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

[kendogg]

Assuming the Warriors can get the same quality looks (and as such have anything close to the same FG%) with the old rules (stricter handling and no hand check rule) is a very wrong assumption.

The Warriors were not dependent upon shots at the rim like many others so Russ's impact is less, but they could put Russ on Durant for stretches if they wanted to slow him down. I think Russ is one guy that could actually bother Durant's shot. Russ is quick enough to guard forwards and long enough and a good enough leaper to contest jumpers. KC Jones I feel could definitely hold Curry in check with the old handling rules. You telling me he can't stay in front of a Curry who can't carry or gather step? I call BS. When Curry was not 100% in 2016 the Warriors looked like total garbage. Granted this is without Durant but everyone else in the core rotation is there and it's not like Durant's replacement (Harrison Barnes) is a scrub. If Curry's gravitas is much less in the older era due to handling rules and no 3-pointers, the Warriors lose pretty much all of their advantage.

The Warriors in 1962 can't space the floor like they do in 2017 because no 3-pt shot. If the Warriors want to shoot 25-foot 2-pointers the Celtics would let them and win. The Celtics are the better defensive team by a good margin IMO. The 2017 Warriors shot 38% from 3PT. Those deep shots in the old era with old handling rules would be an even worse clip. As a FG%, that's bad even for the 60's era. And if they try to go inside, they gotta contend with the best defensive player of all time (Russ).

It's a LOT closer than people are suggesting here. The average skill of your bench players is higher today than the 60's, but the stars are mostly quite comparable IMO, as despite the fact that the conditioning and weight training of your average NBA player is much higher today, the stars are almost always standout athletes. You take one look at Nate Thurmond and tell me how much a modern weight training program would help him. Dude was a beast back then and would be a beast today. Which by the way is another thing that is hard to equalize when shifting back these teams to older eras. The 2017 Warriors are athletic, but not uber athletic. The best athlete on that team is Andre Iguodala. Russ is a better athlete than Andre IMO. Not as strong but better in pretty much every other way, and if Russ had a modern weight training program, the strength advantage would be equalized as well.

[Jiminy Glick]

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?

Are you trying to tell me Russell on this 1962 team will be able to stop the Warriors offense? Seriously? The Warriors were an elite defensive team and the Celtics were not an elite offensive team. They were also an elite offensive team.

[trex_8063]

Assuming the Warriors can get the same quality looks (and as such have anything close to the same FG%) with the old rules (stricter handling and no hand check rule) is a very wrong assumption.

The Warriors were not dependent upon shots at the rim like many others so Russ's impact is less, but they could put Russ on Durant for stretches if they wanted to slow him down. I think Russ is one guy that could actually bother Durant's shot. Russ is quick enough to guard forwards and long enough and a good enough leaper to contest jumpers. KC Jones I feel could definitely hold Curry in check with the old handling rules. You telling me he can't stay in front of a Curry who can't carry or gather step? I call BS. When Curry was not 100% in 2016 the Warriors looked like total garbage. Granted this is without Durant but everyone else in the core rotation is there and it's not like Durant's replacement (Harrison Barnes) is a scrub. If Curry's gravitas is much less in the older era due to handling rules and no 3-pointers, the Warriors lose pretty much all of their advantage.

Good point. It honestly never occurred to me to put Russell on Durant. Might make sense when GS goes small, though. Could "hide" Heinsohn on Dray, put Satch on Iggy or Klay, Sam Jones can guard the other of Iggy/Klay, and KC would do great on Curry. The only potential chink in this plan is that Durant will pull Russell out of the paint to some degree.

The Warriors in 1962 can't space the floor like they do in 2017 because no 3-pt shot. If the Warriors want to shoot 25-foot 2-pointers the Celtics would let them and win. The Celtics are the better defensive team by a good margin IMO. The 2017 Warriors shot 38% from 3PT. Those deep shots in the old era with old handling rules would be an even worse clip. As a FG%, that's bad even for the 60's era. And if they try to go inside, they gotta contend with the best defensive player of all time (Russ).

I agree that the Celtics will be content to simply allow or only lightly contest the long-range shots (and said as much in my prior post). However, I don't think they'd shoot them at <38%. Bear in mind that the '17 Warriors shot 38% despite many of them coming from 27+ feet out, and with the hard contest that is typical today.
Well, we just got thru agreeing that the Celtics would not bother to give a hard contest on these longer shots, and I doubt they'll be inclined to shoot ANY from 27+ feet. Those things are likely to RAISE accuracy on long-range shots, even if we assume an "era-standardizing" deduction on their set-point accuracy.

Still a shot the Celtics will be content to let them have, but jsia....

Anyway......idk, further consideration has pondering if the Celtics don't have a decent shot in this one.

[WestGOAT]

Celtics will need to double/triple-team KD on every possession to stop him from scoring, I don't see them overcoming this match-up problem. The Celtics aren't equipped to stop a 6'11/7 foot ball-handler like Durant.

Vote Warriors.

[pandrade83]

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.

You have a problem now.

If KC is in to guard Steph, your offense suffers - if Cousy is in, you're screwed on Steph. I'd rather have Sam Jones bother Steph with his length & take my chances on Klay; that's partly the way I wrote the way I did.

[pandrade83]

Assuming the Warriors can get the same quality looks (and as such have anything close to the same FG%) with the old rules (stricter handling and no hand check rule) is a very wrong assumption.

The Warriors were not dependent upon shots at the rim like many others so Russ's impact is less, but they could put Russ on Durant for stretches if they wanted to slow him down. I think Russ is one guy that could actually bother Durant's shot. Russ is quick enough to guard forwards and long enough and a good enough leaper to contest jumpers. KC Jones I feel could definitely hold Curry in check with the old handling rules. You telling me he can't stay in front of a Curry who can't carry or gather step? I call BS. When Curry was not 100% in 2016 the Warriors looked like total garbage. Granted this is without Durant but everyone else in the core rotation is there and it's not like Durant's replacement (Harrison Barnes) is a scrub. If Curry's gravitas is much less in the older era due to handling rules and no 3-pointers, the Warriors lose pretty much all of their advantage.

Good point. It honestly never occurred to me to put Russell on Durant. Might make sense when GS goes small, though. Could "hide" Heinsohn on Dray, put Satch on Iggy or Klay, Sam Jones can guard the other of Iggy/Klay, and KC would do great on Curry. The only potential chink in this plan is that Durant will pull Russell out of the paint to some degree.

I touched on this in my original write-up, but I don't think that's a great idea. If I do, I lose most of my ability to protect the rim & then KD just starts hitting cutters. I'd rather just "give" them the 15-22 footers (give is relative) then get cut apart on the interior.

[kendogg]

You wouldn't put Russ on KD full time, but against certain small ball lineups or if Durant gets hot to force him to pass, etc.


Though the Warriors really don't have many slashers that can burn the Celtics other than Durant.

[kendogg]

Also the 2017 Warriors were a good defensive team, but the 1960's Celtics were an all-time great defense. Like, the best in history by the numbers. Including 1962, though not quite as good as 1964, they still completely dominated their competition. 1962 Celtics held the 1962 Warriors to 86 points, 39.4 points off their average that year. They had the best defensive player of any era (Russ). He had more than twice the defensive WS of 2nd place.

The 2017 Warriors had a great offense as well, but how great compared to the rest of the league? And the 1962 Celtics were not that bad offensively. They had a lot of weapons so they couldn't be shut down very easily. They had the best ball handler of that era as well, and I would wager more effective handler in the 1960's handling rules than Steph Curry. Durant's handling I think would translate back much better to be fair. And Curry would still be a better shooter though his quality of looks would go way down. Cousy was a good shooter though (you saw Blue Chips right? ) but seriously he was like the 4th option on that team. They had plenty.

1962 Celtics Def Rtng = 87.4, League Average = 95.9
1962 Celtics were 9.7% better defensively than the league average.

2017 Warriors Def Rtng = 104.0, League Average = 108.8
2017 Warriors were 4.6% better defensively than the league average.

--

1962 Celtics Off Rtng = 92.1, League Average 93.6
1962 Celtics were 1.6% worse offensively than the league average.

2017 Warriors Off Rtng = 115.6, League Average 108.8
2017 Warriors were 4.6% better offensively than the league average.

How do the 2017 Warriors stack up with the all time best offenses? Not bad, but not the best ever, like the 1960's Celtics were.

1996 Bulls Off Rtng = 115.2, League Average 107.2
1996 Bulls were 6.9% better offensively than the league average.

2005 Suns Off Rtng = 114.4, League Average 106.1
2005 Suns were 7.3% better offensively than the league average.

2004 Mavericks Off Rtng = 112.1, League Average 102.9
2004 Mavericks were 8.2% better offensively than the league average.

[euroleague]

I would like to shoutout Wilt in this thread, who almost singlehandedly took the Celtics to 7. Lbj/Irving/Love took 1 game in a gentleman’s sweep.

I think the Warriors win, but Cousy would torch Curry, Russell dominate the boards, and Sam Jones would win his matchup.

Warriors in 6

[Samurai]

I would also vote for the Warriors. As others have noted, I think Durant is the difference-maker. Outside of Russell, I don't see anyone on the Celtics roster who could guard KD. Sanders had the reputation of being a great defender (I cannot confirm or deny his defensive prowess since he was a part-time player on the downside of his career by the time I saw him) but doesn't have the length to disrupt KD's shot.

Could Russell defend KD? No one knows since he never guarded anyone with Durant's skillset back then. I do know that assuming Russell has sufficient time to study KD, he would have a defensive strategy developed, likely based on trying to take KD away from the spots he likes to shoot from and force KD to make shots from his less-preferred spots. Durant, of course, is plenty talented enough to still make shots from those places. But even if Russell could adequately defend Durant, it takes away some of Russell's biggest strengths, particularly his ability to provide help-defense and takes him farther from the hoop to gather rebounds. So the options for the Celtics would be to a) let Russell play his normal game and watch Durant torch the under-sized Sanders or the slower and far less talented defensive skills of Heinsohn or b) put Russell on Durant and force the Celtics to play a style of defense that they are not accustomed to.

And if Russell has to guard KD, I think it pretty much forces the Celtics to play KC Jones in place of Cousy since I think Cousy's defense on Curry without having the confidence that Russell will be in the lane if Curry drives past him would be too big of a liability for the Celtics. And without having their best quarterback to direct the offense, I think that just further hinders Boston's already inferior (compared to GSW) offense.

[Jiminy Glick]

I would also vote for the Warriors. As others have noted, I think Durant is the difference-maker. Outside of Russell, I don't see anyone on the Celtics roster who could guard KD. Sanders had the reputation of being a great defender (I cannot confirm or deny his defensive prowess since he was a part-time player on the downside of his career by the time I saw him) but doesn't have the length to disrupt KD's shot.

Could Russell defend KD? No one knows since he never guarded anyone with Durant's skillset back then. I do know that assuming Russell has sufficient time to study KD, he would have a defensive strategy developed, likely based on trying to take KD away from the spots he likes to shoot from and force KD to make shots from his less-preferred spots. Durant, of course, is plenty talented enough to still make shots from those places. But even if Russell could adequately defend Durant, it takes away some of Russell's biggest strengths, particularly his ability to provide help-defense and takes him farther from the hoop to gather rebounds. So the options for the Celtics would be to a) let Russell play his normal game and watch Durant torch the under-sized Sanders or the slower and far less talented defensive skills of Heinsohn or b) put Russell on Durant and force the Celtics to play a style of defense that they are not accustomed to.

And if Russell has to guard KD, I think it pretty much forces the Celtics to play KC Jones in place of Cousy since I think Cousy's defense on Curry without having the confidence that Russell will be in the lane if Curry drives past him would be too big of a liability for the Celtics. And without having their best quarterback to direct the offense, I think that just further hinders Boston's already inferior (compared to GSW) offense.

Russell without a doubt can defend Durant and may even be the best possible option to defend him. Russell's body is actually more of a traditional forward body for he doen't have the body of a Wilt, Kareem, or Shaq but rather a Garnett.

[Outside]

I would also vote for the Warriors. As others have noted, I think Durant is the difference-maker. Outside of Russell, I don't see anyone on the Celtics roster who could guard KD. Sanders had the reputation of being a great defender (I cannot confirm or deny his defensive prowess since he was a part-time player on the downside of his career by the time I saw him) but doesn't have the length to disrupt KD's shot.

Could Russell defend KD? No one knows since he never guarded anyone with Durant's skillset back then. I do know that assuming Russell has sufficient time to study KD, he would have a defensive strategy developed, likely based on trying to take KD away from the spots he likes to shoot from and force KD to make shots from his less-preferred spots. Durant, of course, is plenty talented enough to still make shots from those places. But even if Russell could adequately defend Durant, it takes away some of Russell's biggest strengths, particularly his ability to provide help-defense and takes him farther from the hoop to gather rebounds. So the options for the Celtics would be to a) let Russell play his normal game and watch Durant torch the under-sized Sanders or the slower and far less talented defensive skills of Heinsohn or b) put Russell on Durant and force the Celtics to play a style of defense that they are not accustomed to.

And if Russell has to guard KD, I think it pretty much forces the Celtics to play KC Jones in place of Cousy since I think Cousy's defense on Curry without having the confidence that Russell will be in the lane if Curry drives past him would be too big of a liability for the Celtics. And without having their best quarterback to direct the offense, I think that just further hinders Boston's already inferior (compared to GSW) offense.

Russell without a doubt can defend Durant and may even be the best possible option to defend him. Russell's body is actually more of a traditional forward body for he doen't have the body of a Wilt, Kareem, or Shaq but rather a Garnett.

I agree Russell could defend Durant well, but there are downsides to that approach.

For one, sticking with Durant takes Russell away from the paint and negates his help defense, which is his greatest defensive impact. If Russell helps off Durant, then Durant is open.

A related effect is that sticking with Durant reduces Russell's effectiveness on the boards.

You can't have both Russell smothering Durant and Russell roaming free to defend and rebound.

[wojoaderge]

As others have noted, I think Durant is the difference-maker. Outside of Russell, I don't see anyone on the Celtics roster who could guard KD. Sanders had the reputation of being a great defender (I cannot confirm or deny his defensive prowess since he was a part-time player on the downside of his career by the time I saw him) but doesn't have the length to disrupt KD's shot.

He was two inches taller than Tony Allen though

[Jiminy Glick]

I would also vote for the Warriors. As others have noted, I think Durant is the difference-maker. Outside of Russell, I don't see anyone on the Celtics roster who could guard KD. Sanders had the reputation of being a great defender (I cannot confirm or deny his defensive prowess since he was a part-time player on the downside of his career by the time I saw him) but doesn't have the length to disrupt KD's shot.

Could Russell defend KD? No one knows since he never guarded anyone with Durant's skillset back then. I do know that assuming Russell has sufficient time to study KD, he would have a defensive strategy developed, likely based on trying to take KD away from the spots he likes to shoot from and force KD to make shots from his less-preferred spots. Durant, of course, is plenty talented enough to still make shots from those places. But even if Russell could adequately defend Durant, it takes away some of Russell's biggest strengths, particularly his ability to provide help-defense and takes him farther from the hoop to gather rebounds. So the options for the Celtics would be to a) let Russell play his normal game and watch Durant torch the under-sized Sanders or the slower and far less talented defensive skills of Heinsohn or b) put Russell on Durant and force the Celtics to play a style of defense that they are not accustomed to.

And if Russell has to guard KD, I think it pretty much forces the Celtics to play KC Jones in place of Cousy since I think Cousy's defense on Curry without having the confidence that Russell will be in the lane if Curry drives past him would be too big of a liability for the Celtics. And without having their best quarterback to direct the offense, I think that just further hinders Boston's already inferior (compared to GSW) offense.

Russell without a doubt can defend Durant and may even be the best possible option to defend him. Russell's body is actually more of a traditional forward body for he doen't have the body of a Wilt, Kareem, or Shaq but rather a Garnett.

I agree Russell could defend Durant well, but there are downsides to that approach.

For one, sticking with Durant takes Russell away from the paint and negates his help defense, which is his greatest defensive impact. If Russell helps off Durant, then Durant is open.

A related effect is that sticking with Durant reduces Russell's effectiveness on the boards.

You can't have both Russell smothering Durant and Russell roaming free to defend and rebound.

Oh yeah perhaps, I am not saying he should be guarding him for this tournament. If you don't have a rim protector down there Curry is going to be taking his man off the dribble and getting to the basket with ease.

[trex_8063]

Oh yeah perhaps, I am not saying he should be guarding him for this tournament. If you don't have a rim protector down there Curry is going to be taking his man off the dribble and getting to the basket with ease.

Curry would not be taking KC Jones off the dribble "with ease" even if he was allowed to carry and otherwise dribble by today's officiating [which he will NOT be allowed to do here, as per pen's stipulations].
And aside from modern ruling on the handle, part of the reason Curry is able to take defenders off the dribble today is because they're obliged to desperately overplay the 3pt shot.......which also will not be present in this circumstance.

[Samurai]

I would also vote for the Warriors. As others have noted, I think Durant is the difference-maker. Outside of Russell, I don't see anyone on the Celtics roster who could guard KD. Sanders had the reputation of being a great defender (I cannot confirm or deny his defensive prowess since he was a part-time player on the downside of his career by the time I saw him) but doesn't have the length to disrupt KD's shot.

Could Russell defend KD? No one knows since he never guarded anyone with Durant's skillset back then. I do know that assuming Russell has sufficient time to study KD, he would have a defensive strategy developed, likely based on trying to take KD away from the spots he likes to shoot from and force KD to make shots from his less-preferred spots. Durant, of course, is plenty talented enough to still make shots from those places. But even if Russell could adequately defend Durant, it takes away some of Russell's biggest strengths, particularly his ability to provide help-defense and takes him farther from the hoop to gather rebounds. So the options for the Celtics would be to a) let Russell play his normal game and watch Durant torch the under-sized Sanders or the slower and far less talented defensive skills of Heinsohn or b) put Russell on Durant and force the Celtics to play a style of defense that they are not accustomed to.

And if Russell has to guard KD, I think it pretty much forces the Celtics to play KC Jones in place of Cousy since I think Cousy's defense on Curry without having the confidence that Russell will be in the lane if Curry drives past him would be too big of a liability for the Celtics. And without having their best quarterback to direct the offense, I think that just further hinders Boston's already inferior (compared to GSW) offense.

Russell without a doubt can defend Durant and may even be the best possible option to defend him. Russell's body is actually more of a traditional forward body for he doen't have the body of a Wilt, Kareem, or Shaq but rather a Garnett.

I agree Russell could defend Durant well, but there are downsides to that approach.

For one, sticking with Durant takes Russell away from the paint and negates his help defense, which is his greatest defensive impact. If Russell helps off Durant, then Durant is open.

A related effect is that sticking with Durant reduces Russell's effectiveness on the boards.

You can't have both Russell smothering Durant and Russell roaming free to defend and rebound.

I agree. I thought I made this point with the bolded sentence, but it may not have been clear. Even if Russell could defend KD, and for me it is an unknown simply because he never guarded anyone similar to Durant, there are clear downsides to that strategy.

[trex_8063]

I would also vote for the Warriors. As others have noted, I think Durant is the difference-maker.

I agree, or at least he's the factor that sort of tips the scales beyond where I feel I can go against them.

If you replaced Durant with Harrison Barnes, honestly, I think I'd go with the '62 Celtics. I just think Curry and Thompson are rendered that much less potent without a 3pt line, and Russell can own the paint if not tasked with guarding Durant; and the Celtics would dominate the boards, too.

I still think it would be a competitive series with Durant.

[JordansBulls]

I'd go with the Celtics. Warriors struggle against teams with great bigs. Also would have lost to San Antonio had Kawhi not been injured.