Yesterday I argued that it’s possible that the Seattle SuperSonics, despite the loss of Ray Allen and Rashard Lewis, might improve this next season. And if that happens, we can expect much of the credit will go to rookie Kevin Durant, even if – as the post argued – it’s the plethora of average veterans that might be most responsible for Seattle’s ability to avoid a complete disaster in 2007-08.
Today I want to focus on a team that should be a bit more competitive than the SuperSonics. Whereas Seattle might improve a bit next season (or not, as I said, that projection was mostly guessing), the team that’s expected to make the most progress in the standings in 2007-08 is the Boston Celtics.
Last season the Celtics only managed to win 24 games. Denied a chance at either Greg Oden or Kevin Durant, general manager Danny Ainge managed to turn the 5th pick in the draft, Al Jefferson, and a collection of average and below average players into Ray Allen and Kevin Garnett. And now James Posey, one of the few above average free agents, has joined this roster. Posey explained his choice as follows:
Yes, Posey thinks a 24 win team from last season is going to contend for a title next season. For this to happen, the Celtics must make a mighty leap in the standings. At the very least, Boston must win 50 games in 2007-08, which means this team must improve by 26 games. Only seven teams since 1973-74 have made such a leap in the standings. And one of these was the Boston Celtics in 1979-80. Today I want to review what happened back in 1979, a review that I think tells us something about Garnett and today’s Boston Celtics.
A Bit of Celtic History
The Celtics won eleven titles from 1957 to 1969. After missing the playoffs in both 1970 and 1971, Boston appeared in the post-season for six consecutive campaigns, winning the title in 1974 and 1976. Then in 1977-78 and 1978-79, the proud Celtics again missed the playoffs.
Once again, though, the Celtics could not be kept down for long. After winning only 29 games in 1978-79, the Celtics won 61 games the next season.
Most fans would suspect that the key was the addition of Larry Bird. Bird was the 6th player taken in 1978 (yes, Bird was one of those infamous 6th choices), but did not join the Celtics until he led Indiana State to the NCAA title game in 1979 (a game I remember talking about in 3rd grade). In Bird’s rookie season he led the Celtics in scoring, rebounds, and steals. But he also led the team in turnovers and personal fouls. Given all this, was Bird really responsible for Boston’s improvement?
The Celtics of the Late 1970s
To answer this question, let’ s first look back on the two Boston teams that missed the playoffs in 1978 and 1979. After taking the title in 1976, Boston declined to 44 victories in 1976-77. The next season the Celtics slide continued, as the team only managed to win 32 games. Despite this paltry wins total, Boston still had some talent.
The top player on the Celtics in the 1970s was Dave Cowens. Complete box scored data was not tracked until 1977-78. One can still look at what data was kept prior to 1977, and via some guesstimates of the missing data, create an estimate of Wins Produced. Such a process results in an estimate of an estimate (since Wins Produced itself is just an estimate). Nevertheless, from 1970-71 until 1976-77, it appears that Cowens produced about 129 wins and posted a 0.300 WP48 (Wins Produced per 48 minutes). Although these are crude estimates, I think it’s safe to say that Cowens was pretty good.
In 1977-78, despite the Celtics inability to win much, Cowens was still quite good. He produced 17.1 wins (or more than half the team’s final tally) and his WP48 was 0.255 (these are better estimates since we do have complete data for 1977-78). The Celtics also had a rookie named Cedric Maxwell, who had a 0.313 WP48. Maxwell, though, only played 1,213 minutes. Consequently he only produced 7.9 wins.
After Cowens and Maxwell, the only above average player on the roster was Kermit Washington, who like Maxwell, only played limited minutes. The combination of Cowens, Maxwell, and Washington produced 30.8 of the team’s 36.1 Wins Produced. This means that players like John Havlicek, Dave Bing, Sidney Wicks, and Jo Jo White produced very little in 1977-78. This does not mean that these four players were never good, but it does tell us that 30 years ago, this quartet were not very productive (one should note that both Havlicek and Bing never played again after this season).
In 1978-79, Cedric Maxwell saw his minutes more than double. His production of wins also rose to 15.5, which was more than 50% of the team’s Wins Produced. After Maxwell, though, the Celtics did not employ a single above average player (okay, Earl Williams was above average but he only played 273 minutes). Cowens dropped off considerably, posting a WP48 of 0.074 (while only producing 3.9 wins).
Cowens also served as head coach of the team for the final 68 contests. Not only was Cowens the coach unable to get much from Cowens the player, a collection of famous names- Tiny Archibald, Jo Jo White, Billy Knight, Bob McAdoo, Don Chaney, and Marvin Barnes – combined to produce only 0.1 wins. In other words, these famous players from NBA history gave the Celtics and head coach Cowens virtually nothing.
Bird’s Rookie Season
In 1978-79 the Celtics employed 18 different players. The next season, Larry Bird’s first campaign, only twelve players wore Celtic green. Of these twelve, five were above average. This list of above average players included Maxwell [11.9 wins and 0.208 WP48], Archibald [12.2 wins and 0.205 WP48], Chris Ford [6.1 wins and 0.139 WP48], and M.L. Carr [6.1 wins and 0.146 WP48]. Additionally, the Celtics still employed Cowens (only as a player) and acquired Pistol Pete Maravich in mid-season. These future hall-of-famers combined to produce 2.6 wins, so neither did much (a result for Pistol Pete that shouldn’t surprise).
Okay, enough about unproductive aging stars. What about Bird?
Earlier I hinted that Bird really wasn’t the key to this team. But I was just kidding. Bird, as he was throughout his career, was extremely productive his rookie season. He produced 18.8 wins and posted a WP48 of 0.305 (a mark that was actually well below his career average). Clearly Bird led this team in Wins Produced and was “the key” addition to Boston.
That being said, Bird was not a one man show. Let’s think back to the 1977-78 squad. That team had a very productive Cowens, but because Cowens had little help, the Celtics only won 32 games. And had Bird joined a Celtics team that didn’t have any other productive players, he would have suffered the same fate as Cowens in 1977.
Basic Lessons
As a professor I have an annoying habit of always trying to think of the lessons any story I tell is conveying. From this particular story we learned two things:
1. Larry Bird was really good. And that’s what conventional wisdom says also. Which proves that I can agree with both conventional wisdom and Bill Simmons on something.
2. More importantly, this story tells us that having one productive player will not get a team into the playoffs. We saw this with the Cowens led Celtics of 1978 and again with the Maxwell led squad of 1979. This means that had Bird joined a team without any other productive players, his rookie season would not have been fun.
Beyond this point, I want to tie this whole story back to the career of Kevin Garnett. For much of his career, KG has been much like Cowens in 1978. The Kid was producing wins, but it was hard to tell because his teammates weren’t helping. Now Garnett has a chance to be like Bird in 1979-80. Finally Garnett will be playing with other players who can help him produce wins.
One Last Question
Let me close with one more question. What caused Tiny Archibald to improve so much? To see how much, here is the Wins Produced for each Celtic in 1977-78, 1977-79, and 1979-80. I look forward to hearing your thoughts on Archibald in the comments section.
Table One: The Boston Celtics of the Late 1970s
– DJ
Our research on the NBA was summarized HERE.
Wins Produced and Win Score are Discussed in the Following Posts
Simple Models of Player Performance
What Wins Produced Says and What It Does Not Say
Wages of Wins Journal 
Paulo
August 31, 2007
I checked Basketball Reference.com and I saw that in ’76-’79 (before his spike in production), he played in a combined 103 games out of a possible 246 (not including playoffs). Obviously, he was injured. A quick look on his “full” (70+ games played) seasons show that he was pretty much as productive in terms of assists and steals. I can only assume that shots were taken away from him when he was in Boston because he somewhat maintained the assists.
However, he looked like he was pretty much a brittle player and the ’80-81 season was his last decent season. I don’t know much about Tiny Archibald except the fact that most he once led the league in scoring and assists in one year. I can only assume that the injuries allowed him to play based on reputation, and not in his ability, and in ’79-’80, he was pretty much all healed up, giving a boost in his performance. Your findings may vary.
Tim
August 31, 2007
Here’s an article discussing Archibald’s difficult transition to the Celtics after a serious injury, and then his rejuvenation with Bird:
http://www.nba.com/history/players/archibald_bio.html
MT
August 31, 2007
I think the previous two posters got it right on Tiny. I lived in Bos that year and it was a real pleasure to get to see Bird every game.
Those rosters are a hoot! All those famous guys at the end of their careers!
Neil
August 31, 2007
I appreciate that part of the working assumption of WofW is that players decide games, but your article notes that “Cowens the coach [was] unable to get much from Cowens the player. . .” This begs feedback on the question of Bill Fitch’s role in remaking a team capable of getting good production from players like Archibald, Ford and Carr.
George Andrade
August 31, 2007
Use all the math you want, but anything can happen in a season. It will be an exciting season just watching the Celtics actually have a shot at the title. Celtic Pride is Back!!!!!!
bobby
August 31, 2007
is it a coincidence that the best team ray allen’s ever been on (not the 05 sonics that he led to 52 wins and division title but fell in 2nd round in 6 games to spurs while finishing top 10 for mvp and making 2nd team all-nba……. but the 2001 bucks that he took to the conference finals)… is it a coincidence that this was his most productive season for wp48 where he posted .272…….. the reason i ask because its also a coincidence that the best team paul pierce was on was the highest wp48 he has ever posted(2002 celtics), and the best team kevin garnett was on was the most productive year he had as well (04 wolves, mvp season) for wp48………. considering that next season should be the best/most talented/most successful team that all 3 of these unbelievable superstar players have ever been on, is it fair to assume that all 3 will have their most productive year’s yet in the upcoming season????? (look out nba, the celtics are gonna kill it!!!)
Rich
September 1, 2007
I hate to date myself, but…when I was 14 or so our JV basketball coach took us to old “Bear Down” Gym in Tucson to see the Wildcats play the Miners from El Paso. It was 1969. We had heard about this amazing guard from UTEP that nobody could keep up with. He was amazing. The other guys I was with all agreed we had never seen anyone so quick, athletic, and dominant. That was almost 40 years ago and I can still see “Tiny” flying above and around everyone else. Thanks for writing the article and bring back some great memories.
jojo
September 3, 2007
you are all forgetting one thing…you are comparing all these players..garnette, pistol etc…none of them were clutch..Bird was..so turnovers, fouls…BLAH—Bird was a winner, clutch player. The others were not. KG is not. Hopefully Celtic pride and some paul pierce will change that.