The playoff "bloodbath" that Russell had to endure every year

[dubeta]

This was the path to the championship that Russell had to take, I'll use 1960 as an example.

Let's start from the beginning of the playoffs, the start of the epic journey to the ring....

Oh, wait, the playoffs started straight at the Eastern Divison Finals for the Celtics, since there were only 4 teams in the entire Conference, and the Celtics had to have the displeasure of playing against the terrifying Philadelphia Warriors...

http://i.cdn.turner.com/nba/nba/teamsites/images/legacy/sixers/20120302_wilt100_a.nba.576x324.jpg


After the cakewalk, they had to face the dominant St. Louis Hawks for the NBA championship

http://www.sportsecyclopedia.com/nba/stlhawks/1958Hawks.jpg


And.. that was it, you apparently win a 'championship' for doing that.


So when people talk about Russell winning 'rings' or heck Wilt or Jerry West winning 'rings' this is basically what it amounts to. Winning 6-7 games in a league surrounded with a total of 25-30 mailmen or garderners who happened to stumble onto a basketball court.


https://sportsweeksportslist.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/bill-russell-has-11-rings-with-the-boston-celtics.jpg

11 rings doe :roll:

[Akrazotile]

Yup.

It doesn't diminish Russell as a player, just means 'rings' is a retarded argument. In any era.

[Trollsmasher]

Best OP of the year:applause:

[Budadiiii]

LeBron is the St. Louis Hawks of his era.

[meat]

Racist. Doesn't matter anyway. Scoreboard.

[Akrazotile]

Racist. Doesn't matter anyway. Scoreboard.


This, too.

[Optimus Prime]

Russell's 11 rings aren't that impressive (but still quite a feat), considering the weak competition he faced on a regular basis. That being said, LeBron's 2/5 is pathetic considering the joke of "competition" that he has faced in The Least.

:kobe:

[AnaheimLakers24]

6 > 2
5> 2
3>2
5> 2
11> 2
4> 2
3> 2



Bran is small in comparison to these guys

[dubeta]

Russell's 11 rings aren't that impressive (but still quite a feat), considering the weak competition he faced on a regular basis. That being said, LeBron's 2/5 is pathetic considering the joke of "competition" that he has faced in The Least.

:kobe:

So you say his conference sucks, but you bring in his record against Western conference teams? :facepalm

Dat logic, must be a Kobe fan

[sd3035]

This was the path to the championship that Russell had to take, I'll use 1960 as an example.

Let's start from the beginning of the playoffs, the start of the epic journey to the ring....

Oh, wait, the playoffs started straight at the Eastern Divison Finals for the Celtics, since there were only 4 teams in the entire Conference, and the Celtics had to have the displeasure of playing against the terrifying Philadelphia Warriors...

http://i.cdn.turner.com/nba/nba/teamsites/images/legacy/sixers/20120302_wilt100_a.nba.576x324.jpg


After the cakewalk, they had to face the dominant St. Louis Hawks for the NBA championship

http://www.sportsecyclopedia.com/nba/stlhawks/1958Hawks.jpg


And.. that was it, you apparently win a 'championship' for doing that.


So when people talk about Russell winning 'rings' or heck Wilt or Jerry West winning 'rings' this is basically what it amounts to. Winning 6-7 games in a league surrounded with a total of 25-30 mailmen or garderners who happened to stumble onto a basketball court.


https://sportsweeksportslist.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/bill-russell-has-11-rings-with-the-boston-celtics.jpg

11 rings doe :roll:


http://gifrific.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/kevin-garnett-reaction.gif

http://gifrific.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/kevin-garnett-reaction.gif

http://gifrific.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/kevin-garnett-reaction.gif

http://gifrific.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/kevin-garnett-reaction.gif

http://gifrific.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/kevin-garnett-reaction.gif

http://gifrific.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/kevin-garnett-reaction.gif

[SouBeachTalents]

6 > 2
5> 2
3>2
5> 2
11> 2
4> 2
3> 2



Bran is small in comparison to these guys

Horry better than all of those :bowdown: :bowdown:

[warriorfan]

LeBron wouldn't even make the league in the 1960's

[Eric Cartman]

Lebron has an easy a path to the finals as you can find, take 2014 for example:

Bobcats without Al Jefferson
Old as dirt Nets
Dysfunctional Pacers with no scoring

No surpried he got slaughtered come the finals.

[sd3035]

These chumps from the 60s would be lucky to crack the D league in this era

[dubeta]

Lebron has an easy a path to the finals as you can find, take 2014 for example:

Bobcats without Al Jefferson
Old as dirt Nets
Dysfunctional Pacers with no scoring

No surpried he got slaughtered come the finals.

Yup, but he didnt win because sooner or later you have to beat the best

the 60's would be the equivalent of winning the championship after beating the 'Old as dirt' nets.

[Eric Cartman]

the 60's would be the equivalent of winning the championship after beating the 'Old as dirt' nets.

True.

See, you can be a reasonable poster when not trolling :applause:

[warriorfan]

Yup, but he didnt win because sooner or later you have to beat the best

the 60's would be the equivalent of winning the championship after beating the 'Old as dirt' nets.


replace russell with lebronze and they don't win those championships



http://cdn.smosh.com/sites/default/files/bloguploads/deal-with-it-snoop.gif

[dubeta]

True.

See, you can be a reasonable poster when not trolling :applause:

Thanks :cheers: But I've never trolled

[KevinNYC]

This was the path to the championship that Russell had to take, I'll use 1960 as an example.So you just discovered that the NBA had 8 teams in 1960, then your superbriliant mind deduced that 8 teams is less than the 30 teams the NBA has today? And you think this is some sort of insight?

Here's a thought, have you and friends get together on the playground after last class and hold a draft for 8 teams.

Start with the 360 guys on nba rosters today and get rid of 200 of them right off the bat.
Then hold a draft to whittle remaining 160 guys down to 96.
So every team is going to wind up with like 3 All-Stars.
Then once you have 8 teams with the cream of NBA talent, go out and try and win 60 games.

When all that is said and done, come back and let me know if you miss 8th seeds and 7th seeds and 6th seeds, etc.

It hasn't got harder to win an NBA championship, you still have to beat the best, it's just gotten longer.

[305Baller]

Racist thread.

[dubeta]

So you just discovered that the NBA had 8 teams in 1960, then your superbriliant mind deduced that 8 teams is less than the 30 teams the NBA has today? And you think this is some sort of insight?

Here's a thought, have you and friends get together on the playground after last class and hold a draft for 8 teams.

Start with the 360 guys on nba rosters today and get rid of 200 of them right off the bat.
Then hold a draft to whittle remaining 160 guys down to 96.
So every team is going to wind up with like 3 All-Stars.
Then once you have 8 teams with the cream of NBA talent, go out and try and win 60 games.

When all that is said and done, come back and let me know if you miss 8th seeds and 7th seeds and 6th seeds, etc.

It hasn't got harder to win an NBA championship, you still have to beat the best, it's just gotten longer.

Nice try on trying to sound intelligent and condescending to someone who knows far more about basketball than you will ever. The NBA is a business, if there was enough basketball talent back then to warrant 30 teams, it would have happened. What benefit does the NBA have to artificially limit the league to 8 teams, and lose out on all the potential revenue from more teams/games and more merchandise sold? There were only 8 teams because that were the amount of players found to be deemed 'suitable' for NBA play, meaning the talent pool was MUCH weaker. 100 ish NBA level players compared to 350-400 today.

Try and come back with something better Jimmy

[knicksman]

we only care about 11 and 2/5:lol

[RoundMoundOfReb]

Ether.

[scandisk_]

Here's a thought, have you and friends get together on the playground after last class and hold a draft for 8 teams.

Start with the 360 guys on nba rosters today and get rid of 200 of them right off the bat.
Then hold a draft to whittle remaining 160 guys down to 96.
So every team is going to wind up with like 3 All-Stars.
Then once you have 8 teams with the cream of NBA talent, go out and try and win 60 games.


This doesn't make any sense at all.

[knicksman]

Ether.

You can say ether whenever you want but you know deep inside that 2/5 hurts:lol

[RoundMoundOfReb]

So you just discovered that the NBA had 8 teams in 1960, then your superbriliant mind deduced that 8 teams is less than the 30 teams the NBA has today? And you think this is some sort of insight?

Here's a thought, have you and friends get together on the playground after last class and hold a draft for 8 teams.

Start with the 360 guys on nba rosters today and get rid of 200 of them right off the bat.
Then hold a draft to whittle remaining 160 guys down to 96.
So every team is going to wind up with like 3 All-Stars.
Then once you have 8 teams with the cream of NBA talent, go out and try and win 60 games.

When all that is said and done, come back and let me know if you miss 8th seeds and 7th seeds and 6th seeds, etc.

It hasn't got harder to win an NBA championship, you still have to beat the best, it's just gotten longer.


So you're essentially saying: "Yeah their were only 8 teams but the talent pool was way more concentrated!"

This is an absurd lie. The amount of people actually wanting to become basketball players in the early 60s was WAY fewer than it is today....likes 100s of times fewer.

So let me ask you this:

160 of the best players of like 10,000 who want to play basketball for a living or

360 of the best players from a pool of like 10,000,000 who want to play basketball for a living?


And btw even ignoring this, the condensing of talent back then also HELPS Russell in that it gives him more help on his own team. You have to be a certified retard to think it is just as easy to accumulate to titles today as it was back then. 8 teams CERTAINLY makes it easier.

[HomieWeMajor]

Was easier for Russell to get into an all white beach than the NBA finals back then.

[LAZERUSS]

Let's ignore Russell's LAST season, when his 48-34 Celtics won a title without HCA in all THREE series. In one, they routed a 55-27 Sixer's team with the likes of Billy Cunningham, Hal Greer, and Chet Walker. In the second round his team beat a 54-28 Knicks team that had Willis Reed, Bill Bradley, Dvae DeBusschere, and Walt Frazier. And in the Finals, they beat a 55-27 Lakers team with Jerry West, Elgin Baylor, and Wilt Chamberlain.

Oh, and it was in a 14 team league.

[SouBeachTalents]

Let's ignore Russell's LAST season, when his 48-34 Celtics won a title without HCA in all THREE series. In one, they routed a 55-27 Sixer's team with the likes of Billy Cunningham, Hal Greer, and Chet Walker. In the second round his team beat a 54-28 Knicks team that had Willis Reed, Bill Bradley, Dvae DeBusschere, and Walt Frazier. And in the Finals, they beat a 55-27 Lakers team with Jerry West, Elgin Baylor, and Wilt Chamberlain.

Oh, and it was in a 14 team league.

It helps when he averaged 12 ppg in the Finals

[dubeta]

And so it begins, the incoming onslaught of essays from Lazaurus, CavsFTW, and Marchesk :lol

http://media.giphy.com/media/lF5bH6enH9F1m/giphy.gif

[The_Pharcyde]

Why do people respond to this guy, he is a clown.

I mean look at his username and Avy
"Dubeta" with kobes head on Jordans body with a big X through it, the guy is the definition of insecure about Lebrons legacy

He knows deep down his fantasy boyfriend will never be the GOAT
Dont let a troll get under your skin, that is the fuel to their sad life and it only makes you not appreciate lebrons greatness

Next!

[LAZERUSS]

BTW, Russell's Celtics went 10-0 in game seven's...SEVEN of which were decided by FOUR points, or less (including OT's.)

So it was not like his teams were just slaughtering their competition every year.

[Marchesk]

And so it begins, the incoming onslaught of essays from Lazaurus, CavsFTW, and Marchesk

https://31.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lnitbcVRtB1qc8vtf.jpg

[ButterFace]

So... because they are white?

[sportjames23]

Russell's 11 rings aren't that impressive (but still quite a feat), considering the weak competition he faced on a regular basis. That being said, LeBron's 2/5 is pathetic considering the joke of "competition" that he has faced in The Least.

:kobe:


This.

[iTare]

So... because they are white?
Yeah

[Asukal]

Let's ignore Russell's LAST season, when his 48-34 Celtics won a title without HCA in all THREE series. In one, they routed a 55-27 Sixer's team with the likes of Billy Cunningham, Hal Greer, and Chet Walker. In the second round his team beat a 54-28 Knicks team that had Willis Reed, Bill Bradley, Dvae DeBusschere, and Walt Frazier. And in the Finals, they beat a 55-27 Lakers team with Jerry West, Elgin Baylor, and Wilt Chamberlain.

Oh, and it was in a 14 team league.

Russel's bitch! :oldlol:

[deja vu]

OPs a fakkit but he's right this time around.

Please don't give me the BS that fewer teams mean more concentration of talent on each team. That's like assuming that the talent pool of the 60s is as good as today's. There's a reason why many NBA players in the 50s and 60s have second jobs; because pro basketball didn't pay well back then.

[BigTicket]

It's certainly true that Russell had a much easier path to a ring than people do today, but it's still very impressive that he managed to win almost every single year.

The 58-59 title has to be the easiest of all time. All Boston had to do was beat the 35-37 Nationals and the 33-39 Lakers, and that's it. Two rounds, both against teams with a sub 0.500 record.

[Akrazotile]

Let's ignore Russell's LAST season, when his 48-34 Celtics won a title without HCA in all THREE series. In one, they routed a 55-27 Sixer's team with the likes of Billy Cunningham, Hal Greer, and Chet Walker. In the second round his team beat a 54-28 Knicks team that had Willis Reed, Bill Bradley, Dvae DeBusschere, and Walt Frazier. And in the Finals, they beat a 55-27 Lakers team with Jerry West, Elgin Baylor, and Wilt Chamberlain.

Oh, and it was in a 14 team league.


You know its a weak era for ball when dudes got names like Hal, Chet, and Billy Cunningham.

[305Baller]

Everything is relative. These dudes were the best basketball players in the world and had skills. You don't play ball every day and not attain skills. Its just impossible.

[KevinNYC]

So you're essentially saying: "Yeah their were only 8 teams but the talent pool was way more concentrated!"

This is an absurd lie. The amount of people actually wanting to become basketball players in the early 60s was WAY fewer than it is today....likes 100s of times fewer.

So let me ask you this:

160 of the best players of like 10,000 who want to play basketball for a living or

360 of the best players from a pool of like 10,000,000 who want to play basketball for a living?


And btw even ignoring this, the condensing of talent back then also HELPS Russell in that it gives him more help on his own team. You have to be a certified retard to think it is just as easy to accumulate to titles today as it was back then. 8 teams CERTAINLY makes it easier.

Hi, you know that you restated what I said in a way more favorable to you and then shot down your restatement was as an absurd lie, just now right?

I didn't compare the level of talent. I compared the level of concentration.
If you concentrated the existing NBA 2015 talent to 8 teams does it become easier or harder to win championships year after year? If so why?

[Lebronxrings]

one of the greatest threads ever. :applause: :bowdown: :rockon:

[KevinNYC]

Nice try on trying to sound intelligent and condescending to someone who knows far more about basketball than you will ever. The NBA is a business, if there was enough basketball talent back then to warrant 30 teams, it would have happened. What benefit does the NBA have to artificially limit the league to 8 teams, and lose out on all the potential revenue from more teams/games and more merchandise sold? There were only 8 teams because that were the amount of players found to be deemed 'suitable' for NBA play, meaning the talent pool was MUCH weaker. 100 ish NBA level players compared to 350-400 today.

Try and come back with something better Jimmy
You're hilarious. You seem to know less about business than you do about basketball. From a business perspective, it's not the level of talent that supports 30 teams, it's 30 markets than can fill an arena 41 times a year. You need the demand to supply the product. You need a lot of basketball fans. You also need arenas to play in. The NBA was born as a well of keeping hockey arenas filled when the hockey team was out of town

Baseball was a way more popular sport than basketball in 1960 and they only had 16 teams.

Why? Well, they US had 130 million less people back then than they do now.
And they were mostly concentrated in the Northeast. Florida now has 10 pro sports teams. None of them existed in 1960. The first NFL didn't have a team west of Kansas City until 1946. Baseball didn't have a team on the West Coast until 1948. You couldn't even fly coast to coast without stopping until the 1950's.

So no I don't trust your opinion on basketball or business or history.

To follow your logic, why doesn't the NBA have 40 teams right now? Why are they missing out on 33% more revenue than they make now?

[KevinNYC]

This doesn't make any sense at all.
Which parts are confusing to you?

[KevinNYC]

Please don't give me the BS that fewer teams mean more concentration of talent on each team. By definition it does.
That's like assuming that the talent pool of the 60s is as good as today's. No. It's talking about a concentration of available talent
Taking the available NBA talent of today and spreading them out among only 8 teams would result in more concentration of talent on each time.

Or let me put it this way.
Did Michael Jordan's road to the NBA championship in 1996 become harder because the NBA added Vancouver Grizzlies? Or did the path to 72 regular season wins become easier?


There's a reason why many NBA players in the 50s and 60s have second jobs; because pro basketball didn't pay well back then.
Perhaps you were responding to another poster, but this doesn't seem relevant to the argument.

[Rake2204]

While less teams would seem to suggest a higher concentration of talent, does that make the road tougher? Or does it tend to equal out when accounting for the presumption that the winning team is undoubtedly concentrated as well?

Moreover, does more rounds and more games tend to make things more difficult, even if some of those rounds are coming against lesser opponents? Does that open up the door to season fatigue, where defeating a weaker team may still affect a squad further down the line? And does less teams and fewer rounds reduce the opportunity for upsets?

I've struggled to work this one out in my head over the years. I feel like a good team having to win just two rounds of playoffs, with at least one of those rounds possibly coming against a team for which they may have a serious advantage from the start, could likely result in a bigger opportunity for championships than if that team were playing in a league with more other teams and more playoff rounds.

Perhaps high school could serve as an example. The best of the best still tend to rise to the top of end-of-season tournaments but with so many teams and so many layers to the playoffs (districts, regionals, quarterfinals, finals), there seems to be many possibilities for something strange to happen, resulting in at least an occasional changing of the guard.

However, if the best teams were able to skip all those previous rounds, jumping straight to the final four, it seems the door would be further open for the possibility of many long time repeat champions.

Perhaps it's a matter of parity?

[jlip]

While this post was specifically a comparison of Russell's Celtics' and Jordan's Bulls' championship runs, it does address the larger issue in this thread.

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=5327419&postcount=63

[StephHamann]

LeBron is the St. Louis Hawks of his era.

http://gifrific.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/kevin-garnett-reaction.gif

[Psileas]

You know its a weak era for ball when dudes got names like Hal, Chet, and Billy Cunningham.

You know it's a low IQ era when dudes got names like LeBron, Kawhi and DeAndre.

To stay with your claim, how about an era dominated by "Larry", "Michael", "David"?

[jzek]

When Russell and the Celtics won 8 in a row, how many total teams in the NBA were there?

[Rake2204]

While this post was specifically a comparison of Russell's Celtics' and Jordan's Bulls' championship runs, it does address the larger issue in this thread.

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=5327419&postcount=63Good stuff. Though, it seems your conclusion is based off the assumption that those Celtics and Bulls teams were created equal. Does a harder road to an NBA championship mean a team must not be too much better than their opponents?

To put it another way, does the NBA champion who struggled through four seven-game rounds en route to winning a championship by the skin of their teeth receive credit for winning in a very difficult-to-win era, simply based off of how many close games they won and how long each series extended?

To be clear, I don't find a ton of mutual exclusivity here. I think it's possible those Chicago Bulls championships featured less close games because they were exceptional. However, that also doesn't mean, in itself, that their road was inherently tougher or easier.

Using the closeness approach, would it ever be possible to gauge the best team or all-time? Or would it be a situation where if they were so good they blew everyone out, we'd just say "Welp, weak competition."

Also, just thinking aloud, but with the number of Boston's close calls, might they have been more susceptible to elimination if they had to participate in another round or two? This is making my brain hurt but... I guess then the retort could be "That era was so good that teams were pushing Boston to the limit."

[salwan]

Russell living rent free after all these years in OP's empty skull :lol :lol

Your boy Bran is a choking, pampered and sulky player giving up on his teammates numerous times. He will never reach the greatness and legendary status of Russell. Deal with it.

[KevinNYC]

When Russell and the Celtics won 8 in a row, how many total teams in the NBA were there?
8 teams some years and 9 teams others.

[KevinNYC]

While this post was specifically a comparison of Russell's Celtics' and Jordan's Bulls' championship runs, it does address the larger issue in this thread.

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=5327419&postcount=63

That's a great post. Puts numbers on my idea of Does the existence of the Vancouver Grizzlies make it harder for a team to win the NBA championship?


Also, just thinking aloud, but with the number of Boston's close calls, might they have been more susceptible to elimination if they had to participate in another round or two? This is making my brain hurt but... I guess then the retort could be "That era was so good that teams were pushing Boston to the limit."
just looking over those years the Celtics won eight in a row, there were very few playoff sweeps in the league. Small sample size, yes, but jlp's post leads me to say that more teams in the league leads to more lopsided playoff series.

As for you question of, was it that the Bulls were that good? I remember at the time, lots people saying the six championships happened in a weaker league with no real rivals.

[jlip]

When Russell and the Celtics won 8 in a row, how many total teams in the NBA were there?

Today, how many teams does any champion have to beat in order to become champion? 4 or 29?

[ArbitraryWater]

So... because they are white?

Whites are proven to be worse physically and as Basketball Players :confusedshrug:

Just a fact we have to accept, I'm White, this isn't a racist thing to say.

[LAZERUSS]

http://www.thesportsfanjournal.com/columns/starting-lineups-bill-russell-provide-evidence-supports-jordan-retirement-conspiracy/

[QUOTE]After some back and forth on the difficulties of winning a championship in a 12-team league, Russell schooled Jordan on why his Bulls would have had no chance:

[ninephive]

Russell's 11 rings aren't that impressive (but still quite a feat), considering the weak competition he faced on a regular basis. That being said, LeBron's 2/5 is pathetic considering the joke of "competition" that he has faced in The Least.

:kobe:
Lebron faced the winningest franchise in professional sports for the past 20 years in THREE finals. The 2007 version had the big 3 in their prime and the 2014 version was arguably one of the greatest teams of all time. How is that weak competition?