Quantcast
NBA Finals Discussion- warriors clean up in five games, win it all 129-120

Forums - Sports Discussion - NBA Finals Discussion- warriors clean up in five games, win it all 129-120

Soundwave said:

lol, lets be real, the 60s Celtics would get thrashed by multiple teams. The 80s Lakers/Celtics, probably the Bad Boy Pistons, definitely the 90s Bulls, the Shaq-Kobe Lakers, the current Warriors would all beat them.

Basketball just has evolved a long way from the 1960s and there's nothing wrong with admitting that. The Russell Celtics wouldn't know how to even guard half the modern day players, they'd never have seen anyone like Shaq, Jordan, Durant, Curry, etc. they'd have no answer for their offensive sets, or the physical play of certain teams and the sheer size of many teams either.

They hadn't seen Shaq but they had seen Wilt who was faster, stronger, jumped higher, had a perimeter game, and had far, far more endurance.

They hadn't seen Jordan but they had seen Elgin Baylor, the true father or Show Time.  (Not saying he's better than Jordan but he was one heck of an inside player).

They hadn't played Curry but they played West, the second or third best shooting guard of all time depending on who you ask, who had an outside shot and was basically a 2010s player born many decades early.  Again, not saying he's exactly like Curry, he didn't have the same ball handling, just sayin.

And as for physicality, the Celtics played in a league with NO flagrant fouls.  The 60s was far, far, far, far, FAR more physical and rough and fast paced than todays league.  Take a team from today and stick them on the court back then and most wouldn't be able to go the distance, they would be completely gassed by halfway through a series.  The game has evolved a ton.  Not every evolution has resulted in better play though, nor in better conditioning for players.  

The Celtics faced unstoppable offenses in their day and stopped them.  Shoot, in 69 they faced a Lakers team with what is hands dlwn the most ridiculous big 3 ever leading it:  West, Baylor, and Wilt.  Not only were they arguably the number 1, 2, and 3 best players in the league in terms of individual skill, they are also top 5 all time in ther positions, Wilt and West being top 3 all time.  You could stick that set in any era and they would make a team that would rock the world.  But they got beat by the Celtics, who were at that point actually getting pretty old.

And the reason is as I said: depth.  No, none of the Celtics players back then are top 5 all time.  Shoot, Russell is the only top 10.  But the sheer numbers and team focused play make up for that.  

As for all those teams you mentioned, it would be a battle for all of them.  It would also depend largely on whose rules they play by.  If they play by 60s rules, I definitely give the edge to the Celtics.  



Around the Network
Chris Hu said:
WebMasterFlex said:

Still pure speculation. I do not care about your age, I do not care about what you saw. You never saw Golden States Warriors 2017 against Chicago Bulls 96.

Deal with it, your opinion is nothing.

Nope the Warriors really aren't that great and Russell Westbrook will be the regular season MVP deal with that.  You being a big time homer for the Warriors is nothing.

Too bad for you :

Too bad for you again I like Russell Westbrook and I hope he will be the season MVP.

Are you mad ?



Nuvendil said:
Soundwave said:

lol, lets be real, the 60s Celtics would get thrashed by multiple teams. The 80s Lakers/Celtics, probably the Bad Boy Pistons, definitely the 90s Bulls, the Shaq-Kobe Lakers, the current Warriors would all beat them.

Basketball just has evolved a long way from the 1960s and there's nothing wrong with admitting that. The Russell Celtics wouldn't know how to even guard half the modern day players, they'd never have seen anyone like Shaq, Jordan, Durant, Curry, etc. they'd have no answer for their offensive sets, or the physical play of certain teams and the sheer size of many teams either.

They hadn't seen Shaq but they had seen Wilt who was faster, stronger, jumped higher, had a perimeter game, and had far, far more endurance.

They hadn't seen Jordan but they had seen Elgin Baylor, the true father or Show Time.  (Not saying he's better than Jordan but he was one heck of an inside player).

They hadn't played Curry but they played West, the second or third best shooting guard of all time depending on who you ask, who had an outside shot and was basically a 2010s player born many decades early.  Again, not saying he's exactly like Curry, he didn't have the same ball handling, just sayin.

And as for physicality, the Celtics played in a league with NO flagrant fouls.  The 60s was far, far, far, far, FAR more physical and rough and fast paced than todays league.  Take a team from today and stick them on the court back then and most wouldn't be able to go the distance, they would be completely gassed by halfway through a series.  The game has evolved a ton.  Not every evolution has resulted in better play though, nor in better conditioning for players.  

The Celtics faced unstoppable offenses in their day and stopped them.  Shoot, in 69 they faced a Lakers team with what is hands dlwn the most ridiculous big 3 ever leading it:  West, Baylor, and Wilt.  Not only were they arguably the number 1, 2, and 3 best players in the league in terms of individual skill, they are also top 5 all time in ther positions, Wilt and West being top 3 all time.  You could stick that set in any era and they would make a team that would rock the world.  But they got beat by the Celtics, who were at that point actually getting pretty old.

And the reason is as I said: depth.  No, none of the Celtics players back then are top 5 all time.  Shoot, Russell is the only top 10.  But the sheer numbers and team focused play make up for that.  

As for all those teams you mentioned, it would be a battle for all of them.  It would also depend largely on whose rules they play by.  If they play by 60s rules, I definitely give the edge to the Celtics.  

Meh don't buy it. 

They'd be the smallest, least athletic team without access to video footage, advanced game planning, etc. etc. etc. They'd get wrecked. 

Most sports are way better today than the 50s/60s ... that's just how it goes. Back then sports was kind of a half joke, most of the NBA guys had second jobs, basketball was a sport that had only been mainstream for like 20-30 years at that point, it wasn't like today where there a huge system you're put into from high school camps to high pressure college training then into the NBA. Bill Russell has said he hadn't even seen a basketball until he was like 14, lol. 

None of those guys are actually the top 10 best players. Someone like David Robinson would be better than all of them. They're rated as great because they played in the 60s, not just a weaker era, but an era where basketball was played by maybe like 1/20th of the global population it is today, so the talent pool was much smaller to begin with, not to mention coaching, player development, etc.

They would get their asses handed to them too if they shot like 43% from the field like Russell did as a big, that wouldn't fly today at all. Bob Cousy never shot even over 40% once in his career, lol, he's suddenly going to shoot better being covered by 6'7 Scottie Pippen or 6'6 Klay Thompson? I don't think so. 



Soundwave said:
Nuvendil said:

They hadn't seen Shaq but they had seen Wilt who was faster, stronger, jumped higher, had a perimeter game, and had far, far more endurance.

They hadn't seen Jordan but they had seen Elgin Baylor, the true father or Show Time.  (Not saying he's better than Jordan but he was one heck of an inside player).

They hadn't played Curry but they played West, the second or third best shooting guard of all time depending on who you ask, who had an outside shot and was basically a 2010s player born many decades early.  Again, not saying he's exactly like Curry, he didn't have the same ball handling, just sayin.

And as for physicality, the Celtics played in a league with NO flagrant fouls.  The 60s was far, far, far, far, FAR more physical and rough and fast paced than todays league.  Take a team from today and stick them on the court back then and most wouldn't be able to go the distance, they would be completely gassed by halfway through a series.  The game has evolved a ton.  Not every evolution has resulted in better play though, nor in better conditioning for players.  

The Celtics faced unstoppable offenses in their day and stopped them.  Shoot, in 69 they faced a Lakers team with what is hands dlwn the most ridiculous big 3 ever leading it:  West, Baylor, and Wilt.  Not only were they arguably the number 1, 2, and 3 best players in the league in terms of individual skill, they are also top 5 all time in ther positions, Wilt and West being top 3 all time.  You could stick that set in any era and they would make a team that would rock the world.  But they got beat by the Celtics, who were at that point actually getting pretty old.

And the reason is as I said: depth.  No, none of the Celtics players back then are top 5 all time.  Shoot, Russell is the only top 10.  But the sheer numbers and team focused play make up for that.  

As for all those teams you mentioned, it would be a battle for all of them.  It would also depend largely on whose rules they play by.  If they play by 60s rules, I definitely give the edge to the Celtics.  

Meh don't buy it. 

They'd be the smallest, least athletic team without access to video footage, advanced game planning, etc. etc. etc. They'd get wrecked. 

Most sports are way better today than the 50s/60s ... that's just how it goes. Back then sports was kind of a half joke, most of the NBA guys had second jobs, basketball was a sport that had only been mainstream for like 20-30 years at that point, it wasn't like today where there a huge system you're put into from high school camps to high pressure college training then into the NBA. Bill Russell has said he hadn't even seen a basketball until he was like 14, lol. 

None of those guys are actually the top 10 best players. Someone like David Robinson would be better than all of them. They're rated as great because they played in the 60s, not just a weaker era, but an era where basketball was played by maybe like 1/20th of the global population it is today, so the talent pool was much smaller to begin with, not to mention coaching, player development, etc.

They would get their asses handed to them too if they shot like 43% from the field like Russell did as a big, that wouldn't fly today at all. Bob Cousy never shot even over 40% once in his career, lol, he's suddenly going to shoot better being covered by 6'7 Scottie Pippen? I don't think so. 

Your second line reveals you don't have a clue what you are talking about.  The Celtics, Lakers, 76ers, the players back then where athletic as hell.  You had to be, the league was punishing and fast paced.  If you weren't athletic, you were fairly useless for anything but a bench warmer. 

And no, that's not "just how it goes."  Many analysts will agree with me that most of the stars of today don't stack up to the biggest stars of past decades, the 60s included. 

And your third paragraph exposes your ignorance and lack of respect.  Wilt Chamberlain is easily top 5 all time.  I would take him over Shaq.  I'd take him over anyone other than Jordan and Kareem.  And even then it would be a tough call.  And the talent pool was smaller but it was also very dense.  The 60s had fewer teams and therefore more talent per team.  There were very few teams that existed only to be stepped on.  There were numerous great players back then, you just don't see them because you are stuck in your ways and refuse to respect history.  Do you're research. 

And your comment on shooting percentages also showcases more lack of knowledge.  The game was played at an absurd tempo back then, resulting in far, far more posessions but therefore also far fewer clean looks.  Teams regularly took over 100 shots in a game.  Today's style of play drives up the shooting percentage.  And a lot of that can be credited to the 3 point line's impact on the floor and how the game had to be played. 



Dark_Lord_2008 said:
No way the Rockets would lose to the Bulls in their 1994 and 1995 championship years. The Bulls lacked size in comparison to the Rockets team lead by the great Hakeem Olajuwon. The Bulls were lucky to never face the Rockets in the NBA Finals. Olajuwon was a stronger opponent than the big guys Jordan faced in NBA Finals: Malone, Kemp and Barkley. Jordan got lucky to win his 6 NBA titles. Jordan never faced a strong team in the NBA Finals.

Let's look at all the Bulls finals machups the 1990-91 Lakers where a bit past their prime but the Bulls had to detrone the two time champion Pistons to get to the finals.  The 1991-92 Portland Trailblazers where a pretty good team they where the best team in the West and better then the Lakers team they beat for their first title.  The 1992-93 Phoenix Suns where the best team in the West and Barkley was the regular season MVP the series could have easily went seven games its the best team they beat during their first treepeat.  The 1995-96 Seatle Super Sonics where a pretty good team the series still went six games and it was a defensive struggle it was Jordan's worst finals perfomance since he barely averaged over 27 points in that series.  The 1996-97 Utah Jazz where the best team in the West that year and Malone was the regular season MVP.  The 1997-98 Utah Jazz team where the best team in the West.  Malone was much better in that finals then he was in the previous one the series could have went seven games its the best team they beat during their second treepeat.



Around the Network
WebMasterFlex said:
Chris Hu said:

Nope the Warriors really aren't that great and Russell Westbrook will be the regular season MVP deal with that.  You being a big time homer for the Warriors is nothing.

Too bad for you :

Too bad for you again I like Russell Westbrook and I hope he will be the season MVP.

Are you mad ?

Nope, your comments on the other hands come across as silly and anyone can see that you are a huge Warriors homer.  



Warriors are being overrated, Cavs just are playing with 2 and a half man and a bunch of bums.

Bulls would push their shit in, especially playing real 90s ball not the puss fest of today.



Also the Bleacher Report isn't exactly a very creditable source when it comes to sports information those are the same idiots that once employed a guy that wrote an article that stated that Cam Newton was the worst number one pick of all time.



Boost6 said:
Warriors are being overrated, Cavs just are playing with 2 and a half man and a bunch of bums.

Bulls would push their shit in, especially playing real 90s ball not the puss fest of today.

Jordan is the best player ever, but I don't trust Scottie Pippen's erratic jumper and Toni Kukoc's inconsistent play to be able to counter the Warriors. You get basically zero offence from Rodman. 

There's nothing wrong with saying the Warriors might be better.

The Western Conference All-Stars are better than the Bulls ... obviously you can say well that's an unfair comparison, but the Warriors are basically like an All-Star team upfront. 

It's just probably a "once every 30 years" mix of talent due to the stars alligning a certain way. If "super teaming" was a thing in the 90s, maybe you'd have seen Barkley or Ewing jump ship to join Chicago, and that team would've been better than any of the 6 Bulls championship teams. There's no ineherint rule against a stacked team. 



What terrifies me is that the Warriors superstars are more than willing than to take substantial pay cuts in order to get a better bench in the offseason. Heck, they might just get a quality center if the money lines up right and then we can start talking about how truly terrifying this team would really be.