1993 Chicago Bulls, vs 1986 Boston Celtics

[Lebron23]

Who do you think wins in a best of 7 series?

[Da_Realist]

86 Celtics. They may be the best team of all time. Maybe some of those Wilt or Russell teams could match up better but the 86 Celtics would control the paint against the Bulls. Bird and MJ would even each other out.

[GrapeApe]

Celtics. 1996 Bulls would be a better comparison.

[IllegalD]

Depends.

If the teams stay as they are, 86 Celtics. If you replace Bird with LeBron, the 93 Bulls easily. Maybe even a sweep. :cheers:

[bizil]

1986 Celtics without a doubt! Too much HOF caliber depth. All five of Boston's starters averaged at least 19 points in a season during their career at some point. Then they had a hobbled Bill Walton who was still effective enough to be Sixth Man of the Year. To be frank, the Bulls teams with Harper, Rodman, and Kukoc would be a better matchup. And even in that case, I would still take the 86 Celtics.

[Round Mound]

1986 Celtics without a doubt! Too much HOF caliber depth. All five of Boston's starters averaged at least 19 points in a season during their career at some point. Then they had a hobbled Bill Walton who was still effective enough to be Sixth Man of the Year. To be frank, the Bulls teams with Harper, Rodman, and Kukoc would be a better matchup. And even in that case, I would still take the 86 Celtics.

This

[Fire Colangelo]

Depends.

If the teams stay as they are, 86 Celtics. If you replace Bird with LeBron, the 93 Bulls easily. Maybe even a sweep. :cheers:

Never used this phrase before....

but this must be the definition of rent free

somehow just HAD to force LeBron into the thread :roll:

[ClipperRevival]

The 1986 Celtics team is regarded by a good amount of people as the GOAT team ever so you would have to favor them. Really, when you look at the 1991-1993 Bulls, it was a trio of MJ, Pip and Grant and a bunch of role players. They didn't have great depth. Cartwright, Grant, Williams, King and Purdue would have to play above their normal level to slow down Boston's legendary front court. But anytime you have the GOAT, you can't just write him off. But considering all factors, I would favor the Celtics.

[Bawkish]

'86 Celtics

a HOF caliber starting 5 against MJ/Pip, who were fatigue most of the year because of Dream Team is definitely a mismatch

[GreatHILL]

Who do you think wins in a best of 7 series?

bulls in 5

even the 1993 suns would beat the 86 celtics

[FreezingTsmoove]

Bulls in 4

Whos stopping MJ? Scottie locks down Bird

[Hamtaro CP3KDKG]

Celtics in 4 or 5. They have the best player, best teamwork/passing, versatility and the depth/frontcourt

[Round Mound]

bulls in 5

even the 1993 suns would beat the 86 celtics

:facepalm (and i am the biggest Sir Charles Stan in ISH)

[Hamtaro CP3KDKG]

:facepalm (and i am the biggest Sir Charles Stan in ISH)
Charles was a great player. 4th greatest PF and top 20 alltime player:applause: :applause:

[Round Mound]

Charles was a great player. 4th greatest PF and top 20 alltime player:applause: :applause:

True

Offensively he is the Best PF Ever. But He Could also play SF if needed.

[IllegalD]

True

Offensively he is the Best PF Ever. But He Could also play SF if needed.


Karl Malone says "Hi." :cheers:

[Lebron23]

Celtics. 1996 Bulls would be a better comparison.


They beat superior competitions/teams in 1993. And Jordan and Pippen were both 3 years younger. I read an article from Sam Smith saying that the 1992 or 1993 Bulls is the greatest Bulls team of all time.

[Lebron23]

1993 Suns > 1996 Sonics
1993 Knicks > 1996 Orlando Magic
1993 Cavaliers > 1996 Knicks
1993 Hawks = 1996 Heat. Although the Hawks won more games than them in the regular season.

Jordan and Pippen in 1993 > Jordan and Pippen in 1996

[ShawkFactory]

1993 Suns > 1996 Sonics
1993 Knicks > 1996 Orlando Magic
1993 Cavaliers > 1996 Knicks
1993 Hawks = 1996 Heat. Although the Hawks won more games than them in the regular season.

Jordan and Pippen in 1993 > Jordan and Pippen in 1996
It doesn't matter if the competition was better in 93. They destroyed everyone in 96.

[Lebron23]

It doesn't matter if the competition was better in 93. They destroyed everyone in 96.

1996 Bulls won't win any games against the 1986 Celtics, and 1987 Lakers.

Just like in Boxing. Floyd in this era wouldn't be dominant in the 1980's. He's going to be an american version of Wilfred Benitez. Benitez is also a great defensive boxer. The youngest champion in history at age 17.

[GrapeApe]

They beat superior competitions/teams in 1993. And Jordan and Pippen were both 3 years younger. I read an article from Sam Smith saying that the 1992 or 1993 Bulls is the greatest Bulls team of all time.

Jordan and Pippen may have been marginally better in 1993, but the 1996 Bulls were a better overall team. They were deeper, better defensively, they had the 6th man of the year, the best rebounder in NBA history, and one of the most accurate 3 point shooters in NBA history. They weren't as relient on Jordan and Pippen and they could beat you in many different ways.

[Lebron23]

Jordan and Pippen may have been marginally better in 1993, but the 1996 Bulls were a better overall team. They were deeper, better defensively, they had the 6th man of the year, the best rebounder in NBA history, and one of the most accurate 3 point shooters in NBA history. They weren't as relient on Jordan and Pippen and they could beat you in many different ways.

1993 Bulls also had horace grant, and BJ Armstrong. And they put up better numbers than Rodman and Kukoc in the regular season, in the playoffs, and in the finals.

Grant and Rodman became all stars in 1994, but they were also putting up quality numbers in 1993. Grant was a 13/10 big man while Armstrong was a good starter 12 ppg and 4 apg.

[LAZERUSS]

The '86 Celtics weren't even the best team of the 80's.

The '85 and '87 Lakers were easily a better team, and they demonstrated it by pounding Boston in both Finals. In fact, the '84 Lakers were one bad pass, and one missed FT away from sweeping the Celtics, as well (BTW, even Bird admitted that they should have been swept.)

Boston never had an answer for all of LA's weapons. And one of them was the "Bird-killer" himself, Michael Cooper.

To be honest, the only real match-up problem for the Lakers was McHale, but then, Boston couldn't stop Worthy, either.

On top of all of that, the '83 Sixers had a case as the GOAT team of the '80's, as well.


As for the '93 Bulls...hard to argue against a peak MJ and Pippen, and a near-peak Grant. Especially when that same core would go 55-27 without Jordan the very next year, and were a blown call away from potentially winning a title.

[Round Mound]

Karl Malone says "Hi." :cheers:

Stockton-To-Malone was the Best Pick and Roll Tandem Ever But Prime Barkley Was Much Better Than Malone. :cheers:

[PsychoBe]

Stockton-To-Malone was the Best Pick and Roll Tandem Ever But Prime Barkley Was Much Better Than Malone. :cheers:

i remember barkley saying on tnt once "i wish i had stockton" :oldlol:

[OldSchoolBBall]

1996 Bulls won't win any games against the 1986 Celtics, and 1987 Lakers.

Just like in Boxing. Floyd in this era wouldn't be dominant in the 1980's. He's going to be an american version of Wilfred Benitez. Benitez is also a great defensive boxer. The youngest champion in history at age 17.

That's a dumb statement. I'd favor the '86 Celts also (though I feel the '87 Lakers would be a push due to the matchups and stylistic differences), but the series would go at least 6.

[Lebron23]

That's a dumb statement. I'd favor the '86 Celts also (though I feel the '87 Lakers would be a push due to the matchups and stylistic differences), but the series would go at least 6.


Sonics almost pulled the upset in the 1996 NBA Finals if only George Karl adjusted in the first 2 games of the series.

I was only 8 turning 9 years old in 1996, but I appreciate what Payton did to Jordan in that series.

[Lebron23]

That's a dumb statement. I'd favor the '86 Celts also (though I feel the '87 Lakers would be a push due to the matchups and stylistic differences), but the series would go at least 6.


1987 Lakers would destroy your 1996 Pabebe Bulls. Magic and Worthy were both on top of their game. And even a 40 yrs.old Kareem was still a solid starting center.

[Lebron23]

I know you hated Magic because your other favorite player is Larry Magic, but 1987 Lakers > 1986 Boston Celtics. And they beat them in their finals rematch.

[Spurs5Rings2014]

2016 champion Spurs via superior front court.

[Lebron23]

The '86 Celtics weren't even the best team of the 80's.

The '85 and '87 Lakers were easily a better team, and they demonstrated it by pounding Boston in both Finals. In fact, the '84 Lakers were one bad pass, and one missed FT away from sweeping the Celtics, as well (BTW, even Bird admitted that they should have been swept.)

Boston never had an answer for all of LA's weapons. And one of them was the "Bird-killer" himself, Michael Cooper.

To be honest, the only real match-up problem for the Lakers was McHale, but then, Boston couldn't stop Worthy, either.

On top of all of that, the '83 Sixers had a case as the GOAT team of the '80's, as well.


As for the '93 Bulls...hard to argue against a peak MJ and Pippen, and a near-peak Grant. Especially when that same core would go 55-27 without Jordan the very next year, and were a blown call away from potentially winning a title.

Great posts Mr. Lazeruss.

[mr4speed]

The '86 Celtics weren't even the best team of the 80's.

The '85 and '87 Lakers were easily a better team, and they demonstrated it by pounding Boston in both Finals. In fact, the '84 Lakers were one bad pass, and one missed FT away from sweeping the Celtics, as well (BTW, even Bird admitted that they should have been swept.)

Boston never had an answer for all of LA's weapons. And one of them was the "Bird-killer" himself, Michael Cooper.

To be honest, the only real match-up problem for the Lakers was McHale, but then, Boston couldn't stop Worthy, either.

On top of all of that, the '83 Sixers had a case as the GOAT team of the '80's, as well.



As for the '93 Bulls...hard to argue against a peak MJ and Pippen, and a near-peak Grant. Especially when that same core would go 55-27 without Jordan the very next year, and were a blown call away from potentially winning a title.


I disagree with your reasoning. LA winning in 85 and 87 doesn't prove the 86 Celtic team wasn't a great team. A lot can happen during the course of a year. What happened in 86 when LA played Boston? Boston won both games. The 87 finals featured a Celtic team that was full of injuries and Boston still won 2 games. I agree LA had the better team in 84 and 85 and 87, but LA won 11 games and Boston won 8 in all the finals games, so it wasn't as 1 sided as you make it sound. The 83 sixers , 86 Celtics and 87 Lakers is a great debate!!

[Tarik One]

92 Bulls were better than the 93 squad. Bulls bench was not as deep in 93, plus Horace Grant was disgruntled throughout the season. He had a horrible series against Phoenix.....until that game saving block at the end.

[LAZERUSS]

I disagree with your reasoning. LA winning in 85 and 87 doesn't prove the 86 Celtic team wasn't a great team. A lot can happen during the course of a year. What happened in 86 when LA played Boston? Boston won both games. The 87 finals featured a Celtic team that was full of injuries and Boston still won 2 games. I agree LA had the better team in 84 and 85 and 87, but LA won 11 games and Boston won 8 in all the finals games, so it wasn't as 1 sided as you make it sound. The 83 sixers , 86 Celtics and 87 Lakers is a great debate!!

That 11-8 record is deceptive, as well, though.

They were a stupid pass away from winning game two in '84, and either a Worthy, or Magic, missed FTA away from winning game four...or what should have been a sweep.

In '85, LA was caught sleep-walking in game one. Hell, the media wrote Kareem off as done after that game. Then they proceeded to win four of the next five, including a "retribution rout" in game three, and a solid clinching win on Boston's home floor in game six.

And in '87, they were six points away in game three, of what would have been a sweep. And they routed Boston in three of their wins.

'86 was a transition year for the Lakers. Kareem was still an offensive force, but he couldn't rebound, or defend, to save his life. And while he murdered Hakeem in their regular season H2H's, it was Sampson who defended him in the WCF's. Because of that, the Lakers acquired Mychal Thompson the very next season.


But, my main point was that the Lakers just plain outgunned Boston in terms of all-around talent. And one of their biggest weapons was Michael Cooper, who probably defended Bird better than anyone. Meanwhile, Boston had no answer for Magic...especially in the '87 Finals when he put up one of the greatest Finals in NBA history.

I realize that Boston had their injury issues, but even a healthy '84 Celtic team was an eyelash away from a sweep. I'll give them credit for coming back to win that series, but the reality was, the Lakers handed it to them.

It would have been interesting to have seen either the '85 or '87 Lakers versus the '86 Celtics. I think KAJ in '85 would have been too much, and then the combo of KAJ-Thompson-Green in '87 would have been too strong for the '86 Celtics.

In any case, those teams, along with the '83 Sixers, are arguably top-10 teams of all-time.

[1987_Lakers]

'86 was a transition year for the Lakers. Kareem was still an offensive force, but he couldn't rebound, or defend, to save his life. And while he murdered Hakeem in their regular season H2H's, it was Sampson who defended him in the WCF's. Because of that, the Lakers acquired Mychal Thompson the very next season.

Transition year? They were coming off a championship with pretty much every main core player back for '86, they even started the '85-'86 season with a record of 24-3 and SI ran an article debating if they were the best team ever. They even had veteran Maurice Lucas off the bench.

They were pretty much the same team as they were the previous year, except they ran into a team that they matched up bad against in the Rockets. For the '87 year Pat Riley decided to make Magic to vocal point of the offense to take some pressure off the aging Kareem.

[AngelEyes]

92 Bulls were better than the 93 squad. Bulls bench was not as deep in 93, plus Horace Grant was disgruntled throughout the season. He had a horrible series against Phoenix.....until that game saving block at the end.

The 92' team is the best Bulls team. Period. Jordan was at his absolute zenith and Pippen was awesome that year and as athletic as he was at any point in his career. That's the greatest Bulls team, regardless of record.

[LAZERUSS]

Transition year? They were coming off a championship with pretty much every main core player back for '86, they even started the '85-'86 season with a record of 24-3 and SI ran an article debating if they were the best team ever. They even had veteran Maurice Lucas off the bench.

They were pretty much the same team as they were the previous year, except they ran into a team that they matched up bad against in the Rockets. For the '87 year Pat Riley decided to make Magic to vocal point of the offense to take some pressure off the aging Kareem.

Kareem was running out of gas by the end of the season. And you are right, with a declining Kareem, they couldn't match up against both Hakeem and Sampson (who actually had a great series and outplayed Kareem.) Again, he couldn't rebound, or defend to save his life.

That's why they acquired Thompson in '87. In fact, the Thompson-Green tandem easily replaced Kareem. I have long maintained that they were so powerful that they likely would have won a title without KAJ. As they basically did that the very next season (KAJ's playoffs, and particularly his Finals, were just awful in '88.)

[AngelEyes]

That 11-8 record is deceptive, as well, though.

They were a stupid pass away from winning game two in '84, and either a Worthy, or Magic, missed FTA away from winning game four...or what should have been a sweep.

In '85, LA was caught sleep-walking in game one. Hell, the media wrote Kareem off as done after that game. Then they proceeded to win four of the next five, including a "retribution rout" in game three, and a solid clinching win on Boston's home floor in game six.

And in '87, they were six points away in game three, of what would have been a sweep. And they routed Boston in three of their wins.

'86 was a transition year for the Lakers. Kareem was still an offensive force, but he couldn't rebound, or defend, to save his life. And while he murdered Hakeem in their regular season H2H's, it was Sampson who defended him in the WCF's. Because of that, the Lakers acquired Mychal Thompson the very next season.


But, my main point was that the Lakers just plain outgunned Boston in terms of all-around talent. And one of their biggest weapons was Michael Cooper, who probably defended Bird better than anyone. Meanwhile, Boston had no answer for Magic...especially in the '87 Finals when he put up one of the greatest Finals in NBA history.

I realize that Boston had their injury issues, but even a healthy '84 Celtic team was an eyelash away from a sweep. I'll give them credit for coming back to win that series, but the reality was, the Lakers handed it to them.

It would have been interesting to have seen either the '85 or '87 Lakers versus the '86 Celtics. I think KAJ in '85 would have been too much, and then the combo of KAJ-Thompson-Green in '87 would have been too strong for the '86 Celtics.

In any case, those teams, along with the '83 Sixers, are arguably top-10 teams of all-time.

You're just making excuse after excuse to fit your narrative. Transition year? And saying the 84' Celtics were an eyelash away from a sweep. If you play that game you could say that about any team that has won any series. It's a pointless argument. The 86' Celtics absolutely rival any team from the 80's. Their passing and size was at an all time great level.

[LAZERUSS]

You're just making excuse after excuse to fit your narrative. Transition year? And saying the 84' Celtics were an eyelash away from a sweep. If you play that game you could say that about any team that has won any series. It's a pointless argument. The 86' Celtics absolutely rival any team from the 80's. Their passing and size was at an all time great level.

Excuses?

How about Bird, himself, following the '84 Finals...

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jun/03/sports/la-sp-0603-lakers-celtics-finals-20100603


The Lakers were better. Larry Bird said it himself: "To be honest, they should have swept."

Again, they were a stupid pass and a missed FT away from sweeping Boston.

LA was clearly a better team.

[AngelEyes]

Excuses?

How about Bird, himself, following the '84 Finals...

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jun/03/sports/la-sp-0603-lakers-celtics-finals-20100603



Again, they were a stupid pass and a missed FT away from sweeping Boston.

LA was clearly a better team.

They lost in 7 games. They were not clearly the better team. If they were clearly better they would not have made some of the stupid mistakes they made and they would have won in 4 or 5 games. Instead they made some dumb plays, Magic Johnson especially, and were beaten by a truly great team.

[LAZERUSS]

They lost in 7 games. They were not clearly the better team. If they were clearly better they would not have made some of the stupid mistakes they made and they would have won in 4 or 5 games. Instead they made some dumb plays, Magic Johnson especially, and were beaten by a truly great team.

They were two mistakes away from a SWEEP. They HANDED that series to Boston.

But again, they proved they were considerably better in their '85 and '87 H2H's with Boston.

[AngelEyes]

They were two mistakes away from a SWEEP. They HANDED that series to Boston.

But again, they proved they were considerably better in their '85 and '87 H2H's with Boston.

They didn't hand them the series, the Celtic took it. They took it because they were a great team. You act like the Celtics weren't stacked just like the Lakers were stacked. You don't win a 7 game series in the NBA finals by having the opposing team just hand you the series. If they make mistakes you have to capitalize on them and the Celtics did just that.

[LAZERUSS]

They didn't hand them the series, the Celtic took it. They took it because they were a great team. You act like the Celtics weren't stacked just like the Lakers were stacked. You don't win a 7 game series in the NBA finals by having the opposing team just hand you the series. If they make mistakes you have to capitalize on them and the Celtics did just that.

Yes, they DID HAND THEM that series, and even BIRD admitted it.

They easily won game one in Boston (they had a 19 point lead and coasted to a win), and they annihilated Boston in LA in game three by 33 points. Had Worthy not made that stupid pass (with magic standing right there to take the ball); and then Worthy and Magic both missing FTAs in the last few seconds, ... it would have been a sweep. Hell, give Boston either one of those games, instead of both, and the Lakers would still have won it in six games.

Again, they beat Boston in six games in both '85 and '87, and to be honest, they should have swept them in '87, as well.

[LAZERUSS]

I disagree with your reasoning. LA winning in 85 and 87 doesn't prove the 86 Celtic team wasn't a great team. A lot can happen during the course of a year. What happened in 86 when LA played Boston? Boston won both games. The 87 finals featured a Celtic team that was full of injuries and Boston still won 2 games. I agree LA had the better team in 84 and 85 and 87, but LA won 11 games and Boston won 8 in all the finals games, so it wasn't as 1 sided as you make it sound. The 83 sixers , 86 Celtics and 87 Lakers is a great debate!!

BTW...agreed 100%.

I would include the '85 Lakers, as well.

:cheers:

[mr4speed]

That 11-8 record is deceptive, as well, though.

They were a stupid pass away from winning game two in '84, and either a Worthy, or Magic, missed FTA away from winning game four...or what should have been a sweep.

In '85, LA was caught sleep-walking in game one. Hell, the media wrote Kareem off as done after that game. Then they proceeded to win four of the next five, including a "retribution rout" in game three, and a solid clinching win on Boston's home floor in game six.

And in '87, they were six points away in game three, of what would have been a sweep. And they routed Boston in three of their wins.

'86 was a transition year for the Lakers. Kareem was still an offensive force, but he couldn't rebound, or defend, to save his life. And while he murdered Hakeem in their regular season H2H's, it was Sampson who defended him in the WCF's. Because of that, the Lakers acquired Mychal Thompson the very next season.


But, my main point was that the Lakers just plain outgunned Boston in terms of all-around talent. And one of their biggest weapons was Michael Cooper, who probably defended Bird better than anyone. Meanwhile, Boston had no answer for Magic...especially in the '87 Finals when he put up one of the greatest Finals in NBA history.

I realize that Boston had their injury issues, but even a healthy '84 Celtic team was an eyelash away from a sweep. I'll give them credit for coming back to win that series, but the reality was, the Lakers handed it to them.

It would have been interesting to have seen either the '85 or '87 Lakers versus the '86 Celtics. I think KAJ in '85 would have been too much, and then the combo of KAJ-Thompson-Green in '87 would have been too strong for the '86 Celtics.

In any case, those teams, along with the '83 Sixers, are arguably top-10 teams of all-time.

Respect to you but I disagree again. The 11 - 8 record is accurate as it stands. If Magic is your favorite player and LA is your favorite team = that's cool - you have a lot of company, but you are exaggerating details to support your point of view. An example? Your description of game 1 in 85 is "LA was sleepwalking" but when a similar margin of victory happens for LA, you are quick to say LA "pounded" or "routed" Boston. Game 1 became known as "the Memorial Day Massacre" because of how well Boston played - give credit where credit is due. A single pass and/or a free throw missed is an attempt to minimize the significance of when it took place and how it happened. Both of the above occurred at the most crucial of times late in the game and revealed LA had a weakness under pressure, something Boston capitalized on and played much better when it counted the most, that is why Boston won the series. The 3 teams we have mentioned would make a great thread on this site, and would be a good discussion, even though it is impossible to prove 1 team is definitively better than another. In my opinion, the 86 Celtics with their size, and Walton remaining healthy, dominates the glass and the lane, and that team had superb ball movement, balanced scoring and a variety of good outside shooters makes it the best blend. McHale said "If I had 1 year to go back and play over it would be that year and that team, everything was clicking for us and it was so much fun. We would lose a game and then tell KC, don't worry, we will win the next 10 in a row - and we did".
The 85 Lakers were a very good team, but I think the 87 Lakers were better = basically Wilkes and Mcadoo vs AC and Mychal Thompson. I remember Magic saying "I never played on a team that had everything, but this team has everything. There is nothing we can't do". That is impressive! The 83 sixer team also had great chemistry and their record speaks for itself. Great teams like that just find ways to win games. I have the 86 Celtics on top with the 87 Lakers right behind them and the 83 sixers right behind LA. On any given night any of those teams could beat either of the other 2.

[BIZARRO]

Was a Celtics fan in the 80's......

But I would rank them as '87 Lakers, '83 Sixers, then '86 Celtics....It's close all the way around of course.....The '87 Lakers were the best team I ever saw......

[JohnnySic]

Only a knucklehead Lakers fan of galactic proportions would brag about the Lakers beating the Celtics in '87 when 2/3 of the Celtics rotation was either playing injured or out of action altogether. :facepalm

The '86 Celtics are widely regarded as the GOAT team by most (except some Lakers fans) and there's a reason for that. That's the one year they were at truly full strength.

The '87 Lakers aren't even the best Lakers team. '85 and '01 were better; most of the early 80's teams were arguably better. In '87 the Lakers played in perhaps the weakest conference in modern (post 70's) NBA history, beat 3 lottery teams in the west and then a battered Celtics team. If the Pistons made the finals that year (and they should have given the Celtics' condition) they would have given them all they could handle and possibly beaten them, and we would not have to deal with all the '87 Lakers malarkey.

[LAZERUSS]

Only a knucklehead Lakers fan of galactic proportions would brag about the Lakers beating the Celtics in '87 when 2/3 of the Celtics rotation was either playing injured or out of action altogether. :facepalm

The '86 Celtics are widely regarded as the GOAT team by most (except some Lakers fans) and there's a reason for that. That's the one year they were at truly full strength.

The '87 Lakers aren't even the best Lakers team. '85 and '01 were better; most of the early 80's teams were arguably better. In '87 the Lakers played in perhaps the weakest conference in modern (post 70's) NBA history, beat 3 lottery teams in the west and then a battered Celtics team. If the Pistons made the finals that year (and they should have given the Celtics' condition) they would have given them all they could handle and possibly beaten them, and we would not have to deal with all the '87 Lakers malarkey.

And only a complete idiot would not acknowledge the pure dominance by that '87 Laker team.

I find it almost laughable that the Celtic fans always bring up Bird's (and other's injuries) in these discussions.

In the '87 playoffs, the Lakers just steamrolled everyone...including Boston. Bird played his best game of the Finals in game one, and arguably his second best in game two...both Laker routs. In fact, just a pathetic game three performance by LA prevented a sweep.

As a side-note, since these discussions usually involve Bird and Magic. Bird's teams went 11-8 against 50+ win teams in his post-season career. Magic's teams went 13-6 against 50+ win teams in his playoff career.

Furthermore, for all this nonsense about Bird's injuries (seems like he was playing hurt in 80% of his playoff career), Magic's '81 Lakers lost a ridiculous best-of-three series in the first round (in a season in which Magic missed nearly the entire last half of the season due to injury.) BTW, Boston eked out a game seven win against the Sixers that year...coming back from a 3-1 series deficit, and winning all three by the narrowest of margins...to the same Sixers team that LA easily beat in '80 and in '82 in the Finals. In fact, they routed Philly on the Sixers home floor in game six of the '80 Finals...in a game without an injured Kareem.

How about '83? Bird's Celtics avoided getting blown out by the Moses-led Sixers, by getting swept by an underdog Milwaukee team. And while the Lakers were swept by that great Sixers team, the last three games were very close...and in a series in which Worthy did not play.

'84? We already know that the Lakers HANDED that series to Boston. They should have SWEPT Boston, and even Bird, himself, said so. BUT, LA too was missing a key player in that game seven...Bob McAdoo and his 13 ppg...due to injury.

'85? LA absolutely annihilated everyone in that post-season. They essentially played one bad game the entire post-season...that game one rout to Boston, in which KAJ was playing in a trance. They came back to beat Boston in four of the last five, including a rout in game three in LA, and a solid win in game six on Boston's home floor.

And '86 is where it somewhat deceptive. Who knows how a Boston-LA series would have gone, but we never found out. Kareem showed his age against Sampson in the WCF's, and it never happened. But this was another example of the Celtics three rings in the Bird-era. They struggled to beat a 40-42 Rocket's team in the '81 Finals, and with Bird shooting horrifically; they barely beat a Laker team in the '84 Finals, that clearly outplayed them; and then they beat a 51-31 Rockets team in the '86 Finals. Aside from a Laker series in which they should have been swept...they never beat a great team.

'87? I already went over that. That was an all-time great team that romped to a title, even with an aging KAJ, whose minutes could easily have been taken by the Mychal Thompson-AC Green combo. They routed Boston in three wins, and were a few points away from a sweep in game three.

'88? While Magic had to overcome a worthless Kareem, and dominated the Pistons in the process in the seven game Finals...Bird and his Celtics were waxed by that Piston team, in a series in which Bird shot .351 (Magic shot .550 against the Bad Boys BTW.) Of course, the injured Bird had played brilliantly against the Hawks just the series before.

'89? Bird was essentially done. Meanwhile, the Lakers came into the Finals against Detroit, 11-0. BUT, INJURIES then KILLED them. In the last game of the WCF's, Byron Scott and his 20 ppg went down, and he would miss the Finals. Then, in a tie game in game two, MAGIC went down, and basically missed the rest of the series. And while the Pistons swept LA, the last three games...all essentially without Magic and Scott, were very close.

'90. The 63-19 Lakers were shocked by Phoenix, but how about Magic in that series? A 30-5-14 series, which included back-to-back 43 point games in that last two games of that series. Of course, Magic had dragged a declining Lakers team to a 62-17 record that season.

'91. Magic somehow took a rapidly declining, and injury-torn Laker team to a 58-24 record. Then he led them to a big upset over the 63-19 Blazers in the WCF's. His teammates fell completely apart in the Finals, against an all-time great Bulls team, but it was testament to Magic, that a past-his-peak Magic accomplished such a feat.


So, these "Bird injuries" hit the Lakers just as much. In fact, I would argue that, as easily as the Lakers handled the Sixers in '80, and '82, and just how well Philly played against Boston in '81, that had the first round not been a best-of-three series, that LA likely would have gone on to win yet another title. '83 would have been interesting had Worthy played. We all know that LA should have easily won the '84 Finals. And had Magic and Scott not been injured in the '89 Finals, who knows? In any case, a healthy Laker team might have won in '81, '83, and '89, and they were clearly the best team in '84. Or potentially anywhere from one to four more rings for Magic.

[Psileas]

'84? We already know that the Lakers HANDED that series to Boston. They should have SWEPT Boston, and even Bird, himself, said so. BUT, LA too was missing a key player in that game seven...Bob McAdoo and his 13 ppg...due to injury.

How about Wilkes? I think he was injured, as well...He was still a 17 ppg starter, but missed a big part of the playoffs and only played limited minutes in the games he appeared, averaging only 4.5 ppg.

[LAZERUSS]

How about Wilkes? I think he was injured, as well...He was still a 17 ppg starter, but missed a big part of the playoffs and only played limited minutes in the games he appeared, averaging only 4.5 ppg.

I knew that they another injury, but I was typing this up quickly, and I glanced at the games played in the Finals.

CLEARLY, the '84 Lakers were a better team than Boston.

Of course, this discussion revolves around the '86 Celtics, but you simply can't ignore '85 and '87. Why? Because those were two different Laker teams that dominated everyone. The '86 Lakers got the most mileage out of a past-his-prime KAJ, but he had run out of gas by the WCF's. That's why they completely revamped their system in '87. Which, of course, speaks volumes about Magic. He went on to have one of the GOAT Finals, and completely dominated Boston in that series. By FAR the best player on the floor.

And that was one of my points. The bottom line, ... Boston never had an answer for Magic, BUT, the Lakers could significantly reduce Bird's effectiveness with Cooper. I have always maintained that the Celtic player that gave LA the most trouble in the mid-80's was McHale. However, Worthy was just as unstoppable against Boston. So they basically neutralized each other. The rest of the rosters were pretty much a wash, except when a motivated Kareem decided to dominate.

Again...thanks for pointing out the obvious...

:cheers:

[LAZERUSS]

Respect to you but I disagree again. The 11 - 8 record is accurate as it stands. If Magic is your favorite player and LA is your favorite team = that's cool - you have a lot of company, but you are exaggerating details to support your point of view. An example? Your description of game 1 in 85 is "LA was sleepwalking" but when a similar margin of victory happens for LA, you are quick to say LA "pounded" or "routed" Boston. Game 1 became known as "the Memorial Day Massacre" because of how well Boston played - give credit where credit is due. A single pass and/or a free throw missed is an attempt to minimize the significance of when it took place and how it happened. Both of the above occurred at the most crucial of times late in the game and revealed LA had a weakness under pressure, something Boston capitalized on and played much better when it counted the most, that is why Boston won the series. The 3 teams we have mentioned would make a great thread on this site, and would be a good discussion, even though it is impossible to prove 1 team is definitively better than another. In my opinion, the 86 Celtics with their size, and Walton remaining healthy, dominates the glass and the lane, and that team had superb ball movement, balanced scoring and a variety of good outside shooters makes it the best blend. McHale said "If I had 1 year to go back and play over it would be that year and that team, everything was clicking for us and it was so much fun. We would lose a game and then tell KC, don't worry, we will win the next 10 in a row - and we did".
The 85 Lakers were a very good team, but I think the 87 Lakers were better = basically Wilkes and Mcadoo vs AC and Mychal Thompson. I remember Magic saying "I never played on a team that had everything, but this team has everything. There is nothing we can't do". That is impressive! The 83 sixer team also had great chemistry and their record speaks for itself. Great teams like that just find ways to win games. I have the 86 Celtics on top with the 87 Lakers right behind them and the 83 sixers right behind LA. On any given night any of those teams could beat either of the other 2.

For the 80's, I would also include the '85 Lakers. Other than that "Memorial Day Massacre" they just overwhelmed their opposition...including Boston. They had a 126.3 to 116.2 scoring differential, but take away that 34 point aberration, and it would have been a 127.0 to 114.3 margin.

All-time? My first choice is the '72 Lakers, who if you include the playoffs, just plastered everyone that season. And keep in mind that they faced the best teams considerably more times in '72, than teams did from the 80's on. As an example, they pounded the defending champion, and 63-19 Bucks, 8-3 that year (4-1 in the regular season, and 4-2 in the post-season.)

Same with the '67 Sixers, who annihilated their peers (albeit Boston gave them some trouble in the regular season, but then Philly just obliterated them in the EDF's.)

The '71 Bucks had the greatest post-season scoring differential in NBA history, at +14.5 ppg (as well as eFG% differential), and nearly the best in the regular season (+12.2.) However, at one time they were 65-11 with a +13.6 ppg differential, before coasting to a 66-16 record. They did set an eFG% differential record of .509 to .424.

Then the '92 Bulls, the '96 Bulls, the '00 or '01 Lakers ('00 great regular season, and '01 great post-season), the '08 Celtics, the '13 Heat, and either the '15 and more-than-likely, the '16 Warriors.

[JohnnySic]

And only a complete idiot would not acknowledge the pure dominance by that '87 Laker team.

I find it almost laughable that the Celtic fans always bring up Bird's (and other's injuries) in these discussions.

In the '87 playoffs, the Lakers just steamrolled everyone...including Boston. Bird played his best game of the Finals in game one, and arguably his second best in game two...both Laker routs. In fact, just a pathetic game three performance by LA prevented a sweep.

As a side-note, since these discussions usually involve Bird and Magic. Bird's teams went 11-8 against 50+ win teams in his post-season career. Magic's teams went 13-6 against 50+ win teams in his playoff career.

Furthermore, for all this nonsense about Bird's injuries (seems like he was playing hurt in 80% of his playoff career), Magic's '81 Lakers lost a ridiculous best-of-three series in the first round (in a season in which Magic missed nearly the entire last half of the season due to injury.) BTW, Boston eked out a game seven win against the Sixers that year...coming back from a 3-1 series deficit, and winning all three by the narrowest of margins...to the same Sixers team that LA easily beat in '80 and in '82 in the Finals. In fact, they routed Philly on the Sixers home floor in game six of the '80 Finals...in a game without an injured Kareem.

How about '83? Bird's Celtics avoided getting blown out by the Moses-led Sixers, by getting swept by an underdog Milwaukee team. And while the Lakers were swept by that great Sixers team, the last three games were very close...and in a series in which Worthy did not play.

'84? We already know that the Lakers HANDED that series to Boston. They should have SWEPT Boston, and even Bird, himself, said so. BUT, LA too was missing a key player in that game seven...Bob McAdoo and his 13 ppg...due to injury.

'85? LA absolutely annihilated everyone in that post-season. They essentially played one bad game the entire post-season...that game one rout to Boston, in which KAJ was playing in a trance. They came back to beat Boston in four of the last five, including a rout in game three in LA, and a solid win in game six on Boston's home floor.

And '86 is where it somewhat deceptive. Who knows how a Boston-LA series would have gone, but we never found out. Kareem showed his age against Sampson in the WCF's, and it never happened. But this was another example of the Celtics three rings in the Bird-era. They struggled to beat a 40-42 Rocket's team in the '81 Finals, and with Bird shooting horrifically; they barely beat a Laker team in the '84 Finals, that clearly outplayed them; and then they beat a 51-31 Rockets team in the '86 Finals. Aside from a Laker series in which they should have been swept...they never beat a great team.

'87? I already went over that. That was an all-time great team that romped to a title, even with an aging KAJ, whose minutes could easily have been taken by the Mychal Thompson-AC Green combo. They routed Boston in three wins, and were a few points away from a sweep in game three.

'88? While Magic had to overcome a worthless Kareem, and dominated the Pistons in the process in the seven game Finals...Bird and his Celtics were waxed by that Piston team, in a series in which Bird shot .351 (Magic shot .550 against the Bad Boys BTW.) Of course, the injured Bird had played brilliantly against the Hawks just the series before.

'89? Bird was essentially done. Meanwhile, the Lakers came into the Finals against Detroit, 11-0. BUT, INJURIES then KILLED them. In the last game of the WCF's, Byron Scott and his 20 ppg went down, and he would miss the Finals. Then, in a tie game in game two, MAGIC went down, and basically missed the rest of the series. And while the Pistons swept LA, the last three games...all essentially without Magic and Scott, were very close.

'90. The 63-19 Lakers were shocked by Phoenix, but how about Magic in that series? A 30-5-14 series, which included back-to-back 43 point games in that last two games of that series. Of course, Magic had dragged a declining Lakers team to a 62-17 record that season.

'91. Magic somehow took a rapidly declining, and injury-torn Laker team to a 58-24 record. Then he led them to a big upset over the 63-19 Blazers in the WCF's. His teammates fell completely apart in the Finals, against an all-time great Bulls team, but it was testament to Magic, that a past-his-peak Magic accomplished such a feat.


So, these "Bird injuries" hit the Lakers just as much. In fact, I would argue that, as easily as the Lakers handled the Sixers in '80, and '82, and just how well Philly played against Boston in '81, that had the first round not been a best-of-three series, that LA likely would have gone on to win yet another title. '83 would have been interesting had Worthy played. We all know that LA should have easily won the '84 Finals. And had Magic and Scott not been injured in the '89 Finals, who knows? In any case, a healthy Laker team might have won in '81, '83, and '89, and they were clearly the best team in '84. Or potentially anywhere from one to four more rings for Magic.

Idiot. Incomprehensible homerism beyond belief.

Bird was the one guy who wasn't injured in '87.

McHale broken foot. Never the same after that; still walks with a limp.

Parish 2 sprained ankles. Ainge sprained ankle. Walton and Wedman, the 6th and 7th men, injured and unavailable. These are all facts - regardless how much you want to gloss over them. And those Lakers still needed 6 games to beat that battered team - the '86 Celtics would have swept the '87 Celtics.

The '87 Lakers were the best team that year (given the Celtics injuries) but they are a farce when included in any discussion of greatest team ever. And this isn't an anti-Lakers thing. If you want to discuss '86 Celtics vs '01 Lakers, I'll entertain that argument.

THE END.

[mr4speed]

And only a complete idiot would not acknowledge the pure dominance by that '87 Laker team.

I find it almost laughable that the Celtic fans always bring up Bird's (and other's injuries) in these discussions.

In the '87 playoffs, the Lakers just steamrolled everyone...including Boston. Bird played his best game of the Finals in game one, and arguably his second best in game two...both Laker routs. In fact, just a pathetic game three performance by LA prevented a sweep.

As a side-note, since these discussions usually involve Bird and Magic. Bird's teams went 11-8 against 50+ win teams in his post-season career. Magic's teams went 13-6 against 50+ win teams in his playoff career.

Furthermore, for all this nonsense about Bird's injuries (seems like he was playing hurt in 80% of his playoff career), Magic's '81 Lakers lost a ridiculous best-of-three series in the first round (in a season in which Magic missed nearly the entire last half of the season due to injury.) BTW, Boston eked out a game seven win against the Sixers that year...coming back from a 3-1 series deficit, and winning all three by the narrowest of margins...to the same Sixers team that LA easily beat in '80 and in '82 in the Finals. In fact, they routed Philly on the Sixers home floor in game six of the '80 Finals...in a game without an injured Kareem.

How about '83? Bird's Celtics avoided getting blown out by the Moses-led Sixers, by getting swept by an underdog Milwaukee team. And while the Lakers were swept by that great Sixers team, the last three games were very close...and in a series in which Worthy did not play.

'84? We already know that the Lakers HANDED that series to Boston. They should have SWEPT Boston, and even Bird, himself, said so. BUT, LA too was missing a key player in that game seven...Bob McAdoo and his 13 ppg...due to injury.

'85? LA absolutely annihilated everyone in that post-season. They essentially played one bad game the entire post-season...that game one rout to Boston, in which KAJ was playing in a trance. They came back to beat Boston in four of the last five, including a rout in game three in LA, and a solid win in game six on Boston's home floor.

And '86 is where it somewhat deceptive. Who knows how a Boston-LA series would have gone, but we never found out. Kareem showed his age against Sampson in the WCF's, and it never happened. But this was another example of the Celtics three rings in the Bird-era. They struggled to beat a 40-42 Rocket's team in the '81 Finals, and with Bird shooting horrifically; they barely beat a Laker team in the '84 Finals, that clearly outplayed them; and then they beat a 51-31 Rockets team in the '86 Finals. Aside from a Laker series in which they should have been swept...they never beat a great team.

'87? I already went over that. That was an all-time great team that romped to a title, even with an aging KAJ, whose minutes could easily have been taken by the Mychal Thompson-AC Green combo. They routed Boston in three wins, and were a few points away from a sweep in game three.

'88? While Magic had to overcome a worthless Kareem, and dominated the Pistons in the process in the seven game Finals...Bird and his Celtics were waxed by that Piston team, in a series in which Bird shot .351 (Magic shot .550 against the Bad Boys BTW.) Of course, the injured Bird had played brilliantly against the Hawks just the series before.

'89? Bird was essentially done. Meanwhile, the Lakers came into the Finals against Detroit, 11-0. BUT, INJURIES then KILLED them. In the last game of the WCF's, Byron Scott and his 20 ppg went down, and he would miss the Finals. Then, in a tie game in game two, MAGIC went down, and basically missed the rest of the series. And while the Pistons swept LA, the last three games...all essentially without Magic and Scott, were very close.

'90. The 63-19 Lakers were shocked by Phoenix, but how about Magic in that series? A 30-5-14 series, which included back-to-back 43 point games in that last two games of that series. Of course, Magic had dragged a declining Lakers team to a 62-17 record that season.

'91. Magic somehow took a rapidly declining, and injury-torn Laker team to a 58-24 record. Then he led them to a big upset over the 63-19 Blazers in the WCF's. His teammates fell completely apart in the Finals, against an all-time great Bulls team, but it was testament to Magic, that a past-his-peak Magic accomplished such a feat.


So, these "Bird injuries" hit the Lakers just as much. In fact, I would argue that, as easily as the Lakers handled the Sixers in '80, and '82, and just how well Philly played against Boston in '81, that had the first round not been a best-of-three series, that LA likely would have gone on to win yet another title. '83 would have been interesting had Worthy played. We all know that LA should have easily won the '84 Finals. And had Magic and Scott not been injured in the '89 Finals, who knows? In any case, a healthy Laker team might have won in '81, '83, and '89, and they were clearly the best team in '84. Or potentially anywhere from one to four more rings for Magic.



One to 4 more rings for Magic? You are kidding right? Your posts are usually informative and You do your homework, but this is crazy. You do realize that Magic has had some bad games and series? All players do = they are human. 1981 a possible ring? As brilliant as Magic was in Game 6 of the 80 finals he was equally horrible in game 3 of the 81 series vs Houston. At home in the Forum Magic shot 2 of 13 and was 6 of 11 from the free throw line for 10 points. At the end of the game he hoisted an air ball that killed LA. He shot 38.8% for the series and regarding his injury in the regular season, Magic returned in game #66 so Magic played in 17 games to get ready for the post season = plenty of time. 1983 a ring year? No way - it was the Sixers year, Moses outplayed Kareem, but what about Magic? He got his numbers but shot 40.3% for the series and set an NBA finals record for 24 turnovers for 4 games. 1984 a ring year? LA had the better team, but LA made mistakes at the most crucial times. Magic had good numbers, but made more blunders than any other laker, dribbling out the clock, missed free throws, bad passes - I know you know this. With all these mistakes LA still had a game 7 chance. Magic's line for game 7 was he shot 5 of 14 and had 7 turnovers. Magic also set the NBA finals record for 31 turnovers for 7 games in this series. 1989 a ring year? Maybe but it didn't happen because of injuries. The Pistons fans could also argue a "what if" for 1988 for the injury to Isiah and the "bail out" foul call against Laimbeer vs Kareem in game 6.
1991 a ring year? No way = Jordan was too hungry and skilled. You said Magic's teammates fell apart? As if none of the responsibility is on Magic? He did play well but only shot 43.1% for the series.
I'm wondering if you don't have an agenda vs Bird and Boston as a Boston 4 games to 2 series win in your words represents a series Boston "struggled" to win? Yet when LA beat Boston 4 games to 2, LA "pounded" Boston? And in 86 finals Boston won 4 games to 2 against Houston = in your words "not a great team" but this same Houston team had no problem beating your Lakers. And isn't it convenient to not look at the 86 Celtics run through the playoffs but rather just discount their finals opponents? I'm sorry but you need to get off the "Magic Johnson" cool-aid. Magic is a GREAT basketball player and millions, including myself loved watching him play, but all players have bad performances. Your exaggerations will end up discrediting what I have seen as really good previous posts. Magic played on 5 teams that won the championship!! There is no need to try to make people believe he should have 9 rings to solidify Magic's greatness.

[!@#$%Vectors!@#]

Celtics in 5 or 6. MJ would get them 1 or 2 if he played out of his mind.

[LAZERUSS]

One to 4 more rings for Magic? You are kidding right? Your posts are usually informative and You do your homework, but this is crazy. You do realize that Magic has had some bad games and series? All players do = they are human. 1981 a possible ring? As brilliant as Magic was in Game 6 of the 80 finals he was equally horrible in game 3 of the 81 series vs Houston. At home in the Forum Magic shot 2 of 13 and was 6 of 11 from the free throw line for 10 points. At the end of the game he hoisted an air ball that killed LA. He shot 38.8% for the series and regarding his injury in the regular season, Magic returned in game #66 so Magic played in 17 games to get ready for the post season = plenty of time. 1983 a ring year? No way - it was the Sixers year, Moses outplayed Kareem, but what about Magic? He got his numbers but shot 40.3% for the series and set an NBA finals record for 24 turnovers for 4 games. 1984 a ring year? LA had the better team, but LA made mistakes at the most crucial times. Magic had good numbers, but made more blunders than any other laker, dribbling out the clock, missed free throws, bad passes - I know you know this. With all these mistakes LA still had a game 7 chance. Magic's line for game 7 was he shot 5 of 14 and had 7 turnovers. Magic also set the NBA finals record for 31 turnovers for 7 games in this series. 1989 a ring year? Maybe but it didn't happen because of injuries. The Pistons fans could also argue a "what if" for 1988 for the injury to Isiah and the "bail out" foul call against Laimbeer vs Kareem in game 6.
1991 a ring year? No way = Jordan was too hungry and skilled. You said Magic's teammates fell apart? As if none of the responsibility is on Magic? He did play well but only shot 43.1% for the series.
I'm wondering if you don't have an agenda vs Bird and Boston as a Boston 4 games to 2 series win in your words represents a series Boston "struggled" to win? Yet when LA beat Boston 4 games to 2, LA "pounded" Boston? And in 86 finals Boston won 4 games to 2 against Houston = in your words "not a great team" but this same Houston team had no problem beating your Lakers. And isn't it convenient to not look at the 86 Celtics run through the playoffs but rather just discount their finals opponents? I'm sorry but you need to get off the "Magic Johnson" cool-aid. Magic is a GREAT basketball player and millions, including myself loved watching him play, but all players have bad performances. Your exaggerations will end up discrediting what I have seen as really good previous posts. Magic played on 5 teams that won the championship!! There is no need to try to make people believe he should have 9 rings to solidify Magic's greatness.

One to four more rings. Notice I did not include '86, when KAJ was out of gas, and '91, when the Lakers were just an injury-riddled shell of a team. Just so you know, Magic carried them to a 58-24 record (actually, 57-22), and after he was forced to retire, they went 43-39, and then 39-43.

'81? Magic still missed much of the last part of the season. He did not play well, but a couple of points. Had he not been injured, the Lakers surely would have gone on to a better record than the 54-28 they wound up with. Why is that important? Because it forced them to play that ridiculous best-of-three first round series. Just no way that the 40-42 Rockets would have beaten LA in four games (BTW, they were tied 2-2 with Boston in their Finals.) And again, Boston came back from a 3-1 series deficit, winning all three of those games by the narrowest of margins, against a Sixers team that the Lakers easily dispatched in both '80 and '82 in the Finals. Hell, Magic led them to a clinching game six win on the Sixers home floor, and without Kareem.

'83? I will agree that the Lakers may not have won that series. But that series was nowhere near indicative of a sweep. Three of the four games were close, and again, LA had no Worthy.

'84? Played the series with Wilkes reduced to a part-timer, and with McAdoo missing game seven. Should have swept Boston, and outplayed them in five of the seven games. BTW, you pointed out Magic's poor performance in game seven, but ignored Bird's brick-laying 6-18 game. And that game was close until the final minute. CLEARLY the Lakers were the better team, and Magic SHOULD have had another ring (and Bird one less.)

'89? Already pointed it out. 20 ppg Scott missed the entire series, and Magic basically missed the last 2 1/2 games. And yet, the last three games were all close.

So, yes, one to four more. In any case, five rings in nine Finals in his 12 full-time seasons, and with the greatest W-L% in NBA history is plenty enough to support him being a Top-5 player of all-time, and with an argument as the GOAT.

[LAZERUSS]

Idiot. Incomprehensible homerism beyond belief.

Bird was the one guy who wasn't injured in '87.

McHale broken foot. Never the same after that; still walks with a limp.

Parish 2 sprained ankles. Ainge sprained ankle. Walton and Wedman, the 6th and 7th men, injured and unavailable. These are all facts - regardless how much you want to gloss over them. And those Lakers still needed 6 games to beat that battered team - the '86 Celtics would have swept the '87 Celtics.

The '87 Lakers were the best team that year (given the Celtics injuries) but they are a farce when included in any discussion of greatest team ever. And this isn't an anti-Lakers thing. If you want to discuss '86 Celtics vs '01 Lakers, I'll entertain that argument.

THE END.

I have already shredded your arguments, but I do have to respond to the McHale injury.

He was never the same again?

Let's start with his 85-86 season. Played in 68 games. He averaged 21.3 ppg, 8.1 apg, and on a .574 FG%. In his 86-87 season, he played in 77 games (????) and he averaged 26.1 ppg, 9.9 rpg, and a .606 FG%. MUCH better WITH a BROKEN FOOT in '87 than '86, withOUT one.

How about their playoff numbers? In '86...24.9 ppg, 8.6 rpg, and on a .579 FG%. In '87... 21.1 ppg, 9.2 rpg, and on a .584 FG%...which pretty much mirrored his Finals against LA (20.5 ppg, 9.0 rpg, and on a .585 FG%.) So the broken foot didn't slow him at all.

And again...never the same again?

How about his '88 season? 64 games. 22.6 ppg, 8.4 rpg, and on a .604 FG%. Or slightly better than his '86 season. How about the post-season? 25.4 ppg, 8.0 rpg, and on a .605 FG%.

He was BETTER in every facet of the regular season, and post-season, in '88, than he was in '86, and pre-broken foot.

Seems to me that the Celtics should have taken a hammer to his foot earlier in his career.

[97 bulls]

I have already shredded your arguments, but I do have to respond to the McHale injury.

He was never the same again?

Let's start with his 85-86 season. Played in 68 games. He averaged 21.3 ppg, 8.1 apg, and on a .574 FG%. In his 86-87 season, he played in 77 games (????) and he averaged 26.1 ppg, 9.9 rpg, and a .606 FG%. MUCH better WITH a BROKEN FOOT in '87 than '86, withOUT one.

How about their playoff numbers? In '86...24.9 ppg, 8.6 rpg, and on a .579 FG%. In '87... 21.1 ppg, 9.2 rpg, and on a .584 FG%...which pretty much mirrored his Finals against LA (20.5 ppg, 9.0 rpg, and on a .585 FG%.) So the broken foot didn't slow him at all.

And again...never the same again?

How about his '88 season? 64 games. 22.6 ppg, 8.4 rpg, and on a .604 FG%. Or slightly better than his '86 season. How about the post-season? 25.4 ppg, 8.0 rpg, and on a .605 FG%.

He was BETTER in every facet of the regular season, and post-season, in '88, than he was in '86, and pre-broken foot.

Seems to me that the Celtics should have taken a hammer to his foot earlier in his career.
Lol. Truer words have never been spoken

[mr4speed]

One to four more rings. Notice I did not include '86, when KAJ was out of gas, and '91, when the Lakers were just an injury-riddled shell of a team. Just so you know, Magic carried them to a 58-24 record (actually, 57-22), and after he was forced to retire, they went 43-39, and then 39-43.

'81? Magic still missed much of the last part of the season. He did not play well, but a couple of points. Had he not been injured, the Lakers surely would have gone on to a better record than the 54-28 they wound up with. Why is that important? Because it forced them to play that ridiculous best-of-three first round series. Just no way that the 40-42 Rockets would have beaten LA in four games (BTW, they were tied 2-2 with Boston in their Finals.) And again, Boston came back from a 3-1 series deficit, winning all three of those games by the narrowest of margins, against a Sixers team that the Lakers easily dispatched in both '80 and '82 in the Finals. Hell, Magic led them to a clinching game six win on the Sixers home floor, and without Kareem.

'83? I will agree that the Lakers may not have won that series. But that series was nowhere near indicative of a sweep. Three of the four games were close, and again, LA had no Worthy.

'84? Played the series with Wilkes reduced to a part-timer, and with McAdoo missing game seven. Should have swept Boston, and outplayed them in five of the seven games. BTW, you pointed out Magic's poor performance in game seven, but ignored Bird's brick-laying 6-18 game. And that game was close until the final minute. CLEARLY the Lakers were the better team, and Magic SHOULD have had another ring (and Bird one less.)

'89? Already pointed it out. 20 ppg Scott missed the entire series, and Magic basically missed the last 2 1/2 games. And yet, the last three games were all close.

So, yes, one to four more. In any case, five rings in nine Finals in his 12 full-time seasons, and with the greatest W-L% in NBA history is plenty enough to support him being a Top-5 player of all-time, and with an argument as the GOAT.



Magic as GOAT? No way - in my opinion - he doesn't deserve to be over Jordan and Wilt and Kareem, but that is another argument. I will explain to you why I feel the way I do - no disrespect to Magic. When Magic was forced to retire there was to be a study done on the lakers that season to see what an impact 1 great player had on a team. It was to be called "The Magic Effect" because the roster would be identical with the 1 exception. But that year Vlade Divac missed 45 more games than the previous season and Worthy was lost for the season in game #54. Because the team make up was compromised in this fashion the study was dropped because of the additional factors that were hurting LA's chances of winning. No doubt LA missed Magic the most, but there were other contributing factors that you are leaving out when talking about the LA record. Also Worthy was never the same after his injury - he didn't have as fast of a first step or as high of a vertical lift. Speaking of injuries and McHale - I believe his fracture was a spiral winding crack that continued to get bigger as he continued to play. He was told he should stop but decided he didn't want to - LOL about you saying Celts should have used the hammer on him earlier!!
Here's the problem I have with your argument about Magic and LA. You said "had he not been injured, the Lakers would have gone on to a better record" thereby avoiding the best of 3 series with Houston. You harp on Bird backers about bringing up injuries ( I don't bring those up) but you can't have it both ways and say what if Magic wasn't injured. And if Magic did not get injured you said "no way the 40-42 rockets would have beaten LA" meaning in a best of 5 or 7 game series - but there is no way that you know that - that is 100% pure speculation and assumption! Did anyone think Houston would beat LA in best of 3? No - but it HAPPENED.
I didn't mention Bird's brick laying game 7 because I wanted to point out Magic's poor performance - because you never do! I also didn't talk about Bird's great game 5 or game 4. Bird clearly outplayed Magic in the 84 finals and Boston won the series despite LA having the better team - it HAPPENED.
The 89 series LA had the injuries, but remember you don't want to talk about injuries unless it conveniently fits your argument? There are way too many subjective elements to your 1 to 4 more rings claim.
So lets talk about Magic's "greatest W-L % in NBA history" to put that into better perspective. Magic played in 906 games and his team won 670 for a % of .73951 Bird played in 897 games and his team won 660 for a % of .73578 and this represents a difference of .0037. Now lets talk about the strength of each conference. Per Dave Heeren's "Basketball Abstract" 1990-1991 edition starting on page 49 the Eastern conference for the entire decade of the 80's -counting all teams top to bottom in the league - held a higher win % for every single year - and this is the decade in which both Magic and Bird played at the same time. Given this information it is clear that a nearly identical win % between these 2 players now shifts toward Bird's teams having the more respectable % between the 2 because of the tougher competition. How the 80's relates to the other great players win % is open for debate but if you are going to claim Magic as the highest perhaps there should be an asterisk next to the number like there was for Roger Maris since Maris played more games than Ruth (162 vs 154) and Magic's teams played in a weaker conference than Bird's teams.

[LAZERUSS]

Magic as GOAT? No way - in my opinion - he doesn't deserve to be over Jordan and Wilt and Kareem, but that is another argument. I will explain to you why I feel the way I do - no disrespect to Magic. When Magic was forced to retire there was to be a study done on the lakers that season to see what an impact 1 great player had on a team. It was to be called "The Magic Effect" because the roster would be identical with the 1 exception. But that year Vlade Divac missed 45 more games than the previous season and Worthy was lost for the season in game #54. Because the team make up was compromised in this fashion the study was dropped because of the additional factors that were hurting LA's chances of winning. No doubt LA missed Magic the most, but there were other contributing factors that you are leaving out when talking about the LA record. Also Worthy was never the same after his injury - he didn't have as fast of a first step or as high of a vertical lift. Speaking of injuries and McHale - I believe his fracture was a spiral winding crack that continued to get bigger as he continued to play. He was told he should stop but decided he didn't want to - LOL about you saying Celts should have used the hammer on him earlier!!
Here's the problem I have with your argument about Magic and LA. You said "had he not been injured, the Lakers would have gone on to a better record" thereby avoiding the best of 3 series with Houston. You harp on Bird backers about bringing up injuries ( I don't bring those up) but you can't have it both ways and say what if Magic wasn't injured. And if Magic did not get injured you said "no way the 40-42 rockets would have beaten LA" meaning in a best of 5 or 7 game series - but there is no way that you know that - that is 100% pure speculation and assumption! Did anyone think Houston would beat LA in best of 3? No - but it HAPPENED.
I didn't mention Bird's brick laying game 7 because I wanted to point out Magic's poor performance - because you never do! I also didn't talk about Bird's great game 5 or game 4. Bird clearly outplayed Magic in the 84 finals and Boston won the series despite LA having the better team - it HAPPENED.
The 89 series LA had the injuries, but remember you don't want to talk about injuries unless it conveniently fits your argument? There are way too many subjective elements to your 1 to 4 more rings claim.
So lets talk about Magic's "greatest W-L % in NBA history" to put that into better perspective. Magic played in 906 games and his team won 670 for a % of .73951 Bird played in 897 games and his team won 660 for a % of .73578 and this represents a difference of .0037. Now lets talk about the strength of each conference. Per Dave Heeren's "Basketball Abstract" 1990-1991 edition starting on page 49 the Eastern conference for the entire decade of the 80's -counting all teams top to bottom in the league - held a higher win % for every single year - and this is the decade in which both Magic and Bird played at the same time. Given this information it is clear that a nearly identical win % between these 2 players now shifts toward Bird's teams having the more respectable % between the 2 because of the tougher competition. How the 80's relates to the other great players win % is open for debate but if you are going to claim Magic as the highest perhaps there should be an asterisk next to the number like there was for Roger Maris since Maris played more games than Ruth (162 vs 154) and Magic's teams played in a weaker conference than Bird's teams.

First of all, I brought up Magic's injuries (to him and teammates) simply because that is ALWAYS the Bird argument.

Secondly, Magic's Lakers fared better against the Eastern Conference powers in the post-season than Bird's Celtics did.

W-L%...OK, how about their post-season W-L% then? Furthermore, how about against 50+ win teams? Or even 60+ win teams?

BTW, the Bird fans talk about how tough the East was, and yet, they almost had as many cakewalks in their post-seasons, as Magic did.

Hell, they didn't even play a first round series for three years. And then they were facing losers and mediocre teams after that. And they didn't even face the '83 Sixers, because they were swept with HCA the series before (oh, yes, Bird was hurt...as was almost always the case.)

As for the year after Magic retired, true, the team had injuries. BUT, they were at full strength the following season, and went 39-43. BTW, Worthy was already a broken-down shell by Magic's last post-season, and Byron Scott never fully recovered from his injury in the '89 post-season. It was a miracle that Magic dragged those rosters in '90 and '91 as far as he did.

And I know you didn't bring up KAJ, but the Lakers improved the season after he retired, and in fact, in Magic's career, he had a higher regular season W-L% without him.

[LAZERUSS]

Magic as GOAT? No way - in my opinion - he doesn't deserve to be over Jordan and Wilt and Kareem, but that is another argument. I will explain to you why I feel the way I do - no disrespect to Magic. When Magic was forced to retire there was to be a study done on the lakers that season to see what an impact 1 great player had on a team. It was to be called "The Magic Effect" because the roster would be identical with the 1 exception. But that year Vlade Divac missed 45 more games than the previous season and Worthy was lost for the season in game #54. Because the team make up was compromised in this fashion the study was dropped because of the additional factors that were hurting LA's chances of winning. No doubt LA missed Magic the most, but there were other contributing factors that you are leaving out when talking about the LA record. Also Worthy was never the same after his injury - he didn't have as fast of a first step or as high of a vertical lift. Speaking of injuries and McHale - I believe his fracture was a spiral winding crack that continued to get bigger as he continued to play. He was told he should stop but decided he didn't want to - LOL about you saying Celts should have used the hammer on him earlier!!
Here's the problem I have with your argument about Magic and LA. You said "had he not been injured, the Lakers would have gone on to a better record" thereby avoiding the best of 3 series with Houston. You harp on Bird backers about bringing up injuries ( I don't bring those up) but you can't have it both ways and say what if Magic wasn't injured. And if Magic did not get injured you said "no way the 40-42 rockets would have beaten LA" meaning in a best of 5 or 7 game series - but there is no way that you know that - that is 100% pure speculation and assumption! Did anyone think Houston would beat LA in best of 3? No - but it HAPPENED.
I didn't mention Bird's brick laying game 7 because I wanted to point out Magic's poor performance - because you never do! I also didn't talk about Bird's great game 5 or game 4. Bird clearly outplayed Magic in the 84 finals and Boston won the series despite LA having the better team - it HAPPENED.
The 89 series LA had the injuries, but remember you don't want to talk about injuries unless it conveniently fits your argument? There are way too many subjective elements to your 1 to 4 more rings claim.
So lets talk about Magic's "greatest W-L % in NBA history" to put that into better perspective. Magic played in 906 games and his team won 670 for a % of .73951 Bird played in 897 games and his team won 660 for a % of .73578 and this represents a difference of .0037. Now lets talk about the strength of each conference. Per Dave Heeren's "Basketball Abstract" 1990-1991 edition starting on page 49 the Eastern conference for the entire decade of the 80's -counting all teams top to bottom in the league - held a higher win % for every single year - and this is the decade in which both Magic and Bird played at the same time. Given this information it is clear that a nearly identical win % between these 2 players now shifts toward Bird's teams having the more respectable % between the 2 because of the tougher competition. How the 80's relates to the other great players win % is open for debate but if you are going to claim Magic as the highest perhaps there should be an asterisk next to the number like there was for Roger Maris since Maris played more games than Ruth (162 vs 154) and Magic's teams played in a weaker conference than Bird's teams.

BTW, I have Bird's three-year peak, from '84-86, slightly higher than Magic's three year peak from '87 thru '89.

In fact, I would take KAJ's three year peak from '70-72 (or else 71-73) over Magic's peak, as well. The reason I listed his 69-70 season thru his '71-72 season, is that from the second half of his rookie season, and including his monster playoff run, thru all of his '71 regular and post-season play, and then '72 regular season, he was arguably as great as anyone that ever played. His '72 regular season is one of the GOAT seasons, too. Unfortunately, he gagged in that post-season.

But in terms of overall careers, I would take Magic over both KAJ and Bird. I personally have Magic at #3, and behind Wilt and MJ...with Kareem at #4 (and Russell at #5.)

[Round Mound]

86 Celtics Was a Non Injured Celtics Team Playing In The GOAT Conference. The Bulls Have No Chance. The 96 Bulls Would Still Loose About 4-2.