25 Greatest Celtics of All-Time : #15

[paintitgreen]

My opinion has long been pushed on these votes, but I'll just say, it was voted on, and he won. If there was a clearcut better choice, he wouldn't have. As much as playing 10 years as a Sixth Man and giving contributions to multiple championship teams is great, or playing 5 great years but never winning it all is commendable, it takes the truly great ones like Russell, Bird and Garnett to actually raise the team to greatness, which is what makes the Celtics franchise great to me. The team's success, which, like it or not, is driven forward by superlative catalysts. Garnett is the only one of those catalysts we've had in 20 years, with all respect to Paul Pierce. Like I've said, really only 5 or 6 guys (Cousy, Russell, maybe Havlicek, Cowens, Bird, Garnett) were the best players on Celtics championship teams. I've said before, I think that being one of those 6 guys should've entitled Garnett to better.  

Without Russell and Cousy, nobody cares that about Sam Jones or Bill Sharman, as great as they were. And nobody really even remembers Frank Ramsey or KC Jones or Satch Sanders or definitely Jim Loscutoff. I respect all opinions, it just so happens that many people thought Garnett was truly great. That's why, even though 14 of 26 voters last round didn't even include Garnett in their top 3, 11 voted him first. In a lot of rounds, that still wouldn't have been enough, but now that we're debating the merits of guys like Ramsey, Silas, KC, Macauley, Reggie, Cornbread, Ainge, Sanders, etc., there's no truly great players left, so it made sense to me to put a truly great player first, even if he has only been great with us for two years (I can't take this "year and a half" stuff too seriously - the post-KG Celtics team last season is still so completely affected by Garnett's influence and presence that I still consider him a part of that team, despite the injury.)

It takes truly great players like Garnett to make a franchise so great that we care to argue about which periphery player from the 60s, 70s or 80s was the greatest "Celtic."

Sorry for the aside.

Ramsey
Sanders
Maxwell

[hardlyyardley]

i'm with you maxthe king

max
ramsey
tiny

[fairweatherfan]

My opinion has long been pushed on these votes, but I'll just say, it was voted on, and he won. If there was a clearcut better choice, he wouldn't have. As much as playing 10 years as a Sixth Man and giving contributions to multiple championship teams is great, or playing 5 great years but never winning it all is commendable, it takes the truly great ones like Russell, Bird and Garnett to actually raise the team to greatness, which is what makes the Celtics franchise great to me. The team's success, which, like it or not, is driven forward by superlative catalysts. Garnett is the only one of those catalysts we've had in 20 years, with all respect to Paul Pierce. Like I've said, really only 5 or 6 guys (Cousy, Russell, maybe Havlicek, Cowens, Bird, Garnett) were the best players on Celtics championship teams. I've said before, I think that being one of those 6 guys should've entitled Garnett to better.  

Without Russell and Cousy, nobody cares that about Sam Jones or Bill Sharman, as great as they were. And nobody really even remembers Frank Ramsey or KC Jones or Satch Sanders or definitely Jim Loscutoff. I respect all opinions, it just so happens that many people thought Garnett was truly great. That's why, even though 14 of 26 voters last round didn't even include Garnett in their top 3, 11 voted him first. In a lot of rounds, that still wouldn't have been enough, but now that we're debating the merits of guys like Ramsey, Silas, KC, Macauley, Reggie, Cornbread, Ainge, Sanders, etc., there's no truly great players left, so it made sense to me to put a truly great player first, even if he has only been great with us for two years (I can't take this "year and a half" stuff too seriously - the post-KG Celtics team last season is still so completely affected by Garnett's influence and presence that I still consider him a part of that team, despite the injury.)

It takes truly great players like Garnett to make a franchise so great that we care to argue about which periphery player from the 60s, 70s or 80s was the greatest "Celtic."

This is basically my take - KG may have been high relative to guys who spent a lot more time here, but he is the lowest-ranked truly great player who wore a C's jersey in his prime and led them to a title.  There are no all-time greats left on the list. 

We've reached the point where the vote's becoming very fragmented.  Instead of 2 or 3 guys being considered for a spot, it's more like 5 or 6.  KG's overall greatness and contributions to the biggest turnaround in franchise history is what put him over the top.

TP for the post.

[Russ2Rondo]

Max
Tiny
Reggie

[Celtics1990]

Cedric "I got the ball" Maxwell
Reggie Lewis
K.C Jones

[Roy Hobbs]

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.

[Casperian]

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.

I have to agree. Sorry, but you can`t vote for Reggie and have a problem with KG at #14, imo. KG has achieved more with the Celtics in 1.5 seasons than Reggie in 6, and he was more important to the team than Reggie ever was. And yes, I think Macauley was the superior player, compared to his peers. Sad, but true...

K.C. Jones
Paul Silas
Cedric Maxwell

[Truck Lewis]

Reggie
Tiny
Cornbread

[Gemini]

Reggie
Macauley
K.C Jones

[Celtics1990]

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.

My mother filmed home videos of me when I was like two years old watching the C's running around screaming "Reggie, Reggie". He was my favorite player and after he passed I couldn't understand why he wasn't playing anymore.  I remember having my eyes glued to the screen when he was on the floor.  Maybe Macauley was a better player, I never saw him play, but Reggie Lewis will always be better in my eyes

[Hoops]

Reggie
Danny
K.C.

[Gainesville Celtic]

wish i'd been participating all along:

KC Jones (for overall contributions)

Cedric Maxwell (EDIT: for overall contributions (specifically "I got the ball" that slays me every time i hear it)

Danny Ainge (for overall contributions)

[xmuscularghandix]

Maxwell
Easy Ed
Reggie. RIP

[Hoops]

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.

Well, first off, I have to admit I've never seen Macauley play (for at least the reason that I wasn't even alive in the 50s). 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). Maybe some people who know more about him can share some anecdotal memories. Personally, I never hear anyone talk about him - doesn't seem to have left much of an impression.

Reggie, on the other hand, shot a terrific percentage from the field and developed into a very good free throw shooter. Reggie was a quality defender (see the thread where he blocked Jordan 4 times in a game). Also note from Reggie's stats, that his stats were getting better and better each year. And that really ties into my next point - hope. Reggie brought hope. Bird and McHale were falling part, Lenny Bias never had a chance, and Reggie was the guy who was going to carry the team through the better part of the 90s. His death was a tragedy, in part, because it was plainly obvious that Reggie was on a career arc that would have left a legacy much greater than he actually achieved. In fact, try comparing Reggie's stats to those of Paul Pierce. I don't think it's at all a stretch to think Reggie could have had the career Paul has had. Paul got lucky - he never would have won a championship without KG and Allen. Reggie wasn't lucky - his star sidekick (Bias) never happened and his own life ended before there was a chance to seize the momentum he was building.

Do you penalize a guy because his life was tragically cut short? Look, I'm not trying to make Reggie some demigod superstar because he wasn't, but he was an all-star and would have been an all-star many many times in his career. If he had the career stats of Pierce, even without a championship, we would have voted him much higher. Life isn't fair sometimes. But what is fair is to give Reggie the benefit of the doubt for a career that should have been.

[Roy Hobbs]

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.