Lex Nihil Novi - Russell vs Chamberlain, Game 81

Russell v. Chamberlain: Game 81



1965 ECFs GAME #1










bob



.

A nice portrait of contrasts.  Three double-figure scorers was often the upper limit for the 76ers.  Five double-figure scorers was often the minimum for the Celtics.  And the egalitarian difference was what frequently spelled victory for the Celtics.

It was in the final game of this series that a guy named Havlicek know it had to be one of only three Philly players getting the ball at the end of the game.  Wilt was a longshot because of his undependable free throw shooting.  Greer was taking the ball out of bounds.  So John was thoroughly prepared for the fact that Walker would probably get the ball.  John simply counted to five; and, when he got to four, he knew the ball would be on its way.  Not at all surprising that "Havlicek stole the ball."

I used to say that the 76ers had been invented as a toy for the Celtics' amusement.  But then, I used to say it about the Lakers too.  And the Knicks.  In fact, all the teams of that time.

Sam

Below box score includes rebounds.

 Boston, Massachusetts, USA


Philadelphia 76ers

MIN FGM FGA FTM FTA REB AST PF PTS
Al Bianchi 28 1 11 2 2 2 3 3 4
Wilt Chamberlain 48 13 22 7 12 31 3 2 33
Larry Costello 27 2 6 1 1 1 3 2 5
Dave Gambee 15 2 5 3 3 0 0 2 7
Hal Greer 41 10 21 7 10 4 2 6 27
Luke Jackson 25 4 8 0 1 8 0 4 8
Johnny Kerr 22 1 6 1 2 2 1 1 3
Chet Walker 30 4 12 3 5 6 2 3 11
Ben Warley 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
Totals  37 91 24 36 65 14 24 98

Team Rebounds: 11


Boston Celtics

MIN FGM FGA FTM FTA REB AST PF PTS
Mel Counts 7 1 3 0 0 2 1 0 2
John Havlicek 31 10 22 0 2 6 2 3 20
Tom Heinsohn 31 10 22 3 5 3 1 3 23
K.C. Jones 25 1 4 4 5 4 4 4 6
Sam Jones 36 6 16 6 7 1 1 2 18
Willie Naulls 20 4 10 0 1 9 1 3 8
Bill Russell 48 5 13 1 5 32 6 2 11
Tom Sanders 25 3 9 1 1 8 0 5 7
Larry Siegfried 17 2 4 9 9 2 1 4 13
Totals  42 103 24 35 73 17 26 108

Team

  Very impressive rebound numbers for Russell (32) and Wilt (31).  However, when based on 36 minutes and the much lower number of rebounds available in 2014-15 Russell's  rebounds drop to 15.0 and Wilt's drop to 14.5. As of today Drummond is averaging 16.0 and Jordan 15.3. Much more consistent with present day standards.

swish

Why would one base Russell's and Wilt's figures on present day standards?  Russ and Wilt were very much responsible for elevating the pace of the game when they played.  That was a major part of their accomplishments; and who among us is legitimized in just casting those accomplishments aside because they give Russ and Wilt an "unfair advantage" when compared with today's weenies.  Russ and Wilt deserve to be judged only by what they accomplished when they accomplished it.  And they usually played 48 rapid-fire minutes, not just a paltry 36.

I don't know why, when discussing players of the past, people insist on applying "today's standards."  How about comparing today's players with players of yesterday utilizing "yesterday's standards?"  Transplanted players of today would require private physicians traveling with them to sew up the gashes when their tongues repeatedly hit the floor.  Would today's leading rebounders gain commensurately more rebounds if there were more rebounds available, or would their pampered butts be resting on the bench when the extra rebounds occurred?

Stats are useful only if the contexts underlying them make sense.

Sam

Notice the 48 minutes after Wilt and Russ........

the rule not the exception.

beat

Seems unbelievable, huh, Beat?  In some ways, although I'm convinced Russell was the better player, the huge minutes for Wilt are almost more impressive because he carried so much weight.

Sam

Comparing Russell and Wilt to modern day players is, to me, a bit like comparing the Battle of Yorktown to the Battle of Iwo Jima or Trafalgar vs Midway.  You fight and play against your peers, not in some hypothetical challenge from a biologically and/or technologically advanced opponent using a different set of rules (e.g. hand-checking and 3pt shot, air power and submarines, gentlemen knights vs unrestricted asymmetrical warfare).  

Changing the rules, in my opinion, probably has more of an effect than physical differences.  Jerry West was 6'4", 175# and he averaged 27ppg over his career, and that was without a 3pt shot and with handchecking.  He also averaged 6.7 apg and that was during an era in which your pass had to lead directly to a basket without needing a dribble for it to be credited.  Kobe Bryant, is taller at 6'6" and heavier at 200#.  He is averaging 25.4ppg in a career that included the entire 3pt era and NO handchecking and 4.8apg even though the scorekeepers are much more lenient today.  And yet, so many people, not just young'uns who don't know better, think that Kobe is the better player because he's bigger, heavier, stronger (and surgically enhanced using science that didn't exist in West's day) and the assumption is that if they went head to head Kobe would win.  



bob



.

sam wrote:Seems unbelievable, huh, Beat?  In some ways, although I'm convinced Russell was the better player, the huge minutes for Wilt are almost more impressive because he carried so much weight.

Sam

They were both pretty darn good athletes. And not just in basketball.

Here is a little clip of Wilt at 17. Imagine facing that in high school? Notice the WIDE lane at the time and the real treat he makes a foul shot at the end. Also in his younger years he was pretty lean, but still damn strong.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmBc8NX_oL8

And here is a brief clip of Early Russ.........jumping OVER a defender.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2AlFrOj5Mc

And one more brief one of Wilt picking up Red Buttons like you or I would pick up a cup of coffee.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=huF3PFXU-V0

The 50's and 60's.  All you need to know about the caliber of ball in those years is to compare shooting percentages and to view the tapes of available games from those years.
 They couldn't shoot, couldn't dribble the ball with their off hand and played under rules that made physical contact a virtual sin.  Sure they played a lot of minutes back then, but when you combine a lack of physical contact with light weight bodies that were more suited for endurance then speed and quickness,, it is quite understandable why they played more minutes per game.

swish

Shooting percentages....volume basketball....tighter rims....blah blah blah.  It's all been covered before.  And players are likely to shoot a lower percentage if they shoot primarily on the run.  As I've said before (with nary a retort attempted), it's a bogus comparison because it's based on today being the measure of excellence.  What if pace were the measure of excellence?

The pure and simple fact is that human beings adapt the best they can to the environments around them.  In basketball, they play within the context of the then-current rules, health and nutritional knowledge, basketball strategies, etc.

Don't tell Bob Brannum, Jim Loscutoff, and Bill Sharman, and Bob Petit that there was a lack of physical contact back then.  That's a flat-out myth.  When they collided, it was often meaningful, but they actually combined race horse basketball with finesse today's players would have great difficulty matching.  The players of the past saved the really tough stuff for when it really counted; and then they went at it with a fervor that today's pampered players could only dream about.  If there was less physical contact, why is it that the average number of free throws taken in a 2014-15 game is 22.4 but the average in 1957-58 was 38.3?  That's a 71% difference.  Moreover, if one wants to measure toughness by the ability to play through injuries, well I can't continue this sentence because I'm laughing so hard.

As for weight, I hadn't realized Dr. Naismith intended the game to morph into a blubber contest.  Wilt weighed 275, which belies any assertion that greater endurance was correlated with lighter weight.  Most of the players of that time were lighter, perhaps because they weren't fed hormones like Stop & Shop chickens.  Perhaps they worked the weight off by not being able to sit on their butts, stand around, and wait for three-pointers to open up.  The old guys were the E.F. Huttons of pro ball.  They actually earned what they got; they didn't just benefit from rule changes, pampering, nutritional and medical advances, etc.

No, they didn't do some of the things in the 50s and 60s that are done now.  Because many of those things (such as the three-pointer, breakaway rims, lack of hand-checking, etc.) were not known to them.  And the codgers did things that the modern players don't duplicate—but not from lack of knowledge.  From regularly utilizing the most difficult basketball shot to defend (the hook shot) to using one of the best ways to shake a player loose with a very low degree of risk (the weave).  Times change.  Strategies change.  For the better?  Sometimes yes, sometimes no. 

Here's the pure and simple fact.  The players back then played the way that came naturally given the competition at the time and the science of the game at the time.  Which I assume is what today's players do.  It's natural for athletes to seize upon whatever advantages become available to them because of the passage of time.

However, as I've said many times, there's a difference between inherent basketball skill and non-basketball advances over time.  Comparing a basketball player from 60 years ago with a basketball player of today is like comparing a doctor of 60 years ago with a doctor of today.  In both cases, the oldsters attained a certain level of competence that was limited by the lack of certain advantages enjoyed by today's counterparts.  But, in both cases there's no way anyone can prove to me that the old guys weren't at least as proficient as today's players in "making do" and capitalizing on changes in the times.  In fact, I could make a heck of a case that the players of yesteryear were more creative than their current counterparts in making lemonade of lemons.

But, for me, the real proof of the pudding, even in today's entertainment-oriented approach to the game, is the the sheer enjoyability of the game.  For those who have loved the pure, team-oriented, up-tempo action of the past, the old days win in a walk.  For those who love the slow-down, stand-around, iso, circus-like presentation of today, the present would win in a limp.

Summary: Bill Russell used to get dry heaves because he cared so much.  Today's basketball has devolved into a game of long heaves.

Sam

I'm afraid that your near fanatic love for the game of basketball as played in the 50's and 60's, especially by the Celtics,  severely affects your view of the game. Perhaps you let a little too much nostalgia creep in to your feelings. I think that your below statement sums up the issue.

" However, as I've said many times, there's a difference between inherent basketball skill and non-basketball advances over time.  Comparing a basketball player from 60 years ago with a basketball player of today is like comparing a doctor of 60 years ago with a doctor of today.  In both cases, the oldsters attained a certain level of competence that was limited by the lack of certain advantages enjoyed by today's counterparts.  But, in both cases there's no way anyone can prove to me that the old guys weren't at least as proficient as today's players in "making do" and capitalizing on changes in the times.  In fact, I could make a heck of a case that the players of yesteryear were more creative than their current counterparts in making lemonade of lemons."

   There are many reasons why the players and the teams of the last 35 years are far superior to those of the 50's and 60's.  Genetics,  medical and nutritional advances, year around youth involvement at really young ages, boys club and ymca facilities everywhere and on and on.  But with out Question the biggest advancement has been the take over by blacks in the  speed,  quickness and agility positions. So  while its true that the modern player has been blessed with many advantages it is for those reasons that the level of play is far superior to the 50's and 60's.

 By the way. That free throw differential is due in great part by the fact that in those early years free throw attempts were taken on non shooting fouls starting with the first foul. That could have added as many as 40 more attempts per game.  

 swish

Swish,

Ha ha, that was a good one. I assume you were trying to make a joke.  You talk about my lack of objectivity, while you feel justified in posting the following:

"The 50's and 60's.  All you need to know about the caliber of ball in those years is to compare shooting percentages and to view the tapes of available games from those years.  They couldn't shoot, couldn't dribble the ball with their off hand and played under rules that made physical contact a virtual sin. "


Wow, that's the soul of objectivity and knowledgeability.  Ha ha.  Good one!


I wasn't born with a love of basketball as it was played by the Russell Celtics.  In fact, before Russell arrived, I was very high on Cousy but more neutral about the team as a whole because they always seemed to be bridesmaids and, outside of The Cooz, the way they played seemed just good enough to lose a lot.  Games such as the four-overtime playoff win certainly maintained my interest enough for me to make it a point to learn the game inside and out—if only so I could play it myself.


When Russell arrived, the Celtics EARNED my affection by dint of their superior team play.  I haven't seen that type of play on a consistent basis ever since, and the cherry on the cake was the fact that they could play such a great team game at such high speed.


At this juncture, I have to backtrack a bit and tell you that, in my earlier years, virtually all my non-study, non-sports, non-girls life was spent playing in an orchestra.  (I also had my own swing band by age 14.)  I've always likened orchestral work to sports.  In both endeavors, there's a huge responsibility on participants, with no second chances allowed, not to mess up because messing up can ruin the experience for all of one's cohorts.


Because that principle was deeply instilled in me by my early teens, when the Russell Celtics came along, it was as though they had read my mind.  Above all else, they represented to me a symbol of prevailing through teamwork.  Yes, they EARNED my fervent support, but the key word is "EARNED."  My support wasn't granted to them by default.  For you to suggest that I'm sufficiently superficial to have a deep affection for the Russell Years primarily because of some zany, childish crush on the Russell Celtics is, in effect, to trivialize both my personal values and my basketball values.


The other day, I posted about a research philosophy that research never really proves anything.  It is the repeated inability to disprove something that leads to confidence in the results.  Well, the way teams played during the Russell era has never been proven (to my satisfaction) to be inferior to another system.  And that's a lot of consideration and rejection over the past 65 years.  I consider the up-tempo team game to have been the perfect extension of Dr. Naismith's game into the modern era while retain the inherent structure of the game.
 
You may feel that the evolution of the game in a direction of slowed play, a focus on the individual, and a trend toward long-distance bombing is more ideal than the way they played in the late 50s and 60s.  That is your right.  As for what that says about you as a student of basketball, I won't characterize you as you chose to characterize me.

Sam

No joke Sam. I meant every word.

"Wow, that's the soul of objectivity and knowledgeability.  Ha ha.  Good one!"
              Then just disprove my statement,Sam

"You may feel that the evolution of the game in a direction of slowed play, a focus on the individual, and a trend toward long-distance bombing is more ideal than the way they played in the late 50s and 60s.  That is your right."

        I just want the win. Style is a non factor with me.

 "As for what that says about you as a student of basketball, I won't characterize you as you chose to characterize me."

 Could you be a little more specific ?

swish

Swish, anyone can make a statement and then try to put the onus on others to disprove it.  If you think that's how it works, don't ever go to court.  Prove your own ludicrous statement.

Specific?  Okay.  You characterized me, without offering a shred of proof, as having a "near-fanatic love for the game of basketball in the 50s and 60s....that severely affects my view of the game."  The clear implication was that my preference for an up-tempo, team-oriented, pride-driven, energy-fueled approach to basketball is a superficial, nostalgia-driven phenomenon than factual rationale.

Despite the fact that I considered your words to trivialize the very basis of my becoming a Celtics fan, I tried to show you how the Russell Celtics EARNED my affection through proven accomplishments—not through some nostalgia-based and superficial reasoning on my part.

And, do you know what, Swish?  I'll repeat those words for your easy reference: up-tempo, team-oriented, pride-driven, energy-fueled approach to basketball.  Consider what's happening with the Celtics currently.  Are they not becoming the epitome of that series of descriptors?  It produced 11 championships in 13 years about 60 years ago, and it seems to be bringing them back from a nearly moribund state 60 years later.  The sheer weight of FACTUAL support for my stylistic predisposition would appear to be much more substantive than fanaticism and nostalgia, wouldn't you say?

You have a habit of conveniently ignoring much of what I post and cherry-picking, instead, a minority of my comments that you think you have a chance of contesting.  Well, following is a direct challenge that you can't ignore without appearing selectively foolish.

Over the years, I must have pointed to hundreds of factual reasons why I believe the Russell-era style of basketball is the best there ever was.  The rapidity with which the current Celtics team is turning around with that system is simply reinforcing that belief.  And I haven't even addressed the pleasure involved in observing that style of play.   Here's my challenge: Please tell me exactly what is inherently wrong or fanatical or overly nostalgic in considering that style as the best.

And one more thing.  I take a very dim view of making things personal when a legitimate, opinion-oriented topic is on the table.  I find it's usually a last-ditch effort when someone's losing a debate and is desperate for some some distracting measure.  By characterizing me as being overly nostalgically driven to the point of superficiality, you made it personal.  I elected not to return the "favor," and that's the answer to your request for clarification.

I look forward to your answer to my challenge.  And please try your very hardest to avoid snide, personal remarks.

Thank you,

Sam

Sam

In response to your below Question.

    "Here's my challenge: Please tell me exactly what is inherently wrong or fanatical or overly nostalgic in considering that style as the best."

 Absolutely nothing. But this is more than just about  the style of play. Its your constant reference to those 50's - 60's team and players that have been irking me for years. You have left no doubt that you believe that they were the best.  That's fair enough Sam. Everyone is entitled to their opinions and you certainly qualify as a expert on those years. But tomorrow I will start posting the other side of the story so that other board members who did not get to view those years as adults can get a picture with a different slant.

 I'm surprised that the words near fanatic bothered you since that pretty much is the way that you once described your interest in the players of those early Celtic players. And since nostalgia about the past is quite common amongst people in their middle years and up, I was just wondering if perhaps a little sentimentality might be factoring into +your views. No meanest intended.
cheers
swish

Swish,

I'm sorry, but not at all surprised, that you weren't able to meet the challenge.  But at least that exercise flushed out your real concern.  You're "irked" because of what you call my "constant references to those 50s - 60s teams and players."

What a hilarious laugh!

• Yes, I absolutely have a great affinity and link with those teams.  For that reason, I actually bend over backwards not to initiate threads on the old days.  In fact, as I prepare for the time when I'll no longer be on the board, I pretty much leave the initiation of any topic to others.  I'm pretty much limiting myself to a "read and react" role.  (Has a nice ring, huh?)  So almost any remark I make about the past is in response to something someone else has posted.

• I don't usually start threads about oldtimers' birthdays or deaths.

• I don't usually start threads about Celtics stories from the past.

• I don't usually start threads on "Where are they now?" or other news of former Celtics.

• Go back and count the number of my 20,091 posts that involved starting a thread about the old days.  It can't be close to 1%.  Go ahead; count them, and make certain you include my game-on posts.  Somehow, less than 1% doesn't seem to beg a definition of "constant."

• Go back and count the number of my posts that involved responses to others' commentary on the past.  It can't be close to 3%.  Somehow, less than 3% doesn't seem to beg a definition of "constant."

• I've never once posted the old box scores that frequently appear on the forum, although I usually try to add a related insight that I hope is interesting.

• I'm not the person who aggressively seized the opportunity to turn this thread into yet another era-to-era comparison.  You are.

• The fact is that I post VASTLY much more about the present than about the past.  It's not remotely in the realm of being close.  And I like to think that at least some of my current insights are considered relevant.

• I do comment on threads others have started about the old days if I think I can offer interesting factoids or perspectives.  My wild guess is that this forum exists for civil conversations, and conversations are comprised of comments.  Perhaps the right to post on any posted topic should be available only to non-founders and non-administors.

• Yes, I recently started a thread in an attempt to do what I thought (and others seemed to agree) was a very nice thing to do for Sam Jones.  See my attorney if you want to sue me for that.

• One thing I do reserve the right to do is to comment if I believe Celtics history is being unfairly revised or maligned.  That was the only reason that I initially joined BDC, and it's my chosen way of giving back to teams and players who gifted me with so incredibly much closeness and pleasure.  I like to think that, out of that initial motivation, a pretty nice forum for exchanging viewpoints has emerged without any agenda on my part.

• When I do choose to comment on the past, I try to take an analytical rather than an emotional tack because that's the way I approach most things.  I have been blessed with an extremely analytical mind, a photographic memory, and an insatiable thirst for knowledge—all of which surfaced at a very early age so I was able to apply them to my close scrutiny of the Russell Celtics.  I'm not trying to toot my own horn because I have no need to do so.  But I've become "irked" (nice word) about your thinly veiled insinuations that I was too young to become thoroughly immersed in, and extremely knowledgeable about, the Russell Celtics.  You're the one who just called me an "expert" on those times—not I.

By all means, take your best shot at presenting "the other side."  Verbally tear down all the banners and denigrate Red and all the players.  I'll be extremely interested in your approach, and I'm already champing at the bit to comment.  All I suggest, partly in deference to the rest of the board and partly because it's right in my wheelhouse, is that you consider avoiding tired, boring and inappropriately used stats—especially in comparing eras.

Sam

cowens/oldschool wrote:

bobheckler wrote:Comparing Russell and Wilt to modern day players is, to me, a bit like comparing the Battle of Yorktown to the Battle of Iwo Jima or Trafalgar vs Midway.  You fight and play against your peers, not in some hypothetical challenge from a biologically and/or technologically advanced opponent using a different set of rules (e.g. hand-checking and 3pt shot, air power and submarines, gentlemen knights vs unrestricted asymmetrical warfare).  

Changing the rules, in my opinion, probably has more of an effect than physical differences.  Jerry West was 6'4", 175# and he averaged 27ppg over his career, and that was without a 3pt shot and with handchecking.  He also averaged 6.7 apg and that was during an era in which your pass had to lead directly to a basket without needing a dribble for it to be credited.  Kobe Bryant, is taller at 6'6" and heavier at 200#.  He is averaging 25.4ppg in a career that included the entire 3pt era and NO handchecking and 4.8apg even though the scorekeepers are much more lenient today.  And yet, so many people, not just young'uns who don't know better, think that Kobe is the better player because he's bigger, heavier, stronger (and surgically enhanced using science that didn't exist in West's day) and the assumption is that if they went head to head Kobe would win.  



bob


bob I think West was closer to 6'3" as I used to love seeing Walt Frazier and West go at it, and Frazier was taller and listed at 6'4". Are you comparing West and Kobe and saying West is better based on stats? West played in a different era where FG% was alot lower and there were more shots put up, Sam calls it volume basketball. I'm not gonna say who is better, but I guarantee Kobe would give West all he could handle both ends and that West never saw anything near Kobe in his time. I used to see Walt Frazier torch Jerry West, once he did it in Game 7, Willis Reeds famous comeback game where he came out limping and scored the first 2 baskets.....well Frazier had 36 points and 19 assists in that game, cementing his place in the HoF.

Kobe has way higher voltage, modern attributes at the highest degree than Frazier or West, we've seen Kobe just a few seasons ago score one on one at Lebron, a stacked modern in the greatest conversation 6'8" 260 fury, muscle, you name it. Head to head Kobe could go off on Lebron no problem. Lebron couldn't stop him, do you really think 6'3"-6'4" Jerry West could stop Kobe? Kobe has 5 titles, how many does West have? I always hated Kobe, as I loved Pierce and Kobe was the enemy, but I think your selling him a little short.



.

cow,

One of West's greatest obstacles was an irresistible force called the Boston Celtics.  Kobe never had to run into that buzzsaw.

If you say that fg% was lower in West's day I'll take your word for it, but isn't it possible that the reason why it was lower was because of hand-checking and the more physical nature of the game back then, and wouldn't that help prove my point that rule changes have more to do with differences between eras than purely physical dimensions?  As far as Kobe giving West all he could handle, that may very well be true, they're both great players.  If that's true, though, then where's the argument that newer is just SO much better?  Doesn't being competitive infer parity?

If West was 6'3", maybe that's just because the Celtics whittled him down a bit.  Besides, back in West's era they measured players in their bare feet, in Kobe's era they measured them wearing sneakers with 1 1/2" air cushioned soles and then they round up to the nearest inch.  Ever notice how nobody is 6'4 1/2" anymore?  Take Kobe's sneakers off and I'll bet he's closer to 6'4".


bob



.

Just too darn hard to compare eras in almost ANYTHING, cars from the 60's got what for gas mileage vs today? You died from things in the 60's that are darn near eradicated today, smallpox, polio.

I grew up on a dairy farm, milked perhaps 50-60 cows on average. Perhaps they gave on average 35-40 lbs of milk a day (2 milking's daily) and some as much as 50 lbs. daily. This was the 60's-70's era for me.

My cousin took over his dad's farm several years ago. LARGE SCALE they milk around the clock 3 times a day for a herd of 400-500 cows. Average yield per cow is 50+ lbs today in large part to better nutrition and breeding.

Times change and to compare things from the 60's to now is very subjective at best. Would a cow born in say 1965 have a chance to produce 60 LBS of milk a day??? Highly unlikely.


Just compared farming to hoops...... hey we did have a basket in the hay loft. 9'6" ( my handicap for being 5'11") had some pretty competitive games till the ball fell though a hay hole and went in the gutter.

beat

As for Kobe West.... one thing that didn't change was the foul shot still the same although the rims are a little different, West was 81.4% for his career, Kobe 83.7%

Sam

Other than your below comment I won't take the time to comment on your other remarks since over the next few weeks our feeling on this subject will be quite clear.
   As to your below comment.

" By all means, take your best shot at presenting "the other side."  Verbally tear down all the banners and denigrate Red and all the players.  I'll be extremely interested in your approach, and I'm already champing at the bit to comment.  All I suggest, partly in deference to the rest of the board and partly because it's right in my wheelhouse, is that you consider avoiding tired, boring and inappropriately used stats—especially in comparing eras."

  Lets get one thing straight Sam. Those Celtic teams, and players in particular, of the 50's and 60's are by far my favorite Celtics. Denigrate Red and all the players just because I happen to believe that later generations are better players and teams? I guess I'm Just not as fanatically inclined, as you are,  towards those Cousy- Russell years and as a result I can take views that others may very well disagree with.
   And I will be using stats. Loads of stats. Right down the middle of the plate for you to swing at.

 swish

West's career FG% was 47.4 which would be excellent for a guard today. Unlike many players from the 60's to early 70's, he regularly took shots from what would have been three point range so his FG% from within 23 feet was almost certainly higher.

There are some players that would be in the elite regardless of the era. West and Kobe are certainly among them.

Frazier and Robertson had one aspect of their games that is no longer seen much today: namely a midrange power game. I can't seem to remember either of them taking shots from much beyond 18 feet. Instead they would penetrate into the heart of the defense and get close-in shots.

Cow

Thinking he is referring to the era before the three point shot basically just no need for people back then to routinely fire from way out, still only 2 points.

beat