RealGM

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.

1986 BOSTON CELTICS (Coach KC Jones)

C Robert Parish
PF Kevin McHale
SF Larry Bird
SG Danny Ainge
PG Dennis Johnson

C/F Bill Walton
G Jerry Sichting

Last time we did this, the 1986 Celtics won the whole tournament. 4 deep in HOF big men with Bill Walton having only the 2nd healthy playoff of his career and a strong defensive backcourt made for a dominant team even in this earlier era of superteams. Kevin McHale outplayed a young Hakeem Olujawon in the finals. 1986 rules and refs with the Celics taking about 6 3PA per game, over half by Larry Bird. Bird and Walton also gave them probably the greatest interior passing team to ever play. On the downside, top wing reserve Scott Wedman was injured and only played in 1 game of the finals leaving them with only Walton and Sichting as keys off the bench.

2000 Los Angeles Lakers (Coach Phil Jackson)

C Shaquille O'Neal
PF (AC Green)
SF Glen Rice
SG Kobe Bryant
PG Ron Harper

F Robert Horry
G Bryan Shaw
G Derek Fisher
F Rick Fox

The best of the 3-peat Lakers in the regular season, the 2000 Lakers were a little weaker than the next year in the postseason but overall were a better team. Shaq is the most uncoverable player since Wilt Chamberlain (maybe ever) and Kobe had come into his own as a superstar and was playing very good defense as well. Most of their other rotation players could shoot open threes with the team averaging twice as many 3's as the older style Celtics (though shooting only .329 from 3 for the season v. .351 for Boston). And, Phil Jackson v. KC Jones is a coaching advantage.

I'd go with the 1986 Celtics in 6. A championship core that already won ain't going to choke under pressure.

This is where the format gets trickiest since Boston technically plays in the 3pt era, so do we give the Lakers credit for shooting more 3s even if they aren't a much more talented shooting team? Or do we allow Boston to have "modern knowledge" and shoot more 3s than they did in their era?

Overall I think the Celtics have the deeper team though. Walton giving them those old man Sabonis minutes against Shaq is an X factor. With Kobe not quite as good as the year after, I think they aren't ready to beat the Celtics. Celtics in 6

Boston in 5. I'm thinking about the Portland series - Portland was able to keep Shaq from completely destroying them & Boston is better equipped to "hold" him to 27/12 or whatever with their elite front line and don't have to help off the shooters as much as other teams. Because if they're able to do that, the Lakers don't have enough scoring from elsewhere to keep pace. There's just not enough firepower & while I think they can slow Boston down some - it's not enough.

I'm afraid I agree. I'd take Shaq/Kobe over Bird/McHale but the Celtics 3-6 are so strong and the Lakers 3-6 are pretty weak for a title team so the Celtics should take this pretty clearly.

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.

This part of the rules really screws the Lakers because Kobe hurt his ankle in the Finals.

In any event, 21 y/o Kobe is out of his depth here. Plus, the 2000 Lakers PS defense was suspect. While they were #1 in the RS, they were 13th out of 16 teams in the PS. That defense is not good enough to stop the Celtics.

Bostin in 4 or 5

The '86 Celtics aren't going to choke away a playoff series.

Usually if the top two players are clearly superior than you favor that team. Shaq is clearly superior to Larry Bird and Kobe is clearly superior to Kevin Mchale. So I go with Lakers in 6 or 7

ThaRegul8r wrote:The '86 Celtics aren't going to choke away a playoff series.

When did 2000 lakers choke? It's not choking if you close the deal in game 7. Kobe took over in game 7 WCF and was very clutch. Than in 2000 finals game 4 Kobe took over again in OT and was clutch again. That entire run was about being clutch actually.

HBK_Kliq_33 wrote:Usually if the top two players are clearly superior than you favor that team. Shaq is clearly superior to Larry Bird and Kobe is clearly superior to Kevin Mchale. So I go with Lakers in 6 or 7

ThaRegul8r wrote:The '86 Celtics aren't going to choke away a playoff series.

When did 2000 lakers choke? It's not choking if you close the deal in game 7. Kobe took over in game 7 WCF and was very clutch. Than in 2000 finals game 4 Kobe took over again in OT and was clutch again. That entire run was about being clutch actually.

Not really sold on 2000 Kobe being clearly superior to 86 McHale who was a monster post player plus a very good defender and rebounder. Even 86 Bird isn't that far down from 2000 Shaq imo. With regard to the choking comment I think they are referring to the Blazers. They are saying that if the Celtics get them down they won't let the Lakers come back.

Cavsfansince84 wrote:

HBK_Kliq_33 wrote:Usually if the top two players are clearly superior than you favor that team. Shaq is clearly superior to Larry Bird and Kobe is clearly superior to Kevin Mchale. So I go with Lakers in 6 or 7

ThaRegul8r wrote:The '86 Celtics aren't going to choke away a playoff series.

When did 2000 lakers choke? It's not choking if you close the deal in game 7. Kobe took over in game 7 WCF and was very clutch. Than in 2000 finals game 4 Kobe took over again in OT and was clutch again. That entire run was about being clutch actually.

Not really sold on 2000 Kobe being clearly superior to 86 McHale who was a monster post player plus a very good defender and rebounder. Even 86 Bird isn't that far down from 2000 Shaq imo. With regard to the choking comment I think they are referring to the Blazers. They are saying that if the Celtics get them down they won't let the Lakers come back.

Shaq was easily the better defensive player and that's when that debate pretty much ends as the offense is at worse for Shaq even.

Portland had Pippen and Rasheed Wallace two of the greatest help defenders ever still at the beginning and end of their primes. I don't see that type of defensive impact and tough matchup on 86 Celtics.

HBK_Kliq_33 wrote:

Cavsfansince84 wrote:

HBK_Kliq_33 wrote:Usually if the top two players are clearly superior than you favor that team. Shaq is clearly superior to Larry Bird and Kobe is clearly superior to Kevin Mchale. So I go with Lakers in 6 or 7



When did 2000 lakers choke? It's not choking if you close the deal in game 7. Kobe took over in game 7 WCF and was very clutch. Than in 2000 finals game 4 Kobe took over again in OT and was clutch again. That entire run was about being clutch actually.

Not really sold on 2000 Kobe being clearly superior to 86 McHale who was a monster post player plus a very good defender and rebounder. Even 86 Bird isn't that far down from 2000 Shaq imo. With regard to the choking comment I think they are referring to the Blazers. They are saying that if the Celtics get them down they won't let the Lakers come back.

Shaq was easily the better defensive player and that's when that debate pretty much ends as the offense is at worse for Shaq even.

Portland had Pippen and Rasheed Wallace two of the greatest help defenders ever still at the beginning and end of their primes. I don't see that type of defensive impact and tough matchup on 86 Celtics.

Boston was better defensively than Portland: -4.6 vs. -3.3 & had several good defensive players in DJ, McHale, Walton, Bird, even Parish.

HBK_Kliq_33 wrote:
Shaq was easily the better defensive player and that's when that debate pretty much ends as the offense is at worse for Shaq even.

Portland had Pippen and Rasheed Wallace two of the greatest help defenders ever still at the beginning and end of their primes. I don't see that type of defensive impact and tough matchup on 86 Celtics.

I didn't say Bird was better. What I said is I didn't think the gap wasn't that big. I was replying to someone who said Shaq and Kobe were clearly superior to Bird and McHale.

Cavsfansince84 wrote:

HBK_Kliq_33 wrote:
Shaq was easily the better defensive player and that's when that debate pretty much ends as the offense is at worse for Shaq even.

Portland had Pippen and Rasheed Wallace two of the greatest help defenders ever still at the beginning and end of their primes. I don't see that type of defensive impact and tough matchup on 86 Celtics.

I didn't say Bird was better. What I said is I didn't think the gap wasn't that big. I was replying to someone who said Shaq and Kobe were clearly superior to Bird and McHale.

Yeah that was me, what I'm saying is the gap on Shaqs defense and Birds defense is what makes Shaq clearly better. I rarely have ever seen people put any Bird season over 2000 Shaq.

HBK_Kliq_33 wrote:

Cavsfansince84 wrote:

HBK_Kliq_33 wrote:
Shaq was easily the better defensive player and that's when that debate pretty much ends as the offense is at worse for Shaq even.

Portland had Pippen and Rasheed Wallace two of the greatest help defenders ever still at the beginning and end of their primes. I don't see that type of defensive impact and tough matchup on 86 Celtics.

I didn't say Bird was better. What I said is I didn't think the gap wasn't that big. I was replying to someone who said Shaq and Kobe were clearly superior to Bird and McHale.

Yeah that was me, what I'm saying is the gap on Shaqs defense and Birds defense is what makes Shaq clearly better. I rarely have ever seen people put any Bird season over 2000 Shaq.

I wasn't putting him over him either but peak Bird also didn't have the ft weakness that Shaq had. I'd say McHale is more a wash with Kobe but had a higher bb iq which fits in well with the Celtics style of play.

HBK_Kliq_33 wrote:...
Portland had Pippen and Rasheed Wallace two of the greatest help defenders ever still at the beginning and end of their primes. I don't see that type of defensive impact and tough matchup on 86 Celtics.

Since when was Rasheed considered a great help defender. He was a very good man defender but that's as far as I would go. He had neither the shotblocking nor the motor to be a great help defender.

Boston were well equiped to make Shaq play at his average level (instead of GOAT). Parish was really good post defender, he did fair job on young Shaq when he was old and he had success against Moses (probably more than anyone). On the other hand, he sometimes struggled with Gilmore, but Artis was quite different challenge than Shaq (less agressive but more methodical, for some tougher to contain). Even then, they also have Walton (huge long guy with excellent fundamentals and defensive instinct) and Greg Kite (tough MF who was perfect body under the basket against Shaq to foul him hard). You can't stop Shaq, but they might do similar job to Portland.

At the same time, Lakers don't have anyone against McHale. Without at least 2 good post defenders, Kevin would dominate them. Look what he did to Houston Twin Towers, that would be beautiful to watch. I don't think Lakers would do much against Bird either, he was on fire for the whole playoffs.

Kobe had health issues in playoffs and he wouldn't be that much of a factor. He certainly wasn't as good as 1986 Jordan to do what MJ did, health wouldn't help either. Even his man defense wouldn't be helpful here, Dennis played against anyone the same.

Cavsfansince84 wrote:

HBK_Kliq_33 wrote:

Cavsfansince84 wrote:
I didn't say Bird was better. What I said is I didn't think the gap wasn't that big. I was replying to someone who said Shaq and Kobe were clearly superior to Bird and McHale.

Yeah that was me, what I'm saying is the gap on Shaqs defense and Birds defense is what makes Shaq clearly better. I rarely have ever seen people put any Bird season over 2000 Shaq.

I wasn't putting him over him either but peak Bird also didn't have the ft weakness that Shaq had. I'd say McHale is more a wash with Kobe but had a higher bb iq which fits in well with the Celtics style of play.

I actually agree here. At Peak Shaq and Bird, I think is a debate.

I know most would take Shaq but there is a case for Bird I feel. Between his offensive playmaking, clutch and perimeter shooting.

If I rate Peak MJ a 100, I'd give Shaq a 99 and Bird a 98.

penbeast0 wrote:

HBK_Kliq_33 wrote:...
Portland had Pippen and Rasheed Wallace two of the greatest help defenders ever still at the beginning and end of their primes. I don't see that type of defensive impact and tough matchup on 86 Celtics.

Since when was Rasheed considered a great help defender. He was a very good man defender but that's as far as I would go. He had neither the shotblocking nor the motor to be a great help defender.

His block percentage was 4.5 and 4.7 during pistons finals runs. During 2000 his block percentage was 2.7 better than KG when Celtics won the title. Blazers has god awful defenders like Damon stoudamire Steve smith and even sabonis was washed up. It was pippen and Rasheed Wallace help defense and man defense that made them elite.

Dr Positivity wrote:This is where the format gets trickiest since Boston technically plays in the 3pt era, so do we give the Lakers credit for shooting more 3s even if they aren't a much more talented shooting team? Or do we allow Boston to have "modern knowledge" and shoot more 3s than they did in their era?

Overall I think the Celtics have the deeper team though. Walton giving them those old man Sabonis minutes against Shaq is an X factor. With Kobe not quite as good as the year after, I think they aren't ready to beat the Celtics. Celtics in 6

The way pen has asked us to think about things, I interpret that the more modern team is to be as elite/poor at whatever skillset as they were for their own time period.
As such, I think the '86 Celtics are the better 3pt shooting team in this match-up. '00 Lakers were 17th (of 29) in 3PA/game and 3PAr, and 25th in 3pt%.
The '86 Celtics were 5th (of 23) in 3PAr (4th in 3PA/game) and #1 in 3pt% (and actually straight up better %-wise than the '00 Lakers). I think Bird and Ainge are the two most dangerous 3pt shooters in the series ('86 Bird being dangerous even by TODAY's standards of 3pt-shooting).

Don't have a ton of time, but I wanted to get my pick in.

Vote: '86 Celtics (6 games??)

A little weaker in terms of star-power at the top, but better depth imo [EDIT: at least at ~3-6], and better shooting. Walton is somewhat an X-factor, in that I think he'd do a nice job defending Shaq (Parish not bad either), and I think both force Shaq to expend energy/attention on the defensive end. McHale provides some defensive versatility and rim protection.
'86 Celtics are just one of the tip-top all-time great two-way teams, imo.

Hope that's enough to have my vote count.