Bill Russell gets named among the very best centers ever to play the game because he could defend and rebound as well or better than anyone in his generation. He gets mentioned because he’s got 11 championship rings and anchored a dominant Celtics team.
But he was better on offense than you think.
In a great post at Behind the Basket, Zachariah Blott breaks down the numbers from the Celtics of that era and shows that Russell was a key part of the offense, it wasn’t all Bob Cousy and Bill Sharman.
He starts with this point — those Celtics liked to run a lot and many of those breaks started with Russell grabbing the rebound and throwing the outlet pass, or maybe a Russell block. Which is to say, he wasn’t the guy who easily got out for the easy baskets.
The other point is that these Celtics were built as a passing team that shared the scoring load. When you look at it in that context, you see that Russell was a guy creating a lot of offense plus getting his share of points (he averaged 15.1 points per game for his career, and had a high of 18.9, with always one of the highest shooting percentages on the team).
No rational person can look at his stats within the context of his team, which was often one of the top-scoring clubs in the league, and not think Russell was a pretty good offensive player. Factoring in his unique place on Boston’s defense-to-offense transition game (teammates often didn’t play great defense knowing Russell would neutralize the threat as it got closer to the hoop and so that they could already be sprinting down the court by the time Russell grabbed the board or block), it’s not a stretch to say he was the most important offensive player for many of these nine seasons.
Russell’s defense and rebounding were the cornerstone of a Celtics team that dominated a decade like no other. But don’t think he was a one-dimensional player — he is one of the greatest centers ever for a reason.
The Clippers rebranded themselves with a new logo and uniforms last year.
Did they also give themselves a new name?
Mike Chamernik of Uni Watch:
The Los Angeles Clippers not only changed their name, but they did it a year ago. No one has seemed to notice. Yes, they are still known as the Clippers. The L.A. Clippers.
As in, that’s their location name. Not just an abbreviation.
The proof is everywhere. The Clippers refer to themselves as the L.A. (or, sometimes LA) Clippers on their own website, and on their various social media accounts, including Twitter, Facebook and Instagram. NBA.com refers to them as the L.A. Clippers in stories, transactions listings and site menus, even when mentioning the Los Angeles Lakers (who still go by the full city name). And now, ESPN.com has all references to the city name as LA, both on the team’s page and in standings and schedules.
One of my key pieces of evidence is the team’s media guide (PDF), which says copyright L.A. Clippers.
Chamernik presents a compelling list of evidence, but the Clippers’ silence on the issue – they didn’t return his requests for comment – is odd. Teams usually trumpet any rebranding with grandiose announcements and contrived rational.
Look at this line from the Clippers’ new-uniform announcement: “In addition, the silver lining seen in the Clippers wordmark signifies the renewed collective optimism of Clipper Nation.”
If they want to be L.A. rather than Los Angeles, why didn’t the Clippers tout their edgy and modern new name style? That’s more believable than silver lining representing the collective optimism of the fan base of one of the worst franchises in the history of professional sports.
Whatever peculiarities have accompanied the rollout of this apparent renaming, the proof is in the pudding – and that seems to say they’re the L.A., not Los Angeles, Clippers.
This is why the 76ers fired Sam Hinkie.
They’ve become a national laughingstock, even beyond NBA circles.
Philadelphia’s younger players developing and the addition of a couple veterans should help the team become regularly, rather than historically, bad. But the 76ers haven’t yet escaped the dismal reputation that became an embarrassment to ownership (which will still reap the rewards of Hinkie’s Process).
See this clip from The Daily Show on Donald Trump’s policing plan for the latest example (hat tip: CSN Philly).
The Lakers have given 15 players – the regular-season roster limit – a guaranteed salary for next season.
But they could open a roster spot by trading (ha!) or waiving Nick Young.
Who could fill it? One candidate: Undrafted Notre Dame big man Zach Auguste.
Eric Pincus of Basketball Insiders:
Auguste is probably getting a partial guarantee, but I wouldn’t pencil him in for the regular-season roster just yet – even if the Lakers waive Young. I expect the Lakers to sign multiple players to partially guaranteed deals and bring them to camp to compete.
If they waive Auguste, the Lakers could assign his D-League rights to their affiliate, the D-Fenders. Ideally, though, he’d make the regular-season roster – but that outlook will probably be true for multiple Lakers by the time training camp begins.
Auguste is a skilled interior scorer who excels in the pick-and-roll and can also post up. He improved greatly as a rebounder last season, but how much of that is due to outgrowing his competition as a senior? He’s already 23. Auguste has shown no range on his jumper, and he’s not a rim protector. Despite his mobility, his pick-and-roll defense is also lacking.
Good for the Lakers getting him in their pipeline, but don’t expect too much.
Jim Boeheim urged Carmelo Anthony to leave the Knicks in 2014. The Syracuse coach suggested the Bulls for his former player.
At the heart of Boeheim’s pitch: He wanted Anthony to win an NBA championship.
Well, Anthony discarded Boeheim’s advice and re-signed with the Knicks. So, Boeheim is predicting the outcome he always predicted if Anthony returned to New York.
Boeheim, via Mike Walters of Syracuse.com:
“He’s unlikely to win an NBA title,” Boeheim said. “He’s never been on a team that even had a remote chance of winning an NBA title. As a player, all you can do is try to make your team better and every team he’s been on he’s made them a lot better. Denver hadn’t done anything prior to him getting there and he took them into the playoffs. They weren’t going to beat the Lakers or the Spurs. In those years, they won the championship most of the time.
“But he’s always made his team better,” added Boeheim. “It’s obvious. You look back on your total basketball experience and he had a great high school team, he won the NCAA championship and he’s won three gold medals in the Olympics. That’s a pretty good resume.”
This is a classic controversy. Boeheim caused it by being honest.
Anthony probably won’t win a title.
He’s 32, playing for a team with a middling-at-best supporting cast and seems content remaining in New York. His most valuable teammate, Kristaps Porzingis, is so young, his prime might not overlap with Anthony’s. The Knicks limited themselves in the next few seasons by guaranteeing 31-year-old Joakim Noah more than $72 million over the next four years.
Most players are unlikely to win another championship. Most of exceptions play for the Warriors. I’m not even sure LeBron James is more likely than not to win another title.
Anthony sure isn’t.
That’s not the end of the world, and as Boeheim – and Anthony – said, Anthony can still have a good résumé. But it has to sting for such a prominent basketball figure in the state of New York and proud Anthony supporter tell the truth so bluntly.