Game 7 Performances by All-Time Greats

[QUOTE=Freedom Kid7]Jlaubber, I may not agree with you on a lot of stuff, but I can agree with you on that. He was probably the guy who most feared when the buzzer was ticking. Lakers fans and non-Celtic fans probably all went "OH GOD NO NOT THIS GUY NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! SAMUEL ****ING JONES MAN!"[/QUOTE]

Aside from a handful of posters, who either actually watched him play, or researched his career (as you have done), there is very little mention of Sam Jones in any all-time "great" discussions.

I was a huge fan of Hal Greer, and he was certainly one of the best guards to have ever played the game, but he was the "anti-Jones" in the post-season. A plethora of flop jobs. And unfortunately for Wilt, too. While Greer was routinely blowing chunks in his biggest games, Jones was routinely playing brilliantly.

As great as Russell was, how many rings would he have lost had he not had Sam Jones taking the "clutch" shots?

[QUOTE=jlauber]To be honest, I thought you already came up with something like 25 playoff game winning shots. From what I recall, he had something like EIGHT in his Finals.

And I agree with you, he may have been the greatest "clutch" player in post-season history.

Very under-rated for sure.[/QUOTE]

25 was a rough estimate from doing earlier research, I don't have a more precise total

I'll need to get to it by the end of the week...it shouldn't take that long, since unlike finding complete box scores, you don't need specific articles (AP reports should suffice)

[QUOTE=fpliii]25 was a rough estimate from doing earlier research, I don't have a more precise total

I'll need to get to it by the end of the week...it shouldn't take that long, since unlike finding complete box scores, you don't need specific articles (AP reports should suffice)[/QUOTE]

You have been a great addition to this forum.

:bowdown:

[QUOTE=jlauber]Aside from a handful of posters, who either actually watched him play, or researched his career (as you have done), there is very little mention of Sam Jones in any all-time "great" discussions.

I was a huge fan of Hal Greer, and he was certainly one of the best guards to have ever played the game, but he was the "anti-Jones" in the post-season. A plethora of flop jobs. And unfortunately for Wilt, too. While Greer was routinely blowing chunks in his biggest games, Jones was routinely playing brilliantly.

As great as Russell was, how many rings would he have lost had he not had Sam Jones taking the "clutch" shots?[/QUOTE]
I feel that Russell was a big part of why Sam and K.C. were good players. He helped the team flourish and become better players. He complemented their play styles and allowed for Sam to get excellent shots, etc. Of course, Sam was still a great player nonetheless and bailed the Celtics a couple of times.

To me, when I think of an ultimate competitor, I don't think of MJ. I think of Russell. He did exactly what he had to do to win. He didn't have to score like Wilt 'cuz he had the Jones and he set the defense up for them so they could get good shots. He passed well so his teammates could get good shots. Hell, he even scored if it was deemed necessary (the 30 point and 40 rebound game). I feel his attitude of 'we should win this' was intense enough it rubbed off his teammates to the point where they all believed that, but they knew how to execute.

I do think Greer is under appreciated and I think he was a good team mate and all. Unfortunatly, I think Havlicek stealing the ball and his screw ups are more remembered than his skillset and overall playing quality, which was high.

[QUOTE=jlauber]You have been a great addition to this forum.

:bowdown:[/QUOTE]

:cheers:

[QUOTE=Freedom Kid7]I feel that Russell was a big part of why Sam and K.C. were good players. He helped the team flourish and become better players. He complemented their play styles and allowed for Sam to get excellent shots, etc. Of course, Sam was still a great player nonetheless and bailed the Celtics a couple of times.

To me, when I think of an ultimate competitor, I don't think of MJ. I think of Russell. He did exactly what he had to do to win. He didn't have to score like Wilt 'cuz he had the Jones and he set the defense up for them so they could get good shots. He passed well so his teammates could get good shots. Hell, he even scored if it was deemed necessary (the 30 point and 40 rebound game). I feel his attitude of 'we should win this' was intense enough it rubbed off his teammates to the point where they all believed that, but they knew how to execute.

I do think Greer is under appreciated and I think he was a good team mate and all. Unfortunatly, I think Havlicek stealing the ball and his screw ups are more remembered than his skillset and overall playing quality, which was high.[/QUOTE]

Russell was certainly the reason why players like KC Jones, Satch Sanders, Frank Ramsey, and Bailey Howell are in the HOF. (KC Jones, while a very good defender, was never even an All-Star.)

Still, players like Heinsohn, Cousy, Sharman, Havlicek, and Jones were all GREAT players. Take a look at Havlicek's career, post-Russell. He was putting up 28 and 29 ppg seasons, and won two more rings. He even played on the greatest regular season Celtic team of all-time, in 72-73, that went 68-14. And I suspect that Jones would have been among the elite scorers in the league on any other team other than Boston. As it was, he had seasons as high as 26 ppg, and post-seasons as high as 29 ppg.

As a sidenote,

[QUOTE]He didn't have to score like Wilt 'cuz he had the Jones and he set the defense up for them so they could get good shots.[/QUOTE]

The fact was, Russell COULDN'T score like Wilt, and in fact, seldom even scored 20 points in a game against him. I will admit that his teammates almost always played better in the post-season, while Chamberlain's played worse, but it would be pure folly to say that he COULD have scored like Chamberlain.

I always use this as an example...

In the clinching game five loss of the '66 ECF's, Chamberlain hung a 46 point, 19-34 shooting, 34 rebound game on Russell.

The very next season, their roles were reversed. It was now Russell who was down 3-1, and facing elimination. How did Russell respond in that clinching game five defeat? FOUR points, on 2-5 shooting (while Chamberlain hammered him for 29 points, on 10-16 shooting, with 13 assists, and 36 rebounds.)

Not only that, but it was seldom Russell vs. Wilt, either. It was usually BOSTON vs. Wilt.

[QUOTE=jlauber]Russell was certainly the reason why players like KC Jones, Satch Sanders, Frank Ramsey, and Bailey Howell are in the HOF. (KC Jones, while a very good defender, was never even an All-Star.)

Still, players like Heinsohn, Cousy, Sharman, Havlicek, and Jones were all GREAT players. Take a look at Havlicek's career, post-Russell. He was putting up 28 and 29 ppg seasons, and won two more rings. He even played on the greatest regular season Celtic team of all-time, in 72-73, that went 68-14. And I suspect that Jones would have been among the elite scorers in the league on any other team other than Boston. As it was, he had seasons as high as 26 ppg, and post-seasons as high as 29 ppg.[/QUOTE]

Oh definitely they were all great players without a doubt, but I feel Russell influenced the attitudes they had. I mean, the 1974 Finals draws up a good example. Milwaukee should have beat the Celtics fairly easy. Peak Kareem, Oscar was still good, and great role players. Instead of deferring, Havlicek played and did whatever he had to until the end (Cowens did too, but another topic another day).

I guess what I'm trying to say is they are great players, but they wouldn't have been as good without Russell.

As a sidenote,



[QUOTE=jlauber]The fact was, Russell COULDN'T score like Wilt, and in fact, seldom even scored 20 points in a game against him. I will admit that his teammates almost always played better in the post-season, while Chamberlain's played worse, but it would be pure folly to say that he COULD have scored like Chamberlain.

I always use this as an example...

In the clinching game five loss of the '66 ECF's, Chamberlain hung a 46 point, 19-34 shooting, 34 rebound game on Russell.

The very next season, their roles were reversed. It was now Russell who was down 3-1, and facing elimination. How did Russell respond in that clinching game five defeat? FOUR points, on 2-5 shooting (while Chamberlain hammered him for 29 points, on 10-16 shooting, with 13 assists, and 36 rebounds.)

Not only that, but it was seldom Russell vs. Wilt, either. It was usually BOSTON vs. Wilt.[/QUOTE]
Wilt was taller than 7 ft. Russell was 6 ft 9. Of Course Russell couldn't score like Chamberlain. How many rebounds did Russell get in the loss in '67? I feel that season was different because Red Aurebach was gone and Russell had to be a coach as well, so it would be difficult to adjust to that.

Also, why do you detest Hakeem and Bird so damn much? I do get why you don't like KAJ (I think)

[QUOTE=Freedom Kid7]Oh definitely they were all great players without a doubt, but I feel Russell influenced the attitudes they had. I mean, the 1974 Finals draws up a good example. Milwaukee should have beat the Celtics fairly easy. Peak Kareem, Oscar was still good, and great role players. Instead of deferring, Havlicek played and did whatever he had to until the end (Cowens did too, but another topic another day).

I guess what I'm trying to say is they are great players, but they wouldn't have been as good without Russell.

As a sidenote,




Wilt was taller than 7 ft. Russell was 6 ft 9. Of Course Russell couldn't score like Chamberlain. How many rebounds did Russell get in the loss in '67? I feel that season was different because Red Aurebach was gone and Russell had to be a coach as well, so it would be difficult to adjust to that.

[B]Also, why do you detest Hakeem and Bird so damn much? I do get why you don't like KAJ (I think[/B])[/QUOTE]

I answered that earlier, but here it is again...

[QUOTE]I have all three of those guys in my top-11. But, from what I have read here, all three are over-rated, particularly Bird and Hakeem. Bird had many flop jobs in his post-season career, lost SEVEN times with HCA, and "only" won three rings playing alongside HOF-laden rosters his entire career. And Hakeem won two rings (one in a season in which MJ did not play), seldom even won 50 games (with a high of 58), and was part of EIGHT first round exits in his 15 post-seasons. Not only that, he won ONE MVP (again, in a season in which MJ took off), came in second, ONE time, and was a top-4 player in FOUR of his 18 seasons. Hell, he wasn't even a top-TEN player in EIGHT of his seasons, or nearly half the time he played.

Kareem? Probably as many post-season gag jobs as Bird, and in his PRIME, in his first TEN seasons, he went to TWO Finals (choking in a game seven of one...in a blowout loss), and winning his ONLY ring in the weakest decade of champions in NBA history with the easiest run to a title in NBA history. He played with teams that won 53 games (best in the league), 56 games, 59 games, 60 games, and 63 games...that did NOT win a title. And he played with rosters for two straight seasons that had the likes of Nixon, Wilkes, Hudson, and Dantley...that were blown away in the post-season.

Had Magic not come along and basically salvaged his career, Kareem would have been considered one of the biggest "underachievers" in NBA history.[/QUOTE]

BTW, I have Kareem at #5, and Bird and Hakeem anywhere between 8th to 11th.

[QUOTE=jlauber]I have all three of those guys in my top-11. But, from what I have read here, all three are over-rated, particularly Bird and Hakeem. Bird had many flop jobs in his post-season career, lost SEVEN times with HCA, and "only" won three rings playing alongside HOF-laden rosters his entire career.

And Hakeem won two rings (one in a season in which MJ did not play), seldom even won 50 games (with a high of 58), and was part of EIGHT first round exits in his 15 post-seasons. Not only that, he won ONE MVP (again, in a season in which MJ took off), came in second, ONE time, and was a top-4 player in FOUR of his 18 seasons. Hell, he wasn't even a top-TEN player in EIGHT of his seasons, or nearly half the time he played.[/QUOTE]

Alright. I'll talk to you with respect and give you my view on it and some of it will be repeated from what I've already stated in some other threads too. Starting to see the point of the copy-and-paste.

I don't know if you can really be overrated if you've got a legitimate case as one of the top ten basketball players to ever live, J. At that point, we're just nitpicking and arguing to argue because that's what forums are for, I guess. I can honestly get on with some good hearted debate but there's no need for all the vitriol. You can say HOF-laden rosters and I can counter with the fact that McHale and Parish - combined, over their careers - made all of a single All-NBA 1st Team Selection. Here people act as if they're in the discussion as the greatest PF and C to play the game, like Parish was able to summon Chamberlain-like performances or something. These guys were very good players instrumental in helping Bird win titles and in turn, got their ticket punched into the HOF. They didn't have ATG caliber careers on their own individual play and accomplishments. Granted, McHale had some amazing footwork in the post. He won "only" 3 rings because he faced some wickedly good -some even all-time - teams in the form of Philadelphia, Detroit and of course the Lakers, who had the more talented and athletic rosters throughout the decade and easier competition in the Western Conference.

Let's remember Bird joined a Celtics team that had gone 29-53 the previous season and saw a 32-game turn-around in Bird's rookie season in which he won the ROY and finished 4th in league MVP voting. Magic wasn't even put on a ballot if I remember correctly. Do I give Bird ALL the credit for that? Of course, not. He was certainly the most significant part of it though. There was no McHale, Parish or gasp, Dennis Johnson on that roster and it was one of the few times Bird got to prove his individual value in retrospect. The other would be the season following 1988 in which the Celtics had gone 57-25 to 42-40 the next with Bird out virtually the entire season. I honestly don't see all that much shame with Bird's playoff "failures" from 1990-1992 in which he had HCA in two of them because we both know the back ailments he suffered in '89 effectively ended his prime play, immediately.

It just feels as though you're nitpicking things pertaining to agenda. With Bird, it's having HOF laden rosters and with Olajuwon it's a lack of 50-win seasons and MVP Voting. Since I already addressed the HOF talk, why don't we focus on Bird's 50-win seasons and MVP voting?

Boston Celtics Season-by-Season:
1978: 32-50
1979: 29-53
~ Bird joins Boston Celtics ~
1980: 61-21
1981: 62-20
1982: 63-19
1983: 56-26
1984: 62-20
1985: 63-19
1986: 67-15
1987: 59-23
1988: 57-25
1989: 42-40 (Bird misses 76 games)
1990: 52-30
1991: 56-26
1992: 51-31

Bird's MVP Voting Results:
1980: 4th (Rookie Season)
1981: 2nd
1982: 2nd
1983: 2nd
1984: WON
1985: WON
1986: WON
1987: 3rd
1988: 2nd
1989: Misses 76 games due to career-threatening back injuries. Never the same player again.
1990: 10th
1991: 9th

He is ranked third all-time in MVP Voting Shares behind only Michael Jordan and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar.

:confusedshrug:

Bird did just about everything at an ATG level on the floor short of man-to-man defense. An elite scorer, shooter, excellent efficiency from the field overall, long range and free throw line; dangerous from everywhere on the floor, off the dribble and playing off the ball, an excellent rebounder, arguably the greatest passing forward of all-time, clutch as all hell, an instinctive, all-hustle team defender... on and on. All players have their failures, bad series, bad games. It's all relative and to be honest, Bird probably doesn't have a case for and isn't considered GOAT by much of anybody J unless it's pertaining to the wide-range of skills and value he has on the court, so ease up on the scrutiny unless you've been personally slighted by him or something, I guess.

Over his absolute prime years (1984-88) he averaged 27 ppg, 10 rpg, 7 apg, 2spg on 51/40/90 efficiency. Over a career, he's the only 20/10/5 player in league history and he actually improves on that criteria by a good margin (24.3/10.0/6.3). He isn't necessarily lacking for hardware validation either: 3x NBA Champion (1981, 1984, 1986), 3x NBA MVP (1984, 1985, 1986), 2x NBA Finals MVP (1984, 1986), NBA Rookie of the Year (1980), 9x All-NBA1 (1980-88), 1x All-NBA2 (1990), 3x All-D2 (1982, 1983, 1984).

I think maybe his biggest statistical accomplishment could be his two single-season 50/40/90 years. It's an unbelievably exclusive club already and even though Nash has done it four times, Bird did it at far and away the highest PPG of anyone and in back-to-back seasons: 28.1 and 29.9 respectively. Closest would be Dirk at 24.6 -- Nobody else in the club (Nash, Miller, Price) put up over 20. Hardware wise? Without a doubt, the 3-consecutive MVP's which was only previously done by Russell and Chamberlain - Arguably the two Greatest Centers to ever play - and hasn't been replicated since.

He wasn't too bad.

[QUOTE=jlauber]I have all three of those guys in my top-11. But, from what I have read here, all three are over-rated, particularly Bird and Hakeem. Bird had many flop jobs in his post-season career, lost SEVEN times with HCA, and "only" won three rings playing alongside HOF-laden rosters his entire career. [/quote]
Wilt only won 2 rings :oldlol:

Bird's HCA record: 24-7, .774%
Wilt's HCA record: 13-5, .722%

Bird's Finals record: 3-2
Wilt's Finals record: 2-4

:oldlol:
[quote]And Hakeem won two rings (one in a season in which MJ did not play), seldom even won 50 games (with a high of 58), and was part of EIGHT first round exits in his 15 post-seasons. Not only that, he won ONE MVP (again, in a season in which MJ took off), came in second, ONE time, and was a top-4 player in FOUR of his 18 seasons. Hell, he wasn't even a top-TEN player in EIGHT of his seasons, or nearly half the time he played.[/quote]
2 rings like Wilt, in just 2 seasons, with worse teammates :oldlol:
Kareem?
[quote]Probably as many post-season gag jobs as Bird[/quote]
The same bird that has more championships than WIlt?
The same Bird that has a higher win% with HCA and Finals W% than Wilt?
[quote], and in his PRIME, in his first TEN seasons, he went to TWO Finals (choking in a game seven of one...in a blowout loss), and winning his ONLY ring in the weakest decade of champions in NBA history with the easiest run to a title in NBA history. He played with teams that won 53 games (best in the league), 56 games, 59 games, 60 games, and 63 games...that did NOT win a title. And he played with rosters for two straight seasons that had the likes of Nixon, Wilkes, Hudson, and Dantley...that were blown away in the post-season.[/quote]
choking in Game 7? Wilt is used to that.
Blownout in Game 7? Wilt was on the losing part of that
[QUOTE]
Had Magic not come along and basically salvaged his career, Kareem would have been considered one of the biggest "underachievers" in NBA history.[/QUOTE]
Except for the fact he was already an NBA Champion, Finals MVP, and 3x MVP before joining Magic. And was the best player on the '80 championship team with Magic.

[QUOTE=jlauber]Where was Russell's position in that game seven?[/quote]
Winning the Championship was his position [QUOTE]Or Kareem in game seven of the '74 Finals?[/QUOTE]
Prove it that he choked
[QUOTE]Or game seven of the '88 Finals?[/QUOTE]
His team won the championship and he was 39-40 yrs old :oldlol: [QUOTE]Or Bird in game seven of the '84 Finals (BTW, he was FIFTH?)
[/QUOTE]
Team won
[QUOTE]As for "drop-off" Kobe scored 24 points in a game seven, 121-90 loss against Phoenix, in a season in which he averaged 35.4 ppg.[/QUOTE]
At halftime he had 21 points, his team was down 15. He quit in the 2nd half, and it was obvious that Lakers team was not good at all.
[QUOTE]Or how about Kobe shooting .387 in a Finals?

In fact, has there ever been an "alltime" great who was ROUTED so OFTEN in his post-season career, and in games in which he was simply AWFUL, as Kobe?[/QUOTE]
'00 WCF, Game 7: 25-11-7-4blk, Win - led his team in all 4 of those categories, scored or assisted in the Lakers final 8 points
'02 WCF, Game 7: 30-10-7 0 tov, Win
'06: Team sucked
'08: Celtics DESTROYED his team. What could have Kobe done?
'10 Finals, Game 7: 23-15-2, horrible %, but 10 points in the 4th quarter, leading scorer for the game, 15 rebounds, and got the Win
'11: What was Kobe supposed to do? Dallas made nearly every 3 pointer nad his team didn't show up. AT one point in the game Kobe had 7 made FGs at, while the rest of his team combined had 7 made FGs too.

The thing about being playing in game 7's is that you need to lose 3 times to get there.

Dominating a series in 5 or 6 games is often the much greater feat.

[QUOTE=Force]The thing about being playing in game 7's is that you need to lose 3 times to get there.

Dominating a series in 5 or 6 games is often the much greater feat.[/QUOTE]

Depends on the opponent - Spurs defeating an all-time great defensive team and defending champion Pistons in 05 game 7 > sweeping Cavs in 07.

:sleeping

[QUOTE=Hands of Iron]:sleeping[/QUOTE]
jlauber is very insecure about those 3 players (Bird, Kareem, and Hakeem)
The reason why? Because they have won more than Wilt, or as much (Hakeem).

So he does everything he can to try to dub them as career losers and playoff chokers, when get this: They have won MORE than his beloved Wilt, who according to him is not a choker, not a loser, clutch, and better than all 3.