Wilt versus Russell, Part Three: Never Define, Never Explain

    At last we have come to the whole point of this chapter – Bill Russell’s Celtics versus Wilt Chamberlain’s Philadelphia Warriors. Russell in his fourth season, Wilt in his first. Simmons concedes that Russell played on clearly superior teams from 1961-64, and a slightly better team in 1960. All right then; let’s see how the facts stack up against Simmons’ claims:

1960:

     Remember folks – Simmons’ claim is that Boston was “slightly” more talented than Philadelphia in 1960. So how does this explain Boston’s utter domination of the regular season? The Celtics won their average game by more than four baskets. Wouldn’t “slightly better” be more like +3 or +4 in the win column? A Point Differential of +3.5 or +4.0, instead twice the latter number?
     We don't know because Bill Simmons provides no context for his "slightly better" label, thus bringing us to another of Simmons’ Steps to Subterfuge:

SIMMONS’ STEP FOUR: NEVER DEFINE, NEVER EXPLAIN

     This is one of Bill’s greatest failings throughout the book, not just in the Russell-Chamberlain chapter. Bill will just state things flatly, without even a cursory attempt to justify the assertion, and build an entire argument around it. We already saw this in action when he referred to Jack Coleman, Jack McMahon and Charlie Share as being “well-regarded role players”. I might have lent the argument more weight had he at least provided some supportive anecdotes from the period, though of course they might have come from biased sources like Bob Pettit, Slater Martin, or Alex Hannum. Still, that would have been…something.
     Believe it or not, “Never Define, Never Explain” only gets worse as the book goes along. Here’s a random sampling of NDNE quotes before we get back to Russell versus Wilt, Year One:

p. 344: “…the weakest stretch of talent since the [ABA-NBA] merger (1994-98).” No explanation is given as to why this was the weakest talent stretch, neither on page 344 nor anywhere else in the book.

P. 394: “…during the most competitive stretch in league history (1990-93).” And how exactly was this the most competitive? The explanation, if it exists, cannot be found in the book. Since I’m here, isn’t this assertion at odds with the “every team was good in the 1950’s and ‘60’s” notion put forth in the very chapter I’m reviewing now? How would a 27-team league be more competitive than an 8-team league? (I’m asking Simmons; I believe it’s possible)

p. 634: “The league was better in ’97 [than ‘96]…” How so? I suppose Simmons could point to the additions of the new franchises in Vancouver and Toronto for the 1995-96 season, but they were still there in 1996-97. Even if the expansion effect is as strong as Simmons believes it is (I don’t), why would it be less of a problem just one year later? But again, I am guessing his at reasoning because of Simmons’ Step Four is in full effect.

p. 636-37: “…it can’t be forgotten that the NBA peaked competitively from 1984 to 1993, a few years after the [ABA-NBA] merger but before overexpansion, the megasalary boom and underclassmen flooding the college draft.” This one is less vague than the previous three, but 1) the NBA expanded by four teams during this competitive peak – I guess this wasn’t “overexpansion”, but “proper expansion” – 2) the megasalary boom is an argument that many accept uncritically (damn those lazy, pampered, overpaid athletes!), so there was no chance that Bill was going to produce any supportive evidence for it, and 3) see #2, as once again Bill Simmons makes points with yet another crowd-pleasing argument (those kids are there to LEARN, not play basketball! They’re jeopardizing their FUTURES!).

p. 260: “…Utah, a team that was worse in 1997 than they were in 1988 or even 1992…” Excuse me, but what? By any broad measure, the 1997 team was the best of the three:

     It doesn’t bother me that Bill is so utterly wrong about this (well, it does, but not more than the following); it bothers me that Bill didn’t issue even a shred of evidence to counter the overwhelming case against him. Never Define, Never Explain. All we get is a little conjecture about some stars being past their primes, younger stars not panning out, and a footnote comparing Utah to the relatively hottest girl in a bar on an off night. This is what you’re going with, Simmons? Name–dropping and mating rituals?

     Sorry to go further off-topic, but in that same section, Bill explains that the lack of a compelling story for the 1997 season led to Karl Malone’s MVP:

“By mid-March, once everyone realized that the Bulls couldn’t win 73 games…”

 Really.

     I realize winning eleven straight is a bit of a tall order, but would anyone watching NBA basketball at that time have put such a streak past a team that had gone 134-19 from the start of the 1995-96 season until 4/1/1997? I don’t think 73 was out of the question even then. Sure, it would have been eighteen straight from March 15th, but again – was that so farfetched for this team? They earned a 69-13 record – tied for the second-best record ever - despite losing three of their last four. If any team could have reeled off eighteen straight to get to 73 wins, the 1997 Bulls (or their 1996 predecessors) could have.
     My point being: I doubt too many people had written off 73 wins in mid-March. Even if they did, 70 wins was still very much in play. Am I really supposed to believe that people weren’t interested in a team going for 70 wins in back-to-back seasons?

     I've gone way off-topic, but I did so in order to show how Bill Simmons operates. If you want to fully appreciate the depth of Bill's reliance on fallacy, I am more or less forced to take this long, drawn-out approach. Once we have Bill in full focus, I can abandon the Dragon Ball Z posting style. Until then, I thank you for your patience.

Coming Monday: Simmons reveals his gift for British understatement.

Wilt versus Russell: Bill Simmons Weighs In, Part Two

     I had intended to not do this again for 1958 and 1959. This chapter is supposed to be about Russell versus Wilt, not Russell versus Bob Pettit or Elgin Baylor. I’ve already done too much of Simmons’ research for him. But I’m so appalled by Simmons’ claim that, “Through three years and two titles, Russell and the Celtics had the most talent exactly once.” that I can’t just let it go.

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.

Wilt versus Russell: Bill Simmons Weighs In, Part One

...which of course means that I weigh in on Bill's weigh in.

“Let’s never mention the supporting cast card again with Russell and Chamberlain. Thank you.”
-Bill Simmons, The Book of Basketball, p. 65

     It’s not hard to imagine what this would sound like if spoken aloud: catty and snide, with a tone of voice suggesting that the case is airtight, the argument impervious to challenge. But one might forgive Simmons’ gloating if his chapter on Russell vs. Chamberlain wasn’t one of the most poorly disguised pieces of propaganda I’ve ever read.
     To get to Simmons’ argument in chapter two of TBOB, one has to sift through an awful lot of irrelevant details posing as supporting facts. Bill’s attempt to muddy the waters is surprising, considering that it comes on the heels of his claim, “…if we are arguing about the greatest debate in NBA history – Bill Russell or Wilt Chamberlain – I can prove Russell was better.” I would think that a straightforward presentation of the facts would be the only step necessary to prove that claim, but let’s look at what Bill does. I’ll call these “Simmons’ Steps to Subterfuge”.

SIMMONS’ STEP ONE: FRAME ISSUE WITH NEGATIVE EMOTION

     Before Bill debunks what he calls “the six most common myths of the Chamberlain-Russell debate” , he begins by comparing Wilt’s supporters to OJ Simpson’s defense team. He explains how, in order to win acquittal, team OJ reprehensibly exploited America’s racial divide to shift the focus away from the evidence. He’s correct in that it was a disgusting tactic, but what does this have to do with Wilt?
     It doesn’t. But by selecting the OJ trial as an analogue, Bill is attempting to frame the issue negatively. How could those bastards set OJ free? And how could these other bastards think a two-time champion was a better player than an eleven-time champion? That’s the mindset Bill wants the reader in before he dips into the facts. It seems to me that if Bill’s argument is so very strong, there’s no need to do this. But he did, and then he went on to step two…

SIMMONS’ STEP TWO: GLOSS OVER RELEVANT FACTS

     The first myth Bill Simmons looks to debunk is that Bill Russell had a better supporting cast than Wilt did. Most port-casual NBA fans know that Bill Russell’s Celtics teams were usually loaded with Hall-of-Famers, so what evidence did Bill reveal to counter this?
     The most logical way, I would think, to look at the supporting casts of each man is to look at the rosters of each man’s team in the seasons they played simultaneously – from the 1959-60 season to the 1968-69 season. I mean, this is Wilt vs. Russell, right? Bill Simmons did not do this. Simmons began with Russell’s rookie year, which happened three seasons before Wilt’s. Was there a good reason for doing this? Let’s let Bill explain:

               …the supporting cast card works with Russell and Wilt only if

               we can prove that the talent disparity was not relatively equal.

              Right off the bat, it’s almost impossible because the NBA didn’t

              expand to ten teams until 1967, giving everyone a good supporting

              cast (even the crummy teams).

     Bill seems to have a lot of faith in the process by which teams coached, scouted, and developed basketball players in the late 1950’s. I mean, sure – the 96 or so NBA players in 1956 were the best in the world - in a still very primitive NBA. The shot clock had only been around for two years. This was only nine years after Jackie Robinson, so we’re not exactly talking about a fully integrated sport yet. In fact, Russell would suffer his only NBA Finals loss against the last all-white NBA championship team in his second season, 1958. The NBA was about to kick off its 11th season of play in 1956. So to state definitively that every team had good players just because the league was small – well, that’s asking a lot. Back in that era, teams didn’t carry a GM or assistant coaches. Sometimes the owner coached the team. I don’t believe that there were a whole lot of international players playing in the 1950s. I think it’s more than reasonable to assume that we hadn’t found a good many players back then.
     If the NBA shrunk to eight franchises now, then yes – we’d have some stacked teams. We know how to identify, develop, and utilize basketball talent. We have access to players all around the world. We can find this information in seconds. We have no trepidations about their ethnicity. In other words, we live today in exactly the opposite world, basketball-wise, than we did in 1956.
     Before he gets to Wilt, Simmons gives some quick recaps to NBA post-seasons from 1957, 58, and 59, leaving a trail of fallacies along the way:

1957: "Since Boston won Game 7 [over St. Louis] in double OT, it’s safe to say these two teams were equally talented."

That doesn’t seem so safe to me.

     First of all, the outcome of a series can be unpredictable. Inferior teams have swept superior teams. Series which looked beforehand to be a walkover sometimes turn out to be highly competitive. A series going seven games doesn’t mean that the two teams were even – they just played even.

Let’s review the 1956-57 standings:

     St. Louis finished 10 games back of Boston and two games under .500. Their Point Differential was negative. Meanwhile, Boston played basically the same schedule and won over 60% of their games. (In the regular season, St. Louis and Boston played nine times; Boston won seven) They won each game by over two possessions. Am I really supposed to believe these two teams have the same amount of talent?
     You see, Simmons won’t present all this because the facts don’t fit his assertion. To bolster this assertion, Simmons runs down the key players on each roster:

               Boston has two stud guards in their prime (Bill Sharman and ’57 MVP
               Bob Cousy) and three terrific rookies (Russell, Heinsohn, and Frank
               Ramsey), while St. Louis has Bob Pettit (two-time MVP), Macauley
               (Hall of Famer), and Slater Martin (Hall of Famer, second-team All-
               NBA that season), as well as Charlie Share, Jack Coleman, and Jack
               McMahon (three highly-regarded role players).

1) Bob Pettit was not a two-time MVP when the series was played.
2) Tommy Heinsohn wasn’t just a terrific rookie; he was the 1957 Rookie of the Year
3) Who regarded Share, Coleman, and McMahon so highly? Simmons just puts this out there and that’s the end of it?

     You see, one way to make the talent look more even is to withhold and omit certain information. You might notice that while Boston has an MVP, St. Louis has a two-time MVP, an All-NBA second-teamer, and two Hall-of-Famers! Wow, now that’s a loaded team! Simmons might have mentioned that St. Louis has rookie and future Hall-of-Famer Cliff Hagan on the roster, but Bill has to make these teams look even; St. Louis might look too good if we mention him. Hagan actually didn’t play a lot during the season but was fourth in Hawks’ minutes played during St. Louis’ playoffs.
     If you want to look backward or forward, Boston’s roster was significantly more talented than the St. Louis roster. Sure, the talent is about even at the top of the rosters, but Boston’s depth is impressive:

     So let’s match ‘em up. HOF big man? Pettit and Russell. HOF scoring forward? Heinsohn and Macauley. HOF point? Cousy and Martin. HOF swingman? Hagan and Ramsey. If you look at the table above, together with this rundown St. Louis looks to have as much talent as Boston. The problem here is that Boston had three more Hall-of-Fame players on its roster. Now I know Jack Coleman, Jack McMahon, and Charlie Share were highly regarded and all, but Bill Sharman, Andy Phillip, and Arnie Risen were much more highly regarded. Let’s do another table:

In the 1956-57 season, Boston played a total of 17,380 player-minutes. 68.1% of those minutes were played by Hall of Famers.
In the 1956-57 season, St. Louis played a total of 16,788 player-minutes. 47.8% of those minutes were played by Hall of Famers.

     Back to that seventh game. One could argue that depth becomes less of an issue during the playoffs as coaches go with their top six, maybe seven guys. With the top of both rosters playing most of the minutes, the teams are more even, hence the seven games. This is possible. What is also possible is that there may have been another reason for a seven-game outcome. I now yield the floor to John Vanak, former NBA referee who began his officiating career in 1962 – five years after the NBA Finals we are discussing:

               Where officials made a few extra bucks was the playoffs. Again, you
               wanted as many games as possible. Hey, we pulled for every series
               to go the full seven. I’m not saying officials threw games to keep the
               series alive, but I do think it was a good idea when they finally
               changed to paying guys a flat fee for the playoffs.

Yeah, that sounds like a pretty good idea.

     I'd like to apologize on Bill Simmons' behalf. In a chapter on Wilt vs. Russell, he's got us talking about the 1956-57 season. (Wilt was at Kansas at the time) But it's important to take a look at all the little tricks in Simmons' bag. As I will show in greater detail later, he is discussing the pre-Wilt seasons in order to establish his credibility. I'm breaking this all down to show that his credibility is, at the very least, suspect.

Part two Thursday.