Author Topic: Celtics numbers that should be un-retired  (Read 7184 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Celtics numbers that should be un-retired
« Reply #15 on: September 19, 2018, 03:45:01 PM »

Offline jambr380

  • K.C. Jones
  • *************
  • Posts: 13002
  • Tommy Points: 1756
  • Everybody knows what's best for you
I would change Red and Brown to last names to make #1 and #2 usable, but no more than that

Yeah, while I mostly agree with Eddie's assertions in a 'start completely over and choose the really deserving players' kind-of way, there is no real way of handling this that wouldn't look totally bad (imagine un-retiring Reggie Lewis' #35??).

So, yeah, #1 and #2 are the easy choices - nobody knows Red or Brown by these #s anyway.

Re: Celtics numbers that should be un-retired
« Reply #16 on: September 19, 2018, 04:19:43 PM »

Offline 86MaxwellSmart

  • NCE
  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3821
  • Tommy Points: 378
New idea....since Robert Parish's number 00 is retired...

Why can't they have players wear 01, 02, 03, etc...?
Larry Bird was Greater than you think.

Re: Celtics numbers that should be un-retired
« Reply #17 on: September 19, 2018, 04:26:05 PM »

Offline nickagneta

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 48120
  • Tommy Points: 8794
  • President of Jaylen Brown Fan Club
New idea....since Robert Parish's number 00 is retired...

Why can't they have players wear 01, 02, 03, etc...?
In that case why not just give players numbers like 76 or 87 or 91? I don't understand the fixation on players needing to have low numbers. As pointed out, we only have 20-something numbers retired in 70 years. At that rate, which I don't see as sustainable, the team would have enough numbers for the next 250 years.

Re: Celtics numbers that should be un-retired
« Reply #18 on: September 19, 2018, 04:29:26 PM »

Offline 86MaxwellSmart

  • NCE
  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3821
  • Tommy Points: 378
New idea....since Robert Parish's number 00 is retired...

Why can't they have players wear 01, 02, 03, etc...?
In that case why not just give players numbers like 76 or 87 or 91? I don't understand the fixation on players needing to have low numbers. As pointed out, we only have 20-something numbers retired in 70 years. At that rate, which I don't see as sustainable, the team would have enough numbers for the next 250 years.

I dunno....seems like Tatum was obsessed with "0"
Larry Bird was Greater than you think.

Re: Celtics numbers that should be un-retired
« Reply #19 on: September 19, 2018, 04:41:07 PM »

Offline greece66

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7395
  • Tommy Points: 1342
  • Head Paperboy at Greenville
You just can't unretire a number. It would be immensely disrespectful.

Also, the rumour that the Celtics will soon run out of jersey numbers is a myth.

Re: Celtics numbers that should be un-retired
« Reply #20 on: September 19, 2018, 04:43:47 PM »

Offline bellerephon

  • Jaylen Brown
  • Posts: 665
  • Tommy Points: 52
New idea....since Robert Parish's number 00 is retired...

Why can't they have players wear 01, 02, 03, etc...?
In that case why not just give players numbers like 76 or 87 or 91? I don't understand the fixation on players needing to have low numbers. As pointed out, we only have 20-something numbers retired in 70 years. At that rate, which I don't see as sustainable, the team would have enough numbers for the next 250 years.

The league and the officials prefer numbers that they can express easily with their hands, i.e. using digits 0 thru 5, higher digits can be confusing to communicate to the scorers table. There are of course players with numbers using the higher digits, but since it is discouraged at all levels it is a bit less common.

Re: Celtics numbers that should be un-retired
« Reply #21 on: September 19, 2018, 05:01:42 PM »

Offline cargomaniac

  • Oshae Brissett
  • Posts: 64
  • Tommy Points: 83
  • It is time for 18
None.

This....none should be unretired.

Re: Celtics numbers that should be un-retired
« Reply #22 on: September 19, 2018, 06:14:24 PM »

Offline Jvalin

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3737
  • Tommy Points: 737
Agree with the OP. We have far too many retired numbers.

If it was up to me, I'd only keep 3 retired numbers: #6, #33 and #35.

#6 and #33 for obvious reasons. #35 cause Reggie Lewis literally gave his life for the Celtics.

I'd then do what we did with Loscy and put names into the rafters rather than numbers.


Personally speaking,

- I see no reason whatsoever to have a number retired for Walter Brown (first owner of the C's).

- I'd strongly consider adding Chuck Cooper's name in the rafters (first African American to get drafted in the NBA).

Re: Celtics numbers that should be un-retired
« Reply #23 on: September 19, 2018, 06:44:46 PM »

Offline Eddie20

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8497
  • Tommy Points: 975
We have a bad precedent in place and having your number retired doesn't have the luster it should. We are a historic franchise, the guys on the rafters should be great, not just good, players. For example, according to the Smart example previously posted, say we do win multiple titles over the course of the next 6 seasons. One person said that would immediately catapult Smart into the rafters. However, what if we keep the same starting lineup during that span? By the Smart inclusion, thar would automatically mean that 0-7-11-20 and 42 will be joining 36.

Let's take the Lakers retired jerseys-
Kareem
Elgin
Kobe 8 and 24
Magic
Worthy
Shaq
Goodrich
Wilkes
West
Gasol
Wilt

Do you see the difference? If they used our criteria then Nixon, Odom, Cooper, Scott, Rambis, etc. would be retired too.


Re: Celtics numbers that should be un-retired
« Reply #24 on: September 19, 2018, 08:13:26 PM »

Offline gouki88

  • NCE
  • Red Auerbach
  • *******************************
  • Posts: 31552
  • Tommy Points: 3141
  • 2019 & 2021 CS Historical Draft Champion
I agree about #1 & #2, but un-retiring the numbers of say, Reggie, who died in an attempt to play for us (however misguided, the tragic nature of his death deserves honouring imo), is a really bad PR move
'23 Historical Draft: Orlando Magic.

PG: Terry Porter (90-91) / Steve Francis (00-01)
SG: Joe Dumars (92-93) / Jeff Hornacek (91-92) / Jerry Stackhouse (00-01)
SF: Brandon Roy (08-09) / Walter Davis (78-79)
PF: Terry Cummings (84-85) / Paul Millsap (15-16)
C: Chris Webber (00-01) / Ralph Sampson (83-84) / Andrew Bogut (09-10)

Re: Celtics numbers that should be un-retired
« Reply #25 on: September 19, 2018, 08:20:08 PM »

Offline nickagneta

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 48120
  • Tommy Points: 8794
  • President of Jaylen Brown Fan Club
We have a bad precedent in place and having your number retired doesn't have the luster it should. We are a historic franchise, the guys on the rafters should be great, not just good, players. For example, according to the Smart example previously posted, say we do win multiple titles over the course of the next 6 seasons. One person said that would immediately catapult Smart into the rafters. However, what if we keep the same starting lineup during that span? By the Smart inclusion, thar would automatically mean that 0-7-11-20 and 42 will be joining 36.

Let's take the Lakers retired jerseys-
Kareem
Elgin
Kobe 8 and 24
Magic
Worthy
Shaq
Goodrich
Wilkes
West
Gasol
Wilt

Do you see the difference? If they used our criteria then Nixon, Odom, Cooper, Scott, Rambis, etc. would be retired too.
Luckily, we aren't the Lakers so I couldn't care less what they do. We are the Celtics. We do what we do.

Re: Celtics numbers that should be un-retired
« Reply #26 on: September 19, 2018, 08:26:29 PM »

Offline Eddie20

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8497
  • Tommy Points: 975
We have a bad precedent in place and having your number retired doesn't have the luster it should. We are a historic franchise, the guys on the rafters should be great, not just good, players. For example, according to the Smart example previously posted, say we do win multiple titles over the course of the next 6 seasons. One person said that would immediately catapult Smart into the rafters. However, what if we keep the same starting lineup during that span? By the Smart inclusion, thar would automatically mean that 0-7-11-20 and 42 will be joining 36.

Let's take the Lakers retired jerseys-
Kareem
Elgin
Kobe 8 and 24
Magic
Worthy
Shaq
Goodrich
Wilkes
West
Gasol
Wilt

Do you see the difference? If they used our criteria then Nixon, Odom, Cooper, Scott, Rambis, etc. would be retired too.
Luckily, we aren't the Lakers so I couldn't care less what they do. We are the Celtics. We do what we do.

That's all well and good, but the fact remains having your number retired as a Laker isn't as watered down. I mean we're basically the polar opposite of the Sox in that regard.

Re: Celtics numbers that should be un-retired
« Reply #27 on: September 19, 2018, 08:38:53 PM »

Offline nickagneta

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 48120
  • Tommy Points: 8794
  • President of Jaylen Brown Fan Club
We have a bad precedent in place and having your number retired doesn't have the luster it should. We are a historic franchise, the guys on the rafters should be great, not just good, players. For example, according to the Smart example previously posted, say we do win multiple titles over the course of the next 6 seasons. One person said that would immediately catapult Smart into the rafters. However, what if we keep the same starting lineup during that span? By the Smart inclusion, thar would automatically mean that 0-7-11-20 and 42 will be joining 36.

Let's take the Lakers retired jerseys-
Kareem
Elgin
Kobe 8 and 24
Magic
Worthy
Shaq
Goodrich
Wilkes
West
Gasol
Wilt

Do you see the difference? If they used our criteria then Nixon, Odom, Cooper, Scott, Rambis, etc. would be retired too.
Luckily, we aren't the Lakers so I couldn't care less what they do. We are the Celtics. We do what we do.

That's all well and good, but the fact remains having your number retired as a Laker isn't as watered down. I mean we're basically the polar opposite of the Sox in that regard.
I really don't care. We celebrate all-time Celtics, not all-time players. And many of the players you mentioned are Hall of Famers. I think that means a lot.

And Walter Brown and Red Auerbach are probably two of the absolute most important figures in this franchise, more important than the players. Without them there are no Celtics and no 17 banners. They deserve the numbers 1 and 2.

Re: Celtics numbers that should be un-retired
« Reply #28 on: September 19, 2018, 08:58:05 PM »

Offline Moranis

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33461
  • Tommy Points: 1533
We have a bad precedent in place and having your number retired doesn't have the luster it should. We are a historic franchise, the guys on the rafters should be great, not just good, players. For example, according to the Smart example previously posted, say we do win multiple titles over the course of the next 6 seasons. One person said that would immediately catapult Smart into the rafters. However, what if we keep the same starting lineup during that span? By the Smart inclusion, thar would automatically mean that 0-7-11-20 and 42 will be joining 36.

Let's take the Lakers retired jerseys-
Kareem
Elgin
Kobe 8 and 24
Magic
Worthy
Shaq
Goodrich
Wilkes
West
Gasol
Wilt

Do you see the difference? If they used our criteria then Nixon, Odom, Cooper, Scott, Rambis, etc. would be retired too.
Luckily, we aren't the Lakers so I couldn't care less what they do. We are the Celtics. We do what we do.

That's all well and good, but the fact remains having your number retired as a Laker isn't as watered down. I mean we're basically the polar opposite of the Sox in that regard.
I really don't care. We celebrate all-time Celtics, not all-time players. And many of the players you mentioned are Hall of Famers. I think that means a lot.

And Walter Brown and Red Auerbach are probably two of the absolute most important figures in this franchise, more important than the players. Without them there are no Celtics and no 17 banners. They deserve the numbers 1 and 2.
The thing is someone like Dennis Johnson isn't an all time Celtic.  He played 7 years and was never better than the 3rd best player on any team (and Parish easily could have been better).  DJ is in the top 10 for all time Celtics for just assists, steals, and turnovers (he is 8th in all 3).  DJ was a great player, but he wasn't an all time Celtic.  Antoine Walker, for example, has far more appearances on top 10 lists, but because he didn't get to play with Bird, McHale, and Parish, he didn't win any titles so he isn't in the rafters.  And DJ isn't alone.  As has been pointed out there are way too many numbers in the rafters, which is why I've long been an opponent to putting KG up there.  He just wasn't a Celtic for long enough to make the list (to prove this, let me just say that Toine has a higher VORP than KG as Celtics - I mean if Toine has more value over replacement than KG, KG doesn't belong up there). 

https://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/BOS/leaders_career.html
2023 Historical Draft - Brooklyn Nets - 9th pick

Bigs - Pau, Amar'e, Issel, McGinnis, Roundfield
Wings - Dantley, Bowen, J. Jackson
Guards - Cheeks, Petrovic, Buse, Rip

Re: Celtics numbers that should be un-retired
« Reply #29 on: September 19, 2018, 09:27:57 PM »

Offline tenn_smoothie

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6131
  • Tommy Points: 722
I would change Red and Brown to last names to make #1 and #2 usable, but no more than that

Yeah, while I mostly agree with Eddie's assertions in a 'start completely over and choose the really deserving players' kind-of way, there is no real way of handling this that wouldn't look totally bad (imagine un-retiring Reggie Lewis' #35??).

So, yeah, #1 and #2 are the easy choices - nobody knows Red or Brown by these #s anyway.

Why don't we just get it over with and change our team name to 'Clippers' or 'Nets' or 'Tigers' ?

The difference between us and the rest of the league is Red Auerbach and Walter Brown. They built the team and saw it thru tough times and created the greatest dynasty in pro sports. To take down #1 & #2 would be the most disrespectful thing you could do.

As for the other numbers, all were important in our history. Anyone that Red saw fit to retire from the 60's dynasty is just fine with me. The 70's and 80's guys should be unquestioned. All were great players that won multiple titles.

Paul Pierce was very deserving and #5 should follow as soon as possible.

Running out of numbers is a myth - Numbers 4, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 20, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40's & 50's all still in play and all are basketball appropriate numbers. The reason to not wear #'s like 84 or 99 or 72 is that they are worn by football players and were never worn in basketball until recently. They look ignorant on players. Plus the pragmatic reason of officials having difficulty communicating them to the score table.

Is there any room left for tradition in our country anymore ? I say keep on hanging the numbers of our great and beloved Celtics high in the Boston Garden and add some championships up there with them. Way too long with only one title.
The Four Celtic Generals:
Russell - Cowens - Bird - Garnett

The Four Celtic Lieutenants:
Cousy - Havlicek - McHale - Pierce