2001 Lakers vs 1986 Celtics

[nycelt84]

The team with the most dominant playoff run in NBA history or the loaded '86 Celtics. Who do you think would win in a series?

[1987_Lakers]

Is this a Joke?

'86 Celtics all the way.

[Scott Pippen]

Is this a Joke?

'86 Celtics all the way.
agree:applause:

[nycelt84]

Is this a Joke?

'86 Celtics all the way.

How is it a joke? The '01 Lakers featured a 15-1 playoff record, coached by Phil Jackson, had Shaq at his most dominant ever, and Kobe in his natural role as a 2nd option and simply crushed teams in the playoffs looking unbeatable. Or are you just saying that because they're not from the 1980's?

[Lebron23]

According to whatifsports.com the 2001 Los Angeles Lakers are capable of beating the 1986 Boston Celtics in a best of 7 series, but after watching the game on NBA TV ( Greatest Games) between the Chicago Bulls and Boston Celtics in the 1986 playoffs. I still think that the 1986 Celtics are a top 3 teams of all time because Jordan despite scoring 63 points in the playoffs his team got swept in the first round, and they also defeated the Houston Rockets ( Hakeem and Sampson) in the NBA Finals.

[Lax4422Chik1342]

If the 1986 Lakers had not shriveled against Houston despite Sampson prayer being answered, they would've whupped the Celtics as they did 2 of 3 times they faced each other. The 01 Lakers would've beat the 86 green too!

[Lax4422Chik1342]

I still think that the 1986 Celtics is a top 3 teams of all time because Jordan despite scoring 63 points in the playoffs his team got swept in the first round, and they also defeated the Houston Rockets ( Hakeem and Sampson) in the NBA Finals.

No way, their not even the best Boston team, The 66-67 Sixers, 70-71 Bucks, 71-72 Lakers, the Bulls, were better all teams than the 86 Keltix edition

[DirtySanchez]

I got to go with the 2001 Lakers. That team was just on one when the playoffs hit. And Shaq come on nobody on that 86 Celtic team could of stopped Shaq in 01. I honestly think single player or team in any era could.

[Gotterdammerung]

1986 Celtics all the way. 2001 Lakers were tough, but they do not belong on the list of the very greatest teams of all time due to several reasons:

*Shaq's inferior free throw shooting made him a liability in the clutch.
*The team's inability to play sustained defense
*Overall lack of team speed cut down easy baskets

I would rank the 1967 Sixers, 1996 Bulls, 1972 Lakers, 1992 Bulls, 1964 Celtics, 1984 Celtics and 1989 Detroit Pistons (in that order) ahead of the 2001 Lakers.

I think the 84 Celtics were superior to the 86 edition is because the 84 team had 62 wins, which was 8 wins better than the 2nd best team (lakers). While the 86 Celts had 67 wins, it was only 5 better than the runner ups, and the 84 Celts had a better road record (29-12), and that spells a greater degree of dominance. The 84 Celtics beat a stronger team in the finals (Lakers instead of the 1986 Rockets).

84 Celts had deeper bench (Cornbread Maxwell, Ainge, Wedman, Buckner all superior to Wedman, Walton, and Sichting). The chief's skills declined in 86 (stats went down), and so on. :rockon:

[EricForman]

If the 1986 Lakers had not shriveled against Houston despite Sampson prayer being answered, they would've whupped the Celtics as they did 2 of 3 times they faced each other. The 01 Lakers would've beat the 86 green too!


What a dumb logic. Basically what you're saying is:

"IF LAKERS DIDN'T UNDERPERFORM AND CHOKED AGAINST AN INFERIOR TEAM, they woulda destroyed the Celtics that beat that same team!!!"

Well Magic would have no rings if the Cavs didn't somehow lose every May in the 80s! They woulda beaten the Lakers! :rolleyes: :confusedshrug:

[TmacsRockets]

'86 Celtics with ease. You are talking about a team that doesn't choke. The Lakers won like 56 games that year and you expect them to beat the Celtics?


Not to mention this

http://proxy.espn.go.com/nba/playoffs2007/columns/story?columnist=hollinger_john&page=Finalists1-10

1. 1996 Chicago Bulls Score: 327.9
KEY FACTS
Regular-season record: 72-10
Postseason record: 15-3
Avg. scoring margin: +12.2
Avg. scoring margin, playoffs: +10.6
Finals result: Beat Seattle, 4-2 LEADERS (regular-season stats)
Scoring: Michael Jordan, 30.4 ppg
Rebounds: Dennis Rodman, 14.9 rpg
Assists: Scottie Pippen, 5.9 apg
Coach: Phil Jackson
Finals MVP: Michael Jordan




Hands down, the greatest team of all time. How can you choose another when these guys won 72 regular-season games and 14 of their first 15 in the postseason? The Bulls were so good they were first in both offensive and defensive efficiency, and outscored their opponents by 12.2 points per game.

With names like Jordan, Pippen, Rodman, and Toni Kukoc, not to mention a coach like Phil Jackson, this team was pretty much unbeatable -- in fact, seven of its playoff wins were by 17 points or more. The only nit to pick was the Bulls' consecutive losses to the Sonics in the Finals, but they were up 3-0 by then and seemingly bored with how good they were.


2. 1987 Los Angeles Lakers Score: 301.5
KEY FACTS
Regular-season record: 65-17
Postseason record: 15-3
Avg. scoring margin: +9.3
Avg. scoring margin, playoffs: +11.4
Finals result: Beat Boston, 4-2 LEADERS
Scoring: Magic Johnson, 23.9 ppg
Rebounds: A.C. Green, 7.9 rpg
Assists: Magic Johnson, 12.4 apg
Coach: Pat Riley
Finals MVP: Magic Johnson




Fittingly, the great Lakers and Celtics teams are in a virtual dead heat for second place. (You'll note that I just call the Lakers "Los Angeles" in this list -- no risk of confusing them with the Clippers here.) This L.A. team nudged ahead of Boston by virtue of winning 65 games in the regular season and then trashing the West -- 11 wins in 12 games -- to make the Finals. The Lakers beat the Celtics in six, and for the playoffs as a whole outscored their opponents by 205 points -- the best of any team on this list. Seven different players averaged double figures, led by Magic with 23.9 points per game.



3. 1986 Boston Celtics Score: 301.1
KEY FACTS
Regular-season record: 67-15
Postseason record: 15-3
Avg. scoring margin: +9.4
Avg. scoring margin, playoffs: +10.3
Finals result: Beat Houston, 4-2 LEADERS
Scoring: Larry Bird, 25.8 ppg
Rebounds: Larry Bird, 9.8 rpg
Assists: Larry Bird, 6.8 apg
Coach: K.C. Jones
Finals MVP: Larry Bird




The Celtics won 67 games in '86 behind the best frontcourt ever assembled -- Bird, Kevin McHale, Robert Parish and Bill Walton -- and followed it up by stampeding through the playoffs in 15 games. They rank behind L.A. mostly because their victory margin wasn't as strong in the playoffs. On the other hand, this isn't a bad list to be No. 3 on. And few teams will ever have five players averaging at least 15 a game in the playoffs, as Boston's legendary quintet did in this postseason.



4. 1991 Chicago Bulls Score: 294.5
KEY FACTS
Regular-season record: 61-21
Postseason record: 15-2
Avg. scoring margin: +9.1
Avg. scoring margin, playoffs: +11.6
Finals result: Beat Los Angeles, 4-1 LEADERS
Scoring: Michael Jordan, 31.5 ppg
Rebounds: Horace Grant, 8.4 rpg
Assists: Scottie Pippen, 6.2 apg
Coach: Phil Jackson
Finals MVP: Michael Jordan




The Bulls' first championship team "only" won 61 games, but had a very impressive victory margin (plus-9.1 per game, the sixth best on the list) and absolutely romped in the playoffs. Chicago's 15-2 mark in the postseason was amazing considering it knocked off a two-time champion in four games (Detroit) followed by a four-time champion in five (the Lakers). The Bulls' plus-11.6 playoff victory margin ranks second among the 60 teams. Only three players averaged double figures, but I guess that's not a problem when one of them scores 34.0 per game.





5. 1997 Chicago Bulls Score: 287.1
KEY FACTS
Regular-season record: 69-13
Postseason record: 15-4
Avg. scoring margin: +10.8
Avg. scoring margin, playoffs: +5.5
Finals result: Beat Utah, 4-2 LEADERS
Scoring: Michael Jordan, 29.6 ppg
Rebounds: Dennis Rodman, 16.1 rpg
Assists: Scottie Pippen, 5.7 apg
Coach: Phil Jackson
Finals MVP: Michael Jordan




So much for championship hangovers. The '96 Bulls were the best ever, but their successors weren't exactly chopped liver. Chicago won 69 games -- which would have tied the record were it not for the 72 wins the previous season -- and the Bulls' plus-10.8 average victory margin was also second only to the '96 edition. Their longest losing streak was two games, for crying out loud. They weren't quite as strong in the playoffs, needing six tough games to outlast the Jazz in the Finals and dropping two other postseason games, but they were plenty good. Amazingly, Jordan and Pippen were the only Bulls to average more than eight points a game in the postseason -- but 11 guys saw regular action.





6. 1985 Los Angeles Lakers Score: 280.3
KEY FACTS
Regular-season record: 62-20
Postseason record: 15-4
Avg. scoring margin: +7.4
Avg. scoring margin, playoffs: +10.7
Finals result: Beat Boston, 4-2 LEADERS
Scoring: Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, 22.0 ppg
Rebounds: Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, 7.9 rpg
Assists: Magic Johnson, 12.6 apg
Coach: Pat Riley
Finals MVP: Kareem Abdul-Jabbar




The Lakers were so good in '85 and '87 that it's hard to fathom how they lost in five games to Houston in the year between. This edition won 62 games, went on an 11-2 romp through the Western Conference playoffs, then slew the leprechauns by winning Game 6 in Boston Garden to claim the title.



For the postseason, L.A.'s average scoring margin narrowly missed topping the list -- amazing considering the Lakers lost the "Boston Massacre" 148-114 in Game 1 of the Finals. But 10 of their 15 playoff wins came by 16 points or more -- including a win by 24 points or more in every round -- showing just how dominant these Lakers were.




7. 1992 Chicago Bulls Score: 277.3
KEY FACTS
Regular-season record: 67-15
Postseason record: 15-7
Avg. scoring margin: +10.4
Avg. scoring margin, playoffs: +6.2
Finals result: Beat Portland, 4-2 LEADERS
Scoring: Michael Jordan, 30.1 ppg
Rebounds: Horace Grant, 10.0 rpg
Assists: Scottie Pippen, 7.0 apg
Coach: Phil Jackson
Finals MVP: Michael Jordan





These Bulls had a great regular-season run, winning 67 games and joining the '96 and '97 editions as the only teams on the list to have an average scoring margin of plus-10 or more in the regular season. The playoffs were a different story, however -- the Knicks nearly knocked them off in Round 2, and they lost by 26 at home to Cleveland in the conference finals before righting their ship and winning the title. Their seven postseason losses are the most of any team in the top 15. As with the '97 team, everyone got involved -- the Bulls used 11 players regularly and clinched the title in Game 6 against Portland when 12th man Bobby Hansen led a huge fourth-quarter rally.





8. 1999 San Antonio Spurs Score: 268.2
KEY FACTS
Regular-season record: 37-13
Postseason record: 15-2
Avg. scoring margin: +8.1
Avg. scoring margin, playoffs: +7.2
Finals result: Beat New York, 4-1 LEADERS
Scoring: Tim Duncan, 21.7 ppg
Rebounds: Tim Duncan, 11.4 rpg
Assists: Avery Johnson, 7.4 apg
Coach: Gregg Popovich
Finals MVP: Tim Duncan





A forgotten great team because of the lockout, the Spurs began the year 6-8 … and then went 46-7 the rest of the way, with nary a losing streak. An awesome defensive squad led by big men David Robinson and Tim Duncan, San Antonio's 84.7 points allowed per game is far and away the least of any of these 60 squads. That 15-2 postseason mark ain't too shabby either, including sweeps of the Blazers and Lakers. So stingy was the defense that only twice in 17 playoff games did San Antonio's opponent muster 90 points.





9. 1983 Philadelphia 76ers Score: 265.3
KEY FACTS
Regular-season record: 65-17
Postseason record: 12-1
Avg. scoring margin: +8.1
Avg. scoring margin, playoffs: +7.2
Finals result: Beat Los Angeles, 4-0 LEADERS
Scoring: Moses Malone, 24.5 ppg
Rebounds: Moses Malone, 15.3 rpg
Assists: Maurice Cheeks, 6.9 apg
Coach: Billy Cunningham
Finals MVP: Moses Malone





The famous "fo', fo', fo'" team of Moses Malone had one of the all-time great playoff runs, winning 12 times in 13 games to give both Moses and Dr. J their only NBA title rings. Malone's playoff numbers were freakish: 26.0 points, 15.8 boards and 54 percent shooting.



The regular season wasn't too shabby either, with 65 wins, but Philly's victory margin in both the regular season and the playoffs wasn't quite on par with some of the other teams on this list, which is why the Sixers ended up a few spots lower than I suspect most folks would rank them.








10. 1989 Detroit Pistons Score: 262.7
KEY FACTS
Regular-season record: 63-19
Postseason record: 15-2
Avg. scoring margin: +5.8
Avg. scoring margin, playoffs: +7.7
Finals result: Beat Los Angeles, 4-0 LEADERS
Scoring: Adrian Dantley, 18.4 ppg
Rebounds: Bill Laimbeer, 9.6 rpg
Assists: Isiah Thomas, 8.7 apg
Coach: Chuck Daly
Finals MVP: Joe Dumars





The Pistons' first championship team came with something of an asterisk, since all the Lakers' players got hurt in the Finals. Still, Detroit put together a 15-2 finishing kick to get the rings, and that came on the heels of a 63-win regular season -- six games better than any other team that season. The Pistons didn't have a 20-point scorer, but went nine deep and played great defense.

Of the 30 championship teams, only six made it through the tournament with two losses or fewer, and only four did so while winning at least 15 games. Speaking of which …

[~LA's fine$t~]

The way the 01' Lakers played in the playoffs that year, they could be argued as the best team of all-time doing that stretch.

Look what they did to the Spurs that year, their only lose in the NBA finals was in the overtime when Iverson had arguably the best game of his career...

[TmacsRockets]

The way the 01' Lakers played in the playoffs that year, they could be argued as the best team of all-time doing that stretch.

Look what they did to the Spurs that year, their only lose in the NBA finals was in the overtime when Iverson had arguably the best game of his career...

That's because no team won 60 games that year, meaning no dominant teams only mediocore ones.

[AItheAnswer3]

That's because no team won 60 games that year, meaning no dominant teams only mediocore ones.

So a team that wins 56 games is mediocre :roll:

[nycelt84]

1986 Celtics all the way. 2001 Lakers were tough, but they do not belong on the list of the very greatest teams of all time due to several reasons:

*Shaq's inferior free throw shooting made him a liability in the clutch.
*The team's inability to play sustained defense
*Overall lack of team speed cut down easy baskets

I would rank the 1967 Sixers, 1996 Bulls, 1972 Lakers, 1992 Bulls, 1964 Celtics, 1984 Celtics and 1989 Detroit Pistons (in that order) ahead of the 2001 Lakers.

I think the 84 Celtics were superior to the 86 edition is because the 84 team had 62 wins, which was 8 wins better than the 2nd best team (lakers). While the 86 Celts had 67 wins, it was only 5 better than the runner ups, and the 84 Celts had a better road record (29-12), and that spells a greater degree of dominance. The 84 Celtics beat a stronger team in the finals (Lakers instead of the 1986 Rockets).

84 Celts had deeper bench (Cornbread Maxwell, Ainge, Wedman, Buckner all superior to Wedman, Walton, and Sichting). The chief's skills declined in 86 (stats went down), and so on. :rockon:

:cheers: I agree with you 100%, I don't understand all the love for the '86 Celtics when the '84 team was actually better. And you made a slight mistake Maxwell was the starter in '84 and McHale actually came off the bench.
McHale, Ainge, Wedman, Buckner, Carr> Walton, Sichting, Wedman, Vincent, Kite

[1987_Lakers]

:cheers: I agree with you 100%, I don't understand all the love for the '86 Celtics when the '84 team was actually better. And you made a slight mistake Maxwell was the starter in '84 and McHale actually came off the bench.
McHale, Ainge, Wedman, Buckner, Carr> Walton, Sichting, Wedman, Vincent, Kite

I'll agree that the '84 Celtics had a deeper bench than the '86 Celtics. But just because they have a deeper bench doesn't mean they are the better team. The '85 Lakers were also more deeper than the '87 Lakers but most people consider the '87 team to be better.

Gotterdammerung, how were the '84 Celtics more dominant? They won their games by an average by only 6.5 Points. The '86 Celtics won their games by an average of 9.4 points. In 1984 playoffs it took the Celtics 7 games to beat a Knicks team that only won 47 games during the regular season. In 1986 The Celtics only lost 3 games during the entire postseason.

And you say Robert Parish's skills declined....well I can counter that argument by saying Kevin McHale was a better player in 1986 than in 1984. The '86 Celtics also had a better Starting 5 than the '84 Celtics.

Larry Bird himself said the greatest team he ever played with was the '86 Celtics without a doubt.

[nycelt84]

The '84 Knicks were better than the '86 Bulls, Hawks, and Bucks. Bernard King was a top 5 player that year and they were a very good team. The '84 Celtics beat better teams in the Knicks, the '84 Bucks>'86 Bucks, and they topped it off by beating a Lakers that was vastly superior to the '86 Rockets.

[1987_Lakers]

The '84 Knicks were better than the '86 Bulls, Hawks, and Bucks. Bernard King was a top 5 player that year and they were a very good team. The '84 Celtics beat better teams in the Knicks, the '84 Bucks>'86 Bucks, and they topped it off by beating a Lakers that was vastly superior to the '86 Rockets.

Stop being dellusional. The '86 Bucks were much better than they were in '84. They won their games by an average a 9 Points and the Celtics swept them. Bernard King was great but from top to bottom the '86 Bucks were a better team than the '84 Knicks and '84 Bucks.

[Sir Charles]

:confusedshrug: 1986 Celtics

SHAQ= WOULD DOMINATE PARISH OFFENSIVELY (but be in Foul Trouble because Parish could Also Score)

McHALE = WOULD DOMINATE GRANT OFFENSIVELY AND DEFENSIVELY

BIRD= WOULD DOMINATE HARPER OFFENSIVELY AND GET TRIPLE DOUBLES

BRYANT = WOULD DOMINATE AINGE OFFENSIVELY AND DEFENSIVELY (except from Pick and Rolls)

DJ = WOULD DOMINATE HIS LAKER PG DEFENSIVELY AND CREATE SUPERIOR OFFENSIVE THAN HIS ADVERSARY

But you guys know where the Key of the Series would be?

TRIPLE DOUBLE THREAT "MR CLUTCH", LARRY BIRD....:)

OUT OF ALL THOSE PLAYERS, THERE IS ONLY ONE THAT COULD MAKE HIS TEAMATES JOBS EASIER AND MAKE HIS TEAM MATES BETTER THROUGH LEADERISHIP :confusedshrug:

And Yes DJ.

DJ WAS ALSO CLUTCH AND HIM WITH "MR CLUTCH" BIRD = BOTH THE BEST PASSERS IN THOSE TEAMS

[nycelt84]

Stop being dellusional. The '86 Bucks were much better than they were in '84. They won their games by an average a 9 Points and the Celtics swept them. Bernard King was great but from top to bottom the '86 Bucks were a better team than the '84 Knicks and '84 Bucks.

I completely disagree with you. The '84 Bucks team had a real center in Bob Lanier and they had Marques Johnson who was still good for over 20 a game. Sidney Moncrief was also better in '84 he was already declining in '86. The '86 Bucks were very lucky to beat the Sixers in the 2nd round in Charles Barkley's breakout series.

[1987_Lakers]

I completely disagree with you. The '84 Bucks team had a real center in Bob Lanier and they had Marques Johnson who was still good for over 20 a game. Sidney Moncrief was also better in '84 he was already declining in '86. The '86 Bucks were very lucky to beat the Sixers in the 2nd round in Charles Barkley's breakout series.

Bob Lanier was 35 years old in 1984. He was way past his prime. Sidney Moncrief was still in his prime in 1986, Moncrief made the All Defensive 1st team in '86. It was the 1986-87 season where he started to decline. The '86 Bucks didn't have Marques Johnson but they had Terry Cummings and Ricky Pierce. Paul Pressey also improved as a player by 1986.

The '86 Bucks were much better offensivley than the '84 Bucks. The '84 Bucks had a great defense in 1984 but they were one of the worst offensive teams in the NBA. In 1986 The Bucks offense and defense were both in the top 5 in the NBA.

[Loki]

If the 1986 Lakers had not shriveled against Houston despite Sampson prayer being answered, they would've whupped the Celtics as they did 2 of 3 times they faced each other. The 01 Lakers would've beat the 86 green too!

:oldlol:

Obnoxious Laker fans...

[Gotterdammerung]

I'll agree that the '84 Celtics had a deeper bench than the '86 Celtics. But just because they have a deeper bench doesn't mean they are the better team.
It is not a necessary condition for a team to be superior, but it is definitely a factor, or a sufficient condition.


The '85 Lakers were also more deeper than the '87 Lakers but most people consider the '87 team to be better.
Yes but there's another reason for that and you conveniently fail to mention why.


Gotterdammerung, how were the '84 Celtics more dominant?
I refer you to my first post above.


They won their games by an average by only 6.5 Points. The '86 Celtics won their games by an average of 9.4 points.
Yes but the league in 1984 was stronger than it was in 1986. Not every season is equal.


In 1984 playoffs it took the Celtics 7 games to beat a Knicks team that only won 47 games during the regular season.
A transcendental player can overpower even the greatest teams - and that is credit due to Bernard King who was at his peak in the 84 playoffs.


In 1986 The Celtics only lost 3 games during the entire postseason.
Impressive, no doubt.


And you say Robert Parish's skills declined....well I can counter that argument by saying Kevin McHale was a better player in 1986 than in 1984.
How so? He only gained more minutes - which logically translates to better stats.


The '86 Celtics also had a better Starting 5 than the '84 Celtics.
Perhaps, but immaterial: basketball is not a 5 man game.

[1987_Lakers]

It is not a necessary condition for a team to be superior, but it is definitely a factor, or a sufficient condition.


Yes but there's another reason for that and you conveniently fail to mention why.


I refer you to my first post above.


Yes but the league in 1984 was stronger than it was in 1986. Not every season is equal.


A transcendental player can overpower even the greatest teams - and that is credit due to Bernard King who was at his peak in the 84 playoffs.


Impressive, no doubt.


How so? He only gained more minutes - which logically translates to better stats.


Perhaps, but immaterial: basketball is not a 5 man game.

Michael Jordan had an amazing series against Boston yet The Celtics swept the Bulls.

McHale was All-Defensive Team in '86. And in 1986 McHale only averaged 4 more minutes per game than in 1984.

[Micku]

Bumping.

The Celtics probably won't be able to stop Kobe and Shaq, but the 1986 Celtics were too much of a powerhouse to be beaten by the 2001 Lakers.

Parish would be solid. Shaq will probably get his, but Parish is a good scorer. Kevin Mchale will probably dominate and Bird will give some problems. DJ would take Fisher to the post or something. If they put Kobe on DJ, then Danny Angie might be a problem for them. Not to mention the bench that the Celtics have with Bill Walton being the sixth man of the year. The Cleltics could hurt you from every single position. Bird and Mchale are the superstars. And I don't really see the Lakers stopping them along with the other cast of the Celtics.


But it does depend on the rules tho. Celtics would constantly run and probably will tire out the Laker ball club. But the problem is that the Celtics are extremely good with the half court ball too. They almost had no weakness.

[ShaqAttack3234]

1986 Celtics are much better. If 2001 Shaq/Kobe were the best duo ever the way they were playing in the playoffs as I believe they were, '86 Bird/McHale weren't far behind.

Yet the Lakers 3rd best player was Derek Fisher and only because he played way over his head during that run! Outside of Bird and McHale, Boston had at least 4 other players better than Fisher(Parish, DJ, Walton, Ainge)

[32Dayz]

2001 Lakers

Prime Shaq destroys the Celtic Bigs and turns them into dust.
Fox/Kobe can handle defending the Celtic's perimeter players.

Game Over.

[L.Kizzle]

Ainge and DJ would handle Kobe.

You got Parish/McHale/Walton to take care of Shaq,

Who's gonna guard Bird, Rick Fox, lol.

[D-Wade316]

Leaning towards the 01 Lakers. Their season record doesn't justify their post-season performance. They absolutely crushed their opposition. Shaq was unstoppable and was in his prime. He alone is the difference that probably would make the 01 Lakers win in a 7-game series.

The 01 Lakers absolutely dominated their opposition. They lead the league in Ortg, Drtg, efg%, Opp efg%, and point differential in the playoffs.

[Micku]

2001 Lakers

Prime Shaq destroys the Celtic Bigs and turns them into dust.
Fox/Kobe can handle defending the Celtic's perimeter players.

Game Over.

Heh. Well, the 1986 Celtics are consider to had one of the best (if not the best) frontline in the history of the NBA.

I don't really see Fox stopping Bird since he did well against Rodman and Cooper, which they are among the best defenders in NBA history. DJ also went up against better defenders too I think. I think it would be extremely hard to for the 2001 Lakers to pull off since the Celtics don't really have a real weakness.

[Kobe 4 The Win]

I think that the 86 Celtics would battle them but that Laker team had too much talent. They were way deeper and I think they would wear down Boston.

The Celtics had like 6 players that were worth a shit. A young raw Jordan got 60 plus against these guys. 2001 Kobe wasn't far off from 86 Jordan. Ainge and DJ were 6'4, slow, and couldn't jump. Kobe would have ate them up. Then you add a peak Shaq to that? Yikes. The 2001 Diesel was impossible to contain by any player in history. Horace Grant could match up with Mchale. Ron Harper, Horry, Rick Fox, Fish, and Brian Shaw were all great role players that performed well under NBA Finals pressure.

Boston was great but the 2001 Lakers with Phil Jackson and the triangle offense would be too much for them.

[Jacks3]

lol @ DJ and Ainge handling Kobe. He would have destroyed them. :pimp:

[Pushxx]

If the 1986 Lakers had not shriveled against Houston despite Sampson prayer being answered, they would've whupped the Celtics as they did 2 of 3 times they faced each other. The 01 Lakers would've beat the 86 green too!

In '87 against the Lakers McHale was on one foot and Larry's back already got the best of Bird.

'86 Celtics would have disposed of the Lakers if they made it to the finals. Woulda been a fun series though.

[Harison]

'86 Celtics. It was better all-around team, with better defense and clutch performance. Series would be close, but do you want Shaq or Bird to close the game? :oldlol:

[Round Mound]

:facepalm

[Micku]

I think that the 86 Celtics would battle them but that Laker team had too much talent. They were way deeper and I think they would wear down Boston.

The Celtics had like 6 players that were worth a shit. A young raw Jordan got 60 plus against these guys. 2001 Kobe wasn't far off from 86 Jordan. Ainge and DJ were 6'4, slow, and couldn't jump. Kobe would have ate them up. Then you add a peak Shaq to that? Yikes. The 2001 Diesel was impossible to contain by any player in history. Horace Grant could match up with Mchale. Ron Harper, Horry, Rick Fox, Fish, and Brian Shaw were all great role players that performed well under NBA Finals pressure.

Boston was great but the 2001 Lakers with Phil Jackson and the triangle offense would be too much for them.

Well, that Jordan didn't miss. He was hitting everything.Jordan was posting up, shooting everything from the mid-range and taking it to the basket. I don't think Kobe would play like that, but he would be a danger with the long range ball. DJ is a solid defender tho.

It'll be interesting, but I think the Celtics would win. They were just too stacked with good players. The Celtics could hurt them in every position. Plus all of them were clutch. DJ, Danny Anige, Bird, Mchale, and Parish. They could hit you in different ways. Mchale would abuse Grant tho.

[Flagrant 2]

What a dumb logic. Basically what you're saying is:

"IF LAKERS DIDN'T UNDERPERFORM AND CHOKED AGAINST AN INFERIOR TEAM, they woulda destroyed the Celtics that beat that same team!!!"

Well Magic would have no rings if the Cavs didn't somehow lose every May in the 80s! They woulda beaten the Lakers! :rolleyes: :confusedshrug:
Wrong. It's all about matchups.

[JohnnySic]

Celtics in 6.

Parish/Walton were better than any of the centers the '01 Lakers faced including Mutombo. Shaq will get his but Parish isn't geting "destroyed"; he held his own against Kareem, young Hakeem, Ewing etc. He'll do ok against Shaq.

[eliteballer]

Parish/Walton were better than any of the centers the '01 Lakers faced

Better than Robinson and Duncan? HA...

[32Dayz]

but do you want Shaq or Bird to close the game? :oldlol:

Shaq was a great closer.

It was only on the occasional night that he shot very poorly from the stripe and teams "chose" to hack-a-shaq him
(which was rarely) that he wasn't excellent in that role.

He usually shot a high % from the line in 4th quarters and had multiple series in 01 and 02 where he shot 65-70% from the line. :facepalm

Shaq was an unstoppable scorer and he didn't get nullified in the 4th.



Points scored in the 4th Quarter from 2000-2002 (Playoffs)
Shaq - 388
Kobe - 351

Series in which a player was the "Main Closer" 2000-2002 (Playoffs)
Shaq - 3 Series (00 POR, 00 IND, 02 SAC)
Kobe - 1 Series (02 SAS)


Also are you forgetting LA has Kobe?
They can let him close out the games also.

Shaq will destroy Walton/Parish and turn them into Dust.

2001 Lakers win.

[Smoke117]

The team with the most dominant playoff run in NBA history or the loaded '86 Celtics. Who do you think would win in a series?

lol most dominant playoff run in history. Look at who they played. They had it easy that entire playoffs. The 1986 Celtics would CRUSH the 2001 Lakers into a pasty substance. The 2001 Lakers are the most overrated team of the last 15 years, period.

[eliteballer]

lol most dominant playoff run in history. Look at who they played. They had it easy that entire playoffs. The 1986 Celtics would CRUSH the 2001 Lakers into a pasty substance. The 2001 Lakers are the most overrated team of the last 15 years, period.

pURE CRAP.

A loaded Blazers team

A loaded Kings team.

A Spurs team where people were saying it was going to be the greatest conference finals series EVER.

Sixers anchored by MVP, DPOY.

[zay_24]

is this a joke thread:roll:

2001 Lakers sweep

If celtics had 3 or 4 players better than fisher, than Lakers had 2 players better than bird(GOAT n shaq)

[PTB Fan]

86 Celtics in a 6 game series. The great chemistry, passing (arguably best passing team of all time), match ups and performance in the clutch is why i'm leaning on them to win. LA could force them in 7, but the Celtics would win IMO

[necya]

have to subscribe to this thread. there are some legendary posts there.

[Kobe 4 The Win]

Bird was in God mode in 1986

Mchale was a master of the post

Parish was a solid yet unspectacular player

An aging Walton was effective off the bench

Then what? ML Carr? They couldn't match up with LA. They would need three guys to guard Shaq. Mchale joked that when he saw the rookie Shaq that he knew it was time for him to get out of the league. The 2001 Lakers Swept, Portland, Sac, and San Antonio. Swept.

[Micku]

Better than Robinson and Duncan? HA...

Probably not defensively, but Parish and Mchale weren't too shabby either on the defense. Since Parish guarded Kareem and Mchale was probably the Celtics best defender. And Parish and Mchale guarded their fare share of centers and power forwards. They guarded Kareem, Worthy (when he played pf), Hakeem, Moses Malone

But what sets them apart from the teams that the Lakers face (except the Spurs a bit) were that they were great in both sides of the floor. Nobody on the Lakers team would be able to stop Mchale. And Parish could score as well. And nobody could stop Bird either. Then you have DJ and Danny Anige. While the Lakers were a good defensive team, the Celtics would overpower them because they had too much talent. Fisher wouldn't be able to stop DJ, Fox wouldn't be able to guard Bird, nobody could guard Mchale, and Parish would make Shaq to defend him. Anige is also a deadly shooter. Then you have the bench which the Celtics are also better.

But what separates the Celtics from any team that the Lakers have ever faced was that they were stacked to the ground up. Five Hall of Famers were on their team, and three or four of them were in their prime.

That would be way too much for any team to handle in the 00s to handle because most teams in the 00s are not stacked like that. They were like the 02 Kings or something, but the Celtics 1986 were better players in every single position. And that's insane. And that was the Lakers closest that they ever got to facing to a team like the Celtics. That or the 2000 Blazzers. And the Celtics are much better than those teams.

With that said, the 2001 Lakers would have their hands full.

[Kobe 4 The Win]

So 2 players out of 12 that can score equals too much talent? Ha!

[Micku]

So 2 players out of 12 that can score equals too much talent? Ha!

Are you talking about the Lakers? That's what they were. Probably the best one and two punch. But outside of Kobe and Shaq, they don't really compare to the stacked teams in the 80s in terms of talent. Especially the Celtics which they could score in every position and cause problems for the Lakers.

[indiefan24]

Shaq was a great closer.

It was only on the occasional night that he shot very poorly from the stripe and teams "chose" to hack-a-shaq him
(which was rarely) that he wasn't excellent in that role.

He usually shot a high % from the line in 4th quarters and had multiple series in 01 and 02 where he shot 65-70% from the line. :facepalm

Shaq was an unstoppable scorer and he didn't get nullified in the 4th.



Also are you forgetting LA has Kobe?
They can let him close out the games also.

Shaq will destroy Walton/Parish and turn them into Dust.

2001 Lakers win.

lol

[KevinNYC]

I don't buy the argument that the 1984 Celtics were better than the 1986 Celtics. And I don't think any player who was on both teams would agree with that. They all knew they were significantly better in 1986.

Red Auerbach said the 1986 team was better than any team he was associated with. K. C. Jones was an assistant coach on the 72 Lakers and he said the 1986 Celtics were better than them. Bill Fitch said that was the best team he ever coached against...which includes virtually all the 70's teams and the 80's Lakers. Bird said it was the best team he was on.

They went 50-1 at home that year. Parish and Walton were the best 1-2 punch at center in league history. Walton was number 1 in Defensive Rating that year and Parish was 6th. (With Bird they had 3 players in the top 6.)

They could have won 70 games that year if that was what they cared about.
In fact, most of their loses were to bad teams, when they took the night off.

[JohnnySic]

I don't buy the argument that the 1984 Celtics were better than the 1986 Celtics. And I don't think any player who was on both teams would agree with that. They all knew they were significantly better in 1986.

'86 was better.

- Bird and McHale were playing at a higher peak

- Ainge was getting more pt and he was better than Henderson

- Sichting had perhaps his best year as the 3rd guard

- They may not have had Maxwell, but Wedman was great for this team in the role of the 3rd forward

Last and mostly, Walton stayed healthy, and that made them almost unbeatable. It was the only time that Parish had a good backup, and it showed in Parish's game (no so much stats, but in rest and effectiveness that doesn't come up on the stat sheet).