Who would win if the 1986 Celtics could play the 2022 Celtics in the NBA Finals?

Who would win if the 1986 Celtics could play the 2022 Celtics in the NBA Finals?

  • 1986 Celtics in 4 games

    Votes: 9 42.9%
  • 1986 Celtics in 5 games

    Votes: 6 28.6%
  • 1986 Celtics in 6 games

    Votes: 3 14.3%
  • 1986 Celtics in 7 games

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 2022 Celtics in 4 games

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 2022 Celtics in 5 games

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 2022 Celtics in 6 games

    Votes: 2 9.5%
  • 2022 Celtics in 7 games

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Zombies

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • thomas144 wouldn't let them use his time machine

    Votes: 1 4.8%

  • Total voters
    21

patriotspride

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 4, 2006
Messages
642
Reaction score
363
Points
63
Location
ma
Got me a little teary eyed. Imagine what that team would do to the self confidence of 22?

Need anything else, TD?

Just kidding. I know we aren't changing your mind. At least not publicly. :coffee:
That video is awesome. What an unbelievable team they were.
 

TommyD420

Meet the New Boss. Same as the Old Boss.
Joined
Dec 22, 2005
Messages
33,399
Reaction score
6,394
Points
113
Age
46
Location
Worcester, MA
Got me a little teary eyed. Imagine what that team would do to the self confidence of 22?

Need anything else, TD?

Just kidding. I know we aren't changing your mind. At least not publicly. :coffee:
Or privately. 86 team is my favorite team of all time and always will be. (84 is 2nd). I'm just being realistic. I'm not saying it's a sweep. I'm not saying they're not great players. But if you think Danny Ainge can stick with Derrick White let alone Jayson Tatum, or Chief guarding Horford 25 feet from the basket, you're thinking with your heart and not your head.
 

patriotspride

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 4, 2006
Messages
642
Reaction score
363
Points
63
Location
ma
Or privately. 86 team is my favorite team of all time and always will be. (84 is 2nd). I'm just being realistic. I'm not saying it's a sweep. I'm not saying they're not great players. But if you think Danny Ainge can stick with Derrick White let alone Jayson Tatum, or Chief guarding Horford 25 feet from the basket, you're thinking with your heart and not your head.
Danny ainge is so much better than white. I can't figure out what you're watching. And i love white. i love horford. but parish was better. horford is a better shooter from outside. but parish was a overall better center in every way but shooting threes. if anybody is guilty of thinking with your heart. its you. its not like horford is going 6 for 8 every game either. parish would eat him alive in the low post.
 
Last edited:

TommyD420

Meet the New Boss. Same as the Old Boss.
Joined
Dec 22, 2005
Messages
33,399
Reaction score
6,394
Points
113
Age
46
Location
Worcester, MA
Danny ainge is so much better than white. I can't figure out what you're watching. And i love white. i love horford. but parish was better. horford is a better shooter from outside. but parish was a overall better center in every way but shooting threes. if anybody is guilty of thinking with your heart. its you.
Danny Ainge is a better player than Derrick White. Danny Ainge couldn't guard my mother. Both these things can be true at the same time.
 

patriotspride

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 4, 2006
Messages
642
Reaction score
363
Points
63
Location
ma
Danny Ainge is a better player than Derrick White. Danny Ainge couldn't guard my mother. Both these things can be true at the same time.
whatever your smoking i want some. danny ainge was an all star. derrick white comes off the bench. like he has his entire career.:ROFLMAO:
 

patriotspride

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 4, 2006
Messages
642
Reaction score
363
Points
63
Location
ma
One thing I do know the 86 Celtics would be killing the Warriors right now. This has been a pathetic display of basketball.
i like the tatum with 12 points and 13 assists. better than tatum with a bunch of points turning the ball over. and forcing it.
 

Flagg the Wanderer

Sonic sez: Clawk Moar Ringz!
Joined
Jun 24, 2004
Messages
14,792
Reaction score
3,489
Points
113
Age
44
Location
Iowa
ainge was an excellent player. He gets overlooked because he was surrounded by Hall of Famers. He could have easily averaged more points in his career. If he played on another team. And he was an excellent defender. ill take him over marcus smart in a second. And I would take ainge over brown too. There is nothing 22 does better than 86. Absolutely nothing.
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMTu8-3xMYQ&ab_channel=LarryLegend
Ainge was good, not great. He was a very nice complimentary player, and yes, would have scored more on a team that didn't have Bird, McHale, and DJ. He was a marginally plus defender by the standards of the time. He was fantastic in his particular role, with 3s a threat that burned folks who tried to overdo collapsing on McHale, and a beautiful kick-out option who could pass. DJ and Bird made him better than he was.

Nothing 22 does better than 86?
  • Athleticism
  • Height
  • Defensive flexibility (# of players able to defend 4 or 5 positions well)
  • Defensive production
  • Explosive runs
  • Number of players that are a legitimate 3 point threat
  • Backcourt & wing depth

86 beats 22:
  • Ball handling
  • Passing
  • Floor awareness/basketball IQ
  • Avoiding turnovers
  • Cohesion
  • Consistency
  • Low and high post game/Talented bigs
  • Frontcourt Depth
  • Fewer bad shots
  • Fast break/transition game
  • The Bird Factor
  • Probably coaching (coaches genius tends to be recognized late, due to a body of work. KC Jones wasn't a wizard - he had DJ and Bird as coaches on the floor, and he largely stayed out of the way - and who knows what we're looking at right now?)

Assuming full health, I'd take 86 in 5-6 games. 22 takes 1-2 games when the threes are dropping at an outsized rate and/or they make timely runs that 86 can't handle. Bird and DJ would each have 25+ steals in the series, leading to huge numbers of points on fast breaks. The consistency and inevitability of 86's points in the paint would be more than 22 could overcome.

And no one asked, but both teams would beat the 08 team.
08 would lose in 7 games vs 22, with The Truth as a potential X factor leading to a possible upset,
08 loses in 6 or 7 to 86. While 22 is a better team than 08, 08 matches up better with 86 than 22 does. KG would be a f***ing problem for McHale/Parish/Walton - I think he's the alpha dog of that group, and Perk and Baby give enough help. Pierce v Bird would be an awesome duel, and overall 08 was a closer match in terms of cohesion, court awareness, taking care of the ball, and basketball IQ. I think "Good Rondo" would actually have given DJ fits, but the overall team defense would cover, and "Bad Rondo" would probably be the big factor that sunk them.
 

aloyouis

at least generally aware
Joined
May 27, 2006
Messages
13,447
Reaction score
7,209
Points
113
Location
Michigan
Ainge was good, not great. He was a very nice complimentary player, and yes, would have scored more on a team that didn't have Bird, McHale, and DJ. He was a marginally plus defender by the standards of the time. He was fantastic in his particular role, with 3s a threat that burned folks who tried to overdo collapsing on McHale, and a beautiful kick-out option who could pass. DJ and Bird made him better than he was.

Nothing 22 does better than 86?
  • Athleticism
  • Height
  • Defensive flexibility (# of players able to defend 4 or 5 positions well)
  • Defensive production
  • Explosive runs
  • Number of players that are a legitimate 3 point threat
  • Backcourt & wing depth

86 beats 22:
  • Ball handling
  • Passing
  • Floor awareness/basketball IQ
  • Avoiding turnovers
  • Cohesion
  • Consistency
  • Low and high post game/Talented bigs
  • Frontcourt Depth
  • Fewer bad shots
  • Fast break/transition game
  • The Bird Factor
  • Probably coaching (coaches genius tends to be recognized late, due to a body of work. KC Jones wasn't a wizard - he had DJ and Bird as coaches on the floor, and he largely stayed out of the way - and who knows what we're looking at right now?)

Assuming full health, I'd take 86 in 5-6 games. 22 takes 1-2 games when the threes are dropping at an outsized rate and/or they make timely runs that 86 can't handle. Bird and DJ would each have 25+ steals in the series, leading to huge numbers of points on fast breaks. The consistency and inevitability of 86's points in the paint would be more than 22 could overcome.

And no one asked, but both teams would beat the 08 team.
08 would lose in 7 games vs 22, with The Truth as a potential X factor leading to a possible upset,
08 loses in 6 or 7 to 86. While 22 is a better team than 08, 08 matches up better with 86 than 22 does. KG would be a f***ing problem for McHale/Parish/Walton - I think he's the alpha dog of that group, and Perk and Baby give enough help. Pierce v Bird would be an awesome duel, and overall 08 was a closer match in terms of cohesion, court awareness, taking care of the ball, and basketball IQ. I think "Good Rondo" would actually have given DJ fits, but the overall team defense would cover, and "Bad Rondo" would probably be the big factor that sunk them.
I agree with most of this, but not height and D flexibility. 86 trots out Parrish (7'1") and Walton (6'11") at center, Bird (6'9") and McHale (6'10") at forward and Ainge and DJ (both 6'4") at guard. This is a huge advantage for 86 and it is this advantage that creates the misperception that 22 is more flexible. When you trot out a short team as 22 does, yes you can play D against different positions. YOU HAVE TO. It doesn't mean that the forced requirement is better. 86 put the right guys on the court at the right position based on size and ability. Williams would be a forward on 86 and playing C defensively would have been viewed (correctly) as a liability.
 

Flagg the Wanderer

Sonic sez: Clawk Moar Ringz!
Joined
Jun 24, 2004
Messages
14,792
Reaction score
3,489
Points
113
Age
44
Location
Iowa
I agree with most of this, but not height and D flexibility. 86 trots out Parrish (7'1") and Walton (6'11") at center, Bird (6'9") and McHale (6'10") at forward and Ainge and DJ (both 6'4") at guard. This is a huge advantage for 86 and it is this advantage that creates the misperception that 22 is more flexible. When you trot out a short team as 22 does, yes you can play D against different positions. YOU HAVE TO. It doesn't mean that the forced requirement is better. 86 put the right guys on the court at the right position based on size and ability. Williams would be a forward on 86 and playing C defensively would have been viewed (correctly) as a liability.
You're right, but what you're talking about is covered in the items about high and low post play, in the paint, etc. I was actually talking about your 2s and 3s, your wing players. Smart and White are both 6'4", but the depth and range of types of players in the 6'6" to 6'9" range in the 22 Celtics rotation is almost absurd:
Tatum
Williams
Williams
Horford
Brown
Theis
 

aloyouis

at least generally aware
Joined
May 27, 2006
Messages
13,447
Reaction score
7,209
Points
113
Location
Michigan
You're right, but what you're talking about is covered in the items about high and low post play, in the paint, etc. I was actually talking about your 2s and 3s, your wing players. Smart and White are both 6'4", but the depth and range of types of players in the 6'6" to 6'9" range in the 22 Celtics rotation is almost absurd:
Tatum
Williams
Williams
Horford
Brown
Theis
Yes, they have a lot of average size NBA players. I don't think this is an advantage when they are forced to play bigger/stronger or shorter/faster.

But I get your point. I fell out of love with the NBA when it went woke/gangsta/China so I am 100% biased.
 

RoadNasty

This Train'll Stop at Tucumcari
Joined
Nov 16, 2006
Messages
2,351
Reaction score
819
Points
113
Location
Indiana
Yes, they have a lot of average size NBA players. I don't think this is an advantage when they are forced to play bigger/stronger or shorter/faster.

But I get your point. I fell out of love with the NBA when it went woke/gangsta/China so I am 100% biased.

Likewise, I havent watched the NBA for quite a while now.

I began watching UCONN women's BB a number of years ago, they are simply a delight to watch. It's team basketball all the way, lots of passing, and junior Paige Bueckers is a generational player.
 

patriotspride

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 4, 2006
Messages
642
Reaction score
363
Points
63
Location
ma
Yes, they have a lot of average size NBA players. I don't think this is an advantage when they are forced to play bigger/stronger or shorter/faster.

But I get your point. I fell out of love with the NBA when it went woke/gangsta/China so I am 100% biased.
I'm not a NBA fan. i used to be. I'm a Celtics fan. If they aren't playing. I'm not watching any of it.
 

fulltilt

Assclownism-it's the genes not a choice
Joined
Feb 7, 2005
Messages
5,443
Reaction score
1,070
Points
113
Location
Land of snow, cold and Yeti's
I think the longer you're removed from the 86 team(or any great player/team), the more myth-like they become, it's just how our brains work. My remembrance of Bird is that is was rare he ever missed a shot even though in reality he missed over half of them, or that he never had a bad shooting game in the playoffs like Tatum did on Thurs night but he had several of them. But like Tatum he still helped in other big ways on those days. I guess it's fun to debate who could beat who but really the only measurement is against their peers of that era. They are the best team ever because how much better they were than teams of the 80s, but I don't believe for a second that team could keep up with today's athletes, and with how the game is played today. Bird excluded of course, guys that special could play in any era.
To respond to this statement I got 3 things. 1. It's been 36 years and I don't think the human race has evolved into higher beings in that time frame. Very few 86 Celtics were hauling away on unfiltered camels at the half. How would 22 respond to 100 degrees in the old Garden? 2. The 86 team had been there done that, there was no wild champagne spraying celebrations on winning the division. It is reasonable to assume there would be an assessment of of 22's capabilities and measures taken to put the 86 teams strengths on 22's weaknesses. My guess is 22 doesn't have the firepower to impose their will on 86 and the games wouldn't be played like today, they would be played how 86 dictated them. 3. Consistency. 86 lost 1 home game that year.
 
Last edited:

patriotspride

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 4, 2006
Messages
642
Reaction score
363
Points
63
Location
ma
Nothing 22 does better than 86?
  • Athleticism
  • Height
  • Defensive flexibility (# of players able to defend 4 or 5 positions well)
  • Defensive production
  • Explosive runs
  • Number of players that are a legitimate 3 point threat
  • Backcourt & wing depth
ainge was an all star. he's better than anybody not named tatum on 22.
Athleticism goes to 22. That's it. it's not a track, field competition. So who cares. The Lakers were more athletic in 84. And lost the series. And they didn't make the finals in 86.
Height? Again who cares. 86 had more than enough.
Defensive flexibility? Advantage 86.
Defensive production? push
explosive runs? 86
3 point threats? 86 could shoot threes if they wanted to. ill give you that one
backcourt wing depth? Advantage 86. wedman and sichting. Both could shoot threes in today's NBA
basketball intelligence IQ? 86 Celtics and It's not close, A plus. The current team F. Off to summer school for 22.
22 would be punked and embarrassed by 86.
 

Flagg the Wanderer

Sonic sez: Clawk Moar Ringz!
Joined
Jun 24, 2004
Messages
14,792
Reaction score
3,489
Points
113
Age
44
Location
Iowa
ainge was an all star. he's better than anybody not named tatum on 22.
Athleticism goes to 22. That's it. it's not a track, field competition. So who cares. The Lakers were more athletic in 84. And lost the series. And they didn't make the finals in 86.
Height? Again who cares. 86 had more than enough.
Defensive flexibility? Advantage 86.
Defensive production? push
explosive runs? 86
3 point threats? 86 could shoot threes if they wanted to. ill give you that one
backcourt wing depth? Advantage 86. wedman and sichting. Both could shoot threes in today's NBA
basketball intelligence IQ? 86 Celtics and It's not close, A plus. The current team F. Off to summer school for 22.
22 would be punked and embarrassed by 86.
Apart from basketball IQ, where you agreed with me (though F is a little extreme - more like a C), I could go either way on all of these except defensive flexibility explosive runs, and backcourt/wing depth.

86 has Bird, Ainge, DJ, Wedman, Sichting. 22 has Tatum, Brown, Smart, White, Williams, Prichard, Theis, who all averaged 12+ mpg. The reason it's different is that 86 has Parish, McHale, Walton, Kite, Bird in the frontcourt rotation, but of those only Bird can play anything less than a 4. That's only true of RW on the Celtics, and maybe Horford. 86's depth was at 4&5.

As to defensive flexibility, I stand by that. DJ could probably defend 1-4, Bird 2-5 (vs 22). Outside of that...Parish, Walton, Kite, and McHale could defend Horford, RW, Theis...anyone else? And again, even Horford and Theis would give 86's bigs problems by floating out to the 3pt line. Good Lord, Parish and Kite defending on the perimeter would just be...wow.

Explosive runs? Offensively the explosive runs were pretty comparable. But combined offense and defense? 86 rarely combined those for the sorts of extended runs 22 puts together with some regularity. Now, defensive rules have changed, so I'm not saying 86 couldn't do it. I could accept a push here (under objection) but one one really proved this. 86 was just steadily better - you tended to see them withstanding runs by the opposition after they'd steadily built the lead.
 

patriotspride

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 4, 2006
Messages
642
Reaction score
363
Points
63
Location
ma
Apart from basketball IQ, where you agreed with me (though F is a little extreme - more like a C), I could go either way on all of these except defensive flexibility explosive runs, and backcourt/wing depth.

86 has Bird, Ainge, DJ, Wedman, Sichting. 22 has Tatum, Brown, Smart, White, Williams, Prichard, Theis, who all averaged 12+ mpg. The reason it's different is that 86 has Parish, McHale, Walton, Kite, Bird in the frontcourt rotation, but of those only Bird can play anything less than a 4. That's only true of RW on the Celtics, and maybe Horford. 86's depth was at 4&5.

As to defensive flexibility, I stand by that. DJ could probably defend 1-4, Bird 2-5 (vs 22). Outside of that...Parish, Walton, Kite, and McHale could defend Horford, RW, Theis...anyone else? And again, even Horford and Theis would give 86's bigs problems by floating out to the 3pt line. Good Lord, Parish and Kite defending on the perimeter would just be...wow.

Explosive runs? Offensively the explosive runs were pretty comparable. But combined offense and defense? 86 rarely combined those for the sorts of extended runs 22 puts together with some regularity. Now, defensive rules have changed, so I'm not saying 86 couldn't do it. I could accept a push here (under objection) but one one really proved this. 86 was just steadily better - you tended to see them withstanding runs by the opposition after they'd steadily built the lead.
Honestly. i cant believe there is a thread on this. 86 is so much better than 22. it's ok. 86 is an all time nba team. Time goes by. And people forget.
 
Top