Author Topic: Celtics greatest all-around players  (Read 1047 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Celtics greatest all-around players
« Reply #15 on: August 09, 2018, 12:31:28 PM »

Offline Big333223

  • NCE
  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4644
  • Tommy Points: 445
Havlicek, Bird, and Cowens are probably my top 3, although I never got to watch any at the time they were playing

Garnett was a do-everything kind of player in Minnesota but his role was a bit diminished in Boston. Outside of that first season where he was 19-9-3-1.5-1.5, he usually averaged around 15 ppg and never more than 2.9 apg. He obviously had those skills but, for the Celtics, that wasn't really his role.

And a little love for Paul Pierce. His last season in Boston he put up 19-6-5 with a steal a game and he was still scoring from everywhere at age 35. He didn't just score, he scored in a variety of ways and he could defend a number of positions (he was always stronger than opponents thought) He wasn't an instinctual passer but he learned how to get others involved and was an underrated defender.
« Last Edit: August 09, 2018, 01:28:54 PM by Big333223 »
1957, 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1968, 1969, 1974, 1976, 1981, 1984, 1986, 2008, 2019

Re: Celtics greatest all-around players
« Reply #16 on: August 09, 2018, 12:47:40 PM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 35606
  • Tommy Points: -27752
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
Bird, followed by Hondo if ďall-aroundĒ means a player can do a lot of things really well.

Russ followed by Bird if it means multiple dominant skills conducive to winning.



Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...

Re: Celtics greatest all-around players
« Reply #17 on: August 09, 2018, 01:00:25 PM »

Offline smokeablount

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1682
  • Tommy Points: 107
  • When my account was born, Mark Blount was our C :(
Larry Bird, followed by Abdul Nader.
Give us this pick, Almighty Red
And forgive us our tanking
As we forgive those who tanked against us
And lead us not into the lottery
But deliver us from losing

-Sexyscottish

Re: Celtics greatest all-around players
« Reply #18 on: August 09, 2018, 02:54:30 PM »

Online td450

  • Gordon Hayward
  • Posts: 732
  • Tommy Points: 70
People forget that Bird made 2nd team all-defense 3 straight years in the early 80's.

Putting Garnett ahead of him is difficult to believe. Garnett was a good passer and a great midrange shooter, but had a lot of weaknesses in his offensive game. He had problems with physical defenders, and couldn't finish through contact at all. Sometimes I thought Isaiah Thomas played bigger than he did.

Re: Celtics greatest all-around players
« Reply #19 on: August 09, 2018, 03:31:47 PM »

Offline Sophomore

  • Kyrie Irving
  • Posts: 865
  • Tommy Points: 148
Went back and looked at some stats for Russell.

Consider this line from 1961-62 -- 18.9 ppg, 23.6 rpg, and 4.5 apg. In the playoffs he bumped that up to 22.4 ppg, 26.4 rpg, 5 apg. There was no DPOY awarded back then, but he would have won it.

Impossible to compare lines across eras, but that is incredible.
Too bad the rebounds don't translate.  Take them away and his numbers are ok.

You can do that to any player. Take Bird's points away and he's only OK.

And don't forget that Russell was also the best defensive player of his era, and excelled at the things that aren't easily measured.

EDIT: I looked at rebounding numbers and now I see what you mean. Last year, the number of rebounds per team per game was about 4/7 what it was in 1962.  If we adjust Russellís rebounds by about that amount (and also knock off a point because there was more scoring in that era) you get roughly 18 ppg, 13.6 rpg. Hardly shabby, but not as eye-popping as 23.6 rebounds/game.
« Last Edit: August 09, 2018, 06:22:46 PM by Sophomore »

Re: Celtics greatest all-around players
« Reply #20 on: August 09, 2018, 04:04:22 PM »

Offline Rakulp

  • Al Horford
  • Posts: 494
  • Tommy Points: 73
I'm afraid it's before my time, but I wonder if Bob Cousey shouldn't get more consideration, based on things I've heard from his teammates of the day.

Re: Celtics greatest all-around players
« Reply #21 on: August 09, 2018, 04:19:25 PM »

Offline fairweatherfan

  • Dennis Johnson
  • ******************
  • Posts: 18524
  • Tommy Points: 2036
  • Be the posts you wish to see in the world.
I'm afraid it's before my time, but I wonder if Bob Cousey shouldn't get more consideration, based on things I've heard from his teammates of the day.

Cousy was an otherworldly ball-handler and passer, especially for his era, but was a poor shooter (less so for his era) and wasn't known for his defense. 

Re: Celtics greatest all-around players
« Reply #22 on: August 09, 2018, 05:36:36 PM »

Offline Hank Finkel

  • Brad Stevens
  • Posts: 272
  • Tommy Points: 22
My top all around Celtics would be Russell, Bird, Havlicek, Cowens.

Re: Celtics greatest all-around players
« Reply #23 on: August 09, 2018, 08:06:54 PM »

Offline 2short

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6075
  • Tommy Points: 426
Bird, Hondo
Next group, Russ, cowens, mchale, pierce, jojo

I don't think Garnett played long enough with c's to consider him.  Great defensive player for c's, good offensive player.  Cous (happy b'day) amazing passer, good scorer but not a great two way player.
IMO best two way all around players are above.  John and Larry are the Cream though

Re: Celtics greatest all-around players
« Reply #24 on: August 09, 2018, 09:18:45 PM »

Online Moranis

  • Global Moderator
  • Bill Sharman
  • *******************
  • Posts: 19342
  • Tommy Points: 915
Went back and looked at some stats for Russell.

Consider this line from 1961-62 -- 18.9 ppg, 23.6 rpg, and 4.5 apg. In the playoffs he bumped that up to 22.4 ppg, 26.4 rpg, 5 apg. There was no DPOY awarded back then, but he would have won it.

Impossible to compare lines across eras, but that is incredible.
Too bad the rebounds don't translate.  Take them away and his numbers are ok.

You can do that to any player. Take Bird's points away and he's only OK.

And don't forget that Russell was also the best defensive player of his era, and excelled at the things that aren't easily measured.

EDIT: I looked at rebounding numbers and now I see what you mean. Last year, the number of rebounds per team per game was about 4/7 what it was in 1962.  If we adjust Russellís rebounds by about that amount (and also knock off a point because there was more scoring in that era) you get roughly 18 ppg, 13.6 rpg. Hardly shabby, but not as eye-popping as 23.6 rebounds/game.
yeah I've long argued that Rodman was by far the greatest rebounder ever. BY FAR.  It frankly isn't even really a discussion for me. That said many of the arguments in favor of Rodman can also be used for Wilt's scoring and Oscar's passing.  All 3 just dominated the league in those categories like no one else.

Re: Celtics greatest all-around players
« Reply #25 on: August 09, 2018, 09:27:41 PM »

Offline Jon

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6481
  • Tommy Points: 382
Went back and looked at some stats for Russell.

Consider this line from 1961-62 -- 18.9 ppg, 23.6 rpg, and 4.5 apg. In the playoffs he bumped that up to 22.4 ppg, 26.4 rpg, 5 apg. There was no DPOY awarded back then, but he would have won it.

Impossible to compare lines across eras, but that is incredible.
Too bad the rebounds don't translate.  Take them away and his numbers are ok.

You can do that to any player. Take Bird's points away and he's only OK.

And don't forget that Russell was also the best defensive player of his era, and excelled at the things that aren't easily measured.

EDIT: I looked at rebounding numbers and now I see what you mean. Last year, the number of rebounds per team per game was about 4/7 what it was in 1962.  If we adjust Russellís rebounds by about that amount (and also knock off a point because there was more scoring in that era) you get roughly 18 ppg, 13.6 rpg. Hardly shabby, but not as eye-popping as 23.6 rebounds/game.
yeah I've long argued that Rodman was by far the greatest rebounder ever. BY FAR.  It frankly isn't even really a discussion for me. That said many of the arguments in favor of Rodman can also be used for Wilt's scoring and Oscar's passing.  All 3 just dominated the league in those categories like no one else.

My only issue with that is that Wilt and Oscar filled a stat sheet. Rodman was a beast rebounder, but at times made absolutely zero effort to do anything else on the court. How many rebounds would Wilt have gotten (or Russell, or KG, or Bird), if they abandoned everything else on offense but rebounding?

Re: Celtics greatest all-around players
« Reply #26 on: August 09, 2018, 09:40:53 PM »

Offline nickagneta

  • Global Moderator
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33179
  • Tommy Points: 5419
Went back and looked at some stats for Russell.

Consider this line from 1961-62 -- 18.9 ppg, 23.6 rpg, and 4.5 apg. In the playoffs he bumped that up to 22.4 ppg, 26.4 rpg, 5 apg. There was no DPOY awarded back then, but he would have won it.

Impossible to compare lines across eras, but that is incredible.
Too bad the rebounds don't translate.  Take them away and his numbers are ok.

You can do that to any player. Take Bird's points away and he's only OK.

And don't forget that Russell was also the best defensive player of his era, and excelled at the things that aren't easily measured.

EDIT: I looked at rebounding numbers and now I see what you mean. Last year, the number of rebounds per team per game was about 4/7 what it was in 1962.  If we adjust Russellís rebounds by about that amount (and also knock off a point because there was more scoring in that era) you get roughly 18 ppg, 13.6 rpg. Hardly shabby, but not as eye-popping as 23.6 rebounds/game.
yeah I've long argued that Rodman was by far the greatest rebounder ever. BY FAR.  It frankly isn't even really a discussion for me. That said many of the arguments in favor of Rodman can also be used for Wilt's scoring and Oscar's passing.  All 3 just dominated the league in those categories like no one else.
I agree. I think Rodman may have been the best rebounder ever if you look at his numbers compared to players playing in his era, Rodman was unreal. In 1993, Rodman had 18.3 RPG and the closest guy to him was Shaq at 13.9...4.4 more RPG than the next guy. This league may never see another player average 18 RPG and Rodman did it twice.

Re: Celtics greatest all-around players
« Reply #27 on: August 09, 2018, 10:56:04 PM »

Offline fairweatherfan

  • Dennis Johnson
  • ******************
  • Posts: 18524
  • Tommy Points: 2036
  • Be the posts you wish to see in the world.
Went back and looked at some stats for Russell.

Consider this line from 1961-62 -- 18.9 ppg, 23.6 rpg, and 4.5 apg. In the playoffs he bumped that up to 22.4 ppg, 26.4 rpg, 5 apg. There was no DPOY awarded back then, but he would have won it.

Impossible to compare lines across eras, but that is incredible.
Too bad the rebounds don't translate.  Take them away and his numbers are ok.

You can do that to any player. Take Bird's points away and he's only OK.

And don't forget that Russell was also the best defensive player of his era, and excelled at the things that aren't easily measured.

EDIT: I looked at rebounding numbers and now I see what you mean. Last year, the number of rebounds per team per game was about 4/7 what it was in 1962.  If we adjust Russellís rebounds by about that amount (and also knock off a point because there was more scoring in that era) you get roughly 18 ppg, 13.6 rpg. Hardly shabby, but not as eye-popping as 23.6 rebounds/game.
yeah I've long argued that Rodman was by far the greatest rebounder ever. BY FAR.  It frankly isn't even really a discussion for me. That said many of the arguments in favor of Rodman can also be used for Wilt's scoring and Oscar's passing.  All 3 just dominated the league in those categories like no one else.

My only issue with that is that Wilt and Oscar filled a stat sheet. Rodman was a beast rebounder, but at times made absolutely zero effort to do anything else on the court. How many rebounds would Wilt have gotten (or Russell, or KG, or Bird), if they abandoned everything else on offense but rebounding?

Rodman was also maybe the best defender of his era. He wasn't much for shooting and passing for sure, but he was a high-effort guy pretty consistently til he started melting down late in his career.

Re: Celtics greatest all-around players
« Reply #28 on: August 09, 2018, 10:56:53 PM »

Offline ETNCeltics

  • NCE
  • Kyrie Irving
  • Posts: 936
  • Tommy Points: 105
Went back and looked at some stats for Russell.

Consider this line from 1961-62 -- 18.9 ppg, 23.6 rpg, and 4.5 apg. In the playoffs he bumped that up to 22.4 ppg, 26.4 rpg, 5 apg. There was no DPOY awarded back then, but he would have won it.

Impossible to compare lines across eras, but that is incredible.
Too bad the rebounds don't translate.  Take them away and his numbers are ok.

You can do that to any player. Take Bird's points away and he's only OK.

And don't forget that Russell was also the best defensive player of his era, and excelled at the things that aren't easily measured.

EDIT: I looked at rebounding numbers and now I see what you mean. Last year, the number of rebounds per team per game was about 4/7 what it was in 1962.  If we adjust Russellís rebounds by about that amount (and also knock off a point because there was more scoring in that era) you get roughly 18 ppg, 13.6 rpg. Hardly shabby, but not as eye-popping as 23.6 rebounds/game.
yeah I've long argued that Rodman was by far the greatest rebounder ever. BY FAR.  It frankly isn't even really a discussion for me. That said many of the arguments in favor of Rodman can also be used for Wilt's scoring and Oscar's passing.  All 3 just dominated the league in those categories like no one else.
I agree. I think Rodman may have been the best rebounder ever if you look at his numbers compared to players playing in his era, Rodman was unreal. In 1993, Rodman had 18.3 RPG and the closest guy to him was Shaq at 13.9...4.4 more RPG than the next guy. This league may never see another player average 18 RPG and Rodman did it twice.

Wilt averaged almost 7 per game more than anyone not named Russell. Really no case to be made for anyone other than him when it comes to best rebounder ever. Chamberlain and Russell were miles ahead of everyone else in their era, and Chamberlain continued into the 70s, when the game was much different.

Re: Celtics greatest all-around players
« Reply #29 on: August 09, 2018, 11:07:53 PM »

Offline Somebody

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1622
  • Tommy Points: 16
  • Running in the 00s KANSEI DORIFUTO
Went back and looked at some stats for Russell.

Consider this line from 1961-62 -- 18.9 ppg, 23.6 rpg, and 4.5 apg. In the playoffs he bumped that up to 22.4 ppg, 26.4 rpg, 5 apg. There was no DPOY awarded back then, but he would have won it.

Impossible to compare lines across eras, but that is incredible.
Too bad the rebounds don't translate.  Take them away and his numbers are ok.

You can do that to any player. Take Bird's points away and he's only OK.

And don't forget that Russell was also the best defensive player of his era, and excelled at the things that aren't easily measured.

EDIT: I looked at rebounding numbers and now I see what you mean. Last year, the number of rebounds per team per game was about 4/7 what it was in 1962.  If we adjust Russellís rebounds by about that amount (and also knock off a point because there was more scoring in that era) you get roughly 18 ppg, 13.6 rpg. Hardly shabby, but not as eye-popping as 23.6 rebounds/game.
A faster pace also means that players get tired faster and don't go for rebounds as hard though. I believe Russell will still average 15-18 rebounds per game ala Rodman in the modern game.
****cago Bull****