Number of teams in the league when Bill Russell won his 11 championships

[millwad]

Do you really think the 8 teams in 1957 are as good as the top 8 teams today? Because thats what it sounds like you're getting at.

Not only that, it would be more fair to take the best players in the current league and then take enough players to cover for an 8 team league.

The level of talent would be way better.

[Psileas]

This is bogus.

In '85 they were 23 teams and in '05 they were 30 teams. The total difference is 7 teams, that is almost as much as the 8 team league Russell played in.

And teams back then had just as many scrubs on every team as today and in the 80's, there's absolutely no way the talent pool was big enough to cover a 23 team league or a 30 team league.

The total difference between the 1969 league and the 1961 league was almost as big too, but I don't see any different champion. And Russell was significantly better in 1961 than in 1969.

You may talk about the talent pool now that you know about the early 60's having 8 teams, but this can't explain this:
http://www.basketball-reference.com/.../NBA_1950.html
This is a whole decade back and this is a league without black players. Now, about this league, you could have a point. But about the 60's? Do you think Mikan was even close to Wilt as a player? Mikan dominated the titles, Wilt did not. Which means either that Mikan was much better than Wilt or that Wilt's era, despite having only half the teams, was much more talented.

Also, for a league with a supposedly shallow talent pool, I wouldn't call the Celtics' win-loss records all that impressive. Why couldn't they get 70-win seasons if they had it that easy? Sometimes, they didn't even have home-court advantage. Why did so many playoff series go to Game 7's (just in case someone says that they saved themselves for the playoffs - again, why would a team that much better than the others need to do this? Even the 90's Bulls did this maybe only once)? Why so few sweeps?

[ILLsmak]

Yea....adding 18 teams to that league wouldnt make the league better. Just...have more teams. We could add 14 more teams tomorrow. Without a new source of NBA level players the league would be worse on average for obvious reasons.

ehhh, I mean I was coming in here to post "dat research" because it's obviously something most people know, but I don't agree with this.

More teams does mean the league is better. now, having 30 teams, maybe not... but more good players = more teams. Is there parity? No. But are you saying there weren't 8 good teams in the NBA in the 80s? Keep in mind, not every team in the 60s was good, either.

We're also talking about facing one team before the finals. So it is a difference and that must be taken into context. Dude won, though, but you can't say winning those rings is the same. It's funny how people love Bill Russell, but few people say MIKAN. But truthfully Mikan was the first superstar and he had to play 3 rounds to win.

But yea everyone knows, or should know, dude didn't have to play as many rounds as our generation did. The game changed.

-Smak

[ILLsmak]

DP:

Think about it like this. If there were 4 contenders and 26 other teams that were average, assuming that the league had 4 contenders are 4 teams that were average (assuming they were similar), one might reason that the 4 contenders would win a similar amount of games.

That may be true if it was a vacuum, but to me, because of the fact that the variables are increased... that is they are average, but slightly different, and there is less monotony, I believe that would add to the challenge the 4 teams faced. Maybe even enough to say that even if the league with only 4 non-contending teams had more talent on those teams, the one with 26 would still cause more wear and tear on the contending teams.

Just a hypothetical situation. No "real world proof", but I think if you really kick it around in your head, you'll see what I mean.

-Smak

[SyRyanYang]

What you really should list is, number of professional basketball player at respective era.

[PHILA]

Number of strong title contenders > Number of teams in general.

Yes, take the Sixers from 1965-1968, who won the title once in 3 1/2 seasons. They would slaughter any team from the 2000's with great ease. The key was Luke Jackson, a guy most fans now cannot comprehend how great his value was. Actually most of them don't even know who he was. In early 1964-65 (and 1968-69 pre-injury), Luke played the center position. They also can't understand how someone like Bill Russell could be so dominant on the defensive end, when nearly every NBA rule change since then has been to benefit the offense in some way. From the mid-60's to the mid-70's nearly every team in the game had an excellent center. And they played each other far more often during the regular season than they do in this era with 30 teams. Just to name a few:


Wilt Chamberlain
Bill Russell
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
Nate Thurmond
Willis Reed
Walt Bellamy
Luke Jackson
Dave Cowens
Elvin Hayes
Bob Lanier
Wes Unseld
Spencer Haywood
Sidney Wicks
Wayne Embry
Zelmo Beaty
Elmore Smith
Clifford Ray
Tom Boerwinkle
John Kerr
Clyde Lovelette



Even in the 90s you had the big 4 in terms of dominant centers, but for every Shaq, Hakeem, Robinson, Ewing you had starting centers like Felton Spencer, Chris Dudley, Joe Kleine, Eric Montross, Matt Geiger, etc.

[jzek]

Wow, did not know that! Will bring this up the next time someone brings up Russell and his 11 rings.

[OldSkoolball#52]

Yea....adding 18 teams to that league wouldnt make the league better. Just...have more teams. We could add 14 more teams tomorrow. Without a new source of NBA level players the league would be worse on average for obvious reasons.

The point the OP makes, which I have made on more than one occasion, is that statistically when a season began, Bill Russell had a 1/8 chance of being on the championship team. Today, any given player has a 1/30 chance in being on a championship team when the season begins.

Of course, I've always contended the "rings" argument is for simple minded dummies, but this is just another demonstration of that.

Consider that the amount of playoff victories Russell needed to win championships was equivalent to a mere conference playoff in today's game. In that sense, the Magic and Thunder have recently achieved every bit Russell did in any given year he won his "rings". They emerged victorious from a field of 8. Of course, they then had to play an additional series in order to be crowned champions, and subsequently lost. But Russell never had to play that extra series.

And that's just assuming all 8 or 9 teams made the playoffs during the majority of Russell's title tenure. I don't know what the playoff format was back then. It might have just been the top 4 teams held a playoff. But at absolute best, the league's entire playoff back then was equivalent to a conference playoff today.


"But this guy has teh rings, he's better than that guy! Shut up, Robert Horry is totally different!!!!"

[TheMan]

The talent pool for basketball really didn't mature until the 70s IMO as racial segregation started to ease and the formation of the ABA expanded things, so did development at the college level.

I simply don't think the 50s/60s was *that* great of a brand of basketball, there simply weren't enough people playing the sport.

This

The league was full of shot jacking slow footed white guys back then...not impressed.

[Marchesk]

Today, any given player has a 1/30 chance in being on a championship team when the season begins."

But they don't, because the majority of teams aren't title contenders. There's 10 or 12, and that's being generous.

[jlip]

The point the OP makes, which I have made on more than one occasion, is that statistically when a season began, Bill Russell had a 1/8 chance of being on the championship team. Today, any given player has a 1/30 chance in being on a championship team when the season begins.

But they don't, because the majority of teams aren't title contenders. There's 10 or 12, and that's being generous.

Championships are won via a playoffs. 30 teams don't make the playoffs. 14 teams don't make the playoffs and have absolutely no impact of who wins a title. More times than not, the 7 and 8 seeds have no chance at winning whatsoever either. Finally, as a champion you don't play all of the other 15 teams in the playoffs. All you play is the four teams who advance along with you.

[LAZERUSS]

Russell didn't win a ring in the 66-67 season, but it is a good place to start. First of all, the NBA had ten teams, which included an expansion Bulls team.

Let's start with that Bulls team, shall we...

Chicago probably had the least amount of talent in the league that year, but amazingly, they went 33-48, and made the playoffs. Even more remarkably, their scoring differential was only -3.7 ppg. That team featured hard-nosed Jerry Sloan, journeyman Bob Boozer, and Guy Rodgers (admittedly, the worst shooter in the history of the NBA.) Still, they won 33 games. Think about that as we go along...

Baltimore had the worst record in the league, at 20-61. On paper, they should have done better. While their roster was void of truly great super-stars, it was loaded to the hilt was quality NBA players. HOFer Gus Johnson, who had a soft-touch of 15+ feet, and a vertical that would rival Jordan's (go ahead and google Gus Johnson and "the nail." He was capable 20 ppg seasons, and 17 rpg seasons. They also had Kevin Loughery, LeRoy Ellis, Jack Marin, Ray Scott, and Johnny Green. I won't waste time typing up their career numbers,...you can look them up for yourself...but in any case, there has probably never been a more talented 20-61 team in NBA history.

The Detroit Pistons went 30-51. Surely they couldn't have any talent right? Well, they had ROY Dave Bing, who averaged 20 ppg, and who would lead the league in scoring the very next year. Then there was HOFer Dave DeBusschere, one of the best defensive players of his era, a solid rebounder, and good outside shot. He would go on to be a key player in the Knick title teams of '70 and '73. Tom Van Arsdale, a player who would have 20 ppg seasons in just two years. Eddie Miles, who averaged 21.2 ppg in '67. And they even boasted a 7-0 footer in Reggie Harding.

Continued...

[LAZERUSS]

Continuing...

Now it gets interesting...

How about the St. Louis Hawks? A LOADED roster. Lou Hudson, who would average 18 ppg that year, and a player who would have SEVEN seasons of 20+ ppg, and on great efficiency, with two at 26.8 and 27.1 ppg. Zelmo Beaty, a multiple all-star in his career, he averaged 18 ppg in '67, and would have two NBA seasons of 20+ ppg, and then three of 20+ ppg seasons in the ABA.
HOFer Lenny Wilkins (yes, as both a player and a coach), who averaged 17 ppg that year, and who would have three seasons of 20+ in his long career, as well as leading the league in apg one year, with five seasons of 8+ (in an era when assists were much harder to come by.) Bill Bridges, who averaged 17 ppg and 15 rpg that year, and a player who enjoyed a long and successful NBA career. HOFer Richie Guerin, admittedly nearing the end of his career, but still a 14 ppg scorer in '67. Joe Caldwell, a player who averaged 14 ppg in '67, and would average 21 in '70 and 23 in the ABA in '71. Journeyman Dick Snyder, who played a limited role in '67, but would go on to have 18 and 19 ppg seasons in his NBA career. And how about Paul Silas off the bench? 7 ppg and 9 rpg, in 20 mpg. And before someone scoffs at this 6-7 player, he was battling Kareem for the rebounding title in '76. How did the Hawks do in '67? They went 39-42.

The New York Knicks boasted...get this... Walt Bellamy AND Willis Reed. Reed averaged a 21-15 on .493 shooting, while the 6-11 (in bare feet) Bellamy was a 19-14 .521 player. Then there were players like Dick Van Arsdale, who averaged 15 ppg in '67, and who would put up three straight seasons of 21+ just a couple of years later. Or Dick Barnett, who averaged 17 ppg in '67, and just the year before, in '66, averaged 23 ppg. He would also be an all-star the very next year in '68. Journey Butch Komives, who averaged 16 ppg and 7 apg in '67. And then there was one of the best "6th men" of his era, Cazzie Russell, who averaged 11 ppg in 22 mpg, and would have seasons as high as 21 ppg in his career. This team simply had to win 50 games, right? Well, not quite. In fact, they weren't even close. 36-45.

And talk about LOADED, how about the Cincinnati Royals. A team which featured Oscar, still in his absolute brilliance, and a prime Jerry Lucas. All Oscar did in '67 was average 31 ppg and 11 apg (and 7 rpg), on .493 and .873 shooting (in an NBA that shot .441.) Lucas, who was Kevin Love in every way, and probably the best long range shooter in the league, put up an 18 ppg, 19 rpg season (albeit, on a low, for him, .459 FG%.) But, I'm not thru yet. I mentioned Lucas as being one of the premier long-range bombers of his era (look up the term "Lucas Layup.") But the Royals also boasted, what I honestly believe were the two next best bombers of the 60's and early 70's, John McGlocklin, and Flynn Robinson. McGlocklin would go on to have sensational seasons on the Bucks in the early 70's, and Robinson, who averaged 9 ppg in 15 mpg in '67, would go on to have seasons as high as 20 just a few years later. Still not done, though. Odie Smith, who was the Royals "SG" alongside Oscar, averaged 17 ppg. Their center was journeyman Connie Dierking, a second-tier guy in the 60's, but a player who once scored 41 points against Wilt, and had a game in which he easily outscored KAJ. He averaged a 9-8 in '67. 6-11 walt Wesley, who would have an 18 ppg season a few years later (which included a 50 point game) could only score 5 ppg on this team. Finally...the 6-8 "Butterbean" Bob Love, who averaged 7 ppg in 16 mpg in '67, and would go on to have six seasons of 20+ ppg, with highs of 25 and 26 ppg in the early 70's. Ok, there had to be no way that this team didn't win 50 games, right? Sorry, 39-42, and were blown out in the first round of the playoffs.

That brings us to the SF Warriors. Rick Barry would lead the league in scoring at 35.6 ppg, the highest non-Wilt full season in the Wilt-era. Then there was 6-11 Nate Thurmond, and in his finest season (finishing second to Chamberlain in the MVP voting.) All he did that year was average 19 ppg and 21 rpg), and was arguably the greatest one-on-one defending center in NBA history (just ask Kareem, who couldn't shoot .440 against him in his 30 career h2h's.) Then there was journeyman paul Neumann, who averaged 14 ppg. And how about sharp-shooting Jeff Mullins, who averaged 13 ppg in '67, and would average 19 the next year, and then run off a string of four straight 20+ ppg seasons? 6-8 PF Fred Hetzel, who averaged 12 ppg in sharing duties with Clyde Lee (more on him in a moment), and who would average 21 ppg the very next season. Back to the 6-10 Lee, who may very well have been the best rebounding PF of the early 70's. He even outrebounded Thurmond in a playoff series against Kareem a few years later. In the '67 season, Lee averaged over 7 rpg, in under 17 mpg. Then there was Tom Meschery, who was the Warriors second best player with Wilt a couple of years earlier, and in '67, he averaged 11 ppg, or nearly what he did as Wilt's side-kick. Finally, players like bruisng Al Attles and Jim King. Keep in mind that Wilt's '64 Warriors had nowhere near this much talent (not even close), and went 48-32. So, surely this Warrior team must have approached 60 wins, right? 44-37.

Now we get to the "Miami Heat" of the mid-60's...the Los Angeles Lakers. What do I mean by that, you ask? A near-prime Elgin Baylor, who put up a 27-13 season, and a prime Jerry West, who hung a 29 ppg, 7 apg season. Both played most of the games that season, as well (Baylor at 70, and West at 66.) Which brings up to their subs...6-8 Rudy LaRusso, who averaged 13 ppg and 8 rpg (and who would average 22 ppg the very next season), and HOFer Gail Goodrich, who managed to score 12+ ppg in 23 mpg, and who would put up six seasons of 20+, with highs of 26 ppg. And talk about guard-depth! This Laker team alos boasted Archie Clark, who averaged 11 ppg in '67, and who would average 20 ppg the very next season (and make the All-Star team.) But, wait...still not done with their guards. Then there was Walt Hazzard (Abdul Rahman), who averaged 9 ppg in '67, and who would average 24 ppg the very next season. Tom Hawkins was a defensive specialist in his era, and also managed to kick in with 8 ppg, as well. Their starting center was 6-10 journeyman Darrall Imhoff, who put up an 11-14 season. And this team also boasted TWO 7-0 footers, Henry Finkle, and Mel Counts, who had excellent range, and could play PF. Deep on their bench was 6-10 John Block, who was a decent backup in his career. Once again...with the Lebron and Wade tandem of their era....... and a 36-45 team.

That brings us to the Celtics. Finally a 60 win team (60-21 to be exact.) IMHO, this was the most loaded team, top-to-bottom, in NBA history (sorry '63 Celtics and their nine HOFers.) This Celtic team literally went 11-deep. How talented were they? How about someone named Toby Kimball? Granted, Kimball could only squeeze in 3 ppg with the '67 Celtics, BUT, the very next season, with San Diego, he put up a 12-12 season. Then there was journeyman Jim Barnett, who only scored 4 ppg on this team, but would average 12 over his career. KC Jones, a very questionable HOFer, but certainly was regarded as one of the best defensive gaurds of his era. Bruising 6-8 250 lb Wayne Embry (another "HOFer" who was actually an All-Star in the mid-60's. Versatile Don Nelson, who averaged 8 ppg in '67, but would have many seasons of 10+, in a relatively long career. Satch Sanders, again, one of the premier defensive players in the league in the 60's, and who surprisingly, put up a 10 ppg season in '67. Larry Siegfried, who averaged 14 ppg in '67, and in only 26 mpg. After that...HOFer Bailey Howell, who not only averaged 20 ppg, but on .512 shooting. And Sam Jones and his 22 ppg. Probably the most "clutch" player, aside from West, of his era. Then there was Hondo, who was the best 6th man of his era, and who averaged a 21-7-3 in '67. Finally...Bill Russell and his 13 ppg and 21 rpg, as well as all-time defense.

So how come the Celtics couldn't win the title in '67? Because the Sixers, in certainly a top-3 all-time season, just smashed every team record at the time. They started out 46-4, which included a 138-96 demolition of the Celtics, and never looked back, as they coasted to a 68-13 record...in THIS league! While not nearly as deep as Boston, their players, aside from Havlicek, were simply better 1-6. A peak Chamberlain deservedly ran away with the MVP in a 24-24-8 .683 season (and likely as high as 10 bpg), in one of the greatest defensive seasons ever. HOFer Hal Greer and his 22 ppg. HOFer Chet Walker and his 19 ppg. Unsung PF, 6-9 260 lb Luke Jackson, and his 12-9 season. HOFer Billy Cunningham and his 19 ppg. And streak-shooting Wali Jones, and his 13 ppg. This team just destroyed the league that year, and did so in '68 as well...until they were decimated by injuries. Clearly, a healthy Sixer squad in '68 would have won their second straight title.

There you have it. STACKED teams failing to go .500. Say what you want...but you would be hard-pressed to find any teams in TODAY's NBA that boasted the talent levels of the Lakers and Royals (or Warriors)...and certainly none of them were on Boston's or Philly's level.

As for Russell's 11 rings. His teams won 10 game sevens in the post-season, SEVEN of which were decided by FOUR points, or less, including a couple of OTs'. Just an extraordinary accomplishment, especially given the loaded rosters that filled the league in that era.

[tpols]

The point the OP makes, which I have made on more than one occasion, is that statistically when a season began, Bill Russell had a 1/8 chance of being on the championship team. Today, any given player has a 1/30 chance in being on a championship team when the season begins.

Of course, I've always contended the "rings" argument is for simple minded dummies, but this is just another demonstration of that.

Consider that the amount of playoff victories Russell needed to win championships was equivalent to a mere conference playoff in today's game. In that sense, the Magic and Thunder have recently achieved every bit Russell did in any given year he won his "rings". They emerged victorious from a field of 8. Of course, they then had to play an additional series in order to be crowned champions, and subsequently lost. But Russell never had to play that extra series.

And that's just assuming all 8 or 9 teams made the playoffs during the majority of Russell's title tenure. I don't know what the playoff format was back then. It might have just been the top 4 teams held a playoff. But at absolute best, the league's entire playoff back then was equivalent to a conference playoff today.


"But this guy has teh rings, he's better than that guy! Shut up, Robert Horry is totally different!!!!"

If there's a 1/30 chance of being on the best team, that means most of the teams are going to be relatively bad. And if half the teams make the playoffs, that means you are likely to face bad teams early on.

So what you're saying makes no sense.

A realistic analogy would be if you totally skipped the first and second round and just had the top four teams battle it out.. Okc sas Miami indy.. That's it whole playoffs. And I don't see how that isn't just as hard to come out on top.. Nevermind11 times in a row

[ballup]

Here's the problem I see with this: Russell isn't someone from the future who knows advanced plays/techniques that were not developed by his playing days. He's had the same tools with which to work as his peers.

Also, since the teams of his era played each other so many times (I counted 12 times max) in the regular season, they were prepared for one another once the playoffs arrived. Unlike today, when teams play their playoff matchups only, at most, 4 times. Teams could have easily prepared for one another back then, making it competitive.