kcktiny wrote:Depending how you read/interpret the question you could get to very different answers
From 1979-80 to 1987-88 (9 seasons), Boston was the 2nd best defensive team in the league (103.1 pts/100poss allowed). The only team better was Milwaukee.
Just the above four players played close to half of the team's total regular season minutes during that time (46% of the minutes). Bird alone played 1/7 to 1/6 of the team's total minutes played.
All four at that time each were known as a very good to excellent defenders, and I can't imagine why that opinion would change now.
There are some now that challenge the fact that Bird was thought of as a very good to excellent defender during his career. You had to watch him to see that he in fact was.
Another 38 players played for the Celtics during this time. Other than maybe Bill Walton, Quinn Bucker, and M.L. Carr, who combined to play just 6% of their total minutes, the reason for Boston being
so good defensively all that time was the four players mentioned above.
Have you read the post? I'm not sure this is a response to what I wrote.
The central point seems to be
All four at that time each were known as a very good to excellent defenders, and I can't imagine why that opinion would change now.
And I don't know how that regards my post.
It isn't whether they are good it is how different criteria might lead to different conclusions in ranking them ...
For instance:
- Bird's defensive peak is probably early on in his career, if it's - as raised as a possibility - interpreted to regard the shared time only with all the above then you're cutting out years where his motor is higher on D and placing greater emphasis where he carried a larger load on the other end and his body started to break down.
DJ is better on D on average over his career than he is in Boston. Boston just has more downside years and he just isn't as athletic or dangerous as earlier.
This isn't about were they good. The framing issues are independent of Boston's defensive goodness.
For what it's worth though I think your language is imprecise and hyperbolic in places. "Bird was thought of as a very good to excellent" ... at times. At times he's not getting any voting recognition and by the end is reckoned by some a liability (e.g. graded a C after '91 and a D [the lowest grade] after '92 by Barry and Cohn). You might think them wrong or not care about those years but then that comes back to the questions I raised (e.g. is it peak, which years are under consideration, "net or summing only positive years?").
Those core guys are there from 84-90 playing big minutes. 84 and 86 are very good. 85 and 87 are quite good but by no means exceptional. 88 and 89 are quite bad but by no means awful. 90 is circa average. These guys are the starters those years (89 and exception for Bird with regard to injury) and are at least all top 5 minute guys for each year that spell (ditto re Bird injury).
Boston's strongest and most consistent spell for D in the Bird era is 80-84 which only has Bird for the full spell, which sees McHale with an average of 27.1mpg and only has DJ for one year. As such I would at least consider looking at coaching (Fitch) and players more from that era (Maxwell?) as drivers of Boston's strong defenses when they were good (granted one can be a good defender on a bad defensive team, but the focus here was Boston's 80s D being good and ... some of the guys mentioned weren't so featured for much of the best bits). Thus those four as "the reason", singular seems to preclude credit for, for instance Fitch, and given the timeline that feels wrong.
I also somewhat disagree with the phrase "You had to watch him to see that he in fact was." Primarily the fact that it is in the past tense as though that avenue is closed and some people might not be able to watch hundreds of 80s Boston games now. It's hard to know if any potential "[Generic-]You disagree therefore you didn't watch him" type baggage may or may not be intended there, I'd like to think not, but if so I don't like that assumption. I also suspect relatively well informed eyes can differ in terms of a purely "eye" impression of defense.
My impression is that you either believe these guys were still exception during an ordinary and sometimes somewhat weak back end to the 80s in terms of Celtics D and/or you don't understand how some of them getting worse would change an assessment depending on different criteria and/or quoted a post without really understanding what it was about.