RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #10 (Larry Bird)

[eminence]

Shaping up to be our most static top 10 we've ever had, with Bird currently leading it's looking like the only change in the top 10 will be LeBron rising from #3 to #1.

[Hal14]

1979 Records - Celtics 29-53, Lakers 47-35, Lakers have maybe best player of all-time, two next best players are 23 and 25 - improving, Celtics, 4 of top 6 are 30 and over. Yes Celtics add M.L. Carr - but Lakers add Michael Cooper.

'93 Celtics: 48 wins (-3 from '92), +0.93 SRS (-2.48 from '92), lost 1st round (lost semis in '92).
'92 Lakers: 43 wins (-15 from '91), -0.95 (-7.68 from '91), lost 1st round (had been in Finals in '91).

Not that this proves anything; I'm just using a similar line of argumentation, but at the OTHER end of their respective careers.

fwiw, the words of mine you bolded in your quote were not mine; I was using another poster's words [that I barely even half-believe in] to make a point.

To give this a little more objectivity / context...

In Magic and Bird's rookie year = Lakers improve by 13 wins, Celtics improve by 32 wins. So that's a 19 win advantage for Bird.
In the first year after each player retired = Lakers win total decreases by 15 wins, Celtics win total decreases by 5. So that's a 12 win advantage for Magic.

19 minus 12 = Advantage of 7 for Bird.

Also, IMO more weight should be given to the impact the player has when they first join a team, because the player's departure from that team shouldn't result in too big of an impact since ideally that player is just so damn good at making his teammates better, so that even after he leaves, some of those teammates he played with on that team over the years are still keeping that team competitive because of how much better that player helped make them while they were teammates.

[DQuinn1575]

Larry Bird from 1983 on was playing with a backcourt of Dennis Johnson and Danny Ainge, but "only" was on plus 4.9 and 5.2 offenses in Boston. People can talk about his teammates, but Bird led his team in assists multiple years, and they played without a playmaker. Also led one of the greatest teams of all-time in scoring, rebounding, and assists. Team's defense improved drastically in 1980 with him being only new player in top 5 in minutes.

DJ and Danny Ainge were a better playmaking duo than Devin Harris and Jason Terry...

Matter of fact, Danny Ainge is a very good comparison to Jason Terry, who was the 2nd best offensive player on Dallas easily in 2006 and 2007... Terry was a slightly better scorer while Ainge was a better passer.




The rest of the cast is not comparable though...

Parish >> Dampier/Diop
McHale >>> Howard
DJ > Harris

Benches were both trash.

You were talking playmaking - Terry average 10.3 assists per 100 possessions in 2003 for ATL on year, and had 9.3 in 2005 in Dallas.
Ainge was in the 5-7 range prior to these years. DJ became a point guard, but he was more like Ron Harper on the 90s Bulls, and was never higher in assists/100 than 7.2 while in Phoenix. His assists increased in Boston, but I would rate Terry the best playmaker of the 3. Both Ainge and DJ could handle the ball okay, but neither was any type of creator.

The Boston cast is much better no arguments by probably anybody,ever. Dirk won a title in Dallas with a way worse team than Bird had in the years he won.

[Doctor MJ]

Makes sense.

I would emphasize that 1) Magic's longevity did hold him back in people's rankings, and 2) Bird can be argued to have a significantly worse longevity than Magic. The last time Bird is seen as a top tier superstar is '87-88. In the 3 years after that Magic finished 1st, 1st, and 2nd in the MVP before his medical retirement.

I do understand that Bird was better in the beginning, but I think people need to realize that there was a Jordan/Magic era that followed the Bird/Magic era and preceded the pure Jordan era. In the Jordan/Magic era, it was seen that there were 2 transcendent players and then a massive gap to the next tier, and Bird wasn't even in consideration for that next tier. He was seen a player from the past.

Hmm, ok so by your logic, Bird has "significantly worse" longevity than Magic because Magic was still a top tier player during his last 3 seasons, but apparently Bird was "seen a player from the past" during his last 3 seasons.

1) You're exaggerating. Bird was an all-star in each of his last 3 seasons and he was 2nd team all NBA during 89-90.
2) Magic was still a "top tier player" in the last 3 years before he retired but both Magic and Bird have the exact same number of seasons where they made 1st team all NBA - 9 times for both..many would consider making first team all NBA as being the barometer for being a "top tier player"
3) Perhaps you don't care about all NBA selections and you care more about where they finish in MVP voting. Bird and Magic both had the exact same number of seasons (9) where they finished top 5 in MVP voting. So while Magic was beter during each player's last 3 seasons, Bird wasn't exactly garbage those 3 seasons (he finished 10th, 9th and 14th in MVP voting so he was still a top 10 player in the league in 2 of his last 3 seasons and he was still a top 15 player all 3 seasons...yes, Magic was top 2 during his last 3 years, but Magic also finished unranked, 11th and 8th during his first 3 seasons in the league - when Bird finished 4th, 2nd and 2. Magic supporting love to bring up how Magic was better during their last 3 seasons, but they miss how much better Bird was during both player's first 3 years which cancels it out.
4) Magic (despite the fact that he's nearly 3 years younger than Bird) retired in 91 after just 12 seasons, whereas Bird retired in 92 after 13 seasons. Yes, I know that Magic only retired because he had HIV, but still, that doesn't change the fact that he retired after 12 seasons, while Bird kept going for season number 13.

I'm not seeing a significant difference in their longevity.

1. I'm not using logic to give a side, I'm trying to explain why people feel a certain way.
2. I'm not exaggerating, Bird was considered done. He and the Celtics were no longer worth talking about that much. In the East, the Pistons & Bulls were who was relevant. You want to point out he was still pretty good? Cool, but to those of who lived through that era, there was a significant period of time where the league was about Mike vs Magic, so the idea of Bird & Magic seeming to have the same longevity screams "You're deciding this with bkref aren't you?"
3. I'm not saying you can't make a case for Bird having comparable longevity to Magic, but you have to understand that those last few years were not at all the same for Bird and for Magic.
4. I know Bird continued playing for another year after Magic. This is another way of saying that Bird's superstar career lasted for 9 seasons, and then he played 4 more as an injury-riddled after thought. It's important to remember that Magic was in the mix of basketball thought from his rookie season through the Dream Team. He has a considerably longer period of relevance whether or not you think his total accomplishment should put him ahead of Bird or not.

Re: first 3 years cancels it out. No it doesn't. I honestly don't mind if you rank Bird > Magic, but don't use that "cancels it out" mindset. Magic as a rookie played arguably the greatest Finals game in history replacing prime Kareem and outdoing what he did. I know he didn't play all year like that, but you can't just talk about Magic's early years like they're the same thing as Bird's later years.

Re: All-NBA stuff. All good to bring up. Do make sure you're going through an analyzing that stuff yourself rather than just tallying up other people's opinions and calling that your own opinion. Not saying that more thorough analyses will necessarily change opinion, but historical accolades are literally the product of opinions from people with primitive understandings of holistic basketball player comparison. You can trust people like this to have a great sense of what a player's strengths and weaknesses are, but in terms of how that all goes together to having the most accomplished career, they are not an authority I feel comfortable appealing to.

One last thing I will say:

I do think it's important to note that while Bird has the edge over Magic for MVP Shares, Magic has the edge over Bird in RealGM's POY Shares despite the fact that Bird won our POY 4 times and Magic only won once. As always, you can disagree with the assessment, but there are reasons why a more all-season approach to accolade love gave Magic an edge that should at least be accounted for.

[LA Bird]

Not sure if the round is still open but voting anyway.

1. Kevin Garnett
2. Kobe Bryant
3. Dirk Nowitzki

Others have already made the case for Garnett. Basically, it comes down to him having a great peak, longevity, box scores, advanced stats, impact metrics and a super versatile skillset that fits well on just about any team. His only weakness is iso scoring but relative to other bigs, Garnett is still really good in that area. Russell can't score, peak Wilt wasn't a volume scorer and Bird for half of his career wasn't a much better scorer either. I think there is a bit of positional bias going on when guard defense is often rated relative to position to eliminate the much better bigs from the conversation but the same is not done to big men when it comes to offense. I think some KG supporters are too generous in assuming he can definitely develop a good 3 and rewarding him for being 'ahead of his time' but at this point, all the players that are within the same tier as him have already been voted in.

In the next tier, I have Kobe / Dirk / Bird / Malone. Why is Bird not higher? Injury, lack of longevity and his prime wasn't that much better than Kobe and Dirk's especially in the playoffs despite his legendary reputation. Could he have been better than the others if he had a longer career? Yeah. But unfortunately he didn't so he is behind Kobe and Dirk for me in terms of overall career.

[Doctor MJ]

Shaping up to be our most static top 10 we've ever had, with Bird currently leading it's looking like the only change in the top 10 will be LeBron rising from #3 to #1.

Indeed. It's fascinating how we ended up with the exact same Top 9 except for the one current player in the group continuing to rise.

I think it's always important to emphasize that there are massive disagreements among the group, and the group isn't the same people as before, so this stability is more fragile than it appears, but it's certainly worth asking how strong this trend toward "equilibrium" is.

[DQuinn1575]

1979 Records - Celtics 29-53, Lakers 47-35, Lakers have maybe best player of all-time, two next best players are 23 and 25 - improving, Celtics, 4 of top 6 are 30 and over. Yes Celtics add M.L. Carr - but Lakers add Michael Cooper.
'93 Celtics: 48 wins (-3 from '92), +0.93 SRS (-2.48 from '92), lost 1st round (lost semis in '92).
'92 Lakers: 43 wins (-15 from '91), -0.95 (-7.68 from '91), lost 1st round (had been in Finals in '91).

Not that this proves anything; I'm just using a similar line of argumentation, but at the OTHER end of their respective careers.

fwiw, the words of mine you bolded in your quote were not mine; I was using another poster's words [that I barely even half-believe in] to make a point.

Yes, Magic was better in 1991 than Bird was in 1992. He was better than him starting in 1989. The original point was that Magic won more titles than Bird; but I think having Jabbar on your team might have helped a little bit. The Celtics did a great job of building the rosters, and from 1981-1987 they are fairly comparable teams.

[trex_8063]

1979 Records - Celtics 29-53, Lakers 47-35, Lakers have maybe best player of all-time, two next best players are 23 and 25 - improving, Celtics, 4 of top 6 are 30 and over. Yes Celtics add M.L. Carr - but Lakers add Michael Cooper.
'93 Celtics: 48 wins (-3 from '92), +0.93 SRS (-2.48 from '92), lost 1st round (lost semis in '92).
'92 Lakers: 43 wins (-15 from '91), -0.95 (-7.68 from '91), lost 1st round (had been in Finals in '91).

Not that this proves anything; I'm just using a similar line of argumentation, but at the OTHER end of their respective careers.

fwiw, the words of mine you bolded in your quote were not mine; I was using another poster's words [that I barely even half-believe in] to make a point.

Yes, Magic was better in 1991 than Bird was in 1992. He was better than him starting in 1989. The original point was that Magic won more titles than Bird; but I think having Jabbar on your team might have helped a little bit. The Celtics did a great job of building the rosters, and from 1981-1987 they are fairly comparable teams.

In measurable terms, the average supporting cast player Bird had in his career almost exactly mirrors the average supporting cast player Magic had, according to the methodology I used here.

[trex_8063]

Thru post #148:

Kevin Garnett - 11 (Doctor MJ, drza, Dr Positivity, eminence, freethedevil, LA Bird, limbo, mailmp, sansterre, trex_8063, Whopper_Sr)
Larry Bird - 10 (90sAllDecade, Baski, Clyde Frazier, DQuinn1575, Dutchball97, Hal14, lebron3-14-3, Matzer, Odinn21, O_6)
George Mikan - 1 (penbeast0)
Kobe Bryant - 1 (Joao Saraiva)


23 votes, requires 12 for majority, so we'll eliminate Bryant and Mikan.
Both of those votes transfer to Bird, making it:

Bird - 12
Garnett - 11

Will have the next up in a moment.

Spoiler:

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[quote=”sansterre”].[/quote]

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[Dutchball97]

Couldn't have been any closer. I've gotta say I'm very happy with the winner but I'd be surprised if KG doesn't run away with the #11 spot.

[Jordan Syndrome]

My bad, I thought I voted...

[trex_8063]

My bad, I thought I voted...

Ah well. But that's why I always indicate at the start when the thread will end, AND post at least one vote-count prior to that deadline AND cite each poster who has cast a ballot within that vote count.

If you had cast a vote for KG, we'd be in a runoff between Bird and Garnett right now; obviously don't know for sure, but I suspect Bird would have ended up winning a runoff anyway.
Bird > Garnett is definitely the "status quo" hierarchy or mainstream rank....and actually not even close. And while this site has more than its share of people who aren't afraid to think outside the box or go against the usual way of thinking, I don't think there would have been enough additional voters willing to think that far outside the usual to give KG the runoff vote.

[trex_8063]

This sounds a bit sassy. I never said Kobe has to be ahead of Dirk because he has more rings and finals appearances. Kobe played 220 play-off games to Dirk's 145. That's a pretty significant difference. Meanwhile, the difference between Magic (190) and Bird (165) is less than half that difference. If we're putting a premium on longevity, maybe we should also question how much Dirk's longeviy holds up when he played 20 less play-off games than Bird.

It was a bit sassy, sorry. But those ARE your words, verbatim; I'm just using your words to illustrate a point. If someone feels similarly [that success matters], AND values longevity a bit more than you, AND thinks that Magic's peak and prime are equal [or even a pinch better?] compared to Bird's.....that's how one could easily come to see not only Magic ahead, but even by more than one place.

And this can also be used as illustrative in the Dirk/Kobe comp: Bird's peak and prime are certainly debatable vs Magic's (there isn't a slam-dunk clear favorite), Magic has a tiny longevity edge, AND has more team success to his credit.......yet you still rank Bird ahead.

From that perspective, can it really be surprising that some might rank Dirk higher than Kobe? And do you really have solid footing to question it on the basis of things like team success?.....while you yourself rank Bird ahead of Magic DESPITE your opening declaring [as I quoted you above] that you're to some degree driven by team success [while most of them have stated they feel differently, btw]?

That's all I'm sayin'...

Was I that harsh on people having Dirk over Kobe? I thought I just made a case that team success does matter and that it's a valid argument for Kobe over Dirk. If you're only reason for having Kobe over Dirk is team success then I agree that's not a strong basis for a vote but I do think that team success can be a deciding factor when the players in question are otherwise comparable like I believe Kobe and Dirk to be.

No, you weren't harsh on the Dirk faithful. But I must not be making myself clear because what I'm saying is that the exact same (read: EXACT same) reasoning that I bolded there could be used as the Magic > Bird argument [and that's before we bring longevity of quality into the picture at all].

Yet you don't rank Magic ahead of Bird. That's why I brought this up [using your own words back at you]. Not that it necessarily represents any kind of internal inconsistency (though it might not look like you're NOT "walking the talk", as it were).

In defending you against implications of inconsistency I do note that you have stated multiple times that you simply feel Bird was better than Magic at his peak and in their respective primes, and that's the thing Magic cannot overcome. However, I'll also note you've stated it so confidently, as though it's an absolute, with almost a hint of aloof incredulity that anyone would see it otherwise.......which in itself is a touch curious given there really isn't anything to suggest it's the obviously correct stance on the matter.
I mean, it's fine to just say "I believe this".......but people will call upon you to evidentially support your position. If sufficient evidence to make it plainly clear does not exist, well, then you can't really blame people for disagreeing.

It could be that other people likewise feel of Dirk > Kobe, too, btw......and tbh there is probably MORE to suggest Dirk was better than Kobe than there is to suggest Bird was better than Magic.....

Bird's peak PER was 27.8. Magic's was 27.0.
Bird's peak WS/48 was .244. Magic's was .270.
Bird's peak BPM was +9.4. Magic's was +10.1.
Bird's peak net rating was +18. Magic's was +20.
Granted, Bird played marginally higher mpg in those years, but still, there's no obvious statistical edge there to Bird (almost think there's a negligible edge to Magic, actually).

To get a better idea about prime, we might look at best 5-year spans ('84-'88 for Bird, '87-'91 for Magic)....

Bird's PER in this span is 26.1. Magic's is 25.8.
Bird's WS/48 is .237. Magic's is .251.
Bird BPM is +8.7. Magic's is +8.7.
Bird's net rating is +17. Magic's is +17.
Bird again playing marginally more mpg. Again basically looks like a wash; maybe a negligible edge to Bird based on the slight mpg lead???
A best 7-year period is a wash.
A best 9-year (like full prime(ish) years for Bird: '80-'88, vs '83-'91 for Magic) gives a very small [but clear] edge to Magic.

Very limited WOWYR data clearly favours Magic, fwiw.

So overall, I just don't see where this easily apparent edge to Bird you imply actually exists.
And full career metrics give the small but very very clear edge to Magic, fwiw (again: because he's got superior longevity of quality).


On a side note, there's almost a politic science study to be had somewhere in the responses my "sassy" reply garnered. I feel like it illustrates the tribalism that develops for many in the ranking of players:

I stated an idea that wasn't even mine (literally parroted your own words back at you to make a point), and TWO posters in the Bird camp came after me for it [even though ONE of them had used the very same reasoning in his vote post!].
They had ignored the statement when you made it, but went after me when I repeated it back at you......seemingly because I applied it in a devil's advocate argument AGAINST Larry Bird.

[trex_8063]

There's also the factor of team success. Good players make teams win, and Magic won more (5 titles on 9 finals appearances, vs only 3 titles on only 5 appearances). Ignoring that seems like a good way to jump the shark on player evaluation.

That's because Magic had a better supporting cast. If you put Parish on the Lakers and Kareem on the Celtics, then Magic does not win the title in 80, 82 or 85. So Magic is left with 2 titles...meanwhile, Bird + Kareem, Bird still wins the title in 81, 84 and 86, plus he wins it in 85 since the finals MVP in 85 would be on the Celtics instead of the Lakers. Bird also probably wins the title in 80 and 82, but even if we're conservative, Bird is left with 4 titles to Magic with 2. More than likely though it would have been 5 or 6 titles for Bird and either 0 or 1 title for Magic if Parish and Kareem swapped teams.

1979 Records - Celtics 29-53, Lakers 47-35, Lakers have maybe best player of all-time, two next best players are 23 and 25 - improving, Celtics, 4 of top 6 are 30 and over. Yes Celtics add M.L. Carr - but Lakers add Michael Cooper.

That's a lot of "what if", Hal, for someone who [if I'm not mistaken] has frowned on playing the "what if" game when it was applied to Kevin Garnett or Chris Paul (two players for whom such thinking is frequently labeled as an excuse).

But I agree with the main premise [if not all the specs]: quality of teammates does matter, yes?

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

1979 Records - Celtics 29-53, Lakers 47-35, Lakers have maybe best player of all-time, two next best players are 23 and 25 - improving, Celtics, 4 of top 6 are 30 and over. Yes Celtics add M.L. Carr - but Lakers add Michael Cooper.

'93 Celtics: 48 wins (-3 from '92), +0.93 SRS (-2.48 from '92), lost 1st round (lost semis in '92).
'92 Lakers: 43 wins (-15 from '91), -0.95 (-7.68 from '91), lost 1st round (had been in Finals in '91).

Not that this proves anything; I'm just using a similar line of argumentation, but at the OTHER end of their respective careers.

fwiw, the words of mine you bolded in your quote were not mine; I was using another poster's words [that I barely even half-believe in] to make a point.

To give this a little more objectivity / context...

In Magic and Bird's rookie year = Lakers improve by 13 wins, Celtics improve by 32 wins. So that's a 19 win advantage for Bird.
In the first year after each player retired = Lakers win total decreases by 15 wins, Celtics win total decreases by 5. So that's a 12 win advantage for Magic.

19 minus 12 = Advantage of 7 for Bird.

Also, IMO more weight should be given to the impact the player has when they first join a team, because the player's departure from that team shouldn't result in too big of an impact since ideally that player is just so damn good at making his teammates better, so that even after he leaves, some of those teammates he played with on that team over the years are still keeping that team competitive because of how much better that player helped make them while they were teammates.

I support Bird getting in on the 10th spot but there is more to the story of the 32 win improvement than just Bird and ML Carr. I actually watched the 1979 Celtics.

There was chaos in the Celtics front office in 1979. The Clippers Celtics Franchise swap had just happened.

There was no player continuity in 1979. Only Maxwell, Cowens and Jo Jo White returned from the 1978 team. Jo Jo White played like garbage and looked washed up. The team looked demoralized except for Maxwell. There was more player turnover in mid season.

Nate Archibald was recovering from a major injury in 1979 and did not play well like he did in 1980. Robey was inexperienced.

The 1980 Celtics brough back Cowens, Maxwell, Ford, Arrchibald, Robey, Judkins and added Carr and Gerald Henderson. Maravitch joined the team fir the kast 3rd of the season and provided some bench scoring.
New coach Bill Fitch got the team to play defense,

Player continuity is imprtant.

[DQuinn1575]

'93 Celtics: 48 wins (-3 from '92), +0.93 SRS (-2.48 from '92), lost 1st round (lost semis in '92).
'92 Lakers: 43 wins (-15 from '91), -0.95 (-7.68 from '91), lost 1st round (had been in Finals in '91).

Not that this proves anything; I'm just using a similar line of argumentation, but at the OTHER end of their respective careers.

fwiw, the words of mine you bolded in your quote were not mine; I was using another poster's words [that I barely even half-believe in] to make a point.

To give this a little more objectivity / context...

In Magic and Bird's rookie year = Lakers improve by 13 wins, Celtics improve by 32 wins. So that's a 19 win advantage for Bird.
In the first year after each player retired = Lakers win total decreases by 15 wins, Celtics win total decreases by 5. So that's a 12 win advantage for Magic.

19 minus 12 = Advantage of 7 for Bird.

Also, IMO more weight should be given to the impact the player has when they first join a team, because the player's departure from that team shouldn't result in too big of an impact since ideally that player is just so damn good at making his teammates better, so that even after he leaves, some of those teammates he played with on that team over the years are still keeping that team competitive because of how much better that player helped make them while they were teammates.

I support Bird getting in on the 1oth spot but there is more to the story of the 32 win improvement than just Bird and ML Carr. I actually watched the 1979 Celtics.

There was chaos in the Celtics front office in 1979. The Clippers Celtics Franchise swap had just happened.

There was no player continuity in 1979. Only Maxwell, Cowens and Jo Jo White returned from the 1978 team. Jo Jo White played like garbage and looked washed up. The team looked demoralized except for Maxwell. There was more player turnover in mid season.

Nate Archibald was recovering from a major injury in 1979 and did not play well like he did in 1980. Robey was inexperienced.

The 1980 Celtics brough back Cowens, Maxwell, Ford, Arrchibald, Robey, Judkins and added Carr and Gerald Henderson. Maravitch joined the team fir the kast 3rd of the season and provided some bench scoring.
New coach Bill Fitch got the team to play defense,

Player continuity is imprtant.

Yes, the Celtics were in disarray real quickly in 1978 and 1979 = the amount of former stars past their peak on the teams those 2 years was incredible - I forgot that Dave Bing played for them,
How many teams return 4 starters and improve by even 15 wins? Especially when the guys are in their 30s? Usually teams go from 29 wins to 60 wins by changing their roster. Maybe unfair, but first team I think of with big improvement is 71 Bucks - besides Alcindor, they changed out 2 other starters. Robinson's Spurs - fairly new team. Duncan? Well they had Robinson back as well.
I'm probably missing somebody, and Archibald did make a comeback, but he wasn't as good as he was when he led a 36 win Kansas City team.
Maravich played about 400 minutes total. Carr and Henderson arent really adds that change a team.

[Hal14]

To give this a little more objectivity / context...

In Magic and Bird's rookie year = Lakers improve by 13 wins, Celtics improve by 32 wins. So that's a 19 win advantage for Bird.
In the first year after each player retired = Lakers win total decreases by 15 wins, Celtics win total decreases by 5. So that's a 12 win advantage for Magic.

19 minus 12 = Advantage of 7 for Bird.

Also, IMO more weight should be given to the impact the player has when they first join a team, because the player's departure from that team shouldn't result in too big of an impact since ideally that player is just so damn good at making his teammates better, so that even after he leaves, some of those teammates he played with on that team over the years are still keeping that team competitive because of how much better that player helped make them while they were teammates.

I support Bird getting in on the 1oth spot but there is more to the story of the 32 win improvement than just Bird and ML Carr. I actually watched the 1979 Celtics.

There was chaos in the Celtics front office in 1979. The Clippers Celtics Franchise swap had just happened.

There was no player continuity in 1979. Only Maxwell, Cowens and Jo Jo White returned from the 1978 team. Jo Jo White played like garbage and looked washed up. The team looked demoralized except for Maxwell. There was more player turnover in mid season.

Nate Archibald was recovering from a major injury in 1979 and did not play well like he did in 1980. Robey was inexperienced.

The 1980 Celtics brough back Cowens, Maxwell, Ford, Arrchibald, Robey, Judkins and added Carr and Gerald Henderson. Maravitch joined the team fir the kast 3rd of the season and provided some bench scoring.
New coach Bill Fitch got the team to play defense,

Player continuity is imprtant.

Yes, the Celtics were in disarray real quickly in 1978 and 1979 = the amount of former stars past their peak on the teams those 2 years was incredible - I forgot that Dave Bing played for them,
How many teams return 4 starters and improve by even 15 wins? Especially when the guys are in their 30s? Usually teams go from 29 wins to 60 wins by changing their roster. Maybe unfair, but first team I think of with big improvement is 71 Bucks - besides Alcindor, they changed out 2 other starters. Robinson's Spurs - fairly new team. Duncan? Well they had Robinson back as well.
I'm probably missing somebody, and Archibald did make a comeback, but he wasn't as good as he was when he led a 36 win Kansas City team.
Maravich played about 400 minutes total. Carr and Henderson arent really adds that change a team.

Yeah also consider that even though Archibald was healthier in 79-80 than he was in 78-79...he was also a year old and a year further removed from his prime. His season where he led the league in points and assists was more of a distant memory. Tiny was 30 during the 78-79 season and 31 during the 79-80 season. Players often see a decline once they reach that age - especially back then when players declined at an earlier age than they do in the modern era. Also consider that while the 79-80 team had coaching stability, the team disliked that coach (Fitch) so much that they lost to the Bucks in the playoffs on purpose in 83 so he'd get fired - which he did..he was then replaced by KC Jones, who he players loved. Just look at how differently McHale talks about Jones compared to Fitch in his HoF induction speech.

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

I support Bird getting in on the 1oth spot but there is more to the story of the 32 win improvement than just Bird and ML Carr. I actually watched the 1979 Celtics.

There was chaos in the Celtics front office in 1979. The Clippers Celtics Franchise swap had just happened.

There was no player continuity in 1979. Only Maxwell, Cowens and Jo Jo White returned from the 1978 team. Jo Jo White played like garbage and looked washed up. The team looked demoralized except for Maxwell. There was more player turnover in mid season.

Nate Archibald was recovering from a major injury in 1979 and did not play well like he did in 1980. Robey was inexperienced.

The 1980 Celtics brough back Cowens, Maxwell, Ford, Arrchibald, Robey, Judkins and added Carr and Gerald Henderson. Maravitch joined the team fir the kast 3rd of the season and provided some bench scoring.
New coach Bill Fitch got the team to play defense,

Player continuity is imprtant.

Yes, the Celtics were in disarray real quickly in 1978 and 1979 = the amount of former stars past their peak on the teams those 2 years was incredible - I forgot that Dave Bing played for them,
How many teams return 4 starters and improve by even 15 wins? Especially when the guys are in their 30s? Usually teams go from 29 wins to 60 wins by changing their roster. Maybe unfair, but first team I think of with big improvement is 71 Bucks - besides Alcindor, they changed out 2 other starters. Robinson's Spurs - fairly new team. Duncan? Well they had Robinson back as well.
I'm probably missing somebody, and Archibald did make a comeback, but he wasn't as good as he was when he led a 36 win Kansas City team.
Maravich played about 400 minutes total. Carr and Henderson arent really adds that change a team.

Yeah also consider that even though Archibald was healthier in 79-80 than he was in 78-79...he was also a year old and a year further removed from his prime. His season where he led the league in points and assists was more of a distant memory. Tiny was 30 during the 78-79 season and 31 during the 79-80 season. Players often see a decline once they reach that age - especially back then when players declined at an earlier age than they do in the modern era. Also consider that while the 79-80 team had coaching stability, the team disliked that coach (Fitch) so much that they lost to the Bucks in the playoffs on purpose in 83 so he'd get fired - which he did..he was then replaced by KC Jones, who he players loved. Just look at how differently McHale talks about Jones compared to Fitch in his HoF induction speech.

Fitch was obnoxious but he got the team to play defense. Fitch also the got Hakeem and Sampson Rockets team to play defense and get to the finals. Fitch wore out his welcome with the Rockets as well.

The players liked KC Jones. I partially blame Jones for the Celtics losing in 1987. That was the best Laker team so maybe the Celtics would have lost anyway but Jones played his starters into the ground and failed to develop a bench.

Fitch built winning cultures. He was like Laary Brown; good for a few years but then he needs to be replaced.

[scrabbarista]

This is going to be my first comment in the Project (other than the one that said I wasn't going to participate).

I'm just stopping by to ask whether it would be too much trouble to remove my name(s) from the front page(s) of the thread(s) for the Project. I don't know whether I'll be around to see whether it's removed or not (I haven't read a word of the Project yet), but nonetheless, I would very much appreciate it if it could be done. I haven't had any intention to vote or comment since Morey left the Rockets; as I said, I haven't even been interested enough to read any of it. If the mod responsible would like to wait until the end of the project to remove my name, that's fine, too. If that's the case, then I'll probably remember to stop by when the project is over to give a reminder.

Hope everyone is having a nice time.