About the Big 3 Celtics

[dankok8]

A couple of my observations about these teams:

1) In their 2008 title run, it was really the Big 1 and the Little 2. Garnett was by far the best player on the 2008 title team. He and Pierce were neck and neck offensively but most of KG's impact actually came on the defensive end where he was responsible for anchoring that dominant defense. A lot of casuals don't realize this though and pretend it was Pierce's team or something because of the Finals MVP. Even as late as 2012, Garnett's defense was so good that he was still the best player on the team although the margin was smaller.

2) The 2009 injury to KG stopped this team from winning one more ring. Not necessarily just in 2009 itself but 2010 and maybe 2012 because Garnett really lost a step when he came back. He was no longer in his prime.

3) As it turned out though those Celtics are kind of historically overrated. Their offense was mediocre at best. Even in 2008 they played a whopping 26 games to win the title and got taken 7 by the lowly Hawks and Cavs. In other years their defense was still good enough to make them competitive but it's hard to make a case they were anything more than an average championship team even in 2008. In other words I don't see them as a historical team which their 66-win record +9.30 SRS and a HOF-laden roster would suggest. From 2009 to 2012 they posted 62 wins +7.44 SRS (KG DNP in the playoffs), 50 wins +3.37 SRS, 56 wins +4.83 SRS, and 48 win pace +2.26 SRS respectively. Essentially with KG's injury in 2009, they became merely a good team like a contender but no longer championship caliber. The teams that beat them in those years 2009 Magic, 2010 Lakers, 2011 Heat and 2012 heat aren't really historical heavyweights either.

[tontoz]

People always bring up that Hawks series but ignore what actually happened. The Celtics outscored the Hawks by 84 points in that series.

All of the Hawks wins were close and all of the Celtics wins were blowouts.

[GrayGoat]

Dispatched the Lakers in 6 with the biggest blowout ever. Overrated tho

[SouBeachTalents]

People always bring up that Hawks series but ignore what actually happened. The Celtics outscored the Hawks by 84 points in that series.

All of the Hawks wins were close and all of the Celtics wins were blowouts.
Still, they had no business losing 3 times to a 37 win team

[GrayGoat]

Still, they had no business losing 3 times to a 37 win team

Doc Rivers. That’s the reason

[GimmeThat]

Rondo was out there faking out Kevin Garnett. "get to the top of the free throw line, set a pick, then try and go for the alley-oop!" "... why are you asking me to step towards the base line for a 3?"

[HBK_Kliq_2]

Garnett averaged 18PPG on 47% TS in the 2008 finals and you're trying to claim he was a big 1? hahaahaha

Kawhi put up 18PPG on 75% TS in the 2014 finals.

That celtics team was stacked as shit. Paul Pierce won finals MVP and he didn't even lead in gmsc, prime rondo was a beast. 4 hall of famers in their primes and elite role players like perkins\posey.

[tontoz]

Garnett averaged 18PPG on 47% TS in the 2008 finals and you're trying to claim he was a big 1? hahaahaha

Kawhi put up 18PPG on 75% TS in the 2014 finals.

That celtics team was stacked as shit. Paul Pierce won finals MVP and he didn't even lead in gmsc, prime rondo was a beast. 4 hall of famers in their primes and elite role players like perkins\posey.



Is it really necessary to bring Kawhi's name up in every thread you post in?

:facepalm

[Wally450]

Agree on #1 slightly. KG definitely was the leader of that team, but Pierce I think was there at least as the number one option for scoring. KG held it down defensively while Pierce was the go to offensive guy.

Completely agree with number 2. They were better in 2009 than they were in 2008. That injury in Utah killed the top tier KG we’d see every night. Definitely cost us in 2009, and even 2010. I think in 2012 it’s a similar situation with the Heat that you mentioned about the Celtics historically. The Celtics had no business pushing the Heat to 7 games that year. The Heat tried cruising and taking the Celtics lightly after disposing of them in 5 the year before. When it came down to all or nothing in game 7, the Heat were the better team.

#3 I can get on board with. I’ve never seen a team hang on to a championship and talk like they won 4 when they only won 1. Hell, I’ll celebrate that championship until I die, but I understand it was only 1, and that we fell short in others years. I think they ultimately underachieved, but more because of injuries than anything else.

[GrayGoat]

Doc Rivers always underachieves. Celtics were lucky to overcome his idiocy

[HBK_Kliq_2]

Is it really necessary to bring Kawhi's name up in every thread you post in?

:facepalm

Curry has never eliminated a healthy kawhi in playoffs, lost in 2013 and 2019.


https://youtu.be/RZhp-Uctd-c

Kawhi bane "if we meet in the playoffs it will be extremely painful"

Curry "you're a big guy"

Kawhi bane "for you"

[tontoz]

Curry has never eliminated a healthy kawhi in playoffs, lost in 2013 and 2019.





A healthy Kawhi? First of all that is about as common as a 2 dollar bill.

Secondly the Warriors had their own injury problems in 2019 but i guess injuries can only be used as an excuse for Kawhi.

[FireDavidKahn]

KG in Boston showed the impact he would have had throughout his career if he had a competent front office. Mosr underrated player in history. Just imagine if the Wolves never traded Ray Allen for Marbury...Looking at multiple championships. Iverson was also this close to being traded to MN but that fell through as well.

[dankok8]

People always bring up that Hawks series but ignore what actually happened. The Celtics outscored the Hawks by 84 points in that series.

All of the Hawks wins were close and all of the Celtics wins were blowouts.

I know they blew out the Hawks in their wins. I didn't say that the Hawks were very close to taking them out. Still as a 66-win +9.30 SRS team you have no business losing to a 37-win -2.23 SRS team three times. Mind you the Cavs that were down 1 point in Game 7 with a minute left were a 45-win -0.53 SRS team. The 2008 Celtics really underperformed in the first two rounds and it could have cost them.

[Micku]

KG definitely showed the impact he had on the defensive side during the Celts years. But they did underperformed in 08, despite them winning a tittle. The Hawks and the Cavs shouldn't have went 7 games. You would think the Pistons and the Lakers would've, but they didn't.

In 2009, they were better. But unfortunately for them KG got hurt. Their offense improved and the defense were top notch still. If KG was healthy, they would've given the Lakers a run for their money again. 2009 was the year that they probably had the best offense of their run. Usually their offense was okay, and they get by on their defense. Although they had amazing plays with their offense in their run imo, 2009 was the year they were at their peak with it.

In 2012, it was amazing that they pushed the Heat to seven games. But the Heat was hurt too. Wade and Bosh if I can recall.

In 2011, they were all playing hurt all season too. I thought Shaq did look good with them, but they never really found great chemistry due to the inconsistency of the line up and injuries. They probably shouldn't have got rid of Perk either. Shaq was a better offensive player than Perk even at that stage of his career, but rebounding suffered. He wasn't bad defensively if he stayed in the paint, but still the same problem with the pick and roll offense. But as a team, they played better without Shaq on the floor offensively.

It is a shame that we never saw Lakers fully healthy vs Celts fully healthy in a seven game series. Perkins got hurt in 2010. And Bynum was really injury prone.

In terms of being historic? I dunno. Like while they did underperform in the POs, do you think that they are a better team than the Pistons 04? I feel like they could give a bunch of teams a run for their money. And while the Heat 11 team lost to the Mavs, I think the 11 Heat team will be remember more than the Mavs...the 08 Celts team was considered to be better than the Mavs even though the Mavs had a better PO run and beat better teams more convincingly.

I think their RS performance as well as them blowing out the Lakers and their comeback on them in 08 adds upon their legacy. And how well they defended Kobe, who was considered to be the best player at the time. So them underperforming in the first couple of rounds gets washed off cuz they won. Same thing if the 2016 GSW would've won. They really shouldn't have been down 1-3 against the Thunder. But they came back and ppl don't really talk about it anymore. And if they would've won the Finals, despite going seven games, then they would probably be considered to be one of the GOAT teams if not the GOAT just because of their record in the RS. Same thing with the Celts, despite their lows.

2009 tho...that probably would've been something special if KG stayed healthy. It would've been cool to see that team vs that year Lakers too. And another Celts vs Cavs, but healthy Celts.

[dankok8]

KG definitely showed the impact he had on the defensive side during the Celts years. But they did underperformed in 08, despite them winning a tittle. The Hawks and the Cavs shouldn't have went 7 games. You would think the Pistons and the Lakers would've, but they didn't.

In 2009, they were better. But unfortunately for them KG got hurt. Their offense improved and the defense were top notch still. If KG was healthy, they would've given the Lakers a run for their money again. 2009 was the year that they probably had the best offense of their run. Usually their offense was okay, and they get by on their defense. Although they had amazing plays with their offense in their run imo, 2009 was the year they were at their peak with it.

In 2012, it was amazing that they pushed the Heat to seven games. But the Heat was hurt too. Wade and Bosh if I can recall.

In 2011, they were all playing hurt all season too. I thought Shaq did look good with them, but they never really found great chemistry due to the inconsistency of the line up and injuries. They probably shouldn't have got rid of Perk either. Shaq was a better offensive player than Perk even at that stage of his career, but rebounding suffered. He wasn't bad defensively if he stayed in the paint, but still the same problem with the pick and roll offense. But as a team, they played better without Shaq on the floor offensively.

It is a shame that we never saw Lakers fully healthy vs Celts fully healthy in a seven game series. Perkins got hurt in 2010. And Bynum was really injury prone.

In terms of being historic? I dunno. Like while they did underperform in the POs, do you think that they are a better team than the Pistons 04? I feel like they could give a bunch of teams a run for their money. And while the Heat 11 team lost to the Mavs, I think the 11 Heat team will be remember more than the Mavs...the 08 Celts team was considered to be better than the Mavs even though the Mavs had a better PO run and beat better teams more convincingly.

I think their RS performance as well as them blowing out the Lakers and their comeback on them in 08 adds upon their legacy. And how well they defended Kobe, who was considered to be the best player at the time. So them underperforming in the first couple of rounds gets washed off cuz they won. Same thing if the 2016 GSW would've won. They really shouldn't have been down 1-3 against the Thunder. But they came back and ppl don't really talk about it anymore. And if they would've won the Finals, despite going seven games, then they would probably be considered to be one of the GOAT teams if not the GOAT just because of their record in the RS. Same thing with the Celts, despite their lows.

2009 tho...that probably would've been something special if KG stayed healthy. It would've been cool to see that team vs that year Lakers too. And another Celts vs Cavs, but healthy Celts.

Good post.

I think the comparison with the 2004 Pistons is not bad. The Big 3 Celtics had one year as a championship team (2008) and several more years as a contending team much like those Pistons did. When people consider them historic I think that's overblown. Yes they had a nice regular season record but they looked vulnerable in the playoffs. You're right that the 2016 Warriors if they ended up winning the finals would be considered one of the GOAT teams and it wouldn't be justified IMO. In fact, with the Warriors dynasty I would only consider the 2017 Warriors a historically great team. Monster regular season, monster postseason, elite on both ends, no weaknesses, just brutal destruction of everyone in their path... Other Warriors teams like the 2015 and 2018 Warriors that won titles were obviously good teams but they weren't historically great. More or less your standard championship teams... Sometimes when rosters are similar from year to year on a dynastic team, people will just project one-year dominance onto all of the years they won titles.