NBA's GREATEST TEAM -- Finals now 6-4

[penbeast0]

Just looking at the numbers it would be hard to pick against the Bucks. The Celtics have great players, great team defense, and maybe even a slight rebounding advantage but the Bucks shoot .100 better from the field!

Now maybe a large part of that is era adjustments and part is expansion (the Celtics played in an 8 team league, 6 years later it was over 20 teams) but it's hard to discount. So, to me,

Kareem is roughly equal or only slightly behind Russell (much superior offense v. rebounding, defensive impact, and team leadership)
Greg Smith is not too far behind Satch Sanders (both basically defenders)
Dandridge is superior to Havlicek (able to create own shot, much better rebounder, not far behind defensively). Havlicek made himself a better scorer over the course of his career, particularly as a jump shooter and had some very good rebounding years, but at this point he isn't very good at either.
Oscar is superior to Sam Jones (his playmaking is still a difference maker)
McGlocklin is comparable to KC Jones (again, offense v. defense)
BENCH
Boozer is better than Heinsohn at this point (Heinsohn has range and volume, Boozer efficiency and defense, rebounding is comparable)
Lucius Allen is better in this situation than Naulls (better scorer, quicker, more adaptable,)
Coaching: Auerbach is one of the all-time greats and the Celtics should show more unit cohesion.

Bucks are a very good defensive team though not quite to Boston's level, but are a much more efficient offensive team and this absolutely peak Kareem as a go to guy is superior even guarded by Bill Russell.

[Mean_Streets]

This is a tough choice. The 1971 Bucks are the most underrated team in NBA history IMO, while the 1965 Celtics were probably the best Celtic team from the Bill Russell era. I gotta give the edge to the '65 Celtics, they were deeper, better defensively, and they always seemed to get the job done.

Celtics in 7.

[Tesla]

I too will go with the deeper 60's Celtics team, barely. I think this is pretty even, and normally I'd go with the team with the HC advantage and rules advantage, but there isn't much of an era discrepency (if anything Hondo plays much better in the 70's), and I think the Celtics are poised to handle a low down scoring machine like Kareem (as they did with Wilt). I think an aging Oscar would be rendered less effective with someone like Hondo on him wearing him down. I give the cohesivness edge to Boston too, clutchness, etc..

[penbeast0]

As it is 2-2, our first close series, I will leave voting open for another day.

I think even with the size differences, I remember seeing KC Jones was the defender on Oscar when he was in Cinncinnati (didn't watch them at the time, but seeing reruns) . . . someone correct me if I'm wrong.

And in a playoff series where the rotations tighten (really 7 for both teams) . . . I'd take 71's Bob Boozer and Lucius Allen over 65's version of Tommy Heinsohn and Willie Naulls

[Harison]

1970-71 Milwaukee Bucks in 7. Tough series, and if these teams meet year after year, I would expect both winning some rings. Still I feel Bucks were slightly better, and often superior offense beats superior defence (if other areas arent too different).

[Baller 24]

'71 Bucks in 7, probably one of the closest series in this tournament.

[KingLeoric]

I think I'm going with the 64-65 Celtics in this matchup. It is unknown whether Russell could contain KAJ, but I wouldn't bet against him being able to do so, and this helps the Celtics a lot. Oscar was past his prime, while Sam and KC Jones were in their prime, I think Boston has an advantage there. The Celtics have a significant defensive edge overall. I'm taking them in 7 games.

[ronnymac2]

Bucks. Dominant 1-2 combos like KAJ and Oscar are extremely difficult to slow down. I feel stupid betting against Russell though, but I'll risk it. I think the Bucks are a totally dominant team, and their role players compliment their stars perfectly.

[Old World Order]

I agree. While those Celtics had success in allowing Wilt to get his while defeating his team, I don't think they could replicate that against a Bucks squad that was simply much, much better than the .500 team that was the 65 Sixers (whom they needed 7 games to beat). Oscar was past his prime but the inside-outside game would be a little much for them. Bucks in 7.

[TheSheriff]

I'll take the Celtics here in 6 games. Russell was a GOAT Candidate at this point in his career. He is also playing with the underrated Sam Jones. And another top 15 player in Hondo during his athletic peak. Not mention hall of famer (and one of the best defensive point guards ever) KC Jones and hall of famer Tommy Hiensohn. There are just too many matchup problems for the Bucks here. The Celtics have three all-world defenders in Russell, Hondo, and Jones (Satch Sanders was also a great defensive player). The Celtics also have two great scorers, who i don't think the Bucks could stop in Jones and Hondo.

[TMACFORMVP]

Kareem at his utmost peak anchoring the most efficient offense and most efficient defense is arguably the GOAT. Then add in the underrated role players he had on that team and Oscar who was still a very productive All-NBA player, I think their overall efficiency should get them by the Celtics, close matchup though.

[penbeast0]

Unless there are multiple Celtic votes between now and tomorrow morning, the Bucks advance in our first really competitive series. Next one up is 83 Sixers v. 60 Celtics.

This may be my favorite Celtic team as those efficiency numbers are relative to a very low league efficiency; on the other hand, Moses promised fo fo fo and almost delivered including dominating the Showtime Lakers. Both teams have 3 of our top 100, a 4th player who got consideration plus at least one other All-Star. Note that 1960 rules apply (no 3 point shot, very aggressive physical play against driving the lane, carry rules, etc.).

1982-83 Philadelphia 76ers (65-17) ave margin (7.7) playoffs (12-1)

Code: Select all

Coach Billy Cunningham
1 Moses Malone     37.5 8.4 16.7 .501  7.7 10.1 .761  15.3 1.3  2.6 24.5
2 Julius Erving    33.6 8.4 16.3 .517  4.6  6.0 .759   6.8 3.7  2.8 21.4
3 Andrew Toney     30.5 7.7 15.4 .501  4.0  5.1 .788   2.8 4.5  3.1 19.7
4 Maurice Cheeks   31.2 5.1  9.4 .542  2.3  3.0 .754   2.6 6.9  2.3 12.5
5 Bobby Jones      23.6 3.4  6.2 .543  2.2  2.8 .793   4.6 1.9  2.7  9.0
6 Clint Richardson 22.8 3.4  7.3 .463  0.9  1.4 .640   3.2 2.2  2.1  7.6
7 Clemon Johnson   21.8 2.8  5.7 .500  1.1  1.8 .586   6.4 0.8  2.6  6.8
8 Franklin Edwards 15.6 2.8  6.0 .472  1.1  1.4 .761   1.0 2.7  1.5  6.7
9 Marc Iavaroni    20.2 2.0  4.4 .462  1.0  1.4 .690   4.1 1.0  3.0  5.1

1959-60 Boston Celtics (59-16) ave margin (8.3) playoffs (8-5)

Code: Select all

Coach: Red Auerbach
1 Tom Heinsohn  32.3 9.0 21.2 .423    3.8 5.1 .733   10.6 2.3    3.7 21.7
2 Bob Cousy     34.5 7.6 19.7 .384    4.3 5.4 .792    4.7 9.5    1.9 19.4
3 Bill Sharman  27.0 7.9 17.3 .456    3.5 4.1 .866    3.7 2.0    2.2 19.3
4 Bill Russell  42.5 7.5 16.1 .467    3.2 5.3 .612   24.0 3.7    2.8 18.2
5 Frank Ramsey  27.5 5.8 14.5 .397    3.7 4.8 .787    6.9 1.9    3.4 15.3
6 Sam Jones     20.4 4.8 10.6 .454    2.3 3.0 .764    5.1 1.7    1.4 11.9
7 Gene Conley   18.7 2.8  7.6 .373    1.1 1.6 .667    8.3 0.5    3.8  6.7
8 K.C. Jones    17.2 2.3  5.6 .408    1.7 2.3 .753    2.7 2.6    1.5  6.3

The Celtics played in a faster era, averaging and allowing an extra 10 pts/game (but with a similar victory margin) so I added a section with their stats dropped 10% (hard core stat junkies can do the precise numbers if they want -- note that Russell's rebounding is still ridiculous). I also added .075 to their fg% since the league fg5 was .410 as opposed to .485 in 1983.

Code: Select all

Coach: Red Auerbach
1 Tom Heinsohn  32.3 9.0 21.2 .498    3.8 5.1 .733    9.5 2.1    3.3 19.5
2 Bob Cousy     34.5 7.6 19.7 .459    4.3 5.4 .792    4.3 8.5    1.7 17.5
3 Bill Sharman  27.0 7.9 17.3 .531    3.5 4.1 .866    3.3 1.8    2.0 17.4
4 Bill Russell  42.5 7.5 16.1 .542    3.2 5.3 .612   21.6 3.3    2.5 16.4
5 Frank Ramsey  27.5 5.8 14.5 .472    3.7 4.8 .787    6.2 1.7    3.1 13.8
6 Sam Jones     20.4 4.8 10.6 .529    2.3 3.0 .764    4.6 1.5    1.3 10.7
7 Gene Conley   18.7 2.8  7.6 .448    1.1 1.6 .667    7.5 0.4    3.4  6.0
8 K.C. Jones    17.2 2.3  5.6 .483    1.7 2.3 .753    2.5 2.3    1.3  5.7

[Tesla]

We are playing in 83, lets call Russel-Moses a wash, although I think Moses would win the head to head match-up... but lets say Russell's intangibles, etc negates any advantage, and possibly gives him one here...

-Even if we do give Cousy the time to develop, I Mo abuses him defensively, forcing several turnovers

- Dr. J is better than anyone not named Russell/Moses, and he has the ability to impact the game like they do from a game to game bases, even at that stage of his career. The Celtics don't really have anyone other than Russell at that level.

- Andrew Tony/Bobby Jones can match Heinsohn's/Sharman's impact.

I go with the Sixers here

[penbeast0]

As terrific as Moses was, Russell was a LOT better even that year. He was much better defensively, particularly as a help defender, he rebounded significantly better, he passed better, and he was even a serious offensive threat scoring 18ppg and finishing 4th in the league in fg%!

I have also raised fg% to points over league average which would adds exactly .075 to the Boston percentages for comparisom sake . . . notice how they become very comparable now (especially since Philly had almost zero 3 point ability in 83).

Compare Heinsohn (in probably his greatest year) to Dr. J if comparing Toney to Sharman . . . . Bobby Jones's role and impact is closer to that of Sam Jones, much as I love him . . . Cousy played KC Jones every day in practice, a task very similar to facing Cheeks . . . and don't forget to compare Clint Richardson to Frank Ramsey . . . to say nothing of the coaching impact of Red Auerbach v. Billy Cunningham.

I think the Celtics are the better team, certainly better relative to their era.

Code: Select all

Rough Era Adjusted numbers for the 1959-60 Celtics relative to 1983 NBA
Coach: Red Auerbach  (mpg  fg%  ft%  rpg  apg  fpg  pts)
1 Tom Heinsohn  32.3  .498     .733    9.5 2.1    3.3 19.5
2 Bob Cousy     34.5  .459     .792    4.3 8.5    1.7 17.5
3 Bill Sharman  27.0  .531     .866    3.3 1.8    2.0 17.4
4 Bill Russell  42.5  .542     .612   21.6 3.3    2.5 16.4
5 Frank Ramsey  27.5  .472     .787    6.2 1.7    3.1 13.8
6 Sam Jones     20.4  .529     .764    4.6 1.5    1.3 10.7
7 Gene Conley   18.7  .448     .667    7.5 0.4    3.4  6.0
8 K.C. Jones    17.2  .483     .753    2.5 2.3    1.3  5.7

Code: Select all

1982-83 Sixers -- Coach Billy Cunningham
1 Moses Malone     37.5  .501   .761  15.3 1.3  2.6 24.5
2 Julius Erving    33.6  .517   .759   6.8 3.7  2.8 21.4
3 Andrew Toney     30.5  .501   .788   2.8 4.5  3.1 19.7
4 Maurice Cheeks   31.2  .542   .754   2.6 6.9  2.3 12.5
5 Bobby Jones      23.6  .543   .793   4.6 1.9  2.7  9.0
6 Clint Richardson 22.8  .463   .640   3.2 2.2  2.1  7.6
7 Clemon Johnson   21.8  .500   .586   6.4 0.8  2.6  6.8
8 Franklin Edwards 15.6  .472   .761   1.0 2.7  1.5  6.7
9 Marc Iavaroni    20.2  .462   .690   4.1 1.0  3.0  5.1

[Mean_Streets]

I'll go with the 83 Sixers on this one, no doubt.

[ronnymac2]

I'll take the 76ers. The Philly defense had 3 quasi-anchors in Erving, Malone, and Jones that could rebound, defend all different players, play physical, get steals, provide length, and block shots. That is a formidable defense. The offense was very strong, too. Russell could defend Moses, though Moses would be relentless inside. This is a bad matchup for Boston imo because of the year. This version of Boston doesn't have Hondo, and he would have really helped in defending Julius Erving. I don't see anybody defending Erving on Boston.

Again, it is very difficult to go against Bill Russell's Celtics, but I'll go with the Sixers.


Btw, Penbeast, what happened to the ATL Finals thread? lol

[Harison]

I would pick 1959-60 Boston Celtics, they are slightly worse offensively but better defensively, with the best ever defensive anchor in his prime.

[JordansBulls]

Sixers in '82-83

[penbeast0]

The 83 Sixers move on eliminating both the teams from the NBA's greatest dynasty. Next matchup is the one that bedeviled Michael Jordan in his first few years, the 92 Bulls v. the 89 Bad Boy Pistons. record fixed, I was looking at 93 while waiting for it to load apparently

1991-92 Chicago Bulls (67-15) ave margin (6.3) Playoffs (15-4)

Code: Select all

Coach Phil Jackson
1 Michael Jordan  39.3  .495 1.0 2.9 .352 6.1 7.3 .837  6.7 5.5   32.6
2 Scottie Pippen  38.6  .473 0.3 1.1 .237 2.9 4.3 .663  7.7 6.3   18.6
3 Horace Grant    35.6  .508 0.0 0.1 .200 2.3 3.6 .619  9.5 2.6   13.2
4 B.J. Armstrong  30.4  .499 0.8 1.7 .446 1.6 1.8 .861  1.8 4.0   12.3
5 Scott Williams  19.3  .466 0.0 0.1 .000 1.3 1.8 .714  6.4 1.0    5.9
6 Bill Cartwright 19.9  .411 0.0 0.0 .000 1.1 1.6 .735  3.7 1.3    5.6
7 John Paxson     17.5  .451 0.3 0.7 .463 0.3 0.3 .850  0.8 2.3    4.2
8 Rodney McCray   15.9  .451 0.0 0.1 .400 0.6 0.8 .692  2.5 1.3    3.5


1988-89 Detroit Pistons (63-19) ave margin (5.8) Playoffs (15-2)

Code: Select all

Coach: Chuck Daly
1 Adrian Dantley 31.9 .521 0.0 0.0 .000 6.1 7.3 .839 3.9 2.2   18.4
2 Isiah Thomas   36.6 .464 0.4 1.5 .273 3.6 4.4 .818 3.4 8.3   18.2
3 Joe Dumars     34.9 .505 0.2 0.4 .483 3.8 4.4 .850 2.5 5.7   17.2
4 Mark Aguirre   29.7 .483 0.6 2.1 .293 3.1 4.1 .738 4.2 2.5   15.5
5 Vinnie Johnson 25.3 .464 0.2 0.5 .295 2.4 3.2 .734 3.1 3.0   13.8
6 Bill Laimbeer  32.6 .499 0.4 1.1 .349 2.2 2.6 .840 9.6 2.2   13.7
7 Dennis Rodman  26.9 .595 0.1 0.3 .231 1.2 1.9 .626 9.4 1.2   9.0
8 Rick Mahorn    24.9 .517 0.0 0.0 .000 1.6 2.2 .748 6.9 0.8   7.3
9 James Edwards  16.5 .500 0.0 0.0 .000 1.8 2.6 .686 3.0 0.6   7.3
10 John Salley   21.8 .498 0.0 0.0 .000 2.0 2.9 .692 5.0 1.1   7.0


[JordansBulls]

Bulls take this series in 6 games. Hell the '89 Bulls were the only team to even beat the Pistons in the playoffs and won 2 games against them, just think what the 2nd best Bulls team would do.