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

[YogurtProducer]

i think lowry will get in the hof. real plus minus says he's a top 6 point guard in the nba for the last 6 years

Completely agree - but that’s the only guy who might.

Do Kyrie and Love make it? Lebron might have done it to if not

marc gasol is a possibility if voters think outside the box

all signs point to kyrie maintaining a very high level of play and he's right in the middle of his prime. it's very reasonable to assume he will be in the hall one day

Gasol would get in due to international stuff tho.

Kyrie May retire tomorrow who knows

[post]

Completely agree - but that’s the only guy who might.

Do Kyrie and Love make it? Lebron might have done it to if not

marc gasol is a possibility if voters think outside the box

all signs point to kyrie maintaining a very high level of play and he's right in the middle of his prime. it's very reasonable to assume he will be in the hall one day

Gasol would get in due to international stuff tho.

Kyrie May retire tomorrow who knows

is gasol's quality as an nba player really that different than jack sikma who just got in the hall? not much. sikma played about 3.5 years longer so there's that if you look at averages which goes in sikma's favor. maybe it's too soon to tell

yeah, we'll have to wait and see about kyrie but i'm assuming he doesn't retire tomorrow

[post]

Russell's teams posted a negative srs without him and had a losing record when he wasn't on the court. HOF's a red herring here. Russell was easily the closest analog to lebron for his era.

i guess you mean when he was injured. not a big surprise a team would play worse with a great player out with injury

Because title worthy teams are usually good without their superstars. Because how important you are to your team is literally how valuable you are.

Russell was more valuable to a dynastic level team than hakeem was to an average title team. Russell not only succedeed more, but he carried harder. Hakeem has zero argument against russell as a player.

are you saying the 94 rockets were an average title team? then why according to srs, which you mentioned, do 82.5% of all nba champions since 1957, russell's first year, have a higher srs than the 94 rockets. that indicates hakeem's zero hofer 94 rockets were historically a pretty bad team yet they won the chip by beating the knicks whose srs was 2.3 points higher than the rockets that year

[post]

Completely agree - but that’s the only guy who might.

Do Kyrie and Love make it? Lebron might have done it to if not

marc gasol is a possibility if voters think outside the box

all signs point to kyrie maintaining a very high level of play and he's right in the middle of his prime. it's very reasonable to assume he will be in the hall one day

Gasol would get in due to international stuff tho.

Kyrie May retire tomorrow who knows

gasol is noticeably better in the playoffs than sikma. 4.6 vs 0.7 career playoff box plus minus in only 19 less games and they both have 1 chip

[post]

walton and olajuwon won 1 each with 0 hofers

russell won 11 with 2-5 hofers

Russell's teams posted a negative srs without him and had a losing record when he wasn't on the court. HOF's a red herring here. Russell was easily the closest analog to lebron for his era.

i calculated wins/losses myself just now. in 13 years the celtics were 26-26 when russell didn't play. in the 2 years hakeem won chips houston was 4-8 in games olajuwon didn't play. so i don't see how your claim has any merit russell's teams were worse than hakeem's teams when they both didn't play. the year after that when hakeem was going for a 3peat houston was 1-9 in games hakeem didn't play

can you show how the negative srs is worse with russell out than the srs of when hakeem is out. i don't think you can. just look at how bad houston was in those 3 years without hakeem. how could they have a better srs without hakeem than boston had without russell

26-26 should produce a better srs than 5-17, right?

[dk1115]

Manu and Tony Parker are going to be in the hall of fame. Great players, but really, HOF? They were borderline all-stars. Steph Curry with Klay Thompson and Draymond Green. Again, all-stars, but HOF?

[post]

Manu and Tony Parker are going to be in the hall of fame. Great players, but really, HOF? They were borderline all-stars. Steph Curry with Klay Thompson and Draymond Green. Again, all-stars, but HOF?

draymond and ginobli probably have stronger cases than klay and tony but we'll have to see. i'd guess at least one from each team will get in, perhaps all 4

[Clyde Frazier]

Where's the punchline...?

[michaelm]

walton and olajuwon won 1 each with 0 hofers

russell won 11 with 2-5 hofers

Russell's teams posted a negative srs without him and had a losing record when he wasn't on the court. HOF's a red herring here. Russell was easily the closest analog to lebron for his era.

i calculated wins/losses myself just now. in 13 years the celtics were 26-26 when russell didn't play. in the 2 years hakeem won chips houston was 4-8 in games olajuwon didn't play. so i don't see how your claim has any merit russell's teams were worse than hakeem's teams when they both didn't play. the year after that when hakeem was going for a 3peat houston was 1-9 in games hakeem didn't play

can you show how the negative srs is worse with russell out than the srs of when hakeem is out. i don't think you can. just look at how bad houston was in those 3 years without hakeem. how could they have a better srs without hakeem than boston had without russell

26-26 should produce a better srs than 5-17, right?

Simple question. What more should Russell have done in his own era to win your approval ?.

[deneem4]

Lebron beating 73-9 Warriors was more impressive.

That ring will never get beaten for the most impressive of all time imo.

Not really.

That 73-9 Warriors had injuries on Curry, Bogut & Iggy.

People discrediting Kawhi's 2019 ring for beating an injury plauged GSW team.

It's only fair to discredit LeBron's 2016 ring with same reasoning.

Absolutely ridiculous claim. Dirk on his own, sick and not only against prime Lebron but also prime Wade and Bosh plus super role players AND the league itself single handedly beat down the heat. Who here remembers "cough gate"? Ugliest side of Bron in bright daylight.

Bron's "victory" over GSW on the other hand was an obvious political move. Suspending Green, phantom calls fouling out the MVP Curry, injuries and all sorts of questionable officiating plus Kyrie making the crucial goal was the key to that asterisk title.

There’s no controversy with dirk ring...
He simply beat goats...

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

11 rings is not a fluke, it's a sign your team is stacked with so much talent it's almost unfair to the rest of the league for more than a decade

Before I actually looked at box scores and playoff series results for the 11 championship Celtics I had assumed that the 1960s Celtics dominated the NBA. But that wasn't true.

The 1960s Celtics were in a lot of 7 games series and a bunch of those game 7s were close until the final minutes.

So what happened?
Maybe the Celtics played down to the level of their competition.
MYbe the Celtics were lucky.
Maybe the Celtics could always find a little something extra when they had to and were very clutch.
Maybe the less playoff experience teams cracked under pressure and the Celtics did not.

Probabably a bit of all of the above.

4 out of 11 russell finals series were 4-0 or 4-1

2 out 11 were 4-2 series

the other 5 were 7 game series, 4 of which game 7 was decided by 3 points or less, the other was a blowout

so it's a mix. sometimes boston destroyed teams, sometimes the other team had a fighting chance, and sometimes it was a coin toss outcome

perhaps red aurebach had something to do with it. i don't know

in 69, the last of the 11 chips, boston had russell, havlicek, jones, and howell as their 4 hofers vs. the lakers 3 hofers west, baylor, and chamberlain. perhaps the talent advantage simply won out

or as you said, a little bit of this and that and who knows what

1957 finals 4-3 game 7 by 2, semi-finals 3-0
1958 finals 2-4 Celtics lose, semi-finals
1959 finals 4-0, Semi-finals 4-3 game 7 decided by 5 points
1960 finals 4-3 all 4 Celtic wins are blow outs semi-finals 4-2
1961 Celtics dominate playoffs 4-1 and 4-1
1963 finals 4-2 semifinals 4-3
1964 Celtics dominate playoffs, 4-1 and 4-1
1965 finals 4-1 semi-finals 4-3 win game 7 by one point
1966 finals 4-3 game 7 by 2, semi-finals 4-1, ECSF 3-2
1967 semi-finals Celtics lose 4-1, EDSF 3-1
1968 finals 4-2 semi-finals 4-3 win game 7 by 4, EDSF 4-2
1969 finals 4-3 winning game 7 by 2, semi-finals 4-2 EDSF 4-1 (4th place East reg season)

So the Celtics dominated the playoffs in 2 out of 11 years.
They barely won some years but they did win.

[LesGrossman]

Not really.

That 73-9 Warriors had injuries on Curry, Bogut & Iggy.

People discrediting Kawhi's 2019 ring for beating an injury plauged GSW team.

It's only fair to discredit LeBron's 2016 ring with same reasoning.

Absolutely ridiculous claim. Dirk on his own, sick and not only against prime Lebron but also prime Wade and Bosh plus super role players AND the league itself single handedly beat down the heat. Who here remembers "cough gate"? Ugliest side of Bron in bright daylight.

Bron's "victory" over GSW on the other hand was an obvious political move. Suspending Green, phantom calls fouling out the MVP Curry, injuries and all sorts of questionable officiating plus Kyrie making the crucial goal was the key to that asterisk title.

There’s no controversy with dirk ring...
He simply beat goats...

There is, sadly. Young guns 6 obviously disagrees with the rest of the world, see above. One reason is that the most impressive win must go to lebron obviously, the other is that Dirk beat Prime Bron, Prime Wade, Prime Bosh, Mike Miller and James Jones as sharpshooters (Bron demanded more firepower after the loss and got Ray Allen...). The series also involved the "cough gate" where Wade and Bron publicly made fun of Dirk being sick with flu. Well it ended up as the defintion of backfire.

[Prokorov]

walton and olajuwon won 1 each with 0 hofers

russell won 11 with 2-5 hofers

Hakeems was carried. russells is 1 billion times the player hakeem was

[post]

Russell's teams posted a negative srs without him and had a losing record when he wasn't on the court. HOF's a red herring here. Russell was easily the closest analog to lebron for his era.

i calculated wins/losses myself just now. in 13 years the celtics were 26-26 when russell didn't play. in the 2 years hakeem won chips houston was 4-8 in games olajuwon didn't play. so i don't see how your claim has any merit russell's teams were worse than hakeem's teams when they both didn't play. the year after that when hakeem was going for a 3peat houston was 1-9 in games hakeem didn't play

can you show how the negative srs is worse with russell out than the srs of when hakeem is out. i don't think you can. just look at how bad houston was in those 3 years without hakeem. how could they have a better srs without hakeem than boston had without russell

26-26 should produce a better srs than 5-17, right?

Simple question. What more should Russell have done in his own era to win your approval ?.

don't know what you mean by "approval." i'm not denying he was very good

[post]

Russell's teams posted a negative srs without him and had a losing record when he wasn't on the court. HOF's a red herring here. Russell was easily the closest analog to lebron for his era.

i calculated wins/losses myself just now. in 13 years the celtics were 26-26 when russell didn't play. in the 2 years hakeem won chips houston was 4-8 in games olajuwon didn't play. so i don't see how your claim has any merit russell's teams were worse than hakeem's teams when they both didn't play. the year after that when hakeem was going for a 3peat houston was 1-9 in games hakeem didn't play

can you show how the negative srs is worse with russell out than the srs of when hakeem is out. i don't think you can. just look at how bad houston was in those 3 years without hakeem. how could they have a better srs without hakeem than boston had without russell

26-26 should produce a better srs than 5-17, right?

Simple question. What more should Russell have done in his own era to win your approval ?.

don't know what you mean by "approval." i'm not denying he was very good

[post]

Before I actually looked at box scores and playoff series results for the 11 championship Celtics I had assumed that the 1960s Celtics dominated the NBA. But that wasn't true.

The 1960s Celtics were in a lot of 7 games series and a bunch of those game 7s were close until the final minutes.

So what happened?
Maybe the Celtics played down to the level of their competition.
MYbe the Celtics were lucky.
Maybe the Celtics could always find a little something extra when they had to and were very clutch.
Maybe the less playoff experience teams cracked under pressure and the Celtics did not.

Probabably a bit of all of the above.

4 out of 11 russell finals series were 4-0 or 4-1

2 out 11 were 4-2 series

the other 5 were 7 game series, 4 of which game 7 was decided by 3 points or less, the other was a blowout

so it's a mix. sometimes boston destroyed teams, sometimes the other team had a fighting chance, and sometimes it was a coin toss outcome

perhaps red aurebach had something to do with it. i don't know

in 69, the last of the 11 chips, boston had russell, havlicek, jones, and howell as their 4 hofers vs. the lakers 3 hofers west, baylor, and chamberlain. perhaps the talent advantage simply won out

or as you said, a little bit of this and that and who knows what

1957 finals 4-3 game 7 by 2, semi-finals 3-0
1958 finals 2-4 Celtics lose, semi-finals
1959 finals 4-0, Semi-finals 4-3 game 7 decided by 5 points
1960 finals 4-3 all 4 Celtic wins are blow outs semi-finals 4-2
1961 Celtics dominate playoffs 4-1 and 4-1
1963 finals 4-2 semifinals 4-3
1964 Celtics dominate playoffs, 4-1 and 4-1
1965 finals 4-1 semi-finals 4-3 win game 7 by one point
1966 finals 4-3 game 7 by 2, semi-finals 4-1, ECSF 3-2
1967 semi-finals Celtics lose 4-1, EDSF 3-1
1968 finals 4-2 semi-finals 4-3 win game 7 by 4, EDSF 4-2
1969 finals 4-3 winning game 7 by 2, semi-finals 4-2 EDSF 4-1 (4th place East reg season)

So the Celtics dominated the playoffs in 2 out of 11 years.
They barely won some years but they did win.

i suppose you meant 2 out of 13 years since you listed 12 but said 11 and also left out 1962 when the celtics won the chip and both series went 7 games

1958 russell was hurt and missed a significant chunk of that series with boston losing 3 out of the last 4 games by 1, 2, and 3 points. it's reasonable to assume boston wins that series if russell is healthy. so 58 doesn't help the idea that somehow boston didn't dominate for 13 years by winning in 12/13 years. i'm more interested in that basic 12/13 outcome than the precise amount of points boston won by or how many games a series went in the finals or otherwise. they dominated in the absolute sense of hardly ever losing a series when healthy. winning is ultimately what a team tries to accomplish regardless of what that winning looks like

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

11 wins 2 losses
Leaving out 1962 was an accident

Only 2 seasons of playoff domination


For an 11 Championships in 13 years team I would have expected more domination.
How did they always win the close ones?
The 1967 loss wasn't a close one, the 76ers dominated the Celtics.
After 1967 you you would have thought the Celtics era would end.

[JordansBulls]

Well when you come into the league playing with the ROY and League MVP winner what do you expect?

[deneem4]

Absolutely ridiculous claim. Dirk on his own, sick and not only against prime Lebron but also prime Wade and Bosh plus super role players AND the league itself single handedly beat down the heat. Who here remembers "cough gate"? Ugliest side of Bron in bright daylight.

Bron's "victory" over GSW on the other hand was an obvious political move. Suspending Green, phantom calls fouling out the MVP Curry, injuries and all sorts of questionable officiating plus Kyrie making the crucial goal was the key to that asterisk title.

There’s no controversy with dirk ring...
He simply beat goats...

There is, sadly. Young guns 6 obviously disagrees with the rest of the world, see above. One reason is that the most impressive win must go to lebron obviously, the other is that Dirk beat Prime Bron, Prime Wade, Prime Bosh, Mike Miller and James Jones as sharpshooters (Bron demanded more firepower after the loss and got Ray Allen...). The series also involved the "cough gate" where Wade and Bron publicly made fun of Dirk being sick with flu. Well it ended up as the defintion of backfire.

Very detailed. sarcasm.

[post]

11 wins 2 losses
Leaving out 1962 was an accident

Only 2 seasons of playoff domination


For an 11 Championships in 13 years team I would have expected more domination.
How did they always win the close ones?
The 1967 loss wasn't a close one, the 76ers dominated the Celtics.
After 1967 you you would have thought the Celtics era would end.

any team wins close ones the same way any team wins non close ones: by putting the ball in the basket more than the other team

no reason to think the celtics era would end after 67 when russell could call up his 3 hof teammates and say hey let's go win another 2 because we can