Remove the star, highest win differential?

[70sFan]

What about russell??
I mean hes mister highest impact (ever) plus he coached the team simultaneously.so you remove him you are without coach and star.

Red could go back to coaching but prime Russell would be a real contender for this title. Even aging Russell in 69 shows a serious dropoff for the Celtics from 69 to 70 despite Havlicek continuing his improvement into the star he would be in the 70s.

This is a rather implausible argument. The Celtics were literally the best team in the league when Russell joined mid way into his rookie season, and when he retired in 1969 they dropped from 48 wins to 34. Not only that, Sam Jones retired along with Russell too and he was still a good player. The 1970 team also had some injuries to boot. Once they added rookie Cowens in 71 they were back to 44 wins, and up to 56 in 72. Clearly it didn't take much to fill the Russell/Jones gap in the RS.

Russell is one of the few historical legends whose career doesn't support this claim. He played his whole career with a slew of hall of famers.

By this logic, absolutely nothing suggests that Duncan deserves any mention in this thread.

[One_and_Done]

I am inclined to believe that the 2017 Rockets would have won less than 20 games without Harden.

Nah. Harden brings a big floor raise in the RS, don't get me wrong, but this is overstating it. He's not in the same league as the top names being discussed here.

[One_and_Done]

Red could go back to coaching but prime Russell would be a real contender for this title. Even aging Russell in 69 shows a serious dropoff for the Celtics from 69 to 70 despite Havlicek continuing his improvement into the star he would be in the 70s.

This is a rather implausible argument. The Celtics were literally the best team in the league when Russell joined mid way into his rookie season, and when he retired in 1969 they dropped from 48 wins to 34. Not only that, Sam Jones retired along with Russell too and he was still a good player. The 1970 team also had some injuries to boot. Once they added rookie Cowens in 71 they were back to 44 wins, and up to 56 in 72. Clearly it didn't take much to fill the Russell/Jones gap in the RS.

Russell is one of the few historical legends whose career doesn't support this claim. He played his whole career with a slew of hall of famers.

By this logic, absolutely nothing suggests that Duncan deserves any mention in this thread.

It does, because Duncan's support casts sucked from 01 to 03, especially in 02. If those years didn't exist then yeh, it would be less obvious. That said I did a breakdown of the 99 Spurs in a general board thread and frankly they're very overrated as a support cast too.

The Spurs were good after Duncan left because he was no longer in his prime and baton passed to another superstar.

[70sFan]

This is a rather implausible argument. The Celtics were literally the best team in the league when Russell joined mid way into his rookie season, and when he retired in 1969 they dropped from 48 wins to 34. Not only that, Sam Jones retired along with Russell too and he was still a good player. The 1970 team also had some injuries to boot. Once they added rookie Cowens in 71 they were back to 44 wins, and up to 56 in 72. Clearly it didn't take much to fill the Russell/Jones gap in the RS.

Russell is one of the few historical legends whose career doesn't support this claim. He played his whole career with a slew of hall of famers.

By this logic, absolutely nothing suggests that Duncan deserves any mention in this thread.

It does, because Duncan's support casts sucked from 01 to 03, especially in 02. If those years didn't exist then yeh, it would be less obvious. That said I did a breakdown of the 99 Spurs in a general board thread and frankly they're very overrated as a support cast too.

The Spurs were good after Duncan left because he was no longer in his prime and baton passed to another superstar.

Exactly the same can be said about Russell and his peak years (1964-65 in particular), with the exception that the Celtics weren't good when he retired.

[One_and_Done]

By this logic, absolutely nothing suggests that Duncan deserves any mention in this thread.

It does, because Duncan's support casts sucked from 01 to 03, especially in 02. If those years didn't exist then yeh, it would be less obvious. That said I did a breakdown of the 99 Spurs in a general board thread and frankly they're very overrated as a support cast too.

The Spurs were good after Duncan left because he was no longer in his prime and baton passed to another superstar.

Exactly the same can be said about Russell and his peak years (1964-65 in particular), with the exception that the Celtics weren't good when he retired.

Russell spent his whole career surrounded by a cast of HoFers in their prime. I just went and looked at 1965 to confirm I wasn't misremembering, and I'm not. Sam Jones was 4th in the MVP vote that year, and he had Havlicek too. Heinsohn was an all-star that year! Who did Duncan have in 02 that was an all-star? Never mind the fact his 2nd best player wasn't 4th in the MVP vote.

Just a completely inaccurate statement. Russell had 2 other HoFers that year too! And they weren't washed up or anything either. They were 32 and 26 years old. Even if I think they didn't deserve to be HoFers, and KC Jones mainly got in for coaching, they were good role players certainly

[OhayoKD]

It does, because Duncan's support casts sucked from 01 to 03, especially in 02. If those years didn't exist then yeh, it would be less obvious. That said I did a breakdown of the 99 Spurs in a general board thread and frankly they're very overrated as a support cast too.

The Spurs were good after Duncan left because he was no longer in his prime and baton passed to another superstar.

Exactly the same can be said about Russell and his peak years (1964-65 in particular), with the exception that the Celtics weren't good when he retired.

Russell spent his whole career surrounded by a cast of HoFers in their prime. I just went and looked at 1965 to confirm I wasn't misremembering, and I'm not. Sam Jones was 4th in the MVP vote that year, and he had Havlicek too. Heinsohn was an all-star that year! Who did Duncan have in 02 that was an all-star? Never mind the fact his 2nd best player wasn't 4th in the MVP vote.

Just a completely inaccurate statement. Russell had 2 other HoFers that year too! And they weren't washed up or anything either. They were 32 and 26 years old. Even if I think they didn't deserve to be HoFers, and KC Jones mainly got in for coaching, they were good role players certainly

The Celtics 2 most dominant years came with Russell averaging 12 more minutes than his teamamtes, the first set of hall-of-famers aged out, and the team looking very bad without him consistently.

Those are tiny samples so you can be uncertain about things, but it's silly to dismiss the possiblity of a gigantic collapse because voters voted a bunch of people who won a bunch of rings with russell as hall-of-famers at a period of time they were under the impression the Celtics were a very good offense because they didn't understand pace

[One_and_Done]

Exactly the same can be said about Russell and his peak years (1964-65 in particular), with the exception that the Celtics weren't good when he retired.

Russell spent his whole career surrounded by a cast of HoFers in their prime. I just went and looked at 1965 to confirm I wasn't misremembering, and I'm not. Sam Jones was 4th in the MVP vote that year, and he had Havlicek too. Heinsohn was an all-star that year! Who did Duncan have in 02 that was an all-star? Never mind the fact his 2nd best player wasn't 4th in the MVP vote.

Just a completely inaccurate statement. Russell had 2 other HoFers that year too! And they weren't washed up or anything either. They were 32 and 26 years old. Even if I think they didn't deserve to be HoFers, and KC Jones mainly got in for coaching, they were good role players certainly

The Celtics 2 most dominant years came with Russell averaging 12 more minutes than his teamamtes, the first set of hall-of-famers aged out, and the team looking very bad without him consistently.

Those are tiny samples so you can be uncertain about things, but it's silly to dismiss the possiblity of a gigantic collapse because voters voted a bunch of people who won a bunch of rings with russell as hall-of-famers at a period of time they were under the impression the Celtics were a very good offense because they didn't understand pace

Nobody is suggesting Russell's in era impact wasn't huge, especially in the PS, but there's absolutely no way he is even a top 20 choice to answer the question of 'what team loses the most wins if you take their star away'.

Those samples are tiny, as you say, and are more than countered by looking at the facts I alluded to. Some of Russell's 'HoF' team mates were not real HoFers, as I said already, but others definitely were and had a proven record without Russell in some cases (e.g. Havlicek was clearly an all-timer for the era). I also don't think Sam Jones was a bad player who got voted 4th, 5th & 9th in MVP because he was near the glow of Bill Russell. Jones was clearly a star of that era.

[OhayoKD]

Russell spent his whole career surrounded by a cast of HoFers in their prime. I just went and looked at 1965 to confirm I wasn't misremembering, and I'm not. Sam Jones was 4th in the MVP vote that year, and he had Havlicek too. Heinsohn was an all-star that year! Who did Duncan have in 02 that was an all-star? Never mind the fact his 2nd best player wasn't 4th in the MVP vote.

Just a completely inaccurate statement. Russell had 2 other HoFers that year too! And they weren't washed up or anything either. They were 32 and 26 years old. Even if I think they didn't deserve to be HoFers, and KC Jones mainly got in for coaching, they were good role players certainly

The Celtics 2 most dominant years came with Russell averaging 12 more minutes than his teamamtes, the first set of hall-of-famers aged out, and the team looking very bad without him consistently.

Those are tiny samples so you can be uncertain about things, but it's silly to dismiss the possiblity of a gigantic collapse because voters voted a bunch of people who won a bunch of rings with russell as hall-of-famers at a period of time they were under the impression the Celtics were a very good offense because they didn't understand pace

Nobody is suggesting Russell's in era impact wasn't huge, especially in the PS, but there's absolutely no way he is even a top 20 choice to answer the question of 'what team loses the most wins if you take their star away'.

Those samples are tiny, as you say, and are more than countered by looking at the facts I alluded to.

The Celtics dropping 12 wins in their worst regular-season with Russell at his worst is not really a counter. There's also no reason we would assume the rookie signal or the previous year would apply to every russell team when all those guys were gone or about to retire by 1960-1962. The team doesn't have to be 35-win every year, it just needs to be one over a 11-year stretch they played like a 35-win team on average in one of those years Russell was playing vastly more minutes than anyone else. That gets you a range of 25-35 wins.

Some of Russell's 'HoF' team mates were not real HoFers, as I said already, but others definitely were and had a proven record without Russell in some cases (e.g. Havlicek was clearly an all-timer for the era).

Havelick did not prove anything until he was substantially better as a player several years removed. There is also no reason why sam jones and havelick would not benefit from voters massively overrating the Celtics offense considering most of their value was offense-based.

I also don't think Sam Jones was a bad player who got voted 4th, 5th & 9th in MVP because he was near the glow of Bill Russell. Jones was clearly a star of that era.

He's probably not being voted that high if people realise their offense is literally average lol

[One_and_Done]

The proposition put was not 'was Sam Jones overrated?' The claim was that the quality of Bill Russell's support cast in 1965 was 'exactly' the same in terms of in era support cast talent as what Duncan had in 2002. That is a patently wrong statement. Duncan had far worse players supporting him in 02 than Russell did in 65, relative to the talent of those leagues

[eminence]

Oh, and a shout to '02 Steve Francis, whose Rockets went an appalling 2-23 without him (26-31 with). A +30 WOWY sample for Mr. Franchise.

[One_and_Done]

Oh, and a shout to '02 Steve Francis, whose Rockets went an appalling 2-23 without him (26-31 with). A +30 WOWY sample for Mr. Franchise.

I think that was less about Francis and more about blatant tanking to try and get Ming. Biggest misleading win-loss stat ever.

[70sFan]

Russell spent his whole career surrounded by a cast of HoFers in their prime. I just went and looked at 1965 to confirm I wasn't misremembering, and I'm not. Sam Jones was 4th in the MVP vote that year, and he had Havlicek too. Heinsohn was an all-star that year!

1. Having more all-stars in a league that had 9 teams than in a 30 teams league means absolutely nothing when the number of all-stars doesn't change. Even the worst 1960s teams usually had all-stars in their rosters, that's how the league was at that point.

2. David Robinson finished 10th in MVP voting in 2001, I hope you will be consistent and exclude 2001 from the sample because he had top 10 player in the league next to him. Or maybe sometimes great team record inflates MVP voting results, you know?

3. Have you bothered to look at Tom Heinsohn all-star campaign in 1965? Tom was 25 mpg inefficient volume scoring roleplayer in that season whose minutes decreased in the playoffs. Heinsohn was well known and respected, he got the ballot in his last season. He wasn't even remotely close to all-star level at this point. You just proved you don't know what you are talking about again.

Who did Duncan have in 02 that was an all-star? Never mind the fact his 2nd best player wasn't 4th in the MVP vote.

I specifically said 1964-65 and you said 2001-03, so if you now limit yourself to 2002 only, let's focus on 1964.

In 1964, Russell played with a team that literally had only one player that scored on above league average efficiency - Sam Jones. No other player could even finish shots at above league average - not Tom, not John and certainly not KC. Yeah, technically he played with "2 all-stars", but Heinsohn wasn't on that level anymore (care to explain why he is if you disagree) and Sam Jones wasn't any better than the other 2nd best players (Baylor, Lucas, Guerin, Walker etc), yet the Celtics were tier above any other team that year and almost swept the playoffs. Havlicek was a 2nd year player who didn't learn how to shoot yet and wasn't much of playmaker.

Please, tell me how this team that couldn't score at all would work well without Russell's defensive presence. I can't see them winning more than 30 wins to be honest. Look at 76ers or Bullets rosters, they are clearly more talented than Celtics team without Russell.

Just a completely inaccurate statement. Russell had 2 other HoFers that year too! And they weren't washed up or anything either. They were 32 and 26 years old.

Duncan also had 2 HoFers in 2002, name counting won't make it here.

Even if I think they didn't deserve to be HoFers, and KC Jones mainly got in for coaching, they were good role players certainly

Yeah, they were good roleplayers. Duncan also played with good roleplayers even in the worst years, that's what Spurs were always famous for. Good roleplayers won't carry you without a star.

[One_and_Done]

Russell spent his whole career surrounded by a cast of HoFers in their prime. I just went and looked at 1965 to confirm I wasn't misremembering, and I'm not. Sam Jones was 4th in the MVP vote that year, and he had Havlicek too. Heinsohn was an all-star that year!

1. Having more all-stars in a league that had 9 teams than in a 30 teams league means absolutely nothing when the number of all-stars doesn't change. Even the worst 1960s teams usually had all-stars in their rosters, that's how the league was at that point.

2. David Robinson finished 10th in MVP voting in 2001, I hope you will be consistent and exclude 2001 from the sample because he had top 10 player in the league next to him. Or maybe sometimes great team record inflates MVP voting results, you know?

3. Have you bothered to look at Tom Heinsohn all-star campaign in 1965? Tom was 25 mpg inefficient volume scoring roleplayer in that season whose minutes decreased in the playoffs. Heinsohn was well known and respected, he got the ballot in his last season. He wasn't even remotely close to all-star level at this point. You just proved you don't know what you are talking about again.

Who did Duncan have in 02 that was an all-star? Never mind the fact his 2nd best player wasn't 4th in the MVP vote.

I specifically said 1964-65 and you said 2001-03, so if you now limit yourself to 2002 only, let's focus on 1964.

In 1964, Russell played with a team that literally had only one player that scored on above league average efficiency - Sam Jones. No other player could even finish shots at above league average - not Tom, not John and certainly not KC. Yeah, technically he played with "2 all-stars", but Heinsohn wasn't on that level anymore (care to explain why he is if you disagree) and Sam Jones wasn't any better than the other 2nd best players (Baylor, Lucas, Guerin, Walker etc), yet the Celtics were tier above any other team that year and almost swept the playoffs. Havlicek was a 2nd year player who didn't learn how to shoot yet and wasn't much of playmaker.

Please, tell me how this team that couldn't score at all would work well without Russell's defensive presence. I can't see them winning more than 30 wins to be honest. Look at 76ers or Bullets rosters, they are clearly more talented than Celtics team without Russell.

Just a completely inaccurate statement. Russell had 2 other HoFers that year too! And they weren't washed up or anything either. They were 32 and 26 years old.

Duncan also had 2 HoFers in 2002, name counting won't make it here.

Even if I think they didn't deserve to be HoFers, and KC Jones mainly got in for coaching, they were good role players certainly

Yeah, they were good roleplayers. Duncan also played with good roleplayers even in the worst years, that's what Spurs were always famous for. Good roleplayers won't carry you without a star.

I can't believe you're continuing with this.

I'll be the first to say MVP votes aren't always right, but to compare the situation of Sam Jones to David Robinson is absurd. D.Rob was aged 35-37 from 01 to 03. He averaged between 26 and 29 mpg each of those 3 years. He was still a (dubious) all-star for the RS in 01, but the wheels came off completely in the 01 playoffs and from there he fell off a cliff. He was a solid role player at best in 02 and even worse in 03, and he missed most of the 02 playoffs (they did better without him against the Lakers than they had the previous year). The token 8 MVP vote points he received (out of a possible 1240) was so close to zero that it's basically a random homer voter putting him on his ballot like that time PJ Brown got an MVP ballot vote).

Sam Jones was 30-32 from 64-66, and was 9th, 4th and 5th on the MVP ballot. Only 5 to 6 guys even got votes in the latter 2 years. He was a real MVP candidate, not the product of a random homer vote. In 1965 Sam Jones was putting up 28-7 in the playoffs and had the 2nd best efficiency on the team after Russell.

Then there's Havlicek, who honestly was probably better than Jones some years they were together but who didn't get credit for it. Heinsohn, KC Jones and Sanders may well have been overrated by playing with Russell, but they were all solid role players. To compare these guys as comparable to the support casts Duncan had in 01 to 03 is a joke, particularly in 02.

You talk about how Sam Jones 'wasn't any better than Elgin Baylor'. We're not comparing him to Rlgin Baylor, we're comparing him to 01 to 03 David Robinson. There is simply no argument Sam Jones, relative to the era he was in, was a better Robin than D Rob those years. Similarly Havlicek was better than the Spurs 3rd best player.

Nor did Duncan play with good role players as you claim. Who were Duncan's Heinsohn, Sanders and Jones in 02 for example? Steve Smith was completely washed out, all he could do was hit wide open 3s, absolutely nothing else about him was good. Antonio Daniels was definitely not good, nor was Malik Rose. Tony Parker had potential, but he was a rookie point guard in 02 and even in 03 he was yanked in the playoffs for a journeyman point guard of no consequence named Speedy Claxton. Antonio Daniels was not a good role player. Charles Smith was a G-Leaguer, yet he started 22 games. That was the top 8 guys in the rotation.

Not 1 of the the guys in the 2002 Spurs from 2-6 was an above average starter. Most were below average, some were below replacement level. Russell's 2-6 featured 2 stars and 3 good role players. Worlds apart.

[70sFan]

I'll be the first to say MVP votes aren't always right, but to compare the situation of Sam Jones to David Robinson is absurd. D.Rob was aged 35-37 from 01 to 03. He averaged between 26 and 29 mpg each of those 3 years.

In comparison to Sam Jones, who averaged 31 mpg in 1964, massive difference indeed.
Tom Heinsohn is a legit all-star though, it doesn't matter that he played 27 mpg in 1964 and 26 mpg in 1965. Havlicek playing 29 mpg in 1965 doesn't matter either, excellent example of consistency.

Sam Jones was 30-32 from 64-66, and was 9th, 4th and 5th on the MVP ballot. Only 5 to 6 guys even got votes in the latter 2 years. He was a real MVP candidate, not the product of a random homer vote. In 1965 Sam Jones was putting up 28-7 in the playoffs and had the 2nd best efficiency on the team after Russell.

Are you trying to tell me that Jones was in the same tier with Bill Russell, Jerry West and Oscar Robertson? Was he better than Wilt Chamberlain? Or is this the case of him being on Greer/Pettit/Lucas/Bellamy/Howell tier but got recognition because of great team record?

Tell me, what do you think is closer to his real value?

Then there's Havlicek, who honestly was probably better than Jones some years they were together but who didn't get credit for it.

He was better than Jones, in seasons we don't discuss. Just like Parker and Ginobili were stars after 2004, but we don't include them here, you know?

Havlicek wasn't even a full starter in 1964 and he played restricted minutes in an era when stars played 40+ minutes easily. He was highly inefficient shooter that got worse in the playoffs and didn't bring much playmaking value until 1966. The truth is that Havlicek was a defensive roleplayer during these years, but was forced to take a lot of shots because of lack of offensive talent.

Heinsohn, KC Jones and Sanders may well have been overrated by playing with Russell, but they were all solid role players. To compare these guys as comparable to the support casts Duncan had in 01 to 03 is a joke, particularly in 02.

Duncan had plenty of solid roleplayers in 2002: Bowen, Parker, Smith, Rose.

You talk about how Sam Jones 'wasn't any better than Elgin Baylor'. We're not comparing him to Rlgin Baylor, we're comparing him to 01 to 03 David Robinson. There is simply no argument Sam Jones, relative to the era he was in, was a better Robin than D Rob those years. Similarly Havlicek was better than the Spurs 3rd best player.

No, we are comparing Sam Jones as a 2nd man to the other teams from that era, because that's how we should judge it. Bullets won 31 games in 1964 and they had Bellamy, Dischinger and Johnson - one all-nba level player and 2 low-star level players. Smaller league means more condensed talent.

Sam Jones was nothing special as a 2nd option in 1964, he competed with Baylor, Lucas, Walker, Guerin etc.

Nor did Duncan play with good role players as you claim. Who were Duncan's Heinsohn, Sanders and Jones in 02 for example?

Can you tell me what exactly makes someone like 1964 Heinsohn or Sanders good? Or do you just keep calling names without substance?

Steve Smith was completely washed out, all he could do was hit wide open 3s, absolutely nothing else about him was good. Antonio Daniels was definitely not good, nor was Malik Rose. Tony Parker had potential, but he was a rookie point guard in 02 and even in 03 he was yanked in the playoffs for a journeyman point guard of no consequence named Speedy Claxton. Antonio Daniels was not a good role player. Charles Smith was a G-Leaguer, yet he started 22 games. That was the top 8 guys in the rotation.

Did you just omit Bruce Bowen on purpose? Why was Malik Rose any worse than Heinsohn at this point? I don't agree he was a bad player at all. Smith wasn't washed up at all, he had completely fine season. Parker is the equivalent of 1964 Hondo, except he could at least carry playmaking duties. Havlicek shot so badly in the playoffs that he played almost 8 minutes less than Parker.

At least Duncan had reliable finishers that could finish from three and from inside at way above league average efficiency. Russell played with no roleplayer capable of finishing at league average at all. Spurs have 6 players scoring at above league average efficiency, Celtics have 1.

Not 1 of the the guys in the 2002 Spurs from 2-6 was an above average starter. Most were below average, some were below replacement level. Russell's 2-6 featured 2 stars and 3 good role players. Worlds apart.

It's ridiculous to call 2002 Robinson below average, he was still easily top 10 center in the league that year until postseason injury. Bruce Bowen was also elite roleplayer, better than KC Jones I'd say. It's just your wishful thinking, you keep talking how bad David freaking Robinson was in 2002 while calling Tom Heinsohn who was far more washed than Admiral a "good roleplayer".

The only difference between these two rosters is that Sam Jones is better than anyone on the Spurs roster, but teams had more talent in general in the mid-60s, so it doesn't really change anything.

Pleaese, tell me how many wins all these "stars" and "good roleplayers" would have without Russell in 1964. They were absolutely horrible offensively that year (-4.5 per BBR). Even if you assume that their defense would remain above average (far from a given, but let's give them the benefit of doubt) at around -2, that would still put them at 30-35 wins pace. That's assuming they'd do fine defensively without Russell rebounding and rim protection.

Their team wasn't talented offensively, that's the reason they were so bad on that end. Jones was their only reliable scoring option, but he was an off-ball threat who didn't create for others. Havlicek didn't have passing hops yet and he was a terribly inefficient shooter. KC couldn't score at all in the halfcourt. Sanders was decent enough offensively, but decent in a 5th man sense, not as the 3rd option. Heinsohn was a washed up bench player who shot too much at this point. They had quite a few elite defenders, but so did 2002 Spurs.

The reality is that you keep changing your arguments to suit your prepositions. It's not the first time you're doing it and it won't be the last one. You're doing it every time you disagree with something in POY project as well.

[One_and_Done]

Yeh, I don't see the merit in continuing this. You lost me with 'Steve Smith and Malik Rose were good role players in 02'. You just compared Malik Rose, a career bench player, to a HoFer who was on his 5th consecutive all-star appearance and made 3 consecutive all-nba 2nd teams a year prior, you said he was as good as Malik 'Cheesesteak' Rose. Malik Rose, who started 85 games out of 813, and averaged 16.5mpg. Beyond not serious.

The comparison of rookie Tony Parker as having equal in era impact to 24 yr old John Havlicek was also insane. Havlicek was on the all-nba 2nd team the year before, and was 10th in the MVP vote the year before that. Havlicek, despite playing fewer minutes for the good of the team, averaged 18-5-3 that year and was an elite defender.

[70sFan]

Yeh, I don't see the merit in continuing this. You lost me with 'Steve Smith and Malik Rose were good role players in 02'. You just compared Malik Rose, a career bench player, to a HoFer who was on his 5th consecutive all-star appearance and made 3 consecutive all-nba 2nd teams a year prior, you said he was as good as Malik 'Cheesesteak' Rose. Malik Rose, who started 85 games out of 813, and averaged 16.5mpg. Beyond not serious. The comparison of rookie Tony Parker as having equal in era impact to 24 yr old John Havlicek was also insane. Havlicek was on the all-nba 2nd team the year before, and was 10th in the MVP vote the year before that. Havlicek, despite playing fewer minutes for the good of the team, averaged 18-5-3 that year and was an elite defender.

Is it to complicated for you to understand that smaller league means less players, which means less important players on average on all-star teams? Do you struggle with basic compherehension? Why do you post raw statsline without pace adjustment? Do you know that pace-adjusted numbers look worse for Havlicek than for Parker?

[One_and_Done]

Yeh, I don't see the merit in continuing this. You lost me with 'Steve Smith and Malik Rose were good role players in 02'. You just compared Malik Rose, a career bench player, to a HoFer who was on his 5th consecutive all-star appearance and made 3 consecutive all-nba 2nd teams a year prior, you said he was as good as Malik 'Cheesesteak' Rose. Malik Rose, who started 85 games out of 813, and averaged 16.5mpg. Beyond not serious. The comparison of rookie Tony Parker as having equal in era impact to 24 yr old John Havlicek was also insane. Havlicek was on the all-nba 2nd team the year before, and was 10th in the MVP vote the year before that. Havlicek, despite playing fewer minutes for the good of the team, averaged 18-5-3 that year and was an elite defender.

Is it to complicated for you to understand that smaller league means less players, which means less important players on average on all-star teams? Do you struggle with basic compherehension?

If someone is the 4th best player in the league, then they're the 4th best player. How many players are in that league may potentually result in a different spread of talent, etc, but it doesn't change you being the 4th best player just because more guys didn't make the league.

If we excised the worst 21 teams from today's league, it wouldn't make Jokic or Giannis any less awesome. What you're actually doing is comparing an all-star from this smaller league, that only takes the top 9 teams worth of talent, to a guy who wouldn't even make the league if it was only 9 teams big. That doesn't help your argument.

[70sFan]

Yeh, I don't see the merit in continuing this. You lost me with 'Steve Smith and Malik Rose were good role players in 02'. You just compared Malik Rose, a career bench player, to a HoFer who was on his 5th consecutive all-star appearance and made 3 consecutive all-nba 2nd teams a year prior, you said he was as good as Malik 'Cheesesteak' Rose. Malik Rose, who started 85 games out of 813, and averaged 16.5mpg. Beyond not serious. The comparison of rookie Tony Parker as having equal in era impact to 24 yr old John Havlicek was also insane. Havlicek was on the all-nba 2nd team the year before, and was 10th in the MVP vote the year before that. Havlicek, despite playing fewer minutes for the good of the team, averaged 18-5-3 that year and was an elite defender.

Is it to complicated for you to understand that smaller league means less players, which means less important players on average on all-star teams? Do you struggle with basic compherehension?

If someone is the 4th best player in the league, then they're the 4th best player. How many players are in that league may potentually result in a different spread of talent, etc, but it doesn't change you being the 4th best player just because more guys didn't make the league.

If we excised the worst 21 teams from today's league, it wouldn't make Jokic or Giannis any less awesome. What you're actually doing is comparing an all-star from this smaller league, that only takes the top 9 teams worth of talent, to a guy who wouldn't even make the league if it was only 9 teams big. That doesn't help your argument.

So you truly believe that Sam Jones was as good as Oscar Robertson or Jerry West, while being better than prime Wilt Chamberlain? Well, then you're just proving you have no idea what you're talking about.

Smaller league means more condensed talent and more all-star level players per team. It's very simple concept, not my fault that you don't understand that having two "all-stars" on a team in 1964 doesn't mean the same as having two "all-stars" in 2002.

[One_and_Done]

Is it to complicated for you to understand that smaller league means less players, which means less important players on average on all-star teams? Do you struggle with basic compherehension?

If someone is the 4th best player in the league, then they're the 4th best player. How many players are in that league may potentually result in a different spread of talent, etc, but it doesn't change you being the 4th best player just because more guys didn't make the league.

If we excised the worst 21 teams from today's league, it wouldn't make Jokic or Giannis any less awesome. What you're actually doing is comparing an all-star from this smaller league, that only takes the top 9 teams worth of talent, to a guy who wouldn't even make the league if it was only 9 teams big. That doesn't help your argument.

So you truly believe that Sam Jones was as good as Oscar Robertson or Jerry West, while being better than prime Wilt Chamberlain? Well, then you're just proving you have no idea what you're talking about.

Smaller league means more condensed talent and more all-star level players per team. It's very simple concept, not my fault that you don't understand that having two "all-stars" on a team in 1964 doesn't mean the same as having two "all-stars" in 2002.

That has absolutely nothing to do with the claims under discussion. Nobody is saying Sam Jones was as good as Oscar, and it is irrelevant to address.

Whether talent was more condensed isn't relevant to the point under discussion either. It might result in talent clustering more to certain teams, or it might not. It seems like most of it clustered on the Celtics, so the smaller league certainly didn't hurt them. Having 2 all-stars might or might not mean less in a given year, but it doesn't change any of what was being discussed.

I literally just explained this to you. Go back and re-read my last post. The 4th best player is the 4th best player, regardless of whether there are 9 teams worth of players of 30. This is not to say Sam Jones was necessarily the 4th best player, in case you're hung up on that, the MVP vote does not always strictly reflect the rank of players; but it gives a ballpark to how a guy was ranked. In Sam Jones case, whether he was the 4th best player or the 8th best is much of a muchness, because Duncan didn't even have anyone who was top 10.

Malik Rose and 2002 Steve Smith wouldn't have even made the league in 2002 if it was a 9 team league. So you just compared guys who made the all-star team of a 9 team league, to guys who would be 3rd division players. That's what I think you're not getting.

[70sFan]

How about another thing - can you tell me what made Tom Heinsohn a star-caliber player in 1964? What were his strengths and limitations? How did he influence the Celtics offense and defense? You seem to know a lot about 1960s basketball, please share the knowledge with us!