The Nature of the Threat

I know some people feel that the Celtics have had a soft schedule, but I feel like the extent to which they're dominating the league isn't well appreciated. But to get a taste, look at what Dave Berri noted a couple of days ago: "The Bulls in 1995-96 won 72 games and posted a differential of 13.0. This is the best mark in the league since 1973-74. The Celtics currently have a differential of 14.9. Yes, the current Celtics are posting a better mark than the team considered the best in NBA history. To give this result even more perspective, the Spurs differential this season is 6.9 (which is very good). Still the Spurs mark is only about half of what we see from Boston."

And of course that was before yesterday's 19 point win on the road against the Lakers. Right now, the Celtics average margin of victory -- around 14 -- is leaving everyone else in the dust. It's not just the best in the Association, they're putting up historically great numbers:

ESPN - Boston vs. Los Angeles Recap, December 30, 2007 via kwout

Of course that same table shows that not every team that starts out better than the '96 Bulls ends up with a better record than the '96 Bulls. But coming on the heels of the Patriots' perfect regular season and the Red Sox' World Series win, decent non-Boston people need to seriously contemplate the possibility of a record-breaking Celtics season. And, indeed, of all the Boston sports triumphs the Celtics are surely the most egregious: Kevin McHale trades away one of the best players in the league for peanuts. To his former team. Whose general manager is an ex-teammate and good friend. After having rejected numerous better offers. In any well-run fantasy league that would have gotten vetoed.

Comments

After having rejected numerous better offers.

Was there even a single offer that was better, much less "numerous" better offers? McHale at least got Jefferson. He's putting up terrific numbers. Yes, on a bad team, but still. And he's only, like, 22. And he's a big. His low post moves are frankly better than Garnett's (who, as a Celtic fan I've grown to love, but the guy's definitely not going to make anybody forget Kareem). If Jefferson ever improves the defensive part of his game, he could be scary. I wonder how Minnesota fans -- patient, non-crazy fans who realize the Garnett-centric 'Wolves model wasn't going to bring a banner and that the time had come to blow up the team -- feel about the trade.

Posted by Jasper | December 31, 2007 3:16 PM

1. Only fools think the 95-96 Bulls were the greatest NBA team of all time. One of the best, surely, but those 72 wins were the product of Jordan's manic desire to set the record and the poor state of the rest of the league. The Bird-era Celtics went 40-1 at home one season, but were only .500 or a little worse on the road. It wasn't because that team wasn't as good or better than the 95-96 Bulls.

2. McHale DID NOT give away KG to Boston. This is starting to become the accepted history of the event, but it's not true. McHale got a 20-10 guy in Al Jefferson who isn't even 25 years old, a huge expiring contract in Theo Ratliff, some other young players who can be kept for cheap or let go, Minnesota's 1st round-pick they traded to Boston and a Boston 1st rounder. I don't know of ANY deal that would've been better for the Timbercelts, unless you think spending a few years getting 35 wins, missing the playoffs and grabbing the 10th or 12th pick in the lottery is better than starting over from scratch with high lottery picks and salary cap room.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | December 31, 2007 3:20 PM

The Celtics are awesome. I don't think they are yet prohibitive favorites, though the win last night was nice. They have yet to deal with any kind of substantive adversity this season, and it will be interesting to see how the team handles the inevitable losing streak headed their way.

I tend to agree with Jasper about the trade. Certainly, it made them terrible for this and probably next season as well, but it came with a very good young big, cap flexibility especially after next season when there is a decent pool of players to throw it at, and some picks.

Bottom line is that Minnesota wasn't getting to the play-offs with Garnett, and if you are going to suck you may as well be building.

I am looking forward to seeing this team in the post-season.

Posted by Curtis | December 31, 2007 3:30 PM

Most fanarasy elagues don't have refs fixing games either.

And the 95-96 Bulls would have beaten the Celtics of the mid 80s 5 out of 7 times easily.

Posted by Rob | December 31, 2007 3:39 PM

These are the same Celtics that played a close game against the Sonics.

Also, the short-shorts that the Lakers wore last night (how is that for throwback?) probably had some effect.

I think the C's are pretty good, but we'll have to wait to see how they end up after a few more timezone-crossing road trips, a few more western conference opponents, and 50 more games.

Posted by Ben | December 31, 2007 3:48 PM

All I know is that the Pistons looked pretty good against these guys.

Posted by Steve | December 31, 2007 3:56 PM

Only two comments:

(1) Yeah, baby!

(2) If the T-wolves got peanuts, Al Jefferson is a cashew. Perhaps a macadamia.

ps. For the guy blaming the Lakers loss on the shorts: Boston outscored LA by 8 in the first half. During halftime, the Lakers changed back into their regular shorts. The effect? Boston outscored LA by 11 in the second half.

Also, it's absurd to denigrate this Celtics team because they won by "only" 8 points against the Sonics. It was one game. Every great team in league history has scored a sub-par victory during the season. For example, the '95-'96 Bulls in their 36th game squeaked out a 3-point win against the Toronto Raptors, a team that would go on to finish with a 21-61 record.

Posted by Trieu | December 31, 2007 4:10 PM

"And the 95-96 Bulls would have beaten the Celtics of the mid 80s 5 out of 7 times easily."

The Jordan-Pippen-Rodman Bulls couldn't even have beaten the Jordan-Pippen-Horace Grant Bulls. Seriously, look at the first Bulls three-peat crew and tell me where the second three-peat team is markedly superior.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | December 31, 2007 4:11 PM

"All I know is that the Pistons looked pretty good against these guys."

The Pistons also looked pretty crummy when they lost at home to the Bulls this season. If Detroit plays at their peak, they can certainly beat Boston. But the Pistons have gotten real used the last few years to just turning it on when they feel like it.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | December 31, 2007 4:15 PM

Of course, but the point is, racking up the best record in the league has less to do with being the clearly superior team as it has to do with showing up every night during the regular season. Once the playoffs start, it really makes no difference whether you were guilty of slacking in some random December game.

Posted by Steve | December 31, 2007 4:17 PM

All I know is that the Pistons looked pretty good against these guys.

The Pistons did indeed look good. I'd say Detroit's the class of the East at this juncture. Still, the Celtics looked pretty good against Detroit, too, losing by only a point, IIRC. And the Celtics nucleus has only been together a few months.

Once the playoffs start, it really makes no difference whether you were guilty of slacking in some random December game.

Well, it does make a difference if you lock in post-season home court advantage via minimizing regular season slackery.

Posted by Jasper | December 31, 2007 4:23 PM

Hey - where's Petey? I want to see if he still thinks its too meta- to watch or talk about the Blazers...thirteen game win streak and caught the men in powder blue...will be tough to extend it tonight when they try to beat the Jazz for the third time this month and second time in Utah

Posted by Tiparillo | December 31, 2007 4:27 PM

Well, it does make a difference if you lock in post-season home court advantage via minimizing regular season slackery.

Does it really? It's been 6 years since the team with the home-court advantage won the Eastern Conference Finals.

Posted by Steve | December 31, 2007 4:57 PM

The 1986 Celtics would have kicked the living crap out of any Bulls team ever constructed, but since those games will never be played, it doesn't matter.

Meanwhile we here in Massachusetts are glad to have the Celtics back. We missed them. We really missed them. And so did the NBA.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | December 31, 2007 5:03 PM

Now we can finally address the question I raised this morning, OT on another thread (Amazingly, people, even Petey, seemed more inclined to a pointless dicussion of Iowa horse race speculation, than to hoops.)

So...the Celtics got a guy whose numbers are slightly lower than the guy they traded, then they added an aging all-star who seemed to duplicate the one skillset they already had (scoring from the 2-3 position). How did this transform them from a hopelessly bad team to a really, really good one?

I know KG's a more valuable player than Jefferson right now, despite the numbers, but THAT MUCH more valuable?

Watching those great Utah teams (and even the Sabonis-era Portland teams) all those years never able to get over the hump -- how is such an immense change possible?

Posted by Alan in SF | December 31, 2007 5:11 PM

As long as KG keeps kicking butt and the Celts keeping winning, the trade is going to get cast as being hopelessly one-sided. But I wonder why no one says anything about the Ray Allen trade? maybe because there's no convenient Kevin McHale/Danny Ainge/old Celtics theme that allows for easy story writing instead of actual analysis?

I'm a MN guy, and this trade was the one I wanted over every other serious offer. We got cap space, a young stud to build around, a couple of possibilities (Green, Gomes, & Telfair), and our pick back (plus one). Plus, KG moves out of the conference.

Think about what the other deals really were:

With LA for Bynum, Odom, and trash. Bynum is doing well, but he's still more of a risk than Jefferson. Odom ties up cap space and is a headcase. Plus, MN would still owe a pick to Boston.

With Phoenix for Stoudamire. or possibly Marion. Not much else was in this deal, maybe a low #1. So MN is basically in the same place it was, with a lesser player who is younger, and still no real cap room. And still owing a #1 to Boston.

MN stinks this year, but they're playing young guys and building a respectable core. The biggest reason they're such a bad team right now is Randy Foye's knee injury. With him they're still bad, but looking better. This deal works if they make the right pick next year. They've already locked up Jefferson for the next 5 years with a below market deal. So let's not buy the easy story and get the real one, eh?

Posted by Josh | December 31, 2007 5:18 PM

@trieu

I was mostly joking about the shorts. Mostly.

And the sonics kept it close for about 3 quarters before petering out due to inexperience and youth. The sonics are pretty far from the top of the west. Now, no one expects the celtics to go undefeated, but games like this make them look more like the colts than the pats. We can't really know how things will shake out quite yet.

Posted by Ben | December 31, 2007 5:18 PM

"How did this transform them from a hopelessly bad team to a really, really good one?"

1. KG is a great defender. Big Al is not really that good at all. A big who can defend the paint is hugely valuable. A lot of the players they shipped out in the trades for KG and Ray Allen were also poor defenders.

2. Boston added Tom Thibodeau, a very good defensive assistant coach...who will probably be a head coach next year if Boston keeps winning like this.

3. Having Allen, KG and Pierce have clearly elevated the confidence of the remaining players. They now go in expecting to win games no matter who they play.

Frankly, given the physical pounding Boston is starting to take...I think a lot of team's are getting pissed off that the Celts have been able to get so good, so fast.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | December 31, 2007 5:54 PM

Two more points:

(1) The Pistons just beat the Bucks by 45. The Detroit-Boston game Saturday is going to be must-see TV.

(2) People forget that Garnett was going into the final year of his MN contract when he was traded. This greatly reduced his trade value. For reason's unknown, McHale waited a year too long to trade KG. He'd have gotten a much better package if he'd bit the bullet in 2006 instead of 2007.

Posted by Trieu | December 31, 2007 6:02 PM

One thing that needs to be commented on is the number of minutes played by the Celts' big three and the intensity of those minutes.

As much as sports writers talk about the importance of playing hard all the time, the truth is that for an elite team in the NBA, pacing yourself over an 82 game season is pretty important. Especially when your prime players average over 30 years of age. The problem with the Celts is that they can't really play any better than they're playing right now, and may run the risk of tired legs in the postseason, or worse, a fatigue induced injury to one of their stars. The Spurs, to pick the best available example, are going to be tougher to beat in the playoffs, in comparison to their regular season plus-minus.

In general, all other things being equal, margin of victory is pretty useful for comparing teams. But things are far from equal in this case. Of course, the Celts would be heavy favorites over the Lakers regardless, but who would have thought otherwise?

Posted by mpowell | December 31, 2007 6:09 PM

That win in LA was what the call on TV a "quality win." On the road, against a upper level team without significant injuries and currently playing well, in a hyped game. That legitimizes the Celtics as a contender. THat doesn't mean that they're are going to title, but they are not a weak-schedule, or a mysterious hot-streak fluke (like Portland).

Someone asked how they turned it around so quick. There are certain things that you need to do to win basketball games so you have to have players who can do them and who will do them. It's a combination of chemistry, commitment, and the right pieces. The three Boston vets have all the money and acclaim they need, now they want titles. That means they can concentrait and put aside the BS, try hard and commit to playing defense. The also have the right pieces in the sense that they have a dominant defensive player, a great rebounder and close to the basket scorer who can pass (kg), a great scorer and crunch time shooter who can pass (Pierce) and a great three point shooter who can pass (Allan). You put those three together with their veteren cosciousness and they are going to win games.

Posted by cw | December 31, 2007 6:18 PM

Arguing with Bird-era Celtics partisans is like arguing with creationists.

Jordan, in those six championship years, confronted every obstacle in front of him and coldly destroyed it. He was a machine. He would have done the same to the 86 Celtics.

Posted by Freddie | December 31, 2007 6:57 PM

They creamed us here in Golden State, even tho we should've matched up fairly well against them (they don't have a lot of bulk), then they creamed LA, where Bynum's been playing like a young Shaq lately.

Posted by Alan in SF | December 31, 2007 7:29 PM

Point differential seems to be one of those stats that requires a full season to mean something. For instance, the Celtics lost more than a point off their differential in the last two days since that Berri post (it's now 13.8, according to ESPN). Or could compare the white-hot Blazers with Utah: Portland is only at +0.3, while the Jazz (who have 4 more losses than Portland, including 2 to the Blazers) are at +4.1. By the end of the season, those numbers should even out--point differential tracks extremely close with final record--but you can get some quirks a lot of the way through.

There's no doubt that the Celtics are having a brilliant season, but the Pistons have played just as well as them this past month (their overall margin is a not-so-slouchy 10.6), and if Detroit wins at home against Boston this Saturday, they'll be 2-0 against the Celtics. I think those two teams will be very evenly matched all the way through the playoffs, so let's hold off on the "historically great" talk with Celtics until things go a little farther.

Posted by Haggai | December 31, 2007 7:41 PM

Jordan didn't beat the '86 Celtics. Why would he have done any better when he was 10 years older?

"Better supporting cast", you say? What, you mean 31-year-old Pippen guarding the in-his-prime Bird? Yeah, good luck with that.

Posted by Thlayli | December 31, 2007 7:43 PM

Jordan, in those six championship years, confronted every obstacle in front of him and coldly destroyed it. He was a machine.

Jordan never faced the obstacles that Bird and Magic faced, namely, each other in their primes. By the time Jordan started his run, they were both pretty much done. Indeed, when those two were in their prime -- during Jordan's early years -- the Bulls awaited their first banner. Jordan was not able to win until his sixth pro season. Magic won in his first and Bird in his second. Jordan's legacy is burnished through the lens of the contemporary era's worship of athleticism. That's not to say he wasn't a great player. He was likely the greatest ever. But Jordan wasn't on a whole different level from other great players, as contemporary hoops fans would have it.

Posted by mlcarr | December 31, 2007 7:47 PM

tiresome debate, but i've never understood why what jordan did so obviously trumped what magic did. i don't think it does, think magic has to be at least as good as jordan, even if magic had better cast (in stronger league). and i watched those series, generally rooted for the bulls, so i'm no bulls hater (i think scottie was way better than generally given credit for, as was rodman).

Posted by dj superflat | December 31, 2007 8:01 PM

The Mavs last year were on some record-setting pace of some sort, as were the Pistons the year before.

So what the C's are doing is impressive, but that is about it. I think they are on some sort of mission to prove something -- as were those Mavs and Pistons teams which had both lost the NBA championship the year prior.

The C's are going to experience some sort of burn out or injury.

That said, compare the collective point differentials of the West and the East. As of today, I think the top 10 teams in the West (that means two that wouldn't even make the 8-seed cut) have positive point diffs. The East, well....

Posted by MP | December 31, 2007 8:54 PM

I'm so glad I found a political blogger that would write this sentence: "In any well-run fantasy league that would have gotten vetoed."

Posted by Doug | December 31, 2007 9:15 PM

While it is quite possible that the Celtics will succumb to injury, and that the veterans will tire as the season progresses, the Celtics have two or three previous generations of championship teams (Bird, Havlicek, and Russell eras) on whose experience and counsel they can draw. Nobody in Boston expects the Celtics to win 72 games. The Celtic teams that had great starts in the past, and went on to win championships, all saw their win-loss ratio tail off in the second half of the season. They don't need 72 wins to get home-court advantage.

It was heartening to see Doc Rivers rest Rajon Rondo against the Lakers when he could have played him. And even more heartening to see Tony Allen step up in his place. Doc rested Ray Allen for two games at the first opportunity, and old Ray's shooting responded favorably. Barring injury, I think you're going to see the big three rested and ready to go at playoff time. This quick start gives them the opportunity to ease up without penalty.

Detroit will be exciting all year long, because Detroit will turn it on for every Celtics game this year. Billups took the young Celts to school in the last game. But they'll learn.

The downside for the Celtics is that they get so little experience playing the best teams in the league. The upside is that this team is deeper than people expected -- beyond the big three, Rondo, James Posey, Eddie House, Tony Allen and even Kedrick Perkins have made real contributions.

Posted by Walter Crockett | December 31, 2007 9:26 PM

What Thlayli said. The Pistons weren't able to win their championships until the Lakers and the Celtics had begun to decline, and the Bulls weren't either until the Pistons had begun to decline. For most of the nineties, the Bulls didn't have any serious rivals.

Posted by mwg | December 31, 2007 11:43 PM

Freddie writes: "Jordan, in those six championship years, confronted every obstacle in front of him and coldly destroyed it. He was a machine. He would have done the same to the 86 Celtics."

You had a poster of him on your wall, didn't you? And you're not old enough to remember when the NBA had more than 2-3 good teams at a time, I'm guessing.

It's not just the Celtics. The 1983 Sixers would have destroyed any of Jordan's teams, too. (I can't bring myself to bring the Johnson/Kareem/Worthy Lakers into the discussion, because I despised them, but if I did... ah, forget it.)

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | January 1, 2008 12:26 AM

I mean, come on - Luc Longley as the starting center? You seriously think a team like that is the greatest of all time? Luc Longley?

That's like saying "Different Strokes" was the best TV show of all time because of Gary Coleman.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | January 1, 2008 12:39 AM

I personally think the 83' sixers would have beat almost anyone. Moses, Bobby Jones, the DR. Tony, Cheeks. That is MY team. Everone should have to pick a team, one year, and then stick by them.

Posted by cw | January 1, 2008 3:34 AM

Like I said, arguing against the great white hope is a fools errand. Michael Jordan is the greatest basketball player ever, the Bulls team was the greatest ever, and it isn't close. And, by the way, Scottie Pippen is among the 10 greatest defenders in NBA history, so the idea that they couldn't guard Bird is absurd. (I enjoy the thought of the slow Celtics trying to defend Jordan.)

The idea that the Bulls didn't play quality competition is foolish. They played against Olajuwon at his best. They played Barkley at his best. They played Ewing at his best. They played Stockton and Malone at their best. He played a strong Pacers team at their best. The idea that the league was full of these great teams is just baldly asserted without evidence.

Now feast your eyes on a little of this. I could, of course, choose from a hundred more.

Posted by Freddie | January 1, 2008 2:08 PM

Like I said, arguing against the great white hope is a fools errand. Michael Jordan is the greatest basketball player ever, the Bulls team was the greatest ever, and it isn't close.

I agree with you about Jordan, but it is "close" with respect to him versus a number of top players (Kareem, Magic, Bird, Wilt, Russell, etc.) and it's certainly arguable -- and probably likely -- that the Bulls of the nineties weren't the greatest team ever. Your mere assertion that the Jordan-era "Bulls team was the greatest ever" is just that -- an assertion. It's not even supported by the bulk of expert opinion as far as I know. At the end of the day, they had two very great players, not much in the way of depth, and a league that was going through a weak patch in terms of the average quality of play.

Posted by Rambis | January 1, 2008 2:42 PM

"They played against Olajuwon at his best. They played Barkley at his best. They played Ewing at his best. They played Stockton and Malone at their best. He played a strong Pacers team at their best."

Did I miss the Bulls beating the Rockets in the Finals some year? And you are seriously putting the Rik Smits Pacers up as the legendary competition facing Jordan?

Mike

Posted by MBunge | January 1, 2008 4:01 PM

"(I enjoy the thought of the slow Celtics trying to defend Jordan.)"

I enjoy the though of Kevin McHale clotheslining Jordan the 2nd time he tried to drive the lane and dunk on the Celtics.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | January 1, 2008 4:05 PM

Freddie writes: "The idea that the Bulls didn't play quality competition is foolish. They played against Olajuwon at his best. They played Barkley at his best. They played Ewing at his best. They played Stockton and Malone at their best."

Malone and Ewing? Barkley? You're kidding here, right? Malone's the second best Malone ever, by a long shot. Ewing was Walt Bellamy. Wait, no, he wasn't that good.

I'll grant Jordan as the best player ever only because Russell played so long ago - but Russell certainly has to be considered. I'll even grant you Jordan over Bird quite happily.

But to say that a team that started LUC LONGLEY at center was the best ever is a complete joke. Since you couldn't even muster the cojones to type his name I think you even know that yourself on some level.

The 1986 Celtics had a Luc Longley on their team. He was named Greg Kite and he didn't play much. They had two centers who make Luc Longley look like a WNBA benchwarmer, you see... perhaps you can even recall their names.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | January 2, 2008 12:09 AM

Folks, the Russell era Celtics won 11 championships in 13 years. They had to beat Chamberlain, the Lakers with Baylor and West, Petit, Oscar Robertson, etc. They were the best team ever.

The Bulls' 72 win season has to be considered the best achievement in a single season.

However, arguing who would beat whom is ridiculous. Has anyone noticed that the Bulls teams in the 1990's played a totally different style of basketball, one where the average points per game was 85-95 and teams used much of the time on the shot clock to shoot, whereas the Celtics and Lakers of the 1980's scored well over 100 a game and shot at the first opportunity, and also used the fast break and the full court press all the time? And the game of the 1960's was different still.

You just can't compare these things on any level other than who won.

Posted by Dilan Esper | January 2, 2008 2:37 AM

Dilan Esper writes: "However, arguing who would beat whom is ridiculous. Has anyone noticed that the Bulls teams in the 1990's played a totally different style of basketball, one where the average points per game was 85-95 and teams used much of the time on the shot clock to shoot, whereas the Celtics and Lakers of the 1980's scored well over 100 a game and shot at the first opportunity, and also used the fast break and the full court press all the time?"

It's simply not true that the Celtics teams "shot at the first opportunity" or used "the full court press all the time." They were a good fast break team, but that was largely because they were a great rebounding team and all of their rebounders were superior passers.

Luc Longley... I just had to say that again.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | January 2, 2008 3:33 AM

Well, the 96 Bulls had a real bench while the 86 Celtics had absolutely nothing behind often injured Bill Walton so focusing on Longley as a starter is a bit misleading. The Bulls could afford to use Longley as a starter (and beat a 60 win team with Shaq and Penny at their best with Luc as a starter, too) because their deep roster allowed them the luxury of doing so. With Jordan-Pippen-Kukoc carrying so much of the offensive load and Rodman taking care of the rebounding, they didn't need much more than what Longley gave them.

Posted by Carlos | January 2, 2008 9:54 AM

Well, the 96 Bulls had a real bench while the 86 Celtics had absolutely nothing behind often injured Bill Walton so focusing on Longley as a starter is a bit misleading.

Oh, and its not misleading to call Bill Walton "often injured" when he was healthy for the 1985-86 season? Parish (16 ppg) and Walton would have killed Longley. The C's also had Danny Ainge in his prime, playing 30 mpg and scoring 10 ppg.

In discussing these match-ups, it's important to equalize for strength training and coaching. If the Celtics roster played ten years later, they would benefit from the workout and coaching advances, particularly on the defensive end. When you factor in that McHale and Johnson were two of the better defenders of their era, and Parish was significantly above average, it's easy to the Celtics being a very good defensive team under 1996 conditions. (I say this, because people often attack 80's basketball for the lack of defense while failing to acknowledge that many of the players in the 90's...also played in the 80's! The emphasis on defense was a result of training and coaching advances, not some magical increase in the quality of athlete. So again...McHale and Johnson were great defenders in the 80's, and Parish was very solid. Assuming they were in the training/coaching environment of the mid- to late-90's, I think the Celtics had the raw material to be a very strong interior defensive team. And Johnson would still be an excellent on the ball defender on the perimeter.)

What would make Celtics-Bulls so fascinating would be the match-up problems each team creates for the other. The Celtics would have absolutely no answer for Jordan - DJ was too small, and none of the team's swingmen could handle MJ's quickness. On the other hand, the Bulls' defensive prowess was centered around Jordan and Pippen, neither of whom would be big enough to contain Boston's front court. In short, they would score a lot of points on each other.

Even equalized for training/coaching, the Bulls would be much more athletic than the Celtics. On other hand, by 95-96, expansion had made it impossible for a team to have three Hall of Famers (Bird, McHale, Parish), an all-star (Johnson), and a 6th Man of the Year (Walton) all on the same roster. It is really hard for me to figure out who would win. The Celts would get killed by Jordan. But the Longley/Rodman front line would get absolutely overrun by the C's frontcourt.

Posted by owenz | January 2, 2008 11:50 AM

Carlos writes: "Well, the 96 Bulls had a real bench while the 86 Celtics had absolutely nothing behind often injured Bill Walton so focusing on Longley as a starter is a bit misleading."

You're forgetting Wedman and Sichting. You're also implying that Walton was injured during the season in question, and he wasn't. At all. He was just a part of the best frontcourt in NBA history, and the Bulls had... Luc Longley. Try as you might, you can't pretend that isn't a huge difference.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | January 2, 2008 12:07 PM

It's simply not true that the Celtics teams "shot at the first opportunity" or used "the full court press all the time." They were a good fast break team, but that was largely because they were a great rebounding team and all of their rebounders were superior passers.

I wish I could find this, but I remember seeing somewhere that the average 1980's team shot 3 seconds eariler in the 24 second sequence on each possession than the average team today. They took a bunch more shots.

The fast break, in case you haven't noticed, doesn't work very well now, and it is because defenses have improved (something that Phil Jackson and Chuck Daly, specifically, innovated into the game).

Again, this talk is all idiotic. If the Celtics of the 1980's were so great, they would have won more than 3 championships, or put together a 72 win season. They didn't.

But who would beat whom on the floor? Who the heck knows?

Posted by Dilan Esper | January 2, 2008 1:34 PM

Dilan writes: "The fast break, in case you haven't noticed, doesn't work very well now, and it is because defenses have improved (something that Phil Jackson and Chuck Daly, specifically, innovated into the game).

Again, this talk is all idiotic. If the Celtics of the 1980's were so great, they would have won more than 3 championships, or put together a 72 win season. They didn't."

By the season-win total argument the best-ever baseball team is that Seattle team that flamed out in the playoffs. I'm not seeing it. I'd say that the NBA in 1986 had more good teams than the 1996 version did.

I also don't think defenses have necessarily improved - I think the product now sucks, though it's improving again. Those Daly teams were an atrocity to watch. 85-79 games are not the sort of professional basketball anyone wants to watch, really.

And if you're going with the total championships won argument, then the Celtics of the 60s are the best ever, no questions asked. But I was talking about the best single season team ever. The Celtics of the early 80s had the Lakers and Sixers to contend with. The mid-90s bulls had Mrs. Malone and the emotionless Patrick Ewing... the comparison still makes me laugh.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | January 2, 2008 1:54 PM