more impressive: 1 chip with 0 hofers or 11 with 2-5 hofers?

Moderators: BombsquadSammy, GeorgeMarcus, PockyCandy, Prez, Yuri Vaultin, ken6199, Dirk, Domejandro, bwgood77, jamaalstar21, zimpy27

70sFan
RealGM
Posts: 10,210
And1: 6,492
Joined: Aug 11, 2015
 

Re: more impressive: 1 chip with 0 hofers or 11 with 2-5 hofers? 

Post#261 » by 70sFan » Wed Jan 15, 2020 10:50 am

post wrote:
70sFan wrote:
post wrote:
everything i've said about skill and being carried is much more insightful than you throwing out some obscure autistic statistic

No it's not... Russell being in the worst offensive team in the league doesn't make him being carried because some players shot more than him. This is dumb, just like the way you can't understand simple stats.


they shot more because they were better scorers. that's how basketball works. jordan shoots more because the coach has decided he is a better scorer than pippen. malone shoots more because the coach has decided he is a better scorer than stockton. iverson shoots more because the coach has decided he is a better scorer than mutombo. harden shoots more because the coach has decided he's a better scorer than clint capela. and on and on to infinity with the examples. you don't understand basketball. go dig up another useless stat

Yeah and these great scorers led Celtics to terrible offensive success. Imagine Russell playing with actual offensive anchors...
HeartBreakKid
RealGM
Posts: 16,423
And1: 11,384
Joined: Mar 08, 2012
     

Re: more impressive: 1 chip with 0 hofers or 11 with 2-5 hofers? 

Post#262 » by HeartBreakKid » Wed Jan 15, 2020 10:53 am

post wrote:
HeartBreakKid wrote:A lot of Russell's teammates are in the HOF because they were part of a dynasty...not because they were superstars. Hakeem has played with guys just as good if not better than a lot of Russell's teammates. A lot of them were roughly as good as Robert Horry, the only difference is now way more people are in the HOF now so the standard is higher.

If you won a lot of rings then obviously you were going to go into the hall of fame in the 1960s/70s - Robert Horry with his 11 or so rings would have been a hall of famer also back then for the simple fact of winning so much.



Vernon Maxwell, Robert Horry and Otis Horpe were all really good players around that period - people who barely know 90s basketball just assume Hakeem played with scrubs. Almost like assuming the 2019 Raptors were just Leonard and some jabronis. They were a deep and well coached team - even Sam Cassell couldn't get major minutes on that team.

Not to mention the next year they got Clyde Drexler who is better than anyone Bill Russell ever played with except for John Havilcek. They eventually got Scottie Pippen and Charles Barkley also lol - and yes, I know they were old, but since we are ignoring context (clearly, otherwise the statement about Russell's celtics are weak) then we can say Hakeem couldn't win a title with three first ballot HOFers on his team. Hakeem had a team with far bigger names than what Russell had.


Bill Russell didn't have an unfairly stacked team for the majority, if not his entire career - and he did as much carrying of his team as Hakeem did. Anyone who took any time to educate themselves on 60s basketball for longer than 10 minutes knows this.


as has been pointed out in this thread already cousy was the mvp of the nba in russell's rookie year. that alone destroys your point because hakeem never played with anyone that was even close to being the mvp of the nba when they were on hakeem's team

Bill Russell helping Bob Cousy get an MVP destorys my point....how? You do realize Bill Russell was easily better than Bob Cousy even as a rookie right?

Bob Cousy was credited over Bill Russell for the MVP because

1) Bob Cousy is white and it was 1957

2) Bob Cousy is a flashy and popular player

3) Bill Russell was only a rookie and the Celtics were more heavily associated with Bob Cousy

4) Bill Russell missed half the season due to other obligations


So actually you're supporting my argument, that a lot of Bill Russell's teammates got accolades only when they started playing with Bill Russell - because Bill Russell got his teams a lot of wins.

Bob Cousy had been in the NBA for 6 years before Bill Russell played, yet didn't win an MVP. Strange how he got one only when Russell joined his team - and never won one after when the media realized how dominant Bill Russell was.


Bill Russell didn't even get rookie of the year - he was underrated that season, and did not play a lot of games - oh....and he's also black in the 50s, thats kind of a big deal?


And even if somehow we ignored all logic and said you were right....that's literally just one season, which was his rookie season in his 13 year career. So nice job there. Hakeem Olajuwon played with other great players, and he played with players who were clearly better than Bob Cousy through out his career as well.


If Hakeem was as Godly as you suggest that he could win with "bad teammates" then why didn't he win before 1994?
HeartBreakKid
RealGM
Posts: 16,423
And1: 11,384
Joined: Mar 08, 2012
     

Re: more impressive: 1 chip with 0 hofers or 11 with 2-5 hofers? 

Post#263 » by HeartBreakKid » Wed Jan 15, 2020 11:01 am

post wrote:
70sFan wrote:
post wrote:
everything i've said about skill and being carried is much more insightful than you throwing out some obscure autistic statistic

No it's not... Russell being in the worst offensive team in the league doesn't make him being carried because some players shot more than him. This is dumb, just like the way you can't understand simple stats.


they shot more because they were better scorers. that's how basketball works. jordan shoots more because the coach has decided he is a better scorer than pippen. malone shoots more because the coach has decided he is a better scorer than stockton. iverson shoots more because the coach has decided he is a better scorer than mutombo. harden shoots more because the coach has decided he's a better scorer than clint capela. and on and on to infinity with the examples. you don't understand basketball. go dig up another useless stat


Yeah and Russell Westbrook shot more than Kevin Durant, he must have been a better scorer. What are you talking about? There are plenty of times when players shot more than they should have throughout NBA history.

Shooting more doesn't equate to being a better scorer - and you're the one talking about useless stats and talking up shots per game lol.
User avatar
OdomFan
Lead Assistant
Posts: 4,747
And1: 3,405
Joined: Jan 07, 2017
Location: Washington DC
       

Re: more impressive: 1 chip with 0 hofers or 11 with 2-5 hofers? 

Post#264 » by OdomFan » Wed Jan 15, 2020 11:17 am

Eric Millegan wrote:Robert Horry should be a Hall of Famer IMO so that cancels out Hakeem.

Yea, I can't agree with this one. Especially don't agree that Horry should be looked at as some HOF player for his time as a member of Hakeems Rockets.

Horry made some what of a name for himself over the years as being the guy to hit big shots but its not like he did it as often as people seem to think he did. Not even a Hall of Very good, but just a memorable role player.
Image
User avatar
prophet_of_rage
General Manager
Posts: 9,293
And1: 2,222
Joined: Jan 06, 2005

Re: more impressive: 1 chip with 0 hofers or 11 with 2-5 hofers? 

Post#265 » by prophet_of_rage » Wed Jan 15, 2020 11:29 am

Drygon wrote:Bill Russell.

That consistency of winning 11 rings in 13 years as the best player on Celtics is completely insane.

People don't talk enough how ridiculously impactful Bill Russell was in his prime.
He was playing 5 foot White milk men who just showed up for the game.

Sent from my SM-N970W using Tapatalk
Pg81
Veteran
Posts: 2,767
And1: 1,268
Joined: Apr 20, 2014
 

Re: more impressive: 1 chip with 0 hofers or 11 with 2-5 hofers? 

Post#266 » by Pg81 » Wed Jan 15, 2020 11:53 am

Fencer reregistered wrote:Russell's opponents had some HoFers too. He won his last Finals against a team with West, Baylor and Wilt. The Hawks had Pettit, McCauley and Hagan. Etc.


Baylor was often shooting 35% or less while taking the most shots of the team during the playoffs in 69. Wilt had just been traded to L.A. and had huge problems with van Breda Kolf. Wilt was also relegated to defense only and hardly allowed or involved in LAs offense. Then of course we have that infamous "We do not need you" game where Wilt was left on the bench and LA went to lose the finals.
All in all that Wilt/Baylor/West trio sounds great on paper but in reality they had barely a healthy season between them and Baylor declined heavily after 70, just 1 year after Wilt came along. Wilt suffered a major knee injury and West was also injured.
Context matters, just throwing out some names does not mean much.
Even if granting that the Celtics opponent had HoFers, not all HoFers are made equal and Celtics had consistently the most stacked team and incredible luck like in 68 when he played against a hobbled 76ers team in the finals where the entire starting five including Wilt were hobbled by injury or otherwise they would have repeated easily since it was basically the same team. With just a little more luck Wilt would have won 4-5 rings instead of 2 and Russell that much fewer.
If you're asking me who the Mavs best player is, I'd say Luka. A guy like Delon Wright probably rivals his impact though at this stage in his career. KP may as well if he gets his **** together.
GeorgeMarcus, 17/11/2019
post
Sophomore
Posts: 193
And1: 45
Joined: Aug 24, 2016

Re: more impressive: 1 chip with 0 hofers or 11 with 2-5 hofers? 

Post#267 » by post » Wed Jan 15, 2020 11:56 am

michaelm wrote:
post wrote:
HeartBreakKid wrote:

The Celtics were a bad offensive team for the majority of Bill Russell's career, so it's really strange to say he was ever carried by someone else's offense.

Bill Russell had some of the most legendary playoff games ever, including carrying his team in scoring in finals games - despite the fact that scoring is not his forte. If that isn't a guy who can carry a team then I don't know what is - a guy who isn't a scorer steps up and drops 30/30 on a team when the pressure is on seems like a winner to me.


a guy that over the course of 11 chips was on average the 3-4th best scorer on his team is being carried to an unprecedented level on offense. it's one thing to lead your team in scoring for a game or a series, it's another to do it over and over for more than a decade. shouldn't you russell worshipers understand it's harder to do something over and over than just once considering your argument is often "well, he won 11 not just 2 like hakeem and wilt or 6 like jordan and kareem"

I preface my post by saying that my personal view is that every team which wins a title does so deservedly having beaten everyone who turned up to play them, and Hakeem’s titles were more creditable than most imo, and he was (also imo) a great, great player.

If you want to play hypotheticals, and you haven’t got anything else, by your own argument and not mine Hakeem ‘shouldn’t’ really have won any titles. If iso scoring was his superpower and supervenes all else in the sport of basketball, then there was a guy who had iso scoring as a hyperpower, who was essentially a non-factor as has been said, in NBA basketball in the 2 years Hakeem’s teams won the title, not playing at all in one of those years.

Oddly Michael Jordan only started to win titles when he went at least partly away from iso scoring and embraced Phil Jackson’s triangle offensive scheme which took the ball out of his hands compared with his previous play.


the bulls would probably win in 94 because of jordan and pippen. switch and give pippen to hakeem and jordan loses. 95 is a different story. houston had drexler and swept orlando in the finals. the bulls would have a much harder time winning

from watching them play i don't think jordan was a better iso scorer than hakeem. in their playoff careers jordan averaged 5 more points per 36 minutes than hakeem but took 4 more shots per 36. hakeem shot 52.8% from the field compared to jordan shooting 48.7%
post
Sophomore
Posts: 193
And1: 45
Joined: Aug 24, 2016

Re: more impressive: 1 chip with 0 hofers or 11 with 2-5 hofers? 

Post#268 » by post » Wed Jan 15, 2020 12:13 pm

70sFan wrote:
post wrote:
70sFan wrote:No it's not... Russell being in the worst offensive team in the league doesn't make him being carried because some players shot more than him. This is dumb, just like the way you can't understand simple stats.


they shot more because they were better scorers. that's how basketball works. jordan shoots more because the coach has decided he is a better scorer than pippen. malone shoots more because the coach has decided he is a better scorer than stockton. iverson shoots more because the coach has decided he is a better scorer than mutombo. harden shoots more because the coach has decided he's a better scorer than clint capela. and on and on to infinity with the examples. you don't understand basketball. go dig up another useless stat

Yeah and these great scorers led Celtics to terrible offensive success. Imagine Russell playing with actual offensive anchors...


in russell's rookie year boston was 1st in ppg yet only 5th in offensive rating in an 8 team league. the two stats are telling you two different things. it's meaningless

imagine hakeem playing with someone that made 12 straight all nba teams and was the leading passer in the league 8 straight years like cousy. russell's rookie year bill sharman was 6th in the nba in ppg and cousy was 8th. imagine hakeem playing with 2 top ten scorers in the league
HeartBreakKid
RealGM
Posts: 16,423
And1: 11,384
Joined: Mar 08, 2012
     

Re: more impressive: 1 chip with 0 hofers or 11 with 2-5 hofers? 

Post#269 » by HeartBreakKid » Wed Jan 15, 2020 12:22 pm

OdomFan wrote:
Eric Millegan wrote:Robert Horry should be a Hall of Famer IMO so that cancels out Hakeem.

Yea, I can't agree with this one. Especially don't agree that Horry should be looked at as some HOF player for his time as a member of Hakeems Rockets.

Horry made some what of a name for himself over the years as being the guy to hit big shots but its not like he did it as often as people seem to think he did. Not even a Hall of Very good, but just a memorable role player.



He was one of the best defenders in the league, averaged 3-4 assist per game and was one of the better 3 point shooters in the league all while as a power forward. In today's game teams would pay top dollar for a player like him.

Saying he's just a memorable roleplayer is like saying Serge Ibaka is just a roleplayer.

He was much more than just the guy who hit some clutch shots. You're talking like he was Derek Fisher, which is way off.
70sFan
RealGM
Posts: 10,210
And1: 6,492
Joined: Aug 11, 2015
 

Re: more impressive: 1 chip with 0 hofers or 11 with 2-5 hofers? 

Post#270 » by 70sFan » Wed Jan 15, 2020 12:41 pm

post wrote:
70sFan wrote:
post wrote:
they shot more because they were better scorers. that's how basketball works. jordan shoots more because the coach has decided he is a better scorer than pippen. malone shoots more because the coach has decided he is a better scorer than stockton. iverson shoots more because the coach has decided he is a better scorer than mutombo. harden shoots more because the coach has decided he's a better scorer than clint capela. and on and on to infinity with the examples. you don't understand basketball. go dig up another useless stat

Yeah and these great scorers led Celtics to terrible offensive success. Imagine Russell playing with actual offensive anchors...


in russell's rookie year boston was 1st in ppg yet only 5th in offensive rating in an 8 team league. the two stats are telling you two different things. it's meaningless

imagine hakeem playing with someone that made 12 straight all nba teams and was the leading passer in the league 8 straight years like cousy. russell's rookie year bill sharman was 6th in the nba in ppg and cousy was 8th. imagine hakeem playing with 2 top ten scorers in the league


Because Celtics played fastest in the league. It's that simple, you don't need any advanced maths ability to understand that...
post
Sophomore
Posts: 193
And1: 45
Joined: Aug 24, 2016

Re: more impressive: 1 chip with 0 hofers or 11 with 2-5 hofers? 

Post#271 » by post » Wed Jan 15, 2020 12:54 pm

HeartBreakKid wrote:
post wrote:
HeartBreakKid wrote:A lot of Russell's teammates are in the HOF because they were part of a dynasty...not because they were superstars. Hakeem has played with guys just as good if not better than a lot of Russell's teammates. A lot of them were roughly as good as Robert Horry, the only difference is now way more people are in the HOF now so the standard is higher.

If you won a lot of rings then obviously you were going to go into the hall of fame in the 1960s/70s - Robert Horry with his 11 or so rings would have been a hall of famer also back then for the simple fact of winning so much.



Vernon Maxwell, Robert Horry and Otis Horpe were all really good players around that period - people who barely know 90s basketball just assume Hakeem played with scrubs. Almost like assuming the 2019 Raptors were just Leonard and some jabronis. They were a deep and well coached team - even Sam Cassell couldn't get major minutes on that team.

Not to mention the next year they got Clyde Drexler who is better than anyone Bill Russell ever played with except for John Havilcek. They eventually got Scottie Pippen and Charles Barkley also lol - and yes, I know they were old, but since we are ignoring context (clearly, otherwise the statement about Russell's celtics are weak) then we can say Hakeem couldn't win a title with three first ballot HOFers on his team. Hakeem had a team with far bigger names than what Russell had.


Bill Russell didn't have an unfairly stacked team for the majority, if not his entire career - and he did as much carrying of his team as Hakeem did. Anyone who took any time to educate themselves on 60s basketball for longer than 10 minutes knows this.


as has been pointed out in this thread already cousy was the mvp of the nba in russell's rookie year. that alone destroys your point because hakeem never played with anyone that was even close to being the mvp of the nba when they were on hakeem's team

Bill Russell helping Bob Cousy get an MVP destorys my point....how? You do realize Bill Russell was easily better than Bob Cousy even as a rookie right?

Bob Cousy was credited over Bill Russell for the MVP because

1) Bob Cousy is white and it was 1957

2) Bob Cousy is a flashy and popular player

3) Bill Russell was only a rookie and the Celtics were more heavily associated with Bob Cousy

4) Bill Russell missed half the season due to other obligations


So actually you're supporting my argument, that a lot of Bill Russell's teammates got accolades only when they started playing with Bill Russell - because Bill Russell got his teams a lot of wins.

Bob Cousy had been in the NBA for 6 years before Bill Russell played, yet didn't win an MVP. Strange how he got one only when Russell joined his team - and never won one after when the media realized how dominant Bill Russell was.


Bill Russell didn't even get rookie of the year - he was underrated that season, and did not play a lot of games - oh....and he's also black in the 50s, thats kind of a big deal?


And even if somehow we ignored all logic and said you were right....that's literally just one season, which was his rookie season in his 13 year career. So nice job there. Hakeem Olajuwon played with other great players, and he played with players who were clearly better than Bob Cousy through out his career as well.


If Hakeem was as Godly as you suggest that he could win with "bad teammates" then why didn't he win before 1994?


whether or not cousy was the "real" mvp boston had 3 guys including russell on the all nba team, which consisted of 10 guys back then, in each of russell's first 8 years. hakeem had absolutely nowhere near this level of talent on any of his teams

russell won mvp in his second year 1958. a lot of white people were still racist in 1958 so your point makes no sense

yeah, the rookie of the year was heinsohn who played on boston so that doesn't help the idea boston had no real talent

hakeem didn't win before 94 because it's really hard to win with garbage yet he did it
User avatar
OdomFan
Lead Assistant
Posts: 4,747
And1: 3,405
Joined: Jan 07, 2017
Location: Washington DC
       

Re: more impressive: 1 chip with 0 hofers or 11 with 2-5 hofers? 

Post#272 » by OdomFan » Wed Jan 15, 2020 1:01 pm

HeartBreakKid wrote:
OdomFan wrote:
Eric Millegan wrote:Robert Horry should be a Hall of Famer IMO so that cancels out Hakeem.

Yea, I can't agree with this one. Especially don't agree that Horry should be looked at as some HOF player for his time as a member of Hakeems Rockets.

Horry made some what of a name for himself over the years as being the guy to hit big shots but its not like he did it as often as people seem to think he did. Not even a Hall of Very good, but just a memorable role player.



He was one of the best defenders in the league, averaged 3-4 assist per game and was one of the better 3 point shooters in the league all while as a power forward. In today's game teams would pay top dollar for a player like him.

Saying he's just a memorable roleplayer is like saying Serge Ibaka is just a roleplayer.

He was much more than just the guy who hit some clutch shots. You're talking like he was Derek Fisher, which is way off.

Saying he was a memorable role player isn't a bad thing at all. Otherwise he wouldn't be remembered for his contributions on the court. Very serviceable teammate on both ends of the floor, but never really a stand out Hall of Famer or very good type.

You brought up him being one of the best defensive players in the league but do you honestly believe he ever deserved a defensive player of the year award? I certainly don't.
Image
michaelm
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,299
And1: 2,057
Joined: Apr 06, 2010
 

Re: more impressive: 1 chip with 0 hofers or 11 with 2-5 hofers? 

Post#273 » by michaelm » Wed Jan 15, 2020 1:08 pm

prophet_of_rage wrote:
Drygon wrote:Bill Russell.

That consistency of winning 11 rings in 13 years as the best player on Celtics is completely insane.

People don't talk enough how ridiculously impactful Bill Russell was in his prime.
He was playing 5 foot White milk men who just showed up for the game.

Sent from my SM-N970W using Tapatalk

No way would Russell or anyone win 11 titles as the lead player in recent decades imo, because of the salary cap rules apart from anything else. Even hypothetically Jordan wins 8 maximum,and the rest from the break and the re-jigging of the team in his absence may have helped on his return, as well as there being no way of knowing whether he and the original 3peat Bulls could have beaten Hakeem's teams to the 2 intervening titles anyway.

But I can't see how the guy who had a primary role in proving the game could be played at a higher level than those white milkmen played while being vilified for being black while doing so deserves to be detracted from, and again he could only beat the opposition who turned up to play him. You oppose the OP's argument in any case, which seems to be that the quality of those awarded HOF membership was constant over 3 decades or more of its existence after its inception.
post
Sophomore
Posts: 193
And1: 45
Joined: Aug 24, 2016

Re: more impressive: 1 chip with 0 hofers or 11 with 2-5 hofers? 

Post#274 » by post » Wed Jan 15, 2020 1:14 pm

70sFan wrote:
post wrote:
70sFan wrote:Yeah and these great scorers led Celtics to terrible offensive success. Imagine Russell playing with actual offensive anchors...


in russell's rookie year boston was 1st in ppg yet only 5th in offensive rating in an 8 team league. the two stats are telling you two different things. it's meaningless

imagine hakeem playing with someone that made 12 straight all nba teams and was the leading passer in the league 8 straight years like cousy. russell's rookie year bill sharman was 6th in the nba in ppg and cousy was 8th. imagine hakeem playing with 2 top ten scorers in the league


Because Celtics played fastest in the league. It's that simple, you don't need any advanced maths ability to understand that...


so they played faster and got more points because of it. i understand. doesn't change that boston had multiple guys scoring more than russell
post
Sophomore
Posts: 193
And1: 45
Joined: Aug 24, 2016

Re: more impressive: 1 chip with 0 hofers or 11 with 2-5 hofers? 

Post#275 » by post » Wed Jan 15, 2020 1:18 pm

HeartBreakKid wrote:
post wrote:
70sFan wrote:No it's not... Russell being in the worst offensive team in the league doesn't make him being carried because some players shot more than him. This is dumb, just like the way you can't understand simple stats.


they shot more because they were better scorers. that's how basketball works. jordan shoots more because the coach has decided he is a better scorer than pippen. malone shoots more because the coach has decided he is a better scorer than stockton. iverson shoots more because the coach has decided he is a better scorer than mutombo. harden shoots more because the coach has decided he's a better scorer than clint capela. and on and on to infinity with the examples. you don't understand basketball. go dig up another useless stat


Yeah and Russell Westbrook shot more than Kevin Durant, he must have been a better scorer. What are you talking about? There are plenty of times when players shot more than they should have throughout NBA history.

Shooting more doesn't equate to being a better scorer - and you're the one talking about useless stats and talking up shots per game lol.


no, westbrook/durant is an exception. durant should take more shots but westbrook should still be second. in most cases good teams are getting it right
70sFan
RealGM
Posts: 10,210
And1: 6,492
Joined: Aug 11, 2015
 

Re: more impressive: 1 chip with 0 hofers or 11 with 2-5 hofers? 

Post#276 » by 70sFan » Wed Jan 15, 2020 1:19 pm

post wrote:
70sFan wrote:
post wrote:
in russell's rookie year boston was 1st in ppg yet only 5th in offensive rating in an 8 team league. the two stats are telling you two different things. it's meaningless

imagine hakeem playing with someone that made 12 straight all nba teams and was the leading passer in the league 8 straight years like cousy. russell's rookie year bill sharman was 6th in the nba in ppg and cousy was 8th. imagine hakeem playing with 2 top ten scorers in the league


Because Celtics played fastest in the league. It's that simple, you don't need any advanced maths ability to understand that...


so they played faster and got more points because of it. i understand. doesn't change that boston had multiple guys scoring more than russell

So what? This team full of elite scorers collapsed in 1970 after Russell retired and didn't make the playoffs after winning the finals the year before.
post
Sophomore
Posts: 193
And1: 45
Joined: Aug 24, 2016

Re: more impressive: 1 chip with 0 hofers or 11 with 2-5 hofers? 

Post#277 » by post » Wed Jan 15, 2020 1:47 pm

70sFan wrote:
post wrote:
70sFan wrote:
Because Celtics played fastest in the league. It's that simple, you don't need any advanced maths ability to understand that...


so they played faster and got more points because of it. i understand. doesn't change that boston had multiple guys scoring more than russell

So what? This team full of elite scorers collapsed in 1970 after Russell retired and didn't make the playoffs after winning the finals the year before.


they lost sam jones too. and bailey howell declined a lot. and they didn't replace russell with anybody good at all
70sFan
RealGM
Posts: 10,210
And1: 6,492
Joined: Aug 11, 2015
 

Re: more impressive: 1 chip with 0 hofers or 11 with 2-5 hofers? 

Post#278 » by 70sFan » Wed Jan 15, 2020 1:54 pm

post wrote:
70sFan wrote:
post wrote:
so they played faster and got more points because of it. i understand. doesn't change that boston had multiple guys scoring more than russell

So what? This team full of elite scorers collapsed in 1970 after Russell retired and didn't make the playoffs after winning the finals the year before.


they lost sam jones too. and bailey howell declined a lot. and they didn't replace russell with anybody good at all

Sam Jones was washed up in 1969, his loss wasn't a good explaination of Celtics collapse.

Celtics also didn't win anything before Russell.
post
Sophomore
Posts: 193
And1: 45
Joined: Aug 24, 2016

Re: more impressive: 1 chip with 0 hofers or 11 with 2-5 hofers? 

Post#279 » by post » Wed Jan 15, 2020 2:34 pm

70sFan wrote:
post wrote:
70sFan wrote:So what? This team full of elite scorers collapsed in 1970 after Russell retired and didn't make the playoffs after winning the finals the year before.


they lost sam jones too. and bailey howell declined a lot. and they didn't replace russell with anybody good at all

Sam Jones was washed up in 1969, his loss wasn't a good explaination of Celtics collapse.

Celtics also didn't win anything before Russell.


it looks like a combination of the things i said. jones was the third leading scorer russell's last year. the second leading scorer next year nelson averaged less than jones. and howell averaged 7 less ppg and his fg% was 6 points lower. so they don't look like they had a scoring threat other than havlicek. nelson was a career 10.3 ppg player. not an adequate replacement as a second option. and i never even heard of any of the guys that played center the year after russell retired. they look like a bunch of bench/role players. nothing impressive stands out

they picked up heinsohn in russell's rookie year to replace ed macauley. heinsohn was a much better playoff scorer than macauley. 22.9 ppg vs. 10.0 ppg. that's a huge difference. and frank ramsey was in the military the year before so getting him back added depth. ramsey's fg% went up 7 points in the playoff compared to regular season that year. and of course picking up russell mattered. it wasn't the only noticeable thing that happened though
dhsilv2
RealGM
Posts: 19,299
And1: 7,634
Joined: Oct 04, 2015

Re: more impressive: 1 chip with 0 hofers or 11 with 2-5 hofers? 

Post#280 » by dhsilv2 » Wed Jan 15, 2020 2:59 pm

70sFan wrote:It's a waste of time, you haven't bring anything new to this debate, you just keep saying that you like watchinf Hakeem more. If you think that all Russell did was making open layups then good for you, but don't act like you know anything about his era. Better stay on 1990s topics instead, because you have no clue about Kareem, Wilt or Russell....


Not sure the 90's are his thing either. He still thinks Hakeem peaked back before he figured out passing was better offense than a contested shot after 15 seconds of dribbling.

Return to The General Board