Finn Thinks 96-97 Celtics Had More Pure Talent

[More Banners]

Gosh, it would really depend on health.

For comparison's sake, I'd have to pencil in the 97 team for a few extra wins on account of Carr taking out the guys that were rolling and so on.

Does Rondo stay out a longer period of time, like until New Years?  Our record drops like a stone as JGreen gets doubled on every possession.

Sully could turn out to be an 18/8 guy himself; my guess would be 14/9 once he comes around.  That becomes a key to winning.

This year's team will need scoring, and Olynyk might be the key to the whole thing.  If he can catch, he looks like he'll drop 20 without trying too hard with his nice shot.

Jeff Green needs to get used to moving without the ball in the half court.

So if, say, by New Years, that Rondo and Sully are at their healthy levels of production, that Green is moving without the ball and scoring, that Olynyk is figuring out how to do the same, and that the veterans are filling in as 3+D guys (lee, bogans), tough rebounder (Humpty-Hump), pesky defender (can't call him tough after getting punked by NYK) in Bradley...

then this year's squad could end on a rather strong note, pushing up their record over 30 wins, right?  They'd have to get hot at least 30 times?

[Moranis]

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/BOS/1997.html

I think a lot of the "pure talent" (whatever that means) on that squad resided in guys who had 3 years of NBA experience or less, so they were all pretty raw.

There's no one on that roster that compares to Rondo.

Given Toine was a rookie, I would agree, but Toine probably had more pure talent than Rondo and was still a darn good player even as a rookie (17.5/9.0/3.2).

This team should be better than that one, but I'm not sure it will be a lot better.

[mmmmm]

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/BOS/1997.html

I think a lot of the "pure talent" (whatever that means) on that squad resided in guys who had 3 years of NBA experience or less, so they were all pretty raw.

There's no one on that roster that compares to Rondo.

Given Toine was a rookie, I would agree, but Toine probably had more pure talent than Rondo and was still a darn good player even as a rookie (17.5/9.0/3.2).

This team should be better than that one, but I'm not sure it will be a lot better.

Umm ... I'm going to just come right out and disagree with that statement.

They play(ed) different positions, so comparisons are always awkward.  And of course they had very different teammates around them.    But I seriously am struggling to think of just in what way Walker was a better basketball player than Rondo.

Please don't say he was a better shooter.  Because other than taking a lot of shots, he wasn't.   He was a really p----poor shooter and his percentages are simply not as good as Rondo's.  Not even close.   In fact, to take so many shots, making them at such a low percentage - he was HURTING HIS TEAM.   Constantly.

Every single game, Walker would chuck about 18-20 shots, missing well over half of them.   Of those 11 or so misses, the other team would grab 8 or so.   Because that's what defensive teams do.   The difference between Walker taking those shots and an 'average' shooter taking those shots is like having 2 extra turnovers per game.   

Defenses loved playing with Walker.  He was a real giving soul.   

So it wasn't shooting.   What did he do that was better than Rondo?  Dribble?  Rebound?  I can't think of anything he did that was better than Rondo at helping his team win.

I'm sorry.  I know some folks like to think fondly of 'Toine', but I was never a fan of his game.

[moiso]

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/BOS/1997.html

I think a lot of the "pure talent" (whatever that means) on that squad resided in guys who had 3 years of NBA experience or less, so they were all pretty raw.

There's no one on that roster that compares to Rondo.

Given Toine was a rookie, I would agree, but Toine probably had more pure talent than Rondo and was still a darn good player even as a rookie (17.5/9.0/3.2).

This team should be better than that one, but I'm not sure it will be a lot better.

Umm ... I'm going to just come right out and disagree with that statement.

They play(ed) different positions, so comparisons are always awkward.  And of course they had very different teammates around them.    But I seriously am struggling to think of just in what way Walker was a better basketball player than Rondo.

Please don't say he was a better shooter.  Because other than taking a lot of shots, he wasn't.   He was a really p----poor shooter and his percentages are simply not as good as Rondo's.  Not even close.   In fact, to take so many shots, making them at such a low percentage - he was HURTING HIS TEAM.   Constantly.

Every single game, Walker would chuck about 18-20 shots, missing well over half of them.   Of those 11 or so misses, the other team would grab 8 or so.   Because that's what defensive teams do.   The difference between Walker taking those shots and an 'average' shooter taking those shots is like having 2 extra turnovers per game.   

Defenses loved playing with Walker.  He was a real giving soul.   

So it wasn't shooting.   What did he do that was better than Rondo?  Dribble?  Rebound?  I can't think of anything he did that was better than Rondo at helping his team win.

I'm sorry.  I know some folks like to think fondly of 'Toine', but I was never a fan of his game.

Antoine sucked as a player for a lot of his career as far as helping a team win, and Rondo has been great in that regard.  But I would still argue that although Rondo is a much better player, Walker was more "talented."  6'8ish, amazing hands, good rebounder, great ball handler and passer.  He became so inefficient that I think he became a net negative for the team, but that has nothing to do with talent.

[D.o.s.]

Building around physicality and skillset, I'd pick 'Toine.

[Moranis]

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/BOS/1997.html

I think a lot of the "pure talent" (whatever that means) on that squad resided in guys who had 3 years of NBA experience or less, so they were all pretty raw.

There's no one on that roster that compares to Rondo.

Given Toine was a rookie, I would agree, but Toine probably had more pure talent than Rondo and was still a darn good player even as a rookie (17.5/9.0/3.2).

This team should be better than that one, but I'm not sure it will be a lot better.

Umm ... I'm going to just come right out and disagree with that statement.

They play(ed) different positions, so comparisons are always awkward.  And of course they had very different teammates around them.    But I seriously am struggling to think of just in what way Walker was a better basketball player than Rondo.

Please don't say he was a better shooter.  Because other than taking a lot of shots, he wasn't.   He was a really p----poor shooter and his percentages are simply not as good as Rondo's.  Not even close.   In fact, to take so many shots, making them at such a low percentage - he was HURTING HIS TEAM.   Constantly.

Every single game, Walker would chuck about 18-20 shots, missing well over half of them.   Of those 11 or so misses, the other team would grab 8 or so.   Because that's what defensive teams do.   The difference between Walker taking those shots and an 'average' shooter taking those shots is like having 2 extra turnovers per game.   

Defenses loved playing with Walker.  He was a real giving soul.   

So it wasn't shooting.   What did he do that was better than Rondo?  Dribble?  Rebound?  I can't think of anything he did that was better than Rondo at helping his team win.

I'm sorry.  I know some folks like to think fondly of 'Toine', but I was never a fan of his game.

Antoine sucked as a player for a lot of his career as far as helping a team win, and Rondo has been great in that regard.  But I would still argue that although Rondo is a much better player, Walker was more "talented."  6'8ish, amazing hands, good rebounder, great ball handler and passer.  He became so inefficient that I think he became a net negative for the team, but that has nothing to do with talent.

I agree and frankly if Toine had had better coaching I think his career would have turned out a lot differently.  Imagine if coaches actually forced him to play in the post.  He could have been all timer in the Barkley mode given his foot speed, ball handling, etc.  Even with the terrible coaching, his low post skills were quite good.  A better coach and an organization with a lot more structure and Toine could have been one of the better PF's in the history of the game.  The Celtics' just let him do whatever he wanted and made him play SF when he should have been a PF.

[mmmmm]

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/BOS/1997.html

I think a lot of the "pure talent" (whatever that means) on that squad resided in guys who had 3 years of NBA experience or less, so they were all pretty raw.

There's no one on that roster that compares to Rondo.

Given Toine was a rookie, I would agree, but Toine probably had more pure talent than Rondo and was still a darn good player even as a rookie (17.5/9.0/3.2).

This team should be better than that one, but I'm not sure it will be a lot better.

Umm ... I'm going to just come right out and disagree with that statement.

They play(ed) different positions, so comparisons are always awkward.  And of course they had very different teammates around them.    But I seriously am struggling to think of just in what way Walker was a better basketball player than Rondo.

Please don't say he was a better shooter.  Because other than taking a lot of shots, he wasn't.   He was a really p----poor shooter and his percentages are simply not as good as Rondo's.  Not even close.   In fact, to take so many shots, making them at such a low percentage - he was HURTING HIS TEAM.   Constantly.

Every single game, Walker would chuck about 18-20 shots, missing well over half of them.   Of those 11 or so misses, the other team would grab 8 or so.   Because that's what defensive teams do.   The difference between Walker taking those shots and an 'average' shooter taking those shots is like having 2 extra turnovers per game.   

Defenses loved playing with Walker.  He was a real giving soul.   

So it wasn't shooting.   What did he do that was better than Rondo?  Dribble?  Rebound?  I can't think of anything he did that was better than Rondo at helping his team win.

I'm sorry.  I know some folks like to think fondly of 'Toine', but I was never a fan of his game.

Antoine sucked as a player for a lot of his career as far as helping a team win, and Rondo has been great in that regard.  But I would still argue that although Rondo is a much better player, Walker was more "talented."  6'8ish, amazing hands, good rebounder, great ball handler and passer.  He became so inefficient that I think he became a net negative for the team, but that has nothing to do with talent.

He didn't just 'become' inefficient.  He always was and he stayed so.

I don't understand how that (BBIQ, shot selection) isn't part of one's basketball 'talent'.

He was a decent rebounder, with a typical DRB% of around 19%.  That's a little above average for a 6' 8" forward, but nothing special.   That would have ranked him somewhere around 28th last year among guys between 6' 6" - 6' 9" who played at least 800 minutes.

Rondo (6' 1") posted a DRB% of 13.6%  last year- that put him 3rd among all players up to 6' 3" last year who played at least 800 minutes.   He was 2nd, if you move the threshold to at least 1000 minutes.

Seriously.  Rondo is better at just about any basketball skill I can think of than Walker was other than being tall.   

[jambr380]

Is this really going to turn into another Antoine thread? No matter how much negativity goes around this blog about him, I will always appreciate his passion and leadership and also the mini-success we had with Pierce and him leading the charge. I'm glad that so many people despise his game, but he must have been doing something right...

[slamtheking]

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/BOS/1997.html

I think a lot of the "pure talent" (whatever that means) on that squad resided in guys who had 3 years of NBA experience or less, so they were all pretty raw.

There's no one on that roster that compares to Rondo.

Given Toine was a rookie, I would agree, but Toine probably had more pure talent than Rondo and was still a darn good player even as a rookie (17.5/9.0/3.2).

This team should be better than that one, but I'm not sure it will be a lot better.

Umm ... I'm going to just come right out and disagree with that statement.

They play(ed) different positions, so comparisons are always awkward.  And of course they had very different teammates around them.    But I seriously am struggling to think of just in what way Walker was a better basketball player than Rondo.

Please don't say he was a better shooter.  Because other than taking a lot of shots, he wasn't.   He was a really p----poor shooter and his percentages are simply not as good as Rondo's.  Not even close.   In fact, to take so many shots, making them at such a low percentage - he was HURTING HIS TEAM.   Constantly.

Every single game, Walker would chuck about 18-20 shots, missing well over half of them.   Of those 11 or so misses, the other team would grab 8 or so.   Because that's what defensive teams do.   The difference between Walker taking those shots and an 'average' shooter taking those shots is like having 2 extra turnovers per game.   

Defenses loved playing with Walker.  He was a real giving soul.   

So it wasn't shooting.   What did he do that was better than Rondo?  Dribble?  Rebound?  I can't think of anything he did that was better than Rondo at helping his team win.

I'm sorry.  I know some folks like to think fondly of 'Toine', but I was never a fan of his game.

Antoine sucked as a player for a lot of his career as far as helping a team win, and Rondo has been great in that regard.  But I would still argue that although Rondo is a much better player, Walker was more "talented."  6'8ish, amazing hands, good rebounder, great ball handler and passer.  He became so inefficient that I think he became a net negative for the team, but that has nothing to do with talent.

I agree and frankly if Toine had had better coaching I think his career would have turned out a lot differently.  Imagine if coaches actually forced him to play in the post.  He could have been all timer in the Barkley mode given his foot speed, ball handling, etc.  Even with the terrible coaching, his low post skills were quite good.  A better coach and an organization with a lot more structure and Toine could have been one of the better PF's in the history of the game.  The Celtics' just let him do whatever he wanted and made him play SF when he should have been a PF.

I agree with the coaching comments.  He looked like the steal of the draft after his rookie year.  Pitino coiing in the next year turned him into the chucker he became.  his rookie year he spent a lot more time in the paint and crashing the boards. 

His rebounding was his best skill.  when we needed a defensive board, he had a drive to get the ball.  Had to wait until KG's arrival to see that kind of rebounding in a C's uniform (and then it was only pre-injury KG)

[Celtics18]

I wonder what Jake thinks?

[moiso]

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/BOS/1997.html

I think a lot of the "pure talent" (whatever that means) on that squad resided in guys who had 3 years of NBA experience or less, so they were all pretty raw.

There's no one on that roster that compares to Rondo.

Given Toine was a rookie, I would agree, but Toine probably had more pure talent than Rondo and was still a darn good player even as a rookie (17.5/9.0/3.2).

This team should be better than that one, but I'm not sure it will be a lot better.

Umm ... I'm going to just come right out and disagree with that statement.

They play(ed) different positions, so comparisons are always awkward.  And of course they had very different teammates around them.    But I seriously am struggling to think of just in what way Walker was a better basketball player than Rondo.

Please don't say he was a better shooter.  Because other than taking a lot of shots, he wasn't.   He was a really p----poor shooter and his percentages are simply not as good as Rondo's.  Not even close.   In fact, to take so many shots, making them at such a low percentage - he was HURTING HIS TEAM.   Constantly.

Every single game, Walker would chuck about 18-20 shots, missing well over half of them.   Of those 11 or so misses, the other team would grab 8 or so.   Because that's what defensive teams do.   The difference between Walker taking those shots and an 'average' shooter taking those shots is like having 2 extra turnovers per game.   

Defenses loved playing with Walker.  He was a real giving soul.   

So it wasn't shooting.   What did he do that was better than Rondo?  Dribble?  Rebound?  I can't think of anything he did that was better than Rondo at helping his team win.

I'm sorry.  I know some folks like to think fondly of 'Toine', but I was never a fan of his game.

Antoine sucked as a player for a lot of his career as far as helping a team win, and Rondo has been great in that regard.  But I would still argue that although Rondo is a much better player, Walker was more "talented."  6'8ish, amazing hands, good rebounder, great ball handler and passer.  He became so inefficient that I think he became a net negative for the team, but that has nothing to do with talent.

He didn't just 'become' inefficient.  He always was and he stayed so.

I don't understand how that (BBIQ, shot selection) isn't part of one's basketball 'talent'.

He was a decent rebounder, with a typical DRB% of around 19%.  That's a little above average for a 6' 8" forward, but nothing special.   That would have ranked him somewhere around 28th last year among guys between 6' 6" - 6' 9" who played at least 800 minutes.

Rondo (6' 1") posted a DRB% of 13.6%  last year- that put him 3rd among all players up to 6' 3" last year who played at least 800 minutes.   He was 2nd, if you move the threshold to at least 1000 minutes.

Seriously.  Rondo is better at just about any basketball skill I can think of than Walker was other than being tall.

Dwight Howard and Lebron James might be Kenneth Farried and Chris Paul if they were smaller.  A players body has a lot to do with their talent level.  If Dirk had Rondo's height he might have been Eddie House.

[Q_FBE]

I looked over the depth charts of this years team and that years team and I found that the 2014 Celtics have a big edge at the one (Rondo vs Dave Wesley) and the three (Jeff Green vs Rick Fox) 1997 advantages came at the 4 and 5 (Rating Antione Walker better than Bass/Sully/Olynik) and Dino Radja much better than whatever we get from the five hole this year. We went tanking in 1997 with Dino Radja, Eric Williams, and Dave Wesley all shut down. That was a clearly a tank job by More Losses Carr as mandated by Thanksdad Ga$ton.

This year the biggest edge is clearly at the coaching position up through ownership with an understanding fan base so I predict better results from this team - say 33 wins worth and a very good future to look forward to.