Why are people leaving out any of the '60s celtics team in the GOAT team discussion?

[D-Wade316]

Come on people. The Celtics dominated the 60s. It's completely logical to think that one of them is a serious contender for the GOAT team. Perhaps jlauber, Hondo, etc. can help me with this?

[jlauber]

Come on people. The Celtics dominated the 60s. It's completely logical to think that one of them is a serious contender for the GOAT team. Perhaps jlauber, Hondo, etc. can help me with this?


64-65 Celtics are #10 on MY all-time list.

[jlauber]

The 62-63 Celtics had NINE HOFers on their roster, AND a HOF coach to boot.

[BlackJoker23]

Come on people. The Celtics dominated the 60s. It's completely logical to think that one of them is a serious contender for the GOAT team. Perhaps jlauber, Hondo, etc. can help me with this?
shut up kid. graduate high school before you engage in such conversations.

[D-Wade316]

^Typical Jordan stan response

[ThaRegul8r]

People leave them out because they're clueless about the era. If their life depended on demonstrating any kind of actual knowledge about it, there'd be a lot of dead people. And of course, anything that took place before they began watching basketball isn't worth discussing in their minds.

[millwad]

Come on people. The Celtics dominated the 60s. It's completely logical to think that one of them is a serious contender for the GOAT team. Perhaps jlauber, Hondo, etc. can help me with this?

You just said it, they dominated the 60's, an era with 8 teams. An era where a team only had to win the first round in the playoffs to reach the finals, that's right, THE FINALS.

And seriously, if you even can't put up any argument without the help of your loverboy, Jlauber, then don't start the freaking thread. Let someone with a brain do the job instead, mr "Yeah, what Jlauber just wrote"..

[jlauber]

You just said it, they dominated the 60's, an era with 8 teams. An era where a team only had to win the first round in the playoffs to reach the finals, that's right, THE FINALS.

And seriously, if you even can't put up any argument without the help of your loverboy, Jlauber, then don't start the freaking thread. Let someone with a brain do the job instead, mr "Yeah, what Jlauber just wrote"..

Actually from the 61-62 season thru the 65-66 season there were NINE teams. In the 66-67 season there were TEN teams. In the 67-68 season there 12 teams. And in the 68-69 season there were 14 teams.

So, NO, there were NOT really EIGHT teams in the 60's. But, as I pointed out many times...take a look at the rosters of the teams in the 66-67 season. Teams were LITTERED with HOFers and players who had 20+ ppg seasons throughout their careers. The Celtics had TEN quality players on their roster, including SIX HOFers. The Lakers, Hawks, Royals, Knicks, and Warriors were LOADED with talented players. And, the '67 Sixers just DOMINATED that league.

[millwad]

Actually from the 61-62 season thru the 65-66 season there were NINE teams. In the 66-67 season there were TEN teams. In the 67-68 season there 12 teams. And in the 68-69 season there were 14 teams.

So, NO, there were NOT really EIGHT teams in the 60's. But, as I pointed out many times...take a look at the rosters of the teams in the 66-67 season. Teams were LITTERED with HOFers and players who had 20+ ppg seasons throughout their careers. The Celtics had TEN quality players on their roster, including SIX HOFers. The Lakers, Hawks, Royals, Knicks, and Warriors were LOADED with talented players. And, the '67 Sixers just DOMINATED that league.

Haha, you really don't even think about it anymore but you just wrote that Sixers a la Wilt dominated the league when OP was writing about the Celtics. For real, what's wrong with you?

And yeah, the Royals were really LOADED in '67 when they made the playoffs while only winning pathetic 39 games over the whole season and STILL they managed to win one game vs the 76ers...

[jlauber]

Haha, you really don't even think about it anymore but you just wrote that Sixers a la Wilt dominated the league when OP was writing about the Celtics. For real, what's wrong with you?

And yeah, the Royals were really LOADED in '67 when they made the playoffs while only winning pathetic 39 games over the whole season and STILL they managed to win one game vs the 76ers...

That '67 Celtic team went 60-21, and had SIX HOFers, as well as a TEN DEEP roster.

The 39-42 Royals? Oscar at 30.5 ppg, with 10.7 apg on .493 shooting (in a league that shot .441.) Lucas with his 17.8 ppg, 19.1 rpg season. How about the rest of the roster. A young Happy Hairston, who was at 14.9 ppg and 8.0 rpg (and who would go on to have 18 ppg and 13 rpg seasons.) Flynn Robinson, who when playing with the 71-72 Lakers was considered their BEST shooter. He also had a 20+ ppg season in '70. Jon McGlocklin, who was one of the premier "long-range" shooters of his era. In his '71 season, he shot .535...most all of it from 20+ ft. How about Bob Love? He was a bench player on that '67 Royal team, but he would be among the highest scorers in the league in the 70's. Adrian Smith averaged 16.3 ppg in '67 (and shot .903 from the line.) Connie Dierking was a journeyman center, but he was hardly a crappy player. He only averaged 9.3 ppg in '67, but in the next three seasons he averaged 16.4, 16.3, and 16.7 ppg.

And you could go down the rosters of the other teams. How about the 36-45 Knicks? Dick Barnett was a 17.0 ppg scorer that season, and just the year before, in 65-66, he averaged 23.1 ppg. Howard Komives averaged 15.7 ppg in '67. Dick Van Arsdale averaged 15.1 ppg in '67, BUT, within two years he would routinely put up 20+ ppg seasons. Cazzie Russell was among the most explosive "6th men" in the league in his career. Oh, and that Knick team also had Willis Reed and Walt Bellamy, too.

Take a look at the 39-42 Hawks. LOADED with quality players. Bill Bridges, Zelmo Beaty, Lou Hudson, Paul Silas, Richie Guerin, Joe Caldwell, and Lenny Wilkens. All were GREAT players in their careers.

The 36-45 Lakers. How the hell does a team with West and Baylor, and in their primes, go 36-45? Oh, and they had Rudy Larusso, who would average 21.8 ppg the very next season with the Warriors. They also had Gail Goodrich, who would go on to become a HOF player. Abdul-Rahman, who would average 24.0 ppg the very next season. Archie Clark, who would average 19.9 ppg the very next season (and make the all-star team.) And they had a "three-headed monster" at the center position with Darrell Imhoff and two seven footers in Mel Counts and Henry Finkel.

The Warriors "only" went 44-38, BUT, they had HOFers Rick Barry and his 35.6 ppg, as well as a PRIME Thurmond, who averaged 18.7 ppg and 21.3 rpg. Jeff Mullins was one of the best scorers of his era, and would go on to average 18.9 ppg the very next season, and then had FOUR straight 20+ ppg seasons. 6-10 Clyde Lee averaged 7.4 rpg in 16 mpg in '67, and would go on to become one of the premier PF's in the league over the course of the next several seasons. Fred Hetzel averaged 12.9 ppg in that '67 season, and then 19.0 ppg in '68. And both Tom Meschery and Al Attles were decent players throughout the 60's.

So, those 36-45 and 39-42 records were VERY deceptive. Those teams were LOADED with talent.

[iamgine]

From what I've heard it's a weak era full of bad shooting percentage. Tactics aren't as advanced and no one could shoot the three point.

[jlauber]

From what I've heard it's a weak era full of bad shooting percentage. Tactics aren't as advanced and no one could shoot the three point.

Well, for one, they didn't HAVE a 3pt shot back then. And two, players like Flynn Robinson, Jon McGlocklin, and Jerry Lucas easily would have been deadly 3pt shooters had their been a line. And Rick Barry PROVED that he had 3pt range.

[G.O.A.T]

Well, for one, they didn't HAVE a 3pt shot back then. And two, players like Flynn Robinson, Jon McGlocklin, and Jerry Lucas easily would have been deadly 3pt shooters had their been a line. And Rick Barry PROVED that he had 3pt range.

He was being facetious...

But on the subject of quality three-point shooters of the 60's, Add Sam Jones, probably Hal Greer, Dave Debusschere, Jerry West, Oscar Robertson and surely many more to the list of guys who had the range but the no incentive to consistently show it off.

[G.O.A.T]

To the subject the Russell Celtics are by far the greatest team of all-time, however no single season stands out so much as to call them the greatest single season team of all-time.

Here's something to consider though. The Celtics from 57-69 were so good that they won over 65% of their NBA Finals games. That means over the course of an NBA season, if the Celtics only played the best team in the Western Conference from each season they'd still win 54+ games.

Another amazing fact. They had a 16-1 record in playoff series against teams with a winning percentage above .600 (50 or more wins for an 82 game schedule).

And of course they never lost a game seven or game five in a five game series.

[PTB Fan]

The Celtics from the 60's are left out of the discussion because the 60's aren't accepted as a great era. Also, in particular they didn't have a season in which they truly stand out from the rest.

[jlauber]

The Celtics from the 60's are left out of the discussion because the 60's aren't accepted as a great era. Also, in particular they didn't have a season in which they truly stand out from the rest.

The 64-65 Celtics went 62-18, winning their conference by 14 games over the 48-32 Royals, and then beating the 49-31 Lakers (who had the second best record in the league) in the Finals, 4-1. Granted, LA was without Baylor in the Finals, but overall, the Celtics were CLEARLY better than any other team in the league that season.

I won't take the time to look it up now, but I suspect that maybe only the '71 Bucks ever had a season in which a team had the best record in the league by a margin of 13 games like Boston did in '65 ('71 Milwaukee was 14 games better than the next best team.)

[nycelt84]

Bill Russell considers the '64 Celtics to be the best team he ever played on. Bob Cousy says it's the '62 team due to the 8 Hall of Famers. I think it's either the '64 or '65 squads.

[MiseryCityTexas]

These 60s teams would probably destroy today's finals teams.:oldlol:

[Pushxx]

People underestimate how unbelievable of a coach Red was. He pioneered the fundamentals of modern basketball.

[Psileas]

Why are people leaving out any of the '60s celtics team in the GOAT team discussion?

Most of these people wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a candle and a stick of dynamite. I've seen Wilt plays from his High School years and there were people around believing that those teens who looked like, you know, teens, were his NBA competition. And they weren't trolling, they were dead serious. :facepalm

Yeah, we'd definitely have a good discussion about the 60's Celtics with those people...

[Collie]

We can include post-merger teams few of us have seen live like the 86 Celtics because there's so much info about them. We have their stats, videos of their games, information from players and coaches of that era.

Meanwhile, it's really hard to gauge the strengths of NBA teams pre-merger, especially since nobody in this forum has even seen them play. We don't have highlights, stories, advanced stats or even plain stats of that era. We can only judge on hearsay and bits and pieces of news. So someone who was ranking teams would rather not touch them, since there's little ways to justify them ranked as such.

[GimmeThat]

while everyone wants to point out the fact that because of the lack of 3 point line in the 60's makes it quite difficult to compare between the teams from that era to that of now.

Something tells me you take their starting 5 + 6th or 7th man off the bench, then you go through a modern draft where they get to fill up their weakness in adjustment to todays game.

I don't know, all I know is that there's one basketball, and most of the time during the game you are figuring out how to beat your opponent, whether that is the offensive end or the defensive end.

I don't want to say Bill Russell/Red would make Michael meltdown in the playoff, but losing to a guy who doesn't even score. It might just truly makes someone question their own tactics/approach to "winning the game and winning it all"