1986 Boston Celtics best ever? Tommy Heinsohn: ’Give me a break. We would beat those guys’

https://www.masslive.com/celtics/2020/04/1986-boston-celtics-best-ever-tommy-heinsohn-give-me-a-break-we-would-beat-those-guys.html



1986 Boston Celtics best ever? Tommy Heinsohn: ’Give me a break. We would beat those guys’



Today 11:37 AM




Tommy Heinsohn and Larry Bird


By John Karalis | JKaralis@masslive.com



There have been some amazing NBA teams assembled over the years. Whether your taste leans more towards a recent Golden State Warriors team, the 1996 Chicago Bulls, or the 1985 Los Angeles Lakers, there’s no doubt the 1986 Boston Celtics are in that mix.

Around these parts, the ’86 Celtics are the pinnacle. Larry Bird was at the height of his powers and along with Kevin McHale and Robert Parish formed perhaps the most formidable front line in NBA history. They won 67 games and an NBA championship. They rolled through the playoffs, only losing three games on their way to Banner 15 (and only once before the Finals).


They were dominant. The might have been the best Celtics team ever.

Unless you ask Tommy Heinsohn.

“Give me a break. We would beat those guys.”

Heinsohn, appearing on the Locked On Celtics podcast, called the ’86 Celtics a fun team to watch and obviously very good, but he disagrees with the notion of crowning them the best the franchise has had to offer.

“We had eight guys in the Hall of Fame, okay? We had Hall of Famers coming off the bench,” he said. “We would have beat those guys.”

Heinsohn, who is a Hall of Fame player and coach, was raised on fastbreak basketball. Red Auerbach lived by it. Heinsohn employed it when he was a coach in the 1970′s to win two titles. He passed it on to Don Nelson, whose “Nelly-ball” was a precurser for today’s let-it-fly attitude.

“I tell you that speed wins out, alright? Speed is important for 84 of the 94 feet. Size is important for 15 feet," Heinsohn said. "And you can take advantage of all that other stuff to beat those bigger guys down the floor or get them out of position.”


The 1986 Celtics averaged just under 90 shots per game. The 1960 Celtics put up 119.6. None of Heinsohn’s teams took fewer than 101 shots per game. Field goal percentages were low back then, but they made up for it by running like mad and putting up as many shots as they could.

“When I say the pace of the game, I’m talking about, we’re taking 110 shots, 115 shots. I mean, that was the way you won,” Heinsohn said. “These guys (today) are so precise, if you get to 90 shots the way they play the game now, that’s a big deal. We would have scored beaucoup more points because we would have absolutely got the ball past two or three of those guys going up the court.”

Add to that, Heinsohn says, that his teams were deeper.

“Walton is a Hall of Fame player, but nobody on that bench there is up to anywhere near the quality of the bench of one of the Celtics teams I played on,” Heinsohn said. “(Scott) Wedman wasn’t going to carry them. (Jerry) Sichting wasn’t going to carry them.... When I played, we picked up Havlicek. Havlicek was the sixth man.”


The counterpoint to Heinsohn would be that there were eight NBA teams when he first won a title. When Havlicek came aboard, there were nine. There were three rounds in the playoffs, and the first was a best-of-five. With fewer teams there was a consolidation of talent.

Still, Heinsohn believes his teams would run the ’86 team off the court. He’s been a part of every era somehow, and now has a front-row seat next to Mike Gorman as part of the NBC Sports Boston broadcast team. As much as we may argue, the man was elected to the Hall of Fame twice. He knows what he’s talking about.

“I’m telling you this from what I know actually works,” he said. “We would have beat them because they didn’t have enough speed in the lineup.”



bob
MY NOTE:  I usually avoid intergenerational comparisons, so I'm not commenting on Tommy's claim vs 1986, but I will point out the similarities between Tommy's NBA and the smaller, more uptempo, higher scoring, offensively-oriented NBA of today.



.

Every time down the floor, the 1986 Celtics put on a passing clinic. They would get the other team's defense spinning around and on their heels. The results were often extremely easy buckets. It took longer to do this, but the results were amazing.

The 1986 Celtics could (and would) run, in an opportunistic manner. They played (and beat) the 1980's Showtime Lakers, until the main Celtics players started breaking down physically. So I don't know that they would get run off the court. Given how many shots Tommy's teams missed, perhaps the 1986 Celtics would have run them off the court instead.

gyso

Just a case of "homerism" for the generation that he played in. In those early years of the NBA many facets of the game when Heinsohn competed, were vastly inferior to the game that has evolved over the last 40 years. I don't even think that they could even compete with the poorer teams of the past 40 years.

swish

As long as the 3 pt shot is worth 3 pts, today's teams would beat all pre-analytics teams. Analytics shows that today's style is more efficient, and teams are put together to play this style. Nothing to do with which generation had better athletes - it's just math. Now - if you made rules that limited the number of 3 pt shots a team could take to whatever the average number of 3s was for that time, then the older team would probably win. I guess I am just saying what Heckler has been saying for years now - its apples and oranges.

Personally, I don't love the modern game. Yeah, passing has returned to an extent, but it's not clever; it's just drive and dish or whip it around the perimeter. Would be interesting if the league limited the number of 3 pt shots teams could take. Of course they could shoot from anywhere, but after hitting their allotted number of 3s, then all shots are only worth 2 pts. It would add a whole new strategic layer - teams would have to think about when to use their allotted 3s.

How hard is it to simulate this and do multiple iterations across all NBA generations/teams to get answer(s) to this once and for all? I'm gathering by the fact that technology has progressed light years over the last 50 years and still no one has come up with a simulation it must be EXTREMELY more difficult than it looks! But really, how hard can it be if you can already recreate an NBA game to look like NBA2K? We have to be close. You can already "pick" your team on NBA2K. Just load up all the rest of the NBA teams in question over time. It would be an NBA2K Super Teams Special Edition.

Come on, America!! Inquiring minds want to know! Now get it on and solve these dilemmas once and for all!!

db

I have always agreed that '86 team is easily among the best NBA teams ever assembled.

Regardless...

How can anyone not love Tommy and his attitude? As a player, coach or announcer, Tommy is just Tommy. A true classic.

" Nothing to do with which generation had better athletes" -                                                                              
           it's just math. Now - if you made rules that limited the number of 3 pt shots a team could take to whatever the average number of 3s was for that time, then the older team would probably win. I guess I am just saying what Heckler has been saying for years now - its apples and oranges.

Shamrock

I have to disagree with your above statement. I was 24 years old when Heinsohn came to the
Celtics. Let me tell you about his first year in the pros.
 * 1956-57 - League dominated by whites from usa - then it was about 90% non black -   now with internatioal players joining the blacks, white usa players are under 10%
 * Centers ranged for the most part from 185 lbs to 220 lbs - Now the average is around 250 lbs.
 * Dribbling with the off shooting hand was rarely for more than a couple dribbles -ball handling now is off the charts
 * Shooting was terrible - League ave for 2 pointers .380 - In 2018-19 it was .519
 * Only in the cities  could you find indoor facilities to play organized basketball in the winter - no ymca's in rural America.
 * No aau ball  to cater to the millions that now play throughout the summer
 * Weight training now a huge factor  in the modern game
Each year of the nba ( for the most part) saw gradual improvement, but it wasn't until the late 70's that  things really started to peak and sort of
level off.

A really good place to chart the growth of the American athlete is by comparing the the performances of the 1950's Olympics vs the Olympics of the last 40 or so years. Athletics like the rest of the scientific world improvements have really benefited by the passage of time.

 swish

 

Swish,

I actually agree with you - sort of. I just didn't want to restart a debate that has already been rehashed many times. I think NBA players on average are better athletically now. While training and nutrition may have contributed to this difference, the magnitude of that contribution is not large. The main reasons the average NBA player is better now are 1) more kids in America and all over the world grow up playing ball, and thus the chances of a naturally gifted player taking up the sport have increased, and 2) kids spend more time playing and learning the game. The result is that on average, the NBA players are better athletes now. Note that I said on average  - the best players of every generation would probably be great in any era. Basketball is only a few generations old, and humans are the same now as in 1940. I occasionally read posts implying that humans are evolving, and that's why today's athletes are better. Evolution takes a long time, not three generations. And being good at sports is not the criteria natural selection is rewarding. It may be true that people in developed countries are bigger from growing up eating meat and drinking milk, but people in the US have been this way since the NBA started.

My point was different  - analytics and the 3 pt shot have made the game more efficient and changed what kind of athletes are selected for in the nba.

Saw this article and thought it might be relevant to this thread:




Isiah Thomas disputes Michael Jordan's GOAT status, says LeBron James, Kevin Durant would've dominated in '80s
By Brad BotkinApr 25, 2020 • 5 min read



Suffice it to say, there wasn't much love lost between Michael Jordan and Isiah Thomas when the Bulls and Pistons were battling for Eastern Conference and NBA supremacy in the late 1980s and early '90s.

Thomas and his Detroit teammates infamously walked off the court without shaking hands after the Bulls beat them in the 1991 conference finals, which Jordan -- who was physically mauled by the Pistons for years and remains a champion grudge holder -- has never let go. It is widely believed Jordan kept Thomas off the 1992 Dream Team.

You might say Thomas is still taking jabs at Jordan, who is still, for most people's money, the greatest player to ever live, and who is fully back in the NBA spotlight with the massive success of "The Last Dance," ESPN's 10-part documentary chronicling Jordan and the 1997-98 Bulls as they chased, and eventually won, their sixth championship in eight years.

On Thursday, Thomas, who was speaking with Chris Broussard of Fox Sports, all but renounced Jordan of his GOAT status, making the case for today's stars as vastly superior athletes to the ones Jordan and Thomas were playing against, effectively saying Jordan wouldn't have stood out as much had he been forced to play against the likes of LeBron James or Kevin Durant.

"I think this generation [of players] is not getting enough credit for what they're doing," Thomas said. "Because the athletes that are in this generation are so far superior than what was in my generation. [When we were playing], Jordan was the best athlete that we had ever seen, [but] from an athletic standpoint, there are like 10 or 11 guys in the NBA right now with Jordan's athleticism. We didn't have that back then. With what [Kevin Durant] and LeBron are doing, if you put them back in the era of the '80s, with their talent, their athleticism and their skill, who's the GOAT?"

You can say this is Isiah still being salty with Jordan, but he's surely not the only one who sees this debate through the lens of today's superior athletes. It's just a fact. Jordan was not playing against the same level of competition that exists today. Things evolve.

Jordan being defended by, say, Kawhi Leonard or prime LeBron James, in an era where defenses are far more sophisticated and thus difficult to crack because of the relaxed illegal defense rules, which in turn allow teams to effectively surround great players with multiple defenders, is a lot different than facing either straightforward one-on-one defense from largely inferior athletes, or obvious double teams that had to announce themselves to the world because, again, of the strict illegal defense rules.

What were the illegal defense rules back then? In essence, no zone. You had to be attached to a player at all times -- either the man you're guarding, or the man you're double teaming. No in between. So, if you had a bad shooter on your team in the '80s and '90s, a defender couldn't just leave that guy to come jam up the best scorer's space the way they can now. Back then, if you left your guy and didn't fully commit to the double team, which is to say you kind of hung out in space and waited to help, you were playing zone defense, and that was illegal.

That's a very difficult thing about playing in today's game as a great scorer. Not only are the defenders bigger and more athletic, but you never know where the help is coming from. Guys are dropping and hedging and switching all over the floor. In the '80s and '90s, there wasn't all this switching and cross-matching defense. There were a lot of nights Jordan was going against guys who would have a hard time starting, if receiving much playing time at all, in today's NBA.

Jordan was basically a great modern athlete before those types of athletes came along in bunches, a gigantic fish in a much smaller pond. Like Thomas said, there were only a few of those types of athletes back in the day. Jordan, Julius Erving, these guys were one of one when they were playing. Now they might be one of 15 or 20. Now great athletes, great shooters, great defenders, they're everywhere. It's not just the athleticism; the skill level has exploded. That will drive old-schoolers crazy, but it's just the reality.

There is a flip side to that argument, of course. Defenders could hand check in Jordan's era, and that is a BIG deal. You might've gotten to face more one-on-one defense back then, but it was with a guy's hands all over you. There is just no way to overstate how much easier perimeter players have it these days in terms of freedom of movement and being able to get into their rhythm as ball handlers.

We're talking about putting LeBron or Durant back in the '80s and '90s, but turn that around and put Jordan in this era. Put Jordan in the Rockets' offense in James Harden's role, with shooters all around him and the floor completely spaced, with centers not allowed to just stand back and protect the rim and/or maul him when he goes to the rim, with help defenders not allowed to leave bad shooters to cramp up driving lanes, with the way fouls are called these days.

The guy would live at the free throw line in this era. To say he might average 40 points is perhaps not a stretch, especially when you consider than he was a great mid-range shooter who would presumably be able to stretch to 3-point range in an era that puts much more emphasis on that shot. Run pick-and-roll with Jordan going downhill and a popping big man drawing the defense back, and say your prayers.

This is what makes this a fascinating debate. You're talking about all-time great athletes and players with entirely different circumstances. There's really no right or wrong answer, and if you think Jordan is still the greatest, you clearly have a case. But if you side with Isiah and believe the players of today are just physically better, you can make a pretty convincing case in your own right.

The statistical stats of the players of the last 4 decades are much more similar then when compared to the 1950's and 60's. The Jordan - James debate is about 2 players that played in decades with quite similar stats, with the competition also being quite similar. In addition the physical stature diference between decades gives an edge to the last decade or two. It's not the same case when comparing the last 4 decades against players of the 50's and 60's where the players of those early years have stats that are much lower then those of the modern era . The physical status of`the players of the 50's and 60's falls far short of the last 4 decades. "It's all ab'it's all about the level of competition" Ps - Igive Ps -- I give the nod to James.

swish

Shamrock1000 wrote:Swish,

I actually agree with you - sort of. I just didn't want to restart a debate that has already been rehashed many times. I think NBA players on average are better athletically now. While training and nutrition may have contributed to this difference, the magnitude of that contribution is not large. The main reasons the average NBA player is better now are 1) more kids in America and all over the world grow up playing ball, and thus the chances of a naturally gifted player taking up the sport have increased, and 2) kids spend more time playing and learning the game. The result is that on average, the NBA players are better athletes now. Note that I said on average  - the best players of every generation would probably be great in any era. Basketball is only a few generations old, and humans are the same now as in 1940. I occasionally read posts implying that humans are evolving, and that's why today's athletes are better. Evolution takes a long time, not three generations. And being good at sports is not the criteria natural selection is rewarding. It may be true that people in developed countries are bigger from growing up eating meat and drinking milk, but people in the US have been this way since the NBA started.

My point was different  - analytics and the 3 pt shot have made the game more efficient and changed what kind of athletes are selected for in the nba.

Shamrock,

If I can get a little free time soon, I may co-opt your thinking here into a topic for another thread.
We keep beating the same dying horse about comparisons across generations, and that's not unique to us, but a common debate. I think your two points frame a potentially different angle to the conversation, and one I've been thinking about as well. It might make for a good conversation at any time, not just during a sports-on-pause period.

Regards

NYCelt wrote:

Shamrock1000 wrote:Swish,

I actually agree with you - sort of. I just didn't want to restart a debate that has already been rehashed many times. I think NBA players on average are better athletically now. While training and nutrition may have contributed to this difference, the magnitude of that contribution is not large. The main reasons the average NBA player is better now are 1) more kids in America and all over the world grow up playing ball, and thus the chances of a naturally gifted player taking up the sport have increased, and 2) kids spend more time playing and learning the game. The result is that on average, the NBA players are better athletes now. Note that I said on average  - the best players of every generation would probably be great in any era. Basketball is only a few generations old, and humans are the same now as in 1940. I occasionally read posts implying that humans are evolving, and that's why today's athletes are better. Evolution takes a long time, not three generations. And being good at sports is not the criteria natural selection is rewarding. It may be true that people in developed countries are bigger from growing up eating meat and drinking milk, but people in the US have been this way since the NBA started.

My point was different  - analytics and the 3 pt shot have made the game more efficient and changed what kind of athletes are selected for in the nba.

Shamrock,

If I can get a little free time soon, I may co-opt your thinking here into a topic for another thread.
We keep beating the same dying horse about comparisons across generations, and that's not unique to us, but a common debate. I think your two points frame a potentially different angle to the conversation, and one I've been thinking about as well. It might make for a good conversation at any time, not just during a sports-on-pause period.

Regards

NYCelt
Get it started - Bored out of my mind right now - A lively disucssion on this topic could offer some interesting perspectives.

swish

swish wrote:The statistical stats of the players of the last 4 decades are much more similar then when compared to the 1950's and 60's. The Jordan - James debate is about 2 players  that played in decades with quite similar stats, with the competition also being quite similar. In addition the physical stature diference between decades gives an edge to the last decade or two. It's not the same case when comparing the last 4 decades against players of the 50's and 60's where the players of those early years have stats that are much lower then those of the modern era . The physical status of`the players of the 50's and 60's falls far short of the last 4 decades.                                                                            "It's all ab'it's all about the level of competition"                                                                                                                                                                  Ps - Igive  Ps --  I give the nod to James.

  swish

I agree regarding players from the 50s and 60s, largely for the reasons I stated in my previous post. The league was drawing from a smaller pool of players that excluded African Americans in the 50s. I would still argue that the very best players from the 60s at least could play today. Wilt was certainly big enough, strong enough, and athletic enough to dominate in the 80s, 90s, and 00's. He might be least effective in today's perimeter oriented game, but perhaps he would have developed an outside shot had he played in this era. Russell could play in any era. Probably Oscar Robinson too. They wouldn't dominate as much though, since there would be more players of their caliber in the league. In summary, the best players could play in any era. The league is tougher not because the best players are better, but rather because there are more of them, and the average player is better now. Marginal guys from past generations might not even crack in the G-league of today's game. It's just numbers. The more kids play, the odds of a prodigy actually picking up the game increase.

NYCelt wrote:

Shamrock1000 wrote:Swish,

I actually agree with you - sort of. I just didn't want to restart a debate that has already been rehashed many times. I think NBA players on average are better athletically now. While training and nutrition may have contributed to this difference, the magnitude of that contribution is not large. The main reasons the average NBA player is better now are 1) more kids in America and all over the world grow up playing ball, and thus the chances of a naturally gifted player taking up the sport have increased, and 2) kids spend more time playing and learning the game. The result is that on average, the NBA players are better athletes now. Note that I said on average  - the best players of every generation would probably be great in any era. Basketball is only a few generations old, and humans are the same now as in 1940. I occasionally read posts implying that humans are evolving, and that's why today's athletes are better. Evolution takes a long time, not three generations. And being good at sports is not the criteria natural selection is rewarding. It may be true that people in developed countries are bigger from growing up eating meat and drinking milk, but people in the US have been this way since the NBA started.

My point was different  - analytics and the 3 pt shot have made the game more efficient and changed what kind of athletes are selected for in the nba.

Shamrock,

If I can get a little free time soon, I may co-opt your thinking here into a topic for another thread.
We keep beating the same dying horse about comparisons across generations, and that's not unique to us, but a common debate. I think your two points frame a potentially different angle to the conversation, and one I've been thinking about as well. It might make for a good conversation at any time, not just during a sports-on-pause period.

Regards

Go for it NY - glad to have contributed, and happy you have been thinking similarly. It just makes sense...

I will agree with Gyso’s statement, that was one heck of a passing team. Bill Walton was the best passing Center I ever watched, he was the difference on that team.They were a joy to watch.  

Basketball has changed so much over the years, a lot because of the players who are now playing plus the rule changes.  Defense the way we watched it years ago is gone. That is what is so frustrating when watching a guy like Smart play such awesome defense and get stupid calls.  The name of the game is POINTS. High scoring games are what sells the game today.  Kids today have no idea what good defense is.

As a product of the 60’s, I refuse to get caught up in any comparisons. You all know how I feel about that era of players.  But, since ‘86 was the team being compared to, I have a real love of that team. They were such fun to watch.  I met Bill Walton in a mall here one day. He
Was signing autographs. When my son and I reached the front of the line, I asked how he liked backing up the big guy,(Parish), he was so excited that he talked for ten minutes (to my son;s embarrassment) what a joy it was to listen to him. 

So Gyso.....I am with you

The big fallacy of this debate is in assuming that Magic, Wilt, Bird or Jordan would not take advantage of all that would be available to them in modern sports training, nutrition, video replay etc.

You take Lebron and transport him back to the 60s. Give him no personal trainer, no private chef, have him travel on a bus most nights and have to work a job in the off season selling insurance or being a financial planner and tell me he would be better than Oscar Robertson or Elgin Baylor. What a joke.

I am not debating anything really, I am saying that that team just was a joy to watch night in and night out.  I refuse to say they were better than the guys from the 60’s. Those debates make me nuts. I remember how much love I had of those teams back then. They were talented talented guys for their era. That is why comparing players makes me nuts.  How many could have run the court like John Havlicek?  

We are just saying that that ‘86 team had special talents and did things that made you just love them

mrkleen09 wrote:The big fallacy of this debate is in assuming that Magic, Wilt, Bird or Jordan would not take advantage of all that would be available to them in modern sports training, nutrition, video replay etc.

You take Lebron and transport him back to the 60s.  Give him no personal trainer, no private chef, have him travel on a bus most nights and have to work a job in the off season selling insurance or being a financial planner and tell me he would be better than Oscar Robertson or Elgin Baylor.  What a joke.

That is what I have been saying - great players of any generation would be great. The difference is in average and below average players. Those players are probably better simply because more people compete for each spot, even when considering talent dilution due to league expansions.

Also agree that people in the past probably didn't spend as much time training/learning the game. Nowadays, prospects are identified so young, and begin serious training earlier. Weight training, special chefs, and luxury travel probably do more to improve the longevity of careers than they do for raising the overall talent ceiling, but they certainly help as well.

As many have mentioned, it is always difficult to compare different eras of NBA play whether you are comparing individual teams or players.

But, Tommy Heinsohn has seen them all!

And, he would not be the Heinsohn we all know if he was not completely loyal to himself and his teammates.

Given all the physical and technical advantages enjoyed by the present day basketball player I believe that it's fair to assume that the players of the 50'and 60's would have been much better - perhaps equal to the players of the presemt generation given those same advantages. But since they lacked those attributes
back during their playing days their level of play was considerably lower than exist during the present generation.

swish

Fifty years later Sam Jones would still be one of the best shooters in the league, still smooth and cool as a cucumber!!!!  Too Late!! As he used to torch Chamberlain with every time Wilt tried to stop him from shooting!!!

RosalieTCeltics wrote:Fifty years later Sam Jones would still be one of the best shooters in the league, still smooth and cool as a cucumber!!!!  Too Late!! As he used to torch Chamberlain with every time Wilt tried to stop him from shooting!!!

 Rosalie

  Yeah - I could see Sam having a shot at playing in the present decade -  see below chart comparing top shooting guards during his playing days.

   
http://bkref.com/tiny/AMNm7
 swish