D.Brasco wrote:The_Hater wrote:D.Brasco wrote:
and the 60s Celtics did back to back to back to back to back to back to back to back to back (8 straight if you're counting).
I still refuse to acknowledge their team success as it all happened in an 8 team league. When you have half of the top players in the league most seasons, you should win a lot of titles.
Still a great team accomplishment but it shouldn’t be compared to the modern era (post ABA).
The other argument is that with the 90s expansions the league became watered down. All the teams the Celtic's were facing were arguably stacked.
Either way you count something or you don't. In 50 years from our time with gene editing and bionics people may look at the players of our era and see them as more primitive than we do players from the 50s. Should we throw out the record books every half century?y/
NBA fans seem to be the only ones to discredit the achievements of players in past decades. You see this much less in MLB where guys like Babe Ruth are still venerated.
Except the teams the Celtics were playing weren’t all stacked, the Celtics had about half of the top players in the league most seasons. However it may have seemed like every team was stacked because they decided to vote just about every player from that era who could dribble with their left hand into the HOF.
Regardless, let’s not try and argue that winning the title is just as difficult in an 8 team league as a 23 or 30 team league, that’s not really logical.




















