What's more impressive?

Boognish · Post #1 » by **Boognish** » Tue Jun 3, 2008 5:11 am

While running the risk of being eaten alive by Celtics fans (among others), what is more impressive:

Celtics winning 11 championships in 13 years

or

Bulls winning 6 in 8 years

Celtics played in an 8 team league, Bulls played against 30-ish other teams. Bulls did it in the free agent era, where even keeping a team intact that long is a feat, much less winning with that team. There were no mega-millions contracts to lure players to other teams; everybody got paid dirt.

Are these achievements even close?

shawngoat23 · Post #2 » by **shawngoat23** » Tue Jun 3, 2008 5:24 am

Give me Celtics. And I was a Bulls fan (growing up in Chicago) during that run in the 1990s.

Patterns · Post #3 » by **Patterns** » Tue Jun 3, 2008 5:46 am

Bulls

Patterns · Post #4 » by **Patterns** » Tue Jun 3, 2008 5:48 am

Imagine having a Shaq or Duncan for 11 years. They'd win that many championships too but in a 30 team league, winning that many is insane. If Jordan didn't go baseball for 2 years, they might have had 8 championships straight.

Post #5 » by **NO-KG-AI** » Tue Jun 3, 2008 5:58 am

Celtics, Russell was the only constant there, he coached in the end while playing, he went through other historically good teams, and another Goat candidate.

It's close, but like Doc likes to say, winning 11 of 13 is absolutely the perfect storm happening, and would be way too hard to replicate.

Reks · Post #6 » by **Reks** » Tue Jun 3, 2008 6:25 am

11 of 13 though 6 of 8 is REALLY impressive as well.

ChargerMan · Post #7 » by **ChargerMan** » Tue Jun 3, 2008 6:28 am

C's

The C's played some monster squads and against other top 5 players ever. League was smaller but less diluted.

The 90's Bulls are also a great accomplishment and one I don't plan on seeing again

andrewww · Post #8 » by **andrewww** » Tue Jun 3, 2008 6:28 am

just based on the sheer competition in close to a 30 team league and the fact that jordan wasnt around for the better part of 2 whole seasons, im going with the bulls here.

Retrolock · Post #9 » by **Retrolock** » Tue Jun 3, 2008 9:15 am

Gonna go with the Bulls.

Chubby Chaser · Post #10 » by **Chubby Chaser** » Tue Jun 3, 2008 9:18 am

Kobe scoring 81 :lol:

Point forward · Post #11 » by **Point forward** » Tue Jun 3, 2008 10:36 am

Gimme 11/13. One loss was b/c Russell was injured, and only once (1967) the Cs were beaten fair and square by that Wilt guy.

Point forward · Post #12 » by **Point forward** » Tue Jun 3, 2008 10:38 am

andrewww wrote:just based on the sheer competition in close to a 30 team league

Isn't it harder to win if there are only 15 or less teams and therefore the talent is much more concentrated instead of diluted?

Frosty · Post #13 » by **Frosty** » Tue Jun 3, 2008 11:19 am

Celts

CircleCitysportsfan · Post #14 » by **CircleCitysportsfan** » Tue Jun 3, 2008 12:08 pm

The Bulls, they played in an era where you could not rob people with trades to get legends. Red was ahead of his time but there is no way he could of pulled some of those deals off in the modern NBA. I'd argue that the top 4 teams in the Conf finals when the Bulls won ships are just as good as the top 4 teams in the 60's.

The fact that I hate everything Boston/New England may have something to do with me picking the Bulls as well.

BillessuR6 · Post #15 » by **BillessuR6** » Tue Jun 3, 2008 12:10 pm

You have a 30 team league but how many teams do actually have a realistic chance of winning it all?

Imagine there were only 8 teams in the league now! Any of those could win it because the quality would be much more centered than in a 30 team league...

CircleCitysportsfan · Post #16 » by **CircleCitysportsfan** » Tue Jun 3, 2008 12:14 pm

thebirdman wrote:You have a 30 team league but how many teams do actually have a realistic chance of winning it all?

Imagine there were only 8 teams in the league now! Any of those could win it because the quality would be much more centered than in a 30 team league...

Unless Shaq, TD, and Kobe were on the same team, there is no way 1 team is winning 11/13 now. Those other teams could not of been THAT good, what the hell are you scouting to get beat that often by the same damn team.

JordansBulls · Post #17 » by **JordansBulls** » Tue Jun 3, 2008 1:37 pm

Hard to measure. For 8 of the Celtics 11 titles only 2 playoff rounds existed and considering the team was good from the beginning it is quite easy to stay a contender especially with only 8 teams.

T-Mac-4-Eva · Post #18 » by **T-Mac-4-Eva** » Tue Jun 3, 2008 2:26 pm

thebirdman wrote:You have a 30 team league but how many teams do actually have a realistic chance of winning it all?

Imagine there were only 8 teams in the league now! Any of those could win it because the quality would be much more centered than in a 30 team league...

In today's league, I would say about 6-8 teams have a realistic chance of winning it all. However, you reapply those percentages back to the Celtics era, about 2 teams have a realistic chance of winning it all.

hermes · Post #19 » by **hermes** » Tue Jun 3, 2008 2:38 pm

celtics

cool007 · Post #20 » by **cool007** » Tue Jun 3, 2008 4:02 pm

Consider this.

With 30 teams, how much travelling you need to do these days???

How many playoffs series you had to win to get to the finals???

Also, with the cap and other ****, it was hard to bring in or trade for stars - while in that era for Celtics, they got good team and could keep them together - which has been tough in the last couple of decades.

Also three-peat 2 times in a row (in MJ's last 6 full seasons with Bulls) in that 90s are way tougher to do. Not to mention doing it with completely different teams (only Pip was the only guy from 91 to 93 season).

I say Bulls.