Comments on: Bucks History and Retired Numbers

By: Jeremy

Jeremy — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 22:37:28 +0000

John-

I don’t mean to compare everyone to the two greatest Bucks, I just meant to imply that only the truly SPECIAL get such an honor. My only caveat to retiring numbers of players who contributed to very good teams? Where does it end? You seemed well versed in Bucks history, and admittedly I am too young to have seen the Bucks in the eighties, but what about Paul Pressey? Eight servicable years with numbers comparable to Lanier.

Defense is hard to calculate, so I’ll give you that Lanier was doing his work against some true heavyweights down low and the numbers don’t show that. But I just feel like he was being rewarded for his work before he got to the Bucks and not really for what he did as a Buck.

I appreciate the feedback though and love the thoughtful discussion. Thanks!

By: John

John — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 21:08:53 +0000

I really liked your article, but I mildly disagree with your point about Bob Lanier. While Lanier didn’t enjoy the career he had with the Pistons in Milwaukee, the Bucks were a tremendous team in the early 1980′s when he was around. He was a central figure (along with Sidney Moncrief and Marques Johnson) with the Bucks and he helped them to be able to defend Moses Malone of the 76ers and Robert Parish of the Celtics. I don’t think you can compare every player in Bucks history with Kareem and Robertson – I think that is a bad precedent to set, and a very inaccurate one. Players who were important at that time with the organization absolutely should be retired – what is the harm of retiring a number? None. Lanier’s number absolutely should be retired as should Marques Johnson’s – I’m actually very surprised his number isn’t.

By: Jeremy

Jeremy — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 14:45:12 +0000

Redd should have the record by the end of his contract for sure. Considering that and how good of an ambassador he’s been for the game – never in trouble, Olympic gold, general good guy – I agree that not putting him up there would be awfully difficult. But how is it explained that he piloted the Bucks to a longer string of losing seasons than anyone else in the rafters?

By: Sylvan

Sylvan — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 08:56:22 +0000

If he recovers and the Bucks can’t move his ungodly contract, Redd will become the Bucks leading scorer. It might be hard to keep his name from the rafters then. Of course, if Hammond and Skiles had to do with choosing who went up into the skies of legend, they might choose Luke Ridnour.

By: PistonPowered » Blog Archive » Clear the way for 1, 3 and 10 in the Palace rafters

Fri, 11 Sep 2009 20:58:55 +0000

[...] Bucksketball: Bob Lanier? [...]

By: Friday Bolts – 9.11.09 | Daily Thunder.com

Friday Bolts – 9.11.09 | Daily Thunder.com — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 15:16:06 +0000

[...] Around the TrueHoop Network, folks are discussing retired numbers and who might should be added. I wanted to join in on the fun, but, well, you know. Who could the Thunder retire? Earl Watson? But in all seriousness, if OKC was going to retire any player in the near future, I do think Desmond Mason is a semi-candidate. Just for the reasons I wrote here. Or possibly the fans like Sacramento did. Or maybe even Clay Bennett or Mick Cornett or something. I don’t know, it seems like it would just be best to wait for Kevin Durant because our options are kind of limited. Any ideas? [NetsAreScorching, Hornets247, Hoopinion, Bucksketball] [...]

By: NetsAreScorching - NJ Nets Blog - Nets News, Rumors, Analysis, Podcasts, Salaries, & Statistics » Blog Archive » On Retired Numbers and Kerry Kittles

Fri, 11 Sep 2009 13:08:19 +0000

[...] Bucksketball: Milwaukee Bucks [...]