GOAT TEAM TOURNAMENT (round 2) 1996 Chicago Bulls v. 1986 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.

1996 CHICAGO BULLS (Coach Phil Jackson)

PG Ron Harper
SG Michael Jordan
SF Scottie Pippen
PF Dennis Rodman
(C Luc Longley)

F Toni Kukoc
G Steve Kerr

The Bulls rely even more on Michael Jordan in the playoffs as he averaged over 30 ppg with Pippen averaging under 17 and 6th man Toni Kukoc the only other player averaging 10 ppg. On the other hand, this unipolar attack does feature a variety of ways to attack as Jordan had refined his post up game as well as his stop and pop to go with his traditional slashing attack. 10 years later than their opponents, the Bulls took just over 20 3PA/G during the playoffs although only Kerr was particularly efficient with Jordan being above average efficiency because of his foul draw. This was the shortened 3 point line too so it may overstate the Bulls' 3 point shooting. For the regular season, the Bulls were very efficient, the best offensive team AND the best defensive team in the league.

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 and the Bulls have HCA as JordansBulls would put it. The Celtics were the best defensive team in the league in the regular season but only the 3rd best offensive team but they stepped it up in the playoffs led by Larry Bird's 25.9ppg on .618ts%.

[penbeast0]

When I looked at these teams, what really stuck out to me was how the efficiency differential changed for the playoffs. Boston was led in ts% by 25ppg scorers Bird (.618) and McHale (.636) with Ainge and Walton averaging over .600 ts% as well. Chicago was the more impressive regular season offense but in the playoffs, while Jordan maintained a good, if not great, ts% (.560 v. .582 in the regular season), Pippen and Kukoc, the next two leading scorers dropped from regular season efficiencies of .551 and .589 to .473 and .484. Only Steve Kerr (6.8ppg) managed to break the .600 ts% barrier. Part of this was opposing defenses of course, but I think I have to go with Boston unless someone can convince me this isn't going to be a precursor of what would happen in this series. Boston will have it's way inside and has enough outside shooting (Bird, Ainge, Sichting, even DJ) to keep the Bulls from packing the lane and Longley isn't that much of an obstacle.

[colts18]

One thing that has to be mentioned is how badly Chicago is hurt by playing with a regular 3 point line instead of a shortened line. Chicago benefited heavily from the shortened 3 point line.

Bulls 3 point shooting:
Shortened 3 point line:
96: 40.3% (3rd), 15th in attempts, 1st in Offense
97: 37.3% (6th), 11th in attempts, 1st in Offense

3 point line moves back to regular distance:
98: 32.3% (23rd), 13th in attempts, 9th in Offense

MJ:
91-93: 32.4% on 1.8 3PA/G

95-97: 40.4% on 3.3 3PA/G

98: 23.8% on 1.5 3PA/G

Pippen:

91-94: 27.9% on 1.4 3PA/G

95-97: 36.4% on 4.8 3PA/G

98: 31.8% on 4.4 3PA/G

Even Steve Kerr went from 52 3P% in 96 to 44 3P% in 98

[penbeast0]

I had forgotten that. I will add a line to the OP.

[tihsad]

One thing that has to be mentioned is how badly Chicago is hurt by playing with a regular 3 point line instead of a shortened line. Chicago benefited heavily from the shortened 3 point line.

Bulls 3 point shooting:
Shortened 3 point line:
96: 40.3% (3rd), 15th in attempts, 1st in Offense
97: 37.3% (6th), 11th in attempts, 1st in Offense

3 point line moves back to regular distance:
98: 32.3% (23rd), 13th in attempts, 9th in Offense

MJ:
91-93: 32.4% on 1.8 3PA/G

95-97: 40.4% on 3.3 3PA/G

98: 23.8% on 1.5 3PA/G

Pippen:

91-94: 27.9% on 1.4 3PA/G

95-97: 36.4% on 4.8 3PA/G

98: 31.8% on 4.4 3PA/G

Even Steve Kerr went from 52 3P% in 96 to 44 3P% in 98

In 96' PS the Bulls took 20.8 3s per game, and made 6.3 for a 30% rate. This, of course, as we saw at the time closed the game in. The 86' Celts in the PS took 6.7 3s per game, and made 2.5 for a 38% rate. The Bulls shot above 45% for 2 points throughout the playoffs, how is taking away the short line a hindrance for Chicago?

[iggymcfrack]

Regular season
Bulls: 72 wins, +11.8 SRS
Celtics: 68 wins, +9.1 SRS

Postseason
Bulls: 15-3, ORtg 11.9 points higher than DRtg (avg. opponent +4.1 SRS)
Celtics: 15-3, ORtg 10.4 points higher than DRtg (avg. opponent +2.6 SRS)

So the Bulls were the better regular season team and had the more dominant postseason performance against tougher competition. They also have homecourt and the X factor of Michael Jordan who’s probably the best clutch player of all-time whereas Bird often underperformed in the biggest games, posting a lower PER in the playoffs than the regular season every year from ‘82 through ‘88.

Also, I find the idea that the Bulls would struggle without the shorter 3-point line to be specious at best as they ranked 8th out of 16 playoff teams in 3-point makes and 11th out of 16 playoff teams in 3-point percentage.

Basically, while the edges may be small and the Celtics may be close, it still seems like the Bulls have the edge in every single area. I’m voting Bulls in 6.

[iggymcfrack]

When I looked at these teams, what really stuck out to me was how the efficiency differential changed for the playoffs. Boston was led in ts% by 25ppg scorers Bird (.618) and McHale (.636) with Ainge and Walton averaging over .600 ts% as well. Chicago was the more impressive regular season offense but in the playoffs, while Jordan maintained a good, if not great, ts% (.560 v. .582 in the regular season), Pippen and Kukoc, the next two leading scorers dropped from regular season efficiencies of .551 and .589 to .473 and .484. Only Steve Kerr (6.8ppg) managed to break the .600 ts% barrier. Part of this was opposing defenses of course, but I think I have to go with Boston unless someone can convince me this isn't going to be a precursor of what would happen in this series. Boston will have it's way inside and has enough outside shooting (Bird, Ainge, Sichting, even DJ) to keep the Bulls from packing the lane and Longley isn't that much of an obstacle.

Shooting efficiency was not a strength of the Bulls in the playoffs, that’s true. They ranked 9th out of 16 teams in EFG%. However they dominated with turnovers and the boards grabbing an incredible 39% of offensive rebounds to 73% of defensive boards and forcing a playoffs leading TOV% of 18.1 to a 13.5 TOV% offensively. The Celtics meanwhile got 32% of offensive boards and 69% of defensive boards while actually turning it over more on offense than they forced defensively forcing 12.7% on defense while giving up 13.2% on offense.

So while comparing the Bulls’ weakness to the Celtics’ strength is going to be a bad comparison for Chicago, adding up all those factors makes for the Celtics having a slight edge on offense while the Bulls have a significantly larger edge defensively.

[penbeast0]

Thanks Iggy, that gives me something to look at and consider; I might change my mind. The Celtics weakness is their offensive guard play, it's not outstanding. The Bulls can attack that to generate turnovers. Rodman will do a good job on McHale inside and Pippen on Bird so the strength of the Bulls' defense matches up well with the Celtics' primary scoring threats. Is it enough? I don't know. Boston is deeper and bigger.

[hyoyatika]

This 1986 Boston team was known to feature the best frontcourt of all-time; but I'm convinced that Pippen and Rodman can at least slow it down. While the Bulls have some answer to Bird and McHale, the Celtics do not have an answer for Jordan.

Would still be a close match-up though.

I will give this to the Bulls in 6.

[pandrade83]

I think Boston is a better team, but I don't totally love this matchup, if that makes sense.

The '86 Celtics couldn't stop '86 MJ & this version is obviously a bit more refined. I think Pippen & Rodman can combine to slow the Boston interior attack a little bit; I'm not sure if that off-sets the fact I feel Boston is superior.

In terms of weaknesses, neither squad was great at getting to the line; Boston was 17/23 & Chicago was 26/29. I think it hurts the Bulls more in that they won't be able to put the Celtics' front-line in foul trouble. Boston wasn't great at forcing TO's, though I'm not sure it matters against such a TO resilient player like MJ. Where Boston really excelled defensively was forcing opponents into poor shooting %'s, keeping them off the line & cleaning up misses. From that perspective, I just worry that no one besides MJ will be able to generate quite enough offense to disrupt the Boston defense.

I think this is a highly entertaining but fairly low scoring affair. And in those instances, I prefer the squad with the better front-line & more diverse ways to score. That's Boston - by the slimmest of margins.

[colts18]

The '86 Celtics couldn't stop '86 MJ & this version is obviously a bit more refined.

Ironically, I think the 86 Celtics have a better shot vs 96 MJ than 86 MJ. 86 MJ was an athletic marvel. His athletic ability was overwhelming for the slow Celtics to handle. 96 MJ was better technically and had a more refined set of skills, but there's no way he is putting 63 points. 96 MJ was a more consistent scorer, but not an explosive scorer. He had 9 40+ point games whereas 87 MJ had 37 40+ point games.

[tihsad]

Regular season
Bulls: 72 wins, +11.8 SRS
Celtics: 68 wins, +9.1 SRS

Postseason
Bulls: 15-3, ORtg 11.9 points higher than DRtg (avg. opponent +4.1 SRS)
Celtics: 15-3, ORtg 10.4 points higher than DRtg (avg. opponent +2.6 SRS)

So the Bulls were the better regular season team and had the more dominant postseason performance against tougher competition. They also have homecourt and the X factor of Michael Jordan who’s probably the best clutch player of all-time whereas Bird often underperformed in the biggest games, posting a lower PER in the playoffs than the regular season every year from ‘82 through ‘88.

Also, I find the idea that the Bulls would struggle without the shorter 3-point line to be specious at best as they ranked 8th out of 16 playoff teams in 3-point makes and 11th out of 16 playoff teams in 3-point percentage.

Basically, while the edges may be small and the Celtics may be close, it still seems like the Bulls have the edge in every single area. I’m voting Bulls in 6.

I'm on page with you regarding the shortened 3-point line having no real impact. The Bulls outside of Kerr shot terribly from 3 in the PS, and the distance wouldn't have significant effect on Steve. Boston didn't shoot it enough, and the Bulls were better of taking 2s. The 3 is an argument for modern teams, not these two, so let's be done with it.

I'm not a huge SRS fan. Yes, it can have some impact on determining predictive success but I'm not an advocate of simply "X>Y therefore Z" per simply posting SRS of a team and their opponents. This isn't designed as a slight, rather I'm personally having a hell of a time picking between these two teams and I think a more nuanced look at the individual match-ups is needed (as I mentioned, I'm still working out my thoughts). I will say the criticism of Bird as a flop in the PS doesn't apply in 86', this was peak form Legend - anymore then Jordan won't be pestered by the Glove. Yes, Chicago has a defensive backcourt advantage - just like the Celts do upfront. I'm a Pistons fan, and I dig on The Worm, but he never had tremendous success with KM. Front court advantage vs. BC edge - both benches have their own strengths. This match up is a tough one.

[tihsad]

When I looked at these teams, what really stuck out to me was how the efficiency differential changed for the playoffs. Boston was led in ts% by 25ppg scorers Bird (.618) and McHale (.636) with Ainge and Walton averaging over .600 ts% as well. Chicago was the more impressive regular season offense but in the playoffs, while Jordan maintained a good, if not great, ts% (.560 v. .582 in the regular season), Pippen and Kukoc, the next two leading scorers dropped from regular season efficiencies of .551 and .589 to .473 and .484. Only Steve Kerr (6.8ppg) managed to break the .600 ts% barrier. Part of this was opposing defenses of course, but I think I have to go with Boston unless someone can convince me this isn't going to be a precursor of what would happen in this series. Boston will have it's way inside and has enough outside shooting (Bird, Ainge, Sichting, even DJ) to keep the Bulls from packing the lane and Longley isn't that much of an obstacle.

Shooting efficiency was not a strength of the Bulls in the playoffs, that’s true. They ranked 9th out of 16 teams in EFG%. However they dominated with turnovers and the boards grabbing an incredible 39% of offensive rebounds to 73% of defensive boards and forcing a playoffs leading TOV% of 18.1 to a 13.5 TOV% offensively. The Celtics meanwhile got 32% of offensive boards and 69% of defensive boards while actually turning it over more on offense than they forced defensively forcing 12.7% on defense while giving up 13.2% on offense.

So while comparing the Bulls’ weakness to the Celtics’ strength is going to be a bad comparison for Chicago, adding up all those factors makes for the Celtics having a slight edge on offense while the Bulls have a significantly larger edge defensively.

Unfortunately read this after my last post. Yes, offensive rebounding and turnovers were the real key to the 2nd dynasty Bulls (even if their O ranked 1st in 96'). This was a big part of Karl's "Rodman was the MVP" following the 96' finals. Good post, and perhaps something that helps me decide on this match-up.

[Brooklyn_Ball33]

I read somewhere that someone (Synergy?) did some analysis of MJ's 3FGA from 1996 and concluded that he shot around 37% from the "normal" arc distance that season. So I feel these claims are overblown. He also shot 38% in 1990, 36% in 1993, and 38.5% in the '91-'93 playoffs, including 39% on 4 3FGA/gm in the 1993 postseason.

[Warspite]

Regular season
Bulls: 72 wins, +11.8 SRS
Celtics: 68 wins, +9.1 SRS

Postseason
Bulls: 15-3, ORtg 11.9 points higher than DRtg (avg. opponent +4.1 SRS)
Celtics: 15-3, ORtg 10.4 points higher than DRtg (avg. opponent +2.6 SRS)

So the Bulls were the better regular season team and had the more dominant postseason performance against tougher competition. They also have homecourt and the X factor of Michael Jordan who’s probably the best clutch player of all-time whereas Bird often underperformed in the biggest games, posting a lower PER in the playoffs than the regular season every year from ‘82 through ‘88.

Also, I find the idea that the Bulls would struggle without the shorter 3-point line to be specious at best as they ranked 8th out of 16 playoff teams in 3-point makes and 11th out of 16 playoff teams in 3-point percentage.

Basically, while the edges may be small and the Celtics may be close, it still seems like the Bulls have the edge in every single area. I’m voting Bulls in 6.

The Bulls played in an expansion year in a league that had already expanded and seen over 20 Hofers retire since 86 and be replaced with 3 of the 5 worst NBA draft classes in NBA history. The Bulls were chasing the 1972 Lakers but the Celtics were just trying to wrap up home court vs the Lakers and 76ers who were both better than any team the 96 Bulls faced. The Celtics rested starters at the end of the season.

The Bulls were not a very good offensive team and relied on forcing TOs to generate fast break points. With 86 refs Im not sure they can just walk up to Ainge or DJ and slap him in the face and take the ball. Nor do I think they would be allowed to do it with out DJ, Ainge or a Celtic big sending someone to the locker room with an injury.

In the end with any Bulls team the triangle will be guarded and the defense forces 1 of 3 outcomes

1. A 20ft jumper from the top of the key by a wing player not named MJ
2. An MJ isolation bad/high degree of difficulty shot
.3. An MJ isolation dramatic play that results in score.

The X factor is Dennis Johnson who is a top 10 defensive SG of all time and Pippen who although great on defense is known or disappearing in the playoffs and the more energy he exerts on defense the less offensive impact he will have.

IMHO: Its more likely that the Bulls offense will struggle scoring than the Bulls being able to lock down the Celtics offense. Still Im open to the Bulls pulling off an upset but the Celtics are favorites by a 55-45% margin.

[penbeast0]

3-2 Boston advances