If Jordan was the best player of the last 30 years, who was/is the second best?

[Michael_ Gee]

Cubbiebum, the Celtics the year before Bird got there were not ridiculously deep, just ridiculous. They were a trainwreck of staggering dimensions. Bird turned 'em around, and Bill Fitch helped a good deal, but the club was still so thin that they picked up Pete Maravich, who had nothing left, for scoring off the bench in midseason. It wasn't until McHale and Parish came along the next year they became the Celtics of the '80s.

 

[Cubbiebum]

Cubbiebum, the Celtics the year before Bird got there were not ridiculously deep, just ridiculous. They were a trainwreck of staggering dimensions. Bird turned 'em around, and Bill Fitch helped a good deal, but the club was still so thin that they picked up Pete Maravich, who had nothing left, for scoring off the bench in midseason. It wasn't until McHale and Parish came along the next year they became the Celtics of the '80s.

They had eight guys average double-figures the year before, many of the same players as the next year. They were deep. They just had crap coaching and no leader. Bird became the leader and gets a lot of the credit for the turnaround but it wasn't all him.

I'm also well aware of the Pete Maravich signing after the Jazz released him. I've watched documentaries on Maravich in the past. While he was no Pistol Pete with the Celtics he did have something left and provided a good scorer off the bench. He averaged 11.5 points (in 17 minutes) and shot a very high percentage. He wasn't a star or close to it, but he as a quality role player. People discredit him because he didn't average the 23 points he had just the year before.

 

[93Devil]

I can take five bums from the local Y, have them play 40 minutes a game in the NBA and two will average 10 points a game.

 

[Cubbiebum]

I can take five bums from the local Y, have them play 40 minutes a game in the NBA and two will average 10 points a game.

Highly doubtful considering they would get every shot blocked but anyways that isn't the case and is a bad comparison. It wasn't two or three or four or five ... it was eight. Eight people averaged double-figures. Like I said the first time, some weren't there they would time. Bob McAdoo only played 20 games after being traded by the Knicks. Still having that many guys average double-figures means the roster wasn't complete crap and there was a deep core of players.

 

[93Devil]

Tiny, Cornbead, Ford and Cowens was an average core, but Bird put them over the edge.

The team won how many games the year prior? Maxwell was the leading scorer?

That was not a good team he went to.

 

[cyclingwriter]

Tiny, Cornbead, Ford and Cowens was an average core, but Bird put them over the edge.

The team won how many games the year prior? Maxwell was the leading scorer?

That was not a good team he went to.

I was driving somewhere for work once and heard Maxwell talking on the radio about Bird and the "turnaround." I couldn't quite tell how much he was joking, but his story was all of his personal stats went down when Bird joined the team so ergo (my word, not his) Bird wasn't really that good.

 

[Cubbiebum]

Tiny, Cornbead, Ford and Cowens was an average core, but Bird put them over the edge.

The team won how many games the year prior? Maxwell was the leading scorer?

That was not a good team he went to.

Yes, Maxwell led the team in points. He was a pretty good player and had his best season the year before Bird which was only Maxwell's second season. They also had Dave Cowens who had made seven straight All-Star games, Tiny Archibald who had been to three All-Star games and would go to three more after that season, seven-time All-Star Jo Jo White (granted he was past his prime), two-time All-Star Billy Knight and the aforementioned five-time All-Star Bob McAdoo for 20 games.

Like I said before, Bird gets the lion's share of the credit for the turnaround but coaching also played a big part because the Celtics did have some talent.

 

[Stoney]

Cubbiebum, the Celtics the year before Bird got there were not ridiculously deep, just ridiculous. They were a trainwreck of staggering dimensions. Bird turned 'em around, and Bill Fitch helped a good deal, but the club was still so thin that they picked up Pete Maravich, who had nothing left, for scoring off the bench in midseason. It wasn't until McHale and Parish came along the next year they became the Celtics of the '80s.

They had eight guys average double-figures the year before, many of the same players as the next year. They were deep. They just had crap coaching and no leader. Bird became the leader and gets a lot of the credit for the turnaround but it wasn't all him.

I'm also well aware of the Pete Maravich signing after the Jazz released him. I've watched documentaries on Maravich in the past. While he was no Pistol Pete with the Celtics he did have something left and provided a good scorer off the bench. He averaged 11.5 points (in 17 minutes) and shot a very high percentage. He wasn't a star or close to it, but he as a quality role player. People discredit him because he didn't average the 23 points he had just the year before.

Good lord, you are just making nonsense up now for the sake of prolonging an argument.

This "8 double digit scorers means ridiculously deep" idea is one of silliest arguments I've seen in some time. Hey, do you wanna know a team that had even MORE double digit scorers? The 1973 Philadelphia 76ers--they had TEN double digit scorers (http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/PHI/1973.html). Holy crap, now that team was INSANELY DEEP! Ummm, except for the fact that the 73 Sixers finished with a 9-73 record and are commonly regarded as the WORST TEAM IN NBA HISTORY.

And that's no anomoly. If you do a little research, you'll discover that the teams with the most double digit scorers are usually ones that had ugly seasons. A team statistical profile that features a striking number of players who averaged around 10 or the low teens is generally not the sign of talent depth, instead it's more often simply the sign of a team that was in complete disarray, couldn't find anything that worked, and thus was desperately trying all sorts of different combinations. And that's exactly what 79 Celts were, they were simply ridiculously awful, not deep.

And they were even LESS deep in Bird's rookie year, because the preceding off season Auerbach had gotten rid of several of the most productive players for damn near nothing in return. Indeed, funny how you neglected to mention that three of those double digit scorers, McAdoo (who was their leading scorer), Billy Knight and Jo Jo White, were no longer around for Bird's rookie year. In truth, depth was actually that 80 team's most glaring WEAKNESS, they didn't have crap off the bench, to be now making an argument that Bird stepped into some roster with great talent depth is just outlandish revisionist bullshirt.

As is the suggestion that the final season version of Maravich in any way resembled those from earlier years. Maravich was hobbling around like a peg-legged man for that final season. Defensively he was absolutely worthless by then (and he'd always been a horrendous defender even in his younger years). He only appeared in 26 games the entire season for Celtics, and only got scattered minutes in the few he did appear in. He contributed extremely little to that team.

 

[Cubbiebum]

Tiny, Cornbead, Ford and Cowens was an average core, but Bird put them over the edge.

The team won how many games the year prior? Maxwell was the leading scorer?

That was not a good team he went to.

I was driving somewhere for work once and heard Maxwell talking on the radio about Bird and the "turnaround." I couldn't quite tell how much he was joking, but his story was all of his personal stats went down when Bird joined the team so ergo (my word, not his) Bird wasn't really that good.

He and Bird overlapped too much. Bird was just better at everything and actually had an outside shot. I will say though Maxwell probably would have been a great player. He averaged 19 and 10 the year before Bird and led the league in shooting percentage both that year and the next.

 

[printdust]

2. Magic 3. Bird 4. Doctor J 5. Jabbar

 

[93Devil]

Tiny, Cornbead, Ford and Cowens was an average core, but Bird put them over the edge.

The team won how many games the year prior? Maxwell was the leading scorer?

That was not a good team he went to.

Yes, Maxwell led the team in points. He was a pretty good player and had his best season the year before Bird which was only Maxwell's second season. They also had Dave Cowens who had made seven straight All-Star games, Tiny Archibald who had been to three All-Star games and would go to three more after that season, seven-time All-Star Jo Jo White (granted he was past his prime), two-time All-Star Billy Knight and the aforementioned five-time All-Star Bob McAdoo for 20 games.

Like I said before, Bird gets the lion's share of the credit for the turnaround but coaching also played a big part because the Celtics did have some talent.

You know there are things more important than stats in team sports.

If Bob McAdoo was so great, why did seven or so teams decide to get rid of him or let him go?

 

[Stoney]

All-Star Jo Jo White (granted he was past his prime), two-time All-Star Billy Knight and the aforementioned five-time All-Star Bob McAdoo for 20 games.

Like I said before, Bird gets the lion's share of the credit for the turnaround but coaching also played a big part because the Celtics did have some talent.

WHY are you arguing how good McAdoo, Knight and White were to support an argument about how much talent Bird had on the 80 Celts? Umm, McAdoo, Knight and White were NOT ON THAT TEAM. They left the summer before Bird arrived. You're making points that only undermine your own argument. Yep, McAdoo had big time talent and was the Celtics leading scorer in 79, which only makes it that much more impressive that Bird carried the Celts to a 32 game improvement on a team that had just LOST its leading scorer and biggest talent from the season before. Yeesh, I mean, you do realize you're arguing against yourself, right?

And it should be pointed out that Cowens retired at the end of that season, yes he was still pretty good, but by no means was he anything close to the same star he'd been in the mid-70s.

Archibald and Maxwell were really the only other genuine quality talents on that team, but even Archibald was past his prime by then. That most certainly was not a deep team. Its problem was precisely the opposite, in fact.