When was the foul limit instituted? I know the 24 clock came in the early 50s.
I think that’s been around almost from the beginning. The limit became five fouls in 1945, and that still applies in college, and it was bumped up to six in 1947-48.
A two-point win in Game 7 of a Finals series, as was the case in '66 and '69, is lucky almost by definition. That’s the difference of a single field goal going in or rimming out, a single bad foul call or non-call, one tipped ball landing in one or the other team’s hands, one guy taking a bad angle defending a drive, one bad pass.
If you flip a coin several times, you’ll get runs of heads or tails. A Finals series that comes down to a two-point Game 7 is a coin flip.
The team foul limit and the shot clock were both added for the '54-'55 season, transforming and saving the NBA game.
TY Marley! Was it an owner’s idea, like Biasone suggesting the 24 clock?
four points:
-
As you stated, they don’t have statistics (or didn’t in Russell’s time) to quantify defense, which is 50% of the game, and the part of the game Russell was great at. They didn’t start to keep track of blocked shots and steals until the 70s.
-
They don’t keep track of a lot of things on offense… setting a pick, directing a blocked shot to an open teammate, making the first pass on a rebound (which in the case of a fast break is often more important than the 2nd pass which earns the assist.) And they didn’t keep track of turnovers until the late 70s. Russell was considered a very accurate long passer, also had great hands for a big man.
-
Compared to basketball, baseball statistics have evolved 10 fold in the last 35 years and they’re far different from what was on the back of my baseball card 50 years ago, and yet there’s still debate (and continuing evolution) as to what statistics have the greatest predictive value*. And yet basketball is a far more difficult sport to break down into the contributions of an individual than baseball, owing to the simple fact that it truly is a 5 on 5 game.
-
Any most baseball sabermetricians will tell you that in spite of all the statistics, you must still apply the eyeball test to see if the data is telling the true story of a player. In basketball, I would assert that it’s even more important to be an eye-witness (live or on video)
So, with all respect to your vital statistics (and bear in mind I work with numbers every day) I would suggest the available individual stats for Russell’s day capture only a portion of his contributions. And failing that, it’s entirely reasonable to go to team accomplishments to try to give the man closer to his full credit. It’s inexact, I admit, but it’s better than relying on partial individual data alone.
- One example is when baseball first began to go beyond fielding pct to evaluate a player’s defensive worth, they were finding a huge difference in players at high-skill positions like SS and CF. A diffrence in Runs saved that went from -25 to +25. ( In 2005 Derek Jeter was -26 DRS, while Rafael Furcal was +27 DRS. That’s a 52 run difference or about 8% of the runs allowed by the Yankees in 2005. (What if they kept a Defensive Points Stat that showed Bill Russell’s defense had an 8% impact vs a crappy defensive center?) Some folks didn’t believe it, and some still don’t. (There’s a new video system being installed in all parks over the next 2 years to try and confirm the DRS.)
So when Bill Russell flipped a coin 10 times he called it correctly all 10 times?
What I stated was that the statistics say that Russell was the greatest individual defensive player of all time, which is rather the opposite of saying that statistics ignore what Russell was good at. I also went on kind of at length about the fact that there are things there aren’t stats for, but how that isn’t the point. So I’m glad you have respect for my “vital statistics,” but I’m not sure anything that I had to say about them came across.
A Game 7 is indicative of both teams being very closely matched, obviously, so the Celtics would be expected to win about half of them. It’s also worth noting that 8 of those ten games were played in Boston, and that home teams in a Game 7 are 88-22 through 2012, so you can calculate that they should have won 6 of 8 at home, and 0 of 2 on the road.
To prevail in 10 Game 7s is to be supremely lucky. Again, Russell was a great player on a series of great teams. But to believe that Russell had some innate “winning” skill is to ignore the specifics. I’ve already noted that two of those games were decided by two points each, (and a third by 3, in OT) meaning a single no-call, or missed field goal, or great play drawn up in the huddle swings the game the other way.
But here’s the moments that really illustrate my point: the end of the 1965 Eastern Conference Finals, Philly at Boston. Wilt scores a layup in the last 5 seconds, to bring Philly within 1 point. Bill Russell throws the inbounds pass, and hits the wire supporting the basket, which is a turnover. Philly is awarded possession.
Now, imagine Philly scoring there. Imagine a single play changing in the '66 and '69 Finals Game 7s. Russell is a tremendous 7-3 in Game 7s, and the Celtics go from 11 titles in 13 years to 8 in 13; they are still an all-time dynasty, but Russell is just a great player, instead of the holy embodiment of winning. Chamberlain ends up with 3 or 4 titles instead of 2.
Instead, Havlicek steals the Philly inbounds pass, sealing the victory. The couple bounces go the Celtics’ way in '66 and '69, and we get the result we got.
Did Bill Russell mystically guide the ball into Havlicek’s hands with his winnability? I don’t think he did. I think he was a great player on a great organization in a tiny league, who caught a series of lucky breaks to amass a gaudy playoff record.
Yes, the Celtics had luck. So did their opponents. But to suggest that the reason the Celtics, with Russell, went 10-0 in game 7’s was based all on luck defies credibility. Certainly the Celtics could have lost one or two of those games, and still have gone 8-2 in game 7’s and you’d be arguing that with just a few more bad bounces Russell could have finished under .500 in game 7’s.
Composure, concentration, staying in the moment, or whatever you want to call it is a real skill that’s very valuable in competition. You can’t measure it with any official statistic, but when you look at something that is otherwise unexplainable (10-0 in game 7’s) and derive it. There’s nothing magical about not obsessing about a mistake, or a bad break or a bad call, and just concentrating on what’s happening in the moment. In baseball, most sabermetricians don’t deny that “clutch” exists, but their argument is that it’s so hard to measure that it becomes hard to apply it to a player’s value. In your example of game 7 in 1965, when Greer was inbounding the ball his concentration may have been clouded with thoughts of victory, rather than what he had to do. If Havlicek doesn’t steal the ball they Sixers still have to score, and I would expect that Russell was in the moment, and not thinking to himself, “boy did I just screw up, I hope we don’t lose.”
Jimmy, which of your “vital statistics” say that Russell was the greatest individual defensive player of all time? Without steals, blocked shots or a off/def rebound breakdowns, how do statistics “say that?” I’d say that evaluation of Russell’s defensive prowess came from visual observation, opinions of team mates and opponents and from some extrapolation from team statistics.
Believe me, I’d love to know how many offensive rebounds Russell averaged in his career. He’s been called the most prolific offensive rebounder ever, rivaled only by Rodman. Rodman is the only top rebounder that had over a 1/3rd of his total rebounds come on the offensive boards. Is it possible that Russell was pulling down 8-10 offensive boards a game? And if so, isn’t that an offensive stat that would boost Russell’s offensive skills? Even at .410 FG percentage, wouldn’t that be worth an extra 8 points per game added to Russell’s offensive contribution?
If you look at the Celtics offensive stats in Russell’s first 10 years, they almost always led the league in FG attempts… sometimes by 10% more than the league average, and 5% more than the team in second place. We can assume that the Celtics ran more than the anyone else (on fast breaks starting with a Russell defensive rebound) and maybe some of it is due to fewer turnovers than average (no stats available) but it sure would be nice to know Russell’s total contributions on the offensive end.
He didn’t.
If he’d gone 8-2 you’d be saying the exact same things you’re saying about him going 10-0: “look at this record! it’s proof of how great he is!” And 8-2 is an excellent record! But if you can make the same argument regardless of the actual circumstances, the argument doesn’t mean that much. Incidentally: you know who had a really great record in NBA Finals game sevens? Michael Jordan.
HA’s exact words were "…so you can calculate that they should have won 6 of 8 at home, and 0 of 2 on the road… and then, “To prevail in 10 Game 7s is to be supremely lucky.”
I would say that he suggested that the 10-0 was based on luck.
I wouldn’t be making the exact same argument, because the last two game 7’s were 1) on the road, 2) instances where the Celtics, for a change, we’re decided underdogs and 3) Russell was the last remaining member from the start of the run (with KC Jones having retired.) The last two championships in 1968 and 1969 were the ones that impressed me the most, partly because I was old enough to appreciate the achievement, and partly because they both involved comebacks in the two pivotal series. They could have just packed it up after 1966-67 and been remembered for 9 straight. And I mentioned this all before.
Yeah… Jordan was great. Like everyone else, my first pick for Rushmore. And his game 7 record is a feather in his cap.
I think we’re just going to talk past each other here. He said a couple of the wins can be chalked up to luck, not all 10.
Actually Jordan never played in a game 7 of the finals. The Lakers switch layup, Portland shrug, Downing Barkley, coming back and beating the Sonics, Flu game, and pushing off on Russell… none of those series went 7. He won in 5, 6, 6, 6, 6, and 6 respectively.
He was 4-1 in playoff elimination games overall. 3-0 in 1st round best of 5’s (like his mid-air fist-pump shot over Ehlo), 1-1 in game 7’s (lost to Pistons, beat Knicks).
Exactly.
It really doesn’t, though. Chance plays a huge role in sporting events, and particularly single-game outcomes between closely-matched opponents, one that doesn’t get its due, because people love the idea of a moral narrative, of every event on the court being the result of someone’s will and character. It just ain’t so.
8-2 or thereabouts (maybe 6-4 at the low end, 8-2 at the high end) would be the outcome you’d expect for a team playing in ten Game 7s, 8 at home and 2 on the road. If Russell dropped to, say, 4-6, I’d be on here arguing that this was bad luck, and not the result of some inherent “loser-ness” that Russell possessed.
So where was that laudable skill set of composure when Russell was throwing the ball off the support wire? You assume that Russell was composed and ready to win, while Greer wasn’t…why? They both made very similar errors, seconds apart. Why can’t Russell have thrown a bad pass because he was thinking about the win, and Greer simply made a mistake (as you generously credit Russell)?
Yes, going 10-0 in Game 7s requires being lucky, just as going 0-10 would require being unlucky. The Celtics should have won 6-8 of those ten; their surplus victories are the result of luck.
That was a reference to win shares. It is an extrapolation from team statistics, but it’s an individual statistic; essentially it’s a complicated version of the +/- statistic you wished we had earlier, but adjusted to pace and historical era. There is a more complicated analysis available than just points allowed, even if we don’t have steals and blocks. The central theme is that, in accordance with what the eye test and the historical record will tell you, the Celtics were a shite defensive team statistically until Russell’s arrival, whereupon they became a historically tremendous defensive team (see for instance the chart of all-time best defenses here, and the explanation of how it was calculated, to get part of the story of how Russell’s impact gets reverse-engineered), and more or less remained so until he left, at which point they weren’t anymore. This is an analysis you can check against the shape of any other player’s career, and there’s nothing like it anywhere. One time in history a single player has arrived on an unremarkable defensive team and coincided with a run of more than a decade of not only league-best, but nearly all-time best, defensive performance. It’s possible, if you want to be crotchety about it, that there’s some other coincidental factor to explain this, or explain it in part, but I think it’s the most likely explanation.
Anyway, what I’m saying is, that’s in the numbers. It matches your sense of what he was. He wasn’t a guy who changed games defensively; he changed the sport defensively. And those of us who are saying that hey maybe Wilt had a more impressive overall career, despite all the rings, aren’t just totally blind to that. Even if I were the robotic, never-seen-a-game kind of nerd that people who bring up stats are sometimes accused of being, I would still know that Bill Russell would fuck up your day. I just wouldn’t say that was because of his Heilsgeschichte or anything. Because really, why wouldn’t it be measurable? What could concentrating or being determined possibly do for a basketball team that wouldn’t manifest in actual basketball outcomes over time? When you’re focused and tough you make plays, you don’t win because the basketball gods change the scoreboard.
Give credit to Wilt who forced the turnover. Mistakes happen, the key is to not dwell on it. The Celts still had the lead, even if Greer makes a clean pass inbounds (although the consensus is he was trying to make a long, bad-angle pass to Walker down court) the Sixers still have to win. Funny how you think the game was the Sixers’ to win.
Well, by your own calculations I get 8 games at home with a probability of 80% for 6.4 + 2 road games with a probability of 20% for a total of .4 = 6.8 projected wins. Using the binomial formula with a .68 chance of success each time the chances of going 10-0 is just over 2% or 0.0211 or about 50-1. If you treat the home games separately from the road games and then multiply the two you get about a 20-1 chance of going 10-0, (although I’m not sure why you’d do that.) Feel free to correct me… my real statistics knowledge is from years ago, and I use mostly packages in my work.
Still at 50-1 or 20-1, I think there’s a great chance that there was something more than luck involved.
Thanks. I’ll take a look at it in depth some time. I have looked briefly at the derivation of win shares, but the problem I have with it vs baseball, is that, as I’ve mentioned, baseball players have discrete instances of offense (and defense) which are not related/influenced by his team. Hockey is similar to Basketball in that all players are two-way, switching back and forth on each possession. The Hockey =/- is far from perfect, but since a team uses 3-4 lines, and 3 pairings of defensemen, over time you have some relative measure. In Basketball, you have the same starters on the court for 35+ minutes, so it makes it harder to compare, say Russell when he’s on the floor and when he’s not, so you end up with Russell with most of the same team mates, and then you end up with the argument of whether Russell is raising his mates or the other way around.
Certainly, you can compare the Celts pre-Russ vs.with-Russ vs post-Russell, but what if Russell had been suceeded by Nate Thurmond instead of Hank Finkel. And although Russell was invaluable to his team’s defense, I suspect he may been very valuable to his team’s offense, even though it’s not going to show up in PPG or fully in APG. From memory as a teen (which is imperfect) it always seemed as if the Celts’ offense would go completely lame when Russell was off for a rest or because of FT. Certainly, some of this was due to the ineptitude of a young Mel Counts or and old Wayne Embry, but the team seemed incapable of running the same plays and it was one outside shot and out. So I’m always suspicious when I hear Russell termed as a one-way player, suspecting that he might have chosen better ways to help his team’s offense than to perfect his hook shot.
It was either team’s game to win, which is my point. And yes, mistakes happen, even to guys with winnability. The confluence of skill, mistakes, and chance is what determines the victor of close games and close series.
I don’t have the skill to critique your math here.
When the margins are a single basket, or a single turnover, there’s a great chance that nothing more than luck was involved.