NBA GOAT TEAM TOURNAMENT: #4 2017 Warriors v. #13 1962 Boston Celtics

[penbeast0]

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. (Lots of capital letters!)

2017 Golden State Warriors
Stephon Curry
Klay Thompson
Kevin Durant
Draymond Green
(Zaza Pachulia)

Andre Iguolada
David West
Shaun Livingston
Ian Clark
Patrick McCay

How well would one of the teams that relied most on the 3 ball in NBA history do in 1962? They were the top ranked offense in the NBA but also the 2nd ranked defense. They have great players 1-4 and Iggy was a terrific sixth man, playing almost twice the minutes of nominal starters Zaza Pachulia. They also go deeper and more frequently to their bench than most teams so that will help with the pace issues.

1962 BOSTON CELTICS

Bill Russell
Tom Heinsohn
Satch Sanders
Sam Jones
Bob Cousy

KC Jones
Frank Ramsey
Jim Lotscutoff

The fastest paced team in the highest pace success in NBA history. The all time greatest NBA defender who works away from the basket as well as close in with rules that don't allow 3 points for long shots and hurt slashers. On the other hand, the Celtics were 7th out of 9 teams offensively with typically poor playoff shooting by Bob Cousy and surprisingly less than outstanding scoring by Frank Ramsey who normally was a playoff beast. Russell played good offense in the playoffs again, leading the Celtics in scoring with he, Cousy, and Heinsohn all scoring over 20ppg.

WHO WINS?

[pandrade83]

I think GSW is the GOAT Team. However, this tournament is about adapting to different rule changes & opponents.

So let's look at the evidence to see if GSW could do that.

-GSW had the highest 2 pt shooting % in the league
-TOV economy is a weakness; 23rd.
-Golden State had the 2nd best defense in the league.

The offense is clearly not as potent without Steph & Klay spamming 3's; but I still don't trust the Celtics backcourt to be able to successfully defend them; we know that Jerry West was able to inflict significant damage on the Celtics of this era, and I don't see why Steph/Klay couldn't inflict comparable damage. Moreover, you have KD who creates a problem for Boston because if Russell moves out to defend KD (he frequently left guys open for mid-range shots at this time), it opens up cuts for Steph & Klay (particularly Steph) and I struggle to see Boston manufacturing points in this setting.

The absence of a 3 point line clearly takes some of the venom out of GSW's attack, but this squad is still too skilled for Boston to have much of a chance. I won't call it a sweep, but I feel comfortable taking the Warriors.

[Jiminy Glick]

Warriors and it is not close. It would be a sweep. The Celtics can't compete offensively and defensively the Warriors have great players like McCaw, Iguodala, Thompson, Durant, and Green. Even though there is no 3 ball the Warriors shooting would still allow them to get easy scoring. I'm not sold on Russell adjusted for pace being anything drastically more than a 14 rpg player if that, similar to a Capella, so you could even play small with Durant at center and pull Russell out of the paint for it is not like Durant defending Wilt. No one on the Celtics is even as good as a scorer as Thompson let alone Curry or Durant. Also a lot of the Warrior's bench players would be major offensive threats. Looking at the 2017 Warriors roster they are kind've similar to the 2014 Spurs. Also the fact that the Celtics don't have the high quality shooting means the Warriors can play zone and pack the paint, diminishing Russell's rebounding.

[penbeast0]

Celtics have better defense, much better rim protection, better rebounding, superior top end playmaking with Cousy (though Warriors may have better playmaking depth), pretty much better everything except size and shooting. The Warriors have a height advantage with Durant v. Sanders (though not really anywhere else once you add 1-2" to make up for being measured without shoes and Sanders spent more than half his career guarding 4's) and are GREAT GREAT Shooters.

The Celtics were a below average shooting team for their era. But, the Celtics have a MASSIVE advantage at center where Russell scored over 22ppg on above league average shooting for the playoffs (he even shot FTs well that year!) and that was facing Wilt for 7 of his 14 games; Zaza and whatever they can get from JaVale McGee isn't even as impressive as Krebs and Felix from the Lakers in terms of talent). Small ball using the rules of the early 1960s using Draymond or Durant at center might work; but I'd be very surprised if Russell wasn't easily the best player on the floor throughout the series and if he didn't average 20 points and 20 rebounds a game (as he did against far superior competition).

The big questions are if the Celtics can get enough out of their other scorers (Cousy, Heinsohn, and Sam Jones) and if Sanders can do an adequate job against Durant. I am reasonably confident with the Celtics guards matching up enough of the Warrior's guards to keep them from dominating (if Curry gets hot, KC Jones was generally acknowledged the best defensive guard of his era). I see Draymond giving Heinsohn all kinds of trouble but if they have to move him onto Russell he's going to be badly outmatched and Heinsohn v. Durant is a much better matchup for Tommy. Generally if it's me, I use Heinsohn as more of a threat to keep the Warriors forwards honest than as a go to guy and focus my offense on Russell, Sam Jones, and Ramsey.

Warriors might win, I think they have enough defense elsewhere to let Russell abuse them on the boards and in the paint and still pull it off. I would be shocked if it's a sweep.

[penbeast0]

I think GSW is the GOAT Team. However, this tournament is about adapting to different rule changes & opponents.

So let's look at the evidence to see if GSW could do that.

-GSW had the highest 2 pt shooting % in the league
-TOV economy is a weakness; 23rd.
-Golden State had the 2nd best defense in the league.

The offense is clearly not as potent without Steph & Klay spamming 3's; but I still don't trust the Celtics backcourt to be able to successfully defend them; we know that Jerry West was able to inflict significant damage on the Celtics of this era, and I don't see why Steph/Klay couldn't inflict comparable damage. Moreover, you have KD who creates a problem for Boston because if Russell moves out to defend KD (he frequently left guys open for mid-range shots at this time), it opens up cuts for Steph & Klay (particularly Steph) and I struggle to see Boston manufacturing points in this setting.

The absence of a 3 point line clearly takes some of the venom out of GSW's attack, but this squad is still too skilled for Boston to have much of a chance. I won't call it a sweep, but I feel comfortable taking the Warriors.

I don't think West is that great a comp. He was one of the all-time great slashers and foul draw threats as well as a long range threat; Curry and Klay are far more jump shot reliant. Your point about TOV economy is something I have to look at more; thank you.

[Dr Positivity]

While removing the 3 makes it a contest, I still think this is a bad matchup for the Celtics as Russell cannot stop the Warriors shooting as much as shots at the rim. He massacres them on the boards however. The Celtics would have a good chance against the 2016 team but I think the difference here is Durant who's midrange scoring makes him devastating in this era. Boston has a legit top 7 but I have to assume being forced to give minutes to Jim Lostucoff (15mpg in the playoffs) or Carl Braun, Gary Phillips or Gene Guarilia is a slight disadvantage. Vote Warriors

[pandrade83]

I think GSW is the GOAT Team. However, this tournament is about adapting to different rule changes & opponents.

So let's look at the evidence to see if GSW could do that.

-GSW had the highest 2 pt shooting % in the league
-TOV economy is a weakness; 23rd.
-Golden State had the 2nd best defense in the league.

The offense is clearly not as potent without Steph & Klay spamming 3's; but I still don't trust the Celtics backcourt to be able to successfully defend them; we know that Jerry West was able to inflict significant damage on the Celtics of this era, and I don't see why Steph/Klay couldn't inflict comparable damage. Moreover, you have KD who creates a problem for Boston because if Russell moves out to defend KD (he frequently left guys open for mid-range shots at this time), it opens up cuts for Steph & Klay (particularly Steph) and I struggle to see Boston manufacturing points in this setting.

The absence of a 3 point line clearly takes some of the venom out of GSW's attack, but this squad is still too skilled for Boston to have much of a chance. I won't call it a sweep, but I feel comfortable taking the Warriors.

I don't think West is that great a comp. He was one of the all-time great slashers and foul draw threats as well as a long range threat; Curry and Klay are far more jump shot reliant. Your point about TOV economy is something I have to look at more; thank you.

I was thinking more along the lines of Boston's defense being vulnerable to a perimeter threat.

Steph's fta : 2 pt ratio is fairly high & he is a better shooter than West with better handles. While Klay's ft : 2 pt ratio is not high, his raw size is a problem for Boston to deal with & I have no idea how Boston would be able to play him since they don't have anyone who will be able to bother him.

[eminence]

'17 Warriors are my GOAT team and I don't think the rule changes are enough to de-rail them here. Even just bombing long contested 2's Steph/Klay/KD could have an above average offense in '62. I don't think this will be a great matchup for Russell defensively as the Warriors get their shots at the rim much more through spreading a defense out and hitting cutters than most teams. Boston's best shot is to absolutely crush them on the boards, and they might, but I'm just not sold on their offense, I don't think they can consistently generate good looks against the Warriors (or anyone really). I'll say the Warriors go cold in 1 or 2, but if they're on I don't think the Celtics can keep up or really bother them. Warriors in 5.

*And just a side note, for all these series I assume the teams have seen each other play for a regular season in advance, it's not out of the blue. I feel this is especially important for Curry as otherwise his off-ball wizardry would absolutely blitz teams who weren't prepared for him.

[trex_8063]

'17 Warriors are my GOAT team and I don't think the rule changes are enough to de-rail them here. Even just bombing long contested 2's Steph/Klay/KD could have an above average offense in '62. I don't think this will be a great matchup for Russell defensively as the Warriors get their shots at the rim much more through spreading a defense out and hitting cutters than most teams. Boston's best shot is to absolutely crush them on the boards, and they might, but I'm just not sold on their offense, I don't think they can consistently generate good looks against the Warriors (or anyone really). I'll say the Warriors go cold in 1 or 2, but if they're on I don't think the Celtics can keep up or really bother them. Warriors in 5.

*And just a side note, for all these series I assume the teams have seen each other play for a regular season in advance, it's not out of the blue. I feel this is especially important for Curry as otherwise his off-ball wizardry would absolutely blitz teams who weren't prepared for him.

I agree with the bolded. GS frequently went small-ball (though fwiw, their size in those line-ups will still be formidable/comparable to Boston) and rebounding was one area in which they did not excell: they were 29th/30 in DREB% (and only 18th in OREB%), and the Celtics, well......they have Bill Russell. This seems like it's setting the stage for a very lop-sided rebounding contest.

Will it be enough to off-set the vastly superior shooting of the '17 Warriors, though? idk.

Tom Sanders is a really nice defender, but few people have great success stopping Durant in the mid-range, and Sanders is giving up like 5" to KD......that's a problem, imo.

I somewhat disagree with earlier characterizations of Curry as just a jump-shooter. He did get to the rim for 22% of his attempts that year (where he's a crafty and often underrated finisher: 64.2% from <3' that year, which is not at all an outlier [64.6% for his career]). Now, with the ball-handling restrictions, that is going to mitigate his handle a little.
Jerry West is still an OK(ish) comparison for him on offense (probably the closest 60's player comparison we can find, anyway), though I agree West would be a superior slasher in this era/circumstance (West was more about angles when he drove, as opposed to juking his man with the handle). Curry doesn't get up anywhere near as high for his jumper, but his release is so GOAT-level quick, that I still think he'll find clearance to shoot.

Obviously Curry's court-warping gravity will be mostly eliminated without a 3pt line. Yeah, he might still bury 23-25 footers at 45% or so, but when he's not getting the extra point for those, I think the Celtics can be content to live with that and only lightly contest from that distance (which is an entirely different circumstance to the present day where teams are terrified of Curry getting a light contest from even 27-28'). It's hard to say just how much this difference is going to effect the Warrior offensive attack, but it certainly should not be discounted.

I'll also say that KC Jones might be a fantastic cover for Curry. otoh, if you play KC more, that means less of your best playmaker.

So idk, I think this'll be more competitive than some are giving it credit for.
Ultimately though, I think depth and vastly superior shooting wins the day.
Vote: '17 Warriors (though I think it'll be perhaps a 6-game series; and fwiw there are few---if any---teams I think can beat the '17 Warriors)

[penbeast0]

I was thinking more along the lines of Boston's defense being vulnerable to a perimeter threat.

Steph's fta : 2 pt ratio is fairly high & he is a better shooter than West with better handles. While Klay's ft : 2 pt ratio is not high, his raw size is a problem for Boston to deal with & I have no idea how Boston would be able to play him since they don't have anyone who will be able to bother him.

Klay is a 6'7 jump shooter; Sam jones is a 6'4 is stocking feet (ie. 6'5 to 6'6) swingman. I don't think it's a mismatch based on height. Stephen Curry is a 6'3 shooter who is not among the best handles in the league and most likely not considered better than West relative to the league's they played in; Cousy 6'1 at (ie. 6-2 to 6-3) is more Rajon Rondo or maybe Kyrie Irving in terms of handles. Durant is listed at 6'9, Green at 6'7 v. Heinsohn at 6'7 (6'8 to 6'9) and Sanders at 6-6 (6'7 to 6'8); they switch off based on offense/defense. Again, not seeing mismatches. 1-2 inch height differences at best though favoring GS.

Skill is a different question. I don't see Curry being more of a threat to drive than a Larry Costello or Richie Guerin type, I do see him as probably the best outside shooter in any league at any time in the history of the NBA, looking at either 2 or 3 pointers. Thompson is another great outside shooter but he isn't going to be successful posting up Sam Jones and neither Steph nor Klay is going to be hugely successful attacking the rim or the short midrange against Russell. Durant is another great shooter; Draymond without a 3 is not. Again, I don't see Durant posting up Sanders who dealt with bigger and stronger PF types than Durant throughout most of his career--but Durant is another player who will be a candidate for GOAT pure shooter in any version of the NBA at any point in NBA history. That's the problem, not size, not ability to get to the hoop, but GREAT shooting and a well designed offense that works hard to get those shots free.

I've never been a big Auerbach fan but on this board he has generally been considered top 1-3 coach of all time. Do you think he outcoaches Kerr enough to offset HCA?

[eminence]

I guess we have a disagreement on skills here, to me Curry absolutely does have elite handles, not quite Cousy, but I'd put him clearly above West and Guerin and the like. And listing KD at 6'9 to me is silly, we all know he's notably taller than that (he claims to measure 6'10 3/4'' in socks).

[trex_8063]

I was thinking more along the lines of Boston's defense being vulnerable to a perimeter threat.

Steph's fta : 2 pt ratio is fairly high & he is a better shooter than West with better handles. While Klay's ft : 2 pt ratio is not high, his raw size is a problem for Boston to deal with & I have no idea how Boston would be able to play him since they don't have anyone who will be able to bother him.

Klay is a 6'7 jump shooter; Sam jones is a 6'4 is stocking feet (ie. 6'5 to 6'6) swingman. I don't think it's a mismatch based on height. Stephen Curry is a 6'3 shooter who is not among the best handles in the league and most likely not considered better than West relative to the league's they played in; Cousy 6'1 at (ie. 6-2 to 6-3) is more Rajon Rondo or maybe Kyrie Irving in terms of handles. Durant is listed at 6'9, Green at 6'7 v. Heinsohn at 6'7 (6'8 to 6'9) and Sanders at 6-6 (6'7 to 6'8); they switch off based on offense/defense. Again, not seeing mismatches. 1-2 inch height differences at best though favoring GS.

fwiw, Kevin Durant is not 6'9" (despite the bbref listing). I found at least two separate articles on DraftExpress from 2007 (as an 18-year-old freshman in college) citing him as 6'10" already (likely not done growing).
He's commonly referred to as "7-foot" by commentators.
And here are some photos....



.....In ^^this one where he looks the same height (if not maybe ~0.25" taller??) as Nick Collison [who's listed as 6'10"], and probably ~0.5" taller than Serge Ibaka [who's also listed 6'10"]. I found another photo next to Serge where he again looks marginally taller, for consistency/camera angle/etc.

Here he is next to DeMarcus Cousins [who's listed 6'11"] where he actually appears slightly taller:



Next to Lebron [listed 6'8"], and looking AT LEAST 2" taller:


For reference, here's Lebron standing next to Kevin Love [who's listed 6'10"]:


Here's next to Greg Oden [who was later listed 7'0"] on draft day:



I'll stop there, but you get the idea. It's I think fairly commonly held at this point that Durant is more like 6'11"+ in shoes (roughly 6'10" barefoot). He's intentionally kept his height-listing low I think to be more "cast" as a SF, as that fits him stylistically. And his wingspan is [I think] something like 7'4", so his effective height is perhaps even more.

So his height advantage on Satch, for instance, is probably a solid 4" (and 3" on Heinsohn).

[Jiminy Glick]

I wouldn't even play Zaza if Russell is in the game, I'd play McGee. And as we know he is very dangerous when it comes to lobs and he is valuable defensively because of his length and athleticism. Players like Clark and Livingston were efficient scorers as well that year. The Warriors just have so many options and have the 3 best offensive players. They also have 3 out of the top 5 defensive players in the match up as well.

[ShotCreator]

The Warriors defense makes me confident. There is just no way Boston’s offense outscores them.

GS made Cleveland’s ridiculous offense look lottery level for two straight games.

Guarding 4-5 great shooters, the goat slasher and an all-league offensive guard, and slammed them below 100 ORTG to open up the series in the oracle.

I’d be surprised if Boston had even one good offensive output against them in all seriousness.

[penbeast0]

I wouldn't even play Zaza if Russell is in the game, I'd play McGee. And as we know he is very dangerous when it comes to lobs and he is valuable defensively because of his length and athleticism. Players like Clark and Livingston were efficient scorers as well that year. The Warriors just have so many options and have the 3 best offensive players. They also have 3 out of the top 5 defensive players in the match up as well.

You play JaVale McGee starter minutes and I vote the Celtics to win this. The smartest center in the history of the NBA against arguably the dumbest . . . yeah, I'll take that.

[penbeast0]

I guess we have a disagreement on skills here, to me Curry absolutely does have elite handles, not quite Cousy, but I'd put him clearly above West and Guerin and the like. And listing KD at 6'9 to me is silly, we all know he's notably taller than that (he claims to measure 6'10 3/4'' in socks).

Safe to say, I have no more idea that anyone else what these players actual heights are since NBA heights are "based on a true story." I had thought KD was being called 6-10 or 6-11 too but most times when the listed heights start coming down, it's a reversal to reality. This, admittedly, may be different. There's always an exception to every rule.

[penbeast0]

I guess we have a disagreement on skills here, to me Curry absolutely does have elite handles, not quite Cousy, but I'd put him clearly above West and Guerin and the like. And listing KD at 6'9 to me is silly, we all know he's notably taller than that (he claims to measure 6'10 3/4'' in socks).

Again, you aren't measuring him against guys from the 60s who played with completely different dribbling rules, you are measuring Curry against the current NBA starting PGs and saying, "What tier is he?"

Then you measure Cousy, or West, or whoever against his competition playing the same rules as he did and ask again, "What tier is he?"

Cousy was almost universally considered the best ballhandler and passer of his era, at least through 1960. By 62, he was still top tier but Oscar or Lenny Wilkens might have been considered peers.

Curry isn't what I think of as top tier today. The two players I mentioned, Rondo and Irving, appear to have clearly superior handles to him. I'd call him closer to an average PG than one of the true elites solely in terms of handles. It's his ridiculous stroke that sets him apart.

[Jiminy Glick]

I wouldn't even play Zaza if Russell is in the game, I'd play McGee. And as we know he is very dangerous when it comes to lobs and he is valuable defensively because of his length and athleticism. Players like Clark and Livingston were efficient scorers as well that year. The Warriors just have so many options and have the 3 best offensive players. They also have 3 out of the top 5 defensive players in the match up as well.

You play JaVale McGee starter minutes and I vote the Celtics to win this. The smartest center in the history of the NBA against arguably the dumbest . . . yeah, I'll take that.

Oh com'on stop picking on the guy. Would you say that to him if you were talking to him? He can be a major threat on the court. If Russell doesn't guard him he is going to get a lot of lobs, he may even do well with Russell on him. Russell is the only guy listed at or near 6' 10" on the team. McGee could very well have huge games. If Curry or Durant for example are driving to the basket Russell is going to have to make a choice. The Celtics would get destroyed. The game has evolved a lot since then.

[penbeast0]

I wouldn't even play Zaza if Russell is in the game, I'd play McGee. And as we know he is very dangerous when it comes to lobs and he is valuable defensively because of his length and athleticism. Players like Clark and Livingston were efficient scorers as well that year. The Warriors just have so many options and have the 3 best offensive players. They also have 3 out of the top 5 defensive players in the match up as well.

You play JaVale McGee starter minutes and I vote the Celtics to win this. The smartest center in the history of the NBA against arguably the dumbest . . . yeah, I'll take that.

Oh com'on stop picking on the guy. Would you say that to him if you were talking to him? He can be a major threat on the court especially on the Warriors. If Russell doesn't guard him he is going to get lobs.

I'm a Wizards fan. I suffered through multiple of years of JaVale putting up highlight talent plays interwoven with his perennial Shaqtin the Fool all time highlights (and he was playing with Andre Blatche, Nick Young, etc. which didn't help). OF course he has talent, but he is legitimately the closest think in the NBA to brain dead we've seen since John Drew . . . and that may be unfair to the guy nicknamed "Cementhead."

Oh, and Russell was the GOAT at (among other things) leaving his man to challenge a shooter and still getting back to stop a play while JaVale isn't going to understand (instinctually or otherwise) the subtleties of positioning to make that as difficult as possible. The Warriors main lineup in 17 was the small ball lineup with Iggy instead of any center at all. They bet on making back on turnovers, swarming, and quickness what they give up in the middle. Russell will make them pay for that but if they give him 25/25, I think the Warriors are still such a good shooting team and with such fine perimeter defense against the Celtics smaller players that they can win anyway. But JaVale is NOT the answer; there's a reason he's backing up the far less talented Zaza Pachulia and then that the Warriors let him go.

[70sFan]

I wouldn't even play Zaza if Russell is in the game, I'd play McGee. And as we know he is very dangerous when it comes to lobs and he is valuable defensively because of his length and athleticism. Players like Clark and Livingston were efficient scorers as well that year. The Warriors just have so many options and have the 3 best offensive players. They also have 3 out of the top 5 defensive players in the match up as well.

You play JaVale McGee starter minutes and I vote the Celtics to win this. The smartest center in the history of the NBA against arguably the dumbest . . . yeah, I'll take that.

Oh com'on stop picking on the guy. Would you say that to him if you were talking to him? He can be a major threat on the court. If Russell doesn't guard him he is going to get a lot of lobs, he may even do well with Russell on him. Russell is the only guy listed at or near 6' 10" on the team. McGee could very well have huge games. If Curry or Durant for example are driving to the basket Russell is going to have to make a choice. The Celtics would get destroyed. The game has evolved a lot since then.

Are you trying to tell me that Russell wouldn't be able to defend lobs? Seriously?