GOAT TEAM TOURNAMENT #2 1997 Bulls v. #15 1965 Celtics

[penbeast0]

For this tournament, I will seed 16 of the greatest teams in history by their SRS. I didn't use multiple year iterations of roughly the same team, though the Russell Celtics, Jordan Bulls, and Duncan Spurs are each represented twice.

Each player will be considered to be as dominant against his opponents as he was the year that he played (ie. if you are just going to say the more modern team wins, don't bother to participate). And EACH MATCHUP WILL FEATURE THE RULES, REFEREES, AND EQUIPMENT OF THE OLDER TEAM. This doesn't mean that Steph Curry will be called for carrying each time he tries to dribble, just assume that his handle is proportionately as good relative to the era as it is relative to his own. So, in 65, if you think he has the best handle in today's league, you can assume he has the best handle of that era; if he's roughly average for starting PGs of today's league in terms of that one aspect, you can assume he is roughly average for starting PGs of that era. This hopefully will eliminate a bit of the recency bias. Health is as it was, if a player was 75% during the playoffs that year, assume he's only 75% now, this is a playoff tournament, not a regular season seeding.

One last thing. VOTES WITHOUT ANALYSIS (or with what in my personal subject opinion is stupid analysis) WONT BE COUNTED.

1997 Bulls
Ron Harper
Michael Jordan
Scottie Pippen
Dennis Rodman
Luc Longley

Tony Kukoc
Steve Kerr
Bison Dele

A classic two man team with Jordan scoring 30/game through the playoffs, Pippen 20, and no one else approaching 10 (Kukoc 3rd in scoring at less than 8ppg in 22+ minutes). Dennis Rodman was, as usual for the playoffs, not rebounding at his regular season rates (17.5 reb rate) as he was actually playing man defense rather than cheating off his man to pad stats. The Bulls were the best offensive and 4th best defensive team in a 29 team league.

1965 Celtics
Bill Russell
Satch Sanders
John Havlicek
Sam Jones
KC Jones

Tommy Heinsohn
Willie Naulls
Larry Siegried

The 65 Celtics were, as usual, a defensive juggernaut who tried to exhaust opponents and run them off the court rather than playing efficient offense. Bill Russell was at the peak of his ridiculous defensive dominance and he had defensive studs KC Jones, Havlicek, and Sanders starting. Sam Jones had a career year, scoring 28.6 ppg on 46% through the playoffs and Russell was actually a pretty serious offensive player in the playoffs that year averaging 16.5 ppg (25.2 rebounds!) on .527 from the field. This was countered by his .526 ft% (yes, lower than his fg%) and secondary scorers Havlicek and Heinsohn both shooting miserably (.352 and .365).

Remember that we are playing by 1965 rules, refs, and equipment so there is no three point line and driving the lane is appreciably more difficult due to tightly enforced dribbling rules and the unpadded canvas shoes and wood floors laid directly over concrete. Boston Garden had a notoriously bad floor with dead spots and the like that messed up opposing dribblers; fortunately HCA is in Chicago (there you go JordansBulls!).

Who wins and why?

[pandrade83]

Rule Impact on Chicago

Fairly negligible. Chicago was middle of the pack (12th/29) on 3Pt Attempted & dead last in accuracy. It does, however, seriously de-value Kerr & I'd consider playing Randy Brown instead. Jordan is the GOAT mid-range player and I don't see why this would impact him - moreover, his handles are so skilled that I don't see this severely hampering what he does.

I vote Chicago: Why

Boston was -2.7 on offense & a whopping -9.4 on defense; this is a more extreme version of the '93 Knicks (-1.9/-8.3) team that Chicago beat in '93 while not owning HCA. While it's not the EXACT same Chicago roster, the two most important players overlap - so in some sense, we've seen this movie before.

Moreover, New York's focal point on offense (Ewing) is a relative weakness for Chicago - whereas Boston's attack being funneled through wing players (who are inefficient at that) S. Jones & Hondo seems like a miserable strategy to attack Chicago - so I think Boston would struggle to score even more than those Knicks squads did against the Bulls - and Boston would have even less spacing to attack Chicago with than those Knicks squads did. Boston is obviously marginally better than the Knicks squads defensively & has the GOAT Defender vs. "merely" one of the GOAT Defenders, but I don't think it moves the needle enough. I take the Bulls in 5 or 6 in a brutal defensive slog.

[penbeast0]

I would point out that Sam Jones was not inefficient but above average though not Jerry West/Oscar Robertson level. Havlicek and Heinsoh though . . .

Nice job pandrade83. I do like the matchups for Chicago. Pippen on Jones to limit his slashing/midrange, Harper on Havlicek, leaving Jordan free to freelance off KC Jones who can't hurt you. Rodman on Russell (both will be surprised, I don't think either has ever played someone who could quickjump like the two of them without setting themselves), again, leaving Longley free to freelance off Sanders, though Rodman will probably switch to Heinsohn when he comes in for Sanders. I see Chicago winning this pretty clearly as well.

[trex_8063]

Question: if teams are seeded based on their SRS, why are the '97 Bulls the #1 seed ('96 Bulls, '71 Bucks, possibly one or two others had a higher SRS)?

EDIT: Saw stickied thread. The SRS's listed don't correspond to those on bbref. Is this playoff SRS or something?

[Bel]

I am also confused on the SRS. The 97 Bulls did go through a much harder playoffs by SRS than in 96, so it kinda makes sense, but how do the numbers come out to 12?

I'd consider putting Jordan on Sam Jones and Pippen on KC instead though penbeast. Jordan is the better man defender and Pippen is the better help defender at this point. Then you can switch at times when Jordan needs to conserve energy. Otherwise makes a lot of sense.

The matchups seem to favor the Bulls a lot, as pointed out. The only reason I'm somewhat skeptical of the Bulls is their atrocious hole at center, especially if they aren't allowed to use Wennington on the bench (the Bulls always relied on playing multiple very limited centers to suit their needs at the moment). The rules in the 60's were even more favorable to bigs than in the 90's. However as pandrade noted the Celtics had their main scoring through the perimeter, and nobody is better than Jordan and Pippen at stopping that. So then the question becomes how much can Russell ruin the Bulls offense - the answer is probably a lot, especially if no Wennington shooting threat (since Rodman offers nothing but boards). But nobody is going to stop Jordan in the mid-range or the post, so the Bulls always have a reliable failsafe when nothing else is working.

I vote Chicago in 6.

[penbeast0]

Question: if teams are seeded based on their SRS, why are the '97 Bulls the #1 seed ('96 Bulls, '71 Bucks, possibly one or two others had a higher SRS)?

EDIT: Saw stickied thread. The SRS's listed don't correspond to those on bbref. Is this playoff SRS or something?

Hopefully fixed, took them from an article I was reading without double checking them. Future matches for the Bulls if they win here will use 96 instead and they slip to #2 (and the 99 Spurs slip to the bottom of the pack so this would be 2 v. 15). If you see any other errors, send me a PM, THANKS!

[uberhikari]

The best offensive players on the Celtics are perimeter players. The best defenders on the Bulls (sans Rodman) are perimeter defenders. How do the Celtics actually score enough points vs the Bulls' notorious full court press? Or just in general?

The Bill Russell Celtics were notorious for being pretty bad on offense (they were 7th out of 9 teams in '65). You can argue that Bill Russell will lower the Bulls offensive ceiling, but Bill Russell won't be guarding Jordan. Jordan has proven time and again how resilient his PS offense is. '97 Jordan was starting to slow down (he had a 52.4 TS% in the PS) but the Celtics defense won't be able to stop him. I trust Jordan to score on anybody no matter the circumstances, I do not trust the Celtics offense to score on Harper, Jordan, and Pippen.

I vote Chicago in 5.

[pandrade83]

I sent you a PM - I believe you used the wrong version of the current iteration of the Warriors per BBRef.

[trex_8063]

Rule Impact on Chicago

Fairly negligible. Chicago was middle of the pack (12th/29) on 3Pt Attempted & dead last in accuracy.

Not sure where you got these figures. The '97 Bulls were actually 11th/29 in 3PA/game [I guess they were 12th in makes], though this is despite being only 18th/29 in pace; and they were 6th in the league in 3pt%.
otoh, this is one of the shortened 3pt-line years, so the spacing provided by 3pt shooting wasn't as good as it might be in other years. Nonetheless, I disagree that the lack of the 3pt-line has a negligible effect.

[pandrade83]

Rule Impact on Chicago

Fairly negligible. Chicago was middle of the pack (12th/29) on 3Pt Attempted & dead last in accuracy.

Not sure where you got these figures. The '97 Bulls were actually 11th/29 in 3PA/game [I guess they were 12th in makes], though this is despite being only 18th/29 in pace; and they were 6th in the league in 3pt%.
otoh, this is one of the shortened 3pt-line years, so the spacing provided by 3pt shooting wasn't as good as it might be in other years. Nonetheless, I disagree that the lack of the 3pt-line has a negligible effect.

I'm a moron - I had it sorted by opponent's 3 point shooting.

[trex_8063]

I probably go with the '97 Bulls.

Although I've just said I disagree with the implication that the '97 Bulls are uneffected by the lack of a 3pt-line, I also note that the 3pt line was only 22' that year.....so I'm not sure the effect on spacing is too terribly dramatic. Kerr's effectiveness and importance is somewhat mitigated, obviously, but otherwise I don't see the effects as too huge.
Jordan is proven earlier in his career that he could effective [to an often ridiculous degree] even in an environment of poor spacing, although he's rarely up against a rim-protector of peak Russell's ilk. otoh, he's one of the greatest mid-range shooters ever.
Randy Brown is very likely to be a MORE effective player in a pre-3pt line era (as his relative weaknesses are rendered moot). Brown was a tremendously scrappy defensive player (and like pandrade83 said, I could easily see playing him more than Kerr in this circumstance).

Between Jordan, Pippen, and Ron Harper, the Bulls have an array of excellent covers for Boston's principle scorers (Hondo and Jones), whereas perhaps no one can adequately contain Jordan. Rodman could cover Russell or Heinsohn. If Longley can't keep up with Boston's transition game, Chicago could always go with their smaller [as size isn't an issue], younger and more fleet options of Jason Caffey or Bison Dele.

Ultimately, while I can see the Bulls having a little trouble scoring against the Celtics, I see the Celtics having A LOT of problems scoring against the Bulls. They were already a bit poor offensively, and that core of perimeter defenders Chicago has is the deciding factor for me.
I'll also note the '97 Bulls were #1 in the league in TOV%, which I could see being a limiting factor to Boston's transition game.

[70sFan]

I probably go with the '97 Bulls.

Although I've just said I disagree with the implication that the '97 Bulls are uneffected by the lack of a 3pt-line, I also note that the 3pt line was only 22' that year.....so I'm not sure the effect on spacing is too terribly dramatic. Kerr's effectiveness and importance is somewhat mitigated, obviously, but otherwise I don't see the effects as too huge.
Jordan is proven earlier in his career that he could effective [to an often ridiculous degree] even in an environment of poor spacing, although he's rarely up against a rim-protector of peak Russell's ilk. otoh, he's one of the greatest mid-range shooters ever.
Randy Brown is very likely to be a MORE effective player in a pre-3pt line era (as his relative weaknesses are rendered moot). Brown was a tremendously scrappy defensive player (and like pandrade83 said, I could easily see playing him more than Kerr in this circumstance).

Between Jordan, Pippen, and Ron Harper, the Bulls have an array of excellent covers for Boston's principle scorers (Hondo and Jones), whereas perhaps no one can adequately contain Jordan. Rodman could cover Russell or Heinsohn. If Longley can't keep up with Boston's transition game, Chicago could always go with their smaller [as size isn't an issue], younger and more fleet options of Jason Caffey or Bison Dele.

Ultimately, while I can see the Bulls having a little trouble scoring against the Celtics, I see the Celtics having A LOT of problems scoring against the Bulls. They were already a bit poor offensively, and that core of perimeter defenders Chicago has is the deciding factor for me.
I'll also note the '97 Bulls were #1 in the league in TOV%, which I could see being a limiting factor to Boston's transition game.

Overall good analysis, but I don't agree that Bulls would score on Celtics with only "a little" trouble. Bulls really struggled in ECF and the finals offensively and none of the team they faced was even remotely close to Celtics defensively. They also had quite a few options on Jordan - young Havlicek would be a good choice against older MJ, KC Jones was strong for his size and he played well against Oscar (similar size and strength). Sam Jones would be probably destroyed but he was still more capable than some guys who MJ faced in 1997 playoffs.

Of course you can argue that West did some damage on the Celtics in 1965 finals, but I don't necessary agree. Yeah, he scored almost 34 ppg but on 51%TS (good for 1965, not so good for West) and he had less than 4 apg. On top of that, Lakers were outmatched and Celtics destroyed them by a margin of almost 20 ppg. Not to mention that West was a bit different player than old Jordan, he was quicker and more perimeter-oriented. This is not a good example of how would fully motivated Celtics defense fare against older Jordan.

The questions about Celtics offense are legit though. Sam Jones was great player at his peak and I'm certain that he would do his job. Playing against Jordan and Pippen is a tough ask, but Jones game is a bit similar to Reggie in terms of off-ball movement and Miller always did well against older Chicago teams. Havlicek is more problematic because he wasn't in his prime yet and I don't see him having good offensive series against such a strong defensive team. He was already shut down against talented (but not nearly as dominant) Sixers in the playoffs. You can always count on Russell elevating his performance, but ultimately that wouldn't be enough for the Bulls.

I see this as an fairly fast paced series and that wouldn't help Bulls either. Jordan would have one of his series when he score ~30 ppg but on quite low efficiency and the rest of the Bulls team had terrible numbers, but it's enough because Celtics team would look even worse offensively. Can't see this ending in 4-5 games, it's more like tough physical demanding 6-7 games series and Bulls superior offense would be enough.

Interestlingly, I'm not sure why these teams are picked here. I think that 1962, 1964 Celtics and 1992, 1996 Bulls were better than picked ones.

[iggymcfrack]

Not only is this one of the furthest matchups in terms of raw SRS, but the Celtics also got stretched to 7 games by a 40-40, negative SRS Sixers team (18-17 after trading for Wilt mid-season).

Vote Bulls.

[70sFan]

Not only is this one of the furthest matchups in terms of raw SRS, but the Celtics also got stretched to 7 games by a 40-40, negative SRS Sixers team (18-17 after trading for Wilt mid-season).

Vote Bulls.

It's not that easy though. Greer missed 9 games after Wilt trade, Costello missed 15 games. This team wasn't healthy at the end of the season. Not to mention that unexpected trades during the season leads to adjustements. In next season Sixers had the best record in the league. They weren't probably as good, but it's closer to their potential level than this short 35 games sample.

I picked Chicago myself so it's not like I disagree with your main point.

[penbeast0]

...
Interestlingly, I'm not sure why these teams are picked here. I think that 1962, 1964 Celtics and 1992, 1996 Bulls were better than picked ones.

95 rather than 96 Bulls was a mistake that will be fixed in the second round. 62 Celtics are also included . . . the two are closer in time than I would like but these are the two highest SRS. Ideally would have had one team that featured Cousy, Sharman, Ramsey, Heinsohn and one that featured KC, Sam, Havlicek and Howell. There are 3 teams that duplicate their best player: the Russell Celtics, the Jordan Bulls, and the Duncan Spurs, probably the 3 greatest runs of the post shot clock era.

[eminence]

Rules impacts: No 3 pt line isn't huge in this one imo, but the changes to limit driving are actually a pretty big deal imo, combined with Russell waiting on the interior, scary prospect. I'm not sure if no 3 second rules changes much, if anything Jordan is probably the best off there. Overall I think the Bulls do a good job limiting turnovers vs the frenetic Celtic pace and Jordan can do enough in the halfcourt from the post and midrange to get the Bulls a solid offense. Celtics I don't see getting into any rhythm offensively with their smalls smothered by bigger players, only real hope is for Russell to crush Rodman on the glass, but I don't expect it to happen. Bulls in 6

[penbeast0]

Go check out the real 1 v. 16 match, it's a much tighter call I think.

viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1821688

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

I probably go with the '97 Bulls.


Ultimately, while I can see the Bulls having a little trouble scoring against the Celtics, I see the Celtics having A LOT of problems scoring against the Bulls. They were already a bit poor offensively, and that core of perimeter defenders Chicago has is the deciding factor for me.
I'll also note the '97 Bulls were #1 in the league in TOV%, which I could see being a limiting factor to Boston's transition game.

Overall good analysis, but I don't agree that Bulls would score on Celtics with only "a little" trouble. Bulls really struggled in ECF and the finals offensively and none of the team they faced was even remotely close to Celtics defensively. They also had quite a few options on Jordan - young Havlicek would be a good choice against older MJ, KC Jones was strong for his size and he played well against Oscar (similar size and strength). Sam Jones would be probably destroyed but he was still more capable than some guys who MJ faced in 1997 playoffs.

The question here for me is how does the legendary Celtics defense campare to the Heat and Hawks defense.
I am betting that the Heat and Hawks are better defenses than Celtics especially when consider the rules differences. The Heat and Hawks get to play uncalled illegal zonish defense that wasn't played in the 1960s. I don't think 1960s refs would tolerate the sagging that was normal in the 1980s and 1990s.

Then there is on the ball foul calls. I see 1960s riffing as being tighter. Jordan gets more foul calls on defenders in the 1960s in my opinion but Jordan would also be called for offensive fouls.

Hand checks could not be pushes in the the 1960s.

Russell needs to have a large impact on the Bulls offense for the Celtics to win. I wanted to give Wennington some minutes to pull Russell away from the paint but I see that Wennington was injured for the 1997 playoffs. Russell is a great shot blocker but Jordan is difficult to block without fouling him.

Celtics shooting is not good enough to compete with the Bulls unless the Bulls shooting is like it was vs the Heat in the conference finals.

The Celtics need for the Bulls to have problems adjusting to the rules for the Celtics to win a game but the premise of this thread is for it not to be all about the newer team's difficulty adjusting to the rules. The premise also does not want a stupid pro modernity bias. Modern teams are bigger, (not a center) but Rodman was small.

How do the Bulls deal with the Celtics game of pace and attrition? Jordan has an option of playing some small forward and letting Kerr, Brown, Harper and Buechler play more. If I put a shooter at center for the Bulls Russell would just take Rodman. I think Bison Dele was a mid range shooter. I am thinking that maybe when Rodman rests you could play Dele at center with Kokoc and at forward and Jordan at small forward with 2 guards to try to get Russell's help defense away from Jordan but that only works if Dele can hit open mid range shots.

Celtics were only playing 8 players in 1965. Russel was playing 46 minutes and Jones was playing 41 minutes. They are not really set up to wear the Bulls down.

Havlicek was shooting open 18 footers but he was mostly missing. Somehow Havlicek became a better shooter in the 1970s.
Heinsohn took some strange shots and he made just enough of them for it to be good offense in the early 1960s. By 1965 I see Heinsohn as being a liability on offense and defense. I don't think 1965 Heinsohn can make a 1997 NBA roster.

I think the Bulls win this in 4 or 5 games unless I say Jordan gets a bunch of traveling calls or the Bulls shoot 38% like they did vs the Heat without the Bulls defense reducing the Celtics normal 42% offense to a 35% offense. The Bulls don't get to sag or hand Check hard or get away with uncalled defensive fouls but how are the Celtics supposed to hold the Bulls to 38% when the can't sag, hand check hard or get away with uncalled defensive fouls.

The Celtics only shooting 42% seems insurmountable.

[70sFan]

I probably go with the '97 Bulls.


Ultimately, while I can see the Bulls having a little trouble scoring against the Celtics, I see the Celtics having A LOT of problems scoring against the Bulls. They were already a bit poor offensively, and that core of perimeter defenders Chicago has is the deciding factor for me.
I'll also note the '97 Bulls were #1 in the league in TOV%, which I could see being a limiting factor to Boston's transition game.

Overall good analysis, but I don't agree that Bulls would score on Celtics with only "a little" trouble. Bulls really struggled in ECF and the finals offensively and none of the team they faced was even remotely close to Celtics defensively. They also had quite a few options on Jordan - young Havlicek would be a good choice against older MJ, KC Jones was strong for his size and he played well against Oscar (similar size and strength). Sam Jones would be probably destroyed but he was still more capable than some guys who MJ faced in 1997 playoffs.

The question here for me is how does the legendary Celtics defense campare to the Heat and Hawks defense.
I am betting that the Heat and Hawks are better defenses than Celtics especially when consider the rules differences. The Heat and Hawks get to play uncalled illegal zonish defense that wasn't played in the 1960s. I don't think 1960s refs would tolerate the sagging that was normal in the 1980s and 1990s.

That's not true at all. Players in late 90s pushed illegal defense rules to the limit, they literally screamed at refs to call illegal d. In 1960s we didn't have anything like that, zones weren't allowed but I've never seen refs stopping the game because of zones. Celtics played a lot of help defense and small zones, Russell was himself an one man zone in the paint (unless he played against Wilt).

I don't get this point because late 1990s is the most extreme time for illegal defense in NBA history.

[Dr Positivity]

Super ugly series offensively. Jordan has a lot of trouble slashing with the lack of spacing and Russell protecting the basket, while Celtics don't really have a #1 guy either to go against a fierce Bulls defense. Jordan's resilient midrange shooting game ends up eing the difference. Bulls in 7