RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #71 (Tony Parker)

[Owly]

Yet Moncrief's prime/career WOWYR are a monstrous +8.6/+4.1, whereas Iverson's are just +1.7/+0.8.


Maybe there's an adjustment for team/cast quality that partly accounts for this. But if so, why doesn't Wilkins [who also had better supporting cast than Iverson most years] look far better than he does via WOWYR??
Again, I cited his WOWY above (though I haven't done SRS change for each year, I do have the it in terms of wins--->which are a larger change than seen with prime Moncrief).

So idk......I don't know why/how guys with same(ish) appearance in WOWY data can have dramatically different WOWYR [or even the guy with the LEAST impressive WOWY having the MOST impressive WOWYR]......especially when there's a dearth of teammate injuries to account for differences.

Some Moncrief data and controlsfrom yhe circa 2015 spreadsheet)
Player, Team, Games Missed, SRS IN, SRS Change, PWins IN, PWins Change, Sample Controls, 95% +/-, SIO, WOWY Score
Moncrief, 81 Bucks, 2, 8.7, 18.1, 64, 47, 25+ In + PS (54), 13.7, 14.1, 2.4
Moncrief, 87 Bucks, 23, 4.8, -2.9, 55, -7, Pressey In (61), 4, -4.7, -3.4
Moncrief, 85 Bucks, 9, 7.5, 7, 61, 19, 0, 7.7, 7.1, 3.9
Moncrief, 86 Bucks, 9, 9.1, 0.2, 65, 0, Hodges In (66), 7.7, 0.4, 0.2

In any case I would say a "career" number might be misleading for Moncrief he gutted out near full seasons through '86 then was seemingly clearly never the same after (see stats but for reference ... reporting at the time ...)

Sidenote: Assume dearth of injuries is regarding Moncrief?

I don't know which spreadsheet is "the circa 2015 spreadsheet" you're referring to [nor who the author is].
But some of the data appears mistaken, if I'm reading the way you charted it correctly:

'87:
*Says he missed 23 games, but he actually missed 43.
**Says their SRS with him in was +4.8, which was -2.9 WORSE than what they were without him [that is: they were a +7.7 without him] (again: if I'm reading this correctly)......which is impossible given they were a +4.04 SRS overall. Unless this is overall [playoff included] SRS??? But I sort of doubt it: they barely squeeked by a mediocre Philly team, then managed to play an excellent Boston team to a stand-still......pretty sure that's not enough to push their overall SRS up into the territory we're talking about, no matter how heavily you weight that Boston series.
***Says they were on pace for 55 wins with him, which was -7 WORSE than what they were on pace for without him......except they only won 50 games that year.


Also, I may not be as math/stat-savvy as you assume; can you tell me what SIO is? I feel like I knew once, but have forgotten.


Sidenote ("dearth of injuries"): I was referring to Nique.
"Dearth" means scarcity or lack of, if I'm not mistaken. And that's largely what we see among his supporting cast during his prime. 2nd year Spud Webb missed a bunch of time, but he was only like a 16 mpg bench player [not a huge impact player even in his prime, anyway]; and Jon Koncak missed significant time in both '88 and '90, iirc. But other than that, none of his supporting cast misses significant time.

Thus, it's unlikely that the apparent consistent lift we seem to see during his prime can be explained away by saying "that's just because so-and-so was out at the same time Nique was out; that's why they dropped off so hard".

I mean, it's [slimly] possible; I admit I did not look at each of Nique's absenses to see who else was out at the same time. But given it was exceedingly rare for anyone on his principle supporting cast to miss more than a half-dozen games [other than the Spud/Koncak exceptions mentioned], it's unlikely for things to have been "skewed" in Nique's favour in that fashion.

As per LA Bird the spreadsheet is Ben/ElGee's.

Was struggling to parse exactly who(se "cast") dearth referred to, assumed not Iverson because as covered previously there were overlapping injuries in Philly. Thanks for clarifying.

Don't know about any disparity re Wilkins. The main noted control used multiple times is the (if I'm reading/recalling it right, and I might not be) 25+ minute requirement on the "in" sample. But he was a big minute player. Still (again assuming I'm reading it correct) the in samples are smaller than expected (43 games in '86, 63 in '87. 67 in '88)

[Cavsfansince84]

I just want to say that Rasheed is the first guy I am having serious trouble agreeing with any sort of reasoning with why people have him ranked as high as they do. With a few other guys I was much lower on I could at least see the logic which was usually high peak/playoffs. With Sheed though we're talking about someone who had 10 seasons with 74 or more games played but who could finish no higher than 14th in mvp voting, made zero all nba or all defense teams, was almost never top 20 in any sort of metric I am aware of and who had a career long reputation as someone who wasn't very easy to get along with, would usually lead the league in technicals and seemed to refuse to make best use of his skills by playing closer to the basket. I currently have around 30 players still ranked ahead of him and just within guys who played in that 1995-2015 timeframe I would have Hill, Webber, Butler, Porter, Marion, Mullin, Rodman, Ben Wallace and Parker all ahead of him along with quite possibly Richmond, Aldridge, Grant and Melo. The only playoff run he had with close to star numbers his team was swept 3-0. It might be a little late to make a post critical of him now but better late than never I guess. Yes he played on a lot of teams which contended but again the closest he came to being much more than a role player on those teams(the Blazers) were very deep with about 5-6 guys who all almost contributed equally. So idk. It's not like I'll be mad if he got in here but I felt obligated to make a post about why I wouldn't have him near this high.

[Hal14]

3-way run-off vote:

1) Dominique Wilkins
2) Tony Parker
3) Rasheed Wallace

[Hal14]

I just want to say that Rasheed is the first guy I am having serious trouble agreeing with any sort of reasoning with why people have him ranked as high as they do. With a few other guys I was much lower on I could at least see the logic which was usually high peak/playoffs. With Sheed though we're talking about someone who had 10 seasons with 74 or more games played but who could finish no higher than 14th in mvp voting, made zero all nba or all defense teams, was almost never top 20 in any sort of metric I am aware of and who had a career long reputation as someone who wasn't very easy to get along with, would usually lead the league in technicals and seemed to refuse to make best use of his skills by playing closer to the basket. I currently have around 30 players still ranked ahead of him and just within guys who played in that 1995-2015 timeframe I would have Hill, Webber, Butler, Porter, Marion, Mullin, Rodman, Ben Wallace and Parker all ahead of him along with quite possibly Richmond, Aldridge, Grant and Melo. The only playoff run he had with close to star numbers his team was swept 3-0. It might be a little late to make a post critical of him now but better late than never I guess. Yes he played on a lot of teams which contended but again the closest he came to being much more than a role player on those teams(the Blazers) were very deep with about 5-6 guys who all almost contributed equally. So idk. It's not like I'll be mad if he got in here but I felt obligated to make a post about why I wouldn't have him near this high.

Agreed. I've got at least 20 players I'd vote for before Rasheed.

The 1 voter who voted for Rasheed is someone who has admitted that all he does is plug players into a formula and whatever the formula says is who he votes for, so I take it with a grain of salt..

[sansterre]

I just want to say that Rasheed is the first guy I am having serious trouble agreeing with any sort of reasoning with why people have him ranked as high as they do. With a few other guys I was much lower on I could at least see the logic which was usually high peak/playoffs. With Sheed though we're talking about someone who had 10 seasons with 74 or more games played but who could finish no higher than 14th in mvp voting, made zero all nba or all defense teams, was almost never top 20 in any sort of metric I am aware of and who had a career long reputation as someone who wasn't very easy to get along with, would usually lead the league in technicals and seemed to refuse to make best use of his skills by playing closer to the basket. I currently have around 30 players still ranked ahead of him and just within guys who played in that 1995-2015 timeframe I would have Hill, Webber, Butler, Porter, Marion, Mullin, Rodman, Ben Wallace and Parker all ahead of him along with quite possibly Richmond, Aldridge, Grant and Melo. The only playoff run he had with close to star numbers his team was swept 3-0. It might be a little late to make a post critical of him now but better late than never I guess. Yes he played on a lot of teams which contended but again the closest he came to being much more than a role player on those teams(the Blazers) were very deep with about 5-6 guys who all almost contributed equally. So idk. It's not like I'll be mad if he got in here but I felt obligated to make a post about why I wouldn't have him near this high.

AuRPM:

1998: 17th
1999: 4th
2000: 7th
2001: 18th
2002: 13th
2003: 7th
2004: 5th
2005: NR
2006: 13th
2007: NR
2008: 17th

That he was good in ways that didn't show up in the box score doesn't mean he wasn't good.

[sansterre]

I just want to say that Rasheed is the first guy I am having serious trouble agreeing with any sort of reasoning with why people have him ranked as high as they do. With a few other guys I was much lower on I could at least see the logic which was usually high peak/playoffs. With Sheed though we're talking about someone who had 10 seasons with 74 or more games played but who could finish no higher than 14th in mvp voting, made zero all nba or all defense teams, was almost never top 20 in any sort of metric I am aware of and who had a career long reputation as someone who wasn't very easy to get along with, would usually lead the league in technicals and seemed to refuse to make best use of his skills by playing closer to the basket. I currently have around 30 players still ranked ahead of him and just within guys who played in that 1995-2015 timeframe I would have Hill, Webber, Butler, Porter, Marion, Mullin, Rodman, Ben Wallace and Parker all ahead of him along with quite possibly Richmond, Aldridge, Grant and Melo. The only playoff run he had with close to star numbers his team was swept 3-0. It might be a little late to make a post critical of him now but better late than never I guess. Yes he played on a lot of teams which contended but again the closest he came to being much more than a role player on those teams(the Blazers) were very deep with about 5-6 guys who all almost contributed equally. So idk. It's not like I'll be mad if he got in here but I felt obligated to make a post about why I wouldn't have him near this high.

Agreed. I've got at least 20 players I'd vote for before Rasheed.

The 1 voter who voted for Rasheed is someone who has admitted that all he does is plug players into a formula and whatever the formula says is who he votes for, so I take it with a grain of salt..

Yes yes, the fact that I use math makes my opinion worthless; I've never heard that before.

If you disagree with my ranking of 'Sheed make an argument so that I may be persuaded. If you don't like that I make use of data in my calculations I am sorry for your inconvenience. But if I favor 'Sheed you can be damned sure that there's a fair amount of evidence that he merits to be ranked here. That the evidence comes from numbers doesn't make it invalid.

Speaking of 'Sheed, here are the top average AuRPMs from '99 to '04:

1. Shaquille O'Neal, +7.9
2. Tim Duncan, +6.8
3. Kevin Garnett, +6.8
4. John Stockton, +5.9 (5 of the 6 years)
5. Rasheed Wallace, +5.8
6. David Robinson, +5.8

Nobody else averaged above +5.

Obviously I cherry-picked his prime, but that's a six-year stretch where according to AuRPM he was one of the top 5 players in the league, and the four players above him all made it in the first 26 of this ranking.

And here are the 2004 Pistons, with and without Rasheed:

Games without Rasheed: 37-23, 90.2 PF, 86.8 PA, +3.4 MoV
Games with Rasheed: 17-5, 90.0 PF, 77.3 PA, +12.7 MoV

It's only one season, and only a 22 game sample for him in Detroit, and it's not adjusted for opponent. That's still a *ridiculous* swing to occur when being added to a team on a 51-win pace.

[Cavsfansince84]

AuRPM:

1998: 17th
1999: 4th
2000: 7th
2001: 18th
2002: 13th
2003: 7th
2004: 5th
2005: NR
2006: 13th
2007: NR
2008: 17th

That he was good in ways that didn't show up in the box score doesn't mean he wasn't good.

I'm not debating him being good though. I'm just debating him being better than 25-30 guys I'd rank ahead of him and the degree to which he never really stood out as an elite player in his own era. I think there are guys actually did stand out a lot more and who played bigger roles on title teams than Rasheed did. My other issue is that much of the case for him seems to be that his value doesn't translate to box score numbers but he didn't actually have a good reputation as an intangibles guy outside of playing I would say good but not great defense. He was known for sulking a lot, giving questionable effort and not being much of a rebounder despite having great length and decent athleticism. I'm not saying its a crime to rank him here but I'm just giving my own views since that's the whole point of this project. To honestly debate where players should be ranked. I think other players deserve recognition more than he does.

[HeartBreakKid]

Ill stop you right there and say Rasheed was a great defender. If you do not think he is great at defense, then obviously there is no point in debating where you think he stands in an all time list - because unless your standard for great defense is David Robinson or something he's pretty damn great at it.


If a player did in fact play great defense - and also could score about 20 points, create his own shot, could hit jumpers - that would seem like a more valuable player than Tony Parker to me.

[Cavsfansince84]

Saying Rasheed played "good but not great" defense is kind of all you need to know about that. Ill stop you right there and say Rasheed was a great defender. If you do not think he is great at defense, then obviously there is no point in debating where you think he stands in an all time list - because unless your standard for great defense is David Robinson or something he's pretty damn great at it.


If a player did in fact play great defense - and also could score about 20 points, create his own shot, could hit jumpers - that would seem like a more valuable player than Tony Parker to me.

If everything you said happened in a vacuum with no other context I might agree. It didn't though and Parker is a guy who made 4 all nba teams, was top 10 in mvp voting 5 times and a major part of 3 or 4 title runs. Sheed didn't do any of that outside of being a valuable part of one title team. I'd also probably argue that TP's prime lasted longer as well.

[HeartBreakKid]

Saying Rasheed played "good but not great" defense is kind of all you need to know about that. Ill stop you right there and say Rasheed was a great defender. If you do not think he is great at defense, then obviously there is no point in debating where you think he stands in an all time list - because unless your standard for great defense is David Robinson or something he's pretty damn great at it.


If a player did in fact play great defense - and also could score about 20 points, create his own shot, could hit jumpers - that would seem like a more valuable player than Tony Parker to me.

If everything you said happened in a vacuum with no other context I might agree. It didn't though and Parker is a guy who made 4 all nba teams, was top 10 in mvp voting 5 times and a major part of 3 or 4 title runs. Sheed didn't do any of that outside of being a valuable part of one title team. I'd also probably argue that TP's prime lasted longer as well.

But these aren't arguments about Sheed's value or goodness. Half of your response on the topic is basically about how Sheed doesn't have RS accolades, but we know that RS accolades are fallible. They're simply opinions of other people, we don't even read their arguments for why they voted the way that they did.

I mean if someone just argued the media underrated him - how would you counter that? We know that he media underrates players all the time, including guys who do not score a lot of points. Tony Parker was given an FMVP when he was the 3rd best player during those finals on the Spurs. Scoring PGs are recognized better by the media than defensive oriented power forwards. The media has always gone out of their way to make Rasheed Wallace look bad, how many people have this narrative that Rasheed Wallace was a problem for his team yet how many teammates of his have gone on record to say bad things about him? (in fact his reputation from other players seems to be the opposite, he seems very well liked by his teammates)



Tony Parker was a major part of basically two title teams - saying "3 or 4" when he only has 4 times implies he was a major factor in all 4 of his titles. Which I'm not sure how anyone can conclude. He was not a great player in 2003, and he was not even the 5th best player on the 2014 team (Patty Mills was out playing him if I can recall). Even the 07 Spurs won by having a suffocating defense, which needless to say tony Parker contributed nothing toward that.

That's not to mention that titles are a bit arbitrary. yes, Rasheed Wallace has only been a valuable part of one title - because he only has one title. It's not like the 2000 Portland Blazers and 2005 Detroit Pistons were incapable of winning titles.

We know Rasheed Wallace can be a big part of contending teams. In fact, he is one of the few players on this list who has never had a superstar teammate yet has contended for a title multiple times. Think about that, he has only been on ensemble casts - he's never played with an serious MVP candidate period and has still had mega deep post season runs. We know he can contribute heavily to a title team.

[Cavsfansince84]

But these aren't arguments about Sheed's value or goodness. Half of your response on the topic is basically about how Sheed doesn't have RS accolades, but we know that RS accolades are fallible.

I mean if someone just argued the media underrated him...how would you counter that? We know that he media underrates players all the time, including guys who do not score a lot of points.


Tony Parker was a major part of basically two title teams - saying "3 or 4" when he only has 4 times implies he was a major factor in all 4 of his titles...which I'm not sure how anyone can conclude. He was not a great player in 2003, and he was not even the 5th best player on the 2014 team (Patty Mills was out playing him if I can recall).

That's not to mention that titles are a bit arbitrary. yes, Rasheed Wallace has only been a valuable part of one title - because he only has one title. It's not like the 2000 Portland Blazers and 2005 Detroit Pistons were incapable of winning titles.

They are fallible but at the same time comparing a big to a pg isn't exactly an apples to apples comparison in the first place. Look, I'm not saying people who vote for Sheed here are crazy or idiots or something. All I'm saying is that I personally think having him in this range is overrating him by quite a bit and I don't think bringing up rs accolades is a crazy way of doing that and I could also bring up some other stats as well as I would say him not having near the playoff career of other guys such as Parker, Rodman, Debusschere, Jones, Worthy, Cheeks or probably a few others who could get consideration here. Saying he could shoot and play defense doesn't completely gloss over things like a lack of rebounding and playmaking either. It would also be easier to back up him being a great defender if he could have even made one all defensive team.

[HeartBreakKid]

But these aren't arguments about Sheed's value or goodness. Half of your response on the topic is basically about how Sheed doesn't have RS accolades, but we know that RS accolades are fallible.

I mean if someone just argued the media underrated him...how would you counter that? We know that he media underrates players all the time, including guys who do not score a lot of points.


Tony Parker was a major part of basically two title teams - saying "3 or 4" when he only has 4 times implies he was a major factor in all 4 of his titles...which I'm not sure how anyone can conclude. He was not a great player in 2003, and he was not even the 5th best player on the 2014 team (Patty Mills was out playing him if I can recall).

That's not to mention that titles are a bit arbitrary. yes, Rasheed Wallace has only been a valuable part of one title - because he only has one title. It's not like the 2000 Portland Blazers and 2005 Detroit Pistons were incapable of winning titles.

They are fallible but at the same time comparing a big to a pg isn't exactly an apples to apples comparison in the first place. Look, I'm not saying people who vote for Sheed here are crazy or idiots or something. All I'm saying is that I personally think having him in this range is overrating him by quite a bit and I don't think bringing up rs accolades is a crazy way of doing that and I could also bring up some other stats as well as I would say him not having near the playoff career of other guys such as Parker, Rodman, Debusschere, Jones, Worthy, Cheeks or probably a few others who could get consideration here. Saying he could shoot and play defense doesn't completely gloss over things like a lack of rebounding and playmaking either.

If he did those things he would be a much better player than Scottie Pippen, not in contention for 71st best player. That would be a player with very little weaknesses, which doesn't exist around these parts anymore. I'm pretty sure Rasheed Wallace is not an actual weak rebounder also, his RPG are just low - same reason why people assume Marc Gasol is a bad rebounder.

All those players have severe weaknesses - saying Tony Parker can score and pass doesn't completely gloss over that he can't shoot or play defense. etc

[Cavsfansince84]

If he did those things he would be a much better player than Scottie Pippen, not in contention for 71st best player.

All those players have severe weaknesses - saying Tony Parker can score and pass doesn't completely gloss over that he can't shoot or play defense. etc

There's a difference though between being able to do things at an average level as opposed to at a poor level. Pippen is like top 10 at his position all time at both of those things(while being like top 3 defensively) so bringing him up makes very little sense to me.

[trex_8063]

If he did those things he would be a much better player than Scottie Pippen, not in contention for 71st best player.

All those players have severe weaknesses - saying Tony Parker can score and pass doesn't completely gloss over that he can't shoot or play defense. etc

There's a difference though between being able to do things at an average level as opposed to at a poor level. Pippen is like top 10 at his position all time at both of those things(while being like top 3 defensively) so bringing him up makes very little sense to me.

Rasheed was voted as the 9th-best defensive PF of all-time here in 2019.
Between that and spacing the floor from the 4/5 position, scoring moderate/decent volume, good longevity, major contributor on multiple contenders, etc......I think that's where people are coming from.

[Cavsfansince84]

Rasheed was voted as the 9th-best defensive PF of all-time here in 2019.
Between that and spacing the floor from the 4/5 position, scoring moderate/decent volume, good longevity, major contributor on multiple contenders, etc......I think that's where people are coming from.

I'd be interested in seeing that list if you have it handy.

[trex_8063]

Rasheed was voted as the 9th-best defensive PF of all-time here in 2019.
Between that and spacing the floor from the 4/5 position, scoring moderate/decent volume, good longevity, major contributor on multiple contenders, etc......I think that's where people are coming from.

I'd be interested in seeing that list if you have it handy.

Here

[Dutchball97]

I just want to say that Rasheed is the first guy I am having serious trouble agreeing with any sort of reasoning with why people have him ranked as high as they do. With a few other guys I was much lower on I could at least see the logic which was usually high peak/playoffs. With Sheed though we're talking about someone who had 10 seasons with 74 or more games played but who could finish no higher than 14th in mvp voting, made zero all nba or all defense teams, was almost never top 20 in any sort of metric I am aware of and who had a career long reputation as someone who wasn't very easy to get along with, would usually lead the league in technicals and seemed to refuse to make best use of his skills by playing closer to the basket. I currently have around 30 players still ranked ahead of him and just within guys who played in that 1995-2015 timeframe I would have Hill, Webber, Butler, Porter, Marion, Mullin, Rodman, Ben Wallace and Parker all ahead of him along with quite possibly Richmond, Aldridge, Grant and Melo. The only playoff run he had with close to star numbers his team was swept 3-0. It might be a little late to make a post critical of him now but better late than never I guess. Yes he played on a lot of teams which contended but again the closest he came to being much more than a role player on those teams(the Blazers) were very deep with about 5-6 guys who all almost contributed equally. So idk. It's not like I'll be mad if he got in here but I felt obligated to make a post about why I wouldn't have him near this high.

Agreed. I've got at least 20 players I'd vote for before Rasheed.

The 1 voter who voted for Rasheed is someone who has admitted that all he does is plug players into a formula and whatever the formula says is who he votes for, so I take it with a grain of salt..

Pretty rich coming from someone who votes on name recognition and reputation alone. Is there any reason to include Dennis Johnson other than he was part of championship winning teams? Your entire Wilkins argument is that in your mind he's similar to the already voted in English so he has to go in now too. Your Rodman argument boils down to the same low effort arguments of being a good rebounder and being a recognizeable face.

[trex_8063]

Well, no new voters opted to chime in on the runoff. Meant to end a runoff after 12 hours if no votes, but that was basically in the middle of the night for me. So I'll end it now, and we'll just go with the all-around Condorcet leader......which is Tony Parker:

As previously stated he leads Wilkins 5-4. He also leads Sheed 5-4. So he gets the spot.....

Spoiler:

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[quote=”sansterre”].[/quote]

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[Hal14]

I just want to say that Rasheed is the first guy I am having serious trouble agreeing with any sort of reasoning with why people have him ranked as high as they do. With a few other guys I was much lower on I could at least see the logic which was usually high peak/playoffs. With Sheed though we're talking about someone who had 10 seasons with 74 or more games played but who could finish no higher than 14th in mvp voting, made zero all nba or all defense teams, was almost never top 20 in any sort of metric I am aware of and who had a career long reputation as someone who wasn't very easy to get along with, would usually lead the league in technicals and seemed to refuse to make best use of his skills by playing closer to the basket. I currently have around 30 players still ranked ahead of him and just within guys who played in that 1995-2015 timeframe I would have Hill, Webber, Butler, Porter, Marion, Mullin, Rodman, Ben Wallace and Parker all ahead of him along with quite possibly Richmond, Aldridge, Grant and Melo. The only playoff run he had with close to star numbers his team was swept 3-0. It might be a little late to make a post critical of him now but better late than never I guess. Yes he played on a lot of teams which contended but again the closest he came to being much more than a role player on those teams(the Blazers) were very deep with about 5-6 guys who all almost contributed equally. So idk. It's not like I'll be mad if he got in here but I felt obligated to make a post about why I wouldn't have him near this high.

Agreed. I've got at least 20 players I'd vote for before Rasheed.

The 1 voter who voted for Rasheed is someone who has admitted that all he does is plug players into a formula and whatever the formula says is who he votes for, so I take it with a grain of salt..

Pretty rich coming from someone who votes on name recognition and reputation alone. Is there any reason to include Dennis Johnson other than he was part of championship winning teams? Your entire Wilkins argument is that in your mind he's similar to the already voted in English so he has to go in now too. Your Rodman argument boils down to the same low effort arguments of being a good rebounder and being a recognizeable face.

Your comment shows a severe lack of basketball knowledge.

You say Johnson "was a part of championship winning teams" which implies you think he was merely a fly on the wall, and it's like you think that he just happened to be on championship winning teams, like he didn't provide any significant contributions to them. Seriously? You do realize that Johnson was Finals MVP in 79, right? Have you watched any games from that series? The dude was an animal. Flying around the court like a bat outta hell, some of the best defense a guard has ever played. Going all out, hustling, taking it strong to the rim.

Next, let's look at 84. You don't think Johnson contributed to that championship? You do realize that 83-84 was his first year on the Celtics right? You realize that the year before that in 83 the Celtics got swept in the 2nd round by the Bucks, right? Yes, KC Jones taking over as coach was a factor as well, but the Celtics adding Johnson was a HUGE reason why they went from being swept in the 2nd round in 83 to NBA world champs beating the Lakers in the finals the very next year in 84 (with Magic and Kareem in their prime).

In both 84 and 86 Johnson was one of the team's top 4 players, came through in the clutch time and time again and Bird is on record saying that Johnson was the best teammate he ever played with (meaning Bird thinks Johnson was better than Parish and Mchale).

Johnson was one of the best defensive guards of all time, easily one of the top 10 defensive guards ever. The guy had very good size and strength at the PG position which made him a tough matchup, early in his career had great explosiveness and athleticism, he could score inside, drive to the basket and as his career went on developed a deadly outside shot - especially in the mid range area, not as much from 3 because at the time 3's weren't being taken very much across the league (early in his career there was no 3 point line), plus he could rebound well, unselfishly looked to get the ball to his teammates but would make you pay dearly if you ignored him too much on offense, plus of course his outstanding defense.

Solid longevity, played 14 seasons (13 of which he played 27+ mins a game and all of them he played in 70+ games) which was solid for that era, especially considering he played in a ton (180 to be exact) of playoff games.

How about durability? The guy always played, he was always in the lineup. Out of his 14 seasons:
-he played 72+ games in 14/14 (100%)
-he played in 77+ games in 12/14 seasons (86%)
-he played in 80+ games in 7/14 seasons (50%)

How about Rasheed's durability?
-he played 72+ games in 14/16 (63%)
-he played in 77+ games in 8/16 seasons (50%)
-he played in 80+ games in 10/16 seasons (13%)

[Dutchball97]

You can't seriously think Dennis Johnson was more important to the 79 title than Gus Williams. I'd even argue Jack Sikma was better than DJ as well.

Stuff like he that he was a good defender for his size, that he had good durability, that Bird liked him don't sound like strong arguments to me as they rely on the same narrative/eye test based approach you've been taking so far, while ignoring any and all type of stats we have available.