A look at the Celti Dominance

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    A look at the Celti Dominance

    After reading all of the comments of how the Celtics played in a league consisting of "slow white guys" I thought I'd take a look at the time frame beginning with the advent of the modern NBA (shot clock) and many fans' belief that the modern NBA came with the merger in '76/77...

    I took a look at a few areas.....the number of years between Russell's rookie year ('56/57) and the last year before the merger.....I also took a look at the list of the NBA's Top 50 Players.....here are the results:

    The time frame we are looking at is a period of 20 years.....during this period the Celtics won 13 titles....this shows that the Celtics won 65% of the time....true dominance without question....they actually appeared in 14 finals....Russ was injured in game 4 vs. the Hawks in '58 and the Celtics lost...

    During this time frame there are 29 players who starred in the league....that is 29 of the Top 50 list...58% of the Top 50 played during the period of Celtic dominance...

    A further look shows that, of these 29 greats....16 were black and 13 were white...for anyone wanting the breakdown just let me know and I'll provide it...

    These players were in their prime during this period.....6 of the 29 starred for the Celtics...

    So, in conclusion.....the Celtics were the face of the NBA during the early years of the modern era.....and they would continue to compete for championships during the next 11 years before injuries to Bird, McHale and others, along with the deaths of Len Bias and Reggie Lewis set them back for over a decade....and folks, old team and all.....the Celtics are still in the hunt today.....This is why, in my opinion, the Celtics remain the greatest franchise in league history..... 
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from RUWorthy. Show RUWorthy's posts

    Re: A look at the Celtic Dominance

    Was going to talk about how people called the early days of the league slow on that other thread.


    The NBA started in the 1940's. It's had changes but I'm so sick and tired of 'fans' who discount the leagues history. Just because you don't want to acknowledge the history doesn't mean it's not relevant and didn't happen. Just because players such as Mikan, Pollard, Russell and West didn't play in an era of ESPN and 15 second sound bites doesn't make their era irrelevant or any less important.

    There's a general lack of respect for general history in society let alone Basketball history. You have people in the USA who don't even know the year that Pearl Harbor was attacked in! Was once talking to a guy who was convinced Kamikaze pilots attacked Pearl Harbor.


    I believe that the league was slow before the advent of the 24 second clock. Before then you didn't have to race to advance the ball and get a shot off. You could just take your time, which I can only imagine led to some very low scoring games. Says something about low scoring games in this era when the teams are so inept that they can't score a lot of points! To call players slow because they played in a certain era is a disservice to their ability. They may not have been like the athletes of today, but that's an unfair comparison IMO.


    That top 50 players list is one of the more contentious publications/events to come from the NBA. Can't say I agree with a few of those names on the list. Was thinking at the the time where Bob McAdoo was?

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: A look at the Celti Dominance

    Good point.....the list came out almost 15 years ago and will have to be increased to add new names or a few guys will end up getting bumped....in fairness.....how many thousands of players have played in this league? ...a top 50 list is pretty small in comparison....I'd recommend the list be increased to the top 100.....just one man's opinion...
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Karllost. Show Karllost's posts

    Re: A look at the Celti Dominance

    All teams and players fade away in peoples minds as time goes by. Happens in all pro sports. The catch-all reason is players are now bigger, stronger & faster. The training is much more precise and intense.

    Well, theres validity to that. Plus, the money aint bad either, which means many more people competing to be a pro..

    But you cant start comparing eras. In the 1960s, the best players were playing in the NBA...period. Makes no difference if players are better now or not.  Twenty years from now theyll be saying the same thing about the players of today, that they couldnt compete with the new breed.

    Really, just silly to compare
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from CHEisCHE. Show CHEisCHE's posts

    Re: A look at the Celti Dominance

    Duke, are you sure you are not Slippery sam?
             We lost our Celtics historian, r u the replacement?
             The Duke of Sam 


             Nice thread by the way.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from RUWorthy. Show RUWorthy's posts

    Re: A look at the Celtic Dominance

    In Response to Re: A look at the Celti Dominance:
    All teams and players fade away in peoples minds as time goes by. Happens in all pro sports. The catch-all reason is players are now bigger, stronger & faster. The training is much more precise and intense. Well, theres validity to that. Plus, the money aint bad either, which means many more people competing to be a pro.. But you cant start comparing eras. In the 1960s, the best players were playing in the NBA...period. Makes no difference if players are better now or not.  Twenty years from now theyll be saying the same thing about the players of today, that they couldnt compete with the new breed. Really, just silly to compare
    Posted by Karllost


    That's the thing, you'll have people in 20 years saying that Jordan wasn't all that great and that the league of 2030 is the best it's ever been.

    However I think it's a lazy person who can't go back and look into the past of, for this example the NBA. And learn about the championship teams, compare the size of the league, the levels of professionalism etc. And compare eras and the style of basketball.

    I happen to believe that in most cases a great in one era will be a great in any era. In fact their greatness may even be magnified thanks to the way the media operates now. Players are hyped beyond a reasonable level. And the news outlets attempt to make up the minds of many viewers into thinking that a guy like Lebron James it the best ever, while in reality he's nowhere near that level. Not even close.

    On a wider view there does seem to be a sense of devaluating the past when people are attempting to build up something in the here and now. And this counts for everything in life. Because something is new it's instantly "the best", which again, is quite often not the case.

    When it comes to the all time 50 player list. It should be kept at 50. If another top 50 player list is ever complied we may well be able to see who was close towards the bottom of the original list to make way for more recent players.
    Although I can't be seeing it changing too much. One complaint I had about the top 50 was that it did include active players. I still think it's best to consider a players career after they have retired. Although I can understand why active players were included. To me it is easier to attempt to list a top 50 players when you're looking a completed body of work from a player, rather than a career that is not even half way though.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: A look at the Celti Dominance

    In Response to Re: A look at the Celti Dominance:
    Duke, are you sure you are not Slippery sam?          We lost our Celtics historian, r u the replacement?          The Duke of Sam           Nice thread by the way.
    Posted by CHEisCHE

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: A look at the Celti Dominance

    Thanks CHE........"the Duke of Sam"?  ....I like it....sounds like it could be a song huh? (anyone old enough to remember early '60's music gets my drift).....I do have to admit I'm into sports history....I became a sports fan in my early years (I just turned 60).....I remember the good old days.....and I'm still a huge sports fan today...my wife hates it when my teams are in the play-offs......let's just say I tend to get a little intense.....but I have to take a back seat to our slippery friend....he is the true historian
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: A look at the Celti Dominance

    Nice post Worthy......you put things into perspective quite nicely.....I'm still not sure on 50 vs 100....the NFL Network just gave their top 100.....there were some glaring omissions in my opinion (Joe Namath makes the list but Jack Youngblood doesn't?)....I think that, as the league has surpassed 60 years, a list of 50 allows an average of only 8-9 players per decade....not enough but again, just my opinion....
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Karllost. Show Karllost's posts

    Re: A look at the Celtic Dominance

    In Response to Re: A look at the Celtic Dominance:
    In Response to Re: A look at the Celti Dominance : That's the thing, you'll have people in 20 years saying that Jordan wasn't all that great and that the league of 2030 is the best it's ever been. However I think it's a lazy person who can't go back and look into the past of, for this example the NBA. And learn about the championship teams, compare the size of the league, the levels of professionalism etc. And compare eras and the style of basketball. I happen to believe that in most cases a great in one era will be a great in any era. In fact their greatness may even be magnified thanks to the way the media operates now. Players are hyped beyond a reasonable level. And the news outlets attempt to make up the minds of many viewers into thinking that a guy like Lebron James it the best ever, while in reality he's nowhere near that level. Not even close. On a wider view there does seem to be a sense of devaluating the past when people are attempting to build up something in the here and now. And this counts for everything in life. Because something is new it's instantly "the best", which again, is quite often not the case. When it comes to the all time 50 player list. It should be kept at 50. If another top 50 player list is ever complied we may well be able to see who was close towards the bottom of the original list to make way for more recent players. Although I can't be seeing it changing too much. One complaint I had about the top 50 was that it did include active players. I still think it's best to consider a players career after they have retired. Although I can understand why active players were included. To me it is easier to attempt to list a top 50 players when you're looking a completed body of work from a player, rather than a career that is not even half way though.
    Posted by RUWorthy


    Agree, you cant consider actve players on the top 50. They are just too fresh in everyones minds and are still being marketed.. Need time to take its toll. Heck, after the rigged championship last year, people were actually elevating Kobe over MJ. What a joke.

    Last night Barkley called Kobe top5 of all time.. ahead of Larry, Magic & Kareem. Just goes to show how skewed thinking is until time passes by.  Many times you dont ever hear about Bill Russell being mentioned as the greatest of all time. Thats because many fans never seen him play and 30-40 years have passed by., Hes not even a memory to most.

    I go back to the 60's as a serious sports fanatic. I know Babe Ruths name and stats but I wasnt watching him play. My dad told me the greatest baseball player he ever saw was Joe Dimaggio. He explained to me all the reasons why. I never saw the guy play and if not for my dad, would prob not have the high regard I have for him now.

    I seen Earl Campbell play, scary great. After watching several highlight films & testimonials, I came to the conclusion hes easily the greatest RB of all time. Then I watched Barry Sanders highlights, playing for lousy teams where the gameplanned to stop him and only him. I said to myself, hes the greatest ever. Then I started watching Bo Jackson stuff...well, you get the picture.

    Its really hard to say who the greatest is at anything. MJ gets that tag alot and the one reason he does is 6 championships. If he didnt have them, he wouldnt be everyones choice. Russells 11 titles worked for him until he got outdated. Now his 11 titles arent as important to some apparently. But if you could place yourself back into that era.. the prevailing conclusion was Bill is the greatest bball player ever.

    Time changes everything and you just cant really make a fair list unless lumping them all together in no particular order sometimes.

    Now let me tell you about Secretariet....
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: A look at the Celti Dominance

    ...good stuff Karl......
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from RUWorthy. Show RUWorthy's posts

    Re: A look at the Celti Dominance

    I think Mikan is treated worse than Russell. He didn't win as many championships but he was just as dominant in his own way. Seen photos of billboards placing his name above that of his team when the Lakers were in town.

    Perhaps it's just lazy journalism and just plain laziness to place current players in such high regard, unless they are someone with exceptional talents. But even then the lines can be blurred by whatever hype machine is running during that time.

    Barkley is great and a funny guy. But Bryant is nowhere near the best basketball player ever, and he's not even the greatest Laker IMO. Heck, I can't even put Big Game James near that level. I can't see how Bryant could be rated above the likes of Magic, Mikan, Kareem, West, Baynor or Shaq. He's nowhere near Magics class, I don't really need to even use stats to illustrate this. Magic by his very presence, made us into a championship calibre team, EVERY season that he played. Well maybe not his second season, and that 'comeback' year. But he made us into the greatest team of the 80's. Apologies to my Celtic friends here.

    Although Bird also did the same thing for the Celtics. As evidenced by how well the team did during his era. Even a broken down bird in 1992 was a dangerous player. That's what makes him just so exceptional. I feel for people who can't or won't look back into even the recent past to examine great players.

    Duke maybe a top 60 list would work. But I think the more players you include in a 'top' list dilutes the list just that little bit. The scary thing for me is that one day you could have a list that is dominated by more current players and the older players will be dropped off, or included as a token act.

    I would argue till I'm blue in the face that Jim Pollard should have been in the top 50 players. 4 NBA championships and 2 other national titles, one of the key men in Laker history, wonder how many of our 'fans' would even know who he was?

    It was a wise move by the NBA not to rank the top 50 list. Could have been embarrassing for them if Russell wasn't named the best. Jordan was the flavor of the month when the list was made, he'd just retired for the second him hadn't he?

    For mine Jordan hurt his legacy by playing for the Wizards. Can understand why a man like him wanted to return, but what you want and what you need is sometimes confused, and I think Jordan was confused on this point in regards to his last comeback. Was almost embarrassing at times, it had some great nights, but there were many more moments where you'd be left scratching your head and thinking 'why are you doing this MJ'?

    Russell left the game with his legacy intact and still for me stands as a colossus overlooking the NBA landscape. What he was able to do in his last two seasons as a player/coach, will never be accomplished by another NBA player. Just like his record of 11 titles.



     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: A look at the Celti Dominance

    Worthy, you are wise beyond your years young lady.....but then, I've said that before.....always appreciate your insight and knowledge of the history....
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from lovetruth007. Show lovetruth007's posts

    Re: A look at the Celti Dominance

    dominance? lost to a team at home w/o their best player. Rediculous!
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from potging. Show potging's posts

    Re: A look at the Celti Dominance

    where can you see a player that got 11 championship ring in 13 yrs....go celtics...its only this time that a lot ref hate celtics team....
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from Qdaddy. Show Qdaddy's posts

    Re: A look at the Celti Dominance

    In Response to Re: A look at the Celti Dominance:
    I think Mikan is treated worse than Russell. He didn't win as many championships but he was just as dominant in his own way. Seen photos of billboards placing his name above that of his team when the Lakers were in town. Perhaps it's just lazy journalism and just plain laziness to place current players in such high regard, unless they are someone with exceptional talents. But even then the lines can be blurred by whatever hype machine is running during that time. Barkley is great and a funny guy. But Bryant is nowhere near the best basketball player ever, and he's not even the greatest Laker IMO. Heck, I can't even put Big Game James near that level. I can't see how Bryant could be rated above the likes of Magic, Mikan, Kareem, West, Baynor or Shaq. He's nowhere near Magics class, I don't really need to even use stats to illustrate this. Magic by his very presence, made us into a championship calibre team, EVERY season that he played. Well maybe not his second season, and that 'comeback' year. But he made us into the greatest team of the 80's. Apologies to my Celtic friends here. Although Bird also did the same thing for the Celtics. As evidenced by how well the team did during his era. Even a broken down bird in 1992 was a dangerous player. That's what makes him just so exceptional. I feel for people who can't or won't look back into even the recent past to examine great players. Duke maybe a top 60 list would work. But I think the more players you include in a 'top' list dilutes the list just that little bit. The scary thing for me is that one day you could have a list that is dominated by more current players and the older players will be dropped off, or included as a token act. I would argue till I'm blue in the face that Jim Pollard should have been in the top 50 players. 4 NBA championships and 2 other national titles, one of the key men in Laker history, wonder how many of our 'fans' would even know who he was? It was a wise move by the NBA not to rank the top 50 list. Could have been embarrassing for them if Russell wasn't named the best. Jordan was the flavor of the month when the list was made, he'd just retired for the second him hadn't he? For mine Jordan hurt his legacy by playing for the Wizards. Can understand why a man like him wanted to return, but what you want and what you need is sometimes confused, and I think Jordan was confused on this point in regards to his last comeback. Was almost embarrassing at times, it had some great nights, but there were many more moments where you'd be left scratching your head and thinking 'why are you doing this MJ'? Russell left the game with his legacy intact and still for me stands as a colossus overlooking the NBA landscape. What he was able to do in his last two seasons as a player/coach, will never be accomplished by another NBA player. Just like his record of 11 titles.
    Posted by RUWorthy



    Couldn't agree more. I've been a lifelong Laker fan, and I think most Laker fans know that Kobe, even with all his stats, isn't the greatest Laker. I put West, Magic and Kareem ahead of Kobe right now and even after his career is over.

    Jerry West has had a hand in almost every championship won in LA. As a player, he won one. As a GM, he made the trades that created "Showtime" and later the Shaq-Kobe era. And he brought in a mediocre player, took him under his wing and mentored him into a pretty respectable GM...Mitch Kupchak. Under Jerry, Kupchak learned when to pull the trigger on a trade (Pau Gasol, Shannon Brown, and Trevor Ariza) and when not to (letting Kobe stew after his childish off-season tantrum and asking to be traded).

    IMHO, Jerry West is, HANDS DOWN, the greatest Laker.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: A look at the Celti Dominance

    I certainly can't argue that point "Q"......believe it or not, I started out a Laker fan at a very young age and Elgin Baylor was/is my all time favorite player on that team.....although the Celtics quickly became my #1 team before my teenage years, I still rooted for LA as my 2nd favorite....I stopped rooting for them when Wilt came aboard....as a Celtic and Bill Russell fan I just had to draw the line....it wasn't until the Bird/Magic rivalry that I began to root against LA (remember, we had no history together throughout the '70's).....I have no problem with admitting that I have the utmost respect for their history and successes....the two greatest franchises in league history.....the argument as to who is #1 will never be resolved or accepted by either side....this is not the Yankee/Sox rivalry where there is a clear cut winner......and that's a good thing
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from susan250. Show susan250's posts

    Re: A look at the Celti Dominance

    In Response to Re: A look at the Celti Dominance:
    dominance? lost to a team at home w/o their best player. Rediculous!
    Posted by lovetruth007


    Agreed!  It was a very disappointing game for the Celtics. 
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share