Why is John Havlicek's name never mentioned in the top 10?

[tsherkin]

Perhaps his style would have changed the way the game was played if more players were capable of moving full-bore, uninterrupted for 40 or so minutes? Not many have ever been capable of that on one end of the court (a la Rip or Reggie), never mind both ends of the court.

Assuredly, he was a unique physical specimen but his resume doesn't warrant a place in the top-10 and he didn't do anything to really alter the nature of the game and those are the big factors for that kind of status in my mind.

Havlicek's play was top level through almost his whole career. He did get shortened minutes in the early seasons on an incredibly deep roster.

Olajuwon was fairly raw when he came in. It took him many seasons to gain his top form.

Still, we do agree on approximately where Havlicek ranks all time. It seems we disagree on Olajuwon, not on #17.

Hakeem was a 23+ ppg scorer even while raw and was routinely one of the best defenders in the league... and he smoked the Showtime Lakers in his second season, then took the Celtics to 6 gmaes. I don't think his rawness was a big deal, especially when you consider how shamefully incompetent his team's management proved to be with their inability to get him anything like help after Sampson went down.

Funny story, too, for a guy who was so raw, he seemed to dominate mercilessly in the playoffs. 27 and 12 on 53% FG in year two... 29/11 on 62% in his third postseason appearance... He missed the playoffs only three times in his career despite the abysmal work of Houston management and he dominated every year. Well, except the lockout season, the year before that and his year with Toronto but he was ancient then.

I actually somewhat agree with writerman re: Hakeem. I think there's a lot of rose-colored glasses when it comes to him, like everyone thinks the 1994 season and the 1995 playoffs is representative of his entire career. The Robinson-Olajuwon debate was actually a lot closer than people choose remember because of what happened in the '95 playoffs. Same thing with Ewing-Olajuwon. I think Hakeem is a better player than both of them and he did outplayed them in key playoff/Finals games in 1994 and 1995, but I get this feeling that people think that Olajuwon embarassed both of them (and Shaq) continously throughout his career and was always regarded as the #2 player in the league, when that's not the case at all.

Yes, Robinson was defensively fairly close to Olajuwon and a regular-season beast on offense. He faded a lot in the postseason because of his playing style and you can't use teammates to support him because Olajuwon did a lot better with less.

Moreover, Olajuwon was actually a brutally dangerous postseason performer, which is another reason to elevate his status in the all-time rankings.

Ewing was nothing next to Olajuwon, that much was clear. Fundamentally, he was better schooled defensively but couldn't exert the same kind of defensive impact Hakeem did with his athleticism. He wasn't as good a rebounder, he was mostly a comparable scorer if you exclude peak (he has one season that's in the range of Hakeem's peak) and he was completely shattered by Olajuwon.

He also did not perform in the postseason the way Olajuwon did, which is again a major separation between Dream and his contemporaries other than Shaq.

That's the thing, Olajuwon completely ripped apart both Ewing and Robinson when he faced them in the postseason. They both lost face next to him because they were impotent to match Olajuwon. Mind that Dream went through Ewing, Robinson and young Shaq and did his thing. Shaq was the only one who performed well against Olajuwon of that trio.

It's true that perceptions changed but remember that there was a lot of negative publicity about Hakeem because of his trade demand and the fact that he was routinely shooting against triple-teams (even though he was a higher-percentage option than his teammates).

People forget just how stunningly dangerous Olajuwon was once the postseason rolled around; remember, his career playoff FG% is 1.6% HIGHER than his regular season FG% even with the last three years of his postseason career factored in (14 games at 42.3% FG).

He averaged 25.9 ppg in his playoff career, 4.1 ppg higher than his regular season average and that's including the fact that he averaged 13.1 ppg over his final 14 postseason games (FWIW, that's about 9.7% of his career, a statistically significant portion of his postseason portfolio).

This is why people look at Olajuwon so much more enthusiastically than D-Rob or Ewing; he was astonishing in the playoffs, one of the best... even when he was young and raw but especially when he hit his prime. 33 ppg on 53% FG over 22 games in 94-95 comes to mind, too.

C'mon folks, give Dream his due; he has everything you ask for in a dominant player at all points of his career.

[tracey_nice]

Lol @ Havlicek better than Hakeem; next thing I am going to see is JordanBulls arguing for Kobe.

How many seasons did you see Havlicek play?

Does it matter? We are talking about Hakeem, whom many consider the best defensive player ever with unbelievable high repertoire of offensive skills, which are virtually unstoppable. So no, I don’t need to have seen him play to know that a 6’5 guard who played in the 60s/70s that has a never won an MVP is not better then the Dream; I am not trying to take anything away from him, from what I’ve heard he was great; 2 sport athlete, but not on the Dreams level.

[Point forward]

Just FYI... in this basketball book "The Rivalry" by John Taylor (2001), early Hondo is described as an extremely one dimensional role player, whose only talent was that he could run marathons. Also, he was not confident. Hondo was the ultimate country bumpkin, looking like an especially goofy looking Clark Kent with his horn rimmed spectacles and his notoriously unstylish haircuts. He so shy that even surly Bill Russell coaxed him to loosen up.

Red Auerbach told Hondo to concentrate on his one skill: he should run, run and run, and use this for hard defense. Hondo was a also quick learner, and soon mastered many defensive tricks taught by Frank Ramsey. Some day, the Celtics observed that Hondo was running around so much that he was often open. Red told Hondo to shoot, but ONLY if he had an open shot. Using his iron lungs, Hondo earned himself open shots, made them and turned himself into the greatest clutch shooter of the 1960s-70s.

IMHO Havlicek is the perfect example how a guy w/o talent can become great if he is willing to learn, and to sweat, cry and bleed for his goals. He capitalised on the ONLY talent he had (running) and built his entire defensive and offensive game around it. On natural talent, he is no way Top 10, but in GRIT, he may be the GOAT.

Maybe that explains the difficulties when evaluating Hondo.

[Gant]

Lol @ Havlicek better than Hakeem; next thing I am going to see is JordanBulls arguing for Kobe.

How many seasons did you see Havlicek play?

Does it matter? We are talking about Hakeem, whom many consider the best defensive player ever with unbelievable high repertoire of offensive skills, which are virtually unstoppable. So no, I don’t need to have seen him play to know that a 6’5 guard who played in the 60s/70s that has a never won an MVP is not better then the Dream; I am not trying to take anything away from him, from what I’ve heard he was great; 2 sport athlete, but not on the Dreams level.

He played forward for half his career.

[tracey_nice]

^^Your point? does that make him better than Hakeem? Or, even comparable?

[Gant]

^^Your point? does that make him better than Hakeem? Or, even comparable?

The point is, that if you're going to compare which of two players is better, it helps a great deal to actually have seen both play.

And if seeing only one player play is not an impediment to making such a comparison, it would be of some substantial help to know what position each guy played.

But if you feel after watching Olajuwon's career and not seeing Havlicek perform, that you are in a position to make a definitive judgement, who am I to argue? Please judge away. I will impede the process no more.

[tracey_nice]

Dude, I have never seen George Mikan play and I know that Shaq is a lot better. Some things are just obvious. Its true I would have a greater appreciation for this 6'5 forward if I watched him; if we were comparing Havlicek to Nash, then you probably wouldn't here anything from me, since looking at the stats and accolades do not give an accurate description of how good a player was. And, I also don't look at winning 8 champions in the 60s as highly as some do, don't get me wrong its a great accomplishment, but with less teams in the league; the chance of winning a championship each year increases dramatically. If there was some sort of CPI index for championships(hollinger?); I think people would stop over or underrating accomplishment back in the 50s/60s and 70s to some extent.

[wigglestrue]

Dude, I have never seen George Mikan play and I know that Shaq is a lot better. Some things are just obvious. Its true I would have a greater appreciation for this 6'5 forward if I watched him; if we were comparing Havlicek to Nash, then you probably wouldn't here anything from me, since looking at the stats and accolades do not give an accurate description of how good a player was. And, I also don't look at winning 8 champions in the 60s as highly as some do, don't get me wrong its a great accomplishment, but with less teams in the league; the chance of winning a championship each year increases dramatically. If there was some sort of CPI index for championships(hollinger?); I think people would stop over or underrating accomplishment back in the 50s/60s and 70s to some extent.

Imagine if the only teams in the league today were the Celtics, the Spurs, the Lakers, the Pistons, the Hornets, the Cavaliers, the Suns, and the Magic. You think the Magic would have a dramatically better chance at winning a championship than they do now?

[NO-KG-AI]

I always thought of Hondo as a second guy, not someone you build your team around.

[tracey_nice]

Either way, the Magic still have to beat 2 teams which are better them, with 30 or 8 teams(if those are the 8 teams). The only difference is they avoid their first round matchup, hence, easier road to the championship. So, yes I would say the Magic have a better chance of winning, and mathematically it would become a dramatic increase

[tsherkin]

I disagree; in a smaller league, talent gets concentrated more heavily so the elite teams tend to be stacked much moreso than is possible in the league at its present size. Hence the Celtics of the 50s and 60s.

[wigglestrue]

Either way, the Magic still have to beat 2 teams which are better them, with 30 or 8 teams(if those are the 8 teams). The only difference is they avoid their first round matchup, hence, easier road to the championship. So, yes I would say the Magic have a better chance of winning, and mathematically it would become a dramatic increase

There'd be an increase in probability, but not "dramatic". Remember that a couple of the teams won't even make the playoffs. The lowest seed that wins faces a rested opponent in the next round. The lowest seeds wind up facing three opponents in the playoffs, and the three opponents are usually all superior teams. If a team is good enough to realistically challenge for a title, then the lack of an equivalent to today's 1st round matchup is irrelevant, because they'd have won that round anyway. You can't assume that a team could be upset by an inferior a la the Sonics-Nuggets '94 or even scared by an inferior a la this year's Hawks-Celtics. If playing fewer games makes it easier on the Magic, then it makes it easier on all the teams involved the same way. So there's practically no difference, in fact, along with the few things that increase a team's odds there are certainly a few things that would decrease the odds.

[tracey_nice]

Either way, the Magic still have to beat 2 teams which are better them, with 30 or 8 teams(if those are the 8 teams). The only difference is they avoid their first round matchup, hence, easier road to the championship. So, yes I would say the Magic have a better chance of winning, and mathematically it would become a dramatic increase

There'd be an increase in probability, but not "dramatic".

The probability of winning a championship mathematically 3.3%; with 8 teams in the league the probability increases 12.5%; which is almost an increase by a factor of 4, sounds like a "dramatic" increase to me.

Remember that a couple of the teams won't even make the playoffs. The lowest seed that wins faces a rested opponent in the next round. The lowest seeds wind up facing three opponents in the playoffs, and the three opponents are usually all superior teams. If a team is good enough to realistically challenge for a title, then the lack of an equivalent to today's 1st round matchup is irrelevant, because they'd have won that round anyway

If a couple of teams don't make the playoffs, I think you need to quantify couple, but i'll assume that means 2 teams don't make the playoffs, 3 just seems weird. So, if 6 teams make the playoffs; I will also assume it is NFL format, so the top 2 get a bye. Which still doesn't means you have to win a min. of 2 series, seems a lot easier then winning 4, or maximum of 3 series to win a championship, also making it easier then todays game.

You can't assume that a team could be upset by an inferior a la the Sonics-Nuggets '94 or even scared by an inferior a la this year's Hawks-Celtics. If playing fewer games makes it easier on the Magic, then it makes it easier on all the teams involved the same way. So there's practically no difference, in fact, along with the few things that increase a team's odds there are certainly a few things that would decrease the odds

Um, why can't you assume that a team could be upset? Are upsets not possible in the 60s?
And how do you say there is no difference - 30 teams vs 8 teams; I believe there is a 22 team difference. And you haven't stated anything that decreases the odds of winning with more teams, every argument you've made is applicable to 30 teams.

[A.J.]

Because 10 people are better than him.

[writerman]

Just FYI... in this basketball book "The Rivalry" by John Taylor (2001), early Hondo is described as an extremely one dimensional role player, whose only talent was that he could run marathons. Also, he was not confident. Hondo was the ultimate country bumpkin, looking like an especially goofy looking Clark Kent with his horn rimmed spectacles and his notoriously unstylish haircuts. He so shy that even surly Bill Russell coaxed him to loosen up.

Red Auerbach told Hondo to concentrate on his one skill: he should run, run and run, and use this for hard defense. Hondo was a also quick learner, and soon mastered many defensive tricks taught by Frank Ramsey. Some day, the Celtics observed that Hondo was running around so much that he was often open. Red told Hondo to shoot, but ONLY if he had an open shot. Using his iron lungs, Hondo earned himself open shots, made them and turned himself into the greatest clutch shooter of the 1960s-70s.

IMHO Havlicek is the perfect example how a guy w/o talent can become great if he is willing to learn, and to sweat, cry and bleed for his goals. He capitalised on the ONLY talent he had (running) and built his entire defensive and offensive game around it. On natural talent, he is no way Top 10, but in GRIT, he may be the GOAT.

Maybe that explains the difficulties when evaluating Hondo.

I don't know who this John Taylor is, but he's full of sh-t up to his eyeballs. I'm surprised you swallowed this nonsense, Point Forward--you are usually much more savvy than that.

One-dimensional my ass!!! Hondo was one of the greatest all-around athletes to ever play the game. This is a guy who, before going to the NBA, was selected in the draft by the Cleveland Browns even though he hadn't played football since high school. And these were not today's mediocre-to-pathetic Cleveland Browns. These were the Browns of Jim Brown, Frank Ryan, Lou Groza, etc--a team that was a title contender year in and year out for many years. Havlicek was the final cut of their camp, and was cut in favor of a guy who would later be selected all pro several times.

"No talent?" Horsesh-t!

The problem is it saeems to me you have fallen into the trap thinking of talent = hops.

There's much more to being a top athlete than leaping ability. Hell, the NBA is full of bench-enders who never get in a game who can jump through the roof. The NBDL is full of them, and they are totally worthless for the most part. Those are the guys who are "one dimensional."

Hondo had great peripheral vision, great lateral mobility, very quick hands, above average leaping ability, the strength to effectively play bigger guys and the quickness to effectively play smaller ones, incredible toughness, was incredibly clutch, and had a high basketball IQ. That's in addition to his "one dimension" of almost inhuman stamina. I don't know what you call that package, but I call it a great athlete, and hardly "one dimensional."

Michael Jordan is viewed as some sort of demigod by the majority of posters here, and it's indisputable that he was one of the greatest of all time. But I'll say this; if I was a coach of a team facing Jordan and the Bulls in their prime, and I could call up any one player in his prime to give the job of containing Jordan, I don't even hesitate--it would be Havlicek. If any player I ever saw could do the job--maybe even lock Jordan down--Hondo would be the guy. He was that kind of defender, and I think he would wear even MJ down over the course of a game/series just like he did everyone else he ever faced.

If that's a "one dimensional" player with "no talent" I'll take one of them on my team anytime.

[KNICKS1970]

Just FYI... in this basketball book "The Rivalry" by John Taylor (2001), early Hondo is described as an extremely one dimensional role player, whose only talent was that he could run marathons. Also, he was not confident. Hondo was the ultimate country bumpkin, looking like an especially goofy looking Clark Kent with his horn rimmed spectacles and his notoriously unstylish haircuts. He so shy that even surly Bill Russell coaxed him to loosen up.

Red Auerbach told Hondo to concentrate on his one skill: he should run, run and run, and use this for hard defense. Hondo was a also quick learner, and soon mastered many defensive tricks taught by Frank Ramsey. Some day, the Celtics observed that Hondo was running around so much that he was often open. Red told Hondo to shoot, but ONLY if he had an open shot. Using his iron lungs, Hondo earned himself open shots, made them and turned himself into the greatest clutch shooter of the 1960s-70s.

IMHO Havlicek is the perfect example how a guy w/o talent can become great if he is willing to learn, and to sweat, cry and bleed for his goals. He capitalised on the ONLY talent he had (running) and built his entire defensive and offensive game around it. On natural talent, he is no way Top 10, but in GRIT, he may be the GOAT.

Maybe that explains the difficulties when evaluating Hondo.

I don't know who this John Taylor is, but he's full of sh-t up to his eyeballs. I'm surprised you swallowed this nonsense, Point Forward--you are usually much more savvy than that.

One-dimensional my ass!!! Hondo was one of the greatest all-around athletes to ever play the game. This is a guy who, before going to the NBA, was selected in the draft by the Cleveland Browns even though he hadn't played football since high school. And these were not today's mediocre-to-pathetic Cleveland Browns. These were the Browns of Jim Brown, Frank Ryan, Lou Groza, etc--a team that was a title contender year in and year out for many years. Havlicek was the final cut of their camp, and was cut in favor of a guy who would later be selected all pro several times.

"No talent?" Horsesh-t!

The problem is it saeems to me you have fallen into the trap thinking of talent = hops.

There's much more to being a top athlete than leaping ability. Hell, the NBA is full of bench-enders who never get in a game who can jump through the roof. The NBDL is full of them, and they are totally worthless for the most part. Those are the guys who are "one dimensional."

Hondo had great peripheral vision, great lateral mobility, very quick hands, above average leaping ability, the strength to effectively play bigger guys and the quickness to effectively play smaller ones, incredible toughness, was incredibly clutch, and had a high basketball IQ. That's in addition to his "one dimension" of almost inhuman stamina. I don't know what you call that package, but I call it a great athlete, and hardly "one dimensional."

Michael Jordan is viewed as some sort of demigod by the majority of posters here, and it's indisputable that he was one of the greatest of all time. But I'll say this; if I was a coach of a team facing Jordan and the Bulls in their prime, and I could call up any one player in his prime to give the job of containing Jordan, I don't even hesitate--it would be Havlicek. If any player I ever saw could do the job--maybe even lock Jordan down--Hondo would be the guy. He was that kind of defender, and I think he would wear even MJ down over the course of a game/series just like he did everyone else he ever faced.

If that's a "one dimensional" player with "no talent" I'll take one of them on my team anytime.

I don't see any problems with what Taylor wrote. The key word is EARLY Hondo. Havlicek was NOT one of the best players in the game right off the bat. When Hondo started his career, he was just a role player with one identifiable trait: he was one of the best conditioned athletes in the game. Point forward's post even goes on to detail how Hondo became a such great player, even though he didn't start off as one. With good coaching, hard work, and smarts, Hondo maximized his talents and became one of the greatest players in NBA history.

Not every criticism or observation is an attack.

[TrueLAfan]

Yes, but. Havlicek may have been one-dimensional and low on the talent end at some point in his basketball career...but I think it was probably well before he was drafted. Maybe when he was 10 or something.

In terms of talent--not just physical skills, but intelligence and natural athletic ability--writerman is right; Havlicek was elite at a very early age. He was an all-state athlete in three sports in High School, and that was in a large state (Ohio). In college, he played basketball and baseball--and he played every infield position except catcher position on the baseball team. The basketball team had Jerry Lucas--but Havlicek was the team MVP in 1961 and co-MVP in 1962, when he was an All-American. This is a team that won the national title in 1960, and was in the finals in 1961 and 1962. It's true he was drafted in the NFL (and made it to the final cut of training camp); the scary thing is he hadn't played football in college. Nobody who has that kind of resume at 22 can be considered "no talent" in any way, shape, or form.

Plenty of that talent was on the basketball court, too. Even though his focus then, as later, was defense (Auerbach didn't need to impress this on Hondo; Havlicek's college coach, Fred Taylor, made it a priority too.) Havlicek averaged 17 and 10 and shot 52% from the field in his final year on a team that went to the finals. He was the seventh pick in a draft which included Lucas, De Busschere, Zelmo Beaty, Chet Walker, Kevin Loughery, Don Nelson, and Terry Dischinger. A great defending, great rebounding, good scoring player who is a leader is not one-dimensional. It's true that Havlicek improved his game, but he was starting from a high level.

[penbeast0]

Just playing devil's advocate since I wasn't around to see early Havlicek and only remember him from the Cowens led championship teams . . . did Havlicek come into the league with the confidence to look for his shot and work his defenders? Apparently not, but he discovered that even at the NBA level, if he kept moving he would get open looks and from that he built his confidence . . . presumably this all happened his first preseason since he was a 15 ppg scorer as a rookie and a 20 ppg scorer as a 2nd year man.

His rebounding came from his high motor instead of strength or great hops too, he was always chasing every ball at full speed and would just beat guys to the long rebounds.

That said, 7 years into the league, he was still shooting under .420 for his career, though averaging close to 19 ppg, that implies that his jump shot did take time to develop.

btw, Gary Payton came into the league as a much hyped #2 pick in the overall draft. He also scored on 7 and 9 points his first two years in the league and showed little confidence in his shot before taking on a more aggressive offensive role, moving to 13 his third year, 16 his fourth, then over a 20ppg average for the next 9. And Payton was a guy who came across as Mr. Cocky.

[tsherkin]

I dunno about that, pen, a good jump shooter these days only shoots an eFG% of 40-45 on jumpers and that's WITH the 3pt shot that Hondo never had. League average FG% was what, 43% in Hondo's second year? Yeah, he was a little below average from his second to fifth year or so but not by much... don't forget, he shot 44.5% as a rookie and then his FGA/g ballooned to about what Carmelo takes on a given night.