1958: "The Hawks exact revenge thanks to up-and-comer Cliff Hagan (second-team All-NBA, Hall of Famer) and Russell’s badly sprained ankle. Again, talent even on both sides."
For two straight years, it’s as though the Celtics are playing a different game. It’s hard to imagine that someone would take a look at this and think that anyone else was in their ballpark. Maybe Red Auerbach’s coaching was just so superior that it accounts for the fact that the Celtics were closer to playing .700 ball than anyone else was to playing .600 ball.
That must be what Simmons is trying to argue, because the Celtics roster was even stronger than in 1957:
Yes, with rookie Sam Jones joining up, this has Boston doubling the number of Hall of Famers that St. Louis has. And this season Boston has two All-NBA first teamers and one more All-Star than St. Louis. It’s hard to fathom how Bill Simmons concluded that the Celtics were anything but superior. The only possibilities are that 1) he chose not to examine the evidence or 2) he examined the evidence but ignored everything which ran counter to his beliefs. Back to Hall of Famers:
In the 1957-58 season, Boston played a total of 17,305 player-minutes. 82.1% of those minutes were played by Hall of Famers.
In the 1957-58 season, St. Louis played a total of 17,330 player-minutes. 50.3% of those minutes were played by Hall of Famers.
Am I ignoring the elephant in the room? Of course not – I realize that Boston lost the Finals rematch. I don’t think Boston loses if Bill Russell is healthy. Neither does Simmons. I’d be surprised if any basketball historian felt that St. Louis wins regardless of Russell’s health.
1959:
This was the one time in Russell’s first three seasons, according to Simmons, that Boston had the most talent. I suppose for the facts to fit the assertion the way Simmons tells it, Boston would have to go undefeated with a +15 Point Differential and a roster full of Hall of Famers. Let’s see what actually happened:
Someone will have to explain to me one day how Syracuse managed a losing record with a Point Differential of plus four. Anyway, Boston needed seven games to get by Syracuse in the Eastern Conference Finals. The Nationals were led by “…NBA Top 50 members Dolph Schayes and Hal Greer…”, which leads me to a jumping-off point: Why is Bill giving us all these names and resumes? (The answer lies ahead)
Interesting, isn’t it, that it was this season Simmons identified as Boston’s most talented team yet in the Russell era; when you look at the regular season record, this is the closest any team got to Boston, both in terms of W/L record and Point Differential. Make no mistake, Boston had the most talented team yet again, but in Russell’s first three seasons the 1959 Hawks came closest to matching Boston’s performance. (Then they didn’t make the NBA Finals – go figure) Anyway, since Bill conceded that for once, the Celtics had superior talent, I won’t go into any more detail except to say that the Celtics only had seven Hall of Famers to make do with this time. Poor Red; such a burden he had back in the day.
What we have seen from Simmons so far is unconvincing, to say the least. After Step One, Bill not only went to Step Two (Gloss Over Relevant Facts), he incorporated Step Three into Step Two:
STEP THREE: MUDDY THE WATERS
This first myth Simmons’ looks to debunk is that Russell played with teammates superior to Wilt’s. So why is he wasting time with Russell’s first three seasons? Wilt wasn’t in the league yet! The St. Louis Hawks have nothing to do with Wilt vs. Russell. Neither do the Minneapolis Lakers. But think of this effect on the casual fan: who among the bandwagoning, dunk-loving, only-watch-the-playoffs crowd has heard of Neil Johnston or Paul Arizin or Slater Martin or Charlie Share or Dolph Schayes or anyone besides Bill Russell, Bob Cousy, and possibly Bob Pettit? For most of these folks, NBA basketball began in the 1980’s. Should any casual fan possess a little intellectual curiosity, he might look at a season or two from the late ‘50’s at NBA.com and find all these names Bill mentioned – and Bill will look like the deepest researcher ever.
So yeah, Bill knows how to frame an argument. Had he jumped right into 1959-60 (the first year Russell and Chamberlain played in the league together), he would have missed a chance to 1) toss around some credibility-building obscurities, and 2) lay down his criteria for evaluating the talent levels on each roster. I never said Bill wasn’t smart.
Coming Saturday: Bill finally starts talking about Wilt vs. Russell.
No comments:
Post a Comment