RealGM

Who is the worst possible PG(relatively) you can add to the 08 Celtics to make them the GOAT team?

In this scenario, Rondo isn't on the team anymore.

Or do you think even with Curry/Magic they wouldn't be the GOAT team somehow?

Pick a specific season too if possible.

Why "worst" PG?

CodeBreaker wrote:Why "worst" PG?

Because OP assumes guys like Curry or Magic make them the GOAT team.

Do you not understand the question?

2008 Chauncey Billups would make them terrific. I'll stay in the same season and go with him.

Colbinii wrote:

CodeBreaker wrote:Why "worst" PG?

Because OP assumes guys like Curry or Magic make them the GOAT team.

Do you not understand the question?

I see.

I'll take '90 Isiah Thomas

Colbinii wrote:2008 Chauncey Billups would make them terrific. I'll stay in the same season and go with him.

Interesting choice.

Billups
Allen
Pierce
Posey
KG

Insane death ball line-up that. Everyone there actually spaces the floor well and defends well.

I'm not sure any PG makes them better than the '17 Warriors. I personally feel the '08 Celtics are a bit overrated. They have the 83rd best playoff SRS and went 7 games against Atlanta in the first round, barely beat Cleveland in 7 games in the 2nd round, then went 6 games in the next 2 rounds.

And it's not like '08 Rondo was a trash PG. Obviously there are significant upgrades you could make, but he wasn't some massive weak link on that team.

Not sure they would be better than the Warriors without another strong MVP-caliber guy.

Kidd -- Curry
Allen -- Thompson
Pierce -- Iguodala
Posey -- Durant
KG -- Green

Allen -- Livingston
Perkins -- Pachulia
House -- West

is still favoring the Warriors IMO.

Jaivl wrote:Not sure they would be better than the Warriors without another strong MVP-caliber guy.

Kidd -- Curry
Allen -- Thompson
Pierce -- Iguodala
Posey -- Durant
KG -- Green

Allen -- Livingston
Perkins -- Pachulia
House -- West

is still favoring the Warriors IMO.

What about CP3 or Magic?

I agree Kidd doesn't make them better than the Warriors.

If we are talking TRULY GOAT, then it would need to be someone like 2018 CP3. They need a dynamic perimeter creator (both for himself and for others) to be as complete as the 2017 Warriors, because 2008 Allen was very hit or miss.

dreamshake wrote:I'm not sure any PG makes them better than the '17 Warriors. I personally feel the '08 Celtics are a bit overrated. They have the 83rd best playoff SRS and went 7 games against Atlanta in the first round, barely beat Cleveland in 7 games in the 2nd round, then went 6 games in the next 2 rounds.

And it's not like '08 Rondo was a trash PG. Obviously there are significant upgrades you could make, but he wasn't some massive weak link on that team.

"Playoff SRS" (as I understand it) seems to rely on trusting heavily in one teams RS SRS as a barometer whilst trusting it can tend to lead to ignore it for another.

I think it punishes higher seeds that earn an easier route and ignores IRL incentives. The team trying to beat an 8 SRS team in round 1 needs to put up a great "playoff SRS" to advance, whilst there's little reason for a team playing a 0 SRS team (or lower) to target more than outscoring their opponent.


Fwiw to the general question, turnovers are clear weakness on offense based on the RS. All else being equal (and adding players can change other stuff, so factor that in) someone who could cut that substantially down (without compromising the quality of looks or other stuff).

Owly wrote:

dreamshake wrote:I'm not sure any PG makes them better than the '17 Warriors. I personally feel the '08 Celtics are a bit overrated. They have the 83rd best playoff SRS and went 7 games against Atlanta in the first round, barely beat Cleveland in 7 games in the 2nd round, then went 6 games in the next 2 rounds.

And it's not like '08 Rondo was a trash PG. Obviously there are significant upgrades you could make, but he wasn't some massive weak link on that team.

"Playoff SRS" (as I understand it) seems to rely on trusting heavily in one teams RS SRS as a barometer whilst trusting it can tend to lead to ignore it for another.

I think it punishes higher seeds that earn an easier route and ignores IRL incentives. The team trying to beat an 8 SRS team in round 1 needs to put up a great "playoff SRS" to advance, whilst there's little reason for a team playing a 0 SRS team (or lower) to target more than outscoring their opponent.


Fwiw to the general question, turnovers are clear weakness on offense based on the RS. All else being equal (and adding players can change other stuff, so factor that in) someone who could cut that substantially down (without compromising the quality of looks or other stuff).

Fair points about SRS. For reference the gap between the 08 Celtics playoff SRS and the '17 Warriors is massive - +8.74 vs +19.45. You'd think if we're giving them the benefit of the doubt for having an "easier route" then they would've handled the early rounds pretty quickly/easily. Instead they went 7 games against a 37 win (negative 2.23 RS SRS) Hawks team and 7 games against a 45 win (negative 0.53 RS SRS) Cavs team. Barely beating 37 and 45 win teams in 7 games makes it hard for me to have them anywhere near all-time greatness.

The best, most thorough attempt I've ever seen at ranking GOAT teams is sansterre's amazing project here.
https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=64&t=2012241

It (with a few exceptions) correlates very strongly to my impression of the teams I've seen. It ranks the 08 Celtics as the 54th best team - which seems about right to me. The 2017 Cavs rates as the 2nd best playoff offense ever. Sansterre ranks them as the 43rd best team all-time - 11 spots higher than the '08 Celtics. And they could only take 1 game off the '17 Warriors.

Even if you give the Celtics Curry or Magic, I think the '17 Warriors have too much talent, depth, and team fit. Going beyond the top 4, Iguodala/Livingston/West are much better role players than Perkins/Posey and whoever you want to pick as Boston's 7th guy. Kerr is also a much better coach with a much better system than Doc Rivers.

Peak Deron Williams.

dreamshake wrote:

Owly wrote:

dreamshake wrote:I'm not sure any PG makes them better than the '17 Warriors. I personally feel the '08 Celtics are a bit overrated. They have the 83rd best playoff SRS and went 7 games against Atlanta in the first round, barely beat Cleveland in 7 games in the 2nd round, then went 6 games in the next 2 rounds.

And it's not like '08 Rondo was a trash PG. Obviously there are significant upgrades you could make, but he wasn't some massive weak link on that team.

"Playoff SRS" (as I understand it) seems to rely on trusting heavily in one teams RS SRS as a barometer whilst trusting it can tend to lead to ignore it for another.

I think it punishes higher seeds that earn an easier route and ignores IRL incentives. The team trying to beat an 8 SRS team in round 1 needs to put up a great "playoff SRS" to advance, whilst there's little reason for a team playing a 0 SRS team (or lower) to target more than outscoring their opponent.


Fwiw to the general question, turnovers are clear weakness on offense based on the RS. All else being equal (and adding players can change other stuff, so factor that in) someone who could cut that substantially down (without compromising the quality of looks or other stuff).

Fair points about SRS. For reference the gap between the 08 Celtics playoff SRS and the '17 Warriors is massive - +8.74 vs +19.45. You'd think if we're giving them the benefit of the doubt for having an "easier route" then they would've handled the early rounds pretty quickly/easily. Instead they went 7 games against a 37 win (negative 2.23 RS SRS) Hawks team and 7 games against a 45 win (negative 0.53 RS SRS) Cavs team. Barely beating 37 and 45 win teams in 7 games makes it hard for me to have them anywhere near all-time greatness.

The best, most thorough attempt I've ever seen at ranking GOAT teams is sansterre's amazing project here.
https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=64&t=2012241

It (with a few exceptions) correlates very strongly to my impression of the teams I've seen. It ranks the 08 Celtics as the 54th best team - which seems about right to me. The 2017 Cavs rates as the 2nd best playoff offense ever. Sansterre ranks them as the 43rd best team all-time - 11 spots higher than the '08 Celtics. And they could only take 1 game off the '17 Warriors.

Even if you give the Celtics Curry or Magic, I think the '17 Warriors have too much talent, depth, and team fit. Going beyond the top 4, Iguodala/Livingston/West are much better role players than Perkins/Posey and whoever you want to pick as Boston's 7th guy. Kerr is also a much better coach with a much better system than Doc Rivers.

Response to you aspect was more about methodology issues than Celtics need a point guard of X value.

Fwiw ... that list, by it's own reckoning tilts (I would say heavily) towards playoffs (and may have some of the same issue where RS is trusted for your opponents but less so for you, hard to say at first glance). The Celtics are certainly a team that look better with a weighting towards RS and worse if towards playoffs. Fwiw, I tend to trust the larger sample more.

I would have a problem with categorizing the Hawks series win as "barely" winning. All Hawks wins were single digits, Boston's smallest MOV was 19. Boston score 694 points, Atlanta 610 (84 point difference). Atlanta won marginal games, Boston won decisively. It's conceivable that Boston flip a number of games with different luck/marginal calls etc (and doing so makes W-L look a lot better) whilst inconceivable that any of Boston's wins get flipped by that.

Outscored by the Cavs is a genuine black eye. Fwiw, though, I think the negative SRS is an undersell of their playoff roster/rotation. Gooden and Hughes (both at points in their career capable of being "productive" but one was generally very poor BBIQ and negative impact, the other a poor fit the other a poor fit, perhaps losing confidence in their J and just generally falling off badly and in particular a poor fit on the wings with LeBron ... and at this point they weren't even productive) would be factored into that SRS but would be replaced be replaced with acceptable rotation players. Varejao misses a fair chunk of the RS. LeBron can up his minutes a little whilst Ira Newble is gone and doesn't play at all. Now that doesn't negate my first note. Still I don't think the SRS here matches the reality of the playoff rotation.

Ricky Rubio doesn't really fit the mold of some of the other names here, but when he was at his best he was excellent at running an offense and was a great defender as well. And I like having someone with his basketball IQ on a team like this.

It will take peak LeBron as the PG to make them over Warriors.

dygaction wrote:It will take peak LeBron as the PG to make them over Warriors.

That would be absurd.