NBA Season 2021-22

[A Future of Stevens]

In a league where everyone wasn't allowed to palm the ball point guards no one would be the ones bringing the ball up.

fixed it for you

Thanks! LOL 

That was my least favorite part about HS bball. The refs would call that like hawks where I played. Got me at least a few times a season.

[Moranis]

So do the Lakers seriously consider trading Davis this summer.  He just isn't reliable.  Immense talent, but you have to be able to stay on the Court.  Because he is such a talent, I'm sure they'd have a nice market for him, but I don't think anyone could make him the centerpiece of their team going forward. 

[A Future of Stevens]

So do the Lakers seriously consider trading Davis this summer.  He just isn't reliable.  Immense talent, but you have to be able to stay on the Court.  Because he is such a talent, I'm sure they'd have a nice market for him, but I don't think anyone could make him the centerpiece of their team going forward.

What would a return for Davis look like at this point? We can all agree he is insanely talented, and should be in the center of his prime as a 2 way player. But the same reason the Lakers should move him, is a good reason for teams to hold their cards tight to their chest.

You would have to get something to allow Lebron to compete next year.

[Who]

So do the Lakers seriously consider trading Davis this summer.  He just isn't reliable.  Immense talent, but you have to be able to stay on the Court.  Because he is such a talent, I'm sure they'd have a nice market for him, but I don't think anyone could make him the centerpiece of their team going forward.

What would a return for Davis look like at this point? We can all agree he is insanely talented, and should be in the center of his prime as a 2 way player. But the same reason the Lakers should move him, is a good reason for teams to hold their cards tight to their chest.

You would have to get something to allow Lebron to compete next year.

Jaylen Brown

AD would be phenomenal here next to Tatum. Trade Horford and picks for a guard to play alongside Smart. AD and Rob Williams as dual defensive anchors.

Hard to see LA doing much better than Jaylen. Maybe a win-now trade for Lillard although I do not know how happy / willing AD would be to go to Portland which may kill that possibility.

[Moranis]

As hard as this is on a Celtics site, I don't think you can make a really reasonable argument that Bill should be ahead of Kareem.  In fact, I think you have an easier time arguing Kareem is the greatest player ever then you would arguing that Bill was better than Kareem.

How do you account for a guy who, in a period of 15 years, won two NCAA championships, 11 NBA championships, and a gold medal?  With all of those coming with him as the most impactful player?  And hell, if Russell doesn't get hurt in the '58 Finals, the Celts are probably winning that title, too. 

I wish we had advanced stats  and tracking data related to Russell's era, so that we could track how many shots he blocked, and how many he altered.

There's a non-zero chance that even with his vastly inferior offense, Russell's overall game was better than Kareem's.

Russell was great, but he also was playing on teams with way more HOFers than his competition, including his college team.  Kareem went to 10 Finals winning 6.  It isn't like he didn't have team success.  He is the all time leading regular season scorer (at least for another year).  He has more MVP's, more win shares, and more of just about everything.  And while Bill was a better defender, it isn't like Kareem wasn't a great defender.  I mean he is 3rd all time in defensive win shares (Bill is 1 and Duncan is 2).  It is easier to argue that Kareem is the greatest player ever than it is to argue that Bill was a better player than him.   A lot of people don't even have Bill as the greatest player of his generation (i.e. Wilt).  Bill for as great as he was, is not a better player than Kareem. 

[Roy H.]

As hard as this is on a Celtics site, I don't think you can make a really reasonable argument that Bill should be ahead of Kareem.  In fact, I think you have an easier time arguing Kareem is the greatest player ever then you would arguing that Bill was better than Kareem.

How do you account for a guy who, in a period of 15 years, won two NCAA championships, 11 NBA championships, and a gold medal?  With all of those coming with him as the most impactful player?  And hell, if Russell doesn't get hurt in the '58 Finals, the Celts are probably winning that title, too. 

I wish we had advanced stats  and tracking data related to Russell's era, so that we could track how many shots he blocked, and how many he altered.

There's a non-zero chance that even with his vastly inferior offense, Russell's overall game was better than Kareem's.

Russell was great, but he also was playing on teams with way more HOFers than his competition, including his college team.  Kareem went to 10 Finals winning 6.  It isn't like he didn't have team success.  He is the all time leading regular season scorer (at least for another year).  He has more MVP's, more win shares, and more of just about everything.  And while Bill was a better defender, it isn't like Kareem wasn't a great defender.  I mean he is 3rd all time in defensive win shares (Bill is 1 and Duncan is 2).  It is easier to argue that Kareem is the greatest player ever than it is to argue that Bill was a better player than him.   A lot of people don't even have Bill as the greatest player of his generation (i.e. Wilt).  Bill for as great as he was, is not a better player than Kareem.

Of course, a lot of those guys aren't Hall of Famers if they don't play next to Russell and win several championships.  Is K.C. Jones (the guy on his college team) a HOFer independently?  Zero-time all-star, 7.4 points and 4.3 assists?

I assume that Cousy, Sam Jones, Havlicek and Tommy make it in if they never played with Russell.  Everybody else is suspect.  Satch Sanders, Frank Ramsey?  I don't see it.  So, four non-suspect Hall of Famers on varying time lines.  That's not really much different than who Wilt or Kareem played with.

[Vermont Green]

As hard as this is on a Celtics site, I don't think you can make a really reasonable argument that Bill should be ahead of Kareem.  In fact, I think you have an easier time arguing Kareem is the greatest player ever then you would arguing that Bill was better than Kareem.

How do you account for a guy who, in a period of 15 years, won two NCAA championships, 11 NBA championships, and a gold medal?  With all of those coming with him as the most impactful player?  And hell, if Russell doesn't get hurt in the '58 Finals, the Celts are probably winning that title, too. 

I wish we had advanced stats  and tracking data related to Russell's era, so that we could track how many shots he blocked, and how many he altered.

There's a non-zero chance that even with his vastly inferior offense, Russell's overall game was better than Kareem's.

Russell was great, but he also was playing on teams with way more HOFers than his competition, including his college team.  Kareem went to 10 Finals winning 6.  It isn't like he didn't have team success.  He is the all time leading regular season scorer (at least for another year).  He has more MVP's, more win shares, and more of just about everything.  And while Bill was a better defender, it isn't like Kareem wasn't a great defender.  I mean he is 3rd all time in defensive win shares (Bill is 1 and Duncan is 2).  It is easier to argue that Kareem is the greatest player ever than it is to argue that Bill was a better player than him.   A lot of people don't even have Bill as the greatest player of his generation (i.e. Wilt).  Bill for as great as he was, is not a better player than Kareem.

Of course, a lot of those guys aren't Hall of Famers if they don't play next to Russell and win several championships.  Is K.C. Jones (the guy on his college team) a HOFer independently?  Zero-time all-star, 7.4 points and 4.3 assists?

I assume that Cousy, Sam Jones, Havlicek and Tommy make it in if they never played with Russell.  Everybody else is suspect.  Satch Sanders, Frank Ramsey?  I don't see it.  So, four non-suspect Hall of Famers on varying time lines.  That's not really much different than who Wilt or Kareem played with.

Yeah, hard to cast any shade on Bill Russell.  I think he and Magic are two really unique players in terms of their ability to make their teams better.  Both could put up individual numbers with the best of them but both also had an innate ability to make winners out of what was put around them.  This is an intangible, hard to measure, ability.  You can look at wins/losses or titles, which for these two it certainly supports it, but that can be tricky for some players.

I think the ability that is shared by these two is a very high level of on-court basketball IQ.  They had the ability to figure out exactly what was needed to help a team win, how to get the most out of every teammate, and the on court ability to do whatever was needed to make it all happen.  LeBron is no slouch in this department and others such as Bird had high IQ certainly but to me, Russell and Magic were in a league of their own.  In my mind, Russell and Magic tend to be a little underappreciated because of this.

[bdm860]

As hard as this is on a Celtics site, I don't think you can make a really reasonable argument that Bill should be ahead of Kareem.  In fact, I think you have an easier time arguing Kareem is the greatest player ever then you would arguing that Bill was better than Kareem.

How do you account for a guy who, in a period of 15 years, won two NCAA championships, 11 NBA championships, and a gold medal?  With all of those coming with him as the most impactful player?  And hell, if Russell doesn't get hurt in the '58 Finals, the Celts are probably winning that title, too. 

I wish we had advanced stats  and tracking data related to Russell's era, so that we could track how many shots he blocked, and how many he altered.

There's a non-zero chance that even with his vastly inferior offense, Russell's overall game was better than Kareem's.

Russell was great, but he also was playing on teams with way more HOFers than his competition, including his college team.  Kareem went to 10 Finals winning 6.  It isn't like he didn't have team success.  He is the all time leading regular season scorer (at least for another year).  He has more MVP's, more win shares, and more of just about everything.  And while Bill was a better defender, it isn't like Kareem wasn't a great defender.  I mean he is 3rd all time in defensive win shares (Bill is 1 and Duncan is 2).  It is easier to argue that Kareem is the greatest player ever than it is to argue that Bill was a better player than him.   A lot of people don't even have Bill as the greatest player of his generation (i.e. Wilt).  Bill for as great as he was, is not a better player than Kareem.

Of course, a lot of those guys aren't Hall of Famers if they don't play next to Russell and win several championships.  Is K.C. Jones (the guy on his college team) a HOFer independently?  Zero-time all-star, 7.4 points and 4.3 assists?

I assume that Cousy, Sam Jones, Havlicek and Tommy make it in if they never played with Russell.  Everybody else is suspect.  Satch Sanders, Frank Ramsey?  I don't see it.  So, four non-suspect Hall of Famers on varying time lines.  That's not really much different than who Wilt or Kareem played with.

There was a great write up on Reddit the other day (by a Philly fan no less) trying to put Russell's success into perspective, and I'm going to post it here (not my words, haven't fact checked, assuming it's all right):

4 notes about how much of a winner Bill Russell was:

1) The Celtics were ho-hum right before Russell joined the team, pretty bad right after he retired, and even worse when he missed games during his career, but when he was there they were the most dominant title-winning franchise in sports history, which proves how ludicrous the “He was simply the best player on a loaded team” comment is. DETAILS:

    a) Boston won 2 total playoff series in the 10 seasons before Russell arrived (he was a rookie in '57), and both were short best-of-3 series (‘53, ‘55).

    b) Boston went 34-48 and missed the playoffs in ‘70 right after winning the title in Russell’s final season.

    c) When he missed games during his career, the Celtics were 10-18 (.357), and 18 of those 28 missed games were against teams with losing records, so there was no excuse for a “loaded” squad to be so bad. When Russell missed 3 or more games in a row --meaning his teammates really had to adjust & couldn’t just “get up” for one game without their leader-- the Celtics were a pitiful 1-12.

They were horrible without him. There is NO evidence the Celtics were any good when Russell wasn’t on the floor, rather a ton of evidence to the contrary.

2) It's been commonly reported that Russell was 21-0 in winner-take-all games, but that’s incorrect …. he was 22-0. If Russell's team played even with an opponent throughout a series or got to the same place in a tournament, Russell's team was ALWAYS going to pull it out in the end.

    At USF, his '55 team was 5-0 in the tourney on the way to the title.

    At USF, his '56 team was 4-0 in the tourney on the way to the title.

    In the '56 Olympics, the US squad was 2-0

    when it came to the winner-take-all Final 4 for gold after the group stage.

    In the NBA, the Celtics were famously 10-0 in Games 7's throughout his career.

    In the '66 playoffs, the Celtics won Game 5 in the best-of-5 series with Cincinnati (link).

3) The Celtics didn’t win the title only 2 times during Russell’s 13-year career, and both were (very likely) due to difficulties experienced by Russell.

    In 1958, the Hawks topped Boston 4-2 in the Finals (winning by 2, 3, 2, & 1 points), during which Russell missed 2 games and played at far less than 100% with a horribly sprained ankle when he was available in the series. It’s safe to say Boston would have won that title with a healthy Russell.

    In 1967, the aging Celtics, fresh off of 8 straight championships, lost to the loaded and younger Sixers in the ECF. This was the first year Russell was Boston’s player-coach, which is significant since he faced horrendously stressful & over-the-top racism as the first black coach in major US pro sports history. He played so much and so intensely (43.3 min/gm in the playoffs) that he often forgot to sub players which hurt his team. The next season, the Celtics were older & considered “done”, but he added a bench coach to handle subs, and they beat the favored defending champion Sixers in the playoffs, and then won the title. Then the “seriously, they’re done now” 1968-69 Celtics clawed their way into the Finals & beat the loaded West-Wilt-Baylor Lakers 4-3 in Russell’s final season. Oh yeah, Russell was the only player-coach in NBA history to win a championship, and he won two.

Two giant asterisks have to go beside the only two championships Boston didn’t win during Russell’s career.

4) Russell went to college at the University of San Francisco which had just suffered through 3 straight losing seasons before he joined the varsity team. He lead an unranked USF team to 2 consecutive NCAA titles during his junior and senior seasons, going 57-1 along the way, and he could have won a title all 3 seasons he played at USF if not for losing teammate K.C. Jones one game into their sophomore season; they smashed the #17 team 51-33 in game 1 with Jones playing who was then hospitalized that night with a burst appendix, but 1st-year Russell still lead them to a 14-7 record without the HOF PG before going on to those 2 titles. Even at the college level, he could lead players who weren’t supposed to win to the ultimate heights; it wasn’t just in Boston. Also, he was the leading scorer, rebounder, and defender on the 1956 gold medal winning US Olympic team, which had an average margin of victory of +53, the highest ever (’92 Dream Team was +44).

Although another poster chimed in, arguing point #1 (the C's weren't good before Russell and bad after Russell) needed more context:

    They didn't just add Bill Russell in the '56-'57 season, they also added Tommy Heinsohn through the draft and Frank Ramsey coming back from military service. Tommy Heinsohn's 9 year career matches up real well with Melo's best 9 years in terms of win-shares, while Ramsey's matches best with Josh Smith or Charles Oakley (both according to basketball reference's similarity scores).

    Then from the '68-'69 Celtics they didn't just lose Russell, they also lost Sam Jones, and another of their top scorers from the year before (Bailey Howell) fell off a cliff, and Satch Sanders got injured halfway through the season and was never the same again.

     

    Also, just because I've seen it come up a few times now, what is this "ho-hum" team he joined? The 55-56 Celtics were 2nd in the East and the top scoring team in the league, finishing 39-33. They didn't get the second pick in the draft because they were bad, they traded their third best player, then 6xAll-Star Ed McCauley, for it.

    From '68-'69 to '69-'70 they went from the 4th seed to the 6th seed after losing two hall-of-famers to retirement, had an injury to another hall-of-famer, and another former all-star who just aged out of the game. No one's doubting Bill Russell is great, he won 11 championships in 13 years as the unquestioned core and leader of those Boston squads. But to act like the team around him wasn't good only because he left is just disingenuous.

All in all, some good info and historical context on Russell and the C's.

[Ogaju]

Tyronn Lue is doing a hell of a job in LA. That clippers roster should be out of the playoff picture but they just keep going. They have a better record than the Lakers and are missing their two best players for almost the whole year. If we were missing Tatum and Brown for the year we would be done.

Sometimes teams get together to fight adversity. Celtics exceeded expectations the year Hayward and Kyrie went down with injuries.

[Moranis]

As hard as this is on a Celtics site, I don't think you can make a really reasonable argument that Bill should be ahead of Kareem.  In fact, I think you have an easier time arguing Kareem is the greatest player ever then you would arguing that Bill was better than Kareem.

How do you account for a guy who, in a period of 15 years, won two NCAA championships, 11 NBA championships, and a gold medal?  With all of those coming with him as the most impactful player?  And hell, if Russell doesn't get hurt in the '58 Finals, the Celts are probably winning that title, too. 

I wish we had advanced stats  and tracking data related to Russell's era, so that we could track how many shots he blocked, and how many he altered.

There's a non-zero chance that even with his vastly inferior offense, Russell's overall game was better than Kareem's.

Russell was great, but he also was playing on teams with way more HOFers than his competition, including his college team.  Kareem went to 10 Finals winning 6.  It isn't like he didn't have team success.  He is the all time leading regular season scorer (at least for another year).  He has more MVP's, more win shares, and more of just about everything.  And while Bill was a better defender, it isn't like Kareem wasn't a great defender.  I mean he is 3rd all time in defensive win shares (Bill is 1 and Duncan is 2).  It is easier to argue that Kareem is the greatest player ever than it is to argue that Bill was a better player than him.   A lot of people don't even have Bill as the greatest player of his generation (i.e. Wilt).  Bill for as great as he was, is not a better player than Kareem.

Of course, a lot of those guys aren't Hall of Famers if they don't play next to Russell and win several championships.  Is K.C. Jones (the guy on his college team) a HOFer independently?  Zero-time all-star, 7.4 points and 4.3 assists?

I assume that Cousy, Sam Jones, Havlicek and Tommy make it in if they never played with Russell.  Everybody else is suspect.  Satch Sanders, Frank Ramsey?  I don't see it.  So, four non-suspect Hall of Famers on varying time lines.  That's not really much different than who Wilt or Kareem played with.

Of course it is.  Wilt had just 3 other HOFers on his team only a couple of seasons, and even then they weren't entirely healthy some of those seasons.  Basically the one time Wilt had a near equal number of HOFers on this team with health, they put together the greatest season the sport had ever seen to that point, and absolutely throttled the Celtics in a gentlemen's sweep in which Wilt dominated Bill (and to be clear Greer, Walker, and Cunningham were not equivalent to Jones, Hondo, Howell, and Jones - let alone the supporting guys like Embry, Siegfried, and Sanders).  Bill was great, but he was also on a team of great players with the greatest GM in the sports history. 

[liam]

The Hornets would've won this game...This is classic NBA:

"Pool Report on the Kyle Lowry Three-Point Shot With 2:03 Left in the First Overtime of Tonight’s Miami Heat at Charlotte Hornets Game
February 17, 2022
The Pool Report interview was conducted by Rod Boone (Charlotte Observer) with Crew Chief Sean Wright following tonight’s Miami Heat at Charlotte Hornets Game

                                                                                               

QUESTION:  Why was the 3-pointer by Kyle Lowry at 2:03 not reviewed?

WRIGHT: By rule, the basket by Lowry must be reviewed at the next clock stoppage which was at the 2:00 mark.  Once the ball was inbounded by Charlotte, by rule, the window to review the shot was now closed.

 

QUESTION:  Replays clearly showed Lowry’s foot over the line. Why was more caution not exercised and a review called for by the crew to ensure the ruling is correct?

WRIGHT:  The crew has to have doubt in order to stop the play.  Unfortunately, we did not have doubt at this time, which is the reason we didn’t stop the play.

 

QUESTION: So, you have to have doubt.

WRIGHT: We had to doubt it to stop the play."

[Kiorrik]

So much tech available these days.

Yet the NBA can't get their reffing sorted.

Corrupt bunch.

[SparzWizard]

So do the Lakers seriously consider trading Davis this summer.  He just isn't reliable.  Immense talent, but you have to be able to stay on the Court.  Because he is such a talent, I'm sure they'd have a nice market for him, but I don't think anyone could make him the centerpiece of their team going forward.

Do they want Marcus Smart and Timelord?

[DefenseWinsChamps]

So do the Lakers seriously consider trading Davis this summer.  He just isn't reliable.  Immense talent, but you have to be able to stay on the Court.  Because he is such a talent, I'm sure they'd have a nice market for him, but I don't think anyone could make him the centerpiece of their team going forward.

Do they want Marcus Smart and Timelord?

Moranis, what do you think that Davis could be traded for that would give Lebron James a more legitimate chance to win the championship next year, because that's all that matters?

[Goldstar88]

So do the Lakers seriously consider trading Davis this summer.  He just isn't reliable.  Immense talent, but you have to be able to stay on the Court.  Because he is such a talent, I'm sure they'd have a nice market for him, but I don't think anyone could make him the centerpiece of their team going forward.

Do they want Marcus Smart and Timelord?

Moranis, what do you think that Davis could be traded for that would give Lebron James a more legitimate chance to win the championship next year, because that's all that matters?

Maybe they can trade him back to New Orleans for Zion, Larry Nance and salary fillers.