<div class="quote_poster">Quoting cMac44111:</div><div class="quote_post">Alright then make a team of the 12 best Celtics when they were with the Cs vs. the 12 best Raptors.</div>OK, just take Chauncey off both teams.
Chauncey shouldn't even be considered for a spot on either team's all-time list unless your counting their career achievements. How about comparing the Celts all-time team against the lakers all-time team?
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting cMac44111:</div><div class="quote_post">C: Bill Russell PF: Kevin Mchale SF: Larry Bird SG: Paul Pierce PG: Bob Cousy 6: Robert Parish 7: Nate Archibald 8: John Havlicek 9: Bill Walton 10: Sam Jones 11: Pete Maravich 12: Dennis Johnson</div> We have this portion of the program covered in the first post of the thread. It's actually a three deep roster, and countering with a Raptors one as well. I think some of your choices are interesting though. They certainly differ from mine. For instance, I think I'd rather see Sam Jones starting at the two for my all time team, but that's not to take anything from Pierce, Jones just had a better all around game. And Hondo is first off the bench, because he was the best 6th man in the history of the game.
Yeah my fault, I wasn't reading the first post. And I wasn't really thinking about the order of the bench, but mos defiently Hondo is first. then Parish, Jones, Havlicek, DJ, Walton, and then Tiny. That's the order I'd put them in. PP is very underrated and I'd keep him starting. I don't have that great of knowledge about the old Celts and that's one of the reasons I kept him there. But I also looked at both their stats and PP has marginally better career averages in some stats. Except for FG and FT %s, PP has Sam Jones beat in everthing else, but of course Pierce wouldn't be the first scoring option. The stats: http://www.nba.com/playerfile/paul_pierce/...x.html?nav=page http://www.nba.com/history/players/joness_bio.html
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting cMac44111:</div><div class="quote_post">PP is very underrated and I'd keep him starting. I don't have that great of knowledge about the old Celts and that's one of the reasons I kept him there. But I also looked at both their stats and PP has marginally better career averages in some stats. Except for FG and FT %s, PP has Sam Jones beat in everthing else, but of course Pierce wouldn't be the first scoring option.</div> Don't get me wrong, I think Pierce is vastly underrated as a player in the Celtics' mold as well, but I do strongly think that Sam would make the better starter. If you take a look at the Per 40 stats here and here you might get a better idea on how these differed numbers wise. However, I think the back breaker is really the defensive side of the ball. While defensive stats weren't kept back in Jones' day, you can see from some of his old game footage that this guy could run teams out of the building day and night.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Squishface:</div><div class="quote_post">Don't get me wrong, I think Pierce is vastly underrated as a player in the Celtics' mold as well, but I do strongly think that Sam would make the better starter. If you take a look at the Per 40 stats here and here you might get a better idea on how these differed numbers wise. </div> You have to look at those per-minute stats relative to the league average at the time, to make it a fair comparison. For instance, Sam Jones's career highs: points/40 (1966): 29.3 (league average: 19.2) <font color=""Red"">ratio: 1.53</font> reb/40 (1959): 11.7 (league average: 10.0) <font color=""Red"">ratio: 1.17</font> ast/40 (1961): 4.3 (league average: 4.0) <font color=""Red"">ratio: 1.08</font> And for Paul Pierce: points/40 (2006): 27.4 (league average: 16.0) <font color=""Red"">ratio: 1.71</font> reb/40 (1999): 7.6 (league average: 6.9) <font color=""Red"">ratio: 1.10</font> ast/40 (2004): 5.3 (league average: 3.5) <font color=""Red"">ratio: 1.51</font> Or, just comparing their highest PER seasons (according to b-r.com): <div class='codetop'>CODE</div><div class='codemain'><br/>Sam Jones (1966)Paul Pierce (2006)<br/>Pts29.3/19.2 = 1.5327.4/16.0 = 1.71<br/>TS%.521/.487 = 1.07.582/.536 = 1.09<br/>Reb6.4/11.3 = 0.576.9/6.8 = 1.01<br/>Ast4.0/3.8 = 1.054.9/3.4 = 1.44<br/></div> Not necessarily saying Pierce is better than Sam Jones, but his per-minute boxscore stats are better. That's why his PER is consistently higher as well.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting durvasa:</div><div class="quote_post">You have to look at those per-minute stats relative to the league average at the time, to make it a fair comparison. For instance, Sam Jones's career highs: points/40 (1966): 29.3 (league average: 19.2) <font color=""Red"">ratio: 1.53</font> reb/40 (1959): 11.7 (league average: 10.0) <font color=""Red"">ratio: 1.17</font> ast/40 (1961): 4.3 (league average: 4.0) <font color=""Red"">ratio: 1.08</font> And for Paul Pierce: points/40 (2006): 27.4 (league average: 16.0) <font color=""Red"">ratio: 1.71</font> reb/40 (1999): 7.6 (league average: 6.9) <font color=""Red"">ratio: 1.10</font> ast/40 (2004): 5.3 (league average: 3.5) <font color=""Red"">ratio: 1.51</font> Or, just comparing their highest PER seasons (according to b-r.com): <div class='codetop'>CODE</div><div class='codemain'><br/>Sam Jones (1966)Paul Pierce (2006)<br/>Pts29.3/19.2 = 1.5327.4/16.0 = 1.71<br/>TS%.521/.487 = 1.07.582/.536 = 1.09<br/>Reb6.4/11.3 = 0.576.9/6.8 = 1.01<br/>Ast4.0/3.8 = 1.054.9/3.4 = 1.44<br/></div> Not necessarily saying Pierce is better than Sam Jones, but his per-minute boxscore stats are better. That's why his PER is consistently higher as well.</div> Great post. Pierce's PER and TS% are superior. Rebounds of that time are also inflated of course.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting durvasa:</div><div class="quote_post">You have to look at those per-minute stats relative to the league average at the time, to make it a fair comparison. For instance, Sam Jones's career highs: points/40 (1966): 29.3 (league average: 19.2) <font color=""Red"">ratio: 1.53</font> reb/40 (1959): 11.7 (league average: 10.0) <font color=""Red"">ratio: 1.17</font> ast/40 (1961): 4.3 (league average: 4.0) <font color=""Red"">ratio: 1.08</font> And for Paul Pierce: points/40 (2006): 27.4 (league average: 16.0) <font color=""Red"">ratio: 1.71</font> reb/40 (1999): 7.6 (league average: 6.9) <font color=""Red"">ratio: 1.10</font> ast/40 (2004): 5.3 (league average: 3.5) <font color=""Red"">ratio: 1.51</font> Or, just comparing their highest PER seasons (according to b-r.com): <div class='codetop'>CODE</div><div class='codemain'><br/>Sam Jones (1966)Paul Pierce (2006)<br/>Pts29.3/19.2 = 1.5327.4/16.0 = 1.71<br/>TS%.521/.487 = 1.07.582/.536 = 1.09<br/>Reb6.4/11.3 = 0.576.9/6.8 = 1.01<br/>Ast4.0/3.8 = 1.054.9/3.4 = 1.44<br/></div> Not necessarily saying Pierce is better than Sam Jones, but his per-minute boxscore stats are better. That's why his PER is consistently higher as well.</div> I am happy to tip my cap here. When you're shown up, you're shown up. I enjoy both the players and Sam Jones was the model of his day at the guard position, but Pierce is just more consistent with a basketball, what can you say?
