1986 Celtics vs. 2017 Warriors

[HeartBreakKid]

The Warriors can't sweep a team like Memphis, how on earth are they sweeping a team that has Bird, McHale, Parish and super role players?

[Laimbeer]

Has anyone mentioned hand checking? That'd be a big change for Steph.

[Laimbeer]

Warriors in 5. You're not going to beat them if you're going to make 8 to 15 fewer threes. You're just not gong to do it.

I think there's some truth to this. If you could somehow come up with a hybrid of the rules, the Celtics still played over 30 years ago. The game has evolved a lot. I think I heard McHale say it took the league a while to fully appreciate the value of the three and fully incorporate it. This comes down to 3 > 2.

I don't think that's a slight against the Celtics. They just played in a different time. The only fair way to compare them is by how they fared against their competition.

[HeartBreakKid]

Warriors in 5. You're not going to beat them if you're going to make 8 to 15 fewer threes. You're just not gong to do it.

I think there's some truth to this. If you could somehow come up with a hybrid of the rules, the Celtics still played over 30 years ago. The game has evolved a lot. I think I heard McHale say it took the league a while to fully appreciate the value of the three and fully incorporate it. This comes down to 3 > 2.

I don't think that's a slight against the Celtics. They just played in a different time. The only fair way to compare them is by how they fared against their competition.

Sure, but it is also silly to assume that the Celtics wouldn't adapt to modern times. I mean are we literally teleporting the Celtics to 2017 without ANY training or preperation? I think they would be a lot more floored by smart phones than they would 3 point attempts.


It's like asking who is a better general between Napolean and Patton, and then saying there is no way Napolean is better because he wouldn't know how to use a radio. Like, doesn't it defeat the point of the exercise if we're assuming there is no reasonable amount of time to train and adapt to current rules and meta? Is it not a reasonable assumption that an all time great shooter like Larry Bird would scale up his 3 point attempts?

[Laimbeer]

Warriors in 5. You're not going to beat them if you're going to make 8 to 15 fewer threes. You're just not gong to do it.

I think there's some truth to this. If you could somehow come up with a hybrid of the rules, the Celtics still played over 30 years ago. The game has evolved a lot. I think I heard McHale say it took the league a while to fully appreciate the value of the three and fully incorporate it. This comes down to 3 > 2.

I don't think that's a slight against the Celtics. They just played in a different time. The only fair way to compare them is by how they fared against their competition.

Sure, but it is also silly to assume that the Celtics wouldn't adapt to modern times. I mean are we literally teleporting the Celtics to 2017 without ANY training or preperation? I think they would be a lot more floored by smart phones than they would 3 point attempts.


It's like asking who is a better general between Napolean and Patton, and then saying there is no way Napolean is better because he wouldn't know how to use a radio. Like, doesn't it defeat the point of the exercise if we're assuming there is no reasonable amount of time to train and adapt to current rules and meta? Is it not a reasonable assumption that an all time great shooter like Larry Bird would scale up his 3 point attempts?

Even is allowed to prepare and train with modern coaching, the talent isn't suited to today's game. They have two guys who could shoot threes, the Warriors have four, potentially five. McHale and Parish wouldn't be as effective playing together today. The Warriors consume big teams that can't get out and defend the three.

[70sFan]

I'd like to add that Celtics had plenty of shooters - Bird and Ainge are phenomenal shooters (just a season later he shot 44% on pretty high volume and was consistently one of the best three point shooters in the league until the end of his career), Wedman and Sichting are underrated based on their stats (Wedman was drafted before 3 point line exist and he had very good shooting touch, I'm sure he would develop long range shot - he even attempted some threes in 1986; Jerry was just very good shooter period). That's two great shooters and 2 very good ones. Dennis Johnson wouldn't be great shooter in any era, but he's not liability from midrange. Even McHale and Parish are decent midrange shooters. Spacing isn't an issue for Celtics.

[70sFan]

I think there's some truth to this. If you could somehow come up with a hybrid of the rules, the Celtics still played over 30 years ago. The game has evolved a lot. I think I heard McHale say it took the league a while to fully appreciate the value of the three and fully incorporate it. This comes down to 3 > 2.

I don't think that's a slight against the Celtics. They just played in a different time. The only fair way to compare them is by how they fared against their competition.

Sure, but it is also silly to assume that the Celtics wouldn't adapt to modern times. I mean are we literally teleporting the Celtics to 2017 without ANY training or preperation? I think they would be a lot more floored by smart phones than they would 3 point attempts.


It's like asking who is a better general between Napolean and Patton, and then saying there is no way Napolean is better because he wouldn't know how to use a radio. Like, doesn't it defeat the point of the exercise if we're assuming there is no reasonable amount of time to train and adapt to current rules and meta? Is it not a reasonable assumption that an all time great shooter like Larry Bird would scale up his 3 point attempts?

Even is allowed to prepare and train with modern coaching, the talent isn't suited to today's game. They have two guys who could shoot threes, the Warriors have four, potentially five. McHale and Parish wouldn't be as effective playing together today. The Warriors consume big teams that can't get out and defend the three.

They have 4 guys who could shot threes. Warriors have 5. McHale is quick enough to do decent job on perimeter. Parish is quick for a center, definitely better than most centers Warriors face today. Imagine this lineup against Warriors smallball:

Dennis Johnson
Danny Ainge
Scott Wedman
Larry Bird
Kevin McHale

Quite good, isn't it? They could also play more athletic and quicker lineup:

Sam Vincent/Jerry Sisthing
Danny Ainge
Dennis Johnson
Larry Bird
Robert Parish

I don't think they would be unable to compete with such a balanced roster. They could also use ultra-big lineup:

Dennis Johnson
Danny Ainge
Larry Bird
Robert Parish
Bill Walton

Just to dominate down low. I think the biggest matchup in this series would be Steve Kerr vs KC Jones. Who would outsmart the other is very important because both teams are extremely talented.

[Laimbeer]

^^ I don't think Sam Vincent, Jerry Sichting, and Scott Wedman are the answer. The first two teams are just a very pale replica of the Warriors. As for the third team, the basic problem of defending remains.

[70sFan]

^^ I don't think Sam Vincent, Jerry Sichting, and Scott Wedman are the answer. The first two teams are just a very pale replica of the Warriors. As for the third team, the basic problem of defending remains.

Wedman used to be all-star caliber of player. I know he wasn't as great in 1986 but he could still contribute in a positive way.

Vincent is very good ballhandler, nice slasher and tough defender. I remember him even lock down Thomas on some possesions. I don't know why he didn't become starting-PG caliber of player.

BTW, how deep is the Warriors team? When Green or KD would get into foul trouble (which is very probable because they couldn't handle Larry/Kevin/Robert frontcourt) who would replace them? McGee? Zaza? Or maybe Iguodala would defend 5 inches taller McHale? Warriors have amazing starting 5 but other than that, they doesn't have good depth. Andre is great and Livingstone is decent, the rest is weak. Definitely not better than Celtics bench.

[Laimbeer]

^^ I don't think Sam Vincent, Jerry Sichting, and Scott Wedman are the answer. The first two teams are just a very pale replica of the Warriors. As for the third team, the basic problem of defending remains.

Wedman used to be all-star caliber of player. I know he wasn't as great in 1986 but he could still contribute in a positive way.

Vincent is very good ballhandler, nice slasher and tough defender. I remember him even lock down Thomas on some possesions. I don't know why he didn't become starting-PG caliber of player.

BTW, how deep is the Warriors team? When Green or KD would get into foul trouble (which is very probable because they couldn't handle Larry/Kevin/Robert frontcourt) who would replace them? McGee? Zaza? Or maybe Iguodala would defend 5 inches taller McHale? Warriors have amazing starting 5 but other than that, they doesn't have good depth. Andre is great and Livingstone is decent, the rest is weak. Definitely not better than Celtics bench.

They've got one good bench player, like the Celtics. I'm not buying that the Celtics have much of an edge there.

[mysticOscar]

So many different variables to say who would win....which era they would play in makes a big difference.

One thing i have to say about those 80s Celtics....those guys are a very competitive bunch from what i remember. Bird, McHale,Parish, Ainge...so whatever happens...as long as you give them footage and time to come up with a plan to play the Warriors...they would adapt....it would be close. The Celtics would have a clear advantage on the paint....and they have enough shooters to keep the defenders honest.

The Warriors have massive fire power and a clear advantage on the 3pt line...and there modern offensive schemes would make it hard for the Celtics to cover it, even if illegal screens were cleaned up. But the problem with heavily reliant on 3pt shooting is, it can come and go...espeically when physicality is allowed (on/off) the ball....if the Celtics exploit that and make it a slow, half court game....if that happens....Warriors will lose.

[eminence]

Has anyone mentioned hand checking? That'd be a big change for Steph.

It'd be a big change for most of the league, the way Steph is reffed though, not so big. I'd see KD having more problems with it.

[The-Power]

Has anyone mentioned hand checking? That'd be a big change for Steph.

It'd be a big change for most of the league, the way Steph is reffed though, not so big. I'd see KD having more problems with it.

Yeah, hand checking is much more impactful for players whose is predicated on driving to the basket. Curry would be less affected than most perimeter players and of course it would help his defense on-ball defense. Off the ball, Curry is used to constantly getting pushed and grabbed.

[Krodis]

Also, the difference in hand checking between now and '86 really isn't that significant. It's not like we're comparing '05 and '98 or something. Hand checking really ramped up in the late '80s and early '90s before getting a bit out of hand in the late '90s'/early 2000s, and the league has also gotten more lenient with hand checking over the last decade, nothing like what it was immediately post rule change.

Sent from my SM-N910V using RealGM mobile app

[bledredwine]

Celtics would destroy them. All you have to do is be physical with the Warriors

This.

[antonac]

Has anyone mentioned hand checking? That'd be a big change for Steph.

It'd be a big change for most of the league, the way Steph is reffed though, not so big. I'd see KD having more problems with it.

Yeah, hand checking is much more impactful for players whose is predicated on driving to the basket. Curry would be less affected than most perimeter players and of course it would help his defense on-ball defense. Off the ball, Curry is used to constantly getting pushed and grabbed.

wouldn't draymond be more impactful though? it goes both ways, don't tell me draymond wouldn't love to play with less rules on contact. I don't see him getting physically intimidated by anyone in the Celtics roster.

and iguodala as well.

it's not like the warriors are under-sized, the biggest guy in bostons back court was carlisle at 6'5. the warriors would be running with livingingston and Klay for parts of the games, 6'7 and 6'8. They also have a 7 foot small forward.

[70sFan]

It'd be a big change for most of the league, the way Steph is reffed though, not so big. I'd see KD having more problems with it.

Yeah, hand checking is much more impactful for players whose is predicated on driving to the basket. Curry would be less affected than most perimeter players and of course it would help his defense on-ball defense. Off the ball, Curry is used to constantly getting pushed and grabbed.

wouldn't draymond be more impactful though? it goes both ways, don't tell me draymond wouldn't love to play with less rules on contact. I don't see him getting physically intimidated by anyone in the Celtics roster.

and iguodala as well.

it's not like the warriors are under-sized, the biggest guy in bostons back court was carlisle at 6'5. the warriors would be running with livingingston and Klay for parts of the games, 6'7 and 6'8. They also have a 7 foot small forward.

There is no way Klay is 6'8. Shaun isn't 6'7 either. Listed height are extravagated, Shaun is probably around 6'5 and Klay over 6'6. Draymond is actually close to 6'5 compared to 6'10 McHale. So who is really undersized?

[Pg81]

Celtics in 4.

[KobesScarf]

I think there's some truth to this. If you could somehow come up with a hybrid of the rules, the Celtics still played over 30 years ago. The game has evolved a lot. I think I heard McHale say it took the league a while to fully appreciate the value of the three and fully incorporate it. This comes down to 3 > 2.

I don't think that's a slight against the Celtics. They just played in a different time. The only fair way to compare them is by how they fared against their competition.

Sure, but it is also silly to assume that the Celtics wouldn't adapt to modern times. I mean are we literally teleporting the Celtics to 2017 without ANY training or preperation? I think they would be a lot more floored by smart phones than they would 3 point attempts.


It's like asking who is a better general between Napolean and Patton, and then saying there is no way Napolean is better because he wouldn't know how to use a radio. Like, doesn't it defeat the point of the exercise if we're assuming there is no reasonable amount of time to train and adapt to current rules and meta? Is it not a reasonable assumption that an all time great shooter like Larry Bird would scale up his 3 point attempts?

Even is allowed to prepare and train with modern coaching, the talent isn't suited to today's game. They have two guys who could shoot threes, the Warriors have four, potentially five. McHale and Parish wouldn't be as effective playing together today. The Warriors consume big teams that can't get out and defend the three.

If you really think Jerry Sichting couldn't shoot 3s then I don't know what to tell you. He would be the ultimate unicorn 6'1 white PG with a career 86% FT% who can't shoot 3s

[theonlyclutch]

The warriors would outshoot the celtics into oblivion, heck, the rockets could do it. It's extremely hard to correct a lifetime of learned habits in an athlete, which would be evident the first time the celtics bigs forget to cover their counterparts in GSW/HOU and give up open 3s..