ESPN interview with Doc

+2
tjmakz
bobheckler
6 posters

Go down

ESPN interview with Doc Empty ESPN interview with Doc

Post by bobheckler Tue Aug 24, 2010 12:17 pm

Some interesting stuff. Some that's guaranteed to inflame our Laker buddies here. For example:

Doc says that he doesn't count the Lakers' Minny titles because the Lakers organization hasn't recognized Mikan's achievements (like, by retiring his number). Personally, my opinion is similar to Doc's, but I slant it differently. I give the Lakers credit for the championships, I just demean and despise the Buss's and their organization for not giving George Mikan and Slater Martin, both HOFers, their rightful props. They bring your LA team immediate cache with their championship banners, but you won't retire their numbers? You retire Gail Goodrich's number, who only won you ONE championship, but you won't retire the numbers of the players who brought you FIVE!!?? Slater Martin was in 7 all-star games, Goodrich in 5 and Mikan was, literally, THE big man and Goodrich gets his number retired by the Lakers and Martin and Mikan don't?!! I think that's disgraceful.

Anyway, here's the link. You weigh in.

http://www.boston.com/sports/basketball/celtics/extras/celtics_blog/

bob


.
bobheckler
bobheckler

Posts : 61054
Join date : 2009-10-28

Back to top Go down

ESPN interview with Doc Empty Re: ESPN interview with Doc

Post by tjmakz Tue Aug 24, 2010 12:45 pm

This quote from Doc shows you how much of an NBA historian he is: “They don’t have any of that,” Rivers said. “But they count all his rings ... You’ve won 12 championships, that’s about it. Minnesota won the other ones.”

The Lakers have won 11 (not 12 Doc) titles in LA and 5 in Minn.
The 1959-60 Minneapolis Lakers had the same owner as the 1960-61 LA Lakers and 8 of the players from the 1959-60 Minn team were on the 1960-61 LA team, including Elgin Baylor. But Doc doesn't think it was the same organization? LOL.

Should we only recognize Doc's .467 winning percentage as a coach before Danny handed him two future hall of famers?
tjmakz
tjmakz

Posts : 4278
Join date : 2010-05-19

Back to top Go down

ESPN interview with Doc Empty Re: ESPN interview with Doc

Post by bobheckler Tue Aug 24, 2010 1:58 pm

TJ,

I say yes. Doc's winning % should be considered before he got Allen and KG. His winning % should also be viewed in the context of the teams he had to win with (both before and after Allen/KG). Context is always important. That's true of the Lakers too. Kobe won with Shaq, then didn't, then did with Gasol.

While Doc's math may be a bit off, his point remains intact. Why hasn't the Laker organization retired the numbers of the key players who won those 5 (not 4) championships for them? Should the previous owner have retired them? Yes, but it's Buss's team now (and has been since 1979) and he should do the right thing even if his predecessor didn't.

One does not need to be an accurate historian to be able to distinguish right from wrong. One might be completely foggy on the dates of the Revolutionary War (1775-1783), who won the Battle of Saratoga (General Horatio Gates), what was the final battle of the war (Yorktown), who the commander of the forces that captured Fort Ticonderoga (Ethan Allen) or who the Swamp Fox was (Francis Marion) and where he fought (South Carolina, he was who Mel Gibson's character was modeled after in "The Patriot") to respect and honor these events and the men who made them happen.

In basketball, players are honored by teams by having that team retire their number.

Take credit, give credit. It's a simple moral concept, really, and not retiring Mikan and Martin's numbers (even though they were responsible for more than 30% of all Laker championships) while claiming their championships as their own, is not.

I didn't want to start an argument over this, TJ. I really didn't.

bob

.
bobheckler
bobheckler

Posts : 61054
Join date : 2009-10-28

Back to top Go down

ESPN interview with Doc Empty Re: ESPN interview with Doc

Post by tjmakz Tue Aug 24, 2010 2:19 pm

bob,

Of course my point about Doc's winning percentage was not meant to be serious, just a point to show how ludicrous Doc's argument is about the Lakers titles.
I don't know why the owner before Buss didn't retire their numbers and I don't know why Buss hasn't. I have never heard anyone ask Buss that question.
If Doc or anyone else wants to question why the Lakers didn't retire those numbers, they can do so, but to discredit the history of the Lakers organization and their Minneapolis championships is pathetic by Doc. So, does Doc recognize that it is the same organization, recognize the stats, etc., but just not the championships? We all know why he wants to discredit the Minneapolis championships...
tjmakz
tjmakz

Posts : 4278
Join date : 2010-05-19

Back to top Go down

ESPN interview with Doc Empty Re: ESPN interview with Doc

Post by bobheckler Tue Aug 24, 2010 2:25 pm

tjmakz wrote:bob,

Of course my point about Doc's winning percentage was not meant to be serious, just a point to show how ludicrous Doc's argument is about the Lakers titles.
I don't know why the owner before Buss didn't retire their numbers and I don't know why Buss hasn't. I have never heard anyone ask Buss that question.
If Doc or anyone else wants to question why the Lakers didn't retire those numbers, they can do so, but to discredit the history of the Lakers organization and their Minneapolis championships is pathetic by Doc. So, does Doc recognize that it is the same organization, recognize the stats, etc., but just not the championships? We all know why he wants to discredit the Minneapolis championships...

TJ,

I wish to hell somebody would grow a set and and ask him. I'd love to hear his answer.

bob

.
bobheckler
bobheckler

Posts : 61054
Join date : 2009-10-28

Back to top Go down

ESPN interview with Doc Empty Re: ESPN interview with Doc

Post by tjmakz Tue Aug 24, 2010 2:36 pm

I have searched the internet a few times and I couldn't find anything about why none of the Minneapolis Lakers players numbers are retired.
tjmakz
tjmakz

Posts : 4278
Join date : 2010-05-19

Back to top Go down

ESPN interview with Doc Empty Re: ESPN interview with Doc

Post by bobheckler Tue Aug 24, 2010 2:47 pm

TJ,

Once again, just to be clear, I am NOT saying the Lakers shouldn't take credit for the 5 Minny championships. I am saying the Lakers should do right by the players on those championship teams and retire their numbers next to the rest of the Laker greats and not doing so is ignoble and unworthy of that franchise.

bob
bobheckler
bobheckler

Posts : 61054
Join date : 2009-10-28

Back to top Go down

ESPN interview with Doc Empty Re: ESPN interview with Doc

Post by tjmakz Tue Aug 24, 2010 3:20 pm

Bob,

I know that you don't agree with Doc about discrediting the Minneapolis championships.
I did find something on flickr. The link is a picture of the 7 player jerseys that the LA Lakers have retired, plus Chick Hearn, plus a jersey/banner for the 6 best Minneaplois Lakers players. It seems like they chose to honor all of them on one banner as a team. This is right with the other retired jerseys, so it's not like they haven't recognized those players.

I was at The Forum but have never been to Staples Center so I didn't know what banners they had.

This makes Doc's statement look even more foolish.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/vaguelyartistic/343347026/
tjmakz
tjmakz

Posts : 4278
Join date : 2010-05-19

Back to top Go down

ESPN interview with Doc Empty Re: ESPN interview with Doc

Post by bobheckler Tue Aug 24, 2010 4:51 pm

tjmakz wrote:Bob,

I know that you don't agree with Doc about discrediting the Minneapolis championships.
I did find something on flickr. The link is a picture of the 7 player jerseys that the LA Lakers have retired, plus Chick Hearn, plus a jersey/banner for the 6 best Minneaplois Lakers players. It seems like they chose to honor all of them on one banner as a team. This is right with the other retired jerseys, so it's not like they haven't recognized those players.

I was at The Forum but have never been to Staples Center so I didn't know what banners they had.

This makes Doc's statement look even more foolish.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/vaguelyartistic/343347026/

TJ,

It's something, I'll grant you, but it still doesn't cut it for me.

It's as if the Celtics retired Bird and McHale's jerseys individually, but put Russell's, Cousy's, Tommy's and the rest of that era's names on a single banner. Just one big blur of a dynasty. Thanks for the championships guys. You really helped out. Really awesome the way you owned the league for all those years. What were your numbers again? Did you even have numbers on your jersey's back in those days?

Mikan and the Minny Lakers OWNED the league for half a decade. You know how DWade is saying that owners should thank the HEAT for the coming sellouts? Well, that's what the Minny Lakers did for the league when the league was in a helluva worse shape financially than they are today. They were the first NBA dynasty.

I am appalled that a green-blooded Celtic fan like me is more emphatic on showing respect to a bunch of Lakers than the owner of the Lakers is. What a putz.

Oh well. I don't think we'll ever know why, since sportswriters are so sycophantic they would never dare to bring it up to Buss on the record.

bob

.
bobheckler
bobheckler

Posts : 61054
Join date : 2009-10-28

Back to top Go down

ESPN interview with Doc Empty Re: ESPN interview with Doc

Post by tjmakz Tue Aug 24, 2010 5:31 pm

Bob,

I don't have an answer for why they these players were "honored" and their jersey's not officially retired, but one thing I am pretty sure of is if Ron Artest or someone else wanted to wear #99 they would be told to take a hike and pick a different number.

I wonder if Babyskyhook knows the answer to this question. I will try to contact the Lakers to see if they have an official statement about this.
tjmakz
tjmakz

Posts : 4278
Join date : 2010-05-19

Back to top Go down

ESPN interview with Doc Empty Re: ESPN interview with Doc

Post by mrkleen09 Tue Aug 24, 2010 9:16 pm

TJ

While you're at it, ask them how many Lakes there are in Los Angeles.
mrkleen09
mrkleen09

Posts : 3873
Join date : 2009-10-16
Age : 55

Back to top Go down

ESPN interview with Doc Empty Re: ESPN interview with Doc

Post by tjmakz Tue Aug 24, 2010 9:34 pm

I will ask Doc that question if I see him at Sea World or Busch Gardens here in Florida. I know he's good with numbers... Smile
tjmakz
tjmakz

Posts : 4278
Join date : 2010-05-19

Back to top Go down

ESPN interview with Doc Empty Re: ESPN interview with Doc

Post by Outside Tue Aug 24, 2010 11:08 pm

As to the Lakers not retiring the Minneapolis players' numbers, I think there are mitigating factors to consider.

First, the Celtics have been more assertive about retiring numbers than any other NBA franchise. Here is the list of how many numbers each franchise has retired.

21 - Celtics
12 - Trail Blazers (includes no. 1, which recognizes team founder Larry Weinberg but is officially still available)
10 - Suns
10 - Kings (Rochester/Cincinnati/Kansas City-Omaha/Sacramento)
9 - Knicks
9 - Jazz
8 - 76ers
8 - Cavaliers
7 - Lakers (not including Minneapolis players)
7 - Pistons
7 - Bucks
6 - Spurs
6 - Nets
6 - Supersonics
5 - Warriors (Philadelphia/San Francisco-Golden State)
5 - Rockets
5 - Nuggets
5 - Pacers
4 - Hawks (St. Louis/Atlanta)
4 - Wizards (Baltimore/Washington)
3 - Heat
2 - Mavericks
2 - Hornets (Charlotte/New Orleans)
1 - Timberwolves
1 - Magic

(Note: I tallied retired numbers, including those retired for non-players, such as owners and coaches. I did not include banners honoring others, such as broadcasters and owners, if there was no retired number associated with it. I'm keeping the discussion to retired numbers only.)

Different franchises have taken different approaches to retiring numbers. Some, such as the Trail Blazers and Suns, have taken a more liberal approach. For Portland, I can't argue with including Larry Weinberg (team founder), Maurice Lucas, Clyde Drexler, Bill Walton, and Jack Ramsay, but there are multiple retirees like Dave Twardzik, who was a fine player but spent only four seasons with the team and whose best year with them was 10.4 points and 3.3 assists. Other teams like the Warriors and Knicks, who have been around since 1946 like the Celtics, have been more conservative with retiring numbers.

Maybe Sam or someone more knowledgeable than myself can address this question better, but some cursory research appears to show that the Celtics have retired far more numbers than any other major pro sports franchise.

-- The Yankees, despite a far longer history and greater number of championships, have retired only 16 numbers, and one of those (42) was for non-Yankee Jackie Robinson as part of a league-wide retirement of his number in 1997.

-- In the NFL, the Chicago Bears have retired 13 numbers, but Walter Payton is the only honoree in the past 37 years. It's notable that the Dallas Cowboys and Oakland Raiders haven't retired any, and the Pittsburgh Steelers have retired only one (for Ernie Stautner, none for anyone on the Super Bowl champion teams).

-- In the NHL, the most I can find is Montreal and Boston, each with seven retired numbers, despite a history that goes back to 1892.

My point is that the Celtics have clearly retired far more numbers than any other NBA (and apparently any other major pro sports) franchise, and while that's great, it's unfair to say that other franchises don't honor their past unless they adopt the same approach to retiring numbers as the Celtics. You can say that you appreciate that the Celtics honor tradition and history like no one else and that they have more to honor than any other NBA franchise. But someone else could say that retiring so many numbers dilutes the honor, that someday the true greats like Cousy, Russell, Sam Jones, and Havlicek will be lost among a blizzard of banners, and that the Celtics will retire so many numbers that they'll be forced to use triple-digit numbers for their players a hundred years before any other team has retired 50 numbers.

Next, look at the Minneapolis players involved and their numbers:

Jim Pollard - 17
Vern Mikkelson - 19
Slater Martin - 22
Clyde Lovellette - 34
George Mikan - 99

The 22 used by Slater Martin was used by Ron Feiereisel in 1956, McCoy Ingram in 1958, and Elgin Baylor in 1959-72, and the number was ultimately retired for Elgin Baylor. The 34 used by Clyde Lovellette has since been used by 10 other Lakers, including, most recently, Shaq. The other jersey numbers have also been used by other Lakers, except for Mikan's 99.

If you look at the situation while considering the history of the league after the last of the Minneapolis titles in 1959, the league itself was a shaky enterprise, and the Laker franchise was in such poor shape that they had to relocate to Los Angeles because they would've gone bankrupt otherwise. With the league itself and the Laker franchise in particular on such fragile footing, retiring numbers probably wasn't foremost in the team's mind, and they kept using the same numbers for new players after the Minneapolis greats had retired or otherwise left.

I couldn't find an article to back up my recollection, but I remember a statement from the Lakers when they put up the banner honoring the Minneapolis teams that they felt they shouldn't retire their numbers because they were since used by so many other players and that they felt it best to honor the players as they did. You may disagree with that approach, but I don't think it's fair to say that the Lakers don't honor the Minneapolis teams and players just because they don't have an individual banner for each Minneapolis player. It's fine that the Celtics honor their players that way, but they are the exception in the degree to which they retire numbers, and it's not fair to expect other franchises to adopt their approach.

This situation keeps coming up periodically because some people say that, by not retiring the numbers for the Minneapolis players and raising individual banners for those players, the LA franchise shows no respect to the Minneapolis teams and therefore can't claim the Minneapolis titles in their total. Given the factors I've discussed, I think that's a false argument, and I think it's unfair and baseless Laker-bashing. I don't have a problem with Celtic fans enjoying some harmless Laker-bashing, but I wish we could put to rest that this whole number-retirement thing somehow logically proves that that the Lakers dishonor their history and can't claim the Minneapolis titles.

Outside
Outside
Outside

Posts : 3019
Join date : 2009-11-05

Back to top Go down

ESPN interview with Doc Empty Re: ESPN interview with Doc

Post by willjr Wed Aug 25, 2010 7:49 am

Outside, that was well written and well researched. A certain baseball franchise won world series titles in Boston, Milwaukee and Atlanta but they all count as Braves world championships, as well they should! The Cleveland Browns have never won a super bowl, the Baltimore Ravens victory should not be counted by the current Browns as belonging to them. The Colts have 2 super bowls, one in Baltimore and one in Indy. The Lakers franchise has 16 NBA championships, they are the Minn./LA Lakers, no different than the Balt./Indy Colts or Bos/Mil/Atl Braves, but very different from the Cleve. Browns/Balt. Ravens. I hate them with all my heart but they are a great franchise with a great history and if they catch and past the Celtics in number of titles then so be it, they earned it just as we did.
willjr
willjr

Posts : 720
Join date : 2009-10-19
Age : 60

Back to top Go down

ESPN interview with Doc Empty Re: ESPN interview with Doc

Post by bobheckler Wed Aug 25, 2010 12:43 pm

Outside wrote:As to the Lakers not retiring the Minneapolis players' numbers, I think there are mitigating factors to consider.

First, the Celtics have been more assertive about retiring numbers than any other NBA franchise. Here is the list of how many numbers each franchise has retired.

21 - Celtics
12 - Trail Blazers (includes no. 1, which recognizes team founder Larry Weinberg but is officially still available)
10 - Suns
10 - Kings (Rochester/Cincinnati/Kansas City-Omaha/Sacramento)
9 - Knicks
9 - Jazz
8 - 76ers
8 - Cavaliers
7 - Lakers (not including Minneapolis players)
7 - Pistons
7 - Bucks
6 - Spurs
6 - Nets
6 - Supersonics
5 - Warriors (Philadelphia/San Francisco-Golden State)
5 - Rockets
5 - Nuggets
5 - Pacers
4 - Hawks (St. Louis/Atlanta)
4 - Wizards (Baltimore/Washington)
3 - Heat
2 - Mavericks
2 - Hornets (Charlotte/New Orleans)
1 - Timberwolves
1 - Magic

(Note: I tallied retired numbers, including those retired for non-players, such as owners and coaches. I did not include banners honoring others, such as broadcasters and owners, if there was no retired number associated with it. I'm keeping the discussion to retired numbers only.)

Different franchises have taken different approaches to retiring numbers. Some, such as the Trail Blazers and Suns, have taken a more liberal approach. For Portland, I can't argue with including Larry Weinberg (team founder), Maurice Lucas, Clyde Drexler, Bill Walton, and Jack Ramsay, but there are multiple retirees like Dave Twardzik, who was a fine player but spent only four seasons with the team and whose best year with them was 10.4 points and 3.3 assists. Other teams like the Warriors and Knicks, who have been around since 1946 like the Celtics, have been more conservative with retiring numbers.

Maybe Sam or someone more knowledgeable than myself can address this question better, but some cursory research appears to show that the Celtics have retired far more numbers than any other major pro sports franchise.

-- The Yankees, despite a far longer history and greater number of championships, have retired only 16 numbers, and one of those (42) was for non-Yankee Jackie Robinson as part of a league-wide retirement of his number in 1997.

-- In the NFL, the Chicago Bears have retired 13 numbers, but Walter Payton is the only honoree in the past 37 years. It's notable that the Dallas Cowboys and Oakland Raiders haven't retired any, and the Pittsburgh Steelers have retired only one (for Ernie Stautner, none for anyone on the Super Bowl champion teams).

-- In the NHL, the most I can find is Montreal and Boston, each with seven retired numbers, despite a history that goes back to 1892.

My point is that the Celtics have clearly retired far more numbers than any other NBA (and apparently any other major pro sports) franchise, and while that's great, it's unfair to say that other franchises don't honor their past unless they adopt the same approach to retiring numbers as the Celtics. You can say that you appreciate that the Celtics honor tradition and history like no one else and that they have more to honor than any other NBA franchise. But someone else could say that retiring so many numbers dilutes the honor, that someday the true greats like Cousy, Russell, Sam Jones, and Havlicek will be lost among a blizzard of banners, and that the Celtics will retire so many numbers that they'll be forced to use triple-digit numbers for their players a hundred years before any other team has retired 50 numbers.

Next, look at the Minneapolis players involved and their numbers:

Jim Pollard - 17
Vern Mikkelson - 19
Slater Martin - 22
Clyde Lovellette - 34
George Mikan - 99

The 22 used by Slater Martin was used by Ron Feiereisel in 1956, McCoy Ingram in 1958, and Elgin Baylor in 1959-72, and the number was ultimately retired for Elgin Baylor. The 34 used by Clyde Lovellette has since been used by 10 other Lakers, including, most recently, Shaq. The other jersey numbers have also been used by other Lakers, except for Mikan's 99.

If you look at the situation while considering the history of the league after the last of the Minneapolis titles in 1959, the league itself was a shaky enterprise, and the Laker franchise was in such poor shape that they had to relocate to Los Angeles because they would've gone bankrupt otherwise. With the league itself and the Laker franchise in particular on such fragile footing, retiring numbers probably wasn't foremost in the team's mind, and they kept using the same numbers for new players after the Minneapolis greats had retired or otherwise left.

I couldn't find an article to back up my recollection, but I remember a statement from the Lakers when they put up the banner honoring the Minneapolis teams that they felt they shouldn't retire their numbers because they were since used by so many other players and that they felt it best to honor the players as they did. You may disagree with that approach, but I don't think it's fair to say that the Lakers don't honor the Minneapolis teams and players just because they don't have an individual banner for each Minneapolis player. It's fine that the Celtics honor their players that way, but they are the exception in the degree to which they retire numbers, and it's not fair to expect other franchises to adopt their approach.

This situation keeps coming up periodically because some people say that, by not retiring the numbers for the Minneapolis players and raising individual banners for those players, the LA franchise shows no respect to the Minneapolis teams and therefore can't claim the Minneapolis titles in their total. Given the factors I've discussed, I think that's a false argument, and I think it's unfair and baseless Laker-bashing. I don't have a problem with Celtic fans enjoying some harmless Laker-bashing, but I wish we could put to rest that this whole number-retirement thing somehow logically proves that that the Lakers dishonor their history and can't claim the Minneapolis titles.

Outside

outside,

I was hoping you'd chime in on this. As usual, your points are exquisitely well researched and well presented. A tremendous amount of light with almost no heat. Efficient. Effective. Perfect.

A thought as to why the Yankees haven't retired as many numbers might be because of the number of players on any given baseball team. If you retire 30 numbers (and I don't think it'd be hard to find 30 deserving players on a franchise with 27 championships) then you only have 70 (including the really high numbers that you never seem to see players wear) going forward for the 40 you carry every year. When you only have 12 active players, like in basketball, that leaves a bit more room.

The Spurs haven't retired many numbers, but then Timmy and Tony are still playing. If/when Tim Duncan and Tony Parker hang up their sneakers and get their numbers retired (Duncan is a lock, and I consider Parker to be too) then the San Antonio Spurs with 4 championships will have retired more numbers than the Lakers have with 16 championships (5 in Minny, 11 in LA). Huh?

But the issue, in my mind, wasn't whether to retire numbers or not. Individual teams can set their own policies about that. Clearly Phoenix, with NO championships, felt that retiring numbers was the next best thing they could do for the players and got a little carried away. What roiled me was that there is clearly a double standard being applied in LA. Retire numbers for Lakers who have 5 all-star appearances and 1 Laker ring but not retire the numbers for Lakers with 7+ all-star appearances and 5 Laker rings? The Lakers retire the numbers of players because they had outstanding individual careers but limited success as Lakers in the Finals but not retire the numbers of players who also had outstanding individual careers (as evidenced by their entry into the HOF) AND whose team dominated the league as Lakers?

Anyway, the article that started this whole thing covered other stuff besides the Laker stuff. As usual, though, it's the sand in the oyster that makes the pearl even though the oyster could probably have done without it. What caught my eye in the article was the comment by Doc that he thinks Rondo has the highest basketball IQ of any player he's ever coached. That's a remarkable statement given that Rondo is only 24 and he has coached future HOFers Paul Pierce, Ray Allen and Kevin Garnett. He also coached Grant Hill and Horace Grant, who may not make the HOF, but are/were smart players.

bob

.
bobheckler
bobheckler

Posts : 61054
Join date : 2009-10-28

Back to top Go down

ESPN interview with Doc Empty Re: ESPN interview with Doc

Post by tjmakz Wed Aug 25, 2010 1:22 pm

Outside,

I agree that your post was extremely well written and researched.
It is our good fortune that you are a member here.

TJ
tjmakz
tjmakz

Posts : 4278
Join date : 2010-05-19

Back to top Go down

ESPN interview with Doc Empty Re: ESPN interview with Doc

Post by Outside Wed Aug 25, 2010 2:21 pm

bobheckler wrote:A thought as to why the Yankees haven't retired as many numbers might be because of the number of players on any given baseball team. If you retire 30 numbers (and I don't think it'd be hard to find 30 deserving players on a franchise with 27 championships) then you only have 70 (including the really high numbers that you never seem to see players wear) going forward for the 40 you carry every year. When you only have 12 active players, like in basketball, that leaves a bit more room.
Bob, I thought the same thing, and it definitely applies to both baseball and football. You need those numbers, and you can't use them if you retire them. I initially thought hockey was closer to basketball since they only play seven players at a time, but (and I'm showing my ignorance of hockey here) I believe hockey teams have significantly larger rosters than basketball because they're changing lines all the time. But your point is correct -- from a practical standpoint, basketball can retire more numbers than other major sports because they have smaller rosters.

bobheckler wrote:The Spurs haven't retired many numbers, but then Timmy and Tony are still playing. If/when Tim Duncan and Tony Parker hang up their sneakers and get their numbers retired (Duncan is a lock, and I consider Parker to be too) then the San Antonio Spurs with 4 championships will have retired more numbers than the Lakers have with 16 championships (5 in Minny, 11 in LA). Huh?
Duncan is a lock, but I'm not so sure about Parker. Ginobli may be more of a lock than Parker. There's been talk about the Spurs trading Parker and going with George Hill. Tony has been good, but he's nowhere near the player than Duncan is.

As far as the Spurs possibly passing LA in retired numbers, I'd say that's partly because the Spurs have retired numbers for too many players. Personally, I think retired numbers should be reserved for truly elite or even transcendent players. From my point of view, Duncan deserves it, but Parker and Ginobli don't. The Spurs have retired numbers for Johnny Moore, Avery Johnson, James Silas, and Sean Elliott, and while they were good players, I just don't think they rise into retired-jersey territory. From my perspective, they should have George Gervin, David Robinson, and Duncan -- that's it. But I obviously tend to the more conservative end of the spectrum on retiring numbers.

The Lakers, on the other hand, have retired numbers for Wilt, Baylor, Goodrich, Magic, Kareem, Worthy, and West. That's a list. I didn't see the Minneapolis teams play, but I'd add Mikan, maybe Lovelette, but not the other guys. But I apply really high standards. Who else from the LA days should they retire numbers for? Players I can think of from the '80's are Norm Nixon, Byron Scott, Kurt Rambis, and Michael Cooper, but none of them are at the same level as those other players. It should require more than just being a major contributor on championship teams, otherwise you retire numbers for all those guys, plus Rick Fox, Robert Horry, and Derek Fisher. I think they should retire 99 for Mikan and call it a day.

bobheckler wrote:What caught my eye in the article was the comment by Doc that he thinks Rondo has the highest basketball IQ of any player he's ever coached. That's a remarkable statement given that Rondo is only 24 and he has coached future HOFers Paul Pierce, Ray Allen and Kevin Garnett. He also coached Grant Hill and Horace Grant, who may not make the HOF, but are/were smart players.
That is an interesting comment. Rondo isn't even the first guy I'd pick on the current team as far as basketball IQ goes, let alone all the teams Doc has ever coached, but he obviously knows Rondo far better than I do. I do wonder if he's really doing some player management by saying that. Rondo's obviously a bright kid and has developed greatly as a player and floor leader, but hasn't he had a sprinkling of bonehead plays? Like I said, makes me think Doc's doing psychological player management, both of Rondo and the rest of the team, since Rondo is the future of the team.
Outside
Outside

Posts : 3019
Join date : 2009-11-05

Back to top Go down

ESPN interview with Doc Empty Re: ESPN interview with Doc

Post by tjmakz Wed Aug 25, 2010 3:03 pm

Outside,

Doc said this about Rondo right after Rondo received a DNP against Spain. Doc probably knew that Rondo was going to be sent home and maybe needed a little confidence booster.

On the other hand, Doc might have been 100% truthful about his Rondo statement...???
tjmakz
tjmakz

Posts : 4278
Join date : 2010-05-19

Back to top Go down

ESPN interview with Doc Empty Re: ESPN interview with Doc

Post by Sam Wed Aug 25, 2010 5:42 pm

Outside and others. Since you mentioned my name, I'll chime in, although I consider this largely an "over-the-hill" issue. It doesn't really matter what Celtics fans or anyone else may think; the Los Angeles Lakers are going to claim the Minneapolis Lakers banners. I say fine.

The only question I have is WHEN they first did so. I can't recall seeing Minny jerseys up in the Fabulous Forum in 1969. (They may have been there; I was very busy enjoying the game.) IF there was little or no public recognition until it became apparent that the "most championships" thing could actually become a contest, then I'd have to say that the Minny Lakers have had absolutely no role in the Los Angeles Lakers' tradition other than to fatten their championship total. Even if that were true (and I'm not claiming it is—just sayin'), it really doesn't matter to me. I'm a Celtics fan.

I believe the Celtics have actually retired 20 players' numbers (including one name in lieu of a duplicated number) and two others (Red and founder Walter Brown). Of those 20, 11 actually represented one era (the Russell Years). Take away those 11, and the number of retired numbers seems pretty much par for the course.

I'm not trying to ruffle anyone's feathers when I say once again that the Celtics of that era were a very special aggregation that I wouldn't expect non-Celtics fans to understand fully. The very thought of singling out one player as THE driving force of those teams would have been anathema to that very player. Despite what others would say about indentured servitude of that day, they truly were a family, and they believed that strongly. Russell vigorously deflects any suggestion that he was the team—and rightfully so.

Some players nowadays say that the team is the thing. Frankly, they have no idea of the depth of commitment that can accompany that statement. The Russell Celtics retired the trophy as the team model. So the idea of retiring one of the Russell Celtics' numbers without also retiring the others (at least those in the regular rotation) simply wouldn't make sense.

And, yes, I believe they have retired more numbers than any other team.

Sam
Sam
Sam
Admin

Posts : 22663
Join date : 2009-10-10

https://samcelt.forumotion.net

Back to top Go down

ESPN interview with Doc Empty Re: ESPN interview with Doc

Post by Outside Wed Aug 25, 2010 8:28 pm

Sam,

A wonderfully presented response. You stated well why the Celtics can justify having retired the most numbers, put them in line with the league rate of number retirement outside the dynasty years, and threw in a little jab at the Lakers to boot. Now that's a Celtic fan.
Outside
Outside

Posts : 3019
Join date : 2009-11-05

Back to top Go down

ESPN interview with Doc Empty Re: ESPN interview with Doc

Post by Sam Wed Aug 25, 2010 9:45 pm

Outside,

I didn't intend it as a jab because I really don't know when they first publicly recognized the Minny connection. I think my provisional conclusions is a fair one.

One thing the Minneapolis Lakers had in common with the L.A. Lakers was that there was always a special buzz when they came to town. A Yankees type of buzz. George Mikan against Ed MacAuley in the pivot was mass against agility. In those days, mass won more often than not. Slater Martin was the best defender of all time against Cousy. Vern Mikkelson, at what now would be PF, was a ferocious rebounder, and I always believed his presence convinced Red to get a "policeman" (first Bob Brannum, later Jim Loscutoff). Jim Pollard at SF reminded me of a deer. I believe the SG was usually Pep Saul or Whitey Skoog, both of whom were okay but nothing special.

Bill Sharman had the best of the SG matchup, while Mikan dominated the center matchup. Otherwise, it was pick 'em and war.

Something interesting occurred when I was looking up some of the stats of those old teams. I've always heard (mostly from Red Auerbach) that a main reason for getting Russell was to shore up the rebounding of the Celtics as a catalyst for their incredible fast break. But look at the comparative rebounding stags for the Lakers and Celtics during the four seasons prior to their selection of Russ:

1952-53:
Celtics 3,865
Lakers 3,406 (NBA Champs)

1953-54:
Celtics 3,867
Lakers 3,752 (NBA Champs)

1954-55:
Celtics 4,293
Lakers 3,865 (NBA Champs)

1955-56:
Celtics 4,583
Lakers 4,133
Syracuse Nationals (NBA Champs) 4,060

So I have to believe that (1) Russ's defense was at least as important as his rebounding to Red and (2) Red may have meant they didn't didn't grab as many boards as they needed in order to maximize the effectiveness of their fast break.

Not a big deal, but it certainly surprised me.

And, while I'm on a roll, another stat surprised me. I saw that Ed MacAuley shot only .436 for his career. That didn't shock me, because his best shot was a top-of-the-key turnaround jumper. It was effective, but it was also somewhat high-risk. Then I looked at the stat of George Mikan, who people say was mainly a guy who just reached up and dumped in shot after shot. George shot only .416 for his career (which, by the way, included only six years in the NBA). He did shoot a lot of sweeping hooks with either hand, and they must have dragged down his average.

By the way, George retired after the 1955-56 season at only age 31. I've heard some people say it was because the Celtics drafted Russell. But I suspect it related more to the fact that he played only 37 games in his final season, so it was probably an injury thing.

None of this stuff is earthshaking, but I just found it interesting. I'm probably the only one.

And finally, in this potpourri of dazzling insights, I was reminded by a friend last night that John Wooden felt, if they were going to give an extra point for a long-distance shot, they ought to make dunks worth only one point. I could go for that in a big way. It could change a lot of things in a direction I would like.

Sam


Last edited by Sam on Wed Aug 25, 2010 11:12 pm; edited 1 time in total
Sam
Sam
Admin

Posts : 22663
Join date : 2009-10-10

https://samcelt.forumotion.net

Back to top Go down

ESPN interview with Doc Empty Re: ESPN interview with Doc

Post by Outside Wed Aug 25, 2010 9:55 pm

Sam,

Thanks so much for the personal recollections of the Celtics' battles with the Minneapolis Lakers. Truly enjoyable, and a rare treat.
Outside
Outside

Posts : 3019
Join date : 2009-11-05

Back to top Go down

ESPN interview with Doc Empty Re: ESPN interview with Doc

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum