How Curry can surpass Bill Russell for the most titles.

[Ca$H]

This isn't a pragmatic scenario. It is an ideal/dream scenario based upon everything going right. However, all the Durant to the Warriors speculation got me thinking about how many rings(maximum) Curry can win if he stays healthy and the dubs do land Durant. He would have 2 rings already if the dubs win this season.

Jordan got a 3 peat when he was 34, 35, and 36. Curry and KD will be 28 next season. Klay and Draygod will be 26. An 8 year run with that core could result in 8 titles if Kerr continues to manage the minutes well and give players rest. On load road trips both Curry and Durant wouldn't have to play back to backs. Play Curry on one night and Durant the next night. Kerr should limit the core to 34 minutes per game and 70 games played per season.

So Curry would be 36 with 10 titles. Still 2 short of surpassing Bill Russell. At this point Curry would have a ton of money through endorsements and career salary(He will be getting the full maximum starting in 2017). Maybe Kerr can convince the aging Curry, Durant, Klay, and Draygod core to take less money (like Duncan and Ginobili did in order to get LMA) so they can pursue a young stud in his prime like KAT. If KAT agrees to join then I could see 2 more titles for Curry resulting in a grand total of 12 championships.

[Jasper]

no wet dreams on this site.

no one in modern day NBA bball will break Russell's record(.)

[Derka]

Play in a league with 8 teams.

Seriously, I'm a huge Celtics fan and our history is one to celebrate...but I'm realistic about it. We won all those titles because there were 7 other teams, significantly increasing every team's chances of winning a bunch of titles in a row.

What Jordan and the Bulls did winning 6 titles in 8 years in a 27-team league is as close as anyone's gonna come to that. But that doesn't mean I don't want to see today's teams try anyway.

[theaussieguy]

Play in a league with 8 teams.

Seriously, I'm a huge Celtics fan and our history is one to celebrate...but I'm realistic about it. We won all those titles because there were 7 other teams, significantly increasing every team's chances of winning a bunch of titles in a row.

What Jordan and the Bulls did winning 6 titles in 8 years in a 27-team league is as close as anyone's gonna come to that. But that doesn't mean I don't want to see today's teams try anyway.

wait are you kidding me? I used to joke about the league being inferior back then but holy lolz if anyone argues otherwise. Just LMAO

[Derka]

wait are you kidding me? I used to joke about the league being inferior back then but holy lolz if anyone argues otherwise. Just LMAO
If reading wasn't as hard as it apparently is, you'd know that I didn't comment on whether it was inferior or superior. I don't care to ever have that argument because it's a really stupid one.

Statistically speaking...objectively speaking...the fact that there were less teams competing means that every team's chances of winning a title were significantly higher...ergo, a team's chances of running up a count of 11 rings were much higher. That's the only argument I'm making. Doing something better than that in today's league would be exponentially harder just based on the numbers.

[LAZERUSS]

Play in a league with 8 teams.

Seriously, I'm a huge Celtics fan and our history is one to celebrate...but I'm realistic about it. We won all those titles because there were 7 other teams, significantly increasing every team's chances of winning a bunch of titles in a row.

What Jordan and the Bulls did winning 6 titles in 8 years in a 27-team league is as close as anyone's gonna come to that. But that doesn't mean I don't want to see today's teams try anyway.

:roll: :roll: :roll:

So, give us all here a list of the legitimate title contenders in this year's NBA, and with it's 30 teams. LEGITIMATE title contenders.

I'll help.

Golden St.
San Antonio
Oklahoma City
Cleveland

That's it. Or... one out of every 7.5 teams.


Now, let's go back to the 66-67 season, in a year in which Russell did NOT win a title, shall we.

First of all...you will notice 10 teams, and not eight.

How about the Royals?

Connie Dierking at center. Ordinary, and not great, but no worse than Bogut. Adrian Smith at one guard slot. 16.6 ppg (BTW, .903 from the line.) Happy Hairston at one forward position (they didn't label positions back then.) He had a good season, with 14.9 ppg and 8.0 rpg. BTW, he would be among the prenier rebounders in the league in the 70's. Jon McGlocklin and Flynn Robinson off the bench. Now, you would have had to seen them play to realize that those two were among the best long-range shooters of their era. In fact, read Charley Rosen's book on the '72 Lakers. In it he claims that Robinson was a better pure shooter than either Goodrich or West. Another player off the bench...Bob Love. Love would go on to be among the top scorers in the 70's. Oh, ... I almost forgot Oscar Roberston and Jerry Lucas. Both in their near primes. BTW, Lucas was the Kevin Love of his era. A phenomenal rebounder, and arguably the best long range shooter of his era.
That team must have won 50 games, right? Not quite... 39-42.


How about the NY Knicks?

Let's start with Dick Van Arsdale, a 6-5 guard. A 15-7-3 guy, who would go on to have four seasons of 19.7+ ppg in his career. Then there was the 6-4 Dick Barnett, with his 17-3-2 season. Oh, he would be an all-star the very next season with an 18 ppg season. That was just two of their guards (albeit, Van Arsdale was a swing man.) They also had Butch Komives, who had a 16-3-6 season; and Em Bryant, who was a versatile role player in the 60's and 70's. His claim to fame was a game seven in the '69 Finals of 20 points. Then there was Cazzie Russell off the bench. He was an instant offense guy that would have a season of 20 ppg a few years later as a starter. One of the forwards was the bruising Dave Stallworth, who had a 13-6 season. The other forward slot was manned by... the 6-9 Willis Reed (who would also win an MVP as a center), and with his 21-15 season. Oh, and at center was HOFer Walt Bellamy, who was listed at 6-11, but was a legitimate 7-0. He added his 19-14-3 .521 numbers. Surely a team with that much talent must have won 50+ games, right? Nope,...not even close. 36-45.


How about the Hawks? Just loaded with talent. Bill Bridges, who was a double-double machine his entire career. In '67 he averaged 17-15. Joe Caldwell off the bench. He averaged 14 ppg in '67, but would go on to have seasons of as high as 23 ppg just a few years later. HOFer Richie Guerin at one guard slot. He was on the downside of his career, but still put up a respectable 14-2-4 season. Then there was Paul Silas, who hung a 7-9 season, but as a starter a few years later he would be among the best rebounders in the league. Dick Snyder was buried near the end of the bench, but he was a solid shooter who would go on to have seasons of 18 and 19 ppg in just a few years. At the PG slot was HOFer Lenny Wilkins and his 17-5-6 season. Then the center slot was manned by the undersized 6-9 Zelmo Beaty, who averaged 18-11, and would have three seasons of 20+ ppg in the NBA, and then two more in the ABA of 23 and 24 ppg in the ABA. Finally there was swing man Lou Hudson, who would have a long career in the NBA, and was a spectacular scorer and highly efficient shooter in the late 60's and then the decade of the 70's. In '67...18 ppg and 5 rpg.

Easily a 50 win team, right? Wrong yet again. 39-42.


Then there were the talent-laden Warriors. 6-10 Clyde Lee was a rookie that season, and he averaged a 7-7 in his limited minutes. However, he was arguably the best rebounding PF of the early 70's. CavsFan has posted footage of guard Jimmy King. A flashy player who averaged 11 ppg in his 24 mpg. Steady 6-7 Tom Meschery, who was an all-star earlier in his career, and was now a role player off the bench, contributed 11-8. SF Fred Hetzel averaged a 12-8 in his 27 mpg, but would 19 ppg the very next season. Paul Neumann who was one of three players involved the Wilt trade in '65, averaged 14 ppg. 6-4 guard Jeff Mullins was in his second season, and put up 12-5-3 stat-line in his 24 mpg. Of course he would go on to be a yop-flite scorer thereafter, with 19 ppg the very next season, and then four straight of 20+ following that. Then there was hard-nosed Al Attles, who had a relatively long career as a defensive specialist. Oh, I almost forgot 6-11 Nate Thurmond and 6-7 forward Rick Barry, too. Thurmond had his greatest season, finishing second in the MVP balloting with a spectacular 19 ppg, 21 rpg season. But as good as those numbers were, he was most certainly one of the greatest defensive centers of all-time (as both Wilt and Kareem would attest.) And then there was Rick Barry and his 35.6 ppg...which, BTW, was the highest scoring full-time, non-Wilt season in the Chamberlain era.

True, this team did reach the Finals...but guess what... they could only go 44-37 during the season.


How about the Lakers? As stacked a team as there was in the NBA. There starting center was 6-10 Darrall Imhoff, who had a serviceable career, and put up an 11-13 season in '67. He was backed up by two legitimate seven-footers in Henry Finkel and Mel Counts (who could also play the PF position, and who was a very good shooter.) At one forward slot was Rudy LaRusso, who averaged 13 ppg and 8 rpg. However, he would average 22 ppg the very next season. Tom Hawkins was a solid defender off the bench. Also off the bench was Walt Hazzard. He averaged 9 ppg in '67, but would put up a 24 ppg season the very next year. Another guard off the bench was future HOFer Gail Goodrich. He averaged 12 ppg in 23 mpg in '67, and of course would be routinely hanging 20+ ppg seasons multiple times after that. Finally, there were Elgin Baylor and Jerry West...the Lebron and Wade of their era. And both were relatively in their primes, as well. Baylor had a 27-13-3 season, while West hung a 29-6-7 season. And both were relatively healthy, albeit, West missed 16 games.

This team simply HAD to have won 50+ games, right? A mile away...going 36-45. Can you imagine a team with a near-prime Lebron and Wade only going 36-45?


Russell's 60-21 Celtics had arguably one of the deepest rosters in NBA history. They were comprised of 11 players who had solid to spectacular NBA careers. Jim Barnett, Toby Kimball, Don Nelson, and Wayne Embry were excellent role players off the bench, and all had good seasons in their careers as starters (Embry was an all-star and a HOFer.) Then they had KC Jones, who was one of the top defensive players at his position in his career. As was Satch Sanders, who BTW, was a solid shooter in his career. Larry Siegfried gave them 14 ppg off the bench in his 26 mpg. HOFer Bailey Howell averaged 20 ppg on a .512 FG%, was a steady 20 ppg scorer on a high efficiency for much of his career. The 6-4 Sam Jones was one of the most clutch shooters and scorers in NBA history. In '67 he averaged 22 ppg. Then there was HOFer John Havlicek, who averaged 21 ppg in his 32 mpg, and would have seasons of 28 and 29 ppg after Russell retired. And of course, there was Russell, probably the GOAT defensive center (and player) in NBA history, with his 13-21-6 season.

Must have waltzed to a title right? Nope...BLOWN OUT by the Sixers in the EDF's.


And that brings us to that Sixer team. Arguably a GOAT team and in any era. They went 68-13, and just crushed everyone in the regular season, and post-season. Not quite as deep as Boston, but overall, at least as much talent...except that they also had a peak Chamberlain. Again they basically only went 8-9 deep, but they didn't need to go deeper. Chamberlain put up his normal 46 mpg, so the center position was locked up. After that they had two quality guards off the bench in Larry Costello and Dave Gambee. They also had swing man Matt Guokas, who would go on to be a very efficient shooter later in his career (with a season as high as .570.) One of the starters was a bull of a man in Luke Jackson, was 6-9, and peaked at around 260 lbs. In '67 he put up a 12-9 season. The other forward slot was manned by HOFer Chet Walker, who averaged 19 ppg in '67, but would put up many 20+ ppg seasons later on. The two starting guards were the streak shooting Wali Jones (13.2 ppg), and HOFer Hal Greer, who was at his peak, with a 22-5-4 season. That Sixer team didn't need a PG, either...as the offense was run by none other than Chamberlain. Wilt not only averaged 24 ppg (on a .683 FG%), and 24 rpg, but also handed out 8 apg (and then 9 apg in the post-season.) And this was also a peak defensive Wilt, who likely was the equal of Russell in '67. He just annihilated his HOF peers that year.

The Sixers went 69-13, and did cruise to a title.

But, as you now know...this was a very talented ten team league. Even the expansion Bulls managed to win 33 games. Only the Pistons and the Bullets were weak.



Oh, and Russell won rings in seasons of nine, 12, and 14 teams. And in his last season, he won with a 48-34 team that didn't have HCA in any of his three rounds.

[stalkerforlife]

Play in a league with 8 teams while having most of the best players on your team.

[nba_55]

If reading wasn't as hard as it apparently is, you'd know that I didn't comment on whether it was inferior or superior. I don't care to ever have that argument because it's a really stupid one.

Statistically speaking...objectively speaking...the fact that there were less teams competing means that every team's chances of winning a title were significantly higher...ergo, a team's chances of running up a count of 11 rings were much higher. That's the only argument I'm making. Doing something better than that in today's league would be exponentially harder just based on the numbers.

That's not true. Less teams only mean more talent in each team, you'd only have less useless teams, probably the same number of contenders.
To OP, in this era, no way players let that happen. They will team up to take them down.

[LAZERUSS]

Play in a league with 8 teams while having most of the best players on your team.

See my post above.

[stalkerforlife]

See my post above.

No.

I don't speak excuse.

[LAZERUSS]

No.

I don't speak excuse.

Incidently, Russell's Celtics played in 11 game seven's in the playoffs. Not like they were annihilating their opponents in the post-season.

[ArbitraryWater]

Play in a league with 8 teams.

Seriously, I'm a huge Celtics fan and our history is one to celebrate...but I'm realistic about it. We won all those titles because there were 7 other teams, significantly increasing every team's chances of winning a bunch of titles in a row.

What Jordan and the Bulls did winning 6 titles in 8 years in a 27-team league is as close as anyone's gonna come to that. But that doesn't mean I don't want to see today's teams try anyway.

so wait, if you cut todays league to 8 teams, it gets worse? Wouldnt that mean every team has 2-3 all-stars? ****in loaded

[TommyGriffin]

Curry has already surpassed Bill Russell when we take in account Era differences.

[LAZERUSS]

Curry has already surpassed Bill Russell when we take in account Era differences.

Is this some new math that I haven't heard about?

1 > 11 ?

And again, Russell took a 48-34 team, and without HCA in all three of his playoff series, to a title in a 14 team league.

[ILLsmak]

Statistically speaking...objectively speaking...the fact that there were less teams competing means that every team's chances of winning a title were significantly higher...ergo, a team's chances of running up a count of 11 rings were much higher. That's the only argument I'm making. Doing something better than that in today's league would be exponentially harder just based on the numbers.

Not sure if that makes sense. Talent gap, sure, but purely number of teams no. If there were only 8 teams now, would it be harder or easier to win back to back. I'd say harder cuz every team would be stacked as ****.

-Smak