Who do you pick for an all-time Celtics starting lineup

[CaliBullsFan]

Bill Russell
Larry Bird
John Havlicek
Sam Jones
Dennis Johnson

[wigglestrue]

Oh, and how about this way to divvy up players fairly: The % of greatness accomplished in a jersey = more or less the % of minutes per game that a player is available to play for an all-time franchise. So, if 33% of Wilt's greatness derives from his time as a Sixer, then the all-time Sixers can play Wilt for about 16 minutes a game. OR, if an all-time franchise GM prefers, instead of limited minutes for 7 out of 7 games, a player can be played for unlimited minutes in as many games as the player had good-to-great seasons for that franchise, and again, that player is whatever caliber they were for that franchise.

So, the all-time Sixers could choose to play '67 Wilt for 16 minutes a game in all seven games, alongside the many other HOFers and All Stars on all-time Philly's roster. OTOH, if all-time Philly's GM wanted, then the all-time Sixers could use Wilt for the whole game in three and a half out of the seven game series. Now, that might mean they get to use him in every game...if they win (or lose) in a sweep. Likewise, if about 10% of a player's greatness stems from your team, you can either use him for 5 mpg in 7 games or for about 30 minutes in one game. Does that make sense?

And so, a corollary kind of rule would be, if a player had seven great seasons for you, then you can automatically get seven great games from him -- seven great seasons then represents the threshhold for a full claim, anything more being gravy, or maybe you get a little performance bonus every year beyond seven. And to elaborate more, to clarify, with another example:

Let's say that, going with Quotatious's superb guesstimates, Shaq's greatness gets split up just so -- 26% Magic, 42% Lakers, 22% Heat, 7% Suns, 2% Cavaliers, 1% Celtics. So, the all-time actual-Magic can use Shaq for either 4 games of maximum Orlando-era greatness (one could even just apportion it season-to-game, i.e., '93, '94, '95, and '96 would each determine the respective quality of one of the four games Shaq gets to play for ATL O-Town. OR, the ATL Magic can use Shaq for up to 26% of all seven games, about 12 minutes. It's still making sense, right? Is that too restrictive, too? It's less arbitrary, though, right?

Hmmm...perhaps we should just go with a more objective way to determine greatness-shares. We could simply just do team splits for a player's career win shares, then use those percentages to determine mpg for all 7 games (unless someone decides they'd rather go the game-per-season route for that particular player) and calculating all this would probably be ridiculously easy for one of you math wizards, and it's a methodology immune to a lot of subjective disputes and whatnot. Makes things almost merely algorithmic, lol. But there'd still be lots of freedom to manage a roster, choices to have to make. So, like, if you wanted to, you could opt to forgo the full value of a player's 7+ year span with your team and instead choose to use just that player's single best season for you as the basis for 10-15 minutes every game. Or, three of his best seasons to form three full games, one game per season, instead of adding another 4 less-great seasons into the mix. Or...okay, now I've lost my train of thought. Sorry, lol.

Man, just thinking about that Celts five as an actual starting lineup...seven complete games of Russell, seven complete games of Bird (including one game which'd be he equivalent of the 1986 pinnacle Bird...what would that even mean, lol...something awesome...just transfer his averages for the season to a single game?), seven complete games of Havlicek, seven complete games of Cousy. To then be able to sub in, for defensive purposes, if so needed, to harass an especially tall and mobile SF: Five whole games of '08-'13 KG respectively or about 15 mpg of '08 DPOY KG hyperinstensity. Same for DJ, either seven full games based on some order of '84-'90 DJ, or perhaps four whole games based on four cherrypicked DJ seasons, or if 40% of his greatness is Celtic-based, then up to about 20 minutes a game of DJ at his one-year Celtics peak. Does that make sense? Yeah? Kinda? No?

[wigglestrue]

If no else does it I'm gonna do the Lakers, too, in the next couple days.

[penbeast0]

PG Cousy
SG Maravich
SF Heinsohn
PF Antoine Walker
C Bob McAdoo

OF course, you must remember that as a Bullets/Wizards fan I want the C's to lose . . . .

[HeartBreakKid]

PG - Dennis Johnson
SG - John Havlicek
SF - Larry Bird
PF - Kevin Garnett
C - Bill Russell

DJ and Hondo would make a nice defensive backcourt. I'd take DJ over the others because he's well established as a guy willing to sacrifice, and I don't really need someone who is mega ball dominant.

Hondo would have to be moved to the two, which he should be able to adapt too relatively easily. Him and Bird at the wings gives my team a lot of energy. Hondo is the hustle and go-to defender player, while Bird is the primary shot creator on the team. Both guys move very well without the ball and have excellent range as well.

KG+Russell gives godlike defense, holy **** would that be something to see. I think Kg fits better than McHale personally. I like KG as an offensive player more than Kevin when you factor in his stretching and passing ability. PPG wise, KG is still a threat from the post, and is gonna give you over 20 points if necessary.

Him and Russell eating up all the boards, shutting down offenses, helping everyone - it's just too much.



EDIT: I actually had Pierce as my SF here, I totally forgot about Larry Bird somehow.


Celtics team might be less talented, but fit wise I think it would probably beat an all-time Laker team.

[penbeast0]

Oh, and how about this way to divvy up players fairly: The % of greatness accomplished in a jersey = more or less the % of minutes per game that a player is available to play for an all-time franchise. So, if 33% of Wilt's greatness derives from his time as a Sixer, then the all-time Sixers can play Wilt for about 16 minutes a game. OR, if an all-time franchise GM prefers, instead of limited minutes for 7 out of 7 games, a player can be played for unlimited minutes in as many games as the player had good-to-great seasons for that franchise, and again, that player is whatever caliber they were for that franchise.

So, the all-time Sixers could choose to play '67 Wilt for 16 minutes a game in all seven games, alongside the many other HOFers and All Stars on all-time Philly's roster. OTOH, if all-time Philly's GM wanted, then the all-time Sixers could use Wilt for the whole game in three and a half out of the seven game series. Now, that might mean they get to use him in every game...if they win (or lose) in a sweep. Likewise, if about 10% of a player's greatness stems from your team, you can either use him for 5 mpg in 7 games or for about 30 minutes in one game. Does that make sense?

And so, a corollary kind of rule would be, if a player had seven great seasons for you, then you can automatically get seven great games from him -- seven great seasons then represents the threshhold for a full claim, anything more being gravy, or maybe you get a little performance bonus every year beyond seven. And to elaborate more, to clarify, with another example:

Let's say that, going with Quotatious's superb guesstimates, Shaq's greatness gets split up just so -- 26% Magic, 42% Lakers, 22% Heat, 7% Suns, 2% Cavaliers, 1% Celtics. So, the all-time actual-Magic can use Shaq for either 4 games of maximum Orlando-era greatness (one could even just apportion it season-to-game, i.e., '93, '94, '95, and '96 would each determine the respective quality of one of the four games Shaq gets to play for ATL O-Town. OR, the ATL Magic can use Shaq for up to 26% of all seven games, about 12 minutes. It's still making sense, right? Is that too restrictive, too? It's less arbitrary, though, right?

Hmmm...perhaps we should just go with a more objective way to determine greatness-shares. We could simply just do team splits for a player's career win shares, then use those percentages to determine mpg for all 7 games (unless someone decides they'd rather go the game-per-season route for that particular player) and calculating all this would probably be ridiculously easy for one of you math wizards, and it's a methodology immune to a lot of subjective disputes and whatnot. Makes things almost merely algorithmic, lol. But there'd still be lots of freedom to manage a roster, choices to have to make. So, like, if you wanted to, you could opt to forgo the full value of a player's 7+ year span with your team and instead choose to use just that player's single best season for you as the basis for 10-15 minutes every game. Or, three of his best seasons to form three full games, one game per season, instead of adding another 4 less-great seasons into the mix. Or...okay, now I've lost my train of thought. Sorry, lol.

Man, just thinking about that Celts five as an actual starting lineup...seven complete games of Russell, seven complete games of Bird (including one game which'd be he equivalent of the 1986 pinnacle Bird...what would that even mean, lol...something awesome...just transfer his averages for the season to a single game?), seven complete games of Havlicek, seven complete games of Cousy. To then be able to sub in, for defensive purposes, if so needed, to harass an especially tall and mobile SF: Five whole games of '08-'13 KG respectively or about 15 mpg of '08 DPOY KG hyperinstensity. Same for DJ, either seven full games based on some order of '84-'90 DJ, or perhaps four whole games based on four cherrypicked DJ seasons, or if 40% of his greatness is Celtic-based, then up to about 20 minutes a game of DJ at his one-year Celtics peak. Does that make sense? Yeah? Kinda? No?

Using the Wiz again, I don't see how an all-time Wiz team should get any minutes of young superathletic Jordan instead of the selfish heavy Jordan who played for the Wiz. If you are putting together an all-time C's team, it should only include seasons played for the C's.

[HeartBreakKid]

Oh, and how about this way to divvy up players fairly: The % of greatness accomplished in a jersey = more or less the % of minutes per game that a player is available to play for an all-time franchise. So, if 33% of Wilt's greatness derives from his time as a Sixer, then the all-time Sixers can play Wilt for about 16 minutes a game. OR, if an all-time franchise GM prefers, instead of limited minutes for 7 out of 7 games, a player can be played for unlimited minutes in as many games as the player had good-to-great seasons for that franchise, and again, that player is whatever caliber they were for that franchise.

So, the all-time Sixers could choose to play '67 Wilt for 16 minutes a game in all seven games, alongside the many other HOFers and All Stars on all-time Philly's roster. OTOH, if all-time Philly's GM wanted, then the all-time Sixers could use Wilt for the whole game in three and a half out of the seven game series. Now, that might mean they get to use him in every game...if they win (or lose) in a sweep. Likewise, if about 10% of a player's greatness stems from your team, you can either use him for 5 mpg in 7 games or for about 30 minutes in one game. Does that make sense?

And so, a corollary kind of rule would be, if a player had seven great seasons for you, then you can automatically get seven great games from him -- seven great seasons then represents the threshhold for a full claim, anything more being gravy, or maybe you get a little performance bonus every year beyond seven. And to elaborate more, to clarify, with another example:

Let's say that, going with Quotatious's superb guesstimates, Shaq's greatness gets split up just so -- 26% Magic, 42% Lakers, 22% Heat, 7% Suns, 2% Cavaliers, 1% Celtics. So, the all-time actual-Magic can use Shaq for either 4 games of maximum Orlando-era greatness (one could even just apportion it season-to-game, i.e., '93, '94, '95, and '96 would each determine the respective quality of one of the four games Shaq gets to play for ATL O-Town. OR, the ATL Magic can use Shaq for up to 26% of all seven games, about 12 minutes. It's still making sense, right? Is that too restrictive, too? It's less arbitrary, though, right?

Hmmm...perhaps we should just go with a more objective way to determine greatness-shares. We could simply just do team splits for a player's career win shares, then use those percentages to determine mpg for all 7 games (unless someone decides they'd rather go the game-per-season route for that particular player) and calculating all this would probably be ridiculously easy for one of you math wizards, and it's a methodology immune to a lot of subjective disputes and whatnot. Makes things almost merely algorithmic, lol. But there'd still be lots of freedom to manage a roster, choices to have to make. So, like, if you wanted to, you could opt to forgo the full value of a player's 7+ year span with your team and instead choose to use just that player's single best season for you as the basis for 10-15 minutes every game. Or, three of his best seasons to form three full games, one game per season, instead of adding another 4 less-great seasons into the mix. Or...okay, now I've lost my train of thought. Sorry, lol.

Man, just thinking about that Celts five as an actual starting lineup...seven complete games of Russell, seven complete games of Bird (including one game which'd be he equivalent of the 1986 pinnacle Bird...what would that even mean, lol...something awesome...just transfer his averages for the season to a single game?), seven complete games of Havlicek, seven complete games of Cousy. To then be able to sub in, for defensive purposes, if so needed, to harass an especially tall and mobile SF: Five whole games of '08-'13 KG respectively or about 15 mpg of '08 DPOY KG hyperinstensity. Same for DJ, either seven full games based on some order of '84-'90 DJ, or perhaps four whole games based on four cherrypicked DJ seasons, or if 40% of his greatness is Celtic-based, then up to about 20 minutes a game of DJ at his one-year Celtics peak. Does that make sense? Yeah? Kinda? No?

Using the Wiz again, I don't see how an all-time Wiz team should get any minutes of young superathletic Jordan instead of the selfish heavy Jordan who played for the Wiz. If you are putting together an all-time C's team, it should only include seasons played for the C's.

Indeed, it would make the most sense to only mention players as they were under certain teams.

I mean most star players have played for other teams when they were out of their prime. Malone (both), Ewing, Nash, Hakeem, Jordan etc.

If we'd just include anyone who had a Celtics jersey you'd have to factor in guys like Shaq and Walton. Sheesh.

[wigglestrue]

Yeah, sorry for being unclear: You ONLY get the player who wore your jersey, however you want to frame his time with your team, either by plucking his best several-year-span with your team, or maybe just one single great season. The C's should get absolutely ZERO of the Garnett who played for Minnesota. The Bullets/Wiz only get some formulation of the Jordan who played for the Wiz.

[wigglestrue]

Let this be just a stand-in roster for the Lakers, until a premier Lakers homer posts a better-educated one. I'm going to play fast and loose a bit with the frontcourt positions, because there are just too many damned all-time great Laker centers to put one on a third unit, and while it's going to look silly to put one at PF since Lakers centers happen to be among the largest specimens to ever play the game...or, wait, no, because of the minutes/games limits I want to introduce for a tourney, I'll just keep it like I did the Celtics one, fairly realistic. So, great, the Lakers get 69-73 Wilt for their third unit. That's incredible. But they'll only get to play him for 10 minutes a game, since the Lakers get to claim about 1/5 of Wilt's career greatness, or for four full games as-he-was-those-years out of seven games. Otherwise they'll be stuck depending on whatever they want to choose from among 7 full games each of peak/prime Kareem and peak/prime Shaq. :0

C - Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
PF - Elgin Baylor
SF - Kobe Bryant
SG - Jerry West
PG - Magic Johnson

C - Shaquille O'Neal
PF - Pau Gasol
SF - James Worthy
SG - Byron Scott
PG - Gail Goodrich

C - Wilt Chamberlain
PF - Happy Hairston
SF - Jamaal Wilkes
SG - Michael Cooper
PG - Norm Nixon

And for good measure, a fourth unit...

C - George Mikan
PF - Vern Mikkelsen
SF - Rudy LaRusso
SG - Eddie Jones
PG - Slater Martin

Some random remainders:

Jim Pollard
A.C. Green
Clyde Lovellette
Lamar Odom
Nick Van Exel...?

It gets really hard to fit the all-time Lakers together into viable units. I kind of gave up by the fourth. This needs to be done by a Lakers fan.

That first unit cannot be beat on paper, I don't think.

[Owly]

What's with people picking DJ over Cousy? Is that an inside joke? There's no way in hell one should choose DJ over Cousy. Cousy has apparently become the most underrated player in NBA history, because of the overthought FG% thing and an overharsh assessment of his defense and an assumption that he could not compete today or something. Insane, whatever the reasoning is. Cousy was a legitimate GOAT candidate when he retired. He was generally ranked in the all-time Top 15-30 as recently as 10-20 years ago. Please do not make a starting lineup here without Cousy unless you have a lengthy, complicated, improbable case to make for it. In the meantime, here's an all-time lineup with more of an emphasis on authentic positions than usual for me, i.e., I always rank Cowens over McHale and squeeze Cowens into the first unit as a PF, but not here.

C - Bill Russell
PF - Kevin McHale
SF - Larry Bird
SG - John Havlicek
PG - Bob Cousy

And for a second unit...

C - Dave Cowens (although greater overall than McHale, imo)
PF - Kevin Garnett
SF - Paul Pierce
SG - Sam Jones
PG - Dennis Johnson

And a third unit, for good measure...

C - Robert Parish
PF - Tommy Heinsohn (or Ed Macauley)
SF - Reggie Lewis (or Antoine Walker)
SG - Bill Sharman (or Ray Allen)
PG - Rajon Rondo (or Tiny Archibald or Jo Jo White)

(Mods, don't kill me please for quoting myself again, lol.)

You could actually make a pretty decent fourth unit.
From those parenthetically listed:

C - Ed Macauley
PF - Antoine Walker
SF - Ray Allen
SG - Jo Jo White
PG - Tiny Archibald

That lineup would get crushed on the boards, lmao. But if we went cherrypicking for peaks from various players to play as an actual bench squad...

C - Bill Walton '86
PF - Satch Sanders '66
SF - Don Nelson '69
SG - Frank Ramsey '59
PG - KC Jones '62

Pretty sick strictly-bench unit, eh?

I'd have Bailey Howell ahead of 'Toine. And how about Paul Silas for your Bench squad 6th man. '73 edition seems clearly his best Boston year (at least by the boxscore), I can't say for sure whether he was coming off the bench that year (like many nominal Boston 6th men he played starter minutes) but he's generally considered part of the Boston 6th men canon.

[wigglestrue]

I can't believe I forgot Bailey. It was my itch as a Walker fan (wigglestrue) to include the over-maligned Antoine that blinded me. But, hmmm, actually, in terms of overall career value, I would still go with 'Toine's seven good seasons over Bailey's three. 'Toine would be eligible to play in seven full games, versus three full or seven limited appearances. But it's hard for playoff-'Toine to beat Howell's major contributions to two championships. So, in limited high-stakes minutes, I'd pick Howell.

And, same for Silas. But I'd still leave him off the strictly-bench unit, because as you'll note those five on there were most famous for their time as bench studs. And yet none of them were quite good enough to make the top three or four units overall. (Provided that we pretend I never listed Antoine parenthetically and instead had Howell or Silas in there.) KC, though a HOF-er, isn't a better overall pick than White, is he? Ramsey, though a HOF-er and multiple champion, wasn't a better player than peak-Reggie, was he? Well, in the '59 playoffs, he was.

Anyway, good calls, necessary calls. Thanks.

[Quotatious]

I'd take Howell over Toine and wouldn't even hesitate for a second. As talented as Walker was, he was also of a very little value in terms of playing efficient, winning basketball. One of the most inefficient scoring bigmen in NBA history. Walker had TS above 50% TWICE in his 12-year career. Disgraceful.

Howell, on the other hand, was almost a hyperefficient scorer for his era, at least in regular season. He was at his best on the Pistons in the early 60s, but still a really good player on the Bullets and Celtics. Not really a great all-around player, but a very good scorer.

[wigglestrue]

I'd take Howell over Toine and wouldn't even hesitate for a second. As talented as Walker was, he was also of a very little value in terms of playing efficient, winning basketball. One of the most inefficient scoring bigmen in NBA history. Walker had TS above 50% TWICE in his 12-year career. Disgraceful.

Howell, on the other hand, was almost a hyperefficient scorer for his era, at least in regular season. He was at his best on the Pistons in the early 60s, but still a really good player on the Bullets and Celtics. Not really a great all-around player, but a very good scorer.

You're probably underrating Walker as a defender and playmaker. Just because he was an inefficient shooter, doesn't mean he wasn't valuable. Besides, somebody had to shoot the ball on those teams besides Pierce, lol, and also...wasn't the team philosophy to **** around and chuck it up on O to save one's energy to play first Pitino's and then Harter's D as aggressively as possible?

[Quotatious]

You're probably underrating Walker as a defender and playmaker. Just because he was an inefficient shooter, doesn't mean he wasn't valuable. Besides, somebody had to shoot the ball on those teams besides Pierce, lol, and also...wasn't the team philosophy to **** around and chuck it up on O to save one's energy to play first Pitino's and then Harter's D as aggressively as possible?

Man, I watched the early 2000s Celtics a lot, and Walker is one of the least impressive "stars" in recent memory, to me. His defense was never good. Decent man to man against smaller PFs, or slower SFs, but he had really bad defensive awareness and gambled a lot. Average rebounder. His playmaking was certainly good, and pretty unique for a PF, as well as his ballhandling, but I'd say that he was a much worse version of DeMarcus Cousins. Certainly talented, but low bball IQ, poor attitude and a horrible chucker.

Considering that Walker's calling card was his offense, it just means that he wasn't really good as a player, given how poor of a scorer he was. His playmaking ability (and taking good care of the ball) was really the only worthwile part of his game.

Pierce really wasted a few years of his prime trying to lead these piss poor teams to the playoffs, and that's a credit to him that he was able to lead them to the ECF in 2002.

[wigglestrue]

Eh. I still think you're being a little ungrateful to Walker, considering the crap he had to play with (except Pierce, of course) and considering the somewhat-insane strategies of both Pitino and Obie. He may have been a bonehead as often as he was ingenious, but he hustled, he gave max effort on defense, especially under Obie, and his defensive stats reflect that. Yes, he was incredibly inefficient on offense. The whole damn team was designed to be. It was almost some kind of resurrection of the old school Celtics philosophy of forfeiting efficiency for margins, or whatever, for no good reason under Pitino other than a fetish for pressing, and for a very good reason under Obie/Harter, to maximize the niche created by the new zone rules, and it nearly got them to the Finals in '02. As it is, it was Antoine who won a championship first, as the third-best player on the '06 Heat. And also, you say that it was remarkable for Pierce to have been able to lead the '02 Celtics. That's doing Walker a big injustice. Who was it doing the actual leading? Walker. Oh, and he shot better than Pierce in those playoffs!

[Quotatious]

Eh. I still think you're being a little ungrateful to Walker, considering the crap he had to play with (except Pierce, of course) and considering the somewhat-insane strategies of both Pitino and Obie. He may have been a bonehead as often as he was ingenious, but he hustled, he gave max effort on defense, especially under Obie, and his defensive stats reflect that. Yes, he was incredibly inefficient on offense. The whole damn team was designed to be. It was almost some kind of resurrection of the old school Celtics philosophy of forfeiting efficiency for margins, or whatever, for no good reason under Pitino other than a fetish for pressing, and for a very good reason under Obie/Harter, to maximize the niche created by the new zone rules, and it nearly got them to the Finals in '02. As it is, it was Antoine who won a championship first, as the third-best player on the '06 Heat. And also, you say that it was remarkable for Pierce to have been able to lead the '02 Celtics. That's doing Walker a big injustice. Who was it doing the actual leading? Walker. Oh, and he shot better than Pierce in those playoffs!

Yeah, Pitino, as great as he is in the NCAA, was a total disaster in the NBA, because he couldn't adjust to be a 'players coach', and demanded that his philosophy had to be obeyed by all of his players. Jim O'Brien, who replaced him in a midst of the 2000-01 season, wasn't really a good coach either.
That's okay, but I still think that Walker, a supposed franchise player for the Celtics, was a big failure in that role. Obviously not a bust (3-time consecutive All-Star, after all), but a big disappointment. Well, in general, after Bird and McHale retired in '92 and '93, respectively, and Parish was gone in '94, the entire franchise was doomed for a long time, basically until the 2007 offseason. I don't really consider the early 2000s a success, because the one ECF in 2002 were much more a result of all-time weak Eastern conference, than Celtics' actual strength as a team.

As far as Pierce/Walker leadership role, both were co-captains, and co-leaders of this team, but I don't think that anyone had doubts whether Pierce was a better player...To be fair, comparable players (to Pierce) like Iverson, McGrady and Carter were stuck in a similarly bad situation on their respective teams in the early 2000s.

Answering your question (although it was more of a rhetorical one, I guess) about who was carrying the Celtics in 2002 - Pierce was slightly more efficient in the playoffs, and averaged a bit more PPG, so I'd give him a slight edge. He was also a go-to-guy in crunch time, and remained so for over a decade. Pierce had a HUGE advantage over Toine in the 2001-02 regular season though, and he just performed below his capabilities in the postseason, in terms of scoring efficiency.

Don't get me wrong - I don't hate Antoine. I don't like him either, and think that he was a horrible chucker, but I really enjoyed watching these Celtics teams of the early 2000s, and it's still one of my top 3 favorite teams since I've been watching the NBA, even though they weren't exactly great in terms of actual performance, they were pretty fun to watch with the dynamic duo of Pierce and Walker.

[NO-KG-AI]

Russell
Garnett
Bird
Pierce
Havlicek

I think you can get the best lineup available with these guys, and at their best, the 5 best Celtics.

[wigglestrue]

Eh. I still think you're being a little ungrateful to Walker, considering the crap he had to play with (except Pierce, of course) and considering the somewhat-insane strategies of both Pitino and Obie. He may have been a bonehead as often as he was ingenious, but he hustled, he gave max effort on defense, especially under Obie, and his defensive stats reflect that. Yes, he was incredibly inefficient on offense. The whole damn team was designed to be. It was almost some kind of resurrection of the old school Celtics philosophy of forfeiting efficiency for margins, or whatever, for no good reason under Pitino other than a fetish for pressing, and for a very good reason under Obie/Harter, to maximize the niche created by the new zone rules, and it nearly got them to the Finals in '02. As it is, it was Antoine who won a championship first, as the third-best player on the '06 Heat. And also, you say that it was remarkable for Pierce to have been able to lead the '02 Celtics. That's doing Walker a big injustice. Who was it doing the actual leading? Walker. Oh, and he shot better than Pierce in those playoffs!

Yeah, Pitino, as great as he is in the NCAA, was a total disaster in the NBA, because he couldn't adjust to be a 'players coach', and demanded that his philosophy had to be obeyed by all of his players. Jim O'Brien, who replaced him in a midst of the 2000-01 season, wasn't really a good coach either.
That's okay, but I still think that Walker, a supposed franchise player for the Celtics, was a big failure in that role. Obviously not a bust (3-time consecutive All-Star, after all), but a big disappointment. Well, in general, after Bird and McHale retired in '92 and '93, respectively, and Parish was gone in '94, the entire franchise was doomed for a long time, basically until the 2007 offseason. I don't really consider the early 2000s a success, because the one ECF in 2002 were much more a result of all-time weak Eastern conference, than Celtics' actual strength as a team.

As far as Pierce/Walker leadership role, both were co-captains, and co-leaders of this team, but I don't think that anyone had doubts whether Pierce was a better player...To be fair, comparable players (to Pierce) like Iverson, McGrady and Carter were stuck in a similarly bad situation on their respective teams in the early 2000s.

Answering your question (although it was more of a rhetorical one, I guess) about who was carrying the Celtics in 2002 - Pierce was slightly more efficient in the playoffs, and averaged a bit more PPG, so I'd give him a slight edge. He was also a go-to-guy in crunch time, and remained so for over a decade. Pierce had a HUGE advantage over Toine in the 2001-02 regular season though, and he just performed below his capabilities in the postseason, in terms of scoring efficiency.

Don't get me wrong - I don't hate Antoine. I don't like him either, and think that he was a horrible chucker, but I really enjoyed watching these Celtics teams of the early 2000s, and it's still one of my top 3 favorite teams since I've been watching the NBA, even though they weren't exactly great in terms of actual performance, they were pretty fun to watch with the dynamic duo of Pierce and Walker.

Eh. It wasn't that weak. Not the teams the C's faced that postseason, anyway. The '02 Nets were not a bad team, they won 52 games and were led by peak Jason Kidd, and would make the Finals again the following year. The '02 Sixers were not bad, they were 36-24 in games that (peak) Iverson played, they still had Mutombo, and they had reached the Finals the year before. The '02 Pistons won 50 games, and had a peak Ben Wallace.

When I say "lead", I don't mean just "Who was better?", I also mean leadership. Pierce was not the leader of that team, Antoine was. And as we've recalled, Antoine was practically tied with Pierce in those playoffs in terms of production and efficiency. If only Pierce could've hit a free throw in Game 4 (Antoine couldn't have possibly played better that game) or a three or not turned the ball over, then the C's have a 3-1 lead and probably face the Lakers, and as anyone who saw the game in LA that year knows, a series against that Celtics team was not a gimme for the Lakers, matchup-wise. If that team plays those Lakers hard, takes 'em to six games, we think of that era and of Antoine Walker much differently. I think of them differently, anyway.

[wigglestrue]

Russell
Garnett
Bird
Pierce
Havlicek

I think you can get the best lineup available with these guys, and at their best, the 5 best Celtics.

Except that Pierce is not one of the five best Celtics. Not with players like Cousy, Cowens, and McHale who were all better/greater both career-wise and best-season-wise. Cousy's MVP-peak, Cowens's MVP peak, McHale in 1987...each better than Pierce ever was.

One of the bonuses of being banned from the Boston board is that I don't have to see Pierce being ridiculously overrated in Celtics history contexts anymore. This is unsettling to see on the PC board!

[rrravenred]

Russell
Garnett
Bird
Pierce
Havlicek

I think you can get the best lineup available with these guys, and at their best, the 5 best Celtics.

Garnett vs. McHale is a really interesting conundrum (that a lot of teams would like to have). A question for me is really one of fit... if you have Russell, do you need Garnett?

(As an aside... Hondo at PG? Not 100% sold on that, though with Bird in the lineup you don't really need a traditional initiator)