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

[70sFan]

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

Do you know anything else other than ppg averages? Do you know that ppg stats are meaningless without context and further analysis?

[70sFan]

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.

Yeah, you are right although I want to add one thing - it's not long dribbling a la Barkley or Dantley that was a problem for Hakeem, he actually made quick decisions with the ball, but his shooting selection. He took a lot of tough shots (from double teams) and he didn't look to create for others. He didn't waste a lot of time, but he wasted scoring opportunities. He definitely improved in that aspect by mid-90s.

[michaelm]

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]

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.

Horry posted playoff BPMs of 2.8, 5.6, 5.7, 5.5

Not the end all be all metric, but it does tend to be our best regular everyday box score metric and 3 of those playoff years those are allstar level metrics if not all NBA, especially in that era before we had these do everything "heliocentric offense" players. Horry was way ahead of his time as a floor spacer (which made Hakeem look far better than he would have without Horry), he was a switably man defender who was at worst in the top 25% of team defenders in the league at the time.

Horry's impact was huge on those rocket teams, it isn't his fault hakeem didn't look to pass more and he was more an outlet. Horry proved time and time again over his career he could do more on offense than he was regularly called to do and he consistently stepped up on both ends in the playoffs over a pretty long career.

[dhsilv2]

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.

Yeah, you are right although I want to add one thing - it's not long dribbling a la Barkley or Dantley that was a problem for Hakeem, he actually made quick decisions with the ball, but his shooting selection. He took a lot of tough shots (from double teams) and he didn't look to create for others. He didn't waste a lot of time, but he wasted scoring opportunities. He definitely improved in that aspect by mid-90s.

Well nobody is chuck or dantley, lol. Though at least Chuck used that to facilitate easier passes often. Hakeem just didn't realize he still had teammates on the floor after a few shakes and spins (exaggeration though seeing playoff losses were someone takes 20 + shots with 0 assists is pretty telling of who he was).

[michaelm]

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

Do you know anything else other than ppg averages? Do you know that ppg stats are meaningless without context and further analysis?

He knows that Hakeem could have done all the things which Russell did but he didn’t if he had needed or wanted to, just because.

Apparently Russell should have been scoring more ppg even though he didn’t actually need to do so however, given his teams won all those titles with what he was doing anyway. Their record the year before and the year after he retired, the year he didn’t play and the year he carried an injury suggests his Celtics needed what he customarily provided rather more than for him to score more points when they were winning anyway.

[70sFan]

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.

Yeah, you are right although I want to add one thing - it's not long dribbling a la Barkley or Dantley that was a problem for Hakeem, he actually made quick decisions with the ball, but his shooting selection. He took a lot of tough shots (from double teams) and he didn't look to create for others. He didn't waste a lot of time, but he wasted scoring opportunities. He definitely improved in that aspect by mid-90s.

Well nobody is chuck or dantley, lol. Though at least Chuck used that to facilitate easier passes often. Hakeem just didn't realize he still had teammates on the floor after a few shakes and spins (exaggeration though seeing playoff losses were someone takes 20 + shots with 0 assists is pretty telling of who he was).

It's true, when Hakeem decided to dance and beat his defender, he didn't pass the ball anymore. He was a bit Moses-esque in those early years.

[dhsilv2]

Yeah, you are right although I want to add one thing - it's not long dribbling a la Barkley or Dantley that was a problem for Hakeem, he actually made quick decisions with the ball, but his shooting selection. He took a lot of tough shots (from double teams) and he didn't look to create for others. He didn't waste a lot of time, but he wasted scoring opportunities. He definitely improved in that aspect by mid-90s.

Well nobody is chuck or dantley, lol. Though at least Chuck used that to facilitate easier passes often. Hakeem just didn't realize he still had teammates on the floor after a few shakes and spins (exaggeration though seeing playoff losses were someone takes 20 + shots with 0 assists is pretty telling of who he was).

It's true, when Hakeem decided to dance and beat his defender, he didn't pass the ball anymore. He was a bit Moses-esque in those early years.

Yeah, of course the nice part of Moses was you didn't have to get him the ball, he'd go get it himself often enough. But yeah Moses is the king of elite scorer who had blinders on. Hakeem wasn't much better early and at his peak and thanks to a LOT of coaching and teammate help, he realized that if he made the smart/easy passes he would get easier looks instead of all those fade aways with 2 guys on him.

[Fencer reregistered]

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.

I'm pretty sure that Celtics never played the Sixers in the Finals.

But you're probably right that the Wilt/West Lakers had coaching challenges until Sharman took over, years after Russell retired. Good thing that Russell had a suitable coach for his last couple of title runs.

[post]

Yeah, you are right although I want to add one thing - it's not long dribbling a la Barkley or Dantley that was a problem for Hakeem, he actually made quick decisions with the ball, but his shooting selection. He took a lot of tough shots (from double teams) and he didn't look to create for others. He didn't waste a lot of time, but he wasted scoring opportunities. He definitely improved in that aspect by mid-90s.

Well nobody is chuck or dantley, lol. Though at least Chuck used that to facilitate easier passes often. Hakeem just didn't realize he still had teammates on the floor after a few shakes and spins (exaggeration though seeing playoff losses were someone takes 20 + shots with 0 assists is pretty telling of who he was).

It's true, when Hakeem decided to dance and beat his defender, he didn't pass the ball anymore. He was a bit Moses-esque in those early years.

Well nobody is chuck or dantley, lol. Though at least Chuck used that to facilitate easier passes often. Hakeem just didn't realize he still had teammates on the floor after a few shakes and spins (exaggeration though seeing playoff losses were someone takes 20 + shots with 0 assists is pretty telling of who he was).

It's true, when Hakeem decided to dance and beat his defender, he didn't pass the ball anymore. He was a bit Moses-esque in those early years.

Yeah, of course the nice part of Moses was you didn't have to get him the ball, he'd go get it himself often enough. But yeah Moses is the king of elite scorer who had blinders on. Hakeem wasn't much better early and at his peak and thanks to a LOT of coaching and teammate help, he realized that if he made the smart/easy passes he would get easier looks instead of all those fade aways with 2 guys on him.

hakeem averaged more assists per 36 minutes during his playoff peak than moses when he won with the sixers in 83, not to mention more points on better efficiency and better defense. that was the most talent moses played with. hofers dr. j and maurice cheeks and andrew toney who was a really good third option for a few years. hakeem had worse help during his 3 year peak. put hakeem on those sixers and he probably wins more chips than moses because he was more consistent

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

Well nobody is chuck or dantley, lol. Though at least Chuck used that to facilitate easier passes often. Hakeem just didn't realize he still had teammates on the floor after a few shakes and spins ).

It's true, when Hakeem decided to dance and beat his defender, he didn't pass the ball anymore. He was a bit Moses-esque in those early years.

There are plenty of players that get some tunnel vision when they go into their moves. Barkley wasn't one of them, he just burned shot clock but if an opportunity arrived he would see it.

There was a contrast between Ainge and Dennis Johnson on the Celtics that beat Hakeem in 1986.
Ainge had a slow drive and could not beat people off the dribble well but he could always see the open man. Dennis Johnson was a great floor general. Dennis Johnson racked up assists methodically and smartly running the Celtics offense; but when Dennis Johnson drove he was below average at seeing the open men. His drive was good but he wasn't good at drive and kick.

McHale also was like Hakeem. Once McHale started his moves it was like he had blinders on. He knew were the basket was and where the defenders were but his ability to see an open team mate was poor.

I give McHale and Hakeem a complete pass for not seeing teammates because they were efficient scorers even if they were double teamed. If they could see the open guys that would just be gravy. Being able to score well against a double team is good enough. It is OK if they can't see open teammates.

Even now in the current league, not being able to see teammates is acceptable if the guys other skills are good enough. I am hearing the idea that modern basketball is not an isolation game and passing skills are mandatory but the 1986 Celtics were not an isolation team and McHale did not kill the team passing despite his being weak at passing.

I think some people exaggerate the importance of Hakeem not being good at seeing open men.

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

Moses's stats should be adjusted. Subtract 1 or 2 missed shots per game from his stats and subtract 1 or 2 offensive rebounds. He was effectively passing to himself off the rim.

[post]

Well nobody is chuck or dantley, lol. Though at least Chuck used that to facilitate easier passes often. Hakeem just didn't realize he still had teammates on the floor after a few shakes and spins ).

It's true, when Hakeem decided to dance and beat his defender, he didn't pass the ball anymore. He was a bit Moses-esque in those early years.

There are plenty of players that get some tunnel vision when they go into their moves. Barkley wasn't one of them, he just burned shot clock but if an opportunity arrived he would see it.

There was a contrast between Ainge and Dennis Johnson on the Celtics that beat Hakeem in 1986.
Ainge had a slow drive and could not beat people off the dribble well but he could always see the open man. Dennis Johnson was a great floor general. Dennis Johnson racked up assists methodically and smartly running the Celtics offense; but when Dennis Johnson drove he was below average at seeing the open men. His drive was good but he wasn't good at drive and kick.

McHale also was like Hakeem. Once McHale started his moves it was like he had blinders on. He knew were the basket was and where the defenders were but his ability to see an open team mate was poor.

I give McHale and Hakeem a complete pass for not seeing teammates because they were efficient scorers even if they were double teamed. If they could see the open guys that would just be gravy. Being able to score well against a double team is good enough. It is OK if they can't see open teammates.

Even now in the current league, not being able to see teammates is acceptable if the guys other skills are good enough. I am hearing the idea that modern basketball is not an isolation game and passing skills are mandatory but the 1986 Celtics were not an isolation team and McHale did not kill the team passing despite his being weak at passing.

I think some people exaggerate the importance of Hakeem not being good at seeing open men.

if ralph sampson doesn't play terrible in the 86 finals and if houston had drafted better they not only would've won but had a much better chance of winning other years in the late 80's and early 90's. drafting rodney mccray in 83 over both clyde drexler and dale ellis was a major mistake. either one of those guys was much more valuable

[post]

Moses's stats should be adjusted. Subtract 1 or 2 missed shots per game from his stats and subtract 1 or 2 offensive rebounds. He was effectively passing to himself off the rim.

not buying that logic. you miss you miss

[post]

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.

Horry posted playoff BPMs of 2.8, 5.6, 5.7, 5.5

Not the end all be all metric, but it does tend to be our best regular everyday box score metric and 3 of those playoff years those are allstar level metrics if not all NBA, especially in that era before we had these do everything "heliocentric offense" players. Horry was way ahead of his time as a floor spacer (which made Hakeem look far better than he would have without Horry), he was a switably man defender who was at worst in the top 25% of team defenders in the league at the time.

Horry's impact was huge on those rocket teams, it isn't his fault hakeem didn't look to pass more and he was more an outlet. Horry proved time and time again over his career he could do more on offense than he was regularly called to do and he consistently stepped up on both ends in the playoffs over a pretty long career.

he was a career 7 ppg player that could shoot a bit, pass a bit, and play a bit of defense. he's a bench player the majority of his career, a 5th option starter on houston in the regular season during their title years and a 3rd option starter on playoff teams with a lack of scoring talent carried by goats like hakeem

should otis thorpe be in the hall of fame too? despite making the all star team in 92, he played 4 minutes in the all star game and kevin johnson and mitch richmond, who didn't make the team, deserved to be on the team more than thorpe. if thorpe never made that one all star team no one would ever think he was an all star level player

[michaelm]

Moses's stats should be adjusted. Subtract 1 or 2 missed shots per game from his stats and subtract 1 or 2 offensive rebounds. He was effectively passing to himself off the rim.

not buying that logic. you miss you miss

I don’t have any preoccupation with Moses Malone’s statistics at all, but the logic is actually impeccable, the effect on the result of the game was identical on such occasions whichever of the 2 given alternatives for allotting the statistics was followed.

[dhsilv2]

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.

Horry posted playoff BPMs of 2.8, 5.6, 5.7, 5.5

Not the end all be all metric, but it does tend to be our best regular everyday box score metric and 3 of those playoff years those are allstar level metrics if not all NBA, especially in that era before we had these do everything "heliocentric offense" players. Horry was way ahead of his time as a floor spacer (which made Hakeem look far better than he would have without Horry), he was a switably man defender who was at worst in the top 25% of team defenders in the league at the time.

Horry's impact was huge on those rocket teams, it isn't his fault hakeem didn't look to pass more and he was more an outlet. Horry proved time and time again over his career he could do more on offense than he was regularly called to do and he consistently stepped up on both ends in the playoffs over a pretty long career.

he was a career 7 ppg player that could shoot a bit, pass a bit, and play a bit of defense. he's a bench player the majority of his career, a 5th option starter on houston in the regular season during their title years and a 3rd option starter on playoff teams with a lack of scoring talent carried by goats like hakeem

should otis thorpe be in the hall of fame too? despite making the all star team in 92, he played 4 minutes in the all star game and kevin johnson and mitch richmond, who didn't make the team, deserved to be on the team more than thorpe. if thorpe never made that one all star team no one would ever think he was an all star level player

Nobody gives a damn about points per game for crying out loud. Stop discussing that stupid meaningless crap already! Yeash.

[OdomFan]

Horry posted playoff BPMs of 2.8, 5.6, 5.7, 5.5

Not the end all be all metric, but it does tend to be our best regular everyday box score metric and 3 of those playoff years those are allstar level metrics if not all NBA, especially in that era before we had these do everything "heliocentric offense" players. Horry was way ahead of his time as a floor spacer (which made Hakeem look far better than he would have without Horry), he was a switably man defender who was at worst in the top 25% of team defenders in the league at the time.

Horry's impact was huge on those rocket teams, it isn't his fault hakeem didn't look to pass more and he was more an outlet. Horry proved time and time again over his career he could do more on offense than he was regularly called to do and he consistently stepped up on both ends in the playoffs over a pretty long career.

he was a career 7 ppg player that could shoot a bit, pass a bit, and play a bit of defense. he's a bench player the majority of his career, a 5th option starter on houston in the regular season during their title years and a 3rd option starter on playoff teams with a lack of scoring talent carried by goats like hakeem

should otis thorpe be in the hall of fame too? despite making the all star team in 92, he played 4 minutes in the all star game and kevin johnson and mitch richmond, who didn't make the team, deserved to be on the team more than thorpe. if thorpe never made that one all star team no one would ever think he was an all star level player

Nobody gives a damn about points per game for crying out loud. Stop discussing that stupid meaningless crap already! Yeash.

This is more false than Horry deserving a spot in the HOF. He was a decent teammate but just doesn't belong among the best of the best.

[dhsilv2]

he was a career 7 ppg player that could shoot a bit, pass a bit, and play a bit of defense. he's a bench player the majority of his career, a 5th option starter on houston in the regular season during their title years and a 3rd option starter on playoff teams with a lack of scoring talent carried by goats like hakeem

should otis thorpe be in the hall of fame too? despite making the all star team in 92, he played 4 minutes in the all star game and kevin johnson and mitch richmond, who didn't make the team, deserved to be on the team more than thorpe. if thorpe never made that one all star team no one would ever think he was an all star level player

Nobody gives a damn about points per game for crying out loud. Stop discussing that stupid meaningless crap already! Yeash.

This is more false than Horry deserving a spot in the HOF. He was a decent teammate but just doesn't belong among the best of the best.

if you care about points per game and not impact on the basketball court, to be honest I don't think you're one I want to discuss basketball with.

As for Horry, i think the best question about the hall should be a simple one. Can you tell the story of the NBA without this player, and to be honest horry absolutely is a story that should be remembered. I can name a LOT of players from his era or around it who are in, who frankly that isn't the case. The hall isn't the hall of great players nor is it the hall of points per game. hell it isn't even the nba hall of fame.

[OdomFan]

Nobody gives a damn about points per game for crying out loud. Stop discussing that stupid meaningless crap already! Yeash.

This is more false than Horry deserving a spot in the HOF. He was a decent teammate but just doesn't belong among the best of the best.

if you care about points per game and not impact on the basketball court, to be honest I don't think you're one I want to discuss basketball with.

As for Horry, i think the best question about the hall should be a simple one. Can you tell the story of the NBA without this player, and to be honest Horry absolutely is a story that should be remembered. I can name a LOT of players from his era or around it who are in, who frankly that isn't the case. The hall isn't the hall of great players nor is it the hall of points per game. hell it isn't even the nba hall of fame.

There is no one or the other because points per game is just as important in making an impact on the court as everything else that the individual players contribute for their teams chances of winning every single game they play in. However not every player that the coach puts on the floor has to focus on putting up large numbers in that category which is fine.

This is why each player is assigned roles to primarily focus on in order to make that impact in each games final outcome. With that being said, everything you have about Robert Horry here pretty much sums up why I look at him as a memorable role player. He did his part for the team on both ends of the floor well (otherwise he wouldn't have made it into the league at all) but so has everyone else that gets consistent minutes for the teams they play for. This is all well and good but it doesn't mean they all deserve spots in the Basketball Hall of Famer.