1989 Pistons vs 2008 Celtics

[SportsGuru08]

Who you got?

[prolific passer]

Pistons had a great 9 man rotation with Laimbeer, Mahorn, Aguirre, Dumars, and Thomas starting and Edwards, Salley, Rodman, and V. Johnson off the bench. Their bench could have been solid starters on other teams in the league.

[TheGOATRises007]

That Celtics team is hard to judge. Very dominant RS.

Their playoffs though were nowhere near it.

They got outscored by a pretty average Cavs in their series. Had to go 7 vs the lowly Hawks.

But then they were easily better than the Pistons and Lakers later on.

I'd pick them slightly over the 89 Pistons.

[tsherkin]

Hard to imagine Detroit winning. They never faced a defense like the Celtics and even though they faced offenses of a similar caliber, I think they'd struggle to defend Boston's execution and perimeter ability, plus their versatility.

I imagine it would be a 6- or 7-game series, though.

[VanWest82]

I think they'd struggle to defend Boston's execution and perimeter ability, plus their versatility.

Leaving the rest aside, this is pretty dubious. Bad boys would lock up 08 Celtics. I'd argue they were ideally constructed to give Celtics problems.

[tsherkin]

I think they'd struggle to defend Boston's execution and perimeter ability, plus their versatility.

Leaving the rest aside, this is pretty dubious. Bad boys would lock up 08 Celtics. I'd argue they were ideally constructed to give Celtics problems.

No they weren't. They were constructed to defend hard on the interior, and to defend small guards on the perimeter. They had a good post defender in Rodman, who would be irrelevant against KG. Dumars wouldn't be doing anything that interesting or revolutionary against Ray Allen or Paul Pierce and Rajon Rondo sucked ass as a scorer, so he was irrelevant.

[VanWest82]

I think they'd struggle to defend Boston's execution and perimeter ability, plus their versatility.

Leaving the rest aside, this is pretty dubious. Bad boys would lock up 08 Celtics. I'd argue they were ideally constructed to give Celtics problems.

No they weren't. They were constructed to defend hard on the interior, and to defend small guards on the perimeter. They had a good post defender in Rodman, who would be irrelevant against KG. Dumars wouldn't be doing anything that interesting or revolutionary against Ray Allen or Paul Pierce and Rajon Rondo sucked ass as a scorer, so he was irrelevant.

Rodman guarded Jordan as well as anyone in his career. It's a big reason why Bulls went after him in mid 90s due to the respect there. 89 Rodman would've guarded Pierce just like he guarded Bird. It wouldn't have gone well for Paul. Laimbeer, Mahorn, and Salley would have probably had KG thrown out of at least one game, but either way they had a lot of fouls to give. You're way underestimating that team.

[tsherkin]

Rodman guarded Jordan as well as anyone in his career. It's a big reason why Bulls went after him in mid 90s due to the respect there. 89 Rodman would've guarded Pierce just like he guarded Bird. It wouldn't have gone well for Paul.

I'm inclined to believe that Pierce would have done fine because Rodman wasn't an especially strong perimeter shooting defender. He was very good in the post and he was hard to get around laterally, for sure, but screens and catch-and-shoots neatly circumvent that.

You're way underestimating that team.

No I'm not, lol. I said it would be a 6- or 7-game series, remember?

[prolific passer]

It would be a battle of who would adjust to who first. Pistons because of their depth could play you a variety of ways. Go big with Edwards and Laimbeer. Go fast with Salley and Rodman. Could throw out their 90 starting 5 and have Mahorn off the bench which would give them 3 double digit scorers off the bench then.

The best 5 vs the Celtics would probably be Laimbeer, Salley, Rodman, Dumars, and Thomas.

[VanWest82]

Rodman guarded Jordan as well as anyone in his career. It's a big reason why Bulls went after him in mid 90s due to the respect there. 89 Rodman would've guarded Pierce just like he guarded Bird. It wouldn't have gone well for Paul.

I'm inclined to believe that Pierce would have done fine because Rodman wasn't an especially strong perimeter shooting defender. He was very good in the post and he was hard to get around laterally, for sure, but screens and catch-and-shoots neatly circumvent that.

Yeah Rodman gave MJ problems on the perimeter chasing him around but Pierce who wasn't known as a huge threat moving off ball Rodman wouldn't have stood a chance. Sure.

[tsherkin]

Rodman guarded Jordan as well as anyone in his career. It's a big reason why Bulls went after him in mid 90s due to the respect there. 89 Rodman would've guarded Pierce just like he guarded Bird. It wouldn't have gone well for Paul.

I'm inclined to believe that Pierce would have done fine because Rodman wasn't an especially strong perimeter shooting defender. He was very good in the post and he was hard to get around laterally, for sure, but screens and catch-and-shoots neatly circumvent that.

Yeah Rodman gave MJ problems on the perimeter chasing him around but Pierce who wasn't known as a huge threat moving off ball Rodman wouldn't have stood a chance. Sure.

You're welcome to disagree but Pierce was moving more inside Boston's sets than he had earlier in his career. And again, there's an assumption that Dumars would be fine on Ray Ray, and that the movement the team had with KG's passing and so forth wouldn't be enough to shift the D.

Anyway, like I said, I don't think Boston's OFFENSE was their competitive advantage. They were approximately as good on O in an absolute sense as most of Detroit's 89 postseason competition. The difference was that the Celtics were one of the greatest single-season defenses in NBA history.

[SportsGuru08]

Hard to imagine Detroit winning. They never faced a defense like the Celtics and even though they faced offenses of a similar caliber, I think they'd struggle to defend Boston's execution and perimeter ability, plus their versatility.

I imagine it would be a 6- or 7-game series, though.

I don't trust a team that needed 7 games to beat a team that didn't even finish .500

[jojo4341]

It would be a battle of who would adjust to who first. Pistons because of their depth could play you a variety of ways. Go big with Edwards and Laimbeer. Go fast with Salley and Rodman. Could throw out their 90 starting 5 and have Mahorn off the bench which would give them 3 double digit scorers off the bench then.

The best 5 vs the Celtics would probably be Laimbeer, Salley, Rodman, Dumars, and Thomas.

Great point. Always admired Detroit's versatility on offense and defense. I'd add that their small ball team would be Laimbeer, Rodman, Aguirre, Dumars, Isiah. Below are defensive assignments for Detroit with advantages underlined, generally speaking:

Laimbeer - KG
Mahorn - Perkins
Rodman - Pierce
Dumars - Allen: EVEN (I'd argue Dumars at their respective ages, but I may be biased)
Isiah - Rondo
Edwards - PJ Brown (but he's 38)
Salley - Big Baby
Vinnie Johnson - Tony Allen (Allen wasn't at his defensive peak yet)
Aguirre - James Posey
Michael Wiliams - Sam Cassell (Williams became a solid player later in his career, but Sam is also 38 here)
John Long (rarely played) - Eddie House
Fennis Dembo (rarely played) - Leon Powe
Chuck Daly - Doc Rivers

Certainly an intriguing matchup between 2 legendary defenses from different eras. They're both deep, but Detroit is more balanced among the rotational players. I personally voted for Detroit because of their versatility and because of their experience together. Even if it's the 1989 version that won their first title, they still had at least 3 years of battling in the playoffs against Chicago, Boston and LA. They're much more battle-tested while Boston was figuring themselves out on the fly.

[prolific passer]

It would be a battle of who would adjust to who first. Pistons because of their depth could play you a variety of ways. Go big with Edwards and Laimbeer. Go fast with Salley and Rodman. Could throw out their 90 starting 5 and have Mahorn off the bench which would give them 3 double digit scorers off the bench then.

The best 5 vs the Celtics would probably be Laimbeer, Salley, Rodman, Dumars, and Thomas.

Great point. Always admired Detroit's versatility on offense and defense. I'd add that their small ball team would be Laimbeer, Rodman, Aguirre, Dumars, Isiah. Below are defensive assignments for Detroit with advantages underlined, generally speaking:

Laimbeer - KG
Mahorn - Perkins
Rodman - Pierce
Dumars - Allen: EVEN (I'd argue Dumars at their respective ages, but I may be biased)
Isiah - Rondo
Edwards - PJ Brown (but he's 38)
Salley - Big Baby
Vinnie Johnson - Tony Allen (Allen wasn't at his defensive peak yet)
Aguirre - James Posey
Michael Wiliams - Sam Cassell (Williams became a solid player later in his career, but Sam is also 38 here)
John Long (rarely played) - Eddie House
Fennis Dembo (rarely played) - Leon Powe
Chuck Daly - Doc Rivers

Certainly an intriguing matchup between 2 legendary defenses from different eras. They're both deep, but Detroit is more balanced among the rotational players. I personally voted for Detroit because of their versatility and because of their experience together. Even if it's the 1989 version that won their first title, they still had at least 3 years of battling in the playoffs against Chicago, Boston and LA. They're much more battle-tested while Boston was figuring themselves out on the fly.

Laimbeer will be a mismatch due to his midrange and perimeter shooting. KG or Perkins would have to go out there to defend him which would leave to other one under the hoop to battle for a rebound with Mahorn, Salley, Edwards, and Rodman. Rodman would be all over the place as he was very active during his Pistons days.

[Djoker]

Given how mediocre the Celtics were in the playoffs particularly in the first two rounds, I'd probably slightly lean towards Detroit. But it is very close.