Bill Russell: 'How I Psych Them'

[PHILA]

Sports Illustrated - October 25, 1965 (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1077812/index.htm)


http://i26.tinypic.com/10h5381.jpg

The Psych...and My Other Tricks

As they begin pursuit of their eighth straight title the stars of the world champion Boston Celtics are beginning to show their age, are more injury prone and have lost one of their longtime key colleagues, Tom Heinsohn. They will have to rely, more than before, on their savvy and cunning. The biggest star of them all tells how he uses such tactics to intimidate and bamboozle his opponents.



The first thing I am not about to do is look up the definition of psychology in the dictionary. Why bother? I mean, dictionaries are nice and all that, but did old Daniel Webster ever have to stand there at the top of the key and define five sweating monsters rushing down at him? He did not. Well, then.

I will not confuse you with Webster's words, because my definition of psychology is something else again, and I have been practicing it for a whole flock of years now and I ought to know. In my psychology you wear short pants and tape and sneakers, and this is the kind of thing you do:

Say I am standing next to a rookie who has just come into the game—some hotshot college All-America who is not yet used to his rookie role. The action is swirling all around him, and I say to him, casually, "Hey, what's the matter with you, baby? Don't they ever pass that ball to you? What are you, a nothing on this club?" Oh, yeah, they laugh it off. But you can see them thinking about what you said.

Or I find someone who is new in the league, and I stand next to him and hack and cough it up. Sometimes I feel I should get an Oscar for this. I know they're watching me out of the edge of their eyes, and they are figuring, "So this is the great Bill Russell. Hell, he's just a tired old cat. And here I am, as fresh as can be." They don't know that I have a reserve tank.

You say these are minor league tricks? Maybe. But you'd be surprised at how often they work. The thing is, you have to pick your spots. Let's say you are playing center opposite Wilt Chamberlain of the Philadelphia 76ers, and it is one hot and heavy game. The score is just about even, and it is the middle of the second quarter—the time when you're most tired before getting your second wind. Tired? Listen, you are so tired that your leg muscles burn, and you know in your heart that Wilt is as tired as you are. But you are both breathing shallowly so as not to give any sign of how you really feel. Now. Wilt is on defense, and he is leaning on you with all of his 250 pounds and you have your mouth up close to his ear and you say to him, pleasantly, "Hey, baby. I never thought I'd see the day when a great big guy like you would be pushing an old man like me around."

So what does Wilt say to you? Wilt says, "Don't give me that old psych, baby." (I have cleaned up that quote. I have also shown that psychology does not work every time. The trick is in knowing who to talk to under the basket.)

I have enough of these situations cataloged inside my head to do a master's thesis on The Psychology of Basketball, or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Spook the Opposition. As a matter of fact, this is my thesis, and the next case is a psychological horror story.

This thing first happened years ago. Frank Ramsey, the star of the situation, is in retirement, but we still pull his old trick, often with K.C. Jones in Ramsey's role. Now. Here we have Nate Thurmond, 6 feet 11, of the San Francisco Warriors, who has a dandy little jump shot from about 15 feet out from the basket. He comes barreling downcourt, he stops short and he goes way up into the air off those powerful, springy legs. Things are tough already, right? But to make it worse, because of a switch, Thurmond is being guarded at the moment by little Ramsey, who is just 6 feet 3. Now. Frank has been all over Thurmond like a swarm of gnats, but what is he going to do about that jumper half a mile over his head? Does Ramsey try to jump with Thurmond? He does not. Ramsey runs at Thurmond, full blast. Then, as Thurmond goes up into the air, Ramsey squinches down and runs right under him. He doesn't touch him, just runs right under him, fast and low, going toward the opposite basket.

So here is Thurmond, hanging up there in the air with a head full of terrible worries. Things like: 1) My God, am I going to come down on top of Ramsey and hurt myself? 2) Wait a minute! Ramsey is supposed to be guarding me. Where does he think he's going? 3) How can I hit the basket with all this nonsense going on, anyway?

That was the idea, of course. Then, about the time Thurmond was pushing the ball away, he would suddenly realize where Ramsey was going. Frank was going for the far basket, that's where. And Thurmond knew, with that little stab of pain in his stomach, that if he missed the shot I would probably grab the rebound and fire off a long pass to Ramsey for an easy layup. This situation does not exactly figure to fill a shooter with an overwhelming mood of confidence. It would spook Thurmond something awful.

In our league I promise you that any team can beat any other team on a given night. The difference a lot of the time is all psychological. We use every little trick, every pressure, every mental gimmick we can. And there are certain rules that I live by. We'll call them Russell's Laws.

Russell's First Law: You must make the other player do what you want him to do. How? You must start him thinking. If he is thinking instead of doing, he is yours. There is no time in basketball to think: "This has happened; this is what I must do next." In the amount of time it takes to think through that semicolon, it is already too late.

Russell's Second Law: You got to have the killer instinct. If you do not have it, forget about basketball and go into social psychology or something. If you sometimes wonder if you've got it, you ain't got it. No pussycats, please. The killer instinct, by my definition, is the ability to spot—and exploit—a weakness in your opponent. There are psychological subrules in this category.

To wit: always try a rookie. If you score on him and he thinks that maybe you scored because you are Bill Russell the superstar, he is yours forever after and you can wear him like a bauble on a charm bracelet.

To wit, further: always try a veteran. In my first year in pro basketball I came up against veteran Johnny Kerr, now with Baltimore. I blocked so many shots on him that first night—perhaps you remember—that he was wild with rage. He was so fired up they had to take him out of the game. That is frustration. That is also psychology. (And I might point out that as soon as he calmed down enough that season Kerr deliberately changed his style of shooting when he played against Boston. That is a kind of reverse psychology.)

Russell's Third Law: Be cute but not cuddly. I mean, you should be nice at all times, but there is a lot to be said for an elbow in the chops when all else fails. This is forceful psychology. Last resort stuff.

Russell's Final Law: Remember that basketball is a game of habit. In getting good at it, we develop certain habits. Therefore, if you make a player deviate from his habits—by psyching him—you've got him.

Right about here I would like to insert another psychological situation. In every game there is a crucial turning point, right? It comes when you are eight points up on the opponent and they have the ball. Now. If they score, they are only six points down. If you score, you're 10 points ahead and you have broken the game open. Right?

If you believe the above statement to be true, you have just been psyched. A lot of players figure this to be true, but it ain't necessarily so. If you start believing in things like turning points, you are lost. You play your best. All the way.

In my own life there are some psychological high points. For example, at McClymonds High School in Oakland, where I began playing the game, I got a quick cram course. It boils down to this: never allow yourself to get angry while playing. In those days we had an all-Negro starting five, and those were explosive days, racially. Our coach, George Powles, knew it and we knew it, and one day before a game he called us together.

"Fellas," said Powles, "I know most high school kids occasionally get mad during games. But remember the spot you're in here. If you get mad and start a fight, it isn't just a fight. It's a riot. And you'll be the ones who are blamed. I'm not telling you not to get mad. But if you do get mad, use it to play better." It has stuck with me through the years.

My first experience with big-time, massive mob psychology came when the University of San Francisco was on its wild, 60-game winning streak in my college days. We were a great team—make no mistake about that—but once we got this terrible "unbeatable" monster idea loose, all we had to do a lot of times was show up at the gym and we had the game won. I remember the Christmas season of 1955 and the Holiday Festival Tournament in Madison Square Garden. These are critical games; careers are made and broken in this tournament. Well, here was UCLA, ready to meet us in the finals. UCLA had to be an awfully tough team to get that far. They were no patsies. In fact, there were those who were saying, "Here is where Bill Russell and San Francisco will get their lumps."

[PHILA]

Somewhere out in this great land, maybe even today, there must be some tourney committeeman still kicking himself for what happened next. First, both teams were quartered at the same hotel. This is not the grandest thing in the world for two keyed-up college basketball teams. And, through a second terrible mistake, we both got assigned to the same dining room for our pregame meal.

There was the UCLA team around the table. Their coach had a rule, I think, that they had to eat in perfect silence; the idea was that they were supposed to brood on the game or something like that. Then we walked into the room like a big birthday party. We were laughing and shouting and throwing dinner rolls at each other and gagging it up and disturbing everybody in the place. We were also eating like crazy and, out of the corners of our eyes, we could see the Uclans coming apart. "Look, they're not even worried," those guys were thinking to themselves. "They're not in the least worried about us, about the title."

The game that followed wasn't much; the meal was one of America's great moments in sports. Honestly, we could have just thrown our sneakers out there on the floor and those guys would have jumped this high. We beat them 70-53.

Things are a lot tougher than that in the pros, of course, but psychology is always a help. Say we are playing Baltimore, and Walt Bellamy, as usual, is giving me trouble. Well, I do not breathe hard around Bellamy; he knows this psych. I breathe easily—to throw him off—but then I do not run down the court on the fast break, to throw him off again. He thinks I am tired but trying not to show it. When I feel he is relaxed, I burst down on the break, and we murder him. But this works just once and two points do not win a ball game. Now we are ready for our No. 1 play, which demonstrates that options are really psychological weapons.

K.C. Jones gives me the ball at the top of the key. He rolls up alongside me, and we both stand stock still for a split second; we are setting up a double screen for Sam Jones. Around comes Sam, and I hand him the ball and he is safe behind this fence that K.C. and I have built (assuming we have done our jobs correctly). Sam jumps and plops in an easy one. Baltimore seems to be getting anxious—which is just what we want.

Next time we get the ball, K.C. gives it to me at the top of the key. He rolls up alongside me, and we both stand still for a second. Here is Sam, going to beat hell, and he starts around us. Now. If we have played our parts right they are overplaying Sam. I quickly hand the ball back to K.C, who wheels and cuts in for the basket, all alone, and drops it through. Sure, you can call this plain old-fashioned basketball tactics. But we have so many options to this play that when K.C. gives me the ball at the top of the key, our team and their team start a series of split-second thinking matches, with fakes and switches and sleight-of-hand moves all over the place. I call it psychology.

Now, over on their bench, the coach leaps up and yells, "Who the devil is guarding Jones?" and they all look a little embarrassed, including those who are not sure which Jones he means. I don't suppose we can take credit for that, but it helps, too.

I also have my own little game called block-that-shot. I've always said that I can block only from 8% to 10% of the shots taken against me—even if I'm lucky. The secret is in knowing which 8% or 10% I'm going to go after. Put it another way: if I block only 8% of the shots you take but 90% of the ones I go after, whose shooting is going to be affected?

The year before I came into the NBA, Neil Johnston was third in the league in scoring, and I was worried about him from the start. I wasn't worried about his shooting; Neil had a low-trajectory, soft little hook, and I figured I could block nine out of 10 of them. But this created a new problem for me. If I did block them Neil would surely change his style against me and come up with something I probably couldn't handle as easily. So I took the psychological route. I would let him alone just enough to keep him puzzled; block just enough so that he wouldn't get riled and try something new. I would keep a little mental boxscore and make sure the score came out in our favor. Or try, anyway.

In our senior years as pros, the Celtics have learned all the little tricks and all about each other. I have learned, for example, that K.C. Jones does not have a bagful of defensive moves. He has a whole truckload of defensive moves. He will pester a guy so much that the guy will start to look for K.C. even when he's not there. So help me, I have seen this happen: some pro who has been dogged by K.C. all night will suddenly get hard-nosed about it. "Well, by damn, I'll show him" this guy will say to himself. I mean, everybody has got his pride, right? So here is this fellow, and he's going to prove to the world that he can bring the ball up the floor against the mighty K.C. Jones. And here he comes, flashing and ducking and dancing and dodging, dribbling up a storm and dazzling everybody with his cross-handing. The crowd is cheering wildly. Hoo Ray. But the only thing is that the other four members of his team are standing around doing nothing and we—the Celtics—are just waiting for the show to end. We are all breathing easily—we rest during these little demonstrations, you know—ready to bring down the curtain by stuffing the ball down his proud little throat. It's that old routine about getting them mad.

One of my jobs is to be steerer for our team. This is a lot like the guy standing outside the sideshow tent steering people in to see the dancing girls. With the exception of a few superstars—those sneaks—I can steer most everybody in this league. Say they're rolling in toward me, and I want them to go to their right. First, I've got to get them thinking instead of playing naturally. I fake directly toward them with my head, and with my left arm extended—pointed straight toward their chest—and my weight on my left foot. This is not exactly the prettiest posture in all the world, and immediately they think, "Ah hah. Russell has his weight on the wrong foot." And, sure enough, they swerve right every time to go around me.

Now. I can whirl completely around quickly enough off the left foot (which turns out to be the right, or correct, foot after all), plant all my weight on my right foot, leap up, and when I'm at the peak of my jump, guess who has just shot—if my timing is correct. If I want them to move left, I swing my left arm over a little more to their right. You follow me here? I have very long arms, and they have got to move left.

There are exceptions all over the place, of course. Oscar Robertson for one. He won't move where I want him to. He takes one quick look at those long arms and he figures, "Now, now. He wants me to do something." So he stops short and shoots me to death from outside. Elgin Baylor is as bad. Sometimes worse.

Everybody in the league knows that Baylor—otherwise the complete player—can't move too well to his left. But in one moment of desperation in one of the playoffs I gave up trying to steer him left, and I let him come right. At the last minute I took one giant step sideways, and he ran smack into me and drew a foul for charging. I mean, it ain't exactly psychological, but you do what you can.

Now that you're full of psychological steam, you're ready to handicap the NBA this season. You probably figure right away that this is the year the Celtics will lose, because we are getting older and we tire more easily. Right?

So who needs to get tired? To play a game 48 minutes without falling over dead, I cut down the size of the court like an old boxer cuts down the size of the ring. I cut down my ring by staying out of the corners. What do I want with the corners, anyway? Willie Naulls is the last of the great red-hot corner shooters, and Willie is on my team, remember? I cut out the half-court corners, too, for a total of eight places I never go anymore. (Well, almost never. Don't go believing this too much or you've had it again.)

I'm starting a new, three-year contract and my 10th year in pro basketball—at age 31. Not long ago The Christian Science Monitor said that Bill Russell would be the next coach of the Boston Celtics. Well, maybe I could have the job if I wanted it when I'm through playing. But what have I got to gain from being a coach? I've got everything to lose. I'm like a gunfighter with a reputation. I've won a few showdowns at the tennis-shoe corral and everybody wants to try me. The team is in the same position. We used to have traditional rivals but, now that the Celtics have beaten everybody, everybody is our traditional rival. Everybody gets up for us, and sometimes when we come out on the floor we can feel the tension crackle.

A lot has been printed about how I tense up before every game. You know—get moody and throw up. Well, maybe I don't get up as high for the games now as I used to get. Now I just throw up for playoffs. Instead there are times, when I'm feeling especially moody, when I sit there on the training table and sort of dream. Trainer Buddy LeRoux is winding tape around my ankles, and I close my eyes and feel just like a gladiator. I promise you, I know deep inside, behind my ribs, just exactly how the old-time Roman gladiators must have felt in those tight moments before they went out there into the arena.

It is a weird sensation, I'll say that for it. But bring on the lions. All your best lions, please. We'll give them a few fakes, we'll talk to the rookie lions a little, we'll steer the other lions around, we'll spook them up. And maybe you'll see some lions with their manes down around their knees.

[Batz]

Damn that's long...

[RazorBaLade]

Damn that's long...

I just read it, msot of it was worth it

[ThaRegul8r]

Damn that's long...

Never read a magazine article before, I take it.

Anyway,

:applause:

As Tom Heinsohn said,

[jlauber]

I have been seeing the term "Basketball IQ" more-and-more lately. Bill Russell not only invented it, he perfected it.

[Nero25]

This isn't just bball IQ, this guy is a pimp in basketball shorts. Fantastic article...really puts another layer on the game. I would love to see classic games with player commentary explaining what's goin on in their mind.

[PHILA]

[quote=ThaRegul8r]
As Tom Heinsohn said,

[ThaRegul8r]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOhZpg_Yxt8#t=2m25s


"The first time we played Wilt, Wilt destroyed Bill Russell. Put enough fear in Bill Russell's heart that Russell going to do anything to beat Wilt. The only difference between the two of them was the fire in the belly."

Just a factual correction on what Heinsohn said: that'd be the second time they played that Wilt destroyed Russell, not the first.

[jlauber]

Just a factual correction on what Heinsohn said: that'd be the second time they played that Wilt destroyed Russell, not the first.

Yep. The first time they played Wilt shot horribly. He did outscore Russell 30-22, but Russell outrebounded him 35-30. Interesting too, one writer said that Wilt was unable to use his normal moves against Russell, and that he struggled to score against him.

In their very next meeting, Wilt outscored Russell 45-15, and outrebounded him, 35-13.

[griffmoney2084]

to make a long storey short


Bill Russell - "Me me me me me, me me me. Me me, me me. Me? Me! me me! ME ME ME ME!!!!!!!!!!!!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2RqWpWtY9vU

[nbacardDOTnet]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOhZpg_Yxt8#t=2m25s


"The first time we played Wilt, Wilt destroyed Bill Russell. Put enough fear in Bill Russell's heart that Russell going to do anything to beat Wilt. The only difference between the two of them was the fire in the belly."

nice Thread and Video.

I can't believe only 250 ppl has seen that nice Sportscentury Video.

[Toizumi]

to make a long storey short


Bill Russell - "Me me me me me, me me me. Me me, me me. Me? Me! me me! ME ME ME ME!!!!!!!!!!!!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2RqWpWtY9vU

lol. the greatest team player of all time gives some insight in this tactics (when asked to do an article about it) and that makes him an egomaniac?

[me_]

good read

:cheers: op

[Psileas]

to make a long storey short


Bill Russell - "Me me me me me, me me me. Me me, me me. Me? Me! me me! ME ME ME ME!!!!!!!!!!!!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2RqWpWtY9vU

To make a long "storey" short, you read absolutely nothing and just typed some crap to sound cool.

[RainierBeachPoet]

thanks for posting this article

imo, this is what made russell so great-- the head games PLUS his indomitable will to win

(his super long arms didnt hurt either)

[G.O.A.T]

When I had the opportunity to speak with Russell the one basketball question I asked him was about his approach to blocking shots; understanding that you can only block and only challenge so many shots and also about blocking the ball softly to a team not and not out of bounds. I asked him why if he essentially invented the block shot why no on else improved on it since. (Like dribbling and shooting strategy which have greatly evolved)

He said it was because he had perfected it long before people even realized what he was doing. He said there is no better way to approach blocking shots and he knew that because he spent 15 years trying to think of one.

[rmt]

to make a long storey short


Bill Russell - "Me me me me me, me me me. Me me, me me. Me? Me! me me! ME ME ME ME!!!!!!!!!!!!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2RqWpWtY9vU
Bill Russell is the very last all-time great who epitomizes a me-first attitute. From another thread (KAJ, DrJ, Russell):

"My junior year in college, I had what I thought was the one of the best college seasons ever. We won 28 out of 29 games. We won the National Championship. I was the MVP at the Final Four. I was first team All American. I averaged over 20 points and over 20 rebounds, and I was the only guy in college blocking shots. So after the season was over, they had a Northern California banquet, and they picked another center as Player of the Year in Northern California. Well, that let me know that if I were to accept these as the final judges of my career I would die a bitter old man. So I made a conscious decision: 'What I'll do is I will try my very best to win every game. So when my career is finished it will be a historical fact I won these games, these championships, and there's no one's opinion how good I am or how good other guys are or comparing things." And so as I chronicle my career playing basketball, I played organized basketball for 21 years and I was on 18 championship teams. So that's what my standard is: playing a team game and my team winning."

http://www.achievement.org/autodoc/page/rus0int-1

I wonder how this article was received by his opponents. He shouldn't be giving out all his little tricks to the general public. Great read into the mind of the all-time winningest player.

PS I also love how in the Charlie Rose show (KAJ, Dr J, Russell thread), Russell said that he wouldn't trade playing in his time for playing now (even with all the money that these players make today).

[jlip]

I read this article a while back. I basically dedicated my summer to researching Russell's career and read a couple of biographies, several interviews, and multiple articles about him. The most compelling thing about this article here was his definition of "killer instinct." It sheds so much insight into how differently the game is viewed today from how it was viewed in Russell's day. In today's game we define a player as having killer instinct because he takes 15 shots in the 4th quarter alone, especially the potential game winner. Today we criticize a player for not having this quality because he passes the ball instead of shooting it in crunch time.

It's just so funny that Russell NEVER played like that. He was rarely ever called upon to take a game winning shot or to take over offensively, (Sam Jones did that), but he was yet said to possess more "killer instinct" than anyone else in his era. Studying Russell's approach to the game has completely changed how I understand basketball. I now see more than I did in the past that there are so many more ways to impact and dominate a game than by boosting your own stat line.

[rmt]

I read this article a while back. I basically dedicated my summer to researching Russell's career and read a couple of biographies, several interviews, and multiple articles about him. The most compelling thing about this article here was his definition of "killer instinct." It sheds so much insight into how differently the game is viewed today from how it was viewed in Russell's day. In today's game we define a player as having killer instinct because he takes 15 shots in the 4th quarter alone, especially the potential game winner. Today we criticize a player for not having this quality because he passes the ball instead of shooting it in crunch time.

It's just so funny that Russell NEVER played like that. He was rarely ever called upon to take a game winning shot or to take over offensively, (Sam Jones did that), but he was yet said to possess more "killer instinct" than anyone else in his era. Studying Russell's approach to the game has completely changed how I understand basketball. I now see more than I did in the past that there are so many more ways to impact and dominate a game than by boosting your own stat line.
Russell explained about his thoughts on this in a 9-part conversation he had with Tim Duncan.

http://www.nba.com/spurs/multimedia/russell_duncan_pt1.html

The more I read about Russell the more I'm impressed with his attitude and approach to the game.

[jlauber]

Russell's defensive dominance was likely equal to MJ's offensive impact. And both had a will to win that has been unequalled.

IMHO, the two greatest ever.

BTW, GOAT, you got to speak to Russell? What I would give to sit down with that man for an hour....

[Jacks3]

Bill Rusell: How I psyched everyone into believing I was great with 15 PPG on 42%.:oldlol:

[john_d]

still confuses how the hell did they win @ 69.

that's why i still consider anything below '73 is not the NBA we know to day.

[jlip]

Bill Rusell: How I psyched everyone into believing I was great with 15 PPG on 42%.:oldlol:

You do realize that he shot 44% not 42% for his career, and that looking at that in context he actually shot above the league's average for his career. In addition to that his 44% is higher than hall of fame center/ forwards during his era such as Bob Pettit and Nate Thurmond. It's actually higher than Elgin Baylor's also. Finally, scoring points yourself is not necessarily the best way to impact the game. There is no greater connection between winning and having the league's best scorer than it is between winning and having the league's best rebounder or defender.

[G.O.A.T]

still confuses how the hell did they win @ 69.

that's why i still consider anything below '73 is not the NBA we know to day.

The competition in the NBA from 1960-1971 or so is second only to the 80's and early 90's.

Remember in 1973 there were two leagues and three times the total number of teams and still no international players.

[jlauber]

Bill Rusell: How I psyched everyone into believing I was great with 15 PPG on 42%.:oldlol:

Too bad there is no real way to know how to quantify Russell's impact at the defensive end. I can give you an example, however. Wilt averaged 50 ppg in the 61-62 season. During the regular season, and against Russell, he averaged about 38 ppg. And he shot .506 against the league, and I believe Julizaver reported an error in Pollack's numbers, but that he shot .471 against Russell. In the post-season that year, Wilt only averaged 33 ppg against him. In Lynch's book on the '67 76ers, during the regular season Chamberlain averaged 24.1 ppg on .683 shooting. Against Russell he averaged 20.3 ppg on .549 shooting.

We also know that he not only blocked shots, perhaps 8 or more game, but that he intimidated shooters, as well. And Russell was one of the greatest rebounders ever, too. How many points did he prevent, by only allowing one shot? And, at the offensive end, how many second shot opportunities did he give his teammates?

There are other examples, too. Great outlet passes that may not have resulted in a basket by the person that he passed to, but perhaps that player's pass then led to an assist.

And, as Jlip alluded to, Russell had several seasons well above the league average in FG%. A .467 FG% in a league that shot .410 would be the equivalent of well over 50% in today's NBA.

Still, he had seasons of nearly 20 ppg (18.9) when he was probably the team's third or fourth option. Regul8r posted a ton of great offensive games by Russell, and I won't take the time to look them up now, but I do remember his 30-40 game seven in the 61-62 Finals (with 14-17 from the FT line.) And in the clinching game six win in the '61 Finals, he had a 30-38 game. One of the more amazing stats came in the '64-65 Finals, when Russell averaged 18 ppg, 29 rpg, and shot .702 (yes, .702) from the field. And in the 65-66 Finals, Russell averaged 23.6 ppg, which LED his team in scoring.

Incidently, and being a Wilt fan, I have come to believe that his 71-72 season was among his best ever. Yet, he only averaged 14.8 ppg (on .649 shooting.) His defense was sensational, and with his dominating rebounding and his brilliant outlet passing, the Lakers ran the league ragged with a blistering fast-break offense.

Walton was another that didn't post exceptional offensive stats, but yet his impact was all over the court. Ben Wallace, whose offense was nowhere near as skilled as Russell's, was a key reason that the '04 Pistons won the title.

Russell joined a team that had never sniffed a championship. They won a title in his very first year. Over the course of his 13 years, they won 11 titles. In the two that they did not win, Russell was injured in the post-season in one, and in the other, Russell was a first-year player-coach. He guided a 4th place team, that had been written off with an aged roster that went 48-34, to a title in his very last season. Oh, and BTW, Boston fell to 34-48 the very next year.

But, beyond all of that, think about this...

Russell played with multiple HOF teammates, several of whom were great offensive players (e.g Sam Jones, Havlicek, and Heinsohn), and all of them, to a man, would tell you that the Celtics won those 11 titles because of Russell. Furthermore, Russell won five MVP awards in his career, and had their been a Finals MVP for most of his career (it was started in his very last season ), he most assuredly would have won many of them. Not only that, but for all of Wilt's many records, Russell was almost universally accepted as the best player of his era, by players, coaches, and the media alike. In 1980, a Sportswriter poll ranked Russell as the greatest player of the NBA's first 35 years.

But, maybe they were all wrong.

[DCL]

studying your opponent, his weaknesses, strengths, tendencies, and exploiting his mental lapses or doing things to make sure he does get confused or intimidated or obsessed, anything to throw him off and out of his habitual zone. that's definitely an advantage in sports if you know how to do it. :applause:

[Yung D-Will]

There's no point in responding to Jacks3

[DCL]

regarding shooting %, well, they all shot low % in that era and before that. look at all their shooting forms. some are pretty wacky. evidently, they were far from the "standard" pretty looking shot that we know today. but you gotta give them more credit because when they were growing up and learning the game, there was no cable tv or vcr or shooting mastery dvds, so they didn't get spoiled like that with a set of foundation. they probably learned to shoot just by doing what's comfortable at the parks. no basketball camps to teach them methodical mechanics or whatever. that knowledge probably wasn't prevalent in those days.

[jlauber]

regarding shooting %, well, they all shot low % in that era and before that. look at all their shooting forms. some are pretty wacky. evidently, they were far from the "standard" pretty looking shot that we know today. but you gotta give them more credit because when they were growing up and learning the game, there was no cable tv or vcr or shooting mastery dvds, so they didn't get spoiled like that with a set of foundation. they probably learned to shoot just by doing what's comfortable at the parks. no basketball camps to teach them methodical mechanics or whatever. that knowledge probably wasn't prevalent in those days.

Actually, Jerry West had an almost perfect jump shot, as did Rick Barry. Yet, West had some awful FG% seasons early in his career. I still have not read a reasonable answer as to why FG% were so low in the early 60's, and then started a slow rise into the 70's, before they exploded in the 80's. So many players that played in both the 60's and 70's, either shot much better in the 70's, or at the very least, much better in the late 60's. Almost to a man.

All of which makes Chamberlain's numbers that much more staggering. He was shooting .510-.540 in most of his "scoring" seasons, and with much of his offense from 10-15 ft....in leagues that were shooting anywhere from .410-.441. And, then, in his "efficient" seasons of the mid-60's, and then in his last two seasons in the 70's, he was LIGHT YEARS ahead of the league average and his nearest competitor. No other player in NBA history can come close to just how far ahead of the league that he was. And one can only wonder what kind of FG% numbers he would have put up in his scoring seasons, had he played in the 80's (much less his efficent season numbers.)

[DCL]

Actually, Jerry West had an almost perfect jump shot, as did Rick Barry. Yet, West had some awful FG% seasons early in his career. I still have not read a reasonable answer as to why FG% were so low in the early 60's, and then started a slow rise into the 70's, before they exploded in the 80's. So many players that played in both the 60's and 70's, either shot much better in the 70's, or at the very least, much better in the late 60's. Almost to a man.

All of which makes Chamberlain's numbers that much more staggering. He was shooting .510-.540 in most of his "scoring" seasons, and with much of his offense from 10-15 ft....in leagues that were shooting anywhere from .410-.441. And, then, in his "efficient" seasons of the mid-60's, and then in his last two seasons in the 70's, he was LIGHT YEARS ahead of the league average and his nearest competitor. No other player in NBA history can come close to just how far ahead of the league that he was. And one can only wonder what kind of FG% numbers he would have put up in his scoring seasons, had he played in the 80's (much less his efficent season numbers.)

well, jerry west was pretty special.. that's why he's the logo. rick barry mastered the shot too. but they were exceptions instead of the norm. most of their peers had incredibly funny looking shooting forms. i think i was amazed that even 40% of them went in. :oldlol:

[jlauber]

I also find it interesting that FT% have been pretty much the same for decades. Wilt took a lot of FTs in the 60's, so that would explain why the average was slightly less, but generally, they have remained a constant. Sharman was shooting 93% in the 50's. Barry had multiple 93% seasons in the 70's. Calvin Murphy held the record at .958, which he set in 80-81, up until Calderon's eye-popping .981 in 08-09.

[G.O.A.T]

In regard to shooting percentages, a few factors that I think contribute to the rise and fall of shooting percentages.

1) The Jump Shot - It really didn't become common until the 1950's. Joe Fulks is credited as one of the first to use it and he began playing after WWII in 1946, prior it was the one or two hand set shot and for decades basketball was a game played in the 20's and 30's with a lot of ball possession and patience before taking the shot, usually a set shot from 15-25 feet.

2) The Pace - Basically teams have an extra 7-10 possessions a quarter in the late 50's and the 1960's. They are playing a such a pace with the shot clock in effect trying to get a "good" shot before the defense sets up. This also explains why FT shooting has been so much more consistent. Players have time and can shoot a repetitive shot as oppose to the field goal which is always changing with the game around it.

3) Layups and Dunks - Once the goal tending rules came into effect, it took 8-10 years for players to fully start using them against shot blockers. Factor in the added athleticism of the players from the mid-70's on and leniency with dribbling rules and you see why shooting %'s went up and the number of fouls went down...which brings me to

4) Flagrant fouls. I've read from several players of the era that if a guy was scoring by getting inside, he was going to get leveled eventually if he kept attacking. Before they added flagrant fouls this was just a foul, one or two shots and the game goes on. Now it's a fine or suspension or at least a two shot and the ball foul which changes momentum. Hence more easy lay-ups and dunks and a higher FG%.

5) The Ball - Sometimes, usually it was round, but not always the same. It wasn't until 1970 that the 8 panel ball was introduced. If you've ever shot with a four panel ball, you'll see why this was such a dramatic improvement. Another minor factor initially may have been the laces in the ball. Until the 1940's that was still common. So some players from the 50's probably grew up shooting a ball with laces, hard to be consistent under those circumstances. We all remember what happened when the NBA changed the ball slightly a few seasons ago, imagine changes that big over 30 years.

[jlauber]

In regard to shooting percentages, a few factors that I think contribute to the rise and fall of shooting percentages.

1) The Jump Shot - It really didn't become common until the 1950's. Joe Fulks is credited as one of the first to use it and he began playing after WWII in 1946, prior it was the one or two hand set shot and for decades basketball was a game played in the 20's and 30's with a lot of ball possession and patience before taking the shot, usually a set shot from 15-25 feet.

2) The Pace - Basically teams have an extra 7-10 possessions a quarter in the late 50's and the 1960's. They are playing a such a pace with the shot clock in effect trying to get a "good" shot before the defense sets up. This also explains why FT shooting has been so much more consistent. Players have time and can shoot a repetitive shot as oppose to the field goal which is always changing with the game around it.

3) Layups and Dunks - Once the goal tending rules came into effect, it took 8-10 years for players to fully start using them against shot blockers. Factor in the added athleticism of the players from the mid-70's on and leniency with dribbling rules and you see why shooting %'s went up and the number of fouls went down...which brings me to

4) Flagrant fouls. I've read from several players of the era that if a guy was scoring by getting inside, he was going to get leveled eventually if he kept attacking. Before they added flagrant fouls this was just a foul, one or two shots and the game goes on. Now it's a fine or suspension or at least a two shot and the ball foul which changes momentum. Hence more easy lay-ups and dunks and a higher FG%.

5) The Ball - Sometimes, usually it was round, but not always the same. It wasn't until 1970 that the 8 panel ball was introduced. If you've ever shot with a four panel ball, you'll see why this was such a dramatic improvement. Another minor factor initially may have been the laces in the ball. Until the 1940's that was still common. So some players from the 50's probably grew up shooting a ball with laces, hard to be consistent under those circumstances. We all remember what happened when the NBA changed the ball slightly a few seasons ago, imagine changes that big over 30 years.

Best explanation that I have ever read!

Incidently, I bolded The Ball. I remember playing back in the 60's in city leagues, and they had a rack of balls that they used before the games so that teams could practice during the pre-game shoot-arounds. There was practically no consistency to them. Some were lighter or heavier, and as you stated, I don't believe they were all completely round. I used to spin them, and then toss them up in the air, and you could see a "waffling" effect.

Abe posted a quote from Wilt, as well, stating that the floors were uneven, and there was no heating or air in some buildings as well. Here again, take a shot from 20 feet in 80 degree weather, and then take that same shot in 40 degrees, and tell me it isn't affected.

Not only that, but Chamberlain claimed that some buildings had breezes blowing through, as well. I think most of us have played outside (I would sure like to think so anyway), and try adjusting your shots going downwind, and then switching sides, and shooting into the wind. Or having to adjust for cross-winds.

Along with the other factors you listed, it would help explain the large differences from the early 60's into the late 60's and beyond. It might even explain why FT shooting was marginally worse in the 60's (although, once again, Wilt took a ton of FTs in that decade...so his FT shooting, alone, contributed to those numbers.)

And these are important points. We are constantly reminded here, of PACE, and how it affected the stats, but very few acknowledge LEAGUE AVERAGE. I have long maintained that players like West, Barry, and other's did not suddenly wake up one morning, at some point in their careers, and figure out how to shoot better. West had near perfect form, yet, in his first three years he shot .419, .445, and .461. Havlicek had three seasons in the 60's (he played in the 60's and 70's about equally BTW), in which he shot .405, .402, and .399. Yet, in the 70's, he had EIGHT seasons higher than his best in the 60's.

That may explain the 60's to 70's transition...but, what about the 70's to 80's. There was an explosion in the 80's. There were ENTIRE LEAGUES shooting .492. There were 31-51 TEAMs shooting .504. Multiple players shooting in the 60% range.

I have used Kareem before, as an example. In the 70's, and in his physical prime, his best season was .579. BUT, he also had season's of .539, .529, .518, and .513. In the first eight seasons of the decade of the 80's, he shot .564, or better (and his last two seasons of that decade, he was 40, and 41...and he retired.) He had FOUR seasons in the 80's, in which he bettered his BEST season in the 70's. He had a high of .604, and .599 late in his career. One poster argued that Kareem took less shots. I have argued that Magic Johnson contributed heavily to his entire team's success. Still, Kareem was well past his physical peak. All you need for confirmation of that were his horrible rebounding numbers in that decade.

But, he wasn't the only one, either. Player-for-player, that played in both decades of the 70's and into the 80's shot better in the 80's, some dramatically. Even more perplexing, is the fact that the 3pt shot was in play the entire decade of the 80's. If anything, you would have expected a decline in FG%.

Which brings me to THIS point. I honestly believe that DEFENSE was better in the 60's and 70's. I couldn't tell you if there were some major rule changes, but if there were not, how else do you explain it?

Here again, Kareem is a great example. Late in his career, and when he could barely get off the floor, he was hanging games of 35, 42, 46 on Hakeem. And, in the same week he slapped Olajuwon with a 40 point game, he hammered Ewing with a 40 point game (while holding Patrick to 2-16 shooting.)

Kareem was a career .559 shooter, and yet Wilt held him to .464 in their 28 H2H meetings. In their last ten games, Wilt, at age 36, held him to .434 shooting. And Kareem took a slew of shots against Chamberlain, too. In the 71-72 season, Kareem had 30+ shots (with a high of 39) in TEN of their 11 meetings. But, he only hit 50%, or better, in FOUR of them. In fact, in their 28 games, Kareem took 30+ shots in 18 of them, and hit 50% in only SIX.

Not only that, but after Chamberlain "figured him out", he was routinely swatting the sky-hook all over the court.

And, as well as Wilt played Kareem, Thurmond was even better. In their three playoff series in the early 70's, Nate not only held Kareem nearly 10 points under his scoring average, he held him to series of .486, .405, and .428 shooting. And, as was the case with Wilt, these games occurred in Kareem's statistically prime seasons. Even players like 6-7 Unseld, and 6-9 Cowens gave Kareem more trouble than Hakeem or Ewing did.

There are MANY more examples. Wilt, himself, shot and scored much less against Russell. And, although he only had a handful of games against Thurmond in his "scoring" seasons, Nate held him below his scoring averages, as well (although, to be fair, Wilt generally dominated Thurmond in those years.)

But once again, thye bottom line in all of this, is the fact that, many here diminish the numbers of the players in the 60's, yet they don't acknowledge that there were forces at play, which hindered their shooting. Whether it was the rules that were in effect, or the courts, or the floors, or the baskets, or the balls, or, maybe, just maybe, the defense that was played...it definitely has to be considered.

So, when someone says that Oscar wouldn't average a triple-double in today's game...maybe not, and while his shot attempts would drop his...his efficiency would go up dramatically. He would have seasons of 55%...even higher in Jordan's 80's.

And those that criticize Wilt for his "lack of efficiency" in his "scoring" seasons, need to realize that much of his offense was taking place from 10-15 ft., and that he was being SWARMED by defenses, AND, the LEAGUE AVERAGE FG% was MUCH lower. His 50 ppg season came on .506 shooting, in a league that shot .426. His 45 ppg season came on .528 (then a record) in a league that shot .441. And his 33.5 ppg season came on .540 shooting, in a league that shot just .433. And, even with all of that, and the fact that he was an incredible volume shooter, his percentages compare favorably with Olajuwon and Robinson's BEST seasons...both of whom took far less shots, and in leagues that shot MUCH higher.

Furthermore, what about Chamberlain's "efficient" season's? My god, to average 24.1 ppg on .683 shooting, in a league that shot .441, and to beat out his nearest competitor by a .162 margin. Or, as in his last season, to shoot .727, in a league that shot .456, while beating out the next guy by a .157 margin. Those numbers are just mind-numbing! He was LIGHT YEARS ahead of the ENTIRE league. No other player in NBA history has ever come CLOSE to beating their nearest competitor by those margins, nor to have blown away the league average by such astonishing amounts.

[emsteez forreal]

cliff notes: "i psyched them.. by being black"

[Yung D-Will]

Great read =X

[jongib369]

Awesome post :applause:

[jongib369]

In regard to shooting percentages, a few factors that I think contribute to the rise and fall of shooting percentages.

1) The Jump Shot - It really didn't become common until the 1950's. Joe Fulks is credited as one of the first to use it and he began playing after WWII in 1946, prior it was the one or two hand set shot and for decades basketball was a game played in the 20's and 30's with a lot of ball possession and patience before taking the shot, usually a set shot from 15-25 feet.

2) The Pace - Basically teams have an extra 7-10 possessions a quarter in the late 50's and the 1960's. They are playing a such a pace with the shot clock in effect trying to get a "good" shot before the defense sets up. This also explains why FT shooting has been so much more consistent. Players have time and can shoot a repetitive shot as oppose to the field goal which is always changing with the game around it.

3) Layups and Dunks - Once the goal tending rules came into effect, it took 8-10 years for players to fully start using them against shot blockers. Factor in the added athleticism of the players from the mid-70's on and leniency with dribbling rules and you see why shooting %'s went up and the number of fouls went down...which brings me to

4) Flagrant fouls. I've read from several players of the era that if a guy was scoring by getting inside, he was going to get leveled eventually if he kept attacking. Before they added flagrant fouls this was just a foul, one or two shots and the game goes on. Now it's a fine or suspension or at least a two shot and the ball foul which changes momentum. Hence more easy lay-ups and dunks and a higher FG%.

5) The Ball - Sometimes, usually it was round, but not always the same. It wasn't until 1970 that the 8 panel ball was introduced. If you've ever shot with a four panel ball, you'll see why this was such a dramatic improvement. Another minor factor initially may have been the laces in the ball. Until the 1940's that was still common. So some players from the 50's probably grew up shooting a ball with laces, hard to be consistent under those circumstances. We all remember what happened when the NBA changed the ball slightly a few seasons ago, imagine changes that big over 30 years.

See this is why I like coming on here...I didn't realize the paneling was different

[jongib369]

When I had the opportunity to speak with Russell the one basketball question I asked him was about his approach to blocking shots; understanding that you can only block and only challenge so many shots and also about blocking the ball softly to a team not and not out of bounds. I asked him why if he essentially invented the block shot why no on else improved on it since. (Like dribbling and shooting strategy which have greatly evolved)

He said it was because he had perfected it long before people even realized what he was doing. He said there is no better way to approach blocking shots and he knew that because he spent 15 years trying to think of one.
Damn, you got a chance to speak to him?

[TommyGriffin]

[QUOTE]Say I am standing next to a rookie who has just come into the game

[jongib369]

Damn, what brutal mind games.
I'm sure that was the PG version lmao...But you're right, I'd probably just laugh if he straight up said that.