Why is Paul Silas unacknowledged by mainstream Celts fans?

[TitleMaster]

I'd noticed that over the years, the name Paul Silas has faded to obscurity. Although Celtics fans are typically the most b-ball savvy of the various franchises out there, they don't know a cornerstone when they see it.

What they see are things like JoJo's free throws against the Braves, Cowens sliding across the floor for the loose ball, and Hondo running the Boston Marathon on the court. Ok, that's nice and all but anyone visiting Boston for the first time can say those things, from watching a handful of highlight reels or in this case, the 70s coverage on the Dynasty DVDs.

Here's what a true b-ball fan can appreciate... a man who'd only spent a grand total of four years in Boston. In the process, he'd taken away both Bill Bradley's and Dave DeBusschere's A-game, rendering one the best starting five in the league [ the Knicks from '71 to '73 w/ Earl Monroe ], at most, at par with the Celts. Naturally, Havlicek's busted elbow killed our game 7 offense which costed us the '73 title. In '75, Silas was basically covering for a Cowens not being able to guard Unseld on a busted ankle (barely healed by the series). He essentially kept the series pretty close but Unseld always found his open man and in this case, a rookie Weatherspoon was having a Leon Powe series of his career.

So what does the above diatribe mean? It had mean't that for the four years that Silas was in town, the Celts could have had a four-peat, something that the 80s team could never have replicated, even in theory, since both the Lakers were better in '82, the Sixers in '83, and to some extent despite all the excuses about Bird's wrist, Cooper had his number in '85. The most that the 80s Celts could have had was a three-peat from '84 to '86, given a healthy Maxwell (to sub for the '85 finals) who wasn't really considered *core* whereas for the 70s, the core was Silas, Hondo, Cowens, and JoJo. If the big four were healthy, we'd simply win the title. The role players of Westy, Scott, Nellie, and Chaney were flexible and could be swapped about provided that the big four were in shape.

Paul Silas should be spoken of as one of the great ones because when he's moved to Seattle, he'd repeated as a champion doing exactly the things he'd done in Boston.

[Redz]

I do believe he is respected, but there are just so many other revered Celtics to stack him up against.  I think the fact that he spent just 4 years here, and he neither started nor finished his career in Boston may work against the perception of him being "one of the greats".

I think if you asked Tommy he'd give you a glowing report of Silas' contributions. (then again he'd say that about most any Celtic, but really he coached and loved Paul Silas)

[Roy Hobbs]

So what does the above diatribe mean? It had mean't that for the four years that Silas was in town, the Celts could have had a four-peat, something that the 80s team could never have replicated, even in theory, since both the Lakers were better in '82, the Sixers in '83, and to some extent despite all the excuses about Bird's wrist, Cooper had his number in '85. The most that the 80s Celts could have had was a three-peat from '84 to '86, given a healthy Maxwell (to sub for the '85 finals) who wasn't really considered *core* whereas for the 70s, the core was Silas, Hondo, Cowens, and JoJo. If the big four were healthy, we'd simply win the title. The role players of Westy, Scott, Nellie, and Chaney were flexible and could be swapped about provided that the big four were in shape.

I don't see the need to disparage the 80s Celtics in order to boost Silas.  I think any objective observer would agree that the 1980s teams were better, they just faced better competition.  Also, if we're giving both teams 100% perfect health, I think the Celts *easily* could have won championships for four straight seasons from '84 until '87.  With improved health for Larry, McHale, Ced, etc., I think that team could have won more than it did.

As for Silas, he's a good player, and I agree that he should be remembered.  However, he was the fourth best player on his team, by a fairly wide margin (sorry, but Cowens, JoJo, and Hondo were just significantly better).  Because of that, his contributions are going to be downplayed, unfortunately enough.  He should be remembered, though, as a guy who averaged a double-double in all four years he played here, and who won two championships with the team.

[TitleMaster]

I don't see the need to disparage the 80s Celtics in order to boost Silas.  I think any objective observer would agree that the 1980s teams were better, they just faced better competition.  Also, if we're giving both teams 100% perfect health, I think the Celts *easily* could have won championships for four straight seasons from '84 until '87.  With improved health for Larry, McHale, Ced, etc., I think that team could have won more than it did.

This is exactly what I mean. The Knicks and Bucks of the early 70s were also great teams. Our main 80s nemesis, Dr J, was a highlight reel scorer whereas the Walt Fraziers of the world were complete players on all ends.

And as for health, the core isn't 100% of the team. The core of the 80s was Bird, McHale, Parish, and DJ. Maxwell, Walton, Sichting, and others were like the Nellies, Westys, Scotts, etc. So a healthy core still doesn't beat the '87 Lakers and it barely gets by the '85 Lakers. Only a fully populated bench can beat the Lakers. Realize, the Lakers ran on us during the 80s. In the 70s, we would have ran on them, both Silas/Cowens outrebounded Parish/McHale despite being shorter, and got great outlet passes to the runners. In addition, Kareem was not in his prime in the 80s, Riley simply used a Kareem-Worthy one-two shuffle to get past a lot of our half-court defenses. The 70s unit limited Kareem in his MVP youthful days.

As for Silas, he's a good player, and I agree that he should be remembered.  However, he was the fourth best player on his team, by a fairly wide margin (sorry, but Cowens, JoJo, and Hondo were just significantly better).

If defense wins championships, which it does, then he's effectively no 2 or 3 if you factor in the idea that he doesn't take shots, he permits others on the team to do so, and that most of his points are from the offensive boards which makes him the most efficient player on his team. Silas wasn't a good player, he was a great one. He had a similar effect on the Celts as Rodman did for the '96 Bulls but with greater efficiency.

[Roy Hobbs]

And as for health, the core isn't 100% of the team. The core of the 80s was Bird, McHale, Parish, and DJ. Maxwell, Walton, Sichting, and others were like the Nellies, Westys, Scotts, etc. So a healthy core still doesn't beat the '87 Lakers and it barely gets by the '85 Lakers. Only a fully populated bench can beat the Lakers.

I think that's an arbitrary assessment of "core".  Ced played roughly 30 minutes per game in his time in Boston, and was a playoff MVP.  Silas averaged only very, very slightly more minutes, and actually scored less than Ced did in the playoffs.  I think many people will tell you that the reason the team didn't win in 1985 was due to Ced's injury.

As for the '87 team, here's how K.C. Jones described that team's health:

"I've never seen anything like this before with the injuries" ... "We've had that kind of year. When I watched the sixth game [against Detroit] from San Francisco I'd see Larry and Kevin and those guys dragging their legs. But somehow we keep going."

If the Celts had a fully healthy team (even just their starters) from '84 through '87, they would have won all four years.

If defense wins championships, which it does, then he's effectively no 2 or 3 if you factor in the idea that he doesn't take shots, he permits others on the team to do so, and that most of his points are from the offensive boards which makes him the most efficient player on his team. Silas wasn't a good player, he was a great one. He had a similar effect on the Celts as Rodman did for the '96 Bulls but with greater efficiency.

I guess we'll agree to disagree.  Which two players are you rating behind Silas?  It certainly can't be either Cowens or Havlicek, who were both great scorers, rebounders, and defenders.  I suppose you could argue that Silas was a better all-around player than Jo Jo, but I don't buy it.

[TitleMaster]

If you include Maxwell, then the core of the 80s Celtics gets a defensive player in addition to the other big four. Bird was never the great, one-on-one defender but more the man who does his best defense using the zone and mismatches.

Now likewise, for the 70s squad, you can add Don Nelson and get a similar effect but from the scoring angle. My point is that a core, with Cowens/Silas up front, which effective was a one-two dynamo, for the C's, anchored the defense and allowed a lot of scoring from all over the place whether it's the run 'n gun (with the control of the boards or loose balls) or the half-court set. So from my perspective, Silas was just below Cowens and Hondo but a notch above JoJo, for the 70s unit.

[Section301]

The question you ask in your title - Why isn't Silas as acknowledged as others - has been answered.  His limited number of years, along with the fact that he began and ended his career elsewhere, combined with him being less memorable personality than a number of his other teammates.  It's the nature of fandom that some players will be more fan favorite than others. 

The argument that you seem to be making - that Silas deserves to be considered more readily as a Celtic great - is a separate issue, and while it does have some merit, it needs to be acknowledged that in order for that to occur the self-same people who have relegated Silas to a lesser role have to be forced to "wake up and smell the coffee" in order to effect this.  You can't really change people's perceptions (I mean, unless you have a friend at NBA films who can put together and distribute a "Paul Silas, the Forgotten Legend" DVD).

As to the merit of that argument, as enticing as it is to project what COULD have happened, it serves us best when evaluating sports performance to restrict ourselves to what actually DID happen (or at least, that's the line I've been using every time the Lakers fans start crying about what would have happened if Andrew Bynum had been healthy).  We cannot agree on projections, but championships are indisputable.  So let's agree that Silas was a key piece of 2 championship teams and deserves more love for his toughness, defense and rebounding.  Was he better than JoJo?  I don't think so, you do.  Either way, he was still a [dang] fine player.  Being fourth best on a winning team is still better than being the best on the losing squad. Dennis Johnson was the fourth best player on the 86 squad, and he was [dang] fine as well. 

[im right]

A funny story since people are bringing up Silas and Max... when they retired Maxs number Red said he was the best offensive rebounder hed ever seen.....besides Paul Silas. Backhanded compliment that seemed Reds style. 

[TrueGreen]

I'm sure Silas is remembered by us old time fans for his contributions. When you talk about Silas you also need to talk about Dave Cowens. Silas's presence allowed Cowens some freedom to do other things such as take outside shots. Silas allowed Cowens to spread the floor as they say these days. I always looked at, and still do, at Cowens and Silas as a team. They had immediate chemistry on the floor and no opponent dared to try to rebound against them unless they wanted to spend hours in the whirlpool afterwards. I think we don't think about Silas because he was a quit gentleman who didn't like or seek the limelight. He just enabled us to be a great team. Thirty years from now we won't talk about James Posey on this blog or in Celtic history. He, too, is a quiet gentleman who avoided the limelight. He just made big plays at just the right time to help make us champions.

[Woodstock Libertarian]

Great topic.

I once wrote a post arguing that Paul Silas, not Reggie Lewis, deserved to have his #35 retired.

I never heard the end of it.

At one point, a moderator wrote me a private message saying that the post was too controversial.

Silas won two rings with the Cs and is one of the Celtics top five rebounders of all time.

He had cowens back and vice versa.

Paul Silas deserves a piece of the rafter action!

[Brickowski]

Speak for yourself.  Everyone who saw Silas knows he was a great player, but he only played 4 of his 16 years with the Celtics. Had he been here longer, his number would have been retired.

[Roy Hobbs]

At one point, a moderator wrote me a private message saying that the post was too controversial.

On this blog?  Not since I've been on staff, at least to my knowledge.

The only reason Silas shouldn't have his number retired is because he only played here four years.  In terms of contributions, he deserves it.

[TerreHaute]

I hope my memory serves me well here, but didn't Silas leave as a free agent? Red never looked very kindly on that. Was there any negativity towards him because he did not show "loyalty" and give a home team discount? I believe that Red eventually admitted he made a mistake in negotiating, but Silas may have been blacklisted a bit for leaving.

He was obviously a vital cog in the championship teams of the 70's. He is not considered the "star" as other Celtics are because of the jobs he performed for his teams and because the NBA simply wasn't that big a deal in the 70's. Few people were watching. The make-up of his teams were very different from the teams of the 80's. I really don't see a need to get fired up about lack of respect or comparing these two eras. They won in different ways, which is another great tribute to Red for his abilities as a talent evaluator and team builder. This applied to hiring players and coaches alike. In my mind, this is what separates him from Phil Jackson, but that is another topic.

In the end, I believe Silas is remembered by the die-hard Celtic fan as a total team player on championship squads. His contributions were invaluable, as evidenced by how the team played when he left. His star power simply wasn't as great as other Celtic greats for various reasons listed above.

[2short]

As an older fan I FONDLY remember Silas in his time here.  However he shouldn't be anywhere near the rafters (by the way I don't think dj or maxwell should either) that said dj should easily be in hall of fame
Paul was a very good pf on a very good team, how did he compare with Jo/Hondo/Cowens...not in the same league.  He was a GREAT fit for that team and a true team player.  He & Cowens (one of my favorite C's ever) were a perfect pair.
70's - late 80's teams shouldn't be compared, 80's is possibly the best the nba has ever been
I think the main thing you have to understand is you don't see highlights of Silas because he played good defense and rebounded.  These don't show very well in highlight reels.  This can be used as an arguement for todays nba against previous decades.  Nowadays their isn't solid play (see sloan's pick & roll) just dunks that still count for 2 pts.  Think Gerald Green.
I digress, Paul Silas is his eras Satch Sanders (not a lot of press for him either) but he didn't play for the team long enough to be considered having his number retired.  These are the Celtics rafters.