Sam Jones has 10 and was the closer on the most dominant team in the history of American team sports and most people don't know who he is. Dude doesn't even make top 50 lists.
I've dived deep into research on the 60s Celtics several times and no lie I just finished doing so again earlier this morning (had a personal "Hondo/Elgin" comp I've been exploring for almost a week so it took me into revisiting both their teams of that time)...
Sam Jones' exclusion from Top 50 is one of the more perplexing things I've yet to wrap my head around. As you mentioned he was noted as their closer and strongest offensive player during the bulk of that dynasty, and I believe their second best player overall between Cousy (aging out) and Havlicek (maturing/growing into more of a lead role). What makes this even more strange to me is that his role seems irreplaceable to those C's in that if he wasn’t who he was they don't reach that same championship success:
•Russell was a bit more capable as a scorer than he was asked to be but there also is nothing to show he could replace the bulk of Jones' scoring if he wasnt there...
•after '61 Cousy, who was also a more capable scorer than given credit for, was essentially role player status, so he aint taking Sam's production...
•Havlicek was a dynamic offensive talent but not only couldn't he step into Sam's role immediately, I don't think he had the leadership nor skill to fill it in general...
One of the most telling finds about Havlicek, is while he won 6 titles in the Russell era, when the C's became strictly his team afterwards and he was able to continue showcasing a good all-around game people already knew he had, they missed the playoffs two years in a row with dude and didn't get back into championship contention until Cowens matured, who won ROY and MVP trophies Hondo never attained. Havlicek is an All-Timer but there's a strong correlation to his winning pedigree being buoyed by someone else who could do the heavy lifting, and there was a perception about him in the early 70s that he wasnt a winner without Russell (which is enlightening to learn that this labeling of players as "not winners" or "losers" didn't start with post-Shaq Kobe or pre-Lakers Shaq, etc. Was also spoken of about Baylor and West in the 60s and seems there's always been a big name or few in every era critics threw the "loser" tag on)...
•those other dudes from Nelson to KC to Siegfried to Howell to everyone else, just really weren't good enough to replace Sam's production were he not there...
...........
So since Sam's specific contributions and role seem irreplaceable given the rest of the squad around him, its baffling he misses so many Top 50 lists and isn't as adored within Celtics fandom. The only thing I can think of, and that I try to keep in mind, is that maybe seeing him play would clarify that while good at his job he actually
wasn't irreplaceable? It's hard to come to that conclusion from the perspective of a historian looking backwards but maybe people who saw him play recognized him as little more than a high level role player...
