Number of teams in the league when Bill Russell won his 11 championships

[Hizack]

Year of Bill Russell　　　　Number of teams
won a championship　　　　in the league

[branslowski]

Not a fan of that era, but wouldn't less teams mean those 8 teams were stocked with Talent? Cause you would have to be the best of the best to make the teams. Just a thought.

[boozehound]

so what you are saying is that the league today is way more diluted. Those teams were effectively all superteams like the miami heat.

Wow, thanks for that. I used to think Russell was kind of overrated, but now its pretty clear that there is no way he is not #1 GOAT ALL TIME BEST!

[Kblaze8855]

Yea....adding 18 teams to that league wouldnt make the league better. Just...have more teams. We could add 14 more teams tomorrow. Without a new source of NBA level players the league would be worse on average for obvious reasons.

[nightprowler10]

So if we were to contract the NBA until there were only 8 teams left and then everyone redrafts from the player pool, that would make this a weak era?

[deja vu]

Basketball back then was not yet as popular as today, so there were fewer people playing the sport. There was still racial desegregation, so the superior black athletes weren't given much opportunity to become professional players. The barrier to entry to the NBA back then is not as big as nowadays, when you are competing with thousands of players all over the world for an NBA roster spot, despite now having more teams.

[fpliii]

Thread backfire?

[JimmyMcAdocious]

Wasn't the reason for the amount of teams at first because of the lack of talent/interest in basketball?

I'll take the weak segue and say the current NBA needs to reduce the amount of teams it has now. There are too players in the NBA that should really not be playing at the highest level, some are even getting consistent minutes. You look in Europe and around the world and I don't see many draft eligible prospects that should be in the NBA. Too much capacity, not enough talent.

[CavaliersFTW]

http://d22zlbw5ff7yk5.cloudfront.net/images/stash-1-50a8b47143f20.gif

[Take Your Lumps]

http://d22zlbw5ff7yk5.cloudfront.net/images/stash-1-50a8b47143f20.gif

:oldlol: :cheers:

Looking like JFK.

[guy]

Not a fan of that era, but wouldn't less teams mean those 8 teams were stocked with Talent? Cause you would have to be the best of the best to make the teams. Just a thought.

Even if that were the case, the odds are still more in a teams favor. For example, in 1957 on average, a team would have a 1/8 shot at being champions, while in 1996 it would be 1/29.

[guy]

so what you are saying is that the league today is way more diluted. Those teams were effectively all superteams like the miami heat.

Wow, thanks for that. I used to think Russell was kind of overrated, but now its pretty clear that there is no way he is not #1 GOAT ALL TIME BEST!

There's no way the talent pool was as large back then, so this wasn't really the case.

[Akhenaten]

so what you are saying is that the league today is way more diluted. Those teams were effectively all superteams like the miami heat.



Only problem with that theory is the HUGE disparity in performance that would occur with elite players like Wilt who would avg 50 ppg in the reg season and drop to 30 ppg or less when it was playoff time, to 20 or less in the Finals.

Elite players of today (Kobe, Wade, Lebron, Shaq et.) dont see these drastic dropoffs in terms of production like those elite guys did back then.

Also of those 8 teams it was usually 2 teams dominating the landscape, the other teams basically fodder.

Condensing today's league to 8 teams is in NO way comparable to 8 teams in that era. There is ZERO chance a Bob Cousy makes an 8 team league in today's league....ZERO!!

There were far less people playing basketball then.
The median talent level is WAAAAAY higher, excluding transcendent players (for obvious reason) the average guy back then could not make an NBA roster today.

A guy like Josh Smith or Steph Curry cant even make the all-star team in today's league, you want to tell be Bob Cousy or KC Jones would?

[BoutPractice]

So what? Imagine the 60s had 30 teams. You really think Russell's Celtics wouldn't have won their regular season games against the equivalent of the Bobcats and the Pelicans? What matters is the playoffs, and he still had to go through 3 tough series each year... still not 4, but that was the case for a long time so Russell would be far from the only one affected if you suddenly decided it made a huge difference.

[guy]

So what? Imagine the 60s had 30 teams. You really think Russell's Celtics wouldn't have won their regular season games against the equivalent of the Bobcats and the Pelicans? What matters is the playoffs, and he still had to go through 3 tough series each year... still not 4, but that was the case for a long time so Russell would be far from the only one affected if you suddenly decided it made a huge difference.

There was actually years where they only had to win 2 series if they had a bye, which haven't existed anymore for a while.

[Akhenaten]

There was actually years where they only had to win 2 series if they had a bye, which haven't existed anymore for a while.

A "bye" in an 8 team league :roll:

[Legends66NBA7]

you want to tell be Bob Cousy or KC Jones would?

KC Jones never made an all-star team.

[millwad]

Teams had just as many scrubs back then as now, the difference is that the talent pool is massive compared to the oldschool era.

[Psileas]

George Mikan's NBA had more teams than Russell's. Today's NBA has more teams than the 80's. Doesn't mean anything. Number of strong title contenders > Number of teams in general.

Funny though how Russell retires and then suddenly the championship is up for grabs, with only 3-4 other teams added in the following seasons:

1970: 14 teams, new champion
1971: 17 teams, new champion
1972: 17 teams, new champion
1973: 17 teams, new champion (the 1970 one)
1974: 17 teams, new champion
1975: 18 teams, new champion
1976: 18 teams, new champion (the 1974 one)
...
Nobody even managed to repeat up to 1988. Was competition supposed to have magically become vastly better in 1970, coincidentally after Russell's retirement?

[Akhenaten]

KC Jones never made an all-star team.

ok then Sam Jones or an assorted old azz ninja from back then that did make all-start teams :lol

KC Jones couldn't make a D league roster today

[millwad]

George Mikan's NBA had more teams than Russell's. Today's NBA has more teams than the 80's. Doesn't mean anything. Number of strong title contenders > Number of teams in general.

Funny though how Russell retires and then suddenly the championship is up for grabs with only 3-4 other teams added in the following seasons:

1970: 14 teams, new champion
1971: 17 teams, new champion
1972: 17 teams, new champion
1973: 17 teams, new champion (the 1970 one)
1974: 17 teams, new champion
1975: 18 teams, new champion
1976: 18 teams, new champion (the 1974 one)
...
Nobody even managed to repeat up to 1988. Was competition supposed to have magically become vastly better in 1970, coincidentally after Russell's retirement?

This is bogus.

In '85 they were 23 teams and in '05 they were 30 teams. The total difference is 7 teams, that is almost as much as the 8 team league Russell played in.

And teams back then had just as many scrubs on every team as today and in the 80's, there's absolutely no way the talent pool was big enough to cover a 23 team league or a 30 team league.

[chips93]

Even if that were the case, the odds are still more in a teams favor. For example, in 1957 on average, a team would have a 1/8 shot at being champions, while in 1996 it would be 1/29.

anybody gonna respond to this?

or are we just gonna ignore it and scream 'THREAD BACKFIRE' like morons

[Marchesk]

Even if that were the case, the odds are still more in a teams favor. For example, in 1957 on average, a team would have a 1/8 shot at being champions, while in 1996 it would be 1/29.

Except that there's not 29 teams with a viable title shot in any year. We can discount at least half the teams before the season even starts. How many legitimate contenders do you think there are in any given season?

That's why when you get odds before a season, they're not 1/29. They're something like 2/1 that Miami will repeat or whatever.

Here they are for 2014:

Miami Heat 19/10
Oklahoma City Thunder 6/1
Houston Rockets 10/1
Brooklyn Nets 10/1
Chicago Bulls 10/1
Indiana Pacers 12/1
Los Angeles Clippers 12/1
San Antonio Spurs 12/1
Golden State Warriors 18/1
New York Knicks 22/1
Los Angeles Lakers 33/1
Memphis Grizzlies 33/1
Dallas Mavericks 50/1
Denver Nuggets 50/1
Cleveland Cavaliers 66/1
Detroit Pistons 75/1
Atlanta Hawks 100/1
Boston Celtics 100/1
Minnesota Timberwolves 100/1
New Orleans Pelicans 100/1
Portland Trail Blazers 100/1
Washington Wizards 100/1
Toronto Raptors 150/1
Utah Jazz 150/1
Sacramento Kings 200/1
Milwaukee Bucks 250/1
Philadelphia 76ers 300/1
Phoenix Suns 300/1
Charlotte Bobcats 500/1
Orlando Magic 500/1

I only see about 12 teams that have any real chance of winning next season. (I have no idea why the Lakers are that high though).

[CavaliersFTW]

anybody gonna respond to this?

or are we just gonna ignore it and scream 'THREAD BACKFIRE' like morons
There isn't a "1 and 8 shot" vs a "1 and 29 shot" - that's not how it works.

For example, pit the top 8 race horses in the world against each other vs a race with the top 29 horses in the world against each other. The top 8 favored horses still will have the same odds at winning and placing accordingly. The additional 21 horses are statistically moot because they aren't as good as any of the top 8. Having more, inferior quality competitors, doesn't reduce the odds for the best to win it all.

[millwad]

Except that there's not 29 teams with a viable title shot in any year. We can discount at least half the teams before the season even starts. How many legitimate contenders do you think there are in any given season?

That's why when you get odds before a season, they're not 1/29. They're something like 2/1 that Miami will repeat or whatever.

Here they are for 2014:

Miami Heat 19/10
Oklahoma City Thunder 6/1
Houston Rockets 10/1
Brooklyn Nets 10/1
Chicago Bulls 10/1
Indiana Pacers 12/1
Los Angeles Clippers 12/1
San Antonio Spurs 12/1
Golden State Warriors 18/1
New York Knicks 22/1
Los Angeles Lakers 33/1
Memphis Grizzlies 33/1
Dallas Mavericks 50/1
Denver Nuggets 50/1
Cleveland Cavaliers 66/1
Detroit Pistons 75/1
Atlanta Hawks 100/1
Boston Celtics 100/1
Minnesota Timberwolves 100/1
New Orleans Pelicans 100/1
Portland Trail Blazers 100/1
Washington Wizards 100/1
Toronto Raptors 150/1
Utah Jazz 150/1
Sacramento Kings 200/1
Milwaukee Bucks 250/1
Philadelphia 76ers 300/1
Phoenix Suns 300/1
Charlotte Bobcats 500/1
Orlando Magic 500/1

I only see about 12 teams that have any real chance of winning next season. (I have no idea why the Lakers are that high though).

Which is more teams than the whole league in the 60's..

[chips93]

There isn't a "1 and 8 shot" vs a "1 and 29 shot" - that's not how it works.

For example, pit the top 8 race horses in the world against each other vs a race with the top 29 horses in the world against each other. The top 8 favored horses still will have the same odds at winning and placing accordingly. The additional 21 horses are statistically moot because they aren't as good as any of the top 8. Having more, inferior quality competitors, doesn't reduce the odds for the best.

but that implies that the extra 22 teams are complete scrubs which isnt the case

the talent is going to get re-distributed, or diluted as some have said.

[millwad]

There isn't a "1 and 8 shot" vs a "1 and 29 shot" - that's not how it works.

For example, pit the top 8 race horses in the world against each other vs a race with the top 29 horses in the world against each other. The top 8 favored horses still will have the same odds at winning and placing accordingly. The additional 21 horses are statistically moot because they aren't as good as any of the top 8. Having more, inferior quality competitors, doesn't reduce the odds for the best to win it all.

Which is true but still not the issue here.

While Russell was winning there were still scrub teams and teams today don't have more scrubs on the roster compared to the 60's. Now if you'd make the current league to a 8 team league, then the level of talent would be much higher compared to the 60's and there would be way less scrubs.

[guy]

Except that there's not 29 teams with a viable title shot in any year. We can discount at least half the teams before the season even starts. How many legitimate contenders do you think there are in any given season?

That's why when you get odds before a season, they're not 1/29. They're something like 2/1 that Miami will repeat or whatever.

Here they are for 2014:

Miami Heat 19/10
Oklahoma City Thunder 6/1
Houston Rockets 10/1
Brooklyn Nets 10/1
Chicago Bulls 10/1
Indiana Pacers 12/1
Los Angeles Clippers 12/1
San Antonio Spurs 12/1
Golden State Warriors 18/1
New York Knicks 22/1
Los Angeles Lakers 33/1
Memphis Grizzlies 33/1
Dallas Mavericks 50/1
Denver Nuggets 50/1
Cleveland Cavaliers 66/1
Detroit Pistons 75/1
Atlanta Hawks 100/1
Boston Celtics 100/1
Minnesota Timberwolves 100/1
New Orleans Pelicans 100/1
Portland Trail Blazers 100/1
Washington Wizards 100/1
Toronto Raptors 150/1
Utah Jazz 150/1
Sacramento Kings 200/1
Milwaukee Bucks 250/1
Philadelphia 76ers 300/1
Phoenix Suns 300/1
Charlotte Bobcats 500/1
Orlando Magic 500/1

I only see about 12 teams that have any real chance of winning next season. (I have no idea why the Lakers are that high though).

I said on average those are the odds per team. Of course not every team has an equal chance, but on average it is higher per team back then. Not all 29 teams had a viable shot, just like not all 8 teams in the 1957 had a viable shot.

[guy]

There isn't a "1 and 8 shot" vs a "1 and 29 shot" - that's not how it works.

For example, pit the top 8 race horses in the world against each other vs a race with the top 29 horses in the world against each other. The top 8 favored horses still will have the same odds at winning and placing accordingly. The additional 21 horses are statistically moot because they aren't as good as any of the top 8. Having more, inferior quality competitors, doesn't reduce the odds for the best to win it all.

Do you really think the 8 teams in 1957 are as good as the top 8 teams today? Because thats what it sounds like you're getting at.

[Soundwave]

The talent pool for basketball really didn't mature until the 70s IMO as racial segregation started to ease and the formation of the ABA expanded things, so did development at the college level.

I simply don't think the 50s/60s was *that* great of a brand of basketball, there simply weren't enough people playing the sport.

[millwad]

Do you really think the 8 teams in 1957 are as good as the top 8 teams today? Because thats what it sounds like you're getting at.

Not only that, it would be more fair to take the best players in the current league and then take enough players to cover for an 8 team league.

The level of talent would be way better.

[Psileas]

This is bogus.

In '85 they were 23 teams and in '05 they were 30 teams. The total difference is 7 teams, that is almost as much as the 8 team league Russell played in.

And teams back then had just as many scrubs on every team as today and in the 80's, there's absolutely no way the talent pool was big enough to cover a 23 team league or a 30 team league.

The total difference between the 1969 league and the 1961 league was almost as big too, but I don't see any different champion. And Russell was significantly better in 1961 than in 1969.

You may talk about the talent pool now that you know about the early 60's having 8 teams, but this can't explain this:
http://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_1950.html
This is a whole decade back and this is a league without black players. Now, about this league, you could have a point. But about the 60's? Do you think Mikan was even close to Wilt as a player? Mikan dominated the titles, Wilt did not. Which means either that Mikan was much better than Wilt or that Wilt's era, despite having only half the teams, was much more talented.

Also, for a league with a supposedly shallow talent pool, I wouldn't call the Celtics' win-loss records all that impressive. Why couldn't they get 70-win seasons if they had it that easy? Sometimes, they didn't even have home-court advantage. Why did so many playoff series go to Game 7's (just in case someone says that they saved themselves for the playoffs - again, why would a team that much better than the others need to do this? Even the 90's Bulls did this maybe only once)? Why so few sweeps?

[ILLsmak]

Yea....adding 18 teams to that league wouldnt make the league better. Just...have more teams. We could add 14 more teams tomorrow. Without a new source of NBA level players the league would be worse on average for obvious reasons.

ehhh, I mean I was coming in here to post "dat research" because it's obviously something most people know, but I don't agree with this.

More teams does mean the league is better. now, having 30 teams, maybe not... but more good players = more teams. Is there parity? No. But are you saying there weren't 8 good teams in the NBA in the 80s? Keep in mind, not every team in the 60s was good, either.

We're also talking about facing one team before the finals. So it is a difference and that must be taken into context. Dude won, though, but you can't say winning those rings is the same. It's funny how people love Bill Russell, but few people say MIKAN. But truthfully Mikan was the first superstar and he had to play 3 rounds to win.

But yea everyone knows, or should know, dude didn't have to play as many rounds as our generation did. The game changed.

-Smak

[ILLsmak]

DP:

Think about it like this. If there were 4 contenders and 26 other teams that were average, assuming that the league had 4 contenders are 4 teams that were average (assuming they were similar), one might reason that the 4 contenders would win a similar amount of games.

That may be true if it was a vacuum, but to me, because of the fact that the variables are increased... that is they are average, but slightly different, and there is less monotony, I believe that would add to the challenge the 4 teams faced. Maybe even enough to say that even if the league with only 4 non-contending teams had more talent on those teams, the one with 26 would still cause more wear and tear on the contending teams.

Just a hypothetical situation. No "real world proof", but I think if you really kick it around in your head, you'll see what I mean.

-Smak

[SyRyanYang]

What you really should list is, number of professional basketball player at respective era.

[PHILA]

Number of strong title contenders > Number of teams in general.

Yes, take the Sixers from 1965-1968, who won the title once in 3 1/2 seasons. They would slaughter any team from the 2000's with great ease. The key was Luke Jackson, a guy most fans now cannot comprehend how great his value was. Actually most of them don't even know who he was. In early 1964-65 (and 1968-69 pre-injury), Luke played the center position. They also can't understand how someone like Bill Russell could be so dominant on the defensive end, when nearly every NBA rule change since then has been to benefit the offense in some way. From the mid-60's to the mid-70's nearly every team in the game had an excellent center. And they played each other far more often during the regular season than they do in this era with 30 teams. Just to name a few:


Wilt Chamberlain
Bill Russell
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
Nate Thurmond
Willis Reed
Walt Bellamy
Luke Jackson
Dave Cowens
Elvin Hayes
Bob Lanier
Wes Unseld
Spencer Haywood
Sidney Wicks
Wayne Embry
Zelmo Beaty
Elmore Smith
Clifford Ray
Tom Boerwinkle
John Kerr
Clyde Lovelette



Even in the 90s you had the big 4 in terms of dominant centers, but for every Shaq, Hakeem, Robinson, Ewing you had starting centers like Felton Spencer, Chris Dudley, Joe Kleine, Eric Montross, Matt Geiger, etc.

[jzek]

Wow, did not know that! Will bring this up the next time someone brings up Russell and his 11 rings. :applause:

[OldSkoolball#52]

Yea....adding 18 teams to that league wouldnt make the league better. Just...have more teams. We could add 14 more teams tomorrow. Without a new source of NBA level players the league would be worse on average for obvious reasons.


The point the OP makes, which I have made on more than one occasion, is that statistically when a season began, Bill Russell had a 1/8 chance of being on the championship team. Today, any given player has a 1/30 chance in being on a championship team when the season begins.

Of course, I've always contended the "rings" argument is for simple minded dummies, but this is just another demonstration of that.

Consider that the amount of playoff victories Russell needed to win championships was equivalent to a mere conference playoff in today's game. In that sense, the Magic and Thunder have recently achieved every bit Russell did in any given year he won his "rings". They emerged victorious from a field of 8. Of course, they then had to play an additional series in order to be crowned champions, and subsequently lost. But Russell never had to play that extra series.

And that's just assuming all 8 or 9 teams made the playoffs during the majority of Russell's title tenure. I don't know what the playoff format was back then. It might have just been the top 4 teams held a playoff. But at absolute best, the league's entire playoff back then was equivalent to a conference playoff today.


"But this guy has teh rings, he's better than that guy! Shut up, Robert Horry is totally different!!!!"

[TheMan]

The talent pool for basketball really didn't mature until the 70s IMO as racial segregation started to ease and the formation of the ABA expanded things, so did development at the college level.

I simply don't think the 50s/60s was *that* great of a brand of basketball, there simply weren't enough people playing the sport.
This

The league was full of shot jacking slow footed white guys back then...not impressed.

[Marchesk]

Today, any given player has a 1/30 chance in being on a championship team when the season begins."

But they don't, because the majority of teams aren't title contenders. There's 10 or 12, and that's being generous.

[jlip]

The point the OP makes, which I have made on more than one occasion, is that statistically when a season began, Bill Russell had a 1/8 chance of being on the championship team. Today, any given player has a 1/30 chance in being on a championship team when the season begins.



But they don't, because the majority of teams aren't title contenders. There's 10 or 12, and that's being generous.

Championships are won via a playoffs. 30 teams don't make the playoffs. 14 teams don't make the playoffs and have absolutely no impact of who wins a title. More times than not, the 7 and 8 seeds have no chance at winning whatsoever either. Finally, as a champion you don't play all of the other 15 teams in the playoffs. All you play is the four teams who advance along with you.

[LAZERUSS]

Russell didn't win a ring in the 66-67 season, but it is a good place to start. First of all, the NBA had ten teams, which included an expansion Bulls team.

Let's start with that Bulls team, shall we...

Chicago probably had the least amount of talent in the league that year, but amazingly, they went 33-48, and made the playoffs. Even more remarkably, their scoring differential was only -3.7 ppg. That team featured hard-nosed Jerry Sloan, journeyman Bob Boozer, and Guy Rodgers (admittedly, the worst shooter in the history of the NBA.) Still, they won 33 games. Think about that as we go along...

Baltimore had the worst record in the league, at 20-61. On paper, they should have done better. While their roster was void of truly great super-stars, it was loaded to the hilt was quality NBA players. HOFer Gus Johnson, who had a soft-touch of 15+ feet, and a vertical that would rival Jordan's (go ahead and google Gus Johnson and "the nail." He was capable 20 ppg seasons, and 17 rpg seasons. They also had Kevin Loughery, LeRoy Ellis, Jack Marin, Ray Scott, and Johnny Green. I won't waste time typing up their career numbers,...you can look them up for yourself...but in any case, there has probably never been a more talented 20-61 team in NBA history.

The Detroit Pistons went 30-51. Surely they couldn't have any talent right? Well, they had ROY Dave Bing, who averaged 20 ppg, and who would lead the league in scoring the very next year. Then there was HOFer Dave DeBusschere, one of the best defensive players of his era, a solid rebounder, and good outside shot. He would go on to be a key player in the Knick title teams of '70 and '73. Tom Van Arsdale, a player who would have 20 ppg seasons in just two years. Eddie Miles, who averaged 21.2 ppg in '67. And they even boasted a 7-0 footer in Reggie Harding.

Continued...

[LAZERUSS]

Continuing...

Now it gets interesting...

How about the St. Louis Hawks? A LOADED roster. Lou Hudson, who would average 18 ppg that year, and a player who would have SEVEN seasons of 20+ ppg, and on great efficiency, with two at 26.8 and 27.1 ppg. Zelmo Beaty, a multiple all-star in his career, he averaged 18 ppg in '67, and would have two NBA seasons of 20+ ppg, and then three of 20+ ppg seasons in the ABA.
HOFer Lenny Wilkins (yes, as both a player and a coach), who averaged 17 ppg that year, and who would have three seasons of 20+ in his long career, as well as leading the league in apg one year, with five seasons of 8+ (in an era when assists were much harder to come by.) Bill Bridges, who averaged 17 ppg and 15 rpg that year, and a player who enjoyed a long and successful NBA career. HOFer Richie Guerin, admittedly nearing the end of his career, but still a 14 ppg scorer in '67. Joe Caldwell, a player who averaged 14 ppg in '67, and would average 21 in '70 and 23 in the ABA in '71. Journeyman Dick Snyder, who played a limited role in '67, but would go on to have 18 and 19 ppg seasons in his NBA career. And how about Paul Silas off the bench? 7 ppg and 9 rpg, in 20 mpg. And before someone scoffs at this 6-7 player, he was battling Kareem for the rebounding title in '76. How did the Hawks do in '67? They went 39-42.

The New York Knicks boasted...get this... Walt Bellamy AND Willis Reed. Reed averaged a 21-15 on .493 shooting, while the 6-11 (in bare feet) Bellamy was a 19-14 .521 player. Then there were players like Dick Van Arsdale, who averaged 15 ppg in '67, and who would put up three straight seasons of 21+ just a couple of years later. Or Dick Barnett, who averaged 17 ppg in '67, and just the year before, in '66, averaged 23 ppg. He would also be an all-star the very next year in '68. Journey Butch Komives, who averaged 16 ppg and 7 apg in '67. And then there was one of the best "6th men" of his era, Cazzie Russell, who averaged 11 ppg in 22 mpg, and would have seasons as high as 21 ppg in his career. This team simply had to win 50 games, right? Well, not quite. In fact, they weren't even close. 36-45.

And talk about LOADED, how about the Cincinnati Royals. A team which featured Oscar, still in his absolute brilliance, and a prime Jerry Lucas. All Oscar did in '67 was average 31 ppg and 11 apg (and 7 rpg), on .493 and .873 shooting (in an NBA that shot .441.) Lucas, who was Kevin Love in every way, and probably the best long range shooter in the league, put up an 18 ppg, 19 rpg season (albeit, on a low, for him, .459 FG%.) But, I'm not thru yet. I mentioned Lucas as being one of the premier long-range bombers of his era (look up the term "Lucas Layup.") But the Royals also boasted, what I honestly believe were the two next best bombers of the 60's and early 70's, John McGlocklin, and Flynn Robinson. McGlocklin would go on to have sensational seasons on the Bucks in the early 70's, and Robinson, who averaged 9 ppg in 15 mpg in '67, would go on to have seasons as high as 20 just a few years later. Still not done, though. Odie Smith, who was the Royals "SG" alongside Oscar, averaged 17 ppg. Their center was journeyman Connie Dierking, a second-tier guy in the 60's, but a player who once scored 41 points against Wilt, and had a game in which he easily outscored KAJ. He averaged a 9-8 in '67. 6-11 walt Wesley, who would have an 18 ppg season a few years later (which included a 50 point game) could only score 5 ppg on this team. Finally...the 6-8 "Butterbean" Bob Love, who averaged 7 ppg in 16 mpg in '67, and would go on to have six seasons of 20+ ppg, with highs of 25 and 26 ppg in the early 70's. Ok, there had to be no way that this team didn't win 50 games, right? Sorry, 39-42, and were blown out in the first round of the playoffs.

That brings us to the SF Warriors. Rick Barry would lead the league in scoring at 35.6 ppg, the highest non-Wilt full season in the Wilt-era. Then there was 6-11 Nate Thurmond, and in his finest season (finishing second to Chamberlain in the MVP voting.) All he did that year was average 19 ppg and 21 rpg), and was arguably the greatest one-on-one defending center in NBA history (just ask Kareem, who couldn't shoot .440 against him in his 30 career h2h's.) Then there was journeyman paul Neumann, who averaged 14 ppg. And how about sharp-shooting Jeff Mullins, who averaged 13 ppg in '67, and would average 19 the next year, and then run off a string of four straight 20+ ppg seasons? 6-8 PF Fred Hetzel, who averaged 12 ppg in sharing duties with Clyde Lee (more on him in a moment), and who would average 21 ppg the very next season. Back to the 6-10 Lee, who may very well have been the best rebounding PF of the early 70's. He even outrebounded Thurmond in a playoff series against Kareem a few years later. In the '67 season, Lee averaged over 7 rpg, in under 17 mpg. Then there was Tom Meschery, who was the Warriors second best player with Wilt a couple of years earlier, and in '67, he averaged 11 ppg, or nearly what he did as Wilt's side-kick. Finally, players like bruisng Al Attles and Jim King. Keep in mind that Wilt's '64 Warriors had nowhere near this much talent (not even close), and went 48-32. So, surely this Warrior team must have approached 60 wins, right? 44-37.

Now we get to the "Miami Heat" of the mid-60's...the Los Angeles Lakers. What do I mean by that, you ask? A near-prime Elgin Baylor, who put up a 27-13 season, and a prime Jerry West, who hung a 29 ppg, 7 apg season. Both played most of the games that season, as well (Baylor at 70, and West at 66.) Which brings up to their subs...6-8 Rudy LaRusso, who averaged 13 ppg and 8 rpg (and who would average 22 ppg the very next season), and HOFer Gail Goodrich, who managed to score 12+ ppg in 23 mpg, and who would put up six seasons of 20+, with highs of 26 ppg. And talk about guard-depth! This Laker team alos boasted Archie Clark, who averaged 11 ppg in '67, and who would average 20 ppg the very next season (and make the All-Star team.) But, wait...still not done with their guards. Then there was Walt Hazzard (Abdul Rahman), who averaged 9 ppg in '67, and who would average 24 ppg the very next season. Tom Hawkins was a defensive specialist in his era, and also managed to kick in with 8 ppg, as well. Their starting center was 6-10 journeyman Darrall Imhoff, who put up an 11-14 season. And this team also boasted TWO 7-0 footers, Henry Finkle, and Mel Counts, who had excellent range, and could play PF. Deep on their bench was 6-10 John Block, who was a decent backup in his career. Once again...with the Lebron and Wade tandem of their era....... and a 36-45 team.

That brings us to the Celtics. Finally a 60 win team (60-21 to be exact.) IMHO, this was the most loaded team, top-to-bottom, in NBA history (sorry '63 Celtics and their nine HOFers.) This Celtic team literally went 11-deep. How talented were they? How about someone named Toby Kimball? Granted, Kimball could only squeeze in 3 ppg with the '67 Celtics, BUT, the very next season, with San Diego, he put up a 12-12 season. Then there was journeyman Jim Barnett, who only scored 4 ppg on this team, but would average 12 over his career. KC Jones, a very questionable HOFer, but certainly was regarded as one of the best defensive gaurds of his era. Bruising 6-8 250 lb Wayne Embry (another "HOFer" who was actually an All-Star in the mid-60's. Versatile Don Nelson, who averaged 8 ppg in '67, but would have many seasons of 10+, in a relatively long career. Satch Sanders, again, one of the premier defensive players in the league in the 60's, and who surprisingly, put up a 10 ppg season in '67. Larry Siegfried, who averaged 14 ppg in '67, and in only 26 mpg. After that...HOFer Bailey Howell, who not only averaged 20 ppg, but on .512 shooting. And Sam Jones and his 22 ppg. Probably the most "clutch" player, aside from West, of his era. Then there was Hondo, who was the best 6th man of his era, and who averaged a 21-7-3 in '67. Finally...Bill Russell and his 13 ppg and 21 rpg, as well as all-time defense.

So how come the Celtics couldn't win the title in '67? Because the Sixers, in certainly a top-3 all-time season, just smashed every team record at the time. They started out 46-4, which included a 138-96 demolition of the Celtics, and never looked back, as they coasted to a 68-13 record...in THIS league! While not nearly as deep as Boston, their players, aside from Havlicek, were simply better 1-6. A peak Chamberlain deservedly ran away with the MVP in a 24-24-8 .683 season (and likely as high as 10 bpg), in one of the greatest defensive seasons ever. HOFer Hal Greer and his 22 ppg. HOFer Chet Walker and his 19 ppg. Unsung PF, 6-9 260 lb Luke Jackson, and his 12-9 season. HOFer Billy Cunningham and his 19 ppg. And streak-shooting Wali Jones, and his 13 ppg. This team just destroyed the league that year, and did so in '68 as well...until they were decimated by injuries. Clearly, a healthy Sixer squad in '68 would have won their second straight title.

There you have it. STACKED teams failing to go .500. Say what you want...but you would be hard-pressed to find any teams in TODAY's NBA that boasted the talent levels of the Lakers and Royals (or Warriors)...and certainly none of them were on Boston's or Philly's level.

As for Russell's 11 rings. His teams won 10 game sevens in the post-season, SEVEN of which were decided by FOUR points, or less, including a couple of OTs'. Just an extraordinary accomplishment, especially given the loaded rosters that filled the league in that era.

[tpols]

The point the OP makes, which I have made on more than one occasion, is that statistically when a season began, Bill Russell had a 1/8 chance of being on the championship team. Today, any given player has a 1/30 chance in being on a championship team when the season begins.

Of course, I've always contended the "rings" argument is for simple minded dummies, but this is just another demonstration of that.

Consider that the amount of playoff victories Russell needed to win championships was equivalent to a mere conference playoff in today's game. In that sense, the Magic and Thunder have recently achieved every bit Russell did in any given year he won his "rings". They emerged victorious from a field of 8. Of course, they then had to play an additional series in order to be crowned champions, and subsequently lost. But Russell never had to play that extra series.

And that's just assuming all 8 or 9 teams made the playoffs during the majority of Russell's title tenure. I don't know what the playoff format was back then. It might have just been the top 4 teams held a playoff. But at absolute best, the league's entire playoff back then was equivalent to a conference playoff today.


"But this guy has teh rings, he's better than that guy! Shut up, Robert Horry is totally different!!!!"
If there's a 1/30 chance of being on the best team, that means most of the teams are going to be relatively bad. And if half the teams make the playoffs, that means you are likely to face bad teams early on.

So what you're saying makes no sense.

A realistic analogy would be if you totally skipped the first and second round and just had the top four teams battle it out.. Okc sas Miami indy.. That's it whole playoffs. And I don't see how that isn't just as hard to come out on top.. Nevermind11 times in a row

[ballup]

Here's the problem I see with this: Russell isn't someone from the future who knows advanced plays/techniques that were not developed by his playing days. He's had the same tools with which to work as his peers.

Also, since the teams of his era played each other so many times (I counted 12 times max) in the regular season, they were prepared for one another once the playoffs arrived. Unlike today, when teams play their playoff matchups only, at most, 4 times. Teams could have easily prepared for one another back then, making it competitive.

[Dr.J4ever]

Here's the problem I see with this: Russell isn't someone from the future who knows advanced plays/techniques that were not developed by his playing days. He's had the same tools with which to work as his peers.

Also, since the teams of his era played each other so many times (I counted 12 times max) in the regular season, they were prepared for one another once the playoffs arrived. Unlike today, when teams play their playoff matchups only, at most, 4 times. Teams could have easily prepared for one another back then, making it competitive.

Not only this, but a 30 team league loaded with the best players from different countries and different races from all over the world will always be a better and more difficult league to win a chip than a mostly white league with 8 teams on it.

The other thing are match ups. The more teams, and the more different the players with different games, and different backgrounds gives a greater chance that a stud player or team(Dallas vs GS 2007?) will meet a bad match up in a crucial regular season game or Playoff.

Have to go with the OP on this one.

[BoutPractice]

Another thing I don't think people have mentioned is that the very stats in the OP play in Russell's favour... the first thing that jumps out at you is that the number of teams in the league increased by quite a bit, in fact almost doubled, during Russell's career, and yet his team kept winning the championship. They weren't affected in the least bit.

It's not evidence per se that his team would have kept winning with 29 competitors, but clearly that should argue for giving them the benefit of the doubt instead of automatically assuming they would've started losing just because you added a bunch of (mostly terrible) franchises to the league.

For most years in his 13 year career Russell played close to 80 games and at least 10 playoff games... you can't act as if he wasn't battle tested. And over this HUGE sample size of encounters with a variety of competitive teams including players such as Wilt Chamberlain, Oscar Robertson, Jerry West, Elgin Baylor, Bob Pettit, and Nate Thurmond... his team almost never lost. Only the greatest teams of all time can win that much with such amazing regularity and consistency.

Besides, if you start putting an asterisk next to Russell's championships, you have to do it with a ton of others... all the pre-merger championships, for instance... the years immediately post-expansion... the lockout years... you could find excuses not to count a given year's championship for a whole bunch of years.

[guy]

I think people are overdramatizing the unpopular opinions of Russell's championships. I'm not saying Russell's titles aren't impressive. They are INCREDIBLY impressive. In fact, they might still be more impressive then Jordan's 6, Magic's 5, etc. I'm not sure you can attribute about double the championships strictly to the quality of the era. But what I am saying is 11 titles in 13 years in the 50s/60s era, while still incredibly impressive, is not as impressive as it would've been if it were done in the 80s/90s/00s/10s. Given how much bigger the sport got in later eras, I don't see how that's even an argument.

[Marchesk]

But what I am saying is 11 titles in 13 years in the 50s/60s era, while still incredibly impressive, is not as impressive as it would've been if it were done in the 80s/90s/00s/10s. Given how much bigger the sport got in later eras, I don't see how that's even an argument.

That sort of dynasty is a once in a sport's lifetime deal. It can't be done anymore. Maybe the 90s Bulls could have won 8 in a row, but I tend to think the fatigue would have caught up to them eventually. Also, without Horace Grant and before Rodman, it would have been hard to beat Orlando even with Jordan playing the whole season. Maybe they do it, but then you have Hakeem's rockets. And Hakeem matches up well with that Bulls team. I'm thinking the Rockets take them down that season.

The Celtics made great moves and were able to stack their team along with trading for the right to draft the perfect GOAT big for their system. It was a perfect storm.

[BoutPractice]

That sort of dynasty is a once in a sport's lifetime deal. It can't be done anymore. Maybe the 90s Bulls could have won 8 in a row, but I tend to think the fatigue would have caught up to them eventually.
Yeah, I think people underestimate the difficulty inherent in winning 11 titles in 13 years from a fatigue and psychological standpoint.

The problem people have visualizing Russell's accomplishments is similar to the problem people have visualizing the accomplishments of, say, ancient history.

In a way, you could see Russell as the Genghis Khan of the NBA, in that the scope of his achievements was not only totally unprecedented at the time, but would prove impossible to match throughout the rest of history. If you put Genghis Khan in today's world, would he be in a position to conquer an entire continent? Probably not. But if you did the reverse and gave today's military leaders a nomadic steppe tribe in the 13th century, would any of them come close to conquering an entire continent? Probably not either.

[Marchesk]

If you put Genghis Khan in today's world, would he be in a position to conquer an entire continent? Probably not. But if you did the reverse and gave today's military leaders a nomadic steppe tribe in the 13th century, would any of them come close to conquering an entire continent? Probably not either.

Are we talking about stepping fresh out of a time machine, or growing up in that era :D

[BoutPractice]

Growing up, otherwise I imagine there would be quite a culture shock :lol

[sundizz]

Yeah, I think people underestimate the difficulty inherent in winning 11 titles in 13 years from a fatigue and psychological standpoint.

The problem people have visualizing Russell's accomplishments is similar to the problem people have visualizing the accomplishments of, say, ancient history.

In a way, you could see Russell as the Genghis Khan of the NBA, in that the scope of his achievements was not only totally unprecedented at the time, but would prove impossible to match throughout the rest of history. If you put Genghis Khan in today's world, would he be in a position to conquer an entire continent? Probably not. But if you did the reverse and gave today's military leaders a nomadic steppe tribe in the 13th century, would any of them come close to conquering an entire continent? Probably not either.

He did as much as could be done. His achievement is greatest ever, but this doesn't mean his ability is greatest ever.

[Pointguard]

With 30 teams you have versatility and more of a chance to see a different style, which would have advanced the game a bit faster than it evolved. It would not have made much of a difference as Red Auerbach would have out coached all coaches anyway. Another factor would be that Red Auerabachs superior recruiting mechanisms would be diluted. Red had an incredible knack of picking superior basketball minds, self starters and great players. Other teams, not so much. As an organization Red was just superior. As a leader in a newly competitive sport, the few teams were playing catch up. Bill Russell was the icing on the cake.

[INDI]

Not a fan of that era, but wouldn't less teams mean those 8 teams were stocked with Talent? Cause you would have to be the best of the best to make the teams. Just a thought.

Its math. Think of it like gambling, would you rather have a 1/8 chance to win or 1/30???? Not to mention that the main team with a concentration of allstars was the celtics

[Dro]

but that implies that the extra 22 teams are complete scrubs which isnt the case

the talent is going to get re-distributed, or diluted as some have said.
This. I mean using my logic, I would think more teams = more talent distribution across the league. You wouldn't have one team dominating for 8-11 seasons, unless his name is MJ and the closest he came is 6 in 8 years, hypothetically winning 8 in a row if he didn't retire. And even still the Bulls weren't DOMINATING during the regular season except their 72 win season. The didn't even DOMINATE in the playoffs, they had some 6 and 7 game series'.

[CavaliersFTW]

This. I mean using my logic, I would think more teams = more talent distribution across the league. You wouldn't have one team dominating for 8-11 seasons, unless his name is MJ and the closest he came is 6 in 8 years, hypothetically winning 8 in a row if he didn't retire. And even still the Bulls weren't DOMINATING during the regular season except their 72 win season. The didn't even DOMINATE in the playoffs, they had some 6 and 7 game series'.
The Bulls were far more dominating in the regular season during their "dynasty" years vs the 60's Celtics. There was less parity in the W - L columns during the regular season in the 60's than there was in the 90's, which means even if in theory the league "could" or "should" have been more evenly distributed in the 90's, the reality was it wasn't. The league was much more lopsided in the 90's than the 60's as far as regular season performances around the league goes.

[jlip]

Comparison of the 60's Celtics and 90's Bulls roads to titles (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=5327419&postcount=63)

[guy]

The average difference between teams doesn't dictate how great a league is and how evenly distributed the league is. Has nothing to really do with it cause its all relative. But there's no denying the bigger talent pool, not as in the NBA but in the world in general, is a big determinant on how great the league is. The sport has gotten bigger, more popular, and way more people play it.

[LAZERUSS]

The average difference between teams doesn't dictate how great a league is and how evenly distributed the league is. Has nothing to really do with it cause its all relative. But there's no denying the bigger talent pool, not as in the NBA but in the world in general, is a big determinant on how great the league is. The sport has gotten bigger, more popular, and way more people play it.

The talent pool is no more talented, on average, today, than what it was 20-30-40 year ago. How do I know that? Where are all the Magics? Where are the Jordan's? Where are the Dr. J's? Where are the Kareem's? Where are the 7-1 350 lb. Shaq's? And where are the Wilt's?

Dirk? Take a look at the footage of 6-10 McAdoo in the 70's. Oh, and how many Dirk's are playing in the NBAr even today?

Don't you think the NBA would be filled with seven-footers playing like Magic Johnson? And how come the NBA shot a higher FT% as far back as 58-59, than they did just last year?

The facts are...there are no more skilled players playing the game today, than those of yesteryear. In fact, watching CPOY's like Tyler Hansbrough is laughable. He probably wouldn't have even started on the Alcindor-Walton teams.

Roy Hibbert dominating the Heat in the playoffs? He was the equivalent of James Donaldson in the 80's. That's right...James who?

The world is filled with far more average players today (and far more worse one's too)...and very few exceptional ones.

[tpols]

The talent pool is no more talented, on average, today, than what it was 20-30-40 year ago. How do I know that? Where are all the Magics? Where are the Jordan's? Where are the Dr. J's? Where are the Kareem's? Where are the 7-1 350 lb. Shaq's? And where are the Wilt's?

Dirk? Take a look at the footage of 6-10 McAdoo in the 70's. Oh, and how many Dirk's are playing in the NBAr even today?

Don't you think the NBA would be filled with seven-footers playing like Magic Johnson? And how come the NBA shot a higher FT% as far back as 58-59, than they did just last year?

The facts are...there are no more skilled players playing the game today, than those of yesteryear. In fact, watching CPOY's like Tyler Hansbrough is laughable. He probably wouldn't have even started on the Alcindor-Walton teams.

Roy Hibbert dominating the Heat in the playoffs? He was the equivalent of James Donaldson in the 80's. That's right...James who?

The world is filled with far more average players today (and far more worse one's too)...and very few exceptional ones.
Nice:oldlol:

[LAZERUSS]

Nice:oldlol:

Not only that, but players like Kareem, Gilmore, and especially Moses, just murdered that 7-2 280 stumble-bum in their career h2h's.

As a sidenote, a prime Moses just owned his peers, including Kareem. Only a prime Wilt, and a prime Shaq so thoroughly dominated all their peers to the extent that Moses did to his.

[LAZERUSS]

How bad are the centers in today's NBA?

I already mentioned Hibbert.

But how about all the hype that Greg Oden received a few years back. He was being proclaimed as the next great center. All from a player who was a 16-12 guy in high school, and a 16-10 guy in college.

And he wasn't even 7-0, either. He measured 6-11 barefoot.

Hell, the 7-1 Bill Cartwright had FAR greater High School and College careers. And he was certainly a better pro then Oden has been, too.

Yet, how many people here even mention Cartwright among the great centers of HIS era?

And just how in the hell did Hansbrough win CPOY? The man looked AWFUL in the playoffs. He couldn't dribble, certainly couldn't shoot, and his only contribution was in drawing flagrant fouls. UCLA had guys on their BENCH, like Swen Nater, who were FAR greater players. My god, Walton's frontcourt in his last season included Richard Washington, Marques Johnson, and Keith (Jamaal) Wilkes. Hansbrough probably wouldn't have even PLAYED a minute on that team.

[Nastradamus]

Thread title should be There were 8 teams when Bill Russell won his titles AND no salary cap.

[LAZERUSS]

Thread title should be There were 8 teams when Bill Russell won his titles AND no salary cap.

Well, more like 8-14. Most all of them stacked, as well.

Go back to this page...

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=311327&page=3

and read my take on the 66-67 NBA season.

[jlip]

Can anyone explain to me why during Russell's era only his Celtic's repeated? The Hawks won in '58 but couldn't repeat in '59. The Sixers won in '67 but couldn't repeat in '68. (The Celtics repeated in '68 and '69. In '69 they won every series on the road as underdogs. They didn't have home court in either.) Anyways after Russell retired, the number of teams from '70 to '87 went from 14 to 23, and no team repeated as champs for 16 seasons. Then from '87 to 2002 the number increased from 23 to 29. All of a sudden every champ repeated from '87-'88 to 2002 except the '99 Spurs.

Yep more teams sure does make it more difficult to repeat. :facepalm

[LAZERUSS]

Can anyone explain to me why during Russell's era only his Celtic's repeated? The Hawks won in '58 but couldn't repeat in '59. The Sixers won in '67 but couldn't repeat in '68. (The Celtics repeated in '68 and '69. In '69 they won every series on the road as underdogs. They didn't have home court in either.) Anyways after Russell retired, the number of teams from '70 to '87 went from 14 to 23, and no team repeated as champs for 16 seasons. Then from '87 to to 2002 the number increased from 23 to 30. All of a sudden every champ repeated from '87-'88 to 2002 except the '99 Spurs.

Yep more teams sure does make it more difficult to repeat. :facepalm

You make a very valid point.

However, in defense of the '68 Sixers, they were just decimated by injuries (and although he played with his, Wilt had a variety of injuries, and was noticeably limping throughout the series.) Even without Cunningham, they had forged a 3-1 series lead. But when Jackson and Jones went down with injuries in game five, the Sixers were pretty much doomed. However, even with all of that, they still only lost a game seven by four points.

I don't think there is any doubt that a healthy Sixer squad repeats.

[Dbrog]

Even if that were the case, the odds are still more in a teams favor. For example, in 1957 on average, a team would have a 1/8 shot at being champions, while in 1996 it would be 1/29.

This might be the dumbest argument I've ever read on these forums (says a lot). Ratios assume all teams have equal chance...which is simply idiotic. Hey guys, the Bobcats have a 1/30 shot to win the chip next year. Miami also has a 1/30 shot. Seriously...wtf are you thinking man? :facepalm

Side Note: Lazeruss :bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown: :applause:

[guy]

This might be the dumbest argument I've ever read on these forums (says a lot). Ratios assume all teams have equal chance...which is simply idiotic. Hey guys, the Bobcats have a 1/30 shot to win the chip next year. Miami also has a 1/30 shot. Seriously...wtf are you thinking man? :facepalm

Side Note: Lazeruss :bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown: :applause:

As I said, on average. It's math.