Ranking Boston Sports Legends

[bagwell368]

Seen all the original list guys play in person except Ted who was a bit before my time.

#1 Ted - best hitter ever - sorry Babe

#2. Orr - easily top 5 ever

#3. Bird - starting small forward - first team all time

#4 Russell - not in mood for arguments, but he isn't top 20 all time IMO.

#5 Brady - potential to move up into the top 3, but not there yet (right now I have him 3rd of guys I would most want to run a 2 minute drill at the end of the SB) - Montana is #1, Young is #2, Elway, Staubach are right there as well.

#6: Yaz ('67 made the RS what they are now)

#7: Hannah (the only for sure 1st team all time Pat)

 

[scout]

#4 Russell - not in mood for arguments, but he isn't top 20 all time IMO.

all time Pat)

Not in the mood? Not in the top 20 all time? Be real curious as to the 20 that beat him out.
I'm always in favor of a hearty laugh in the morning.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

You have a few missing, you young whipper snapper.

There was a lefty pitcher who won twenty games a season for the Red Sox. Matter of fact he was the last guy who pitched left handed to win twenty games a seasopn for the Sox. He was a fairly good hitter too.
Fellow by the name of... Babe Ruth.

Then there was a pitcher for the Red Sox who was so good they named an award after him, as the best MLB pitcher of the year.
Fellow by the name of... Cy Young.

Excellent catch on Cy Young. On the Babe, I thought about it, but didn't put him on my list because he's pretty nearly universally identified with the Yankees.

Another poster made a point about Bill Rogers, but to me it looked like the OP was talking about team sports; otherwise, Rogers would have to be near the top of the list. He not only was at the top of long distance running for a long time, but helped turn marathons into what they are today. And, if we're expanding this to individual sports and while it's a slight geographic stretch DownEast to Maine, I think I'd want to make the case for Joan Benoit as well.

 

[PatsSox363804]

Top 10 Boston Legends of all time

1 Ted Williams
2 Larry Bird
3 Bill Russel
4 Tom Brady
5 Carl Yaztremski
6 Bobby Orr
7 Carlton Fisk
8 John Havlichick
9 Curt Schilling- although I hate the guy
10 Jim Rice

Honarable Mention- Steve Grogan, Johnny Damon, Mike Lowell, Bill belichick

Yaz is not over Orr. They played in the same era and Orr ruled that era. I wouldn't put Bird over Orr either, only Russell , Williams, and Brady even have a case over Bobby Orr.

 

[PatsSox363804]

what i'm seeing from everyone is basically if you are a hockey guy, it's orr. if you are more of a basketball guy, it's russell. it doesn't seem like many people like both hockey and basketball - it's either one or the other.

if bobby orr played a full career, i wonder if people would have a different sentiment. he only played 12 years in the NHL, won 8 Norris tropheys and 2 cups. i believe knee injuries cut his career short. as far as gretzky being GOAT, yeah he was great but i really think orr was more skilled.

let's just hope TB has some more left in the tank to win 3 more titles and put this argument to rest!

On a pure talent level Orr > Gretzky, I don't even think it's close. Gretz had the luxury of playing a long time and a good part of it on a dynastic Oiler team that won a cup without him (you think the Bruins win either of those cups without Orr?) Orr revolutionized the game, Gretzky is one of the best pure playmakers, maybe the best, ever to play the game but he didn't revolutionize what it means to be an NHL Center, he was just the perfect example of how to play it.

 

[Yehoodi]

Russell won the NBA championship 11 of the 13 years he was in the NBA. He was THE guy for those 11 championships, 8 straight championships at one point. As great as Orr, Bird, Ted, and Brady were/are, there's absolutely no way they can match Russell's legendary status. IMO.

I've got two words for your Bill Russell claim "Henri Richard" . . . I look at Bill Russell in much the same way as I do Henri Richard, and most would not put Henri Richard in the top 20-30 of his sport. . .

 

[Dragda]

Tom Brady number one. Then Bird and Russell. Ted Williams was a baseball player, for craps sakes. His tunnel does make getting over to East Boston easier--I'll give him that--but baseball is boring and long and it's so early 20th century. If we're going to include Red Sox players, Babe Ruth should top the list.

 

[PatsSox363804]

Tom Brady number one. Then Bird and Russell. Ted Williams was a baseball player, for craps sakes. His tunnel does make getting over to East Boston easier--I'll give him that--but baseball is boring and long and it's so early 20th century. If we're going to include Red Sox players, Babe Ruth should top the list.

You can't put Ruth on the list as a top Boston sports legend because he is a bigger New York sports legend and his trade started 86 years of terrible management and no titles. He certainly can't be put above Williams, Orr, Russell, Brady, Bird, Havlicek, Hannah, Bourque, Yaz, Vinatieri.. shall I continue?

 

[scout]

I've got two words for your Bill Russell claim "Henri Richard" . . . I look at Bill Russell in much the same way as I do Henri Richard, and most would not put Henri Richard in the top 20-30 of his sport. . .

Bill Russell was the dominant player on those Celtic teams, without him, they do not win any titles. The guy was an athletic freak. When at USF, he high jumped his height (which does mean something as opposed to the combine). If a record was kept for blocked shots, it would be up there with Dimaggio's hitting streak for records that may never get broken. Not only that, Red was quoted as saying 9 out of 10 blocks went to a Celtic. The consumate team player.
Not sure of your reasoning (along with a few others) of why Russell doesn't rank #1, let alone in the top 20 (LMAO), but if he was in his prime today, he would dominate. LeBron and Kobe's name would come up in discussion after Russell's.
If you would like to respond, please explain your position.

 

[mgteich]

I presume you are discussing the greatest Boston sports legends sort of like we have a patriots hall of fame.

There are few outside of Boston who would consider Ted Williams the best baseball player ever, or Brady the best football player. Considering that Boston is a baseball city more than anything, Ted Williams is of course number one on any Boston list.

And I think we all understand the only reason why Larry Bird would be considered higher than Russell on any list.

Just BTW, I would consider Hannah a better football player than Brady.

Of course, homerism abounds. Boston of course has the best ever football, hockey and baseball player. I'm surprised that Bird isn't considered better than Michael Jordan.

Who do you guys think in order are the best boston sports legends ever? I'm talking just the players, not owners or coaches. For me it's:

1. edit: Ted Williams

2. Bobby Orr - arguably the greatest NHL player ever.

3. Tom Brady - arguably the greatest QB ever.

4. Larry Bird

5. Bill Russell - 11 NBA titles.


The reason I put Orr number 2 is because he's possibly the greatest player of his sport ever. Bird and Russell are not the greatest NBA players and Brady might be one day.

 

[mgteich]

The greatest Boston sports "legend" is that Bird was a better player than Russell or more important to the team.

 

[condon84]

I've got two words for your Bill Russell claim "Henri Richard" . . . I look at Bill Russell in much the same way as I do Henri Richard, and most would not put Henri Richard in the top 20-30 of his sport. . .

So Bill Russell is not in your top 20-30 basketball all-time list? Really? Can you name me 20 basketball players you would rank ahead of Russell?

 

[Yehoodi]

So Bill Russell is not in your top 20-30 basketball all-time list? Really? Can you name me 20 basketball players you would rank ahead of Russell?

No i did not say Bill Russell was not in the top 20-30, I said Henri Richard is probably not considered in the top 20 of his sport. Do you know who Henri Richard is??? Do you know who Maurice Ricahrd is?? Henri is Maurice's little brother and is called the Pocket Rocket, his brother Maurice is "the Rocket" you probably know who they are now ,. . . Henri Richard was a great player who played for the Montreal Canadiens and has 11 Stanley Cup rings, was actually consider by Mr. Sam Pollock, the great Canadien GM, as being his best aquisition. But most don't know who he is . . . so is he the GOAT of hockey becuase of his 11 titles, or did he have the good fortune to play on a great set of teams, he play for the 50''s, 60s, adn early 70s canadiens. Timing, timing timing. Henri has 11 rings and there is a handful of canadiens who have 10 rings; most notabley Jeau Beliveau and Yvan Cournoyer have 10 each. And Beliveau played in 18 full seasons of which he was in the cup finalt 13 times, winning 10, Is Beliveau the GOAT in Hockey?

Just because you have many rings doesn't mean per se you are the GOAT, if you have the benefit of being on a great team, Russell was really on two the Cs in the first half of his career and the Cs in the second half of his career, the two teams had different players, much like Beliveau, Cournoyer and Richard.

I put Russell in the top 10 players all time and perhaps in the top 5 all time. My knock on Russell was that he didn't score that much and was basically a defensive specialist and had to rely on his team to get point to win. If he is not surrounding by offensive players he doesn't win as many championships . . .

 

[scout]

No i did not say Bill Russell was not in the top 20-30, I said Henri Richard is probably not considered in the top 20 of his sport. Do you know who Henri Richard is??? Do you know who Maurice Ricahrd is?? Henri is Maurice's little brother and is called the Pocket Rocket, his brother Maurice is "the Rocket" you probably know who they are now ,. . . Henri Richard was a great player who played for the Montreal Canadiens and has 11 Stanley Cup rings, was actually consider by Mr. Sam Pollock, the great Canadien GM, as being his best aquisition. But most don't know who he is . . . so is he the GOAT of hockey becuase of his 11 titles, or did he have the good fortune to play on a great set of teams, he play for the 50''s, 60s, adn early 70s canadiens. Timing, timing timing. Henri has 11 rings and there is a handful of canadiens who have 10 rings; most notabley Jeau Beliveau and Yvan Cournoyer have 10 each. And Beliveau played in 18 full seasons of which he was in the cup finalt 13 times, winning 10, Is Beliveau the GOAT in Hockey?

Just because you have many rings doesn't mean per se you are the GOAT, if you have the benefit of being on a great team, Russell was really on two the Cs in the first half of his career and the Cs in the second half of his career, the two teams had different players, much like Beliveau, Cournoyer and Richard.

I put Russell in the top 10 players all time and perhaps in the top 5 all time. My knock on Russell was that he didn't score that much and was basically a defensive specialist and had to rely on his team to get point to win. If he is not surrounding by offensive players he doesn't win as many championships . . .

Russell was a defensive specialist because he chose to be. That didn't mean he was a Dennis Rodman or Ben Wallace. He averaged 16.2 points in the playoffs. That, from a player who played tenacious defense. BTW, defense wins championships.
The MVP award was started in 1969 and was recently named after Russell. Would you care to guess who would have been the MVP in the vast majority of Celtic Titles prior to 69?
In your hockey comparison, you sound like Russell just happened to be on a team which won 8 championships in a row vs the main reason why the Celtics won 8 championships in a row.

 

[TruthSeeker]

No i did not say Bill Russell was not in the top 20-30, I said Henri Richard is probably not considered in the top 20 of his sport. Do you know who Henri Richard is??? Do you know who Maurice Ricahrd is?? Henri is Maurice's little brother and is called the Pocket Rocket, his brother Maurice is "the Rocket" you probably know who they are now ,. . . Henri Richard was a great player who played for the Montreal Canadiens and has 11 Stanley Cup rings, was actually consider by Mr. Sam Pollock, the great Canadien GM, as being his best aquisition. But most don't know who he is . . . so is he the GOAT of hockey becuase of his 11 titles, or did he have the good fortune to play on a great set of teams, he play for the 50''s, 60s, adn early 70s canadiens. Timing, timing timing. Henri has 11 rings and there is a handful of canadiens who have 10 rings; most notabley Jeau Beliveau and Yvan Cournoyer have 10 each. And Beliveau played in 18 full seasons of which he was in the cup finalt 13 times, winning 10, Is Beliveau the GOAT in Hockey?

Just because you have many rings doesn't mean per se you are the GOAT, if you have the benefit of being on a great team, Russell was really on two the Cs in the first half of his career and the Cs in the second half of his career, the two teams had different players, much like Beliveau, Cournoyer and Richard.

I put Russell in the top 10 players all time and perhaps in the top 5 all time. My knock on Russell was that he didn't score that much and was basically a defensive specialist and had to rely on his team to get point to win. If he is not surrounding by offensive players he doesn't win as many championships . . .

This "analysis" totally misses the point. Russell was the dominant player on the Celtics during his playing days winning 5 League MVPs. He and Wilt Chamberlain vied to be the dominant player in the NBA with Red Auberach famously paying Bill Russell $1 more in salary in Chamberlain because he viewed Russell as the better player.

Going back to Henri Richard, are you claiming that he was the best player on the Canadians and arguably the best player in the NHL? No, you refute that contention yourself in your comments. Your analogy is worse than worthless; it is misleading.

Your arguments about statistics indicate that you never saw Russell play and really understand who Bill Russell was. Bill Russell was (and is) all about team. Bill Belichick would have loved him as much as Tom Brady. Bill Russell chose to score less so that the team would win more. And he didn't have to go through years of a learning curve like Michael Jordan to do it! (Jordan's highest two scoring years and three out of the top four were years that the Bulls did not win a title.)

Russell came in as the consumate team player and stayed the consumate team player throughout his career. This is reflected in his rings and - by those with an insightful understanding of these things - in his statistics. Yes, Wilt Chamberlain consistently put up more points in his matchups with Russell. But the Celtics, led by Bill Russell, consistently won - except when he was injured. Yes, that's right, the year that Bill Russell was injured and missed the playoffs was the year that the Celtics didn't win a title.

There's a lot more I could say, but I'll close with this story I heard Bill Russell share during an interview. The Celtics were a fast break team and Russell was one of the those that hustled down the court on the fast break. Bill Russell shared that they got a lot of 3-2 matchups with him on one side, Tommy Heinsohn on the other and Bob Cousy in the middle. Bill shared that Bob Cousy would always pass the ball to Heinsohn, never to him, and that it was so hard to keep running full out on fast breaks knowing that he wasn't going to be passed the ball. But he did because that's what the team needed him to do.

It wasn't just fast breaks. Bill Russell was a great offensive player that only displayed part of his skills on the basketball floor because that's what the team needed him to do. He was underappreciated then by people who love the gaudy stats (that Chamberlain would put up), but he has always been appreciated by those of us who realize that it is harder to have the talent and, at times, minimize your use of it for the greater good than it is to blow everyone away with your talent while the team struggles to capture the ring.

 

[TruthSeeker]

I think if Brady is the GOAT, then that trumps every other Boston athlete ...ever. Personally, I try and put the Homer aside and find a reason Brady's not the GOAT and the only player I can argue against Brady is Montana - But if you consider what he's done so far and his potential over the next 5-6 years, Brady will most likely be the hands down GOAT by the time he hangs it up - That's gotta be good enough for No.1 in Boston.

Orr was great, but nationally you will not get him past Gretzky.

Russell was great, but you won't get past Jordan.

Ted Williams has a legit chance as GOAT.

I don't care how other people rank athletes nationally. This is about our individual opinions and the reasons for them.

I don't know if Bobby Orr was better than Gretzky, but I choose to believe he was and you can make a case for it. A defensive player leading the NHL in scoring. Incredible.

Russell, as you can see from my last post, has a very strong case.

Ted Williams has no shot of being known as the GOAT as a baseball player, IMO. He has a shot of being the greatest hitter (and we like to call him that because he wanted to be called that), but that is only one aspect of a ballplayer. No way is he above Russell or Orr.

Larry Bird was great, but he was no Russell nor was he an Orr.

Brady does indeed have a chance of topping this list someday, IMO. He doesn't get there now, but he may.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

Your arguments about statistics indicate that you never saw Russell play and really understand who Bill Russell was. Bill Russell was (and is) all about team. Bill Belichick would have loved him as much as Tom Brady. Bill Russell chose to score less so that the team would win more. And he didn't have to go through years of a learning curve like Michael Jordan to do it! (Jordan's highest two scoring years and three out of the top four were years that the Bulls did not win a title.)

Russell came in as the consumate team player and stayed the consumate team player throughout his career. This is reflected in his rings and - by those with an insightful understanding of these things - in his statistics. Yes, Wilt Chamberlain consistently put up more points in his matchups with Russell. But the Celtics, led by Bill Russell, consistently won - except when he was injured. Yes, that's right, the year that Bill Russell was injured and missed the playoffs was the year that the Celtics didn't win a title.

...Bill Russell was a great offensive player that only displayed part of his skills on the basketball floor because that's what the team needed him to do. He was underappreciated then by people who love the gaudy stats (that Chamberlain would put up), but he has always been appreciated by those of us who realize that it is harder to have the talent and, at times, minimize your use of it for the greater good than it is to blow everyone away with your talent while the team struggles to capture the ring.

What a great post. Captures my feelings perfectly. I saw Russell play. I always felt that Brady had the same team first attitude that Russell had.

 

[scout]

What a great post. Captures my feelings perfectly. I saw Russell play. I always felt that Brady had the same team first attitude that Russell had.

Ditto.......

 

[Yehoodi]

In your hockey comparison, you sound like Russell just happened to be on a team which won 8 championships in a row vs the main reason why the Celtics won 8 championships in a row.

Answer this simple question: Does Russell win as many Championships without Bob Cousey????

Oh back to my hockey analogy which some missed the point.
My point is some guys are just lucky, that is all . . .

Of coarse you knew that when Russell arrived in Boston for the first half of his career and the "first Celtic team" I mentioned, he walked in a locker room that had FOUR Hall of Famers siting there waiting for him, namely Bob Cousy, Bill Sharman, Tommy Hiensohn, and Frank Ramsey, a few years later they were joined by TWO MORE HOFs in Sam Jones and KC Jones, and later by John Hevlicek (of coarse some of the first HOFs had retired). and not to mention the fact that that team was coached by a HOF Coach by the name of Red Auerbach. During his career as a celtic Bill Russell always had AT LEAST THREE HOF teammates. Which brings the count to that team had at least 4 HOFs on the team at any one given year between 1956 and 1969. After Jones boys and Russell retired 1969, the Cs only had one HOF, - Hevlicek, it was not till they got Cowens and few years later would they have a second and it was not till Larry Bird Cs did they have three again.

Regardless you need to factor in the factor that Russells always had AT LEAST 4 HOF on his team. whereas the 70s at best you had 2 at one time and in the 80s 3, well 4 with that one year w/ Walton, and btw they won that year, '86. (wink wink - see what happens to teams in a sport that fields only 5 players but have 4 HOFs on the bench, they win titles, Russel had 4 HOF for his entire career, see the pattern, all we need to do is to connect the dots . . .)

Hey Sam Jones played from 1959-1969 and has 10 titles in 11 years which is a higher winning percentage (91%) than Russell medicore 11 in 13 years (85%). Yah that's it, it wasn't Russell after all, it was Sam Jones, Hey . . . what kind of success did the Cs have without Sam Jones, they got only one title. It wasn't till Sam Jones arrive on the seen and help the Cs run off 10 titles in 11 years. Yah that the ticket, its was Sam Jones afterall, how foolish have we Bostonian fans have been, its was Sam Jones all this time and we never knew it . . .

Sam is probably one of the top 100 and likely top 50 players of all time (I think he was voted once to the NBA top 50 team), but even though he was a key key part of the Cs success as an offense threat and tall Gaurd, and help the Cs win 10 in 11 years, most will not put Sam Jones as the GOAT . . .

So there is my point, great players are great and can help there team wins titles, but some players, Russell, Richard, Beliveau, Cournoyer, Sam Jones, etc, come at a time in which there teams are STACKED with talent and their repsective careers come at a time which the time is everything . . . remember after the Jones Boys and Russell retired, the Cs only had one HOF in 1970, whereas in each of the the prior 13 years they had at least 4

And please don't hand me any foolishness that Bill Russell made his teammates HOFs, that is just sillyness and shows a lack of respect for hard working talented players who earned the right to be in the BB HOF . . .

If you don't like my hockey analogy then take my Sam Jones analogy, the more accomplished winner that Bill Russell :singing:

Bill Russell was great, really great, made some key contribution to the game, keep the block inbound, know the shooter's tendency and as such where the rebound might go, etc, is very likely the greatest defender in NBA history, but I don't look at his 11 rings and defacto make him number 1 no more that I would credit it to the "more accomplished" Sam Jones . . . (see how i can use titles to make someone; namely Sam Jones,"more accomplished" than one of the 5 or 10 all time great, Bill Russell . . . its easy

 

[Yehoodi]

Your arguments about statistics indicate that you never saw Russell play and really understand who Bill Russell was. Bill Russell was (and is) all about team. Bill Belichick would have loved him as much as Tom Brady. Bill Russell chose to score less so that the team would win more. And he didn't have to go through years of a learning curve like Michael Jordan to do it! (Jordan's highest two scoring years and three out of the top four were years that the Bulls did not win a title.)

.

I didn't quote ur entire post, which by the way was very well thought out and an excellent read . . . True, when one thinks about team, the 60s Cs come to mind, for me, and perhaps this is bias cuase we're from Boston, the earliest "team" concept I can think of is Red, Bill, and the Cs of the 60s. I love Russell and am happy that he play in Boston, and he brought few things to the table, techique to block and rebound (mentioned in my prior post) and the team first to win stats second . . .

But I just need to look at that team and seen a min. of 4 HOFS at any given time and I just can't credit the 11 in 13 as much as i would if he was playing in the 70s with just one fellow HOF Helvicek and had 11 in 13 . . . that is all, again Sam Jones has 10 in 11 . . . that is my only point, with stacked talent one needs to not to look at the accomplished as if he had less talent around him . . . In the long histroy of the Cs they had 14 years with 4 HOFS, years 1956-1969 and 1986, in all those years they were 12 of 14, fortunately for Russell he was in 13 of the 14 years, and Sam Jones 11 of 11.