GREATEST PURE SCORER IN CELTICS HISTORY

This is a link for a discussion that escaped my notice when it occurred during this past season. If you watch it, I'm sure you'll agree that I have absolutely no personal interest in anything that is said. It's a total coincidence that Kevin Paul Dupont now rivals Jackie MacMullan as my favorite Celtics scribe, even though I've never seen Kevin Paul Dupont's name on anything except hockey writing.

http://www.boston.com/sports/video/globe10/?bctid=660474441001

I thought that, as we enter doldrums season, this might create a little friendly controversy. Personally, I'm probably staying out of it (unless someone addresses me specifically) except to say that points per 36 minutes seems to me to be an indicator that creates a level playing field.

Sam

P.S. Hint: 15, 24, 33

Larry Bird gets my vote for non centers, with Kevin McHale the best among the big men.
swish

Sam,

I'd normally pick a fight with you on principle because you posed the question and then said you'd stay out of it, but I can take issue with using the points-per-36-minutes stat. To me, that's of dubious value for this comparison for several reasons:

1) The distributed scoring of most Celtic teams that lowers the actual numbers for many players. This has been stated as a point of pride by Celtic fans on many occasions, that no Celtic has ever won the scoring title (though several have come in second), which is partly a reflection of the traditional Celtic philosophy of unselfish play, and also partly due to the fact that many Celtic teams have had multiple very good scorers that didn't rely on one player to be the primary scorer, as was the case for Wilt, Kareem, Jordan, and other guys like that.

2) For this comparison, we obviously have to consider players from different eras, and the pace of play is so drastically different now. For example, both Pierce and Sam Jones had years when their points per 36 minutes was 24.7, but for Pierce, that represented 33.6% of his team's total while Sam's represented 27.6% of his team's total.

3) The three-point shot wasn't introduced in the NBA until 1969-70, which obviously affects the scoring of outside shooters from different eras.

Stats like field goal percentage are also of questionable value because of factors like the tight rims in the old days versus looser rims now. Certain rules changes affected scoring, like making hand checking illegal.

So if I can shoot down the utility of any stat, it basically becomes a completely subjective matter of personal preference which will be highly skewed based on how old you are and which players you saw play.

And after all that ranting...

I agree with the top three you picked, though I'm not certain of the order you have them. Here's my list:

1. Bird
2. Sam Jones
3. Heinsohn (vastly underrated as a player, in my opinion)
4. Havlicek (so versatile)
5. McHale (one of the greatest collections of post moves ever, if not the greatest)
6. Pierce
7. Cowens (probably reflects my bias toward centers in general and the way Cowens played in particular)
8. JoJo
9. Sharman
10. Cousy (if I'd watched him play as much as some people here, I'd probably have him higher)

I know he was a lousy shooter, but I include Bill Russell as an honorable mention, epitomized by one play -- end of regulation, down by one or two points, 2-3 seconds to go, somebody (Havlicek?) inbounds the ball from midcourt and delivers a perfect pass high above the rim that Russell slams through. I'm probably wrong on several particulars because it was so long ago and I was so young when I watched that game, but it was something else to watch Russell set up under the basket and go get that ball with the other team powerless to stop him. To say it made an impression on me is putting it mildly. That's not exactly in the category of being a pure scorer, but if I needed a score at the end of the game, what a weapon to have.

Outside

Outside

I remember that game you speak of quite well. Was on TV back then Hondo did indeed throw the ball in from near half court. Russ got a back pick and rolled to the hoop caught the pass and slammed it. The other thing I remember about this was it being referred to as the hospital game as this was Russ's first game back after a stint in the hospital.

As to the thread

to me Hondo is number 1 with Bird a close second

as for other scorers 2 players whom careers are crossed and were Celts for too brief a time, both could score and shoot with the best of them.

Paul Westphal and Charlie Scott

beat

My "years" have only extended as far back as the early days of Bird/Mchale and Parish,

that said Bird- mcHale Peirce.. of the Matty Era..

id give special favortism to Hondo though, if i had witnessed more samplelings of his yrs, (plus he was a buckeye, which is another point in my book)

Outside,

I left myself two openings by stating that I PROBABLY wouldn't participate unless addressed personally, which you did. So, as long as you brought it up....

It's ironic that, in dismissing the points-per-36-minutes as a criterion, you raised two points that are at the foundation of my own preference, Sam Jones (surprise!). Sam played with teams having some of the greatest scoring balance of all-time, having as many as eight hall-of-fame teammates in one season. And, despite "profiting" from the pace of the games, he often shot from distance and yet never had one shot count for three points (excepting "and ones").

I agree completely with you about Heinsohn, if only for the degree of difficulty of so many of the CORNER hook shots he took fearlessly in the clutch. Between 1963 and 1965, the Celtics lost five hall of fame players to retirement and yet continued to win the championship. I always felt that, particularly during the challenges raised by Cousy's 1963 retirement, Heinie was the backbone of the team's grittiness and resolve.

I think you would have loved Sharman. His mid-range jumper and free throw shooting were money in the clutch, and (though not fast) was an ideal wing on the break—equally able to finish at the basket and be a mid-range trailer for the jumper. But what many people don't realize was his toughness as a defender. Here's a quote from Jerry West: “Bill was tough,” West once told the Los Angeles Times. “I’ll tell you this, you didn’t drive by him. He got into more fights than Mike Tyson. You respected him as a player.” Sharman once hauled off and punched an opponent in the nose during game action.

Ah, those good old non-athletic days when all the Celtics could do was run, run, run and win, win, win!

Okay, back into hibernation until someone else addresses me personally.

Sam

For his career Bird averaged 0.99 points per shot( all 3 point statistics are excluded). Pierce averaged 0.90 points per shot(ditto the 3 point data), Jones averaged 0.89 points per shot and Heinsohn averaged 0.81 points per shot.
swish

Outside,

I forgot the tight rims. Good one...and another one for Sam and Gunner.

Sam

sam wrote:Outside,


Okay, back into hibernation until someone else addresses me personally.

Sam

hello sam..

I'm bending this to the greatest Celtic's Scorer for any decent stretch of time of a season or more. (So Connor Henry going off in one game doesn't count)

I'm going with Kevin McHale in th 86-87 season before he hurt his foot. He was at the peak of his career and darn when the ball went down low to him you just expected a dipsy doo twiddel dee falling down fadeaway pretzel shot over anyone, and it would go in every time. OK, not quite every time but he did average 26 a game shooting over 60% that year.

(I can't believe I didn't vote for Larry.......)

Guess I dont know what "Pure Scorer" means.

Paul Pierce is the best Celtic I have ever seen in getting his own shot. Especially in the days of less than 20 wins, Pierce got his by rebounding the ball - bringing it up - and creating his own offense.

Bird had his share of behind the back dribbles etc....but much of Larry's offense was creating with moves off the ball (with DJ feeding the beast) and off rebounds, steals etc.

What little I have seen of old time Celtics teams tells me that Sam is correct that they were a team in the best sense of the word and unselfish to the benefit of the team (those banners dont lie). But because of this, I cant put any of them (Hondo excluded) in the same class as Pierce as "scorers"

So, if Pure Scorer is what I think it means - best player at creating his own scoring opportunities - then Yes, I think Paul Pierce is the best in Celtic history.

mrkleen09 wrote:Guess I dont know what "Pure Scorer" means.

Paul Pierce is the best Celtic I have ever seen in getting his own shot. Especially in the days of less than 20 wins, Pierce got his by rebounding the ball - bringing it up - and creating his own offense.

Bird had his share of behind the back dribbles etc....but much of Larry's offense was creating with moves off the ball (with DJ feeding the beast) and off rebounds, steals etc.

What little I have seen of old time Celtics teams tells me that Sam is correct that they were a team in the best sense of the word and unselfish to the benefit of the team (those banners dont lie). But because of this, I cant put any of them (Hondo excluded) in the same class as Pierce as "scorers"

So, if Pure Scorer is what I think it means - best player at creating his own scoring opportunities - then Yes, I think Paul Pierce is the best in Celtic history.

MrKleen,

You are absolutely correct that it depends on the definition of the term. I define it differently than being the best at creating scoring opportunities, which is one aspect of what I'd consider. Another is efficiency. Another is performance in the clutch. And, oh I don't know, something I'll label "situational scoring." But, to me, limiting it to creating your own scoring opportunities sounds like "best one-on-one player" or (gasp) "best me-baller." Not that I think that's what you meant, but it sorta goes down that road.

Sam, you're the one who posed the question. What did you have in mind?

No stats can support this one IMHO because there are too many variables involved in defining "scorer." Looking at it as one-on-one basketball ability based on observation going back to my earliest foggy memories around the late 60's.

Bird by a narrow margin over Pierce.

Same order for "cockiest Celtics ever." Maybe there's a connection.

Outside wrote:
MrKleen,

You are absolutely correct that it depends on the definition of the term. I define it differently than being the best at creating scoring opportunities, which is one aspect of what I'd consider. Another is efficiency. Another is performance in the clutch. And, oh I don't know, something I'll label "situational scoring." But, to me, limiting it to creating your own scoring opportunities sounds like "best one-on-one player" or (gasp) "best me-baller." Not that I think that's what you meant, but it sorta goes down that road.

Outside,

I choose the criteria of "creating scoring opportunities" - because for most of Paul Pierce's career - he had to do that mostly on his own. So, to become third all time on the scoring list for a team with such a rich history - a team built on the legacy of great teams and great teammates is outstanding. For Paul Pierce to have played with mediocre (or worse) teammates for 9 of his 14 seasons - and still be third (and soon to pass Larry) - is an AMAZING accomplishment.

I am a big Larry Bird fan - and an even bigger Kevin McHale fan, but to see what Paul Pierce has accomplished with so much less around him - has raised my level of respect for him by multitudes.

cowens/oldschool wrote:Kleen Pierce already passed Larry Legend

Forgot that.....thanks

Kleen, I understand completely. I was just pointing out an ancillary aspect to it, plus adding that I was using different criteria.

Is it fair to say that your point is the difference between Pierce and Ray? Pierce can score in pretty much every way possible -- off of cuts, inside, outside, spotting up, getting off a jump shot or driving to the basket when closely defended, and drawing fouls. Ray, on the other hand, while a great scorer, is mainly a spot-up shooter with a little of the other stuff thrown in, and creating his own shot off the dribble and drawing fouls were not his forte.

Outside

Outside, since you asked again......

The question was really posed by the two guys in the video, who gave a few clues as to their criteria but pretty much left that topic open to debate. What I had in mind was creating a little discussion, which could arguably incorporate debate on what the criteria should be.

I'm pretty sure shooting percentages or points per shot (pretty similar factors) aren't appropriate criteria for one reason mentioned earlier in this thread. Earlier Celtics teams played volume basketball, getting up shots early and often without caring about shooting percentages; later Celtics teams were more deliberate and—on average—took longer in the shot clock to set up more careful shots.

Personally, I sort of liked Kevin Du Pont's comment about the guys he felt most comfortable about with the ball in their hands and a score needed. (I believe he selected Sam and JoJo.) On one hand, that's subjective; but on the other hand, subjectivity gets better honed with every possession and every passing season. On that basis, having seen them all, I'll stick with Sam, who—according to Russell—was the ultimate scoring weapon (especially in the clutch) on Celtics teams with multiple candidates during the greatest championship run in history.

Excerpt from http://celticspride.pixnet.net/blog/post/24729388-mr.-clutch---sam-jones:
MR. CLUTCH
Michael D. McClellan

Imagine: The greatest athletic deal-closer of the twentieth century is celebrated endlessly, his name floating atop every all-time championship list and dropped into every serious debate over who has exerted the greatest influence on their sport, his close personal friendships awash in celebrity, royalty and head-of-state chutzpah. His likeness is iconic, a symbol of championship excellence against which all others in team sport are measured. His legacy as the ultimate bottom line, results-oriented exclamation point is long since secure, the label ‘winner’ perhaps more synonymous with his name than any athlete in history. And yet when Bill Russell – yes, that Bill Russell, the one with the signature laugh and all of those championship rings, many of them coming at the expense of a certain statistical glutton named Wilt Chamberlain – is asked to name the single greatest player he has ever been associated with, the answer comes quickly and without hesitation.
“In the years that I played with the Celtics,” says Russell, “in terms of total basketball skills, Sam Jones was the most skillful player that I ever played with. At one point, we won a total of eight consecutive NBA championships, and six times during that run we asked Sam to take the shot that meant the season. If he didn’t hit the shot we were finished – we were going home empty-handed. He never missed.”
End quote.

Not surprisingly, Russ spoke primarily in terms of championships. We all know that’s a shared trait of great Celtic players. In doing so, Russ didn’t bother to mention the myriad times throughout Sam’s 871 regular season games that Sam’s clutch heroics fattened the team’s won/lost record. To Russ, and Sam as well, those instances were probably chicken feed although there had to be at least many scores of such instances. Russ didn’t bother to detail individual moves such as ballhandling and being able to create his own shot. Of course Sam was great at those as well as catching and shooting as well as penetrating as well as filling a lane and finishing in transition as well as shooting from distance (although he had no threes to show for it). He was great at virtually every offensive maneuver except the hook shot (I only saw him make a handful of those) and the behind-the-back dribble. Why bother to try behind the back when you can speed-dribble away from almost every other player in the league?

See what happens, Outside? You address me personally, and the flood gates open. Sorry about that.

Sam

Cow,

The refs let them play in those days. Everyone got knocked around, including Sam Jones. The Celtics received their share, and guys like Bob Brannum, Jim Loscutoff and Gene Conley made sure the Celtics shelled out their share.

When a bad call went against the Celtics, I yelled at the refs like anyone else (as I have clearly stated on this forum). Then I acted like an adult and moved on so I could get the very most enjoyment by concentrating on the game itself. I believe that concentration is why I still have vivid memories of the game back them. My mind wasn't cluttered with detritus.

I'd be willing to bet that there were more bad calls back then than there are now because there were only two refs in those days. But what I was NOT ill-advised enough to do was to dwell on refereeing in general as systematically favoring other teams more than the Celtics. In addition to being incorrect, it would have been boring to me and might have made me boring in the eyes of friends who loved the Celtics and the game, itself, as I did. In fact, if I had been foolish enough to allow myself to be preoccupied by such a tangential topic, I would probably have lost interest in basketball, and this forum would not exist today.

Of course, that's just the way my mind and priorities work. Others have the right to feel differently.

I hope I've answered your question. Now I hope you'll permit me to ask you a question. What does your question have to do with the topic of this thread?

Sam

I agree with Sam in the sense that in the heat of the moment (or the heat of the heat, as it may be) - some of us get caught up in the "conspiracy" theory aspect of things. I think overall that NBA officiating is AWFUL....,but that is not an anti Celtics thing....it is just a lack of oversight and too many guys who have been allowed to stay on the job for too long type of thing.

On the topic of the overall "Terrible" officiating in the NBA....has anyone been watching the Team USA preliminary games?

The International refs have called repeatedly made traveling calls against Durant, James, Kobe, Harden and Westbrook.

And Fran Frischilla keeps saying - well, the international refs just dont witness this kind of athleticism in Europe and they are not used to seeing guys take a step and then dribble the ball.

YEAH, either that - or as the rule states, you CANT take a step and then dribble. NBA players TRAVEL 10, 15 times a game and get away with in in the NBA....and the international refs are actually calling it correctly.

Mrkleen

As Maxwell Smart might say "makes it just a LITTLE BIT easier to play defense."

These guys are all hard enough to guard without letting them travel consistently.

Imagine the NBA refs doing these games.

beat

ESPN did a whole series online about Traveling in the NBA a few years back. Here is an interesting selection

Others insist allowing two steps represents an NBA strategy to aid scorers and make the league more exciting. Legendary point guard and current Knick broadcaster Walt "Clyde" Frazier says the league relaxed traveling standards some time ago to increase scoring.

"They go 20 feet to the hoop without dribbling one time," Frazier said. "This is what they are getting away with nowadays. Some of them are so obvious. You'll hear me on the broadcast saying 'That's a travel! Watch the feet!' Wilt [Chamberlain] would have averaged 100 points a game if they had let him do that.

"When guys couldn't put up points, about when they changed the hand-check rule, they made things easier for scorers, because these players can't shoot like we did," Frazier said.

sam wrote:See what happens, Outside? You address me personally, and the flood gates open. Sorry about that.

Oops. My bad.

[cackle]