and national composition of the player populations.

Suffice it to say that anyone who compares either players or teams as they are or were now or the 80s with players of teams as they were in the 60s has a serious flaw in logic.  But I'm getting ahead of myself.

Sam

This is truly getting seriously tiresome.  Only because I’m inalterably committed to rebutting every single ounce of Celtics revisionist history for the remainder of my life would I even spit on Van Gundy’s ravings—much less spend time writing about them.
 
The pure and simple fact is that either people get it or they don’t.  The act of comparing players (which I think is basically ill-advised anyway because it’s all about the team) from different eras or comparing teams from different eras implicitly allows the inclusion of factors that are extraneous to the act of playing basketball.
 
Players and teams didn’t create genetic differences over the years.  Players and teams didn’t create advancing nutritional benefits over the years.  Players and teams didn’t create advancing conditioning, training methods and medical care over the years.  Players and teams didn’t create changes in playing strategies over the years.  Players and teams didn’t create more scientific shooting techniques and drills over the years.  Players and teams in more recent years didn’t create changes in the hand check rule….or the ability to score three points on shots that would have fetched only two points in earlier years….or the ability to get far more rest during television timeouts and incessant stoppage of action on the floor than players of earlier years.
 
People who claim that players or teams of recent eras are better than players or teams of previous eras are giving the more recent players or teams credit they haven’t earned for changes created by the passage of time.  Put the Russell Celtics in this (or any other) era, with their unparalleled execution, speed, endurance, teamwork, coaching, natural abilities, and sheer will to win buttressed by the temporal advantages mentioned above (plus others), and the results would be something approaching carnage in favor of the Russell Celtics.
 
Which is a roundabout way of getting to Jerk Van Gundy’s assertions, which are as impressive as the total of his and Patrick Ewing’s combined championships.  Oh wait!  That would be zero!
 
I’m no particular fan of Mikan, although I do give him credit for keeping pro basketball alive until Bob Cousy rescued it.  But what I do know is that, given the conditions that existed at the time of his career, George was the leader of the best team in his era.  He (they) beat all comers much more often than not.  I’m sure that both George and his team would have been vastly different if updated to the present.  I consider myself somewhat of an authority on only one team, and I’d never attempt a guess as to whether George would have been sufficiently different to excel in the modern era.  Besides, as I suggested above, player comparisons over eras are dumb for the same reasons as team comparisons.
 
But what is the epitome of stupidity (whether Jerk Van Gundy had created the list or only commented on it) is comparing Bill Russell with any other player.  Seriously!  The greatest team player (which must be unquestioned) of all-time being compared on a straight-up basis with another player.  Jerk Van Gundy, you’d better gather your remaining marble or two and retire immediately.  Russ simply did whatever had to be done to make certain his team won the big ones.  And it cannot be questioned that his biggest attribute was winning.
 
It actually pains my physically to waste my writing muscles on this, but as to extolling the virtues of Shaq over Russell (excuse me, I just barfed….11 times in 13 minutes), I have a simple two word answer.  Wilt Chamberlain.
 
Russ and Wilt played each other roughly nine times a season, not just the puny two to five times in today’s diluted league.  So the trite old “small sample” remarks don’t apply.  And Wilt, besides being a behemoth, also came closer to matching Russ’s speed than Shaq could even dream about.  Sure, Shaq was fatter than Russ, and he’d occasionally have been able to bull his way in just as Wilt did.  But Russ consistently pushed Wilt out beyond his comfort range, and he’d do the same with Chubs.  And he’d vary his defense north, south, east and west against Fat Albert and constantly outjump Shaw to keep the ball from getting to him.  And Russ tended to play in the high post on offense, keeping Shaq away from rebound territory while Russ would sprint into board position himself when a Laker’s shot went up.  Mostly, though, Russ would just run Shaq mercilessly until the lard started flowing through Shaq’s pores and Shaq’s failing knees reduced his jumping ability from 2 inches to zero.  Moreover (I’ve got a million of them), Russ could take offensive possessions off from time to time to file his nails and comb his beard as the other four Celtics ran the most devastating fast break in history or simply outmaneuvered (in the halfcourt) the other four Lakers and Shaq, whose breath would be coming in large pants.
 
And Shaq’s teams were very good teams.  Against any teams of the 90s (including the ones on which Michael Jordan would play the role of Jerry West and would alternate batting heads against Sam and Havlicek), the Russell Celtics—updated to the 90s—would run roughshod.
 
Finally, the most important thing about Russ’ era is that the his Celtics flat out practiced the art of basketball better than any other team of any era.  For one thing, their quality in depth allowed them and incredible conditioning allowed them to obliterate the pace of today’s game without being susceptible to many turnovers and almost no serious injuries over 13 years.  And they could maintain the intense effort while utilizing virtually any style of play.  Combine that basic superiority with the advantages inherent in any other era, and there’s no question that Russ and Friends would be raising a passel of additional banners.
 
Please, Jerk Van Gundy, retire.  It’s reached the embarrassing stage.  In the end, you’re just like every other detractor of the Russell teams who’s as frustrated as hell that a team from “his/her era” wasn’t the best ever.
 
Sam

Ewing and Van Gundy aren't even worthy of being in the conversation, at least the 86 Celtics are a good debate,

Cow,

They're not a good debate, they're a hell of a debate.  For my money, the Lakers of the 80s (pick a year) and possibly the Jordan Bulls are worthy of being in the conversation.

Sam

Sam

I think most of us are forever bound with the great teams we grew up with. Although I was born prior to the Russell years I remember very little of them. I did cut my teeth on the 70's and those teams led by Havlicek, Cowens, Silas, and White. Believe we tend to hold those teams from our youth in the highest esteem. I don't think there are a high percentage of fans around that actually witnessed Russell play and far fewer that witnessed Mikan.

At least by talking about those old teams, even in a negative way, puts them back into a spotlight that they never had back in their day. Imagine the NBA finals on tape delay today?

beat

beat wrote:Sam

I think most of us are forever bound with the great teams we grew up with. Although I was born prior to the Russell years I remember very little of them. I did cut my teeth on the 70's and those teams led by Havlicek, Cowens, Silas, and White. Believe we tend to hold those teams from our youth in the highest esteem. I don't think there are a high percentage of fans around that actually witnessed Russell play and far fewer that witnessed Mikan.

At least by talking about those old teams, even in a negative way, puts them back into a spotlight that they never had back in their day. Imagine the NBA finals on tape delay today?

beat

I would love to add my 2 cents to this thread, which I will later tonight.  Football is now over, so I get my "normal" life back and can post here.

For now I'll just say that in my opinion, beat hit it out of the park on this one.

I actually saw the tail end of the Russell tyranny and even though I didn't see Cousy or that team at its peak, I really enjoy reading Sam defend their legacy and describe how great and deep they were. Ultimately you can only compare them to the best of their generation and how they stacked up against their own competition in their eras. The way the 86 team toyed with all the best teams was something to behold. I never saw Jordan have a team that dominant, they just killed you inside both ends, then on offense besides the inside play, the way they moved the ball. People talk about how the Spurs share the ball, that team was the mold.

Look at the 2's Jordan went against, Byron Scott, Jeff Hornacek, Hersey Hawkins???.... other than Clyde the Glide the wing position really evolved after Jordan and possibly because of Jordan. Pierce, Kobe and Manu Ginoblli and Lebron and Dwayne Wade would have really made Jordan work his tail off. I never saw the Bulls dominate near close to that 86 team.

Beat, I've always said that it's a natural tendency for sports fans to want to have a personal investment in the best of this or the best of that.  In many cases, that investment has youth on its side.  I understand that.  But it's when Celtics reality is ignored or changed in the process that I have always and will always speak out.  No exceptions.  None!

For example, virtually anyone who weighs in on the "then vs. now" issue assumes that the standard of excellence on which comparisons should be made is "now."  Do you see anyone wondering how teams of today, minus the non-basketball advantages they have enjoyed over the old days, would have fared in the primitive days?  In other words, as time passes, people's frames of reference are constantly updated.  While that fact has its own form of reality, it frequently gives short shrift to the realities of the past.  Addressing what I feel are misconceptions is the main reason I'm in the Celtics forum business.

I understand that people think I'm biased toward the past.  Two things.  (1) How many of those same people have actually considered that, IF I'm biased, it could be because I saw basketball played like it's never played since?  (2) My first love is baseball, and I've followed the Red Sox since 1946.  Their teams in the late 40s (including the one that lost the 1946 World Series after running away with the AL pennant) were heavy hitting teams that pitched just well enough to lose the big ones (1948 playoff, 1949 loss of the last two games to the Yankees to finish one game out).  But I loved those teams with a passion and grew up with them.  I especially loved a player named Bobby Doerr (you'll note the similarities in our last names) who is now the oldest living baseball hall of famer and is even a better person than he was a ballplayer.  He was and is my role model in life, and I'm proud to say we've become very good friends.  I've visited his home in Oregon twice, and I was thrilled not long ago when he called me a member of his family.  So my emotional investment in those 40s-early 50s teams might be even stronger than my emotional attachment to the Russell Celtics.  Yet I'm quick to admit that the Red Sox of the past decade have been better than those early teams, even with era-to-era developments taken into consideration.

So any reasoning that suggests I'm biased just because those Celtics were my introduction to basketball has a lot going against it.  As a matter of fact, it was the MacAuley Celtics (in Mikan's heyday) that were my introduction to the NBA, not the Russell Celtics.  The Russell Celtics just played basketball that was superior to any other I've seen then or since.

As for its possibly being a good thing that at least any negativity about the Russell Celtics keeps them in the news, forget it.  Being thrown a used bone is no antidote to enduring revisionist history—especially when you've lived every bit of that history intensely, really believe you know what you're talking about, and have spent a lifetime in a research occupation that demands steadfastly forcing one's mind to be guided by objectivity.

It's nothing personal.  I respect everyone's opinion; and, as Americans, we all have the right to be wrong—definitely including me.

Go Celtics.

Sam

Baseball hasn't changed as much as basketball has.  The mound is still 60'6" away from home plate, the bases are still 90' apart.  Yeah, the mound might be a little higher now, but not hugely so, but the rules of the game haven't changed much.  You're still not allowed to hit the batter, but you're not allowed to hand check in the NBA now.  There are no more runs scored if you hit a towering 450' homerun than if you hit one that barely clears a short porch.  There's the 3pt shot now in the NBA.  

If there has been a rule change that has significantly changed MLB that I can think of it's the designated hitter rule, adopted by the AL (only!) in 1973.  That added years onto the careers of great hitters who lost the step or two they needed to keep playing defense.  It also eliminated the pitcher's spot in the batting order as a weak link.  Those are big deals, but that was in 1973.

bob


.

Sam

I guess as a kid times always seemed larger than life. And our heroes were also larger than life.

First time I was in the old Boston Garden with some buddies back in the early 70's we wandered around that old place waiting to get in. We walked up some old back stairway, windows were broken and once we got to the top...there appeared no where to go. As we turned to walk back ....there was Havlicek apparently heading to the locker room.

I think 3 guy's jaws about hit the floor. I don't think any of us said a word nor did he and like that he was gone.

I don't know if kids today hold them in the same regard that we did. Perhaps it was because it was a simpler time. I never attended any professional game of any ilk till I was at least 20 and in college. Marcus hasn't turned 20 yet, and has been to several. Comparing his time now to mine isn't close. Comparing then to now is always difficult. Can you really look into the past when you only read or hear about it and didn't LIVE it?

Even before Hondo my first sports hero was the Mick. Although he was at the twilight of his career, in any pick up game with the town kids it always was the same, I was the Mick at the plate. And I never saw him play only the occasional game on TV. Just like many others and several on here. You got to see it with the C's. And not only see it live but live it. And those memories are seared into your memory. Mine are few but they were formed in the 70's.

Suffice to say, be it 20 or 30 years from now kids will have sports heroes that will from time to time be compared to todays stars. And those kids will think along the lines that their teams/players would eat up and spit out those players from the past.

It's a debate that will never end.

beat

Bob,

There's been a huge change in baseball in terms of the liveliness of the ball.

Sam

No, Beat, I think it's difficult (if not impossible) to look into a past one hasn't experienced.  But that's exactly what the majority of people are trying to do when comparing the current with the old.  Because what they typically do is to rave about how great latter day teams/players are while making assumptions that fit their argument about the former teams/players.  If there's a way to help them realize the realities that contradict their assumptions, I'm happy to be involved.

While today's kids obviously have greater exposure to their favorite teams or individual heroes than in the "old days," I'm afraid that the quality of that exposure isn't nearly as great.  It's not today's kids' fault that the game is much more "distant" than in the past.  They're lucky if their parents can afford a seat that's actually in the building.  The ushers (at least the ones at TD Garden) religiously deny access to courtside to anyone whose ticket isn't in the immediate vicinity.  The more typical way of viewing a game (television) is tightly controlled, and the kids (and others) are largely exposed to whatever the tv gods deem they should be exposed.

I wish it weren't that way, because kids should be encouraged, not discouraged, when it comes to experiencing good things personally.

Sam

bobheckler wrote:Baseball hasn't changed as much as basketball has.  The mound is still 60'6" away from home plate, the bases are still 90' apart.  Yeah, the mound might be a little higher now, but not hugely so, but the rules of the game haven't changed much.  You're still not allowed to hit the batter, but you're not allowed to hand check in the NBA now.  There are no more runs scored if you hit a towering 450' homerun than if you hit one that barely clears a short porch.  There's the 3pt shot now in the NBA.  

If there has been a rule change that has significantly changed MLB that I can think of it's the designated hitter rule, adopted by the AL (only!) in 1973.  That added years onto the careers of great hitters who lost the step or two they needed to keep playing defense.  It also eliminated the pitcher's spot in the batting order as a weak link.  Those are big deals, but that was in 1973.

bob


.

Actually in the late 60's they lowered the mound 5" due to the year of the pitcher. Believe it was 69.

beat

I view the shrinking of the strike zone as the only major change in the game since I played back in the 40's and 50's. Back than it was the letters- armpits to the knees. Now its the waist to the knees. Much smaller zone for the hitter to cover.

swish

I've followed the Celtics since the early 60s. I think the Russell Celtics are the greatest I ever saw. Beat would be right: this is the team I grew up with. Also, Sam is right: there has never been such a dominant, team year after year, led by such an ingenious skilled player. Comparing eras is pointless, like comparing languages, although I do it. Hawk

If we add together our individual thoughts about changes in baseball, it seems to turn out that there have actually been quite a few.  Not necessarily any single thing on the order of the 24-second rule in the NBA, but collectively they add up to pretty significant changes.

I was thinking, the other day.  (I'll wait for that news to sink in.)  About how today's scouts might evaluate a young Babe Ruth.  A perpetually overweight drunk who can't lay off the hot dogs and booze.  Decent fast ball and can even hit a little.  But he runs like a turkey and would be lost in the field.  Likely to keel over from the exertion of walking to the mound before he's even 25.  Self-absorbed...no chance of ever becoming a team leader.  Has had a decent year or two in some place called Baltimore, but probably played against inferior competition.  Pass on this guy big time.

Sam

sam wrote:I was thinking, the other day.  (I'll wait for that news to sink in.)  About how today's scouts might evaluate a young Babe Ruth.  A perpetually overweight drunk who can't lay off the hot dogs and booze.  Decent fast ball and can even hit a little.  But he runs like a turkey and would be lost in the field.  Likely to keel over from the exertion of walking to the mound before he's even 25.  Self-absorbed...no chance of ever becoming a team leader.  Has had a decent year or two in some place called Baltimore, but probably played against inferior competition.  Pass on this guy big time.

Anyone who can hit like he could would be a valued player. Pablo Sandoval doesn't look like much of an athlete, but he was a World Series MVP in 2012, had another great postseason and World Series this year, and is a hot commodity as a free agent now. The first baseman for the Cardinals (Adams?) is slow and pudgy, but man, can he turn on a fastball. The third baseman for the Royals is sorta chunky. In fact, so is Miguel Cabrera, triple crown winner. Baseball is full of slow fat guys, and Babe Ruth would know how to play the media, so he'd be a star in multiple ways.

Outside,

My comments on the Babe were intended as a parody on how values can change from era to era—not on the factual attributes of the Babe or how he would fare today.  I don't believe in evaluating individual players, particularly not between eras.  Although I will say that individual players can have more influence on game results in baseball than in basketball.

Sam

One look at Pablo Sandoval and all I can think of is waking up Sunday morning after a late Saturday night, staggering out to a local diner to order two eggs, Irish sausages, bacon, black and white pudding, home fries, grilled tomatoes, toast slathered with butter, coffee and orange juice.

You look up and see in the next booth a hulking figure who is inhaling what you just ordered as well as a stack of pancakes and a plate of waffles and another plate of biscuits smothered with a creamy sauce containing what looks like chunks of sausages.  He never looks up but has his nose buried in the local tabloid as he throws the food down his bucketmouth.

A guy like Sandoval to sports looks like a bumble bee to flight: a physical impossibilty.

sam wrote:Outside,

My comments on the Babe were intended as a parody on how values can change from era to era—not on the factual attributes of the Babe or how he would fare today.  I don't believe in evaluating individual players, particularly not between eras.  Although I will say that individual players can have more influence on game results in baseball than in basketball.

Sam

Ohhh, this is killing me. I've got to get the time for a longer response here; everything from the opriginal Van Gundy statement to The Babe. This topic could easily be divided into three or more fantastic debates.

Sam,

I never get to debate a different side from you (I think our wives have told each other that's the first sign of what they consider our similarly twisted minds), so I had to jump on this one. Maybe we can make it it's own thread. I just had this debate with a couple of friends, and I would argue the only way a single baseball player can have a greater influence on the game is if he's a pitcher. This came from a greater debate on the big 4 professional leagues in the US and rating them most to least team oriented. I make it most to least; Football, Baseball, Hockey and Basketball.

Love basketball, but I consider it the least team oriented of the major sports. Football, I don't care how good a runner you are, no block, no score. Baseball, excluding a dominant pitching performance, you depend on others to get on base and assist on defense. Hockey, shift changes are the one thing that keeps me from rating it below basketball, in that you can change your defense on the fly. Basketball, although still heavily team oriented, has been single-handidly changed several times in strategy, rules or play by, among others, the likes of Mikan, Russ, Cooz, Jabbar, Jordan, Robertson, Wilt and Shaq. To me all the major sports are certainly team oriented, to suggest otherwise would be nonsensical, but I think of basketball as the least of the bunch. We need a poll!

Regards

NYCelt wrote:This came from a greater debate on the big 4 professional leagues in the US and rating them most to least team oriented.  I make it most to least; Football, Baseball, Hockey and Basketball.

I agree, but it's no surprise that they'd be ranked that way because of the number of players in each sport.

Football - 11
Baseball - 9
Hockey - 6
Basketball - 5

Same order, and in my view, not coincidentally.

Outside

I'd be darn tempted to put a 22 players for football cause the offense only plays about 1/2 the time (...unless your the Giants or the Jets) then it's considerably less.

beat

Outside wrote:

NYCelt wrote:This came from a greater debate on the big 4 professional leagues in the US and rating them most to least team oriented.  I make it most to least; Football, Baseball, Hockey and Basketball.

I agree, but it's no surprise that they'd be ranked that way because of the number of players in each sport.

Football - 11
Baseball - 9
Hockey - 6
Basketball - 5

Same order, and in my view, not coincidentally.

Outside,

You might want to stretch that out to roster size, but the order would be the same.

Football (like beat says) has offense and defense, plus special teams (kicking and receiving), punter, fg kicker, practice squads, etc.
Baseball has starting pitcher, middle relief, setup man, closer, pinch hitters and half of the teams have a designated hitter.
Hockey often has two goalies, two shifts of defenseman, three shifts of forwards, short-hand specialists, power play specialists, etc.
Basketball has star players, other rotation players, bench warmers, DNP-CDs, etc.

gyso

GYSO

Just go by total rosters of players available for any one game

Without checking

Football has 54ish (or is it 45)
Baseball has 25
Hockey about the same as baseball 25
and Basketball has 12