RealGM

Celtics: Ainge/Johnson/Bird/McHale/Parish with Walton/Sichting/Wedman off the bench.

Warriors: Curry/Thompson/Durant/Draymond/Zaza with Livsington/Iggy/JaVale off the bench.

Obviously there are other guys, you can include them if you think they make a difference, but I seriously doubt they play more than 8 guys each.

Who wins?

I'm not sure, but Draymond defending McHale inside would be quite a battle. Draymond is one of the best post defenders there with his tenacity, great strength/girth, and quick hands. McHale was very long and skilled, however.

Boston's edge on the glass and getting to the line vs. Golden State's eFG% through crazy 3-point shooting: Which advantages are more stable vs. the other team?

Celtics get massacred in a time machine comparison, even under 1986 rules. You'd have to make a lot of arbitrary assumptions in Boston's favor for them to have a chance.

Celtics sweep the Dubs or maybe 5 if Curry can hit a bunch of 30 footers. Probably the worst matchup possible(after 83 Sixers)

ronnymac2 wrote:I'm not sure, but Draymond defending McHale inside would be quite a battle. Draymond is one of the best post defenders there with his tenacity, great strength/girth, and quick hands. McHale was very long and skilled, however.

Boston's edge on the glass and getting to the line vs. Golden State's eFG% through crazy 3-point shooting: Which advantages are more stable vs. the other team?

The 86 Celtics are more versatile but they would not even need to show it because when you control the boards you control the Pace and Warriors would get absolutely massacred by the Celtics inside on both ends

I'd go Warriors. Think they're likely a bit better team, on top winning the matchup battles imo. Don't think Boston can successfully get out on the perimeter to defend the Warriors, and I think the Warriors swarming defense would be as effective as any against the Celtics.

ardee wrote:Celtics: Ainge/Johnson/Bird/McHale/Parish with Walton/Sichting/Wedman off the bench.

Warriors: Curry/Thompson/Durant/Draymond/Zaza with Livsington/Iggy/JaVale off the bench.

Obviously there are other guys, you can include them if you think they make a difference, but I seriously doubt they play more than 8 guys each.

Who wins?

Whose rules and whose referees? Warriors get toasted if they have to play by 80s rules; Celtics probably lose with today's rules. It's always an important part of any cross era question.

Tough to call. Warriors would live or die on the perimeter. I think Boston has a clear edge in the paint. Parrish to me is a very underrated player. Johnson probably guards Steph. I like the Warriors bench better as Iggy is a tireless defender and Walton was past his prime. I'll take the steadiness of that Boston inside game and say they win a close series. This Celtics team and 83 Sixers are not optimal match ups for the Warriors, as both teams has speedy perimeter defenders and a strong post game.

penbeast0 wrote:

ardee wrote:Celtics: Ainge/Johnson/Bird/McHale/Parish with Walton/Sichting/Wedman off the bench.

Warriors: Curry/Thompson/Durant/Draymond/Zaza with Livsington/Iggy/JaVale off the bench.

Obviously there are other guys, you can include them if you think they make a difference, but I seriously doubt they play more than 8 guys each.

Who wins?

Whose rules and whose referees? Warriors get toasted if they have to play by 80s rules; Celtics probably lose with today's rules. It's always an important part of any cross era question.

True enough, illegal defense would really hurt the Warriors. I guess I usually imagine it as by current day rules, but it is an important distinction.

Celtics would destroy them. All you have to do is be physical with the Warriors

Warriors in 5. You're not going to beat them if you're going to make 8 to 15 fewer threes. You're just not gong to do it.

eminence wrote:I'd go Warriors. Think they're likely a bit better team, on top winning the matchup battles imo. Don't think Boston can successfully get out on the perimeter to defend the Warriors, and I think the Warriors swarming defense would be as effective as any against the Celtics.

Against probably the 2nd best passing team ever? It would turn in to a layup line if they tried swarming.

KobesScarf wrote:

eminence wrote:I'd go Warriors. Think they're likely a bit better team, on top winning the matchup battles imo. Don't think Boston can successfully get out on the perimeter to defend the Warriors, and I think the Warriors swarming defense would be as effective as any against the Celtics.

Against probably the 2nd best passing team ever? It would turn in to a layup line if they tried swarming.

Hmm, perhaps you have a different idea of what a swarming defense is than I do. To me that refers to their incredibly quick rotations, as fast as anybody I've seen.

Also, who is your pick for top passing team ever?

ronnymac2 wrote:I'm not sure, but Draymond defending McHale inside would be quite a battle. Draymond is one of the best post defenders there with his tenacity, great strength/girth, and quick hands. McHale was very long and skilled, however.

Boston's edge on the glass and getting to the line vs. Golden State's eFG% through crazy 3-point shooting: Which advantages are more stable vs. the other team?

Great as Draymond is in the post defensively hes not among the best IMO, certainly not to the level of his pickandroll coverage and help defense. i see that being onesided. Mchale has regularly torched superior post defenders than Draymond whos still the size of a small forward. Dont see Draymond keeping up with his counters, footwork and fade from the block that opens up so much at the rim. Physical way and how hard Draymond plays in the post is good enough for post players of this era but it isnt gonna cut it against this caliber of post scorer. I actually think Warriors would do better if Kd was the primary defender and Draymond was shading and there for help since Mchale wasnt much of a playmaker/passer from the post and Kd could take the angles out of post passes away

Celtics sweep.

The matchup between Kevin Durant and Kevin McHale would be fascinating. Both are/were built identically, with a thin frame long arms. Watching McHale try to keep up with Durant as he goes around screens would be almost as much fun as watching Durant try to guard McHale in the post. And who would win the rebounding battle would be interesting....

eminence wrote:

KobesScarf wrote:

eminence wrote:I'd go Warriors. Think they're likely a bit better team, on top winning the matchup battles imo. Don't think Boston can successfully get out on the perimeter to defend the Warriors, and I think the Warriors swarming defense would be as effective as any against the Celtics.

Against probably the 2nd best passing team ever? It would turn in to a layup line if they tried swarming.

Hmm, perhaps you have a different idea of what a swarming defense is than I do. To me that refers to their incredibly quick rotations, as fast as anybody I've seen.

Also, who is your pick for top passing team ever?

72 Lakers

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.

RCM88x wrote: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.

Pretty much. I cannot remember if it was Phil Jackson or Pop or Van Gundy who said it, but he talked about the number of actions teams run today to get to their preferred spots with preferred players and there are so many more actions run today than before. Taking this modern day Warriors team against evens team as great as that Celtics team was simply wouldn't be fair.

Any poster who says that it's not close (on either way) has probably not given sufficient depth of thought. (nicer way to say it)

Celtics could and did win against plenty of quick and athletic teams. I think the most important thing is about rules because I'm sure Celtics would win with 80s rules and Warriors would in today rules. Illegal D would destroy GSW trapping defense, no defensive three seconds would give Celtics bigger advantage down low (which is already huge). Not to mention illegal screens which are common in today game. On the other hand the lack of handchecking, the defensive 3 seconds and ballhandling freelace would make them tough to defend Warriors im today game.

I think Ainge would guard Steph, not Johnson. Danny is younger and quicker - he used to defend guys like Thomas and he did decent job. Dennis would try to contain Klay with his long arms and strength. He's great defender and I think he would limit Klay isos and off the dribble actions.

I would put Bird on Draymond. In fact Bird would be really good option against Curry/Draymond P&R in my opinion. He's tenacious defender and in 1986 he was still quick enough to do decent job on perimeter.

KD vs McHale would be quite the battle. McHale has the experience with guarding good SF scorers but Durant is even better than guys like Wilkins or Aguirre. The big thing would be defending 3 point attempts - I'm not sure McHale is quick enough to do that. I'm sure though he would destroy either Draymond or Durant on the other end of the floor.

Pachulia is a non-factor and neither is McGee. Parish is a huge plus for the Celtics. I'm curious how well would the Warriors small ball handle the pressence of Celtics frontcourt. Draymond guarding Parish is not a good sign for Warriors but KD would be totally destroyed.

The last important thing is how well Bird would handle the defensive pressure of Andre/Durant/Draymond. He played so well in 1986 playoffs that I can't see him struggling against them. I also can't see how Warriors would defend Bird/Parish P&R with lack of size. It was one of the most unstoppable weapons in the 80s. Pachulia is too slow to guard Robert, McGee isn't good defender and Drymond lacks size.

In the end, I'm sure this series would go down to 7 games. As I said, depends on rules. Don't underrate 1986 Celtics - they could find the way to beat Warriors. And vice versa...