Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 31 of 31

Thread: Best Sixth Man

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Maggette or Duhon. We wouldn't have won in '01 without Duhon IMO.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Washington, D.C.
    Quote Originally Posted by jimsumner View Post
    Frank Ramsey didn't keep Sam Jones on the bench. Bill Sharman did. After Sharman retired following the 1961 season, Jones became the starter, a role he retained for nine seasons. For a good bit of that time, he started ahead of John Havlickek and averaged well over 30 mpg for the NBA's deepest team.

    Sam Jones and Ramsey overlapped for seven seasons. Jones played more minutes than Ramsey in four of those. Ramsey spent much of that time as a small forward. Sam Jones was a guard.

    K.C. Jones backed up a fella named Cousy. Until Cousy retired. Then K.C. Jones became the starter.

    The Boston Celtics were light years ahead of the competition in color-blind playing rotations. One of the reasons they won the NBA title with stunning regularity.
    Thanks for the details. No question that Red labeled Ramsey "the Sixth Man" and Cousy and Sharmen started ahead of Sam and KC. Whether the Celtics and Red were light years ahead of the rest of the league I don't know--I seem to recall Philly being pretty freakin Black during the same era.

    For what it's worth, I thought that the Celtics were MUCH better with Sam and KC on the court than with Cousy and Sharmen. Maybe Red thought it was best to bring his strength off the bench instead of starting them, or maybe he thought it best to surround the best player on the planet who happened to be black in a city that was not exactly hospitable to blacks with four White players and to feature Ramsey, a good ole boy just like Bailey Howel, rather than start Sam and KC.

    That Sam was playing behind Sharmen was a travisty.

    Sam was 6'4", was a phenomenal scorer of the sort who could compete with the best ever, could guard the Oscars of the world, scored outside and inside, ran the floor like a deer, and was tremendously entertaining what with that bank shot. I was a kid and thought to myself, "This guy is amazing." My recollection is that when the Celtics needed a score in tight games, Sam was on the floor and more often than not got the shot and made it. He was lights out better than Sharmen.

    Sam was great, probably the second best player on every Celtic team he played on, except when Havilechek really came into his own. Then Sam was the third best. Sam was the second or third best two guard in the league; second only to Oscar. He was better than Hudson and might well have been better than West.

    As for Ramsey playing forward, and Sam playing guard--come on. There is nothing that Ramsey could do at the forward position that Sam did not do better. Nothing.

    KC and Cousy. Cousy had flash, gave the team some character. I suppose that that justified him starting over KC. However, when Red needed to create separation, KC and Sam were in the game, not Cousy and Sam, KC and Sam. I think that tells you something.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Grant Hill was the 6th man for much of the '90-91 season. I don't think we have ever had a more talented player in that role.

    But my vote goes with David Henderson who spent more than one entire season as the designated 6th man. I remember there even being a big story at the time about David being the best 6th man in the country.
    "Just be you. You is Enough."

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    NC
    Quote Originally Posted by jipops View Post
    Grant Hill was the 6th man for much of the '90-91 season. I don't think we have ever had a more talented player in that role.

    But my vote goes with David Henderson who spent more than one entire season as the designated 6th man. I remember there even being a big story at the time about David being the best 6th man in the country.
    Actually, Hill started all but 5 games as a freshman. He started all but 9 games as a sophomore.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Princeton, NJ

    Marin Johnny D Hurley for 3!

    I am sure at this point a whole heap of folks will not remember David Henderson, but I would put dollars to doughnuts that most people associated with Duke basketball from 1983 until now would list him as their choice.

    Bilas wants his number retired. Literally.

  6. #26
    I enrolled at Duke in 1997, so I didn't have the opportunity see Henderson play. I'll take all of your words on him being the program's best sixth man though, a lot of people feel strongly about it.

    I will say from the time I got there, it has to be Nate, small sample size or not. For a senior to lose his starting job before the last regular-season game, never sulk or let it affect his level of effort and play an enormous role in a national title team makes him the best sixth man I've seen by a long shot. The Duhon-Nate switch was a masterstroke by Krzyzewski, finding the best way to maximize both players' abilities. Until this season, when he designed an offense to perfectly maximize our team's size and backcourt quality advantage, I thought it was the best coaching maneuver he'd done that I'd seen, hands down.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Bill Sharman is a member of the basketball hall of fame, an eight-time NBA All-Star and one of the best shooters who ever lived. His peak years didn't really overlap with Sam Jones' peak years. But Sharman was a GREAT player and Bob Cousy was beyond great. The idea that K.C. Jones was a better point guard than Cousy is giggle-inducing.

    Bailey Howell was a burly 6'7 power forward. His Celtic career didn't overlap with that of Ramsey and he certainly had no significant impact on the PT of either Jones. He also was pretty darn good. By the time the Celtics acquired Howell, both Sam and K.C. Jones were starting. Your point relative to Howell eludes me.

    The St. Louis Hawks, with Bob Pettit and Cliff Hagan were almost the equal of the Celtics in the late 1950s. But they had a racial quota. While the Celtics scarfed up guys like Satch Sanders and Willie Naulls the Hawks found ways to cut guys like Cleo Hill. One team became a dynasty, one didn't.

    If the Celtics allocated starting roles by race, how come Ramsey and Havlicek spent so much time coming off the bench, while Sam Jones started?

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Washington, D.C.
    Quote Originally Posted by jimsumner View Post
    Bill Sharman is a member of the basketball hall of fame, an eight-time NBA All-Star and one of the best shooters who ever lived. His peak years didn't really overlap with Sam Jones' peak years. But Sharman was a GREAT player and Bob Cousy was beyond great. The idea that K.C. Jones was a better point guard than Cousy is giggle-inducing.

    Bailey Howell was a burly 6'7 power forward. His Celtic career didn't overlap with that of Ramsey and he certainly had no significant impact on the PT of either Jones. He also was pretty darn good. By the time the Celtics acquired Howell, both Sam and K.C. Jones were starting. Your point relative to Howell eludes me.

    The St. Louis Hawks, with Bob Pettit and Cliff Hagan were almost the equal of the Celtics in the late 1950s. But they had a racial quota. While the Celtics scarfed up guys like Satch Sanders and Willie Naulls the Hawks found ways to cut guys like Cleo Hill. One team became a dynasty, one didn't.

    If the Celtics allocated starting roles by race, how come Ramsey and Havlicek spent so much time coming off the bench, while Sam Jones started?
    Bill Sharmen was better than Sam Jones? Sam Jones would start for just about every NBA team today. Sharmen would not be in the league.

    Yes, I do think that in the early years race was a factor for the Celtics about who would start. And I also happen to think that Sharmen and Cousy's success, as in being starting guards on multiple championship teams would not have happened if Sam and KC had not gotten significant playing time. Do I think that the Celtics would have won those championships with Sam and Casey starting and playing the majority of minutes? Yes. I think that. I do not think that they would have needed significant contributions from Cousy or Sharmen except when foul trouble hit. Sharmen's ability to knock down open shots would definitely have been important, but easier to replace than the contributions that Sam and KC made to victory when they came off the bench, at least as I see it.

    Look, Cousey had no jump shot and his principal roll was running the break, a break that began with tremendous advantage whenever it was off a Russell block, and often when it was off a Russell rebound (Russell had an uncanny ability to rebound the ball and begin upcourt in a single motion that left defenders a step or two behind). Did Cousy lead the break with tremendous pinache and effectivenesss. Yes. And because of his showmanship I have no issue with his minutes or his starting roll. Pro basketball has always been about theater and Cousy put on as good a show as there was at the time; perhaps it would hold up even today. But, in terms of results, they were a forgone conclusion in my opinion before the ball even touched Cousy's hands. On the other hand, he did dazzle and everyone wanted to be like the Cooz. Everybody!

    So no, I'm not hatin on the decision to showcase the Cooz. If I said otherwise, I take it back and apologize. He helped sell the game. On the other hand, straight up, him against KC, I think KC wins. KC was the original shut down defender and had the speed and ability to run the break. And, he did have a jump shot, while Cousy's only outside shot was a one-hand push from 25 feet which he did make a reasonably high percentage of the time, but actually took only rarely. Could KC get to the basket and finish as well as Cousy in the half court game and dish just as effectively, maybe yes and maybe no. He definitely did not do it with the same pinache, so I suppose Cousy gets to be on the floor. But, is that because he was "better"? I really do not think so, although now that I'm writing this I really don't know that my argument wins and certainly doubt it actually was worth making.

    Finally, I misspoke about Howell; I loved his game. Ramsey. I am hard pressed to know what the fuss was about, particularly when Sam was coming off the bench and he was a freakin superstar. You tell me why Red made such a big deal about him. Me, I don't get it.
    Last edited by greybeard; 05-07-2010 at 09:22 PM.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Greybeard,

    The real question is whether K.C. Jones was better than Brad Davis. Longtime readers will understand the reference.

    Sam Jones at his peak was marginally better than Bill Sharman at his peak. But they weren't at their peaks at the same time. Sharman was better than Jones in the late 1950s. Bill Sharman was a great basketball player and suggesting that he started because he was white is a significant distortion of pro basketball history.

    And seriously. Did Cousy run over your dog or something? He was one of ther truly extraordinary players of all time. Best guard in history until Robertson and West came along.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Durham, NC

    Another

    Honorable mention
    Billy McCaffrey

    Though he started half the games in 1991 he was sixth man for the tourneys and most of Feb. McCaffrey was instant offense off the bench and made all NCAA tourney team.

  11. #31
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    New Orleans, Louisiana
    This has shaped up to be one of the more/only interesting offseason threads, in part because of the tangential NBA history lesson. (I've been reading that Bill Simmons textbook, so I recognize some of these names thrown around.)

    But I think it's strange that most of you have defined the concept of Sixth Man as "good enough to start, but set his ego aside for the greater good." That definition is fine, but it's just one way to define a valued reserve.

    What about the Sixth Man who may or may not have the all-around game to merit a start, but did one or two things extremely well? Maybe gave the team a spark off the bench and in small doses? Possibly a liability on offense, or on defense, but the right person on the floor for a particular matchup or phase of the game? The tweener guard that shoots threes, or the backup point who's fast and pesky, or the wide body that outpaces entire nations with not only rebounds per capita, but also fouls and/or calories?

    No suggestions on this, as it applies to Duke, but maybe an avenue worth exploring.

Similar Threads

  1. Directors' Cup Update: Duke Sixth!
    By burnspbesq in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 06-02-2007, 09:42 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •