GOAT TEAM TOURNAMENT #6 08 Celtics v. #10 07 Spurs

[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.

2008 Boston Celtics

PG Rajon Rondo
SG Ray Allen
SF Paul Pierce
PF Kevin Garnett
C Kendrick Perkins

F/G James Posey
C/F PJ Brown
PG Sam Cassell
F Leon Powe

The first of the "big 3" teams of the modern era. James Posey was the main sub with Garnett swinging to center and Pierce to PF at times. Because the two teams are only a year apart, rules should be pretty consistent. Perkins was not yet considered sucky, Rondo had not yet broken out in the playoffs so it is basically the big 3 and defense. The Celtics were a terrific defensive team, leading the league (only 10/30 offensively) and Garnett, Rondo, Posey, and Brown were all very good defenders for their spots (Brown v. other backup centers). The Celtics shot just under 20 3PA per game hitting at a .381 pace (slightly worse in the playoffs), virtually identical to the Spurs.

2007 San Antonio Spurs

PG Tony Parker
(SG Michael Finley)
SF Bruce Bowen
PF Fabricio Oberto
C Tim Duncan

G Manu Ginobili
F Robert Horry
G/F Brent Barry
C/F Francisco Elson
PG Jacque Vaughn

Manu played more minutes than either FInley or Oberto, with another season as the greatest 6th man in NBA history. Duncan and Parker were the top scorers with Manu coming in to form San Antonio's own big three. The Spurs were the 2nd best defense in the league and the 5th best offense. And of course, Greg Popovich as coach.

Who wins?

[trex_8063]

Oh my my my, this is another toughy. Let me just get thru some general impressions to start......

The '08 Celtics felt like one of the most dominant teams we'd seen in some time during the rs, with the coming together of three [marginally over-the-hill] stars to make the most awesome group nickname [The Boston Three Party] ever. They won 66 games, they had a +9.30 SRS, they were the best defense by a country mile (-2.7 to 2nd-best defense in the league), while also being more than respectable offensively (tied for 9th in ORtg). They were, simply put, damn good.
The playoffs finally arrived, and while I still kinda clung to this impression that they were the team to beat, they certainly didn't roll thru the playoffs in dominant fashion:
*They took 7 games to eliminate a 37-win, -2.23 SRS Hawks team (although to be fair, that probably overstates how close it actually was: The Celtics won each of their home games by a minimum of 15 (including a 34-pt blowout in game 7 that the Hawks were never really in), while the Hawks managed to eek out a win in each of their home games by 9, 5, and 3, respectively).
**Then they took another 7 games to eliminate a 45-win, -0.53 SRS Cavs team, in which the home team again won every game and the Cavs actually won the battle of the scoring margin in the series. At this point, the Celtics were looking anything but invincible.
***In the ECF it's like they finally put their game faces on, and stopped dicking around. They were facing a truly formidable Pistons team (59 wins, +6.67 SRS), and managed to pull it out in 6 games.
****By the time the finals rolled around, I didn't know what to expect. The Lakers had won 57 games and were a +7.34 SRS and had been looking especially impressive since obtaining Pau Gasol. While the Celtics looked like easily the best team in the rs, they'd been inconsistent in the playoffs up to that point; and there was the stupid 2-3-2 orientation of game locations for this series, iirc; so this all had me thinking this was anyone's series. Boston managed to take it in six, winning game six in commanding fashion, too; although I still have somewhat mixed feelings about their playoff performance, given I'm here to consider them against another equal(ish) team in the '07 Spurs (no era difference whatsoever).

As the '07 Spurs......
They won 58 games and were a league-best +8.35 SRS, and practically cruised to a title with a 16-4 record in the playoffs, despite facing a +1.69 SRS team in the 1st round, a *+7.28 SRS team in the 2nd round (*the Suns: the year of the infamous Robert Horry hip-check which ultimately rewarded the Spurs and potentially cost the Suns the series), a +3.06 SRS in the WCF, although then only a +3.33 SRS in the Finals.
Still, they did not have any easy road to get to the finals, yet still had a fairly commanding playoff record (although again: the hip-check incident still gives me pause).

So idk, this is without a doubt one of the more difficult ones we've had to judge so far. I need to think it over, maybe read some arguments before I can come to any decision.

[pandrade83]

After thinking this for a little bit, I'm slightly leaning Spurs.

Why:

I think Duncan & Garnett will largely neutralize one another, think Bowen can hold up fine against Pierce & vice versa with Rondo on Parker. Elson & Perkins are both worthless. All those things are more or less equal. On the points of differentiation (and there aren't many):

1) Manu & Allen are two potential X factors that the other side doesn't really have a clear cut answer for - I think Manu is probably a little bit more "playoff resilient" in this setting than Allen and
2) I like the Spurs' other role players (Barry, Finley, Horry) more than Boston's which I haven't yet mentioned.

[trex_8063]

Giving it some more thought. Garnett/Duncan is an intriguing battle, but as pandrade83 said, I think they more or less cancel/even each other out. Although very different player types, I think Rondo and Parker are pretty even for what they'll provide in the playoffs. Rondo should be a decent cover for Parker (who is historically a bit inconsistent in the playoffs anyway); Parker's still the more potent offensive player overall. Bowen should be a near ideal foil for Pierce, although Pierce is obviously still going to get his to some degree and Oberto/Perkins is a more or less whatever match-up.

As to the benches, well, I kinda like both benches. James Posey was [imo] a really fantastic 3&D role player, Tony Allen is, well, Tony Allen; and Leon Powe was actually pretty decent in limited minutes before his injury. Then you round that out with Eddie House, ancient PJ Brown, and Big Baby Davis.......that's a pretty good bench.

But the Spurs have a comparable [arguably marginally better???] bench headed by Brent Barry, Robert Horry and Michael Finley (yeah, I know technically he started games, but played bench-level minutes); and then rounded out by guys like Elson, Udrih, Vaughn, and Bonner (so they could go pretty deep if they wanted, and Pop is the master of getting the most/best out of his role players).

I think the X-factor consideration is the primary SG match-up: Ray Ray vs Manu. I gotta say I like Manu a pinch better, and perhaps especially in the playoffs. The Celtics do have Tony Allen to throw at Manu from time to time, though.

And otoh, the Celtics would have the HCA in this series. That's perhaps significant as they'd gone 35-6 at home in the rs, outscoring their opponents by an AVERAGE of 12.5 pts/game at home. And in the playoffs, while boasting a 16-10 record overall, they were 13-1 at home (3-9 on the road). Could certainly make the case that is a deciding factor.


So I'm going to go with [flips coin]........the Celtics (in 7 games).

[drza]

Oh my my my, this is another toughy. Let me just get thru some general impressions to start......

The '08 Celtics felt like one of the most dominant teams we'd seen in some time during the rs,

Spoiler:

with the coming together of three [marginally over-the-hill] stars to make the most awesome group nickname [The Boston Three Party] ever. They won 66 games, they had a +9.30 SRS, they were the best defense by a country mile (-2.7 to 2nd-best defense in the league), while also being more than respectable offensively (tied for 9th in ORtg). They were, simply put, damn good.
The playoffs finally arrived, and while I still kinda clung to this impression that they were the team to beat, they certainly didn't roll thru the playoffs in dominant fashion:
*They took 7 games to eliminate a 37-win, -2.23 SRS Hawks team (although to be fair, that probably overstates how close it actually was: The Celtics won each of their home games by a minimum of 15 (including a 34-pt blowout in game 7 that the Hawks were never really in), while the Hawks managed to eek out a win in each of their home games by 9, 5, and 3, respectively).
**Then they took another 7 games to eliminate a 45-win, -0.53 SRS Cavs team, in which the home team again won every game and the Cavs actually won the battle of the scoring margin in the series. At this point, the Celtics were looking anything but invincible.

***In the ECF it's like they finally put their game faces on, and stopped dicking around. They were facing a truly formidable Pistons team (59 wins, +6.67 SRS), and managed to pull it out in 6 games.
****By the time the finals rolled around, I didn't know what to expect. The Lakers had won 57 games and were a +7.34 SRS and had been looking especially impressive since obtaining Pau Gasol. While the Celtics looked like easily the best team in the rs, they'd been inconsistent in the playoffs up to that point; and there was the stupid 2-3-2 orientation of game locations for this series, iirc; so this all had me thinking this was anyone's series. Boston managed to take it in six, winning game six in commanding fashion,

Spoiler:

too; although I still have somewhat mixed feelings about their playoff performance, given I'm here to consider them against another equal(ish) team in the '07 Spurs (no era difference whatsoever).

As the '07 Spurs......
They won 58 games and were a league-best +8.35 SRS, and practically cruised to a title with a 16-4 record in the playoffs, despite facing a +1.69 SRS team in the 1st round, a *+7.28 SRS team in the 2nd round (*the Suns: the year of the infamous Robert Horry hip-check which ultimately rewarded the Spurs and potentially cost the Suns the series), a +3.06 SRS in the WCF, although then only a +3.33 SRS in the Finals.
Still, they did not have any easy road to get to the finals, yet still had a fairly commanding playoff record (although again: the hip-check incident still gives me pause).

So idk, this is without a doubt one of the more difficult ones we've had to judge so far. I need to think it over, maybe read some arguments before I can come to any decision.

Interesting topic. I don't have the time to weigh in with any depth, but I think possibly the most important factor in this matchup needs to be discussed: WHEN in the playoffs are these teams coming from?

That isn't normally an issue, but it is with the Celtics because Pierce (undisclosed injury when fell hard against Hawks, in my opinion) and Ray Allen (son's diagnosis w/ serious illness) were complete no-shows for the first half of the playoffs. Then, in the last two series they recovered (Pierce got healthy a few games before Ray seemingly got through his emotional roller coaster) and played more like themselves. To whit, quick glance:

Pierce (first 13): 17 PPG (40.7 FG%), 4.1 APG
Pierce (last 13): 22.3 PPG (47.3 FG%), 5.1 APG

Allen (first 15): 12.5 PPG (38% FG, 31 3P%)
Allen (last 11): 19.8 PPG (49% FG, 48 3P%)

Garnett (first 14): 20.3 PPG, 9.9 RPG
Garnett (last 12): 20.5 PPG, 11.3 RPG

The numbers aren't the important part, they're just a quick way of pointing out that Pierce and Ray were emphatically NOT themselves during those first two series, and KG was essentially carrying the team as more of a unipolar player until they returned to form. That series vs the Cavs was pretty close to a 1-on-1 between KG and LeBron until Pierce showed up for Game 7.

That's why the team was a world-beater in the regular season, and played at that level late in the playoffs, but battled so much in the first half of the playoffs. Once Paul and Ray were ready to go, KG could focus more on defense/rebounding and the team was able to start looking like the squad they were in the regular season.

So, full circle, in evaluating how the '08 Celtics would look against any other championship team, the question has to be asked, when in the playoffs are you choosing?

First half of the playoffs, I'd probably take the 07 Spurs. Second half of the playoffs, with the team at full go, give me the '08 Celtics. Since I'm assuming we're talking about teams meeting in a fictional championship, I'm going with the Celtics that faced the '08 Lakers. So...

Vote: 08 Celtics

[penbeast0]

FINALS

[Jiminy Glick]

Was Tony Allen hurt during the 2008 NBA finals? Because if he isn't you obviously play him more minutes and put him on Ginobili. Also I would play Rondo more minutes. You could play Perkins more and put him on Duncan. So give me the Celtics. Ray Allen and Pierce are close with Parker and Ginobili and Garnett and Duncan are close but Garnett is the better shooter. Then Posey and House can also hit shots. Then you have the defense of Rondo, Allen, and Perkins so yeah I think the Celtics win. Players like Rondo, Pierce, and Garnett also have great leadership traits and are very vocal.

[Dr Positivity]

This is weird because my feeling at the time was the Celtics were the more dominant season. The Spurs were one of the most by default champions ever. But the talent level looks like a decent comp and it's possible the "team on a mission" thing and KG intensity helped the Cs show up to every regular season game which wasn't as big an advantage in playoffs. Ultimately I want to say the Celtics win cause they want it more but that's not the best justification. Still I'll vote 08 Celtics

[iggymcfrack]

The Celtics looked pretty vulnerable in their playoff run just based on the number of weaker opponents that took them to 7 games, but if you look back at the overall run, they actually had a better average MOV than the Spurs throughout the playoffs. Also, 2007 was the year where Donaghy literally fixed at least one Spurs/Suns playoff game against Phoenix if not more. Combined with the suspension to Amare, it makes the Spurs’ victory look a little bit fortuitous. Gotta vote Boston.

[GSP]

05 Spurs were much better than 07 and arguably the best Pop/Timmy team ever. 07 was fortunate to put it lightly in getting past Phoenix. Even the finals was much more competitive than it needed to be with a mediocre Cavs team. Lebron was their only offense and played horrible yet every game was close/competitive in the 4th and 3 of them came down to the last few minutes including the last 2 wins coming by a couple possessions.

Cavs defense and rebounding kept those games close and they're far below the Celtics in those departments and have a far better and varied offense to boot

[TheGOATRises007]

I think the 07 Spurs are one of the weakest title teams.

The 08 Lakers are a better team than them and Celtics looked clearly better vs the Lakers.

I have Boston clearly here. I'll say 6. I can't see the Spurs winning in Boston if it's a finals.

[JordansBulls]

Definitely the 2007 Spurs in 6 games.

VOTES WITHOUT ANALYSIS WONT BE COUNTED.

[HBK_Kliq_33]

08 Celtics would win in seven games without question. Celtics destroyed Kobe and gasol that year in game 6 and kobe gasol beat spurs in 5 games in 08? I don't see how 2007 spurs and 08 spurs is that dramatic of a difference.

Celtics had 4 star players in the playoffs to spurs 3 star players. Spurs had an easy path to the title that season, they had one tough series and were bailed out by suspensions. I think 05 spurs were the best spurs title because manu had his best year and his peak is higher than Parker. 2014 spurs would be number two and 2007 spurs as three.

[AdagioPace]

08 Celtics would win in seven games without question. Celtics destroyed Kobe and gasol that year in game 6 and kobe gasol beat spurs in 5 games in 08? I don't see how 2007 spurs and 08 spurs is that dramatic of a difference.

Celtics had 4 star players in the playoffs to spurs 3 star players. Spurs had an easy path to the title that season, they had one tough series and were bailed out by suspensions. I think 05 spurs were the best spurs title because manu had his best year and his peak is higher than Parker. 2014 spurs would be number two and 2007 spurs as three.

07 Spurs are a completely different planet relatively to the 2008 Spurs given that those 12 months are considered the watershed between Duncan's prime and post-prime. Imagine the Lakers with 2005 Shaq, they wouldn't be as good as their 04 or 03 version despite marginal progresses by other players.
I agree that the Celtics are better mainly because of star-power advantage. I also agree with those who compare Parker with Rondo rather than Allen, it makes all the difference in the world!