Re: Reggie Lewis/Cedric Maxwell

["Rob Tisdale" <rtisdale@wws.net>]

Hey everyone,

Amy Beauregard wrote:

> I wasn't trying to start a controversy. I received a
> bunch of emails about this. Reggie's number was
> retired for the wrong reason. My personal belief was
> that it was a total PR move by the C's. At the time of
> his death, there was a lot of finger pointing: at the
> C's (how could they push him like that?), the Doctors
> (how could they clear him?), Reggie (Did he or didn't
> he?) and his widow. It was a lousy time and the C's
> announced they'd retire his number. Well intentioned,
> but how many championships did he contribute to? Ok,
> since the answer his none, what were his career
> totals? Unfortunately, we'll never know, since he was
> cut down entering his prime. He was really coming into
> his own. Derrick Coleman was too at that time and he
> turned out to be a stiff. Reggie might have been
> traded, retired or whatever. He might have improved
> significantly. We will never know, although I am
> fairly certain he would not have led the C's to a
> title.

I strongly disagree that Reggie's number should not have been retired.  I
will concede that Reggie's number may have been retired for the wrong
reason, but that is about it.  Yes, he did not contribute to any
championships, but if that were the only qualification there are dozens of
NBA teams with ZERO retired numbers.  Reggie was more than coming into his
prime, he was in it, as the stats below should illustrate.  He may not have
contributed to any championships, but his chances dropped significantly with
the injuries to Bird and McHale.  Should his memory be punished for this?
Yes, his number may have been retired for the wrong reason, but would it be
better to have not retired it for the wrong reason?

Year    G  M/Gm   FG%   FT%  Reb  Ast    Stl   Blk    Avg   Rank
88-89  81  32.8    .486    .787    4.4    2.8   1.1   0.8    18.5    4
89-90  79  39.3    .496    .808    4.7    2.7   1.5   0.9    17.0    3
90-91  79  38.0    .491    .826    5.2    2.5   1.2   1.1    18.7    2
91-92  82  37.4    .503    .851    4.8    2.3   1.5   1.7    20.8    1
92-93  80  39.3    .470    .867    4.3    3.7   1.5   1.0    20.8    1
-------------------------------------------------------------
Avg     80   37.4    .489    .828    4.7    2.8   1.4   1.1    19.1

The stats are only for the last 5 years of Reggie's career, only because I
got them from Doug Steele's site (http://home.rmi.net/~doug/) which though
it is excellent, only goes back to 89-90.  Rank denotes his rank on the
Celtics' scoring list, going from 4th to 1st.  Note the steady high
performance
for 5 consecutive years, despite the fact that at the beginning of this
period, Bird, McHale, Parish, Ainge, and DJ were all with the team, and by
the end of it, only Parish and McHale remained.  Imagine how happy we'd be
with any of our players who could put up these kinds of shooting numbers?
Quiz question: which of our current SF/SG players shoots better than .489
and .828?  You guessed it, none of them (though Walluh does shoot .857 from
the line, which he shoots from less than one time per game).  Some may note
I left off 3 point FG% - Reggie never had that in his game.  It did not
cause his game to suffer - he simply took the shots he could make.  I recall
that one of his commonly used shots was a 19-20 footer with a man in his
face, not generally considered an easy shot.

My point is that Reggie was playing at a high level both with and without
the guys who won rings in the 80's.  If they were playing at the same level
(ie., without injuries) I think we win some more rings in this 5 year
period.  Why punish his memory for things out of his control?  He was a
stand-up citizen of Boston (who admittedly may have had a drug problem) and
showed admirable character and heart on the court.  It may go without saying
that I was a big fan of Reggie, and had high hopes for him and the Celtics
in the 90's before the Big Three disintegrated in a pile of sore backs and
broken feet.

> What I do know is that Max played a big part in
> leading the C's to two titles. He was the 81 Finals
> MVP and dominated the Lakers in game 7 of the 84
> Finals. He was hurt the next year and was in Red's
> doghouse for not coming back hard/fast enough. He was
> dumped to the Clips for Walton, who was the key to the
> 16th title. What we do know is Max was a huge factor
> in the early 80s success and the scary thing was he
> sacrificed his offense so Larry/Kevin could get
> theirs. I don't know how Red feels about him, but I
> think that the time has come to retire #31.

I do agree with you on this one, Amy, although I think arguing whether Max
and Reggie should be there are really two much different arguments.  Though
I was too young to remember most of Maxwell's career, he did play a major
part in two championships.  I recall reading somewhere that he upset Red
somewhere along the way, leading to his trade for Walton, and Red still
holds a grudge.  That's one problem with self-made success stories - often
they are stubborn, which can be a good thing.  Not in this case, though.
Red should forgive Max for whatever it was, and give him his due.

Well, I guess I'm reminiscing so that I don't have to think about this
year's debacle anymore.  I can't bear to think about how this team is going
to turn itself in the right direction.  I guess I'll just be patient and
wait for the time to come, though I really thought this year was that time,
finally.

Rob