Is KG better than Malone and Barkely all time?

[Cassius]

If you consider the bodies that Malone and KG were given to work with, Charles is clearly the best player pound-for.... inch-for-inch. Chuck wins the clutch and leadership awards, too.

In addition to having Stockton, people forget that Karl played his career with a strong defensive center next to him for at least 80% of his games. Mark Eaton, old Antoine Carr and Ostertag (say what you will) kept a lot of mileage from piling up on the Mailman.

If I had to rank them, I would have to say it's Chuck-KG-Malone.

[shawngoat23]

In other words, in 1991 as it happened the freshly crowned '91 Bulls team was just a one-off champion like the '06 Heat, the perspective needed to really appreciate that Bulls team would have to wait another year or two.

In 1991, the Bulls were a one-off champion. That should be obvious. I don't know why you need to bring in the '06 Heat into the equation, as though I didn't know what a non-repeating champion were. It's kind of disingenuous, as though you were suggesting that the Bulls were of the same caliber of the Heat. Not all teams, or even one-time champions, are created equal.

The 1986 Celtics never repeated. The 1983 Sixers didn't even win a championship in the 15 years before or the 25 years since. They are nonetheless, in my opinion, the two best teams in NBA history.

The 2007 Heat could have gone 82-0 and swept through the playoffs, and I'd still maintain that the 2006 Heat were the worst NBA champions since 1979, or possibly even since the merger.

[shawngoat23]

Wait, teams that don't win a championship can still be candidates for greatest team of all time???? Nice, time to call up Bruschi and Brady and let them know the good news.

No, they are not candidates for the greatest team of all time. But nor does a championship automatically place you above all teams that have not won a championship.

I despised the 2007 Patriots. They are not the greatest team of all time. (In my opinion, the 1985 Bears are.) However, I have no doubt that they are better than some of the teams that have won championships in recent years (i.e. 2005 Steelers--not that they were bad champions--, to name just one).

I liked the 2008 Celtics. They were one of my five favorite teams. However, I do not believe they would be able to beat the 1985 Celtics, the 1969 Lakers, or countless other teams that failed to win the championships

[ronnymac2]

You know what, I def buy into the Celts being a top team ever. I don't know how I would rank teams because I never really thought about it. But the 2000 and 2001 lakers are the 2 best teams I have ever personally seen. Better than the 98 bulls. And better than the 97 bulls. The 2001 team is around the level of the 96 bulls. (At least that Laker team in the playoffs is.) These celtics, all things considered, are up there. I think the team they compare with most is the 2000 lakers.

People were wondering whether a team with shaq and kobe could use their talent to win and coexist. They questioned the role players.

People were wondering whether a team with pierce, allen, and kg could coexist and and play with one basketball and win a title. They questioned their role players, too.

Well, after winning 67 and 66 games during the season, then having epic series against teams (neither team was dominant in the postseason, but they won), they ended up winning titles. With Shaq and KG crying after getting the label of a talented loser out of the way.

I also just want to say that that 71 bucks team is one of the most efficient teams ever. If i remember correctly, I saw that they set records for fg%. I think it's since been broken my Magic's Lakers, but that Bucks team was really dominant. Kareem at his best, with Oscar near his best. Great role players. Dominant team.

[Farm Raid]

Whoa. I can see a couple of those Laker teams being better than the 98 Bulls. Maybe. Those Bulls always get thought of as weak in comparison to the other two teams that threepeat. But better than the teams that averaged 71 wins? Whoa.

[ronnymac2]

Whoa. I can see a couple of those Laker teams being better than the 98 Bulls. Maybe. Those Bulls always get thought of as weak in comparison to the other two teams that threepeat. But better than the teams that averaged 71 wins? Whoa.

lol...well ok let me clarify. To me, the 96 and 97 bulls are better than the 2000 lakers. But the 2001 lakers in the playoffs was completely dominant. I'm not just talking about shaq and kobe either. An exmaple is derek fisher hitting 15 of 20 3-pointers in 4 games in the wcf against the spurs.

I think a comparison of the 2001 laker playoff team against any team in history is fair and worthwhile. I'm not saying lakers sweep everyone or even win against everyone. But they are up there with those 96 bulls.

[drza]

Im no Celtic expert but the 08 Celtics are no match for the 04 or 87-91 Pistons. I would take just about Celtic team from 80-87 and w/o a doubt take 62-69 over this yrs team. You just cant take 3 allstars and a bucnh of role players and take out teams with 5-7 HoFers on them.

I'm not going to speak on the 87 - 91 Pistons, but I disagree strongly about the '04 Pistons. The '04 Pistons were about a draw with the 04 Timberwolves with a healthy Cassell. The Wolves had a better regular season record, and they beat the Pistons both games head-to-head in nailbiters (including after the Sheed Wallace trade). Had Cassell not gone down, I think the Wolves/Pistons in '04 would have made a hell of a Finals.

That said, this Celtics team is like a steroid version of the '04 Wolves. Pierce, Allen, Rondo, Perk, Posey, etc. are all significant upgrades on their Wolves counterparts (Cassell, Spree, Hassell, Ervin Johnson, Wally, etc.). Not to mention that this Celtics group as a team play defense an order of magnitude better than that Timberwolves team. I think this Celtics squad would have given those Pistons a really bad time.

[drza]

As for the topic itself, I think there have been some very well thought out posts in this topic. In my opinion, Garnett's defensive presence more than makes up any gap in their individual offensive games. You could build a good offense around Garnett, Malone, or Barkley. On the other hand, Barkley was not a strong defender in this company. And while Malone was a good low-post defender, but you couldn't build a team around his defense. But you could build a historically strong defense around Garnett's combo of man- and team-defensive capabilities.

Since basketball is about the net-sum of offense and defense, and it is about team-impact more than individual skill, I just think that Garnett's net-sum team effect is more positive than either Malone or Barkley.

[Harry10]

The '08 Celtics are at least among the top 15 teams ever, IMO.

no

[_BBIB_]

These Celtics are definitely not top 15 of all-time. It's because expansion and free agency rules and everything else make it harder to assemble a stacked team. You can certainly make the case that they're top 15 if you compare the team relative to other teams of the era (to control for the new restrictions), and I'd say they do even better than top 15. But if you're simply looking at talent assembled:

Compare them with the 1986 Celtics:
Bird >>> KG
McHale > Pierce
Parish >> Allen
DJ >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rondo
Ainge >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Perkins

Or by position:
Parish or old Walton >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Perkins
Mchale <= KG
Bird >>>>>> Pierce
Ainge < Allen
DJ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rondo
Plus superior depth.

KG/Pierce/Allen is a nice trio to build around. So were Russell/Cousy/Havlicek/Jones (x2), Wilt/Cunningham/Greer/Walker/Jones, Wilt/West/Baylor, Frazier/Reed/Monroe/DeBusschere/Bradley/Lucas, Malone/Erving/Jones/Cheeks/Toney/Iavaroni, Bird/Parish/McHale/Johnson/Ainge/Walton, Magic/Kareem/Worthy/Scott/Cooper/Thompson/McAdoo, and Jordan/Pippen/Rodman. In fact, they were better. Consider that each of these cores often formed several such teams. Plus many more that didn't even win a championship.

Pure speculation. Paul Pierce is one of the most dangerous scoring Celtics of all-time. Larry Legend is not 10x greater than him because there is a great chance that Pierce could take Bird off the dribble. Saying McHale possibly equals KG shows just how unobjetive you're being in this entire thing