Topic of Discussion 86 Boston Celtics vs 96 Bulls

Rosalie,

Yes, it seems pretty obvious, especially when the biases are removed. Virtually every argument based on the products of evolution has been debunked in this discussion; and, frankly, the Bird teams (versus the Russell teams, not their 1985-86 opponents) didn't have any other significant advantages.

And a very happy belated birthday to you.

Sam

Whether against the '63 or '86 Celtics team, Chicago couldn't put as many truly great players on the floor as Boston could, even though both Celtics teams were essentially filled with role players - they just played their roles better than the Bulls players did. I'm really talking top to bottom on the roster, not just a select few. Both Celtics teams were stronger through the first eight (or 10). Could a Jordan/Pippen/Cartwright/Kerr/Kukoc combo overcome a Bird/McHale/Parish/DJ/Ainge team? With Ainge the weak link, maybe, but once the other players were added, I'm not so sure. Could Cousy, with long arms, large hands, superior vision (it helps on defense too) and with Bill Russell behind him stop DJ or his opposite number on the Bulls? Oh, yeah. Actually Russell makes all the difference. For those who never saw him play, it's hard to believe that a guy who didn't shoot much or score in bunches could affect the games' outcomes, but he did night after night. Russell was not only the consummate team player, but also he was always in the other teams' heads - he flat out intimidated them and encouraged bad shots, usually farther out from where the players wanted to shoot. As great a player as Elgin Baylor was, Russell took him right out of the games. All the head fakes Baylor could muster couldn't stop Russell from making him look ordinary.

Hunkering down? Tis been the year for it Sam with tornadoes, an earthquake and now a hurricane. Hope all is well down the Cape. I thought we had missed anything severe today in Western Mass as a couple of hours ago radar and the weather channel showed Irene to be north of here. Yet right now the house is shaking (thankfully only a little) due to the high winds.

Re-reading this thread and the current one on Wilt and Russ exchanging places made me think. Sam is correct with his objective analysis on the two eras and the two players and the 63 vs 86 Celtics team attributes. But regardless of my acceptance of that, everytime I run that series over in my mind the result is always the same. Larry hits a fallback three pointer for a one point 86 Celtics victory with no time left on the clock in game 7 of that fanciful series. I try to use reason, I try to be objective, I try to be unbiased but to no avail the results never change.

I guess that is in part why we root so hard for our favorite teams and why these forums thrive!

sam wrote:Bobc,

I just bet you were hunkering down and waiting for this response. It really has nothing to do with the original topic of this thread, but just to respond to your question on whether there has ever been more basketball IQ and vision on the court at one time, the answer (with no disrespect to the 1985-86 team that mesmerized all of us) the answer is a resounding "Yes."

You correctly pointed out that the '85-'86 team went eight deep with all-stars, HOF'ers and MVPs. And also that Larry, DJ and Walton represented a formidable trio in terms of basketball IQ.

But, come on, Bob. The 1962-63 Boston Celtics team included:

• NINE (count 'em, nine) players who became future Hall-of-Famers plus a Hall-of-Fame coach

• SEVEN (count 'em, seven) players who became future NBA coaches, including six head coaches (one of them the second winningest head coach in Celtics history), plus a noted ball-stealer who could easily have become a head coach if he had expressed the slightest inclination

• a collective 78 career NBA championship rings (not including Red's nine), 53 all-star appearances, and 6 league MVP awards

• a team so deep that it included two premier sixth men—both of them at the pinnacle of basketball IQ (one invented the sixth man role and, incidentally, the flop, and the other was arguably the greatest true sixth man in history)

• incredible basketball creativity epitomized by two players who arguably redefined their respective positions more innovatively than any other two players of all-time, even to the extent of forcing significant changes in league rules

The 1985-86 Celtics were a serendipitous collection of immensely talented and complementary players who had a great season and thrilled all of us. The 1962-63 Celtics were a complete phenomenon of physicality and basketball intellect that was in the vanguard of a true NBA Tyranny.

Sam

"At 6" 7", he might have been close to Larry's size if the game had been played in 1963." I don't understand. Do you mean Heinsohn would be taller in 1986 or that Bird would be shorter in '63? At 6'9" Bird was taller when he played, and he played against taller players than Heinie did. Actually in 1963, Heinsohn was considerably taller than Larry, who was at seven years-old at the time. Heinsohn could've put quite a beating on the kid.

Bob,

I had wondered how you were doing, as the storm (no longer a hurricane) passed west of us. Glad you're okay. I figure maybe a little shaking is good for a house once in a while. I keep waiting for old $1,000 bills to come raining from the attic.

As for your vision of the end of that mythical series, I actually believe it's correct, with one tiny addition. I figure the apex of Larry's shot is about 20 feet in the air. And, just before the ball reaches its apex, a long bony finger stretches out and barely deflects it. Hey, I can have visions too.

Sam

Everyone has their opinion. That's why these conversations are so much fun. Just the other day I heard someone with the audacity to suggest that Peyton Manning is arguably the greatest QB of all time. Yeah, right.He's not even the greatest to wear a horseshoe. LOL

I'm not olde enuf like Swish and Sam to have watched the C's in the 20's (sic) but I sure watched them in the 50's. I sometimes have difficulty deciding between the 63 and the 64 championship teams. But I have no such hesitancy in saying that the 86 team would beat any of the Jordan teams. Chicago had 3 great players and couple of role players that did well. Just not the same. Teamwork wins!

The only thing is Bob, that as Larry goes to hit that fall away jumper, out of no where flies Bill Russell to block it and win the game. I love both teams, but my money will always be on Russell, he was something to watch.

RosalieTCeltics wrote:The only thing is Bob, that as Larry goes to hit that fall away jumper, out of no where flies Bill Russell to block it and win the game. I love both teams, but my money will always be on Russell, he was something to watch.

Just to chime in - Russell was and will always be simply peerless. By the way, he wouldn't just block it, he'd make certain that Larry or another opponent didn't get another shot after the block.

Rosalie, you and I were on the same wave length. No great surprise there.

Mulcogi, actually Russell picks the 64-65 team while Havlicek goes with the 62-63 squad. My guess is that the reason neither picks the 63-64 unit is that it was a team in transition, with Cousy having departed and K.C. Jones taking over the playmaker reins. But, frankly, I'd go to war with any of those teams against any other team (except one another). And I can list a load of very objective reasons, but they'd just be redundant with what I've written before.

Sam

good discussion here, although y'all strayed from my original post... I won my debate about that topic on another forum so no worries :p

as for 86 vs 63, because the 86 Celtics were not super athletic, I think they'd transistion well into a less athletic era of the 60's because of their skills. Bird would still be a deadly shooter, McHale would still have the largest array of post moves every, parrish would still have a solid jumper, a great spin move and still do whatever was required to win games and DJ would be the stone that the 86 team could rely on. Walton would still be one of the smartest players ever and the 63 teams press would be handled just fine by smart passing and exceptional ball handling by DJ, Ainge, Schiting and if need be Bird.

I wanted to point out the disparity on FG%, but of course it was different era's and FG% has improved as the game has evolved along with the training that young players get right away.

soo to make it a bit more interesting I checked their league rankings out against their contemporaries thus eliminating the pace argument.

The 63 Celtics: (9 team league)
9th in FG%... yikes their true weakness
1st in rebounds
1st in assists
3rd in points/game
2nd in opponents points/game (Hawks were a whopping 4 ppg lower!)

the 86 Celtics: (23 team league)
2nd in FG% (Lakers were 1st)
1st in rebs
2nd in assists (Lakers #1 again)
8th in points/game
3rd in opponents points/game

The 86 team IMO played in a deeper league with tougher competition and still dominated their contemporaries a little better.

I think that Larry's refusal to lose is just as high as Russell's or in the ball park being that he had an ego to win like all the great's did so he'd be up for the challenge of facing another Celtics great team and beating them as much as Russell would want to win too.

It'd be a great series though.

celtic fan wrote:as for 86 vs 63, because the 86 Celtics were not super athletic, I think they'd transistion well into a less athletic era of the 60's

Oh my, celtic fan, you stepped in it here. This misperception of "less athletic" old days comes up from time to time, and Sam consistently shoots it down by making several points:

-- Teams played at a MUCH faster pace in the Russell era (what Sam refers to as "volume basketball") and often played three nights in a row and four out of five nights. It took great athletes to perform under those conditions. It's true that teams in the 80's played at a faster pace than today, but they didn't match the pace from the 60's, and they certainly didn't play three nights in a row or four out of five.

-- Players often took second jobs in the offseason to make ends meet and used training camp to get into shape, while today's players have personal trainers and massage therapists and train in the offseason. The word "nutrition" was probably unknown to most players in the 60's, while today's players have full-time chefs and nutritionists. These and other similar trends were underway in the 80's, and one of the key components of any assessment of teams from different generations would require compensating for this by either a) giving players from the older generation a "bump"; or b) docking players from the newer generation. Given the same advantages, players from the 60's would be heavier, stronger, and even taller.

(Another component to differences in height is that players in the 60's didn't inflate their height and, if anything, underreported it. Russell is often listed as 6-9, but he was actually 1/2 or 3/4 of an inch over 6-9. Today, players routinely add 1-2 inches to their reported height, or consider height "in shoes" or some such folly, so that the difference in heights between eras is less than it might appear. Again, this is a trend that was underway in the 80's.)

-- The style of play in the 60's was not flashy. Sam or someone else may correct me, but I've always considered Elgin Baylor the first player with spectacular moves, heralding the arrival of many flashy players to come. (Cousy was flashy, but I believe often with his ballhandling and passing skills rather than shotmaking moves.) As we all know, today's players make spectacular moves, often followed by posing or strutting to show off. The danger here is confusing "flashy" with "athletic," because they are not the same. Players of the 60's were excellent athletes. Our Sam has pointed out how a player like Sam Jones, as unflashy a player as there was, was an excellent athlete who could jump as high and run as fast as anyone.

I'm sure there are other arguments, but you get the idea.

If you haven't already, I'd suggest checking out Sam's writings about the Russell era (https://samcelt.forumotion.net/t510-archives-of-sam-s-writings).

Outside

Celtic Fan,

I'll ask you what I've asked consistently. Suppose the '63 Celtics had played a mythical series against the '86 Celtics. In what year would they have played? I see three choices:

• The games could be played in 1986: That means the '63 Celtics would all be taller, heavier and stronger than they had been in the 60s. The ‘86 Celtics would basically have lost all or most of any height or bulk advantage they had while still being a lot slower than the FAR more athletic Celtics of '63.

• The games could be played in 1963: That means the '86 Celtics would all have shrunk an inch, lost some poundage, and would be even slower (if that's imaginable). Once again, the '86 Celtics would have lost most or all advantage in height and weight, while being woefully slower and less athletic than the '63 Celtics.

• The games could be played in between the two years...maybe something like 1975. The '63 Celtics would have gained maybe half an inch and 10 pounds apiece, while the '86 Celtics would have lost maybe half an inch and 10 pounds apiece. And the '86 Celtics would still be slower. Once again, the '86 Celtics would have lost all or most height and bulk advantage they might have had, while not nearly catching up in terms of speed and athleticism.

My point in going through this exercise is to stress that the one possible advantage most people point to for the '86 Celtics is height and bulk. But that advantage has nothing to do with the game of basketball; it's a function of evolution and genetic advances.

And, when that advantage is negated, the comparisons boil down to (1) which team was the better practitioner of basketball and (2) which team had a style that would likely beat the other. Having watched both teams intently, I’m quite satisfied that the Russell Celtics had it all over the Celtics of the 80s in terms of teamwork and fundamentals like moving constantly without the ball and being at the right place at the right time. I also believe the racehorse, volume offense of the ’63 Celtics would have worn down the '86 team by halftime. And the '86 team would have no answering stylistic advantage that could consistently wear down the extremely deep '63 team. Because, to a great extent, the '86 team depended on towering over opponents in order to gain their advantage. Of course, Larry was a great shooter, but he couldn't have beaten the '63 Celtics by himself—especially not with defensive experts like Havlicek and Sanders sticking a hand in his face ALL THE TIME.

You're absolutely wrong when you claim that the '63 Celtics' shooting percentage was a weakness. Actually it reflected a strength. They usually shot very early in the shot clock (especially during their many fast breaks), and they were usually in position to get the offensive rebounds before the defensive team got down the floor. That's what I mean by a volume offense. Get up shots early and often, and either you'll score because your opponent isn't yet set defensively or you'll have a great chance at an offensive board.

The '63 Celtics had six players who averaged 4 or more rebounds (I've rounded off), topped by Russell with 23.6 boards. The '86 Celtics had four players who averaged 4 or more rebounds, topped off by Larry with 9.8. Much of the difference represented offensive rebounds snagged by the earlier team and converted into points. That's how the volume game worked. Cousy and Heinsohn shot hook shots from everywhere, and on the run. Shots like those played right into the volume game:

1. If the ball went in, it was a dagger

2. If not, it was often a putback.

3. The element of surprise was constantly in the Celtics’ favor, and the other team had a devil of a time getting set on offense or blocking out under the boards.

4. Shooting so quickly usually goaded the other team into retaliating, and their uptempo game was never a match for that of the Celts.

That's how the volume game worked. And its effectiveness was reinforced by the fact that Celtics were always moving. Forget shooting percentages in that era, especially given the tighter baskets of the time.* Shooting percentages meant nothing in evaluating the greatness of the Russell Celtics.

Wanna see a Cousy righty hook of the type I’m talking about?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMdGcmHPrRI

Wanna see a Cousy lefty hook of the type I’m talking about?

http://www.nba.com/video/channels/nba_tv/2011/08/19/1963_bos_lal_finals_gm6_play3.nba/index.html

Wanna see another Cousy righty hook? (Very near the end of this clip from Cousy’s last game)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVRO-pEPGiQ&feature=related

Wanna see another Cousy lefty hook? Not far from the beginning of this clip from Cousy’s last game; also look for some great examples of volume basketball, particularly in the last minute where they just keep throwing up shots until one goes in)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=RsUUQxfx29g

One simply cannot measure the greatness of the Russell Celtics via stats. They always had an angle, and they had angles on the angles. In Cousy’s last game, note how they had the SG bringing the ball up. The Lakers were keying on Sam Jones (the series scoring leader until then). So Red had Sam and Havlicek bringing the ball up, giving Cousy the option of trotting out his scoring repertoire (which he did in spades) or darting behind picks to receive passes and set up his teammates. They simply had the interchangeable personnel to win while employing any of a huge variety of strategies. Frankly, the frantic pace and strategic flexibility with which they played would have made mincemeat of more deliberate later teams much more often than not.

Sam

* Bill Sharman has said, in an interview:

“When I played and not to make an excuse, they had the original baskets that were bolted right into the backboard, then later, they put in the break-away baskets and some days I hit the rim and some would fall in. I wish I had those rims when I was playing because I would hit all iron and it would bounce off.”

Sam and all

found this bit when looking up stuff about Wilt.

Sort of sums up the debate about comparing generations a bit
NOTE not mine

I have posted on this topic before, but, who was the fastest NFL player ever? It was Bob Hayes, a LEGITIMATE football player (he is in the HOF...and BTW, he AVERAGED 42 yards per play on his 76 TDs in his career), who ran a 10.0 100 meters (and a 9.1 100 yards.) He was playing over 40 years ago.

A few years ago, SI ran an article on Barry Bonds and his longest HR. Yes, it came at the height of his steroid use, and it was measured at 490 feet. Just google Mickey Mantle. He had MANY HRs over 500 feet...including at least one at 565. Not only that, but some of his HRs were stopped by the tops of walls...and would have been estimated at over 600 feet!

Nolan Ryan was clocked by a SLOW radar gun at 101 MPH, in the 8th inning of a game in which he had thrown 162 pitches (yes a SLOW radar gun....there have been estimates that a faster gun would have produced nearly 108 MPH.) That occurred 36 years ago.

Speaking of jumping...Bob Beamon held the world record at 29'-2" inches, set in 1968, for 30 years...and the CURRENT record is 29'-4".

You take guys like Bo Jackson (4.12 40), or Hershel Walker (10.1 100 meters), or Darrell Green (he was clocked at 4.35 in the 40...at age 40), or Deion Sanders (4.18), or OJ Simpson, who was part of the world-record-holding 4x100 relay team)...or Mantle, Reggie Jackson, Frank Howard, JR Richards, Sandy Koufax, ...or Gus Johnson (he was shattering backboards in the 60's), Dr. J, David Thompson, and Connie Hawkins...and so MANY others of previous decades...and give them the same benefits of modern technology, nutrition, medicine, training, etc...and they would be even more remarkable today. AND, that INCLUDES Wilt, who was widely regarded as one of the strongest men in the world, probably the highest leaper of his era, and maybe even the fastest NBA player, ever.