JoJo White should he in the Hall

Guy was better than Earl Monroe,who was flashier,but JoJo was much faster up and down floor and better defender,was 7 time all star,Finals MVP,2 time champion.Earl the Pearl had great nickname,but was only 4 time all star and was champion once.

Agree Jo Jo is a Hall of Famer

He was so beautiful to watch,pushing the ball,then that stop and pop.Oscar and Jerry were getting old,the 2 best guards were Clyde Frazier and JoJo.How can he not be there......hes done it all?

cowens/oldschool wrote:Guy was better than Earl Monroe,who was flashier,but JoJo was much faster up and down floor and better defender,was 7 time all star,Finals MVP,2 time champion.Earl the Pearl had great nickname,but was only 4 time all star and was champion once.

Cow,

Great point.

Regards

I don't understand it either, wonder how many votes he got? He has to be in the HOF, he's my mother's favorite Celtic!

Remember that the basketball Hall Of Fame covers all aspects of an individuals career, not just his nba days. JoJo was obviously a great nba player and champion but he was also an all american at Kansas and an olympic gold medalist (1968). There should be no doubt from anyone that JoJo is a HOF'er and that his overall accomplishments dwarf many of those who have already been enshrined.

willjr wrote:Remember that the basketball Hall Of Fame covers all aspects of an individuals career, not just his nba days. JoJo was obviously a great nba player and champion but he was also an all american at Kansas and an olympic gold medalist (1968). There should be no doubt from anyone that JoJo is a HOF'er and that his overall accomplishments dwarf many of those who have already been enshrined.

good point forgot to mention he was a starter in the backcourt on that Gold Medal team,I mean I'm all for the Gus Johnsons to get in,but how can JoJo not have gotten in all these years?I don't get it,guy was poetry in motion,a class act all the way,he was the mold for Ray Allen.I loved as a kid every year my Dad would point out in the all star game in 4th there was gonna be the best players on the floor and it was gonna be 3 Celtics and 2 Knicks for the East,it was Cowens,Debusshere,Hondo,Clyde Frazier and JoJo.Then like clockwork my Dad was right.

This is so true. I can remember the day the Celtics drafted White, I thought there was a big mistake. How could someone so good have slipped into their hands. He proved over the years that he was a terrific guard, smooth, under
control and what a pretty shot. I guess one by one they will put some of these guys in the Hall, I just hope JoJo's turn comes soon. He belongs there.

I wonder if he suffers from having so many Celtics already in the Hall.
I have to admit I think a few from the 60's benefitted from being multiple time champions rather than their own personal merrits.

Tommy H being one that comes to mind. 18/8.8, 12,194 career points does not a HOF make IMO.

You have to remember that back when Tommy was voted into the Hall, it was much, much smaller than it is now and so many fewer teams. So, when it was time to vote in players, they had no choice but to look at the accomplishments of the many Celtic players who won so many titles. Having seen Tommy play
myself, I want to tell you, he never met a shot he didn't like! Who has such
a hook shot in today's basketball??

Red did say that Jo Jo wasn't in the Hall because there were already too many Celtics in there. And let's never forget that Bill Russell shunned the Hall and for good cause.

Anyone who uses career stats as the criterion for the Hall, is either denigrating or overlooking all the other ways players contribute to winning. K. C. Jones, for example, by his stats, has no place in Springfield. But ask Jerry West if he belongs. Or any of his Celtic teammates.

Please don't place Tommy Heinsohn on a lower rung than any of his teammates, including Cousy and Russell. He's right alongside those two in his contribution to all those championships and, if you want stats, check the box scores. I tell ya, Tommy doesn't get any respect. He's liked by all but never gets the appreciation he deserves.

Look at how he played in the Finals every year, usually leading his team in scoring and invariably making some of the most devastating plays of the game in clutch time.

He's known for his scoring, but he was far far more than a shooter. He was a ferocious defender, he ran like a wolf on the fast break, and he was one of the best offensive rebounders of all time. He was an all-around player, as smart a player as there ever was, the kind of guy who gave a thousand percent every moment he was on the floor.

Just look at his rookie season and remember, he was that good year in and year out. Rookie of the Year, led the team in scoring throughout the playoffs, but in Game 7 against the Hawks he had one of the great Celtic performances of all time, - he scored 37 points and grabbed 23 rebounds, neutralizing the incredible Bob Pettit, bailing out his teammates Cousy and Sharman when they couldn't hit the backboard; in fact, he was the Celtics first option on offense for his whole career, primarily because he got out on the break ahead of everyone, didn't miss often, and, when he did, would get after his own rebound.

I've never heard anybody but Tommy say this, and he did it jokingly, but one of the biggest reasons Bob Cousy led the league in assists every year was because he passed the ball to Tommy.

Lastly, there was a synergy on those Celtic teams, a commitment to teamwork, the singlemost important aspect a player can bring to the game, that demands they belong in the Hall together or not at all.

fine Tommy was a good role player, but a HOF'er... I don't think so.
I see him more like a Sam Cassell, great guy to have on your team and he's a reason why you win, but IMO Tommy benefited greatly by the talent around him and on a lesser team he'd be a good or very good player, not a HOF'er.

and yeah stats are not the only factor but they are a significant part of it and yeah SOME guys sacrifice their stats for the greater good of the team and that's what makes good teams great, but it doesn't mean they're great players either. Role players have a role and IMO tommy was a role player.

and while his playoff averages did rise, which is a pretty good sign of a gamer, his FG and FT %'s dropped, which IMO makes him a bit less efficient.
I mean 35% from the floor to score 17.5ppg in 11 playoff games... yikes.

A guy I find similar to him is James Worthy. Another great guy to have on a contender but IMO borderline HOF at best.

in both instances those guys are the 3rd best player on their teams ,capable of being 2nd or 1st best at times but both really thrived by playing with all time greats.

Well, there's room in the world for differences of opinion.

Heinsohn was really before my time (just before). I started following NBA basketball in the mid- to late-60's, first my beloved Warriors, then expanding to other teams including, naturally, the Celtics. But based on what I do know, I have absolutely no problem with Tom Heinsohn being in the hall of fame.

James Worthy, on the other hand, I watched a lot, and I can safely say he was a great player. Just because he had Magic and Kareem on his team doesn't mean that he doesn't deserve to be in the HOF. Did you see him play? Man, I consider him a no-brainer for the HOF. They didn't call him "Big Game James" for nothing.

Who was a better small forward? I'll say Larry Bird, but even then, I can fudge a little because Bird's career was limited by injury and Worthy was productive over a longer period. (Yes, I'll still take Bird, but you can't find players who are more different and supposedly play the same position, so they're a difficult comparison.) I'd put Elgin Baylor above Worthy, and probably Dr. J, but it's pretty darn close, in my view. I can see someone preferring Havlicek or Pippen, but I'd still take Worthy. I'd take him without a doubt over Dominique Wilkens, even my beloved Rick Barry (a better scorer, but when you consider defense...) Who else is out there that you consider better?

My guess is some people feel the same way about Heinsohn.

Sorry, putting Tommy in the same category as Sam Cassell is an insult. Tommy was a terrific player in his time. The fact that he was surrounded by so many
other great players shouldn't lessen his value to the Boston Celtics. Stats are
made to be padded, back when Tommy played, they weren't as attentive to
all these stats that are being collected today. I believe he is right where he
belongs, in the Hall of Fame, with all the other greats that surrounded him.

I also have to say that I would take John Havlicek as opposed to many of the players you named above. The only other two above him would be Elgin and DJ, who were absolutely fantastic ball players. Pippen was a good player, but no Havlicek. I am tired of hearing about the Scotty Pippen admiration society, take MJ off that team and what do you have??

Regarding role players, to paraphrase Red, the role player's role is whatever he does best. So, if a guy like Tommy does everything well, he doesn't qualify as a role player. He was a starter and major contributor on the greatest team of all time. Res ipsa loquitur. (Bobheckler isn't the only one who can spout Latin. Harumph, harumph.)

There is a very telling quote regarding stats by a one-time Celtic from that era who struggled for years with the Knicks and only got his ring when he came to Boston:

Carl Braun: "I joined the Celtics in 1961 after a rough year and a half as coach of the Knicks. I was 20-59 one season, and I didn't want to go out of the game having been fired by New York. So Red asked me to play a year and I did. The first change I noticed was with the box scores. After a game in New York, there would be a wrestling match in the dressing room because guys wanted to see their stats. With the Celtics, the box scores sat on the table where they were left by the stat people. The Celtics only cared about the final score."

Then there's this quote from that same time frame by that guy who stole the ball:

John Havlicek: "We won so much and guys were willing to come off the bench because of Red's attitude. He convinced us that we would be paid on our value to the team, not on statistics. He'd say, Russell is my best player, he has the most to do with winning, so he'll be paid the most. But Russell did not score the most points. Cousy was the second-best player, so he was paid right after Russell on the salary scale. No one dared bring up stats. No one would say, "Hey, I got my 30, I can't help it that the other guys . . . " We were in double figures. Seldom did ayone average much over 20."

RosalieTCeltics wrote:Sorry, putting Tommy in the same category as Sam Cassell is an insult. Tommy was a terrific player in his time. The fact that he was surrounded by so many
other great players shouldn't lessen his value to the Boston Celtics. Stats are
made to be padded, back when Tommy played, they weren't as attentive to
all these stats that are being collected today. I believe he is right where he
belongs, in the Hall of Fame, with all the other greats that surrounded him.

I also have to say that I would take John Havlicek as opposed to many of the players you named above. The only other two above him would be Elgin and DJ, who were absolutely fantastic ball players. Pippen was a good player, but no Havlicek. I am tired of hearing about the Scotty Pippen admiration society, take MJ off that team and what do you have??

well apparently you have a 55 win team that made the ECF's with Pippen leading the team in points,rebounds,assts,stls and blocks. Pippen is top shelf all time SF no doubt. I'd take him over Worthy in a heartbeat. Better D (can defend PG-PF, superb help defender in the post), better vesatility (no weakness in any part of his game), played 252 more career regular season games, 65 more career playoff games and in a remarkable revelation both players stats rise in the playoffs.

I think you're statement is undervaluing Pippen's game because he played alongside Jordan.
Pippen was also a signifcant part of those late 90/early 00's Blazers teams that were at the top of the West even though he was aging and had tons of NBA mileage on them.

My top 5 SF of all time would be:
Larry
Elgin
Dr J
Havlicek (swing player I know)
Pippen

rickdavisakaspike wrote:Regarding role players, to paraphrase Red, the role player's role is whatever he does best. So, if a guy like Tommy does everything well, he doesn't qualify as a role player. He was a starter and major contributor on the greatest team of all time. Res ipsa loquitur. (Bobheckler isn't the only one who can spout Latin. Harumph, harumph.)
"

So does that make tommy a great player or a good player on a great team.
How does tommy differ from say Horace Grant and the Bulls? Grant could score when asked too, very good rebounder, excellent team defender and solid one on one defender. The Bulls don't win 3 titles in a row without him.

but just because he played on some great teams and contributed to their success doesn't make him a HOF'er.
If you let ppl who had good not great careers in the Hall, it becomes the hall of pretty good, or the Hall of success IMO.

I just think certain players have made it to the Hall because they played on championship winning teams moreso than their own personal merit or attributes. I mean what makes Joe Dumars that much of a better player than Mitch Richmond? His luck at being on the right team and that's it IMO. both were superb all-star level players but one is in the Hall and the other is not and it's mostly due to the Pistons success.
Yes winning is the most important thing but there are times when it's not necessairly the players fault his team is not as successful as anothers. When you're talking about an alpha dog and the team success then yes they have to shoulder a lot of the blame. Like KG's wolves missing the playoffs 4 yrs in a row, you can't call KG a top 20 all time player when he can't lead a team to the playoffs for 4 years in a row. I could never imagine Larry Legend allowing that to happen if you stuck him with the worst team in the league! But when it comes to guys who are very good player but not alpha dog's you have to take into consideration the way they played the game AND yes their stats.

Seems we have a bit of a bulls fan on here, touting Grant and Pippin.

And as far as Pippen or Heinsohn

No brainer in my book, Heinshon in a landslide. At lest HE kept his sneakers on till the end. But comparing players off different eras is probably one of the most difficult things to do in any sport.

Your quote

I just think certain players have made it to the Hall because they played on championship winning teams moreso than their own personal merit or attributes.

Isn't the whole idea to win the game? As you do point out.

And some very good players on good teams...........cripes Why was the team good..........because of those very players that made the team great.

Sort of a chicken egg thing.

Interesting debate.

beat

but my point is there is a difference between a great team and being a great player. Being on a great team doesn't necessairly make you a great player and most certainly doesn't make you a HOF'er. I think there was a bias (and there still is) when it comes to admitting borderline HOF candidates.

Take the Pistons team that won a title this decade and made numerous deep trips into the playoffs. There were a great throwback team, played excellent unselfish ball no one had to be the star etc etc.

but if you think RIP Hamilton or Tayshaun Prince or even Rasheed Wallace deserve a HOF nod due to the Pistons success, well I'd consider you nuts. Their ability to play as a team and without ego is great for the game, but I don't consider them great players at all. Billups is a maybe with the great way he runs a team but still probably a no and if Rodman doesn't make the Hall then how can rodman lite Ben Davis, make it?
So you have 5 very good players playing excellent team ball, but even with their team success I don't really believe any of them are obvious HOF candidates.

and my talk about Pippen was never in a comparison to Heinsohn, moreso a comparison to Worthy whom I think Pippen is better than.

I was never a fan of the Bulls in the 90's, I loved the C's and followed my all time fav non-Celtic Karl Malone since well following the C's in the 90's was nothing short of painful. The adoration for MJ was too much for me to not throw up in my mouth, but like Magic and those 80's Lakers teams, my disdain for the Bulls of the 90's has softened with time and I do appreicate the great skills Pip brought to the table, much like I have begrudging respect for the way Magic played the game.

No offense to you numbers guys, but stats don’t mean much in basketball. True Celtics fans know what wins championships. Getting back on defense, moving your feet, blocking out, fighting through picks – how can you quantify those? Yet, if you want to judge a player’s contribution to winning, you have to take them into account.

There are quite a few players who probably will never make it into the Hall, but belong there if for no other reason than defense. Here’s my list:

Dennis Rodman. "The Worm" won seven NBA All-Defensive first team awards and was voted NBA Defensive Player of the Year in 1990 and 1991. He ranks 10th All-Time in NBA history in rebounds per game and was only 6-7, 230 pounds. His teams won 5 NBA championships and he holds the astounding playoff record of 11 offensive boards in a single game.

Tom Sanders. “Satch”, whose #16 was raised to the Garden rafters in 1973, was a 6’ 6”, 210 pound forward who was the eighth overall pick in the 1960 NBA draft. Joining a team with 7 future Hall of Famers, Satch became a starter in his rookie season and, by the following year, was logging 30 minutes per game. Satch was an all-around player who could score as well as anybody, but the team needed his defense, so he sacrificed individual glory for the sake of his coach and his teammates. He played 916 career games (6th most in Celtics history) in 13 seasons, averaging 9.6 points per game for his career.“When I think of Boston’s great defense, I think of Satch Sanders,” said former Laker Elgin Baylor. “Satch was the toughest defender I ever went against, very aggressive and totally unselfish.”

Gary Payton. "The Glove" a one-time Celtic, won 9 NBA All-Defensive first team awards.

Michael Cooper. Larry Bird’s shadow was NBA Defensive Player of the Year in 1987, as a sixth man.

Artis Gilmore. The one-time Celtic is not only the all-time field goal percentage shooter, he ranks in the top ten in rebounds and blocked shots. Apparently, he will never get into the Hall because of his time in the ABA.

Bill Laimbeer. He was the anchor for one of the toughest defensive teams of all-time, had 1,000 rebounds three years in a row, and earned 2 rings.

Maurice Cheeks. Mo won NBA All-Defensive first team for four consecutive years (1983 to '86) and has 1 championship ring.

Arvydas Sabonis. He didn‘t join the NBA until age 31, didn’t win any rings, but was a highly skilled player, an intimidating presence underneath, even on bad knees.

Nate Thurmond. He was 6'11", 235 pounds, two time NBA All-Defensive first team; in 14 seasons, he averaged 15 rebounds per game. He was an all-around player who was a ferocious shot blocker, comparable in that skill to Mr. Russell himself. He was the first player to have a quadruple double.

Bobby Jones. He was Philly's hardworking gentleman, with one ring (1983 over the Lakers ). He won eight NBA All-Defensive first team awards.

Walt Frazier. "Clyde" was named to NBA All-Defensive first team 7 consecutive seasons, and was one half of one of the greatest backcourts of all time with Earl "the Pearl" Monroe.

I've said it before, and I'm saying it again. Judging individual Celtics on their individual merits or stats is (to be kind) ill-advised. Judging any individual Russell-era Celtic, in particular, on his individual merits or stats is beyond ludicrous. Throw the stats out the window, because (among other reasons) those Celtics had to "compete" with a slew of legendary teammates for stats. Moreover, all of them (including Russell) were role players in Red's minds and in their own minds as well. With another team, Tom Sanders could very likely be in the Hall of Fame. (I believe he should be anyway.) Think Sam Jones wouldn't have won scoring championships with certain other teams? Think again.

By rights, the Russell Celtics should have been inducted into the Hall of Fame as a team, because they were a team phenomenon unlike any other that pro basketball will ever see—not simply in terms of victories or championships but also in the completely selfless way they thought and played.

But they don't put teams (no matter how incredible they are) in the Hall of Fame, so the next best thing was to enshrine those Celtics players individually. In a given season, Tom Heinsohn "competed" with as many as 7 other future hall-of-fame teammates for stats.

It could be argued that Tom Heinsohn was among the most important Celtics of all-time. First, for those unfortunates who revere scoring as the ultimate stat, in terms of career stats, Tom Heinsohn scored more points per minute of play than any other Celtic. Ever!

Second, without Tom Heinsohn, the Celtics don't win Championship #1. They won Game 7 in double overtime despite the fact that their two leading scorers that season (Cousy and Sharman) went a combined 5 for 40 from the floor. Rookie of the Year Tom Heinsohn saved their bacon by scoring 37 points with 23 rebounds. (And Tom was "competing" with Russell, as well as opponents like Bob Petit, for the rebounds. In fact, Russ had 32.)

That was a typical Celtics example of stepping up when needed. He undoubtedly wouldn't have recorded 37 points if Cooz and Bill had been on their games, shooting-wise. It was the Celtic way.

The reason I say this is an indicator of importance is that it began the Celtic dynasty. The following year, Russell got hurt, and St. Louis won the championship. Suppose the Celtics had failed to win it all in both '57 and '58 (following several disappointments in previous seasons). Who knows for certain whether or not Auerbach would not have tried a different formula, made some trades, whatever. The dynasty, in fact, might never have happened with the Lakers, Wilt and Oscar becoming powers. And, arguably more than any other Celtic, Tom Heinsohn's clutch play made that first championship final win happen. Like other Celtics, he did what had to be done at all times but, individually, he would have been capable of FAR more in other situations.

Third, just a small example of how circumstances alter perception. When Russell joined the Celtics around Christmas, 1956 (after the Olympic Games), the Cs were already comfortable out in front. The main difference between that team and the Celtics team that had played .542 ball and lost in the division semis the previous season? Tom Heinsohn. Without Russ as a teammate (perish the thought), the Celtics undoubtedly wouldn't have had the run they did; but Heinie might possibly have been an MVP candidate. (As it was, he placed #6 in the voting in 1960-61.)

Fourth, Heinsohn played a role that never showed up in any statistic. He was Red's designated whipping boy (although Loscutoff helped). Red knew some players had to be handled with kid gloves. When things went wrong, he'd often blast Tommy and get his point across to some of the more sensitive perpetrators without ruining their confidence. Because he knew Tommy could and would take it. Tommy was unquestionably one of the toughest Celtics ever—in mind and body.

Some people tend to diminish the contributions of individual Celtics during the Russell Years because they played with so many great teammates. That's (here's that polite term again) ill-advised and flawed reasoning. It was by recognizing their roles and filling them superbly that all of them collectively became great. Tommy, despite his reputation as a shooter (his role, right?) was one of the best examples of a team player.

Tom was one of those players who is best appreciated for his night-in-night-out contributions, rather than for his stats and video clips.

Sam

I understand that players on great teams give up stats for the greater good. Looking at McHale's rebounding averages, you'd think he was a sub-par rebounder for a big man, but then you notice that he shared rebounding duties with Robert Parrish and Larry Bird. So all 3 guys coulda had much better career rebounding stats had they not been on such a talented line.

While I get what you say about judging players from the 60's era C's teams on their individual stats is ill advised, judging them based on their team accomplishments is too... well without looking at their stats and contributions to those teams. Ignoring stats is basically admitted you're going on your own perceptions... which are biased especially when talking about Celtics players.

I admit I have a bias towards any Lakers players and I'll give them as little credit as possible, but I do try and remain more grounded about the Celtics and other players. Stats tell part of the story IMO and using them to back up a point is not without meritt. There has to be balance between what you saw and what you've read and the stats.

Walt frazier IS in the HOF and has been for several years and so is Nate thurmond.

beat

Celtic Fan,

Great to have a good debater on the board. Great to have much of anything happening on the board nowadays, for that matter.

Just one question. What year would you say you started following the Celtics as a knowledgeable fan of NBA ball?

In some of your comments, I sense that perhaps the essence of what the Russell Celtics were all about might be missing from the equation. For instance, as I discuss in my personal history of the Russell Celtics (available in one of the forums on our home page under "Sam's Writings"), those teams employed what I call "volume basketball." Shoot early in the shot clock; get up a lot of shots; surprise the opponents before their defense is set; and count on grabbing a lot of offensive boards (one of the underrated reasons why Russell's rebound totals were so high. I think today's Knicks try to do something similar; they've just been crappy shooters who are too often out of control.

A reliance on stats is just one of several factors why I think it's difficult to appraise the Russell Celtics (team or individual players) without having seen them play. For example, Cousy shot .375 for his career, and yet few who saw him would doubt that he was a great shooter and certainly one of the most worthy hall-of-famers.

(I edited as follows because I meant to include the following). In any analysis of basketball, there's almost always a context. In the case I mentioned, the context for looking at shooting stats involves the style of ball being played. Another I didn't mention was the tightness of the rim, which was not friendly to Tommy's line drive shooting technique.

Just curious. No biggie.

Sam

I became a fan of the Celtics in the mid 80's. As I would spend some Sunday Afternoons watching CBS and the C's play the hated sixers or Lakers.

I became a huge fan of basketball in the late 80's as I hit HS and followed the college game and more teams and players around the NBA.

I've seen the arguemnt go both ways on various sites, those who go by what they saw/read vs those who use cold hard stats to treat the game like math.
(funny side story, I had a guy try to argue that David Robinson is a top ten all time player based on his superbly high PER)
I'm trying to find a middle road based on stats (both modern and traditional) as well as experience.
It is harder for me to discuss players from previous era's but I have done some knowledge gathering.

I know players from the 50/60 and part of the 70's shot a much lower FG%.

I tend to agree with Bill Simmons assessment, the game played prior to the NBA/ABA merger is not the same game that was played after it.