CelticsStrong

Celtics Basketball => Celtics Talk => Topic started by: johnnygreen on August 09, 2018, 10:10:19 AM

Title: Celtics greatest all-around players
Post by: johnnygreen on August 09, 2018, 10:10:19 AM
I was watching Boston Sports Tonight last night, and the topic of who are the greatest all-around players in Celtics history came up. The topic came up because Cedric Maxwell claimed Kevin Garnett is the best all-around player in Celtics history on a podcast earlier in the day (?).

Here is the list of choices the panel had to choose from on the show:
Bob Cousy
Bill Russell
Sam Jones
John Havlicek
Dave Cowens
Larry Bird
Kevin McHale
Robert Parish
Dennis Johnson
Cedrix Maxwell
Paul Pierce
Kevin Garnett
Kyrie Irving

Maxwell's top 5 were (in order): Garnett, Russell, Bird, McHale, Havlicek
Kyle Draper's top 5 were (in order): Russell, Havlicek, Garnett, Bird, Pierce

Cedric's argument for Garnett was he had the perfect blend of offense and defense. Russell was a better defender, but wasn't necessarily a good offensive player. Bird was better offensively, but wasn't necessarily a good defender (but was able to pick his spots).

I haven't seen enough of the Celtics, prior to my birth, to properly determine a top 5. But my list would be Garnett, Bird, Russell, McHale, Havlicek. I understand Garnett didn't play his entire career in green, but he played enough to make an impact that can still be felt today.

I understand the list above is limited, so you can either go by the list or use additional players.
Title: Re: Celtics greatest all-around players
Post by: Donoghus on August 09, 2018, 10:13:21 AM
All-around?  It's gotta be Bird.
Title: Re: Celtics greatest all-around players
Post by: nickagneta on August 09, 2018, 10:21:42 AM
I think its a toss up between Bird and Havlicek. Bird could do some stuff better than Havlicek offensively but Havlicek was one of the best defenders in the league for almost a decade. I guess its Bird but by less than some might think.
Title: Re: Celtics greatest all-around players
Post by: Birdman on August 09, 2018, 10:32:02 AM
Larry Joe Bird..nuff said
Title: Re: Celtics greatest all-around players
Post by: Emmette Bryant on August 09, 2018, 10:36:11 AM
Dave Cowens was a really nice two way player. Think a big Marcus Smart, who was a pretty good shooter.

Also he did the impossible. He succeeded Bill Russell as center.
Title: Re: Celtics greatest all-around players
Post by: Moranis on August 09, 2018, 10:41:37 AM
As Celtics or in general?  As a Celtic I don't even know if I would have KG in my top 5, but he probably would have been #1 if you look at his whole career.
Title: Re: Celtics greatest all-around players
Post by: Celtics17 on August 09, 2018, 10:51:00 AM
In the last thirty years or so since I have been watching Celtics basketball I would have to pick KG over Bird. The reason is, as good as Bird was on offense I think KG was just as good on defense. Also, KG was a very good offensive player while Bird was good on defense, especially team defense, but he probably wasnt going to ever be your defensive stopper. KG might very well be your 'go to' offensive player in the clutch. It's close but I go with KG.

I kind of think Pierce and Rondo both deserve mentions too.
Title: Re: Celtics greatest all-around players
Post by: Celtics17 on August 09, 2018, 10:52:24 AM
Man, I forgot about McHale. An 'in his prime' McHale has to be right there at the top. His defense was top notch and wow on offense there was no one who could stop him. I dont think KG could stop McHale in his prime.
Title: Re: Celtics greatest all-around players
Post by: perks-a-beast on August 09, 2018, 11:14:50 AM
In the last thirty years or so since I have been watching Celtics basketball I would have to pick KG over Bird. The reason is, as good as Bird was on offense I think KG was just as good on defense. Also, KG was a very good offensive player while Bird was good on defense, especially team defense, but he probably wasnt going to ever be your defensive stopper. KG might very well be your 'go to' offensive player in the clutch. It's close but I go with KG.

I kind of think Pierce and Rondo both deserve mentions too.

KG a “go to offensive player in the clutch?” Possibly the worst 4th quarter star in recent memory, at least in his Boston days. Was consistently gassed at the end of games.
Title: Re: Celtics greatest all-around players
Post by: nickagneta on August 09, 2018, 11:24:52 AM
John Havlicek gets so little respect. In 1971 he had one of the greatest seasons any Celtic ever had:

28.9 PPG not in the 3 point era.
9.0 RPG
7.5 APG
53% TS% which at that time for an outside shooter was great
1st team All NBA
2nd team All Defense

KG never had a Celtic season like that. Want an all around player? There you go.
Title: Re: Celtics greatest all-around players
Post by: smokeablount on August 09, 2018, 11:54:42 AM
John Havlicek gets so little respect. In 1971 he had one of the greatest seasons any Celtic ever had:

28.9 PPG not in the 3 point era.
9.0 RPG
7.5 APG
53% TS% which at that time for an outside shooter was great
1st team All NBA
2nd team All Defense

KG never had a Celtic season like that. Want an all around player? There you go.

The guy that ran all day and never got tired.
Title: Re: Celtics greatest all-around players
Post by: rocknrollforyoursoul on August 09, 2018, 12:04:13 PM
All-around?  It's gotta be Bird.

This was my first thought. He could do anything he wanted on offense, rebounded very well, and though he might not have been an "all-world" defender, he made tons of clutch defensive plays in his career.
Title: Re: Celtics greatest all-around players
Post by: fairweatherfan on August 09, 2018, 12:04:30 PM
I don't know what everyone else is thinking but it's gotta be Glen Davis.


...oh it's greatest "all-around", not "all-round".  Sorry, sorry, I'm trying to delete it.
Title: Re: Celtics greatest all-around players
Post by: Sophomore on August 09, 2018, 12:16:14 PM
Went back and looked at some stats for Russell.

Consider this line from 1961-62 -- 18.9 ppg, 23.6 rpg, and 4.5 apg. In the playoffs he bumped that up to 22.4 ppg, 26.4 rpg, 5 apg. There was no DPOY awarded back then, but he would have won it.

Impossible to compare lines across eras, but that is incredible.
Title: Re: Celtics greatest all-around players
Post by: moiso on August 09, 2018, 12:24:18 PM
Went back and looked at some stats for Russell.

Consider this line from 1961-62 -- 18.9 ppg, 23.6 rpg, and 4.5 apg. In the playoffs he bumped that up to 22.4 ppg, 26.4 rpg, 5 apg. There was no DPOY awarded back then, but he would have won it.

Impossible to compare lines across eras, but that is incredible.
Too bad the rebounds don't translate.  Take them away and his numbers are ok. 
Title: Re: Celtics greatest all-around players
Post by: Big333223 on August 09, 2018, 12:31:28 PM
Havlicek, Bird, and Cowens are probably my top 3, although I never got to watch any at the time they were playing

Garnett was a do-everything kind of player in Minnesota but his role was a bit diminished in Boston. Outside of that first season where he was 19-9-3-1.5-1.5, he usually averaged around 15 ppg and never more than 2.9 apg. He obviously had those skills but, for the Celtics, that wasn't really his role.

And a little love for Paul Pierce. His last season in Boston he put up 19-6-5 with a steal a game and he was still scoring from everywhere at age 35. He didn't just score, he scored in a variety of ways and he could defend a number of positions (he was always stronger than opponents thought) He wasn't an instinctual passer but he learned how to get others involved and was an underrated defender.
Title: Re: Celtics greatest all-around players
Post by: Roy H. on August 09, 2018, 12:47:40 PM
Bird, followed by Hondo if “all-around” means a player can do a lot of things really well.

Russ followed by Bird if it means multiple dominant skills conducive to winning.

Title: Re: Celtics greatest all-around players
Post by: smokeablount on August 09, 2018, 01:00:25 PM
Larry Bird, followed by Abdul Nader.
Title: Re: Celtics greatest all-around players
Post by: td450 on August 09, 2018, 02:54:30 PM
People forget that Bird made 2nd team all-defense 3 straight years in the early 80's.

Putting Garnett ahead of him is difficult to believe. Garnett was a good passer and a great midrange shooter, but had a lot of weaknesses in his offensive game. He had problems with physical defenders, and couldn't finish through contact at all. Sometimes I thought Isaiah Thomas played bigger than he did.
Title: Re: Celtics greatest all-around players
Post by: Sophomore on August 09, 2018, 03:31:47 PM
Went back and looked at some stats for Russell.

Consider this line from 1961-62 -- 18.9 ppg, 23.6 rpg, and 4.5 apg. In the playoffs he bumped that up to 22.4 ppg, 26.4 rpg, 5 apg. There was no DPOY awarded back then, but he would have won it.

Impossible to compare lines across eras, but that is incredible.
Too bad the rebounds don't translate.  Take them away and his numbers are ok.

You can do that to any player. Take Bird's points away and he's only OK.

And don't forget that Russell was also the best defensive player of his era, and excelled at the things that aren't easily measured.

EDIT: I looked at rebounding numbers and now I see what you mean. Last year, the number of rebounds per team per game was about 4/7 what it was in 1962.  If we adjust Russell’s rebounds by about that amount (and also knock off a point because there was more scoring in that era) you get roughly 18 ppg, 13.6 rpg. Hardly shabby, but not as eye-popping as 23.6 rebounds/game.
Title: Re: Celtics greatest all-around players
Post by: Rakulp on August 09, 2018, 04:04:22 PM
I'm afraid it's before my time, but I wonder if Bob Cousey shouldn't get more consideration, based on things I've heard from his teammates of the day.
Title: Re: Celtics greatest all-around players
Post by: fairweatherfan on August 09, 2018, 04:19:25 PM
I'm afraid it's before my time, but I wonder if Bob Cousey shouldn't get more consideration, based on things I've heard from his teammates of the day.

Cousy was an otherworldly ball-handler and passer, especially for his era, but was a poor shooter (less so for his era) and wasn't known for his defense. 
Title: Re: Celtics greatest all-around players
Post by: Hank Finkel on August 09, 2018, 05:36:36 PM
My top all around Celtics would be Russell, Bird, Havlicek, Cowens.
Title: Re: Celtics greatest all-around players
Post by: 2short on August 09, 2018, 08:06:54 PM
Bird, Hondo
Next group, Russ, cowens, mchale, pierce, jojo

I don't think Garnett played long enough with c's to consider him.  Great defensive player for c's, good offensive player.  Cous (happy b'day) amazing passer, good scorer but not a great two way player.
IMO best two way all around players are above.  John and Larry are the Cream though
Title: Re: Celtics greatest all-around players
Post by: Moranis on August 09, 2018, 09:18:45 PM
Went back and looked at some stats for Russell.

Consider this line from 1961-62 -- 18.9 ppg, 23.6 rpg, and 4.5 apg. In the playoffs he bumped that up to 22.4 ppg, 26.4 rpg, 5 apg. There was no DPOY awarded back then, but he would have won it.

Impossible to compare lines across eras, but that is incredible.
Too bad the rebounds don't translate.  Take them away and his numbers are ok.

You can do that to any player. Take Bird's points away and he's only OK.

And don't forget that Russell was also the best defensive player of his era, and excelled at the things that aren't easily measured.

EDIT: I looked at rebounding numbers and now I see what you mean. Last year, the number of rebounds per team per game was about 4/7 what it was in 1962.  If we adjust Russell’s rebounds by about that amount (and also knock off a point because there was more scoring in that era) you get roughly 18 ppg, 13.6 rpg. Hardly shabby, but not as eye-popping as 23.6 rebounds/game.
yeah I've long argued that Rodman was by far the greatest rebounder ever. BY FAR.  It frankly isn't even really a discussion for me. That said many of the arguments in favor of Rodman can also be used for Wilt's scoring and Oscar's passing.  All 3 just dominated the league in those categories like no one else.
Title: Re: Celtics greatest all-around players
Post by: Jon on August 09, 2018, 09:27:41 PM
Went back and looked at some stats for Russell.

Consider this line from 1961-62 -- 18.9 ppg, 23.6 rpg, and 4.5 apg. In the playoffs he bumped that up to 22.4 ppg, 26.4 rpg, 5 apg. There was no DPOY awarded back then, but he would have won it.

Impossible to compare lines across eras, but that is incredible.
Too bad the rebounds don't translate.  Take them away and his numbers are ok.

You can do that to any player. Take Bird's points away and he's only OK.

And don't forget that Russell was also the best defensive player of his era, and excelled at the things that aren't easily measured.

EDIT: I looked at rebounding numbers and now I see what you mean. Last year, the number of rebounds per team per game was about 4/7 what it was in 1962.  If we adjust Russell’s rebounds by about that amount (and also knock off a point because there was more scoring in that era) you get roughly 18 ppg, 13.6 rpg. Hardly shabby, but not as eye-popping as 23.6 rebounds/game.
yeah I've long argued that Rodman was by far the greatest rebounder ever. BY FAR.  It frankly isn't even really a discussion for me. That said many of the arguments in favor of Rodman can also be used for Wilt's scoring and Oscar's passing.  All 3 just dominated the league in those categories like no one else.

My only issue with that is that Wilt and Oscar filled a stat sheet. Rodman was a beast rebounder, but at times made absolutely zero effort to do anything else on the court. How many rebounds would Wilt have gotten (or Russell, or KG, or Bird), if they abandoned everything else on offense but rebounding?
Title: Re: Celtics greatest all-around players
Post by: nickagneta on August 09, 2018, 09:40:53 PM
Went back and looked at some stats for Russell.

Consider this line from 1961-62 -- 18.9 ppg, 23.6 rpg, and 4.5 apg. In the playoffs he bumped that up to 22.4 ppg, 26.4 rpg, 5 apg. There was no DPOY awarded back then, but he would have won it.

Impossible to compare lines across eras, but that is incredible.
Too bad the rebounds don't translate.  Take them away and his numbers are ok.

You can do that to any player. Take Bird's points away and he's only OK.

And don't forget that Russell was also the best defensive player of his era, and excelled at the things that aren't easily measured.

EDIT: I looked at rebounding numbers and now I see what you mean. Last year, the number of rebounds per team per game was about 4/7 what it was in 1962.  If we adjust Russell’s rebounds by about that amount (and also knock off a point because there was more scoring in that era) you get roughly 18 ppg, 13.6 rpg. Hardly shabby, but not as eye-popping as 23.6 rebounds/game.
yeah I've long argued that Rodman was by far the greatest rebounder ever. BY FAR.  It frankly isn't even really a discussion for me. That said many of the arguments in favor of Rodman can also be used for Wilt's scoring and Oscar's passing.  All 3 just dominated the league in those categories like no one else.
I agree. I think Rodman may have been the best rebounder ever if you look at his numbers compared to players playing in his era, Rodman was unreal. In 1993, Rodman had 18.3 RPG and the closest guy to him was Shaq at 13.9...4.4 more RPG than the next guy. This league may never see another player average 18 RPG and Rodman did it twice.
Title: Re: Celtics greatest all-around players
Post by: fairweatherfan on August 09, 2018, 10:56:04 PM
Went back and looked at some stats for Russell.

Consider this line from 1961-62 -- 18.9 ppg, 23.6 rpg, and 4.5 apg. In the playoffs he bumped that up to 22.4 ppg, 26.4 rpg, 5 apg. There was no DPOY awarded back then, but he would have won it.

Impossible to compare lines across eras, but that is incredible.
Too bad the rebounds don't translate.  Take them away and his numbers are ok.

You can do that to any player. Take Bird's points away and he's only OK.

And don't forget that Russell was also the best defensive player of his era, and excelled at the things that aren't easily measured.

EDIT: I looked at rebounding numbers and now I see what you mean. Last year, the number of rebounds per team per game was about 4/7 what it was in 1962.  If we adjust Russell’s rebounds by about that amount (and also knock off a point because there was more scoring in that era) you get roughly 18 ppg, 13.6 rpg. Hardly shabby, but not as eye-popping as 23.6 rebounds/game.
yeah I've long argued that Rodman was by far the greatest rebounder ever. BY FAR.  It frankly isn't even really a discussion for me. That said many of the arguments in favor of Rodman can also be used for Wilt's scoring and Oscar's passing.  All 3 just dominated the league in those categories like no one else.

My only issue with that is that Wilt and Oscar filled a stat sheet. Rodman was a beast rebounder, but at times made absolutely zero effort to do anything else on the court. How many rebounds would Wilt have gotten (or Russell, or KG, or Bird), if they abandoned everything else on offense but rebounding?

Rodman was also maybe the best defender of his era. He wasn't much for shooting and passing for sure, but he was a high-effort guy pretty consistently til he started melting down late in his career.
Title: Re: Celtics greatest all-around players
Post by: ETNCeltics on August 09, 2018, 10:56:53 PM
Went back and looked at some stats for Russell.

Consider this line from 1961-62 -- 18.9 ppg, 23.6 rpg, and 4.5 apg. In the playoffs he bumped that up to 22.4 ppg, 26.4 rpg, 5 apg. There was no DPOY awarded back then, but he would have won it.

Impossible to compare lines across eras, but that is incredible.
Too bad the rebounds don't translate.  Take them away and his numbers are ok.

You can do that to any player. Take Bird's points away and he's only OK.

And don't forget that Russell was also the best defensive player of his era, and excelled at the things that aren't easily measured.

EDIT: I looked at rebounding numbers and now I see what you mean. Last year, the number of rebounds per team per game was about 4/7 what it was in 1962.  If we adjust Russell’s rebounds by about that amount (and also knock off a point because there was more scoring in that era) you get roughly 18 ppg, 13.6 rpg. Hardly shabby, but not as eye-popping as 23.6 rebounds/game.
yeah I've long argued that Rodman was by far the greatest rebounder ever. BY FAR.  It frankly isn't even really a discussion for me. That said many of the arguments in favor of Rodman can also be used for Wilt's scoring and Oscar's passing.  All 3 just dominated the league in those categories like no one else.
I agree. I think Rodman may have been the best rebounder ever if you look at his numbers compared to players playing in his era, Rodman was unreal. In 1993, Rodman had 18.3 RPG and the closest guy to him was Shaq at 13.9...4.4 more RPG than the next guy. This league may never see another player average 18 RPG and Rodman did it twice.

Wilt averaged almost 7 per game more than anyone not named Russell. Really no case to be made for anyone other than him when it comes to best rebounder ever. Chamberlain and Russell were miles ahead of everyone else in their era, and Chamberlain continued into the 70s, when the game was much different.
Title: Re: Celtics greatest all-around players
Post by: Somebody on August 09, 2018, 11:07:53 PM
Went back and looked at some stats for Russell.

Consider this line from 1961-62 -- 18.9 ppg, 23.6 rpg, and 4.5 apg. In the playoffs he bumped that up to 22.4 ppg, 26.4 rpg, 5 apg. There was no DPOY awarded back then, but he would have won it.

Impossible to compare lines across eras, but that is incredible.
Too bad the rebounds don't translate.  Take them away and his numbers are ok.

You can do that to any player. Take Bird's points away and he's only OK.

And don't forget that Russell was also the best defensive player of his era, and excelled at the things that aren't easily measured.

EDIT: I looked at rebounding numbers and now I see what you mean. Last year, the number of rebounds per team per game was about 4/7 what it was in 1962.  If we adjust Russell’s rebounds by about that amount (and also knock off a point because there was more scoring in that era) you get roughly 18 ppg, 13.6 rpg. Hardly shabby, but not as eye-popping as 23.6 rebounds/game.
A faster pace also means that players get tired faster and don't go for rebounds as hard though. I believe Russell will still average 15-18 rebounds per game ala Rodman in the modern game.
Title: Re: Celtics greatest all-around players
Post by: gouki88 on August 10, 2018, 02:03:27 AM
Went back and looked at some stats for Russell.

Consider this line from 1961-62 -- 18.9 ppg, 23.6 rpg, and 4.5 apg. In the playoffs he bumped that up to 22.4 ppg, 26.4 rpg, 5 apg. There was no DPOY awarded back then, but he would have won it.

Impossible to compare lines across eras, but that is incredible.
Too bad the rebounds don't translate.  Take them away and his numbers are ok.

You can do that to any player. Take Bird's points away and he's only OK.

And don't forget that Russell was also the best defensive player of his era, and excelled at the things that aren't easily measured.

EDIT: I looked at rebounding numbers and now I see what you mean. Last year, the number of rebounds per team per game was about 4/7 what it was in 1962.  If we adjust Russell’s rebounds by about that amount (and also knock off a point because there was more scoring in that era) you get roughly 18 ppg, 13.6 rpg. Hardly shabby, but not as eye-popping as 23.6 rebounds/game.
yeah I've long argued that Rodman was by far the greatest rebounder ever. BY FAR.  It frankly isn't even really a discussion for me. That said many of the arguments in favor of Rodman can also be used for Wilt's scoring and Oscar's passing.  All 3 just dominated the league in those categories like no one else.

My only issue with that is that Wilt and Oscar filled a stat sheet. Rodman was a beast rebounder, but at times made absolutely zero effort to do anything else on the court. How many rebounds would Wilt have gotten (or Russell, or KG, or Bird), if they abandoned everything else on offense but rebounding?

Rodman was also maybe the best defender of his era. He wasn't much for shooting and passing for sure, but he was a high-effort guy pretty consistently til he started melting down late in his career.
A certain Nigerian big man scoffs at that. And that's only talking big men
Title: Re: Celtics greatest all-around players
Post by: Somebody on August 10, 2018, 02:22:54 AM
Went back and looked at some stats for Russell.

Consider this line from 1961-62 -- 18.9 ppg, 23.6 rpg, and 4.5 apg. In the playoffs he bumped that up to 22.4 ppg, 26.4 rpg, 5 apg. There was no DPOY awarded back then, but he would have won it.

Impossible to compare lines across eras, but that is incredible.
Too bad the rebounds don't translate.  Take them away and his numbers are ok.

You can do that to any player. Take Bird's points away and he's only OK.

And don't forget that Russell was also the best defensive player of his era, and excelled at the things that aren't easily measured.

EDIT: I looked at rebounding numbers and now I see what you mean. Last year, the number of rebounds per team per game was about 4/7 what it was in 1962.  If we adjust Russell’s rebounds by about that amount (and also knock off a point because there was more scoring in that era) you get roughly 18 ppg, 13.6 rpg. Hardly shabby, but not as eye-popping as 23.6 rebounds/game.
yeah I've long argued that Rodman was by far the greatest rebounder ever. BY FAR.  It frankly isn't even really a discussion for me. That said many of the arguments in favor of Rodman can also be used for Wilt's scoring and Oscar's passing.  All 3 just dominated the league in those categories like no one else.

My only issue with that is that Wilt and Oscar filled a stat sheet. Rodman was a beast rebounder, but at times made absolutely zero effort to do anything else on the court. How many rebounds would Wilt have gotten (or Russell, or KG, or Bird), if they abandoned everything else on offense but rebounding?

Rodman was also maybe the best defender of his era. He wasn't much for shooting and passing for sure, but he was a high-effort guy pretty consistently til he started melting down late in his career.
A certain Nigerian big man scoffs at that. And that's only talking big men
You mean the most overrated center of all time in Hakeem "in convo for GOAT C" Olajuwon? Rodman was definitely a better defender than Hakeem, he could defend the interior at an elite level and also guard the periemeter as well as anyone could.
Title: Re: Celtics greatest all-around players
Post by: gouki88 on August 10, 2018, 02:55:54 AM
Went back and looked at some stats for Russell.

Consider this line from 1961-62 -- 18.9 ppg, 23.6 rpg, and 4.5 apg. In the playoffs he bumped that up to 22.4 ppg, 26.4 rpg, 5 apg. There was no DPOY awarded back then, but he would have won it.

Impossible to compare lines across eras, but that is incredible.
Too bad the rebounds don't translate.  Take them away and his numbers are ok.

You can do that to any player. Take Bird's points away and he's only OK.

And don't forget that Russell was also the best defensive player of his era, and excelled at the things that aren't easily measured.

EDIT: I looked at rebounding numbers and now I see what you mean. Last year, the number of rebounds per team per game was about 4/7 what it was in 1962.  If we adjust Russell’s rebounds by about that amount (and also knock off a point because there was more scoring in that era) you get roughly 18 ppg, 13.6 rpg. Hardly shabby, but not as eye-popping as 23.6 rebounds/game.
yeah I've long argued that Rodman was by far the greatest rebounder ever. BY FAR.  It frankly isn't even really a discussion for me. That said many of the arguments in favor of Rodman can also be used for Wilt's scoring and Oscar's passing.  All 3 just dominated the league in those categories like no one else.

My only issue with that is that Wilt and Oscar filled a stat sheet. Rodman was a beast rebounder, but at times made absolutely zero effort to do anything else on the court. How many rebounds would Wilt have gotten (or Russell, or KG, or Bird), if they abandoned everything else on offense but rebounding?

Rodman was also maybe the best defender of his era. He wasn't much for shooting and passing for sure, but he was a high-effort guy pretty consistently til he started melting down late in his career.
A certain Nigerian big man scoffs at that. And that's only talking big men
You mean the most overrated center of all time in Hakeem "in convo for GOAT C" Olajuwon? Rodman was definitely a better defender than Hakeem, he could defend the interior at an elite level and also guard the periemeter as well as anyone could.
Haha, wow. Not going to dignify that one
Title: Re: Celtics greatest all-around players
Post by: Somebody on August 10, 2018, 04:34:40 AM
Went back and looked at some stats for Russell.

Consider this line from 1961-62 -- 18.9 ppg, 23.6 rpg, and 4.5 apg. In the playoffs he bumped that up to 22.4 ppg, 26.4 rpg, 5 apg. There was no DPOY awarded back then, but he would have won it.

Impossible to compare lines across eras, but that is incredible.
Too bad the rebounds don't translate.  Take them away and his numbers are ok.

You can do that to any player. Take Bird's points away and he's only OK.

And don't forget that Russell was also the best defensive player of his era, and excelled at the things that aren't easily measured.

EDIT: I looked at rebounding numbers and now I see what you mean. Last year, the number of rebounds per team per game was about 4/7 what it was in 1962.  If we adjust Russell’s rebounds by about that amount (and also knock off a point because there was more scoring in that era) you get roughly 18 ppg, 13.6 rpg. Hardly shabby, but not as eye-popping as 23.6 rebounds/game.
yeah I've long argued that Rodman was by far the greatest rebounder ever. BY FAR.  It frankly isn't even really a discussion for me. That said many of the arguments in favor of Rodman can also be used for Wilt's scoring and Oscar's passing.  All 3 just dominated the league in those categories like no one else.

My only issue with that is that Wilt and Oscar filled a stat sheet. Rodman was a beast rebounder, but at times made absolutely zero effort to do anything else on the court. How many rebounds would Wilt have gotten (or Russell, or KG, or Bird), if they abandoned everything else on offense but rebounding?

Rodman was also maybe the best defender of his era. He wasn't much for shooting and passing for sure, but he was a high-effort guy pretty consistently til he started melting down late in his career.
A certain Nigerian big man scoffs at that. And that's only talking big men
You mean the most overrated center of all time in Hakeem "in convo for GOAT C" Olajuwon? Rodman was definitely a better defender than Hakeem, he could defend the interior at an elite level and also guard the periemeter as well as anyone could.
Haha, wow. Not going to dignify that one
Haha I'm just a bit miffed that people overrate Hakeem but I do think Rodman was in a class of his own on defense.
Title: Re: Celtics greatest all-around players
Post by: GreenEnvy on August 10, 2018, 06:01:05 AM
Went back and looked at some stats for Russell.

Consider this line from 1961-62 -- 18.9 ppg, 23.6 rpg, and 4.5 apg. In the playoffs he bumped that up to 22.4 ppg, 26.4 rpg, 5 apg. There was no DPOY awarded back then, but he would have won it.

Impossible to compare lines across eras, but that is incredible.
Too bad the rebounds don't translate.  Take them away and his numbers are ok.

You can do that to any player. Take Bird's points away and he's only OK.

And don't forget that Russell was also the best defensive player of his era, and excelled at the things that aren't easily measured.

EDIT: I looked at rebounding numbers and now I see what you mean. Last year, the number of rebounds per team per game was about 4/7 what it was in 1962.  If we adjust Russell’s rebounds by about that amount (and also knock off a point because there was more scoring in that era) you get roughly 18 ppg, 13.6 rpg. Hardly shabby, but not as eye-popping as 23.6 rebounds/game.
yeah I've long argued that Rodman was by far the greatest rebounder ever. BY FAR.  It frankly isn't even really a discussion for me. That said many of the arguments in favor of Rodman can also be used for Wilt's scoring and Oscar's passing.  All 3 just dominated the league in those categories like no one else.

My only issue with that is that Wilt and Oscar filled a stat sheet. Rodman was a beast rebounder, but at times made absolutely zero effort to do anything else on the court. How many rebounds would Wilt have gotten (or Russell, or KG, or Bird), if they abandoned everything else on offense but rebounding?

Rodman was also maybe the best defender of his era. He wasn't much for shooting and passing for sure, but he was a high-effort guy pretty consistently til he started melting down late in his career.
A certain Nigerian big man scoffs at that. And that's only talking big men
You mean the most overrated center of all time in Hakeem "in convo for GOAT C" Olajuwon? Rodman was definitely a better defender than Hakeem, he could defend the interior at an elite level and also guard the periemeter as well as anyone could.
Haha, wow. Not going to dignify that one

Meh, Rodman was a special rebounder and clearly an elite defender, so it’s not thattttt crazy.

As for the claim that Hakeem was overrated, I think he was. Most consider him the second-best player of the 90’s after Jordan. Yet most advanced stats say David Robinson was better. So maybe it’s more that David Robinson was (criminally) underrated, but history is kinder to Hakeem and I’m not entirely sure why.
Title: Re: Celtics greatest all-around players
Post by: Moranis on August 10, 2018, 06:45:32 AM
Went back and looked at some stats for Russell.

Consider this line from 1961-62 -- 18.9 ppg, 23.6 rpg, and 4.5 apg. In the playoffs he bumped that up to 22.4 ppg, 26.4 rpg, 5 apg. There was no DPOY awarded back then, but he would have won it.

Impossible to compare lines across eras, but that is incredible.
Too bad the rebounds don't translate.  Take them away and his numbers are ok.

You can do that to any player. Take Bird's points away and he's only OK.

And don't forget that Russell was also the best defensive player of his era, and excelled at the things that aren't easily measured.

EDIT: I looked at rebounding numbers and now I see what you mean. Last year, the number of rebounds per team per game was about 4/7 what it was in 1962.  If we adjust Russell’s rebounds by about that amount (and also knock off a point because there was more scoring in that era) you get roughly 18 ppg, 13.6 rpg. Hardly shabby, but not as eye-popping as 23.6 rebounds/game.
yeah I've long argued that Rodman was by far the greatest rebounder ever. BY FAR.  It frankly isn't even really a discussion for me. That said many of the arguments in favor of Rodman can also be used for Wilt's scoring and Oscar's passing.  All 3 just dominated the league in those categories like no one else.

My only issue with that is that Wilt and Oscar filled a stat sheet. Rodman was a beast rebounder, but at times made absolutely zero effort to do anything else on the court. How many rebounds would Wilt have gotten (or Russell, or KG, or Bird), if they abandoned everything else on offense but rebounding?

Rodman was also maybe the best defender of his era. He wasn't much for shooting and passing for sure, but he was a high-effort guy pretty consistently til he started melting down late in his career.
A certain Nigerian big man scoffs at that. And that's only talking big men
You mean the most overrated center of all time in Hakeem "in convo for GOAT C" Olajuwon? Rodman was definitely a better defender than Hakeem, he could defend the interior at an elite level and also guard the periemeter as well as anyone could.
Haha, wow. Not going to dignify that one

Meh, Rodman was a special rebounder and clearly an elite defender, so it’s not thattttt crazy.

As for the claim that Hakeem was overrated, I think he was. Most consider him the second-best player of the 90’s after Jordan. Yet most advanced stats say David Robinson was better. So maybe it’s more that David Robinson was (criminally) underrated, but history is kinder to Hakeem and I’m not entirely sure why.
Hakeem started younger and finished older yet stilk finished the same or better than Robinson in every major statistical category.  Hakeem led multiple teams to the Finals and was clearly the best player on every single one of them. Hakeem has the extra DPOY.  More all star games, more all league teams, more MVP shares, etc.  Hakeem was absolutely better than Robinson
Title: Re: Celtics greatest all-around players
Post by: Surferdad on August 10, 2018, 06:47:57 AM
Went back and looked at some stats for Russell.

Consider this line from 1961-62 -- 18.9 ppg, 23.6 rpg, and 4.5 apg. In the playoffs he bumped that up to 22.4 ppg, 26.4 rpg, 5 apg. There was no DPOY awarded back then, but he would have won it.

Impossible to compare lines across eras, but that is incredible.
Too bad the rebounds don't translate.  Take them away and his numbers are ok.

You can do that to any player. Take Bird's points away and he's only OK.

And don't forget that Russell was also the best defensive player of his era, and excelled at the things that aren't easily measured.

EDIT: I looked at rebounding numbers and now I see what you mean. Last year, the number of rebounds per team per game was about 4/7 what it was in 1962.  If we adjust Russell’s rebounds by about that amount (and also knock off a point because there was more scoring in that era) you get roughly 18 ppg, 13.6 rpg. Hardly shabby, but not as eye-popping as 23.6 rebounds/game.
yeah I've long argued that Rodman was by far the greatest rebounder ever. BY FAR.  It frankly isn't even really a discussion for me. That said many of the arguments in favor of Rodman can also be used for Wilt's scoring and Oscar's passing.  All 3 just dominated the league in those categories like no one else.

My only issue with that is that Wilt and Oscar filled a stat sheet. Rodman was a beast rebounder, but at times made absolutely zero effort to do anything else on the court. How many rebounds would Wilt have gotten (or Russell, or KG, or Bird), if they abandoned everything else on offense but rebounding?

Rodman was also maybe the best defender of his era. He wasn't much for shooting and passing for sure, but he was a high-effort guy pretty consistently til he started melting down late in his career.
A certain Nigerian big man scoffs at that. And that's only talking big men
You mean the most overrated center of all time in Hakeem "in convo for GOAT C" Olajuwon? Rodman was definitely a better defender than Hakeem, he could defend the interior at an elite level and also guard the periemeter as well as anyone could.
Haha, wow. Not going to dignify that one

Meh, Rodman was a special rebounder and clearly an elite defender, so it’s not thattttt crazy.

As for the claim that Hakeem was overrated, I think he was. Most consider him the second-best player of the 90’s after Jordan. Yet most advanced stats say David Robinson was better. So maybe it’s more that David Robinson was (criminally) underrated, but history is kinder to Hakeem and I’m not entirely sure why.
David Robinson was underrated as he is never in those top-10 lists like Hakeem, but to call Olajuwon overrated is, well, silly.
Title: Re: Celtics greatest all-around players
Post by: Surferdad on August 10, 2018, 06:55:53 AM
I was watching Boston Sports Tonight last night, and the topic of who are the greatest all-around players in Celtics history came up. The topic came up because Cedric Maxwell claimed Kevin Garnett is the best all-around player in Celtics history on a podcast earlier in the day (?).

Here is the list of choices the panel had to choose from on the show:
Bob Cousy
Bill Russell
Sam Jones
John Havlicek
Dave Cowens
Larry Bird
Kevin McHale
Robert Parish
Dennis Johnson
Cedrix Maxwell
Paul Pierce
Kevin Garnett
Kyrie Irving

Maxwell's top 5 were (in order): Garnett, Russell, Bird, McHale, Havlicek
Kyle Draper's top 5 were (in order): Russell, Havlicek, Garnett, Bird, Pierce

Cedric's argument for Garnett was he had the perfect blend of offense and defense. Russell was a better defender, but wasn't necessarily a good offensive player. Bird was better offensively, but wasn't necessarily a good defender (but was able to pick his spots).

I haven't seen enough of the Celtics, prior to my birth, to properly determine a top 5. But my list would be Garnett, Bird, Russell, McHale, Havlicek. I understand Garnett didn't play his entire career in green, but he played enough to make an impact that can still be felt today.

I understand the list above is limited, so you can either go by the list or use additional players.
"Greatest all-around" player should take titles into account, IMO that is a key part of greatness (but not the only part).  Otherwise it should have been posed as "best" player. 
So my top-5 is: Russell, Bird, Garnett, Cousy, Havlicek. Sixth man: Pierce
Title: Re: Celtics greatest all-around players
Post by: Somebody on August 10, 2018, 07:38:39 AM
Went back and looked at some stats for Russell.

Consider this line from 1961-62 -- 18.9 ppg, 23.6 rpg, and 4.5 apg. In the playoffs he bumped that up to 22.4 ppg, 26.4 rpg, 5 apg. There was no DPOY awarded back then, but he would have won it.

Impossible to compare lines across eras, but that is incredible.
Too bad the rebounds don't translate.  Take them away and his numbers are ok.

You can do that to any player. Take Bird's points away and he's only OK.

And don't forget that Russell was also the best defensive player of his era, and excelled at the things that aren't easily measured.

EDIT: I looked at rebounding numbers and now I see what you mean. Last year, the number of rebounds per team per game was about 4/7 what it was in 1962.  If we adjust Russell’s rebounds by about that amount (and also knock off a point because there was more scoring in that era) you get roughly 18 ppg, 13.6 rpg. Hardly shabby, but not as eye-popping as 23.6 rebounds/game.
yeah I've long argued that Rodman was by far the greatest rebounder ever. BY FAR.  It frankly isn't even really a discussion for me. That said many of the arguments in favor of Rodman can also be used for Wilt's scoring and Oscar's passing.  All 3 just dominated the league in those categories like no one else.

My only issue with that is that Wilt and Oscar filled a stat sheet. Rodman was a beast rebounder, but at times made absolutely zero effort to do anything else on the court. How many rebounds would Wilt have gotten (or Russell, or KG, or Bird), if they abandoned everything else on offense but rebounding?

Rodman was also maybe the best defender of his era. He wasn't much for shooting and passing for sure, but he was a high-effort guy pretty consistently til he started melting down late in his career.
A certain Nigerian big man scoffs at that. And that's only talking big men
You mean the most overrated center of all time in Hakeem "in convo for GOAT C" Olajuwon? Rodman was definitely a better defender than Hakeem, he could defend the interior at an elite level and also guard the periemeter as well as anyone could.
Haha, wow. Not going to dignify that one

Meh, Rodman was a special rebounder and clearly an elite defender, so it’s not thattttt crazy.

As for the claim that Hakeem was overrated, I think he was. Most consider him the second-best player of the 90’s after Jordan. Yet most advanced stats say David Robinson was better. So maybe it’s more that David Robinson was (criminally) underrated, but history is kinder to Hakeem and I’m not entirely sure why.
Hakeem started younger and finished older yet stilk finished the same or better than Robinson in every major statistical category.  Hakeem led multiple teams to the Finals and was clearly the best player on every single one of them. Hakeem has the extra DPOY.  More all star games, more all league teams, more MVP shares, etc.  Hakeem was absolutely better than Robinson
Starting younger and finishing older means more time to pad stats so yeah he's obviously "as good as or better in every statistical category", ntm having more time to stack up on the accolades. And yeah "leading" a pretty good team to the finals when the best team of the decade had its leader go off to play baseball and every other team was diluted by expansion drafts.
Title: Re: Celtics greatest all-around players
Post by: Somebody on August 10, 2018, 07:39:55 AM
Went back and looked at some stats for Russell.

Consider this line from 1961-62 -- 18.9 ppg, 23.6 rpg, and 4.5 apg. In the playoffs he bumped that up to 22.4 ppg, 26.4 rpg, 5 apg. There was no DPOY awarded back then, but he would have won it.

Impossible to compare lines across eras, but that is incredible.
Too bad the rebounds don't translate.  Take them away and his numbers are ok.

You can do that to any player. Take Bird's points away and he's only OK.

And don't forget that Russell was also the best defensive player of his era, and excelled at the things that aren't easily measured.

EDIT: I looked at rebounding numbers and now I see what you mean. Last year, the number of rebounds per team per game was about 4/7 what it was in 1962.  If we adjust Russell’s rebounds by about that amount (and also knock off a point because there was more scoring in that era) you get roughly 18 ppg, 13.6 rpg. Hardly shabby, but not as eye-popping as 23.6 rebounds/game.
yeah I've long argued that Rodman was by far the greatest rebounder ever. BY FAR.  It frankly isn't even really a discussion for me. That said many of the arguments in favor of Rodman can also be used for Wilt's scoring and Oscar's passing.  All 3 just dominated the league in those categories like no one else.

My only issue with that is that Wilt and Oscar filled a stat sheet. Rodman was a beast rebounder, but at times made absolutely zero effort to do anything else on the court. How many rebounds would Wilt have gotten (or Russell, or KG, or Bird), if they abandoned everything else on offense but rebounding?

Rodman was also maybe the best defender of his era. He wasn't much for shooting and passing for sure, but he was a high-effort guy pretty consistently til he started melting down late in his career.
A certain Nigerian big man scoffs at that. And that's only talking big men
You mean the most overrated center of all time in Hakeem "in convo for GOAT C" Olajuwon? Rodman was definitely a better defender than Hakeem, he could defend the interior at an elite level and also guard the periemeter as well as anyone could.
Haha, wow. Not going to dignify that one

Meh, Rodman was a special rebounder and clearly an elite defender, so it’s not thattttt crazy.

As for the claim that Hakeem was overrated, I think he was. Most consider him the second-best player of the 90’s after Jordan. Yet most advanced stats say David Robinson was better. So maybe it’s more that David Robinson was (criminally) underrated, but history is kinder to Hakeem and I’m not entirely sure why.
David Robinson was underrated as he is never in those top-10 lists like Hakeem, but to call Olajuwon overrated is, well, silly.
Not as silly as the lists putting him at 2 or even 1 among all time great centers.
Title: Re: Celtics greatest all-around players
Post by: RockinRyA on August 10, 2018, 07:41:03 AM
I was watching Boston Sports Tonight last night, and the topic of who are the greatest all-around players in Celtics history came up. The topic came up because Cedric Maxwell claimed Kevin Garnett is the best all-around player in Celtics history on a podcast earlier in the day (?).

Here is the list of choices the panel had to choose from on the show:
Bob Cousy
Bill Russell
Sam Jones
John Havlicek
Dave Cowens
Larry Bird
Kevin McHale
Robert Parish
Dennis Johnson
Cedrix Maxwell
Paul Pierce
Kevin Garnett
Kyrie Irving

Maxwell's top 5 were (in order): Garnett, Russell, Bird, McHale, Havlicek
Kyle Draper's top 5 were (in order): Russell, Havlicek, Garnett, Bird, Pierce

Cedric's argument for Garnett was he had the perfect blend of offense and defense. Russell was a better defender, but wasn't necessarily a good offensive player. Bird was better offensively, but wasn't necessarily a good defender (but was able to pick his spots).

I haven't seen enough of the Celtics, prior to my birth, to properly determine a top 5. But my list would be Garnett, Bird, Russell, McHale, Havlicek. I understand Garnett didn't play his entire career in green, but he played enough to make an impact that can still be felt today.

I understand the list above is limited, so you can either go by the list or use additional players.
"Greatest all-around" player should take titles into account, IMO that is a key part of greatness (but not the only part).  Otherwise it should have been posed as "best" player. 
So my top-5 is: Russell, Bird, Garnett, Cousy, Havlicek. Sixth man: Pierce

Why the heck should titles have to be taken into account. Having a better team, inferior opponents, healthy teammates should have no effect on whether you are good on both offense and defense.
Title: Re: Celtics greatest all-around players
Post by: Moranis on August 10, 2018, 08:42:35 AM
Went back and looked at some stats for Russell.

Consider this line from 1961-62 -- 18.9 ppg, 23.6 rpg, and 4.5 apg. In the playoffs he bumped that up to 22.4 ppg, 26.4 rpg, 5 apg. There was no DPOY awarded back then, but he would have won it.

Impossible to compare lines across eras, but that is incredible.
Too bad the rebounds don't translate.  Take them away and his numbers are ok.

You can do that to any player. Take Bird's points away and he's only OK.

And don't forget that Russell was also the best defensive player of his era, and excelled at the things that aren't easily measured.

EDIT: I looked at rebounding numbers and now I see what you mean. Last year, the number of rebounds per team per game was about 4/7 what it was in 1962.  If we adjust Russell’s rebounds by about that amount (and also knock off a point because there was more scoring in that era) you get roughly 18 ppg, 13.6 rpg. Hardly shabby, but not as eye-popping as 23.6 rebounds/game.
yeah I've long argued that Rodman was by far the greatest rebounder ever. BY FAR.  It frankly isn't even really a discussion for me. That said many of the arguments in favor of Rodman can also be used for Wilt's scoring and Oscar's passing.  All 3 just dominated the league in those categories like no one else.

My only issue with that is that Wilt and Oscar filled a stat sheet. Rodman was a beast rebounder, but at times made absolutely zero effort to do anything else on the court. How many rebounds would Wilt have gotten (or Russell, or KG, or Bird), if they abandoned everything else on offense but rebounding?

Rodman was also maybe the best defender of his era. He wasn't much for shooting and passing for sure, but he was a high-effort guy pretty consistently til he started melting down late in his career.
A certain Nigerian big man scoffs at that. And that's only talking big men
You mean the most overrated center of all time in Hakeem "in convo for GOAT C" Olajuwon? Rodman was definitely a better defender than Hakeem, he could defend the interior at an elite level and also guard the periemeter as well as anyone could.
Haha, wow. Not going to dignify that one

Meh, Rodman was a special rebounder and clearly an elite defender, so it’s not thattttt crazy.

As for the claim that Hakeem was overrated, I think he was. Most consider him the second-best player of the 90’s after Jordan. Yet most advanced stats say David Robinson was better. So maybe it’s more that David Robinson was (criminally) underrated, but history is kinder to Hakeem and I’m not entirely sure why.
Hakeem started younger and finished older yet stilk finished the same or better than Robinson in every major statistical category.  Hakeem led multiple teams to the Finals and was clearly the best player on every single one of them. Hakeem has the extra DPOY.  More all star games, more all league teams, more MVP shares, etc.  Hakeem was absolutely better than Robinson
Starting younger and finishing older means more time to pad stats so yeah he's obviously "as good as or better in every statistical category", ntm having more time to stack up on the accolades. And yeah "leading" a pretty good team to the finals when the best team of the decade had its leader go off to play baseball and every other team was diluted by expansion drafts.
per game, not totals.  starting younger and finishing older diminishes your per game totals, thus making it more impressive.

Hakeem led the Rockets to the Finals in the 80's as well as the 2 wins in the 90's (mind you neither Robinson nor Hakeem played in the Bulls East so they didn't have to go through Jordan to make the Finals in any of those seasons). 

And Hakeem's Rockets were the only team that played the 6 title winning Bulls teams even.  There is a pretty good chance that the Rockets beat the Bulls, if the Bulls even made it those 2 seasons (that first team was burnt out and aging, no guarantee they would have continued to win at that level - the 2nd 3 peat only had Jordan and Pippen from the first 3 peat). 
Title: Re: Celtics greatest all-around players
Post by: Moranis on August 10, 2018, 08:45:53 AM
Went back and looked at some stats for Russell.

Consider this line from 1961-62 -- 18.9 ppg, 23.6 rpg, and 4.5 apg. In the playoffs he bumped that up to 22.4 ppg, 26.4 rpg, 5 apg. There was no DPOY awarded back then, but he would have won it.

Impossible to compare lines across eras, but that is incredible.
Too bad the rebounds don't translate.  Take them away and his numbers are ok.

You can do that to any player. Take Bird's points away and he's only OK.

And don't forget that Russell was also the best defensive player of his era, and excelled at the things that aren't easily measured.

EDIT: I looked at rebounding numbers and now I see what you mean. Last year, the number of rebounds per team per game was about 4/7 what it was in 1962.  If we adjust Russell’s rebounds by about that amount (and also knock off a point because there was more scoring in that era) you get roughly 18 ppg, 13.6 rpg. Hardly shabby, but not as eye-popping as 23.6 rebounds/game.
yeah I've long argued that Rodman was by far the greatest rebounder ever. BY FAR.  It frankly isn't even really a discussion for me. That said many of the arguments in favor of Rodman can also be used for Wilt's scoring and Oscar's passing.  All 3 just dominated the league in those categories like no one else.

My only issue with that is that Wilt and Oscar filled a stat sheet. Rodman was a beast rebounder, but at times made absolutely zero effort to do anything else on the court. How many rebounds would Wilt have gotten (or Russell, or KG, or Bird), if they abandoned everything else on offense but rebounding?

Rodman was also maybe the best defender of his era. He wasn't much for shooting and passing for sure, but he was a high-effort guy pretty consistently til he started melting down late in his career.
A certain Nigerian big man scoffs at that. And that's only talking big men
You mean the most overrated center of all time in Hakeem "in convo for GOAT C" Olajuwon? Rodman was definitely a better defender than Hakeem, he could defend the interior at an elite level and also guard the periemeter as well as anyone could.
Haha, wow. Not going to dignify that one

Meh, Rodman was a special rebounder and clearly an elite defender, so it’s not thattttt crazy.

As for the claim that Hakeem was overrated, I think he was. Most consider him the second-best player of the 90’s after Jordan. Yet most advanced stats say David Robinson was better. So maybe it’s more that David Robinson was (criminally) underrated, but history is kinder to Hakeem and I’m not entirely sure why.
David Robinson was underrated as he is never in those top-10 lists like Hakeem, but to call Olajuwon overrated is, well, silly.
Not as silly as the lists putting him at 2 or even 1 among all time great centers.
You've actually seen lists that have Hakeem at 1 all time for centers?  Frankly, I'm surprised you've seen a list with him at #2 as he is pretty clearly behind Bill, Wilt, and Kareem.
Title: Re: Celtics greatest all-around players
Post by: Surferdad on August 10, 2018, 08:46:14 AM
I was watching Boston Sports Tonight last night, and the topic of who are the greatest all-around players in Celtics history came up. The topic came up because Cedric Maxwell claimed Kevin Garnett is the best all-around player in Celtics history on a podcast earlier in the day (?).

Here is the list of choices the panel had to choose from on the show:
Bob Cousy
Bill Russell
Sam Jones
John Havlicek
Dave Cowens
Larry Bird
Kevin McHale
Robert Parish
Dennis Johnson
Cedrix Maxwell
Paul Pierce
Kevin Garnett
Kyrie Irving

Maxwell's top 5 were (in order): Garnett, Russell, Bird, McHale, Havlicek
Kyle Draper's top 5 were (in order): Russell, Havlicek, Garnett, Bird, Pierce

Cedric's argument for Garnett was he had the perfect blend of offense and defense. Russell was a better defender, but wasn't necessarily a good offensive player. Bird was better offensively, but wasn't necessarily a good defender (but was able to pick his spots).

I haven't seen enough of the Celtics, prior to my birth, to properly determine a top 5. But my list would be Garnett, Bird, Russell, McHale, Havlicek. I understand Garnett didn't play his entire career in green, but he played enough to make an impact that can still be felt today.

I understand the list above is limited, so you can either go by the list or use additional players.
"Greatest all-around" player should take titles into account, IMO that is a key part of greatness (but not the only part).  Otherwise it should have been posed as "best" player. 
So my top-5 is: Russell, Bird, Garnett, Cousy, Havlicek. Sixth man: Pierce

Why the heck should titles have to be taken into account. Having a better team, inferior opponents, healthy teammates should have no effect on whether you are good on both offense and defense.
Because greatness is tied to team success, IMO.  This is not tennis or golf.
Title: Re: Celtics greatest all-around players
Post by: Somebody on August 10, 2018, 08:57:26 AM
Went back and looked at some stats for Russell.

Consider this line from 1961-62 -- 18.9 ppg, 23.6 rpg, and 4.5 apg. In the playoffs he bumped that up to 22.4 ppg, 26.4 rpg, 5 apg. There was no DPOY awarded back then, but he would have won it.

Impossible to compare lines across eras, but that is incredible.
Too bad the rebounds don't translate.  Take them away and his numbers are ok.

You can do that to any player. Take Bird's points away and he's only OK.

And don't forget that Russell was also the best defensive player of his era, and excelled at the things that aren't easily measured.

EDIT: I looked at rebounding numbers and now I see what you mean. Last year, the number of rebounds per team per game was about 4/7 what it was in 1962.  If we adjust Russell’s rebounds by about that amount (and also knock off a point because there was more scoring in that era) you get roughly 18 ppg, 13.6 rpg. Hardly shabby, but not as eye-popping as 23.6 rebounds/game.
yeah I've long argued that Rodman was by far the greatest rebounder ever. BY FAR.  It frankly isn't even really a discussion for me. That said many of the arguments in favor of Rodman can also be used for Wilt's scoring and Oscar's passing.  All 3 just dominated the league in those categories like no one else.

My only issue with that is that Wilt and Oscar filled a stat sheet. Rodman was a beast rebounder, but at times made absolutely zero effort to do anything else on the court. How many rebounds would Wilt have gotten (or Russell, or KG, or Bird), if they abandoned everything else on offense but rebounding?

Rodman was also maybe the best defender of his era. He wasn't much for shooting and passing for sure, but he was a high-effort guy pretty consistently til he started melting down late in his career.
A certain Nigerian big man scoffs at that. And that's only talking big men
You mean the most overrated center of all time in Hakeem "in convo for GOAT C" Olajuwon? Rodman was definitely a better defender than Hakeem, he could defend the interior at an elite level and also guard the periemeter as well as anyone could.
Haha, wow. Not going to dignify that one

Meh, Rodman was a special rebounder and clearly an elite defender, so it’s not thattttt crazy.

As for the claim that Hakeem was overrated, I think he was. Most consider him the second-best player of the 90’s after Jordan. Yet most advanced stats say David Robinson was better. So maybe it’s more that David Robinson was (criminally) underrated, but history is kinder to Hakeem and I’m not entirely sure why.
David Robinson was underrated as he is never in those top-10 lists like Hakeem, but to call Olajuwon overrated is, well, silly.
Not as silly as the lists putting him at 2 or even 1 among all time great centers.
You've actually seen lists that have Hakeem at 1 all time for centers?  Frankly, I'm surprised you've seen a list with him at #2 as he is pretty clearly behind Bill, Wilt, and Kareem.
Yes. Lots of people who pretend to be smart say he's "the thinking man's GOAT". Also Wilt, Russell and Kareem get a lot of hate from the younger generation (except for some, not to brag but I'm one of the few guys who digged up the film and looked thoroughly at the stats+situation).
Title: Re: Celtics greatest all-around players
Post by: Somebody on August 10, 2018, 09:16:37 AM
Went back and looked at some stats for Russell.

Consider this line from 1961-62 -- 18.9 ppg, 23.6 rpg, and 4.5 apg. In the playoffs he bumped that up to 22.4 ppg, 26.4 rpg, 5 apg. There was no DPOY awarded back then, but he would have won it.

Impossible to compare lines across eras, but that is incredible.
Too bad the rebounds don't translate.  Take them away and his numbers are ok.

You can do that to any player. Take Bird's points away and he's only OK.

And don't forget that Russell was also the best defensive player of his era, and excelled at the things that aren't easily measured.

EDIT: I looked at rebounding numbers and now I see what you mean. Last year, the number of rebounds per team per game was about 4/7 what it was in 1962.  If we adjust Russell’s rebounds by about that amount (and also knock off a point because there was more scoring in that era) you get roughly 18 ppg, 13.6 rpg. Hardly shabby, but not as eye-popping as 23.6 rebounds/game.
yeah I've long argued that Rodman was by far the greatest rebounder ever. BY FAR.  It frankly isn't even really a discussion for me. That said many of the arguments in favor of Rodman can also be used for Wilt's scoring and Oscar's passing.  All 3 just dominated the league in those categories like no one else.

My only issue with that is that Wilt and Oscar filled a stat sheet. Rodman was a beast rebounder, but at times made absolutely zero effort to do anything else on the court. How many rebounds would Wilt have gotten (or Russell, or KG, or Bird), if they abandoned everything else on offense but rebounding?

Rodman was also maybe the best defender of his era. He wasn't much for shooting and passing for sure, but he was a high-effort guy pretty consistently til he started melting down late in his career.
A certain Nigerian big man scoffs at that. And that's only talking big men
You mean the most overrated center of all time in Hakeem "in convo for GOAT C" Olajuwon? Rodman was definitely a better defender than Hakeem, he could defend the interior at an elite level and also guard the periemeter as well as anyone could.
Haha, wow. Not going to dignify that one

Meh, Rodman was a special rebounder and clearly an elite defender, so it’s not thattttt crazy.

As for the claim that Hakeem was overrated, I think he was. Most consider him the second-best player of the 90’s after Jordan. Yet most advanced stats say David Robinson was better. So maybe it’s more that David Robinson was (criminally) underrated, but history is kinder to Hakeem and I’m not entirely sure why.
Hakeem started younger and finished older yet stilk finished the same or better than Robinson in every major statistical category.  Hakeem led multiple teams to the Finals and was clearly the best player on every single one of them. Hakeem has the extra DPOY.  More all star games, more all league teams, more MVP shares, etc.  Hakeem was absolutely better than Robinson
Starting younger and finishing older means more time to pad stats so yeah he's obviously "as good as or better in every statistical category", ntm having more time to stack up on the accolades. And yeah "leading" a pretty good team to the finals when the best team of the decade had its leader go off to play baseball and every other team was diluted by expansion drafts.
per game, not totals.  starting younger and finishing older diminishes your per game totals, thus making it more impressive.

Hakeem led the Rockets to the Finals in the 80's as well as the 2 wins in the 90's (mind you neither Robinson nor Hakeem played in the Bulls East so they didn't have to go through Jordan to make the Finals in any of those seasons). 

And Hakeem's Rockets were the only team that played the 6 title winning Bulls teams even.  There is a pretty good chance that the Rockets beat the Bulls, if the Bulls even made it those 2 seasons (that first team was burnt out and aging, no guarantee they would have continued to win at that level - the 2nd 3 peat only had Jordan and Pippen from the first 3 peat).
I disagree with starting younger diminishing your in game totals, especially in the 80s. Players usually start in the NBA at the ages of 21 or 22 back then, so it wasn't a bunch of teenagers versus grown men (or at least not as severe as nowadays, where you see 19 year old kids match up against full grown men), allowing rookies to be stars right off the bat. Moreover the Admiral started at a very late age of 25, depriving him of the much needed experience you could pick up in your developmental years if you started out as a young adult in your early 20s, so one could argue that his prime stats were a bit deflated due to him needing to adjust on the fly, which imo evens out the disadvantages of Hakeem still playing when he was at an older age. And Hakeem had Ralph Sampson playing with him, who imo was 1B to his 1A. I certainly don't agree that he was the leader when a frontcourt player of similar caliber at the time was playing with him. I'll agree with you that the Bulls were slowing down a bit and would've likely lost to the Rockets though.
Edit: apologies for the broken English.
Title: Re: Celtics greatest all-around players
Post by: Big333223 on August 10, 2018, 09:59:49 AM
fwiw, basketball-reference doesn't have TRB% data for the NBA until 1971, so Russell was retired and Wilt was over the hill. But since 1971 six of the top ten TRB% seasons are owned by Dennis Rodman, including the top spot.

The only other player with multiple seasons in the top ten is Andre Drummond (#5 and #10).