Author Topic: Celtics greatest all-around players  (Read 1042 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Celtics greatest all-around players
« Reply #30 on: August 10, 2018, 02:03:27 AM »

Offline gouki88

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3758
  • Tommy Points: 63
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.
A certain Nigerian big man scoffs at that. And that's only talking big men

Re: Celtics greatest all-around players
« Reply #31 on: August 10, 2018, 02:22:54 AM »

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.
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.
A certain Nigerian big man scoffs at that. And that's only talking big men
You mean the most overrated center of all time in Hakeem "in convo for GOAT C" Olajuwon? Rodman was definitely a better defender than Hakeem, he could defend the interior at an elite level and also guard the periemeter as well as anyone could.
****cago Bull****

Re: Celtics greatest all-around players
« Reply #32 on: August 10, 2018, 02:55:54 AM »

Offline gouki88

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3758
  • Tommy Points: 63
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.
A certain Nigerian big man scoffs at that. And that's only talking big men
You mean the most overrated center of all time in Hakeem "in convo for GOAT C" Olajuwon? Rodman was definitely a better defender than Hakeem, he could defend the interior at an elite level and also guard the periemeter as well as anyone could.
Haha, wow. Not going to dignify that one

Re: Celtics greatest all-around players
« Reply #33 on: August 10, 2018, 04:34:40 AM »

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 Russell’s 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.
A certain Nigerian big man scoffs at that. And that's only talking big men
You mean the most overrated center of all time in Hakeem "in convo for GOAT C" Olajuwon? Rodman was definitely a better defender than Hakeem, he could defend the interior at an elite level and also guard the periemeter as well as anyone could.
Haha, wow. Not going to dignify that one
Haha I'm just a bit miffed that people overrate Hakeem but I do think Rodman was in a class of his own on defense.
****cago Bull****

Re: Celtics greatest all-around players
« Reply #34 on: August 10, 2018, 06:01:05 AM »

Offline GreenEnvy

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3225
  • Tommy Points: 899
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.
A certain Nigerian big man scoffs at that. And that's only talking big men
You mean the most overrated center of all time in Hakeem "in convo for GOAT C" Olajuwon? Rodman was definitely a better defender than Hakeem, he could defend the interior at an elite level and also guard the periemeter as well as anyone could.
Haha, wow. Not going to dignify that one

Meh, Rodman was a special rebounder and clearly an elite defender, so itís not thattttt crazy.

As for the claim that Hakeem was overrated, I think he was. Most consider him the second-best player of the 90ís after Jordan. Yet most advanced stats say David Robinson was better. So maybe itís more that David Robinson was (criminally) underrated, but history is kinder to Hakeem and Iím not entirely sure why.
I AM A CELTIC

Re: Celtics greatest all-around players
« Reply #35 on: August 10, 2018, 06:45:32 AM »

Offline Moranis

  • Global Moderator
  • Bill Sharman
  • *******************
  • Posts: 19337
  • 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.

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.
A certain Nigerian big man scoffs at that. And that's only talking big men
You mean the most overrated center of all time in Hakeem "in convo for GOAT C" Olajuwon? Rodman was definitely a better defender than Hakeem, he could defend the interior at an elite level and also guard the periemeter as well as anyone could.
Haha, wow. Not going to dignify that one

Meh, Rodman was a special rebounder and clearly an elite defender, so itís not thattttt crazy.

As for the claim that Hakeem was overrated, I think he was. Most consider him the second-best player of the 90ís after Jordan. Yet most advanced stats say David Robinson was better. So maybe itís more that David Robinson was (criminally) underrated, but history is kinder to Hakeem and Iím not entirely sure why.
Hakeem started younger and finished older yet stilk finished the same or better than Robinson in every major statistical category.  Hakeem led multiple teams to the Finals and was clearly the best player on every single one of them. Hakeem has the extra DPOY.  More all star games, more all league teams, more MVP shares, etc.  Hakeem was absolutely better than Robinson

Re: Celtics greatest all-around players
« Reply #36 on: August 10, 2018, 06:47:57 AM »

Offline Surferdad

  • Satch Sanders
  • *********
  • Posts: 9237
  • Tommy Points: 586
  • "He fiddles...and diddles..."
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.
A certain Nigerian big man scoffs at that. And that's only talking big men
You mean the most overrated center of all time in Hakeem "in convo for GOAT C" Olajuwon? Rodman was definitely a better defender than Hakeem, he could defend the interior at an elite level and also guard the periemeter as well as anyone could.
Haha, wow. Not going to dignify that one

Meh, Rodman was a special rebounder and clearly an elite defender, so itís not thattttt crazy.

As for the claim that Hakeem was overrated, I think he was. Most consider him the second-best player of the 90ís after Jordan. Yet most advanced stats say David Robinson was better. So maybe itís more that David Robinson was (criminally) underrated, but history is kinder to Hakeem and Iím not entirely sure why.
David Robinson was underrated as he is never in those top-10 lists like Hakeem, but to call Olajuwon overrated is, well, silly.

Re: Celtics greatest all-around players
« Reply #37 on: August 10, 2018, 06:55:53 AM »

Offline Surferdad

  • Satch Sanders
  • *********
  • Posts: 9237
  • Tommy Points: 586
  • "He fiddles...and diddles..."
I was watching Boston Sports Tonight last night, and the topic of who are the greatest all-around players in Celtics history came up. The topic came up because Cedric Maxwell claimed Kevin Garnett is the best all-around player in Celtics history on a podcast earlier in the day (?).

Here is the list of choices the panel had to choose from on the show:
Bob Cousy
Bill Russell
Sam Jones
John Havlicek
Dave Cowens
Larry Bird
Kevin McHale
Robert Parish
Dennis Johnson
Cedrix Maxwell
Paul Pierce
Kevin Garnett
Kyrie Irving

Maxwell's top 5 were (in order): Garnett, Russell, Bird, McHale, Havlicek
Kyle Draper's top 5 were (in order): Russell, Havlicek, Garnett, Bird, Pierce

Cedric's argument for Garnett was he had the perfect blend of offense and defense. Russell was a better defender, but wasn't necessarily a good offensive player. Bird was better offensively, but wasn't necessarily a good defender (but was able to pick his spots).

I haven't seen enough of the Celtics, prior to my birth, to properly determine a top 5. But my list would be Garnett, Bird, Russell, McHale, Havlicek. I understand Garnett didn't play his entire career in green, but he played enough to make an impact that can still be felt today.

I understand the list above is limited, so you can either go by the list or use additional players.
"Greatest all-around" player should take titles into account, IMO that is a key part of greatness (but not the only part).  Otherwise it should have been posed as "best" player. 
So my top-5 is: Russell, Bird, Garnett, Cousy, Havlicek. Sixth man: Pierce

Re: Celtics greatest all-around players
« Reply #38 on: August 10, 2018, 07:38:39 AM »

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.
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.
A certain Nigerian big man scoffs at that. And that's only talking big men
You mean the most overrated center of all time in Hakeem "in convo for GOAT C" Olajuwon? Rodman was definitely a better defender than Hakeem, he could defend the interior at an elite level and also guard the periemeter as well as anyone could.
Haha, wow. Not going to dignify that one

Meh, Rodman was a special rebounder and clearly an elite defender, so itís not thattttt crazy.

As for the claim that Hakeem was overrated, I think he was. Most consider him the second-best player of the 90ís after Jordan. Yet most advanced stats say David Robinson was better. So maybe itís more that David Robinson was (criminally) underrated, but history is kinder to Hakeem and Iím not entirely sure why.
Hakeem started younger and finished older yet stilk finished the same or better than Robinson in every major statistical category.  Hakeem led multiple teams to the Finals and was clearly the best player on every single one of them. Hakeem has the extra DPOY.  More all star games, more all league teams, more MVP shares, etc.  Hakeem was absolutely better than Robinson
Starting younger and finishing older means more time to pad stats so yeah he's obviously "as good as or better in every statistical category", ntm having more time to stack up on the accolades. And yeah "leading" a pretty good team to the finals when the best team of the decade had its leader go off to play baseball and every other team was diluted by expansion drafts.
****cago Bull****

Re: Celtics greatest all-around players
« Reply #39 on: August 10, 2018, 07:39:55 AM »

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.
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.
A certain Nigerian big man scoffs at that. And that's only talking big men
You mean the most overrated center of all time in Hakeem "in convo for GOAT C" Olajuwon? Rodman was definitely a better defender than Hakeem, he could defend the interior at an elite level and also guard the periemeter as well as anyone could.
Haha, wow. Not going to dignify that one

Meh, Rodman was a special rebounder and clearly an elite defender, so itís not thattttt crazy.

As for the claim that Hakeem was overrated, I think he was. Most consider him the second-best player of the 90ís after Jordan. Yet most advanced stats say David Robinson was better. So maybe itís more that David Robinson was (criminally) underrated, but history is kinder to Hakeem and Iím not entirely sure why.
David Robinson was underrated as he is never in those top-10 lists like Hakeem, but to call Olajuwon overrated is, well, silly.
Not as silly as the lists putting him at 2 or even 1 among all time great centers.
****cago Bull****

Re: Celtics greatest all-around players
« Reply #40 on: August 10, 2018, 07:41:03 AM »

Offline RockinRyA

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3378
  • Tommy Points: 434
I was watching Boston Sports Tonight last night, and the topic of who are the greatest all-around players in Celtics history came up. The topic came up because Cedric Maxwell claimed Kevin Garnett is the best all-around player in Celtics history on a podcast earlier in the day (?).

Here is the list of choices the panel had to choose from on the show:
Bob Cousy
Bill Russell
Sam Jones
John Havlicek
Dave Cowens
Larry Bird
Kevin McHale
Robert Parish
Dennis Johnson
Cedrix Maxwell
Paul Pierce
Kevin Garnett
Kyrie Irving

Maxwell's top 5 were (in order): Garnett, Russell, Bird, McHale, Havlicek
Kyle Draper's top 5 were (in order): Russell, Havlicek, Garnett, Bird, Pierce

Cedric's argument for Garnett was he had the perfect blend of offense and defense. Russell was a better defender, but wasn't necessarily a good offensive player. Bird was better offensively, but wasn't necessarily a good defender (but was able to pick his spots).

I haven't seen enough of the Celtics, prior to my birth, to properly determine a top 5. But my list would be Garnett, Bird, Russell, McHale, Havlicek. I understand Garnett didn't play his entire career in green, but he played enough to make an impact that can still be felt today.

I understand the list above is limited, so you can either go by the list or use additional players.
"Greatest all-around" player should take titles into account, IMO that is a key part of greatness (but not the only part).  Otherwise it should have been posed as "best" player. 
So my top-5 is: Russell, Bird, Garnett, Cousy, Havlicek. Sixth man: Pierce

Why the heck should titles have to be taken into account. Having a better team, inferior opponents, healthy teammates should have no effect on whether you are good on both offense and defense.

Re: Celtics greatest all-around players
« Reply #41 on: August 10, 2018, 08:42:35 AM »

Offline Moranis

  • Global Moderator
  • Bill Sharman
  • *******************
  • Posts: 19337
  • 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.

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.
A certain Nigerian big man scoffs at that. And that's only talking big men
You mean the most overrated center of all time in Hakeem "in convo for GOAT C" Olajuwon? Rodman was definitely a better defender than Hakeem, he could defend the interior at an elite level and also guard the periemeter as well as anyone could.
Haha, wow. Not going to dignify that one

Meh, Rodman was a special rebounder and clearly an elite defender, so itís not thattttt crazy.

As for the claim that Hakeem was overrated, I think he was. Most consider him the second-best player of the 90ís after Jordan. Yet most advanced stats say David Robinson was better. So maybe itís more that David Robinson was (criminally) underrated, but history is kinder to Hakeem and Iím not entirely sure why.
Hakeem started younger and finished older yet stilk finished the same or better than Robinson in every major statistical category.  Hakeem led multiple teams to the Finals and was clearly the best player on every single one of them. Hakeem has the extra DPOY.  More all star games, more all league teams, more MVP shares, etc.  Hakeem was absolutely better than Robinson
Starting younger and finishing older means more time to pad stats so yeah he's obviously "as good as or better in every statistical category", ntm having more time to stack up on the accolades. And yeah "leading" a pretty good team to the finals when the best team of the decade had its leader go off to play baseball and every other team was diluted by expansion drafts.
per game, not totals.  starting younger and finishing older diminishes your per game totals, thus making it more impressive.

Hakeem led the Rockets to the Finals in the 80's as well as the 2 wins in the 90's (mind you neither Robinson nor Hakeem played in the Bulls East so they didn't have to go through Jordan to make the Finals in any of those seasons). 

And Hakeem's Rockets were the only team that played the 6 title winning Bulls teams even.  There is a pretty good chance that the Rockets beat the Bulls, if the Bulls even made it those 2 seasons (that first team was burnt out and aging, no guarantee they would have continued to win at that level - the 2nd 3 peat only had Jordan and Pippen from the first 3 peat). 

Re: Celtics greatest all-around players
« Reply #42 on: August 10, 2018, 08:45:53 AM »

Offline Moranis

  • Global Moderator
  • Bill Sharman
  • *******************
  • Posts: 19337
  • 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.

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.
A certain Nigerian big man scoffs at that. And that's only talking big men
You mean the most overrated center of all time in Hakeem "in convo for GOAT C" Olajuwon? Rodman was definitely a better defender than Hakeem, he could defend the interior at an elite level and also guard the periemeter as well as anyone could.
Haha, wow. Not going to dignify that one

Meh, Rodman was a special rebounder and clearly an elite defender, so itís not thattttt crazy.

As for the claim that Hakeem was overrated, I think he was. Most consider him the second-best player of the 90ís after Jordan. Yet most advanced stats say David Robinson was better. So maybe itís more that David Robinson was (criminally) underrated, but history is kinder to Hakeem and Iím not entirely sure why.
David Robinson was underrated as he is never in those top-10 lists like Hakeem, but to call Olajuwon overrated is, well, silly.
Not as silly as the lists putting him at 2 or even 1 among all time great centers.
You've actually seen lists that have Hakeem at 1 all time for centers?  Frankly, I'm surprised you've seen a list with him at #2 as he is pretty clearly behind Bill, Wilt, and Kareem.

Re: Celtics greatest all-around players
« Reply #43 on: August 10, 2018, 08:46:14 AM »

Offline Surferdad

  • Satch Sanders
  • *********
  • Posts: 9237
  • Tommy Points: 586
  • "He fiddles...and diddles..."
I was watching Boston Sports Tonight last night, and the topic of who are the greatest all-around players in Celtics history came up. The topic came up because Cedric Maxwell claimed Kevin Garnett is the best all-around player in Celtics history on a podcast earlier in the day (?).

Here is the list of choices the panel had to choose from on the show:
Bob Cousy
Bill Russell
Sam Jones
John Havlicek
Dave Cowens
Larry Bird
Kevin McHale
Robert Parish
Dennis Johnson
Cedrix Maxwell
Paul Pierce
Kevin Garnett
Kyrie Irving

Maxwell's top 5 were (in order): Garnett, Russell, Bird, McHale, Havlicek
Kyle Draper's top 5 were (in order): Russell, Havlicek, Garnett, Bird, Pierce

Cedric's argument for Garnett was he had the perfect blend of offense and defense. Russell was a better defender, but wasn't necessarily a good offensive player. Bird was better offensively, but wasn't necessarily a good defender (but was able to pick his spots).

I haven't seen enough of the Celtics, prior to my birth, to properly determine a top 5. But my list would be Garnett, Bird, Russell, McHale, Havlicek. I understand Garnett didn't play his entire career in green, but he played enough to make an impact that can still be felt today.

I understand the list above is limited, so you can either go by the list or use additional players.
"Greatest all-around" player should take titles into account, IMO that is a key part of greatness (but not the only part).  Otherwise it should have been posed as "best" player. 
So my top-5 is: Russell, Bird, Garnett, Cousy, Havlicek. Sixth man: Pierce

Why the heck should titles have to be taken into account. Having a better team, inferior opponents, healthy teammates should have no effect on whether you are good on both offense and defense.
Because greatness is tied to team success, IMO.  This is not tennis or golf.

Re: Celtics greatest all-around players
« Reply #44 on: August 10, 2018, 08:57:26 AM »

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.
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.
A certain Nigerian big man scoffs at that. And that's only talking big men
You mean the most overrated center of all time in Hakeem "in convo for GOAT C" Olajuwon? Rodman was definitely a better defender than Hakeem, he could defend the interior at an elite level and also guard the periemeter as well as anyone could.
Haha, wow. Not going to dignify that one

Meh, Rodman was a special rebounder and clearly an elite defender, so itís not thattttt crazy.

As for the claim that Hakeem was overrated, I think he was. Most consider him the second-best player of the 90ís after Jordan. Yet most advanced stats say David Robinson was better. So maybe itís more that David Robinson was (criminally) underrated, but history is kinder to Hakeem and Iím not entirely sure why.
David Robinson was underrated as he is never in those top-10 lists like Hakeem, but to call Olajuwon overrated is, well, silly.
Not as silly as the lists putting him at 2 or even 1 among all time great centers.
You've actually seen lists that have Hakeem at 1 all time for centers?  Frankly, I'm surprised you've seen a list with him at #2 as he is pretty clearly behind Bill, Wilt, and Kareem.
Yes. Lots of people who pretend to be smart say he's "the thinking man's GOAT". Also Wilt, Russell and Kareem get a lot of hate from the younger generation (except for some, not to brag but I'm one of the few guys who digged up the film and looked thoroughly at the stats+situation).
****cago Bull****