25 Greatest Celtics of All-Time : #15

[Hoops]

Looking over Easy Ed's stats - they seem alright, pretty good actually. But I don't see anything there that suggests he truly excelled at anything in particular (even compared to his peers of the 50s).

See, that's simply not true.

He was all-NBA 1st team three times, and 2nd team once.  He led the league in FG% twice, and was top three two other times.  He was in the top-ten in scoring all six years he was here, he had a season where he finished top-ten in rebounding, and was in the top ten in assists four times.  He ranked in the top-two three times in free throws attempted, and twice in FTs made.

In other words, he absolutely did "truly excel" against his peers.  As for him "not leaving an impression", he made the Hall of Fame, which should speak pretty highly of how he's perceived.

Well, fair enough. Again, I admitted ignorance over his career. You've educated me - which I appreciate. So now we know about Ed. But you've said nothing about Reggie - do you disagree with what I've said above? Do you think Reggie wouldn't have had a comparable career to Pierce? Do you think he should be penalized for his untimely demise?

So Ed made the Hall of Fame. But that doesn't change the fact that he's rarely ever discussed in Celtic lore. You can't reason it's because he played so long ago - kids who were born yesterday know all about Cousy and Russell, even Sharman and others. Maybe more people should know about Easy Ed - but they don't and in ranking the greatest Celtics, that also ought to count for something.

[Jon]

Looking over Easy Ed's stats - they seem alright, pretty good actually. But I don't see anything there that suggests he truly excelled at anything in particular (even compared to his peers of the 50s).

See, that's simply not true.

He was all-NBA 1st team three times, and 2nd team once.  He led the league in FG% twice, and was top three two other times.  He was in the top-ten in scoring all six years he was here, he had a season where he finished top-ten in rebounding, and was in the top ten in assists four times.  He ranked in the top-two three times in free throws attempted, and twice in FTs made.

In other words, he absolutely did "truly excel" against his peers.  As for him "not leaving an impression", he made the Hall of Fame, which should speak pretty highly of how he's perceived.

Well, fair enough. Again, I admitted ignorance over his career. You've educated me - which I appreciate. So now we know about Ed. But you've said nothing about Reggie - do you disagree with what I've said above? Do you think Reggie wouldn't have had a comparable career to Pierce? Do you think he should be penalized for his untimely demise?

So Ed made the Hall of Fame. But that doesn't change the fact that he's rarely ever discussed in Celtic lore. You can't reason it's because he played so long ago - kids who were born yesterday know all about Cousy and Russell, even Sharman and others. Maybe more people should know about Easy Ed - but they don't and in ranking the greatest Celtics, that also ought to count for something.

Roy's right, but he still didn't do something in my book that he absolutely needed to do to be an All-Time great Celtic: win a title in Green.  Granted it wasn't really his fault; however, when you combine that with the fact that he didn't retire in Green, I think you have to put other people in front of him.  I'll go with what I had before, especially if we consider a criteria that Roy has harped on: contributions to the Celtics.

I vote:

Frank Ramsay (he was the first Celtic sixth man, setting a precedent for the C's and the entire NBA and he won 7 titles)

Satch Sanders (the best perimeter defender and probably the
best man defender on 8 Celtic championship teams)

Cedric Maxwell (won the '81 Finals MVP and had the boys "climb on his back" in '84).

[wdleehi]

Maxwell
Ainge
KC

[RAcker]

Looking over Easy Ed's stats - they seem alright, pretty good actually. But I don't see anything there that suggests he truly excelled at anything in particular (even compared to his peers of the 50s).

See, that's simply not true.

He was all-NBA 1st team three times, and 2nd team once.  He led the league in FG% twice, and was top three two other times.  He was in the top-ten in scoring all six years he was here, he had a season where he finished top-ten in rebounding, and was in the top ten in assists four times.  He ranked in the top-two three times in free throws attempted, and twice in FTs made.

In other words, he absolutely did "truly excel" against his peers.  As for him "not leaving an impression", he made the Hall of Fame, which should speak pretty highly of how he's perceived.

Well, fair enough. Again, I admitted ignorance over his career. You've educated me - which I appreciate. So now we know about Ed. But you've said nothing about Reggie - do you disagree with what I've said above? Do you think Reggie wouldn't have had a comparable career to Pierce? Do you think he should be penalized for his untimely demise?

So Ed made the Hall of Fame. But that doesn't change the fact that he's rarely ever discussed in Celtic lore. You can't reason it's because he played so long ago - kids who were born yesterday know all about Cousy and Russell, even Sharman and others. Maybe more people should know about Easy Ed - but they don't and in ranking the greatest Celtics, that also ought to count for something.

I think the reason he isn't discussed "in Celtics'lore" is because most of us didn't get to see him play live like we did Reggie Lewis.  We can't just assume that Reggie would have had Paul Pierce's career.  Otherwise, we'd have to put Len Bias in the top 20 based on what we thought he was going to mean to the C's.

[Hoops]

Looking over Easy Ed's stats - they seem alright, pretty good actually. But I don't see anything there that suggests he truly excelled at anything in particular (even compared to his peers of the 50s).

See, that's simply not true.

He was all-NBA 1st team three times, and 2nd team once.  He led the league in FG% twice, and was top three two other times.  He was in the top-ten in scoring all six years he was here, he had a season where he finished top-ten in rebounding, and was in the top ten in assists four times.  He ranked in the top-two three times in free throws attempted, and twice in FTs made.

In other words, he absolutely did "truly excel" against his peers.  As for him "not leaving an impression", he made the Hall of Fame, which should speak pretty highly of how he's perceived.

Well, fair enough. Again, I admitted ignorance over his career. You've educated me - which I appreciate. So now we know about Ed. But you've said nothing about Reggie - do you disagree with what I've said above? Do you think Reggie wouldn't have had a comparable career to Pierce? Do you think he should be penalized for his untimely demise?

So Ed made the Hall of Fame. But that doesn't change the fact that he's rarely ever discussed in Celtic lore. You can't reason it's because he played so long ago - kids who were born yesterday know all about Cousy and Russell, even Sharman and others. Maybe more people should know about Easy Ed - but they don't and in ranking the greatest Celtics, that also ought to count for something.

I think the reason he isn't discussed "in Celtics'lore" is because most of us didn't get to see him play live like we did Reggie Lewis.  We can't just assume that Reggie would have had Paul Pierce's career.  Otherwise, we'd have to put Len Bias in the top 20 based on what we thought he was going to mean to the C's.

Yeah, but Len (unfortunately) had no career from which to extrapolate. We can look at what Reggie did and where his career arc was headed.

As to your point about Ed, you're right, most of us didn't get to see him play live. But my point is that most of us didn't see Cousy, Russell, Sharman, Heinsohn, etc. play live either. Yet, we all know about those guys, their careers and what they mean to the Celtics. Their legacies stuck, Ed's apparently hasn't.

[jax_celtsfan]

Jim Loscutoff
Frank Ramsay
Maxwell

[hwangjini_1]

great thread. thanks for starting it.

i like the list so far and agree with it.

but, as i read the posts on KG i realized that a problem exists.....how do we decide "who's a celtic?"

kg will retire with only 3-4 years max as a celtic...but he has a championship, maybe 2 or 3. ok. fine, i can live with KG among the celtic greats even though he wore a p---ant wolf jersey most of his life.

but where do we draw the line? for example... pete marvich.... one of THE greatest basketball players of all time. he played 1/2 season for the celtics.

do we count him?

dave bing spent one season with the celtics....great great player. do we include him?

do we even want to visit vin "watch me flush my life" baker? clearly one of the better pf in nba history....and let's just drop this train of thought right here.

chauncey billips?

see the problem i am having....please someone help draw a line on who and why to include. just "he wore a celtics uniform for 5 seconds" doesnt seem to work.

p.s. where is the love for THE "rifleman"? 

[fairweatherfan]

Looking over Easy Ed's stats - they seem alright, pretty good actually. But I don't see anything there that suggests he truly excelled at anything in particular (even compared to his peers of the 50s).

See, that's simply not true.

He was all-NBA 1st team three times, and 2nd team once.  He led the league in FG% twice, and was top three two other times.  He was in the top-ten in scoring all six years he was here, he had a season where he finished top-ten in rebounding, and was in the top ten in assists four times.  He ranked in the top-two three times in free throws attempted, and twice in FTs made.

I'm with you on Ed over Reggie generally, but Top-10 finishes are a little misleading when you're comparing an era with 8 teams to an era with 27.  Similar issue with the All-NBA teams.

see the problem i am having....please someone help draw a line on who and why to include. just "he wore a celtics uniform for 5 seconds" doesnt seem to work.

Well, a lot of the fun of it is everyone has their own criteria.  I'd say it's some combination of how great a player they were overall and what they accomplished with a C's jersey on.  Pistol Pete was a very good player, but was more or less washed up in his time here and didn't win a title.  Chauncey was a semi-clueless rookie.  Neither one probably fits the criteria.  KG on the other hand was 1st team All-NBA, DPOY, and a key piece of a title winner and the biggest turnaround in league history.  And KG is better overall than either Chauncey or Pistol (at least in NBA performance).  That seals it for me.

[Eja117]

KC Jones
Danny Ainge
Ray Allen

[KCattheStripe]

KC Jones
KC Jones
KC Jones

[Hoops]

KC Jones
KC Jones
KC Jones

Hey, shouldn't your sig say "PaulPower"? 

[Donoghus]

Ed Macauley
Reggie Lewis
Satch Sanders

Can we get Ed Macauley in already?  This is getting ridiculous.

[2short]

For people voting Reggie over Macauley, why?

Both played six seasons here.  Neither won a title.  Judged against their piers, Macauley was the vastly superior player.

Reggie was a great player, but he wasn't on Easy Ed's level.

this might be true
i however when first voting for reggie added the what could have been, this might not qualify for the criteria but the man also died while playing for the celtics early in his career
how good would he have become, he had all the skills and was a fine defender
i think ed is one of the guys that is forgotten much like satch sanders who is currently getting votes from me with ed and reggie for next spot
kc jones?

[Roy Hobbs]

kc jones?

KC Jones was an integral part of, what, eight championship teams as a player (or something like that) and two more as a coach.  For his place in team history, I think he deserves a nod.

[Kite50]

Easy Ed MacCauley
Frank Ramsey
KC Jones
Danny Ainge