1986 Celtics vs. 2017 Warriors

[trex_8063]

I think there's some truth to this. If you could somehow come up with a hybrid of the rules, the Celtics still played over 30 years ago. The game has evolved a lot. I think I heard McHale say it took the league a while to fully appreciate the value of the three and fully incorporate it. This comes down to 3 > 2.

I don't think that's a slight against the Celtics. They just played in a different time. The only fair way to compare them is by how they fared against their competition.

Sure, but it is also silly to assume that the Celtics wouldn't adapt to modern times. I mean are we literally teleporting the Celtics to 2017 without ANY training or preperation? I think they would be a lot more floored by smart phones than they would 3 point attempts.


It's like asking who is a better general between Napolean and Patton, and then saying there is no way Napolean is better because he wouldn't know how to use a radio. Like, doesn't it defeat the point of the exercise if we're assuming there is no reasonable amount of time to train and adapt to current rules and meta? Is it not a reasonable assumption that an all time great shooter like Larry Bird would scale up his 3 point attempts?

Even is allowed to prepare and train with modern coaching, the talent isn't suited to today's game. They have two guys who could shoot threes, the Warriors have four, potentially five. McHale and Parish wouldn't be as effective playing together today. The Warriors consume big teams that can't get out and defend the three.

Just wanted to single out this conversation, because I think your exchange raises a lot of great points (on both sides).

HBK makes the point I've harped on multiple times about how insufficient [and frankly inappropriate] the straight "time machine/drop-off" method is in these comparisons: one team will always be at a clear disadvantage simply based on preparation/resources/environmental influences/etc, and it's further silly to assume they'd not be capable of making some degree of adaptation.

otoh, Laimbeer makes a fantastic point which we only rarely give credence to: that the trends and circumstances of the game itself influence the very types of players/talents that will enter into the league (i.e. the talent that is best-suited to the game at that time is the talent that will more frequently make it into the NBA at that time).

Indeed, some manner of hybrid would be the best and most level playing field.

[homecourtloss]

Watching LMA and Tony Parker put up some 20 footers and post fadeaways as Houston bombed away threes reminded me of this thread. The 1986 Celtics would be at such a huge disadvantage and realistically could not hope to win making 10-15 fewer threes than the Warriors.

[Drylick]

I'd laugh watching the Celtics try and defend Curry and Klay off ball, they would have absolutely not shot defensively with all the ball movement they employ. Celtics simply have no shot at winning when half the shots they take are long 2s and post up shots, pretty much the two worse shots in basketball.

Warriors sweep, I don't think it would be too competitive.

Are you referring to posting up and then fading away from midrange or posting up and scoring inside the paint?

[HeartBreakKid]

Watching LMA and To ynLarker put up some 20 footers and post fade always as Houston bombed away threes reminded me of this thread. The 1986 Celtics would be at such a huge disadvantage and realistically could not hope to win making 10-15 fewer threes than the Warriors.

LaMarcus Alrdige solo'd the rockets like two years ago and they were bombing threes back then. I mean I'm not sure how the current Spurs, most of which are old and past it other than Leonard and Green are applicable to the 86 Celtics. Larry Bird himself is a better shooter than anyone on the Spurs.

[Jiminy Glick]

This is a very tough question. Celtics would dominate in the post and the Warriors would dominate the perimeter. Can the Warriors go small if the Celtics go big? That is an important question. DJ, Bird, McHale, and Parish is about equal to Curry, Thompson, Durant, and Green. It probably goes 7 games.

[asindc]

I'd laugh watching the Celtics try and defend Curry and Klay off ball, they would have absolutely not shot defensively with all the ball movement they employ. Celtics simply have no shot at winning when half the shots they take are long 2s and post up shots, pretty much the two worse shots in basketball.

Warriors sweep, I don't think it would be too competitive.

If you think post up shots are among the worst shots to take, then I can't help but to conclude that you haven't seen good post play.

[kabstah]

Watching LMA and To ynLarker put up some 20 footers and post fade always as Houston bombed away threes reminded me of this thread. The 1986 Celtics would be at such a huge disadvantage and realistically could not hope to win making 10-15 fewer threes than the Warriors.

LaMarcus Alrdige solo'd the rockets like two years ago and they were bombing threes back then.

What the hell are you talking about? LMA had a great series but that wasn't anything close to a solo effort. Portland attempted exactly as many threes as the Rockets in that series, and actually made more. Unless you think the 86 Celtics can magically quadruple their 3 point output and still maintain their percentages, they're getting blown off the floor here.

[mihail_petkov]

This is a very tough question. Celtics would dominate in the post and the Warriors would dominate the perimeter. Can the Warriors go small if the Celtics go big? That is an important question. DJ, Bird, McHale, and Parish is about equal to Curry, Thompson, Durant, and Green. It probably goes 7 games.

Can the Celtics go big if the Warriors go small? Wide open 3 almost every possession

Maybe the question is which defense is better - Warriors rim protection or Celtics perimeter defense.

[Jiminy Glick]

This is a very tough question. Celtics would dominate in the post and the Warriors would dominate the perimeter. Can the Warriors go small if the Celtics go big? That is an important question. DJ, Bird, McHale, and Parish is about equal to Curry, Thompson, Durant, and Green. It probably goes 7 games.

Can the Celtics go big if the Warriors go small? Wide open 3 almost every possession

Maybe the question is which defense is better - Warriors rim protection or Celtics perimeter defense.

Yeah that too. The question is who has to adapt to who. I guess I like the Warriors in about 7 just because of how well the team fits together. It is really like having 3 Reggie Millers on the same team in terms of shooting. Then you have guys like Green, Iguodala, and McGee (who would be very useful against Parish) who aid the shooting trio.

[mysticOscar]

This is a very tough question. Celtics would dominate in the post and the Warriors would dominate the perimeter. Can the Warriors go small if the Celtics go big? That is an important question. DJ, Bird, McHale, and Parish is about equal to Curry, Thompson, Durant, and Green. It probably goes 7 games.

Can the Celtics go big if the Warriors go small? Wide open 3 almost every possession

Maybe the question is which defense is better - Warriors rim protection or Celtics perimeter defense.

And this is what would detrmine the outcome hence era rules is important.

If rules are more lax on how to handle the perimeter players (on/off) ball...Celtics would adjust to exploit that. Whereas Warriors are really outsized and outskilled in the paint for them to adjust to defend the paint...(Celtics have shooters to counter doubling off the ball even if we didnt keep illegal defense).

If '86 rules...Celtics win...if todays rules....Warriors would crush

[70sFan]

This is a very tough question. Celtics would dominate in the post and the Warriors would dominate the perimeter. Can the Warriors go small if the Celtics go big? That is an important question. DJ, Bird, McHale, and Parish is about equal to Curry, Thompson, Durant, and Green. It probably goes 7 games.

Can the Celtics go big if the Warriors go small? Wide open 3 almost every possession

Maybe the question is which defense is better - Warriors rim protection or Celtics perimeter defense.

Yeah that too. The question is who has to adapt to who. I guess I like the Warriors in about 7 just because of how well the team fits together. It is really like having 3 Reggie Millers on the same team in terms of shooting. Then you have guys like Green, Iguodala, and McGee (who would be very useful against Parish) who aid the shooting trio.

I agree with all but bolded part - McGee would be destroyed by either Parish or McHale. Robert is very inteligent, patient offensive player and he's much stronger than Javale. He wouldn't be better than John Salley who defended older Parish and fouled him on every occasion.

[Jiminy Glick]

Can the Celtics go big if the Warriors go small? Wide open 3 almost every possession

Maybe the question is which defense is better - Warriors rim protection or Celtics perimeter defense.

Yeah that too. The question is who has to adapt to who. I guess I like the Warriors in about 7 just because of how well the team fits together. It is really like having 3 Reggie Millers on the same team in terms of shooting. Then you have guys like Green, Iguodala, and McGee (who would be very useful against Parish) who aid the shooting trio.

I agree with all but bolded part - McGee would be destroyed by either Parish or McHale. Robert is very inteligent, patient offensive player and he's much stronger than Javale. He wouldn't be better than John Salley who defended older Parish and fouled him on every occasion.

Yeah but he would be useful in that he is a tall, long body, and athletic body. He is a better option than Pachulia and he is effective at alley-oops, especially when so much attention is on Curry, Thompson, Durant, and Green. So he is a threat and he will be a threat against the Cavs.

[homecourtloss]

Watching LMA and To ynLarker put up some 20 footers and post fade always as Houston bombed away threes reminded me of this thread. The 1986 Celtics would be at such a huge disadvantage and realistically could not hope to win making 10-15 fewer threes than the Warriors.

LaMarcus Alrdige solo'd the rockets like two years ago and they were bombing threes back then. I mean I'm not sure how the current Spurs, most of which are old and past it other than Leonard and Green are applicable to the 86 Celtics. Larry Bird himself is a better shooter than anyone on the Spurs.

The Spurs and Rockets were playing two different games. Parker and LMA were taking dinosaur shots while the Rockets were taking threes off of the pick and roll, drive and kick, pin down screens, and in transition.

The Celtics, as great as they were, would be taking dinosaur shots and hope to beat a team that made 10+ more threes. Bird was a great shooter, but take a look at the threes he took. He had more time to get them off as close outs were not the same then because most teams were not worried about giving up threes. Ainge had a quick release, though.

Unless the Celtics changed all of their habits, they would take their customary 10 threes, make 3 or whatever. How could they compete with teams going up and down and taking 50 threes?

[homecourtloss]

This is a very tough question. Celtics would dominate in the post and the Warriors would dominate the perimeter. Can the Warriors go small if the Celtics go big? That is an important question. DJ, Bird, McHale, and Parish is about equal to Curry, Thompson, Durant, and Green. It probably goes 7 games.

Can the Celtics go big if the Warriors go small? Wide open 3 almost every possession

Maybe the question is which defense is better - Warriors rim protection or Celtics perimeter defense.

And this is what would detrmine the outcome hence era rules is important.

If rules are more lax on how to handle the perimeter players (on/off) ball...Celtics would adjust to exploit that. Whereas Warriors are really outsized and outskilled in the paint for them to adjust to defend the paint...(Celtics have shooters to counter doubling off the ball even if we didnt keep illegal defense).

If '86 rules...Celtics win...if todays rules....Warriors would crush

Even with '86 rules, I can't see the Celtics winning a series and really can't see them winning more than a game.

[Krodis]

In 86 rules, the Celtics might have a puncher's chance by trying to really win on the interior. With modern day rules, they'd just get run off the court. It's not their fault and it doesn't really say anything about how good of a team they are, they just would be utterly ill-equipped to deal with the Warriors offense and their ability to stretch the floor, and even the Warriors defense would be pretty foreign to them. If given enough time to study they might be able to adjust to the defense but I don't think they have any shot of keeping the Warriors in check offensively.

Sent from my SM-N910V using RealGM mobile app

[mysticOscar]

Can the Celtics go big if the Warriors go small? Wide open 3 almost every possession

Maybe the question is which defense is better - Warriors rim protection or Celtics perimeter defense.

And this is what would detrmine the outcome hence era rules is important.

If rules are more lax on how to handle the perimeter players (on/off) ball...Celtics would adjust to exploit that. Whereas Warriors are really outsized and outskilled in the paint for them to adjust to defend the paint...(Celtics have shooters to counter doubling off the ball even if we didnt keep illegal defense).

If '86 rules...Celtics win...if todays rules....Warriors would crush

Even with '86 rules, I can't see the Celtics winning a series and really can't see them winning more than a game.

Well u would be wrong. That Celtics were a pretty complete team with no real weakneses from inside ecialland out.

U might think because theyre not as flash since they dont have perimeter players dancing and running around with the ball from the perimeter like todays teams....they would destroy a lot of teams today if u teleport them back

[mtron929]

I really think people underestimate what players have learned about the game of basketball and its evolution in 30 years worth of time. Basically, if you pit these two together, the 2017 Warriors have so much more knowledge about the game, the strategies, and etc. that the 86 team would feel completely overmatched at the intellectual level.

[70sFan]

You really guys overstate how many long midrange shots Celtics shot. Other than Bird (who shot from anywhere) they focused on playing down low. Dennis was primarly a slasher, Ainge shot many catch and shoot (threes too) and he would do even more against the Warriors. Sisthing would focus more on 3 point shot (and he didn't shoot contested midrange shots anyway). Bird would still shoot from midrange and you can't tell me that he played inefficient type of game.

BTW, Celtics team is arguably the GOAT passing team. Do you really think Warriors press would destroy such an inteligent player like Bird or Johnson? Don't overrate today athletes - they may be smarter (because of bigger knowledge) but not more inteligent. Give Celtics 2 months of modern training, give KC Jones tapes to analyse. Give them some time to adjust and they could beat Warriors.

Same should be said about Warriors - give them time to understand illegal defense, to adjust their handchecking tendencies, to play more conservative P&Rs (without moving screens) and to adjust their ballhandling. Then they could compete with any 80s team.

I want to see Warriors against Jazz and then in next rounds before taking them over 1986 Celtics. Boston team proved that they could beat almost any type of team - athletic and agressive Bucks, Twin Towers Rockets, they beat Lakers two years before. Talent-wise, only Warriors today are good enough to compete against the Celtics but I need to see them winning against legit competition. Blazers weren't good test for them.

[KobesScarf]

Sure, but it is also silly to assume that the Celtics wouldn't adapt to modern times. I mean are we literally teleporting the Celtics to 2017 without ANY training or preperation? I think they would be a lot more floored by smart phones than they would 3 point attempts.


It's like asking who is a better general between Napolean and Patton, and then saying there is no way Napolean is better because he wouldn't know how to use a radio. Like, doesn't it defeat the point of the exercise if we're assuming there is no reasonable amount of time to train and adapt to current rules and meta? Is it not a reasonable assumption that an all time great shooter like Larry Bird would scale up his 3 point attempts?

Even is allowed to prepare and train with modern coaching, the talent isn't suited to today's game. They have two guys who could shoot threes, the Warriors have four, potentially five. McHale and Parish wouldn't be as effective playing together today. The Warriors consume big teams that can't get out and defend the three.

Just wanted to single out this conversation, because I think your exchange raises a lot of great points (on both sides).

HBK makes the point I've harped on multiple times about how insufficient [and frankly inappropriate] the straight "time machine/drop-off" method is in these comparisons: one team will always be at a clear disadvantage simply based on preparation/resources/environmental influences/etc, and it's further silly to assume they'd not be capable of making some degree of adaptation.

otoh, Laimbeer makes a fantastic point which we only rarely give credence to: that the trends and circumstances of the game itself influence the very types of players/talents that will enter into the league (i.e. the talent that is best-suited to the game at that time is the talent that will more frequently make it into the NBA at that time).

Indeed, some manner of hybrid would be the best and most level playing field.

It's actually the opposite. The talent determines the trends. Bogut Curry Yao Oden Bynum Darko Okafor Kwame all end up bust so the NBA becomes a spread pick and roll jack up 3s league

[trex_8063]

Even is allowed to prepare and train with modern coaching, the talent isn't suited to today's game. They have two guys who could shoot threes, the Warriors have four, potentially five. McHale and Parish wouldn't be as effective playing together today. The Warriors consume big teams that can't get out and defend the three.

Just wanted to single out this conversation, because I think your exchange raises a lot of great points (on both sides).

HBK makes the point I've harped on multiple times about how insufficient [and frankly inappropriate] the straight "time machine/drop-off" method is in these comparisons: one team will always be at a clear disadvantage simply based on preparation/resources/environmental influences/etc, and it's further silly to assume they'd not be capable of making some degree of adaptation.

otoh, Laimbeer makes a fantastic point which we only rarely give credence to: that the trends and circumstances of the game itself influence the very types of players/talents that will enter into the league (i.e. the talent that is best-suited to the game at that time is the talent that will more frequently make it into the NBA at that time).

Indeed, some manner of hybrid would be the best and most level playing field.

It's actually the opposite. The talent determines the trends.

Well, this is true as well. I guess it would be more accurate to say both are occurring simultaneously on a continuous basis, one essentially feeding into the other.


Let me see if I can be more clear on what I (and Laimbeer) mean.....

Obviously there are a certain set of athlete/player-types which gravitate toward [and excel in] basketball; and they're somewhat different from the types that gravitate toward [and excel in] football, or soccer, or track/field, or swimming, or baseball, etc etc. Can we agree on this: that different sports are preferentially suited toward different body types, athletic attributes, skill-sets, etc, based on the requirements of the game itself? And thus those player-types will be preferentially recruited/drafted/developed. Make sense?

And that's what we're suggesting: that as game trends shift over time (and you're right that the talent present may be determining some of those shifts), the athletic attributes/player types/skillsets that basketball is preferentially suited towards shifts as well. Not noticeable in a year-to-year sense, or potentially even if looking at two adjacent 6-8 year stretches......but when comparing two eras separated by 30+ years, it becomes more apparent.