Boston Celtics all-time starting five

Saw this article about a Celtics all-time starting five:

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nba-ball-dont-lie/the-nba-s-all-time-starting-five--boston-celtics-154838731.html

For those of you who don't feel like clicking:

Center: Bill Russell
Forwards: John Havlicek and Larry Bird
Guards: Sam Jones, Bob Cousy

I believe the writer was just picking based on talent/accomplishments, without regard to team chemistry or complementary play. Most of these guys were before my time, so I am interested to hear from... hmmmm, how shall I say this???... our more "experienced" posters.

Well, they were in my time and I agree!,!,!

There have been so many great Celtics over the years, JoJo, Paul, KG, Cowens, Mchale, and more. It is so hard to pick 5 greats. But, at the top of the list should always be Russell and Bird. After that the fight begins..

I think that those five would go together about as well as hot fudge sauce on a sundae.

All five are all time greats but the most outstanding characteristic of all of them was they played basketball to win titles and everything else was subordinated to that goal.

Heinshon has said that Bill Russell had a "neurotic need to win." Bill Walton once said that he thought that there was only three times in Bird's life when he was happy: when he won the three titles during his career.

Russell said that in a seventh game he'd take Sam Jones over any player he's ever seen. Havlicek's and Cousy's indomitable will to win was self-evident during their careers.

Can't you just hear Auerbach? Red would would say something like, "These are my kind of guys. They come to play every night; they played hurt; they were totally unconcerned about their own stats; they just wanted to win."

[sarcasm]
Gee, I can hardly wait for Sam ro put his two cents in since this type of question is right up his alley.
[\sarcasm]

It's hard to go wrong picking an all-time starting five for the Celtics since they've had so many great players. Russell, Bird, and Cousy seem like locks, but how do you limit the next two slots to just two players when there are far more than two deserving to be there? McHale and Cowens don't make the cut, which doesn't seem right. Tommy Heinsohn, JoJo White -- how can you leave them off?

For a franchise as great as the Celtics, five doesn't cut it. But it's something to talk about, and it provides an opportunity to shine some light on players from the past that many younger fans aren't that aware of.

Even if the notion of picking a "top five Celtics" is ridiculous, any chance to reinforce the notion that Sam Jones was a great, great player is a good thing. Most people think of Heinsohn as the wacky homer broadcaster, but he was a great player. Dave Cowens was an undersized center who dominated, absolutely dominated, through athleticism, skill, and will. It was a privilege to watch those guys play.

I am guessing this all springs out of the discussion between all-time Lakers vs all-time Bulls (which IMO Lakers would win handily). So howabout all-time Lakers vs all-time Celtics in the finals? Who wins?

I made the mistake of clicking the "Previous entries: Golden State" link at the bottom of the article and about lost my lunch. The list has Wilt, Chris Mullin, Rick Barry, Latrell Sprewell, and Steph Curry as the franchise top five. Dear Lord -- Latrell Sprewell??? My day has been officially ruined.

First, he leaves Nate Thurmond off because he's self-constraining his list to one center, but then he puts shooting guard Chris Mullin as a forward. If you can make Chris Mullin a forward, Nate Thurmond belongs on the list. End of discussion.

I'm obviously fine with Wilt and Barry, and I'm even fine with Steph Curry, even if it's premature. Add Thurmond, and there's one spot left. Jeff Mullins, Chris Mullin, Guy Rodgers, Al Attles, Purvis Short, Bernard King, Paul Arazin, Tom Gola -- to pick Sprewell over any of those guys is absurd.

Beware -- the same guy who picked the top five Warriors also picked the top five Celtics. Based on the Warriors list, this guy is an idiot. He's just lucky that a Celtics list is hard to screw up.

Sam is not alone in his admiration of Sam jones, he was so much a joy to watch.  He made me smile, he game us all a reason to be proud to be a Celtic fan

Shamrock,

As Outside put it, speculation of the greatest all-time basketball (fill in the blank) is not my cup of tea. It’s all about the team.

HOWEVER, since you got it exactly right, from an individual AND team standpoint, I'll have to say, "Well done." You even managed to name five individuals who wouldn’t have to play out of position to form a team.

One interesting attribute that was shared among the four players from the 50/60s was……their availability. During their Celtics careers, the four of them played in an average of 96.5% of the regular season games played by the Celts. (I didn’t count Russell’s first year because he played only a partial year after the Olympics.) Sam = 92.4%, Cooz = 96.8%, Russ = 97.0%, and John = 98.8%. Stats such as these, coupled with the fact that the backdrop for the stats was racehorse championship basketball are the reasons why I place endurance so high on my own list of athletic traits required of a high-impact basketball player.

I included Havlicek’s stats throughout his career, not just with the Russell Celts. He played 16 years of running basketball from age 22 to 38, and guess how many games he missed. 16!!!! An average of one game per season. And he was still averaging 34.1 mpg during his last season.

Larry played in 81.4% of the Celtics’ regular season games during his career. To put Larry’s situation in a clearer perspective, during his first seven Celtics season (including all three championships his team won), Larry was an iron man, playing in 97.7% of his team’s regular season games. In the six ensuing years, the extent of the health miseries he fought is reflected in the fact that he played in only 68.3% of the team’s regular season games. And that figure was dragged down considerably by the 1998-89 season when he played in only six of the 82 regular season games.

Sam

Shamrock,

Back in the Boston.com days, an enterprising poster (I believe he was from the Philippines) got hold of a basketball simulation game that was considered (by the manufacturer—who else to be state of the art something like eight years ago. It was supposed to incorporate probabilities for myriad eventualities under thousands of conditions. The prevailing feeling on the board was that, although there was considerable skepticism about the value of the system, it would be fascinating to see what it came up with under a seven-game, all-time best Celtics vs. all-time best Lakers series.

Every day or two, he would post the results and box score of the most recent "game." I believe the Celtics had the home court advantage, which made me surer than ever that the game had been manufactured in L.A. and the Lakers were going to win it. Just another insidious attempt to rewrite Celtics history. This suspense stretched out for two entire weeks as the teams (naturally) split the first six games. We had to wait over a weekend for the results of the final game to be posted.

The final game went back and forth, and I believe the Lakers had the ball with a few seconds left and the score tied. Time out. The Lakers missed. Overtime! I had to change shirts every quarter because I was drenched with perspiration. Had the game incorporated a Red Auerbach heat control knob?

Second overtime. Back and fourth. Tie game with second left, and the Celtics had the ball. So the poster announced that he would post the results the following day. I'm a pretty calm guy, but I was apoplectic. I was also out of shirts.

The appointed hour of the next day found my computer and me inside a rapidly expanding pool of sweat in my office. My wife stuck her head in. Would I like......? "NO!" Then, realizing my colossal gaffe, I added, "Thanks." As I waited for the guy to log on, all I could envision was Jerry West systematically bursting hundreds of green balloons.

The game operator finally showed up and, in the anti-climax of all-time, wrote just eight words: "And Sam Jones wins it with a jumper."

I hated myself for allowing a game to tie me in knots. But I loved Sam Jones more for hitting that shot.

Then the guy let on that the game could be programmed different ways, with different weights of importance assigned to the key variables. Fortunately, the idea of going through the exercise again, on BDC, didn't take off. I couldn't have stood it. As far as I was concerned, this event had been the definitive cyber perspective on Celtics vs. Lakers, tick tock, double lock, the end.

Sam

sam wrote:Shamrock,

As Outside put it, speculation of the greatest all-time basketball (fill in the blank) is not my cup of tea.  It’s all about the team.

HOWEVER, since you got it exactly right, from an individual AND team standpoint, I'll have to say, "Well done."  You even managed to name five individuals who wouldn’t have to play out of position to form a team.

One interesting attribute that was shared among the four players from the 50/60s was……their availability.  During their Celtics careers, the four of them played in an average of 96.5% of the regular season games played by the Celts.  (I didn’t count Russell’s first year because he played only a partial year after the Olympics.)  Sam = 92.4%, Cooz = 96.8%, Russ = 97.0%, and John = 98.8%.  Stats such as these, coupled with the fact that the backdrop for the stats was racehorse championship basketball are the reasons why I place endurance so high on my own list of athletic traits required of a high-impact basketball player.

I included Havlicek’s stats throughout his career, not just with the Russell Celts.  He played 16 years of running basketball from age 22 to 38, and guess how many games he missed.  16!!!!  An average of one game per season.  And he was still averaging 34.1 mpg during his last season.

Larry played in 81.4% of the Celtics’ regular season games during his career.  To put Larry’s situation in a clearer perspective, during his first seven Celtics season (including all three championships his team won), Larry was an iron man, playing in 97.7% of his team’s regular season games.  In the six ensuing years, the extent of the health miseries he fought is reflected in the fact that he played in only 68.3% of the team’s regular season games.  And that figure was dragged down considerably by the 1998-89 season when he played in only six of the 82 regular season games.

Sam

could it be possible that as the players got stronger and wider and faster and more physical, the pounding of the game took more of a toll on the modern players, that the 60's players didn't have to take or endure? were there any Lebron James types 6'8" 260 SF or even a Larry Bird type 6'9" 230 SF roaming the floor in the 60's?

Shamrock1000 wrote:Saw this article about a Celtics all-time starting five:

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nba-ball-dont-lie/the-nba-s-all-time-starting-five--boston-celtics-154838731.html

For those of you who don't feel like clicking:

Center: Bill Russell
Forwards: John Havlicek and Larry Bird
Guards: Sam Jones, Bob Cousy

I believe the writer was just picking based on talent/accomplishments, without regard to team chemistry or complementary play. Most of these guys were before my time, so I am interested to hear from... hmmmm, how shall I say this???... our more "experienced" posters.

I like that team, has shooters and can definitely run non stop with Hondo at the 3, but I'd start Dave Cowens for 17, with Cowens at PF, Russell and Bird, you own the boards and the paint, either way you can't go wrong with either team.

"...during his first seven Celtics season (including all three championships his team won), Larry was an iron man, playing in 97.7% of his team’s regular season games"

Sam,

I would say during his first nine years Bird was an iron man.

In year eight he averaged over 28 ppg, 9 rebounds, seven assists while playing  40 mins per game in 74 games.

In year nine, Bird averaged nearly 30 ppg, 9 rebounds, six assists while playing 40 mins per game in 76 games.

His shooting efficiency also peaked during years eight and nine as he shot over 50% overall, 40% on threes and over 90% from the line.

I've heard Bird say he should have retired after year nine, his last relatively injury-free season. But I'm glad he didn't.  While he was no longer the player he once was there were still plenty of moments of pure magic like when he came out of the locker room after knocking himself unconscious in game five against the Pacers and shut Chuck Person up by bouncing the Pacers from the playoffs. (I guess the NBA back then had no concussion rules).  Or in his last year, when his back was so bad he had to lie down on the sidelines, erupting for 49 against the Trailblazers, including an off balance three to send it into OT.

"I'm obviously fine with Wilt and Barry, and I'm even fine with Steph Curry, even if it's premature. Add Thurmond, and there's one spot left. Jeff Mullins, Chris Mullin, Guy Rodgers, Al Attles, Purvis Short, Bernard King, Paul Arazin, Tom Gola -- to pick Sprewell over any of those guys is absurd."

Gotta mention Gilbert Arenas and Tim Hardaway.  They had some great years with the Warriors

Remember RUN TMC?

As forSprewell, he had that Satanic glow.  I saw one game after he was traded from NY to Minnesota and the Wolves were in MSG when Sprew iced the game on late FT's while cursing out Knick owner Jim Dolan who was sitting in the baseline seats.

Dolan was and is the man most responsible for making the Knicks a laughing stock and I had to love Sprewell sticking it to him.

were there any Lebron James types 6'8" 260 SF... roaming the floor in the 60's

I can't think of too many 6'7" 260 lbs SF's in the league today. Lebron James is an outlier, an athletic freak.

He's kind of like Magic Johnson. I mean, how many 6'9" PG's have there been after Magic?

Sloopjohnb wrote:were there any Lebron James types 6'8" 260 SF... roaming the floor in the 60's

I can't think of too many 6'7" 260 lbs SF's in the league today.   Lebron James is an outlier, an athletic freak.

He's kind of like Magic Johnson.  I mean, how many 6'9" PG's have there been after Magic?

right when Lebron was coming up, there was 6'7" 260 lb Ron Artest, there was also 6'9" Tracy McGrady and 6'10" Tayshawn Prince.

after Magic there was Penny Hardaway and Grant Hill, both about 6'8".

The pounding of the game at the pace played in the 50s and 60s was arguably greater than the "pounding" of the game in later years. But it certainly is possible (likely?) that the greater weights of later day players was a major factor in cutting into their endurance and resistance to injuries.

Sam

Sloopjohnb wrote:"I'm obviously fine with Wilt and Barry, and I'm even fine with Steph Curry, even if it's premature. Add Thurmond, and there's one spot left. Jeff Mullins, Chris Mullin, Guy Rodgers, Al Attles, Purvis Short, Bernard King, Paul Arazin, Tom Gola -- to pick Sprewell over any of those guys is absurd."

Gotta mention Gilbert Arenas and Tim Hardaway. They had some great years with the Warriors

Remember RUN TMC?

Gilbert Arenas spent only his first two seasons with Golden State and wasn't that remarkable, averaging 10.9 and 18.3 points.

Of course I remember Run TMC -- T(im Hardaway) M(itch Richmond) C(hris Mullin). They were entertaining, but it lasted only two years, they didn't win much (37-45, 44-38), and that was the start of an era of good offense and no defense -- a label that stuck with the Warriors until a couple of years ago. Hardaway had some very good seasons with the Warriors, but he went to the playoffs only twice with the Warriors and had far more success team-wise in Miami.

Hardaway could score, but give me a guy like Al Attles any day -- unspectacular stats, tough as nails (his nickname was "the Destroyer" and he was Wilt's personal bodyguard on the court for many years), a winner. Attles is revered to this day within the Warriors organization and the entire Bay Area, and it was Attles the Warriors chose to present the Western Conference trophy to the team after they defeated the Rockets.

I wanted to give some of those other players their due, but Attles was my choice to be on the top 5 list from the start -- Wilt, Thurmond, Barry, Curry, Attles. At this point, Attles really belongs there more than Curry.

I'll always have a fondness for Jeff Mullins, who nobody except a die-hard fan from the old days remembers but was a very good player on some very good teams with Thurmond. The Warriors also have some excellent players lost in the mists of time, like Guy Rodgers (in the Hall of Fame, one of Sam's "floor generals") and Paul Arizin (before my time, also in the Hall of Fame, but one of the greats from the early, early days).

Any of those guys are much farther up the ladder on the franchise greats list than Tim Hardaway. Al Attles -- he's my guy.

OOOPS! I meant Mitch Richmond not Gilbert Arenas.  That's what happens when you get old and crazy and your mind goes.

I don't think I ever saw Jeff Mullins play but I do know he was a consistent 20 ppg scorer for many seasons from gazing at basketball cards when I was a kid. This stuff gets burned into your harddrive when you are eight years old.

Looking back on the Warriors of the mid-60's, they really had a chance to contend for titles with Rick Barry, Nate Thurmond and Mullins constituting a young core. They were also coached by Bill Sharman and had a coach on the floor in Al Attles. Made it to the finals one year, losing to Philly. Then Barry jumped to the ABA next season.

The mid -60's Warriors are one of the more intriguing what-ifs in NBA history.

I loved Mitch Richmond, he and Clyde the Glide were 2 of the only players that could go right at Jordan and give him a tough game in that era.

Sam how do you think Mitch Richmond, Jordan and Drexler would do if they played in the 60's?

I bet that if Jordan played in the 60's they would have had him dissected to make sure he was actually a human being.

Jordan did play in the '60's, but his name then was Elgin Baylor.

Cow,

Sorry, the cross-era thing gets in the way. If those three played in the 60s, it would mean they'd be subject to the limitations of the 60s. Very likely they'd have been a little smaller, less strong, less athletic, and not privy to the science of shooting and conditioning methods that evolved well after the 60s. You'll never get me to conjecture about players of the 80s playing in the 60s but also having all the advantages of the 80s. That does not compute.

But, as a generality, those Michael, Rich and Clyde were great players in their era, and I suspect they'd have been great in the 60s as well. Just not so buff and not nearly as much space within which to operate and no three point arc to inflate their scoring stats.

Just as I think Russell, Havlicek, Cousy and Sam Jones were great players in their era and would have been great in the 80s. Just more buff and having much more space within which to operate. And, in the cases of Havlicek, Cousy and Sam, their eyes would have lit up upon seeing the three point arc.

Sam

Sloopjohnb wrote:
   were there any Lebron James types 6'8" 260 SF... roaming the floor in the 60's

   I can't think of too many 6'7" 260 lbs SF's in the league today.   Lebron James is an outlier, an athletic freak.

   He's kind of like Magic Johnson.  I mean, how many 6'9" PG's have there been after Magic?



Cowens responded:

right when Lebron was coming up, there was 6'7" 260 lb Ron Artest, there was also 6'9" Tracy McGrady and 6'10" Tayshawn Prince.

after Magic there was Penny Hardaway and Grant Hill, both about 6'8".


Cowens,

Tayshawn Prince as a SF physically in Lebron James's league?  I don't know Prince's actual playing weight but looking at his slender frame and lean, firm but Linda Evans-like arms, I would say he probably did not break 220 lbs, if that.

McGrady I bet didn't break 230-240.

I give you World Peace as an exception that proves the rule that it's hard to think up SF's with Lebron's size.

As for Grant Hill as a Magic Johnson sized PG, the only problem  with that is that he spent most of his time playing SF.

Penny Hardaway and Michael Ray Richardson, who I would add, were two PG's in the last 35 years with Magic-like size. But that's two in 35 years. During the last 35 years how often have we heard the descriptive "good sized" or words to that effect for PG's taller than about 6'4"?

Sloopjohnb wrote:Sloopjohnb wrote:
   were there any Lebron James types 6'8" 260 SF... roaming the floor in the 60's

   I can't think of too many 6'7" 260 lbs SF's in the league today.   Lebron James is an outlier, an athletic freak.

   He's kind of like Magic Johnson.  I mean, how many 6'9" PG's have there been after Magic?



Cowens responded:

right when Lebron was coming up, there was 6'7" 260 lb Ron Artest, there was also 6'9" Tracy McGrady and 6'10" Tayshawn Prince.

after Magic there was Penny Hardaway and Grant Hill, both about 6'8".


Cowens,

Tayshawn Prince as a SF physically in Lebron James's league?  I don't know Prince's actual playing weight but looking at his slender frame and lean, firm but Linda Evans-like arms, I would say he probably did not break 220 lbs, if that.

McGrady I bet didn't break 230-240.

I give you World Peace as an exception that proves the rule that it's hard to think up SF's with Lebron's size.

As for Grant Hill as a Magic Johnson sized PG, the only problem  with that is that he spent most of his time playing SF.

Penny Hardaway and Michael Ray Richardson, who I would add, were two PG's in the last 35 years with Magic-like size. But that's two in 35 years. During the last  35 years how often have we heard the descriptive "good sized"  or words to that effect for PG's taller than about 6'4"?

I saw Grant Hill play a few times at MSG, trust me he initiated that offense for the Pistons and brought the ball up the floor. My buddy, a hoops junkie, marveled that he never saw a 6'8" player with that kind of handle and athleticism, too bad he couldn't stay healthy. Tayshawn Prince was a great versatile defender, his best moment IMHO was when he helped shutdown Kobe, who was bothered by his length when Pistons beat Lakers for title in 04, he could defend in any era.

There was also Larry Bird at 6'9", the point is at one time the game got so big that even the great Dr J in his last few seasons had to switch to SG.

sam wrote:Cow,

Sorry, the cross-era thing gets in the way.  If those three played in the 60s, it would mean they'd be subject to the limitations of the 60s.  Very likely they'd have been a little smaller, less strong, less athletic, and not privy to the science of shooting and conditioning methods that evolved well after the 60s.  You'll never get me to conjecture about players of the 80s playing in the 60s but also having all the advantages of the 80s.  That does not compute.

But, as a generality, those Michael, Rich and Clyde were great players in their era, and I suspect they'd have been great in the 60s as well.  Just not so buff and not nearly as much space within which to operate and no three point arc to inflate their scoring stats.

Just as I think Russell, Havlicek, Cousy and Sam Jones were great players in their era and would have been great in the 80s.  Just more buff and having much more space within which to operate.  And, in the cases of Havlicek, Cousy and Sam, their eyes would have lit up upon seeing the three point arc.

Sam

I agree that if those 60's players had all the training technology that was incorporated as the game and sports science evolved that they would be faster and stronger....and would love to see Sam and Hondo with more space to operate and the 3 point shot, Hondo might have had 30000 career points.