Celtics Dynasty - Appointing FMVP Before They Gave One

[HurricaneKid]

I saw a poster say Russell - 11 FMVP and it got me to thinking... Who would have won all those FMVP if they had given them today?

From 1987 to 2014 two players have won FMVP without leading their team in scoring. This year Leonard won avg 17.8 when TP avg 18.0. Leonard shot .724 TS% to TP's .550TS%. And in 2004 Billups won avg 21.0ppg when Hamilton went for 21.4. Again, Billups was FAR more efficient shooting .696TS% to Hamilton's .500TS%. Thats it. No one has overcome so much as a .5ppg differential.

Are we to believe that given today's emphasis on scoring a guy who was 7th on the team in scoring avg less than 10 a game on .316 shooting would win an MVP (1959)?

Twice in the 11 title run Bill Russell was within 4ppg of the scoring lead for the Celtics. Lets give him 1966 and 1962 without any debate. But I would argue that there is literally no argument to be made about 57 and 59 when Heinson's lines looked tremendous and Russell scored 13.3 and 9.3ppg on .356 and .316. And literally every other year looks to have another favorite as well.

I readily admit at this point I am simply box score reporting. I have never seen an entire game of Russell's. But these claims about 11 FMVPs are completely unfounded. Havlicek was outstanding in 68 and 69, Sam Jones was great in 63, 34, and 65 and avg 10ppg more than Russell in two of those three series. And Heinson in 57/59/60/61. Which is to say nothing of Cousy who had some great series in there as well.

Given today's yardsticks what FMVP would you retroactively give to who during the Celtics dynasty?

[jlip]

Most credible posters have said that Russell would have 7-9 FMVPs max.

[riseagainst]

no more than 1.

[fpliii]

57 - Heinsohn
58 - no Celtic has an argument
59 - Russell (I've heard Ramsey here too)
60 - Russell
61 - Russell
62 - Russell
63 - Russell
64 - Sam Jones (Wilt has an outside, outside shot)
65 - Russell
66 - Russell
67 - didn't make the Finals
68 - Havlicek
69 - West won (Havlicek if it goes to a member of the winning team)

[fpliii]

Regarding 68 and 69 in particular, we had a thread a couple years ago, and oolalaa did some great breakdowns from newspaper archives I'd dumped and shared:

68 - http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=7714006&postcount=40
69 - http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=7736825&postcount=53

[CelticBalla32]

The fact that you are basing this entire argument around Bill Russell's PPG goes against everything that he brought to the table. He is one of the best defensive players, rebounders and leaders of all-time. He was never a dominant go-to scorer, that wasn't what made him great. He was still clearly the backbone of the team regardless of his scoring average.

[jlip]

Also, several players before '87 won FMVP without leading their teams in scoring. The ones that come to mind are:

Wilt- '72 (If the award was given in '67 he would have won it without leading the team in scoring.)
Walton- '77
Unseld- '78
Magic- '80, '82
Bird- '86

[HurricaneKid]

59 - Russell (I've heard Ramsey here too)


To be fair, we are now talking about giving the 7th leading scorer on the team, a guy who shot 31.6% from the field and 44.8% from the line the MVP. I just don't think that happens. Heinson went 24.3/8.8 on .475 shooting. Literally shot 50%+ higher.

[fpliii]

To be fair, we are now talking about giving the 7th leading scorer on the team, a guy who shot 31.6% from the field and 44.8% from the line the MVP. I just don't think that happens. Heinson went 24.3/8.8 on .475 shooting. Literally shot 50%+ higher.
That was the GOAT rebounding series. Hard for me to even consider Heinsohn here.

[HurricaneKid]

The fact that you are basing this entire argument around Bill Russell's PPG goes against everything that he brought to the table. He is one of the best defensive players, rebounders and leaders of all-time. He was never a dominant go-to scorer, that wasn't what made him great. He was still clearly the backbone of the team regardless of his scoring average.

I completely get that. I just think that the yardstick is moved enormously for Russell. We can't name another player in the history of the game that is given the credit that we give him. Ben Wallace was probably the best defensive player in the last 40 years. No one talked about him winning FMVP in 04. He never won 1st team All-NBA honors. You cannot tell me he wasn't the backbone of those Pisons teams though.

If Bill Russell were playing today and winning like he did I don't think he gets the respect he should. Yet because it was an era where few fans actually saw games I think he is given TOO much credit for his achievements.

[HurricaneKid]

That was the GOAT rebounding series. Hard for me to even consider Heinsohn here.

Like I said, I really have little to base it on. But there is no comparable FMVP to being #7 on your team in PPG while shooting .314//.448.

[fpliii]

Like I said, I really have little to base it on. But there is no comparable FMVP to being #7 on your team in PPG while shooting .314//.448.
PPG is only one part of offense, which is equally as important as defense. Look at the relative ORtg/DRtg numbers. These teams weren't winning on the basis of their offense.

[fpliii]

I completely get that. I just think that the yardstick is moved enormously for Russell. We can't name another player in the history of the game that is given the credit that we give him. Ben Wallace was probably the best defensive player in the last 40 years. No one talked about him winning FMVP in 04. He never won 1st team All-NBA honors. You cannot tell me he wasn't the backbone of those Pisons teams though.

If Bill Russell were playing today and winning like he did I don't think he gets the respect he should. Yet because it was an era where few fans actually saw games I think he is given TOO much credit for his achievements.
Wallace over KG and Hakeem?

[HurricaneKid]

Wallace over KG and Hakeem?

Peak Wallace ~ KG (who peaked defensively for a longer period) > Dream.

Wallace was an awful offensive player. But defensively it doesn't get much better.

IMO.

[HurricaneKid]

PPG is only one part of offense, which is equally as important as defense. Look at the relative ORtg/DRtg numbers. These teams weren't winning on the basis of their offense.

I'm not disagreeing with anything you are saying. Just that no one in the history of the game has been given so much credit for doing the things he did.

[jlip]

Are we to believe that given today's emphasis on scoring a guy who was 7th on the team in scoring avg less than 10 a game on .316 shooting would win an MVP (1959)?

Twice in the 11 title run Bill Russell was within 4ppg of the scoring lead for the Celtics. Lets give him 1966 and 1962 without any debate. But I would argue that there is literally no argument to be made about 57 and 59 when Heinson's lines looked tremendous and Russell scored 13.3 and 9.3ppg on .356 and .316. And literally every other year looks to have another favorite as well.


What they were saying at the time about Russell's dominance in the 1959 Finals


"Russell's Rebounding 'Killing' Lakers Hopes" (http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1368&dat=19590407&id=fmZQAAAAIBAJ&sjid=ug8EAAAAIBAJ&pg=7262,3363945)
April 7, 1959


Another link (http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1368&dat=19590407&id=fmZQAAAAIBAJ&sjid=ug8EAAAAIBAJ&pg=2707,3291318)
April 7, 1959

After game 2
__________________________________________________ ______

"Cousy never ceases to amaze me," said Lakers coach, Johnny Kundla. He had 19 assists and played like a demon. Maybe I've seen him look better once before, but I can't remember exactly when it was.

For all that, I think it was Russell who beat us. We just can't do anything about that man. He's all arms. We'll see them in our sleep."

Link (http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=XetPAAAAIBAJ&sjid=YFUDAAAAIBAJ&pg=5190%2C1483156)
April 8, 1959
After Game 3
__________________________________________________ _______

"Tuesday night (Game 3) Bob Cousy and Bill Russell killed us. Tonight (Game 4) it was Heinsohn, Sharman, and Ramsey."

Link (http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=2_kjAAAAIBAJ&sjid=wSUEAAAAIBAJ&pg=7025%2C5806228)
April 10, 1959

While most sources I've come across credit Sharman's scoring with providing the knockout punch in the series sweeping clincher, it's worth noting that several of those same sources again credit Russell's rebounding dominance with being the catalyst for the Celtic's fast break. Russell had an unofficial triple double in the series clincher. 15pts 30rbs 12blks.

Suffice it to say, Russell had an extremely strong case for the 1959 Finals MVP, especially considering the fact that the opposing coach made it explicitly clear that it was Russell whom they feared. Read below:


"Russell was the first player to help generate his team’s offense from his own defense, as dazed Minneapolis Laker coach John Kundla said after watching Russell lead the Celtics to a sweep of his team in the 1959 Finals.

“That’s quite a twist, isn’t it, having a defensive player mean the difference?” said Kundla. “We don’t fear the Celtics without Bill Russell. Take him out and we can beat them … He’s the guy who whipped us psychologically. Russell has our club worrying every second. Every one of the five men is thinking Russell is covering him on every play. He blocks a shot, and before you know it, Boston is getting a basket, and a play by Russell has done it.”

--Lakers head coach John Kundia after the 1959 Finals

Link (http://www.nba.com/encyclopedia/players/bill_russell.html)

[G.O.A.T]

I'm going with 8-9. '57 and '64 are the two I think he most likely misses out on.

He's a lock in every year except '68 besides that I'd say. So seven is the minimum I believe.

As to using his shooting percentage as an argument in 1959, considering he took an average of two shots per quarter in that series while playing almost every minute, I'm going to ahead and assume that his shooting had little to no impact on the series. It's like complaining that Peyton Manning is not a running threat.

[LAZERUSS]

At least eight. And likely even '64, despite Wilt easily outplaying him.

He probably wins it in '57, '59, '60, '61, '62, '63, '64, '65, and '66. I think Hondo wins it in '68.

[cltcfn2924]

To be fair, we are now talking about giving the 7th leading scorer on the team, a guy who shot 31.6% from the field and 44.8% from the line the MVP. I just don't think that happens. Heinson went 24.3/8.8 on .475 shooting. Literally shot 50%+ higher.


The award is named after him. What in the name of God makes you think your opinion holds even a drop of water?