John Havlicek vs Scottie Pippen

[Cavsfansince84]

russell's celtics completely unaffected by the presence or absence of his teammates. Fell like #3/#2 is disinegenous here. The celtics were really just Bill + glorified role players.

hondo was never a "co-1" with bill

Don't agree at all and I'm not even sure how you arrived to that conclusion. Cousy, Jones and Hondo we more than just role players. I mean geez, how many role players lead title teams in both scoring and assists and have finals where thy average 28/11/4 while also being top defensive players? Jones also had incredible scoring series and some huge game 7's which saved their seasons. I think calling Hondo a co #1 for the 68/69 title runs is deserved.

[70sFan]

russell's celtics completely unaffected by the presence or absence of his teammates. Fell like #3/#2 is disinegenous here. The celtics were really just Bill + glorified role players.

hondo was never a "co-1" with bill

Don't agree at all and I'm not even sure how you arrived to that conclusion. Cousy, Jones and Hondo we more than just role players. I mean geez, how many role players lead title teams in both scoring and assists and have finals where thy average 28/11/4 while also being top defensive players? Jones also had incredible scoring series and some huge game 7's which saved their seasons. I think calling Hondo a co #1 for the 68/69 title runs is deserved.

I'd say 1968-69 Hondo is similar to the early 2000s Kobe, he was clearly a second best player on his team but elite one.

[Cavsfansince84]

I'd say 1968-69 Hondo is similar to the early 2000s Kobe, he was clearly a second best player on his team but elite one.

Well at the least it has to be appreciated that Russell had definite limitations offensively and that Hondo played huge in those postseasons. So it was still Russell's team but when a guy does as much as Hondo did it needs to be recognized as part of his legacy. Pippen I don't think reached that level.

[countryboy667]

Do you care to share why? I'm leaning Havlicek as well just curious of your reasoning

Sent from my SM-G975U using RealGM mobile app

A few things:

1. Havlicek was better offensive player in my opinion. Not for his whole career, but once he reached his basketball prime he was very versatile player on that end. Great passer, outstanding off-ball player, solid shooter who didn't mind taking tough shots in heated situations. Pippen was more limited offensively in my opinion, even though he was quite good as well.

2. Hondo was clearly a better postseason performer in my opinion. I don't have the time to share data, but Havlicek improved his production in the playoffs, while Pippen usually regressed slightly.

3. Pippen was a better defender (quite clearly), but I'm quite high on Havlicek's defense. He was a versatile man defender, excellent communicator and had a great vision. His physical talent is also underrated, he often looked a bit clumsy on the court but he was big, strong and long defender with endless endurance.

Thanks for the elaboration ! I agree with everything you've listed. Havlicek career achievements clearly exceed Pippen's and as a player I agree that Havlicek is clearly better on the offensive end averaged more ppg and was more reliable as a primary scorer if need be. As you said Scottie has the edge defensively but Havlicek is one of the most underrated defenders in history he rarely gets mentioned when all time perimeter defenders is discussed. Havlicek is underated in general Pippen is routinely listed higher than Havlicek when ranking small fowards and while it's close I definitely think Havlicek has the edge as a player and career wise

Sent from my SM-G975U using RealGM mobile app

In a game 7 of a series with everything on the line and an MJ or Kobe or Harden or prime Westbrook type player as the opposing team's star, if I'm the coach that has to face them, give me Hondo to guard them and I'll sleep without any worries the night before, because I know the job is in the best hands possible.

[OhayoKD]

russell's celtics completely unaffected by the presence or absence of his teammates. Fell like #3/#2 is disinegenous here. The celtics were really just Bill + glorified role players.

hondo was never a "co-1" with bill

Don't agree at all and I'm not even sure how you arrived to that conclusion. Cousy, Jones and Hondo we more than just role players. I mean geez, how many role players lead title teams in both scoring and assists and have finals where thy average 28/11/4 while also being top defensive players? Jones also had incredible scoring series and some huge game 7's which saved their seasons. I think calling Hondo a co #1 for the 68/69 title runs is deserved.

I arrived to that conclusion because the celtics literally weren't affected when russell's teammates missed games. If hondo was actually so good, then how come the celtics were horrible without russell in his last season the following year. Box-stats don't really mean much for 60's players.

[Cavsfansince84]

I arrived to that conclusion because the celtics literally weren't affected when russell's teammates missed games. If hondo was actually so good, then how come the celtics were horrible without russell in his last season the following year. Box-stats don't really mean much for 60's players.

They didn't just lose Russell after 69 but there's no doubt he still had great impact. The logic you are using to say all these other guys were just role players though doesn't hold much water to me. I mean Russell can be a top 4 player every year from 57-69 and still have teammates who are more than role players. I think Hondo's post Russell career speaks for itself.

[OhayoKD]

I arrived to that conclusion because the celtics literally weren't affected when russell's teammates missed games. If hondo was actually so good, then how come the celtics were horrible without russell in his last season the following year. Box-stats don't really mean much for 60's players.

They didn't just lose Russell after 69 but there's no doubt he still had great impact. The logic you are using to say all these other guys were just role players though doesn't hold much water to me. I mean Russell can be a top 4 player every year from 57-69 and still have teammates who are more than role players. I think Hondo's post Russell career speaks for itself.

russell wasn't a "top 4 player", he was "way more valuable than any modern player" for most of that time-span. You're acting like socring 28 points(btw adjust for pace) was why the celtics won stuff, but really it was just their defense and the team didn't get signifcantly better or worse when any of russell's teammates missed games. I don't understand the logic of "ignore what happened to the team, look at these box stats".

[Owly]

russell's celtics completely unaffected by the presence or absence of his teammates.

From what I can tell WoWy does not agree with this. A noisy measure certainly but perhaps the least worst especially with regard to the specific statement.

From ElGee's WoWY table ...
Player Prime WOWYR PW rank Prime GP Career WOWYR CW rank
Jones..KC. 5.2 65 428 4.8 56
Cousy 4.4 92 852 3.9 106
Howell 3.6 151 847 3.7 114
Jones..Sam. 3.4 166 744 3.2 151
Havlicek 3.8 132 1264 3.2 151
Sharman 3.4 166 585 3.1 167
Heinsohn 1.8 344 818 1.8 310
Ramsey 1 450 460 0.9 433
Sanders..Tom. -2.5 661 831 -2.3 654

The top 6 look significantly impactful (and top 200 in a sample group of 671 and trending high end players - all prime and career numbers are better than or equal to, for instance Reggie Miller), Ramsey, Heinsohn smaller positives, only Sanders unmissed. Not all these games missed will be in the Russell era, this measure is super noisy and not necessarily comparing apples with apples.

I may be wrong but I'd need more evidence to move me to the idea that other Celtics weren't impactful.

[OhayoKD]

russell's celtics completely unaffected by the presence or absence of his teammates.

From what I can tell WoWy does not agree with this. A noisy measure certainly but perhaps the least worst especially with regard to the specific statement.

From ElGee's WoWY table ...
Player Prime WOWYR PW rank Prime GP Career WOWYR CW rank
Jones..KC. 5.2 65 428 4.8 56
Cousy 4.4 92 852 3.9 106
Howell 3.6 151 847 3.7 114
Jones..Sam. 3.4 166 744 3.2 151
Havlicek 3.8 132 1264 3.2 151
Sharman 3.4 166 585 3.1 167
Heinsohn 1.8 344 818 1.8 310
Ramsey 1 450 460 0.9 433
Sanders..Tom. -2.5 661 831 -2.3 654

The top 6 look significantly impactful (and top 200 in a sample group of 671 and trending high end players - all prime and career numbers are better than or equal to, for instance Reggie Miller), Ramsey, Heinsohn smaller positives, only Sanders unmissed. Not all these games missed will be in the Russell era, this measure is super noisy and not necessarily comparing apples with apples.

I may be wrong but I'd need more evidence to move me to the idea that other Celtics weren't impactful.

well that's kinda odd since it was ben taylor who made that exact argument and cited wowy samples. but maybe i'm underselling them. Still as far as this comparison is concerned...

Jordan leaves the Bulls and Kukoc joins: Bulls go from 6.2 SRS champions to 2.9 SRS conference contenders
Russell and Sam Jones (who was playing under 30 minutes a game in both the regular season and postseason) retire and the Celtics go from 5.35 SRS champions to -1.6 SRS missing the playoffs.
Russell wins 6 titles without Havlicek, while Jordan never wins a series without Pippen playing starter-level minutes (sadly he was not a starter in the 1988 win over the Cleveland Cavaliers, although he did play more than two starters).
Damn if only Pippen reached the same level.

[Cavsfansince84]

russell wasn't a "top 4 player", he was "way more valuable than any modern player" for most of that time-span. You're acting like socring 28 points(btw adjust for pace) was why the celtics won stuff, but really it was just their defense and the team didn't get signifcantly better or worse when any of russell's teammates missed games. I don't understand the logic of "ignore what happened to the team, look at these box stats".

I said top 4 to be conservative throughout his career. For most of that I'd say he was top 2 at worst with many at #1. Your whole box score argument is pretty narrow minded imo. I mean at the end of the day you still need guys who can score and who also play defense. Look at how many game 7's the Celtics played in that period and how many came down to Sam Jones making a shot or scoring 47 points on great shooting or other games where he stepped up as did Hondo. As I said, Hondo showed he could be the focal point of dominant teams after Russell was done. That's on top of all of the all nba teams he made. So I mean you can dismiss all of that and say he was a role player if you like but I think I made a pretty clear case why I don't agree with you though you could make that argument for his early years.

[70sFan]

You can think that Russell was a GOAT candidate and by far the best player on his team without putting his teammates down.

[OhayoKD]

russell wasn't a "top 4 player", he was "way more valuable than any modern player" for most of that time-span. You're acting like socring 28 points(btw adjust for pace) was why the celtics won stuff, but really it was just their defense and the team didn't get signifcantly better or worse when any of russell's teammates missed games. I don't understand the logic of "ignore what happened to the team, look at these box stats".

I said top 4 to be conservative throughout his career. For most of that I'd say he was top 2 at worst with many at #1. Your whole box score argument is pretty narrow minded imo. I mean at the end of the day you still need guys who can score and who also play defense. Look at how many game 7's the Celtics played in that period and how many came down to Sam Jones making a shot or scoring 47 points on great shooting or other games where he stepped up as did Hondo. As I said, Hondo showed he could be the focal point of dominant teams after Russell was done. That's on top of all of the all nba teams he made. So I mean you can dismiss all of that and say he was a role player if you like but I think I made a pretty clear case why I don't agree with you though you could make that argument for his early years.

So was russell depressing his impact stuff?

[Cavsfansince84]

So was russell depressing his impact stuff?

Well Hondo improved a lot from 63 to 1970 when it became his team. I don't think we actually have reliable impact data from that period anyhow. At this point I don't think there's much left to say and this thread isn't really about Russell and his supporting casts from 57-69. I don't even know how we got here tbh.

[OhayoKD]

So was russell depressing his impact stuff?

Well Hondo improved a lot from 63 to 1970 when it became his team. I don't think we actually have reliable impact data from that period anyhow. At this point I don't think there's much left to say and this thread isn't really about Russell and his supporting casts from 57-69. I don't even know how we got here tbh.

I mean, a full season sample(70) is probably about as good as you're going to get for impact data. Even adjusted plus minus will runinto colinerarity issues in a way wowy doesn't(at least that's what timo told me)

the comparison is hondo vs pippen and the bulls didn't fall off nearly as much without mj and they weren't nearly as good before pippen. So unless hondo got alot better after russell it's pretty hard to buy he was as good.

[TT8198]

russell wasn't a "top 4 player", he was "way more valuable than any modern player" for most of that time-span. You're acting like socring 28 points(btw adjust for pace) was why the celtics won stuff, but really it was just their defense and the team didn't get signifcantly better or worse when any of russell's teammates missed games. I don't understand the logic of "ignore what happened to the team, look at these box stats".

I said top 4 to be conservative throughout his career. For most of that I'd say he was top 2 at worst with many at #1. Your whole box score argument is pretty narrow minded imo. I mean at the end of the day you still need guys who can score and who also play defense. Look at how many game 7's the Celtics played in that period and how many came down to Sam Jones making a shot or scoring 47 points on great shooting or other games where he stepped up as did Hondo. As I said, Hondo showed he could be the focal point of dominant teams after Russell was done. That's on top of all of the all nba teams he made. So I mean you can dismiss all of that and say he was a role player if you like but I think I made a pretty clear case why I don't agree with you though you could make that argument for his early years.

So was russell depressing his impact stuff?

I wouldn't say that I'd just say those 60's Celtics were just really deep with alot of impactful players and contributors and they played in a system where you wasn't going to get crazy numbers but it could be anyone's night. But those 60's Celtics teams was loaded.

Sent from my SM-G975U using RealGM mobile app

[Cavsfansince84]

I mean, a full season sample(70) is probably about as good as you're going to get for impact data. Even adjusted plus minus will runinto colinerarity issues in a way wowy doesn't(at least that's what timo told me)

the comparison is hondo vs pippen and the bulls didn't fall off nearly as much without mj and they weren't nearly as good before pippen. So unless hondo got alot better after russell it's pretty hard to buy he was as good.

I do think they fell more than wins would say if that's what you're referencing regarding the 94 Bulls. In terms of srs they fell off quite a bit from 6.2 and being 2nd in the league in Net differential to 2.9 and 11th. The wins drop off is sort of a mirage. Meanwhile the Celtics lost Russell and Jones while Howell dropped off a lot but then just two years later with Cowens sort of taking on the Russell role they win 56 games and 68 the year after that. So given that Hondo was at worst the 2nd best player on those teams I'd say it speaks to him having strong impact(though he did continue to improve) since I don't think Cowens is on the same tier as Russell in terms of impact. So yes calling him co #1 on the 68&69 teams is definitely debatable but I think arguing him below #2 status is too much. That's just me. No one has to agree with me but I don't think you could have traded Hondo out for a league average player or even close to it and won titles those years nor Jones in the 62-66 years.

[Owly]

russell's celtics completely unaffected by the presence or absence of his teammates.

From what I can tell WoWy does not agree with this. A noisy measure certainly but perhaps the least worst especially with regard to the specific statement.

From ElGee's WoWY table ...
Player Prime WOWYR PW rank Prime GP Career WOWYR CW rank
Jones..KC. 5.2 65 428 4.8 56
Cousy 4.4 92 852 3.9 106
Howell 3.6 151 847 3.7 114
Jones..Sam. 3.4 166 744 3.2 151
Havlicek 3.8 132 1264 3.2 151
Sharman 3.4 166 585 3.1 167
Heinsohn 1.8 344 818 1.8 310
Ramsey 1 450 460 0.9 433
Sanders..Tom. -2.5 661 831 -2.3 654

The top 6 look significantly impactful (and top 200 in a sample group of 671 and trending high end players - all prime and career numbers are better than or equal to, for instance Reggie Miller), Ramsey, Heinsohn smaller positives, only Sanders unmissed. Not all these games missed will be in the Russell era, this measure is super noisy and not necessarily comparing apples with apples.

I may be wrong but I'd need more evidence to move me to the idea that other Celtics weren't impactful.

well that's kinda odd since it was ben taylor who made that exact argument and cited wowy samples. but maybe i'm underselling them. Still as far as this comparison is concerned...

Jordan leaves the Bulls and Kukoc joins: Bulls go from 6.2 SRS champions to 2.9 SRS conference contenders
Russell and Sam Jones (who was playing under 30 minutes a game in both the regular season and postseason) retire and the Celtics go from 5.35 SRS champions to -1.6 SRS missing the playoffs.
Russell wins 6 titles without Havlicek, while Jordan never wins a series without Pippen playing starter-level minutes (sadly he was not a starter in the 1988 win over the Cleveland Cavaliers, although he did play more than two starters).
Damn if only Pippen reached the same level.

Not sure there's much to add. As before the numbers are there (and unaffected seems an awfully strong take).

Not sure on if/why the latter part is a response to me - nor what the point is really
fwiw, that might be selective on the Jordan retirement. Not sure what we're supposed to get from this. One team is coming off the longest major league basketball dynasty ever, losing two of the top four pieces and a third ages of a cliff and the team is pivoting in another direction. '94 Bulls lose a huge player but Pippen has a summer off, he and Grant bounce back from down years, Kukoc adds a rotation player. It just seems a noisy environment to gauge anything about any one player in either circumstance.


For me:
It's an interesting comp since they're both defenders, both forwards with a bit of guard to them (Pippen aspects of point, Hondo swingman SF/SG), both of historical narrative significance in dynasties. It's hard because their best years are mostly outside the full impact data era and that's the best lead on D - and I think that means I have to give them both a large plausible range (more so Hondo, because less data and less film).

[OhayoKD]

From what I can tell WoWy does not agree with this. A noisy measure certainly but perhaps the least worst especially with regard to the specific statement.

From ElGee's WoWY table ...
Player Prime WOWYR PW rank Prime GP Career WOWYR CW rank
Jones..KC. 5.2 65 428 4.8 56
Cousy 4.4 92 852 3.9 106
Howell 3.6 151 847 3.7 114
Jones..Sam. 3.4 166 744 3.2 151
Havlicek 3.8 132 1264 3.2 151
Sharman 3.4 166 585 3.1 167
Heinsohn 1.8 344 818 1.8 310
Ramsey 1 450 460 0.9 433
Sanders..Tom. -2.5 661 831 -2.3 654

The top 6 look significantly impactful (and top 200 in a sample group of 671 and trending high end players - all prime and career numbers are better than or equal to, for instance Reggie Miller), Ramsey, Heinsohn smaller positives, only Sanders unmissed. Not all these games missed will be in the Russell era, this measure is super noisy and not necessarily comparing apples with apples.

I may be wrong but I'd need more evidence to move me to the idea that other Celtics weren't impactful.

well that's kinda odd since it was ben taylor who made that exact argument and cited wowy samples. but maybe i'm underselling them. Still as far as this comparison is concerned...

Jordan leaves the Bulls and Kukoc joins: Bulls go from 6.2 SRS champions to 2.9 SRS conference contenders
Russell and Sam Jones (who was playing under 30 minutes a game in both the regular season and postseason) retire and the Celtics go from 5.35 SRS champions to -1.6 SRS missing the playoffs.
Russell wins 6 titles without Havlicek, while Jordan never wins a series without Pippen playing starter-level minutes (sadly he was not a starter in the 1988 win over the Cleveland Cavaliers, although he did play more than two starters).
Damn if only Pippen reached the same level.

Not sure there's much to add. As before the numbers are there (and unaffected seems an awfully strong take).

Not sure on if/why the latter part is a response to me - nor what the point is really
fwiw, that might be selective on the Jordan retirement. Not sure what we're supposed to get from this. One team is coming off the longest major league basketball dynasty ever, losing two of the top four pieces and a third ages of a cliff and the team is pivoting in another direction. '94 Bulls lose a huge player but Pippen has a summer off, he and Grant bounce back from down years, Kukoc adds a rotation player. It just seems a noisy environment to gauge anything about any one player in either circumstance.


For me:
It's an interesting comp since they're both defenders, both forwards with a bit of guard to them (Pippen aspects of point, Hondo swingman SF/SG), both of historical narrative significance in dynasties. It's hard because their best years are mostly outside the full impact data era and that's the best lead on D - and I think that means I have to give them both a large plausible range (more so Hondo, because less data and less film).

Ben said:

For instance, when his teammates missed time, Boston rarely missed a beat

latter part is what someone on discord dm'd be reading this realgm thread

[Jaivl]

russell's celtics completely unaffected by the presence or absence of his teammates.

From what I can tell WoWy does not agree with this. A noisy measure certainly but perhaps the least worst especially with regard to the specific statement.

From ElGee's WoWY table ...
Player Prime WOWYR PW rank Prime GP Career WOWYR CW rank
Jones..KC. 5.2 65 428 4.8 56
Cousy 4.4 92 852 3.9 106
Howell 3.6 151 847 3.7 114
Jones..Sam. 3.4 166 744 3.2 151
Havlicek 3.8 132 1264 3.2 151
Sharman 3.4 166 585 3.1 167
Heinsohn 1.8 344 818 1.8 310
Ramsey 1 450 460 0.9 433
Sanders..Tom. -2.5 661 831 -2.3 654

The top 6 look significantly impactful (and top 200 in a sample group of 671 and trending high end players - all prime and career numbers are better than or equal to, for instance Reggie Miller), Ramsey, Heinsohn smaller positives, only Sanders unmissed. Not all these games missed will be in the Russell era, this measure is super noisy and not necessarily comparing apples with apples.

I may be wrong but I'd need more evidence to move me to the idea that other Celtics weren't impactful.

That's not WOWY. That's WOWYR, a very ambitious regression born from the faulty data we have, so... not very useful.