The Truth Passes The Logo

swish wrote:

I think I'm one old timer that is qualified to comment about the Cousy years of the 50's and early 60's.

It is my opinion, that at best, the Cousy of the those early years would have had very little chance of making an nba roster from about 1980"s on.

swish
   

Well he'd been in his 50's in the 80's so I guess I could go along with that.

beat

Good one, Beat.

Although I'm obviously not a fan of top 10 player lists, I'm delighted to see Bob Petit recognized in this discussion.  He averaged at least 22 points and 12 rebounds in every season of his career.  Since his career spanned only 12 seasons, some might suggest that his only advantage was knowing when to quit.

He might just have been the toughest basketball player I've ever seen.  A rawboned kind of toughness that would have had Charles Oakley talking to himself.  But he wasn't uni-dimensional as he could really shoot the jumper and was a holy terror down low.  He was a true winner, even though his teams had the misfortune of going up against the Celtics.

Petit is on my list of players I would have loved to see in Celtic green.  Since everyone's floating lists, here's my list of players I would have welcomed as Celtics:

Hakeem Olajuwan
Bob Petit
Billy Cunningham
Jerry West
Slater Martin
Nate Thurmond
Tim Duncan
Elgin Baylor
Walt Frazier
John Stockton

I picked this list NOT as a bunch of all-stars.  More important to me was the excellence they would have contributed to the team-oriented, role-defined tradition of the Celtics.

Does anyone care to share a list along these lines?

Sam

Sam

I thought about doing some sort of top 10 list but kept ending up with all Celtics. And then I had to go to more than 10 anyway.

As to the list of those I'd like to have seen in Green.
I always thought that Red would find a way to replace Russ with Bob Lanier but I guess Dave Cowens worked out OK.

beat

cowens/oldschool wrote:

swish wrote:cowens

I'll be 83 next april.

swish

how would Russell do today?

cowens

In my opinion-- Far from the dominant figure that he presented back in the 50's-60's. The skill level of the game is much, much greater now. Don't be fooled by the high scoring and rebounding numbers of those early years. All were enhanced by the style of play.

swish

Yes, it was superior.  Far better teamwork....and all at far greater speed.

Sam

"Petit is on my list of players I would have loved to see in Celtic green.  Since everyone's floating lists, here's my list of players I would have welcomed as Celtics:

Hakeem Olajuwan
Bob Petit
Billy Cunningham
Jerry West
Slater Martin
Nate Thurmond
Tim Duncan
Elgin Baylor
Walt Frazier
John Stockton"


Terrific list.  Players I would have liked to see in the Green not on your list:

Bobby Jones
Michael Cooper
Maurice Cheeks
Sidney Moncrief


Bill Russell in his book "Second Wind" said that he'd always complain to the refs that Bob Petit always took a bunch of baby steps before he shot. One day a ref just laughed and said, "Yeah, he might have walked but he didn't go very far."

Russell acknowledged that was a way of life that superstars got away with stuff not allowed to mere mortals and that the refs often winked at his goal tending.

He said that Petit couldn't dribble more than three times in a row and that his left hand was so bad that "he'd probably take out an eye if he picked his nose." But despite this, Russ also said that Petit and Baylor were the best forwards when he played.

Sam

Today on the drive in listening to sports talk.... someone said that in an interview with Wilt that there were only 10 timeouts a game, no TV Timeouts as are the case now, that equal 20 time outs total. Plus the time outs are a lot longer than 60 seconds too. His point was there were not nearly as many breaks and guys like him rarely came out and that they were in much better shape than the average starting player today because they HAD to be.

It is hard to compare eras for sure but if Bob Cousy or Bill Russell or Wilt were born in 1990 and had all the advancements in training and nutrition to add to the talent they had already as with anyone else from that era most would fair quite well in today's game in my opinion, and perhaps even dominate.

beat

I think that the elite players of past eras--at least since the advent of the 24 second clock--would be elite players today though they may not be as dominant.

One characteristic of great players is that not only do they have talent and physical gifts but they are maniacally dedicated to their craft. They exemplify Bobby Knight's adage that you do not so much compete against an opponent but against your own potential.

That said, I also feel that the average player today is better than the average player of past eras. In the 70's when the Celtics won two titles and contended in at least five years, players like Hank Finkel, Steve Kurburski, Art Williams and Kevin Stacom were regular parts of the rotation, at least in the regular season. Would these guys even be on an NBA roster now?

So, I guess I'm saying that regardless of the era, there are players who play about as well as human muscle, bone and nervous system allow a person to play--players who compete as much against their own potential as against an opponent. But their achievements soar over more of the other players. While today, the space between the best and the average has narrowed.

"His point was there were not nearly as many breaks and guys like him rarely came out and that they were in much better shape than the average starting player today because they HAD to be."

I find it hard to believe that players in Chamberlain's era were in better shape than today's players. Most people acknowledge that training and nutrition have advanced tremendously. Do these advances not include cardio-vascular training?

I think that top players today average fewer minutes than stars of the past for the same reason that we seldom see baseball pitchers go nine innings today: the game has become more specialized and it is more efficient over all to play even the stars less, particularly where there are more good players available.

A load of good stuff in these posts.  Sloop, if the gap between the best and the average has narrowed, is it because the best have become less good or because the average have become better.  Probably a combination of both.

I get a kick out of people who say that Russell would be back in the pack of centers today.  WHAT centers today?  The handful that could possibly be regarded as true centers?

Because there were 8 or 9 teams in the league at the time, Russell played the majority of his games against real stalwart centers such as Wilt, Lanier, Thurmond, Bellamy and Reed.  All but Reed extremely tall guys, so the tall card is a dud in this discussion.

I'm guessing that 80% of today's teams play stretch-4s or unidimensional placeholders at the center position.  That's the definition of dilution.  Heck, Wilt was Shaq with greater height, far more athleticism, and less blubber; and Russ dominated him.

There is one thing in common about every other center who ever played the game.  Not one of them could match Russ in running the court.  None!  Nada!  He pooped them all out on a regular basis.  In his very last game, he kept beating a much younger Wilt downcourt.  And he played almost the complete game almost every night on the arguably most debilitating running team of all-time,  And, in all those frenetic miles, he never sustained a long-term injury.

Actually, now that I think about it, one could mount an argument that Russ would be MORE dominant today than when he played.  In terms of the center position, there's far less to dominate today.  I don't mean to imply that he'd replicate the stats that a faster game produced in the 50s and 60s.  I mean he'd win the center battle against every other center (both stalwarts and pretenders) far more often than not.  He'd outrun them, out-front them, out-back them, out-side them, outthink them, out-psych them, outjump them, outrebound them, outdefend them, outblock them, outpersist them, and maybe even drive some out of the league like he did to Philly's poor Neil Johnston, who (for those who like lists) is rated by many people as one of the top 25 centers of all-time and who is in the hall of fame.

And how did Russ reduce Johnston to a shell of himself?  Neil was one of the best hook shot artists of all-time.  Big, sweeping hooks that were nearly impossible to guard.  So Russ just kept blocking Neil's hook shots.  In the half season when Russ was introduced to the league, Neil averaged 22.8 ppg.  In Russ' full season, Neil averaged 19.5 ppg.  The following year, Neil averaged 6.3 ppg, and he never played another game after that season, retiring after only 8 seasons at age 29.

Sam

Sam,

Didn't you say from your up-close and personal experience with the Russell Celtics they had smoke breaks during halftime? That couldn't have helped the ol' cardio-vascular system!

db

Db,

I don't recall anything like that.  If I suspected anyone of having done that, it would have been Tom Heinsohn.  On the other hand, I don't remember ever seeing him "dog it" late in the game.

I have a friend who now lives in Arizona and is in his mid-eighties.  He used to run marathons all the time.  Thin as a rail.  He'd cross the finish line and light up a smoke.  I guess some guys just have the DNA for it and some don't.

Sam

dbrown4 wrote:Sam,

Didn't you say from your up-close and personal experience with the Russell Celtics they had smoke breaks during halftime?  That couldn't have helped the ol' cardio-vascular system!

db

   

I think the smoke breaks at halftime meant that they got away from the smoke in the Garden when they went back into the locker room!  (LOL)  

Have you seen some of the pictures of the games from back then?  The game was practically played in a smoke-filled room!  



gyso

OK, I don't know where I got that from. Maybe it was the opposing teams! I know the arenas were full of smoke. I remember that going to N.C. State games in the early 70's. Everyone was smoking then. You were an outcast if you didn't!

db

"Sloop, if the gap between the best and the average has narrowed, is it because the best have become less good or because the average have become better. Probably a combination of both"

I think it is mostly because the overall average has improved; it is hard for the best to get much better. All time greats such as Russell, Chamberlain, West, Baylor, Robertson, Havlicek etc played about as well as human muscle, bone, nervous system, supreme dedication, unmatched competitive instinct and innovative creativity allowed a human being to play. They competed not so much against an opponent as against their own potential.

On the other hand the journeymen player of today is better than the journeymen player of past eras in part because the creative innovations of the best players have spread to the game at large and are imitated however imperfectly by the more average players.


What happened to all the good centers? I think that many are now or were playing power forward. McHale, Ralph Sampson, Duncan, Garnett, Pau Gasol, Anthony Davis and others would have probably played center in the 60's and 70's.

There has always been a certain level of overlap between center and power forward--even when the term "power forward" didn't exist.

Other notable players who played both positions include Nate Thurmond, Willis Reed, Luke Jackson, Elvin Hayes, McAdoo, Jack Sikma, Rick Mahorn, Mychael Thompson.

Dbrown,

Oh I definitely remember all the smoke in the arenas.  The only reason my clothes don't still reek of smoke is because none of them fits me now.  I'm embarrassed to say that the cigar smoke, in particular, became such an integral element of the games in the primitive days that I actually missed it for a long time after it was outlawed.  Even now, if I happen to catch a whiff of cigar smoke on the street, Bob Cousy crosses my field of vision, dribbling behind his back—and smoking a stogie.

Sam

sam wrote:Dbrown,

Oh I definitely remember all the smoke in the arenas.  The only reason my clothes don't still reek of smoke is because none of them fits me now.  I'm embarrassed to say that the cigar smoke, in particular, became such an integral element of the games in the primitive days that I actually missed it for a long time after it was outlawed.  Even now, if I happen to catch a whiff of cigar smoke on the street, Bob Cousy crosses my field of vision, dribbling behind his back—and smoking a stogie.

Sam

Dbrown and Sam,

For me, any quick hint of a cigar takes me back to childhood and warm summer nights at the ball park.

Regards

Perfect description, NYCelt. I hate the smell but love the memories.

Sam