The 2011-2014 Heat don't seem stacked anymore

[QUOTE=HoopsNY;14920369]Respectfully, I must disagree. Those Pistons teams were absolutely stacked. Because they didn't have a 20 PPG scorer wasn't indicative of their offense, especially when in '88 and '89, they were 6th and 7th in ORTG.

As 1987 mentioned, guys like Aguirre could score, but obviously his role and the style of play changed given that he wasn't on Dallas anymore.

Having said that, I do agree with you that Miami was stacked. To look at just Wade/Bosh/LeBron as being the only "stacked" players would be incorrect, especially when 1987 is minimizing Ray Allen's role (let alone Battier, Chalmers, or Birdman).[/QUOTE]

Obviously Miami was stacked, the 2013 Heat team was the best team LeBron has ever played on, my only argument here is that this Boston team has more talent.

[QUOTE=1987_Lakers;14920366]So I'm guessing some of those 60's Celtics teams that had like 7 hall of famers, but no 20 PPG players like their '63 & '64 teams were not stacked.

Moving on.[/QUOTE]
If you win 6+ championships you have a good shot at the hall regardless of statistics.

[QUOTE=Real Men Wear Green;14920375]If you win 6+ championships you have a good shot at the hall regardless of statistics.[/QUOTE]

So those 60's Celtics teams were not stacked, is that what you are telling me?

[QUOTE=HoopsNY;14920369]Respectfully, I must disagree. Those Pistons teams were absolutely stacked. Because they didn't have a 20 PPG scorer wasn't indicative of their offense, especially when in '88 and '89, they were 6th and 7th in ORTG.

As 1987 mentioned, guys like Aguirre could score, but obviously his role and the style of play changed given that he wasn't on Dallas anymore.

Having said that, I do agree with you that Miami was stacked. To look at just Wade/Bosh/LeBron as being the only "stacked" players would be incorrect, especially when 1987 is minimizing Ray Allen's role (let alone Battier, Chalmers, or Birdman).[/QUOTE]
That Piston team was one of the 10 most talented of all time? Because that's what 1987 said.

[QUOTE=1987_Lakers;14920376]So those 60's Celtics teams were not stacked, is that what you are telling me?[/QUOTE]They were but some of the guys from those Celtic teams that made the Hall would not have made it if they didn't win all of those championships.

[QUOTE=Real Men Wear Green;14920377]That Piston team was one of the 10 most talented of all time? Because that's what 1987 said.[/QUOTE]

I said they were chosen as a top 10 team in history by the NBA during its 50th anniversary.
[url]https://www.nba.com/history/nba-at-50/top-10-teams[/url]

[QUOTE=Real Men Wear Green;14920379][B]They were[/B] but some of the guys from those Celtic teams that made the Hall would not have made it if they didn't win all of those championships.[/QUOTE]

Well, thanks for clearing that up, despite it contradicting what you just said a few minutes ago.

[QUOTE=Real Men Wear Green;14920364]If you really knew NBA history you wouldn't be calling a team without a single 20ppg scorer stacked. Moving on.[/QUOTE]

:oldlol:

[QUOTE=1987_Lakers;14920380]I said they were chosen as a top 10 team in history by the NBA during its 50th anniversary.
[URL]https://www.nba.com/history/nba-at-50/top-10-teams[/URL][/QUOTE]
So are you saying that that was not an all-time stacked team? Because if so why would you bring them up?

[QUOTE=Real Men Wear Green;14920382]So are you saying that that was not an all-time stacked team? Because if so why would you bring them up?[/QUOTE]

I called them stacked, but never said they were "top 10 stacked team of all time". There is a difference.

But you could probably make an argument that they are top 10 in terms of stacked. I would for sure put them on the list of we are talking depth, where the Pistons fall short is that they don't have that bonifed superstar.

[QUOTE=Real Men Wear Green;14920372]I am quoting his basketball reference score, and the players that site said his score was similar to. 2-time All-Star is not a lock for the Hall. Are you ever going to write something intelligent? You just don't seem to be an adult man.[/QUOTE]

What sort of shitty and lazy analysis is this? lmao

This is embarrassing

[QUOTE=1987_Lakers;14920373]Obviously Miami was stacked, the 2013 Heat team was the best team LeBron has ever played on, my only argument here is that this Boston team has more talent.[/QUOTE]

This is where the eras come into play. Boston's depth looks a lot fancier on paper because of the scoring and spacing that this era provides. The league was very different in 2011 or 2012. Guaranteed Ray Allen, even at 37 years old, in today's game would be a serious weapon. He put up 10 PPG on 64% TS% in the 2 finals appearances against an elite defense.

What's he doing against Dallas in 2024? Or against any of the teams Boston faced in the first three rounds?

[QUOTE=HoopsNY;14920386]This is where the eras come into play. Boston's depth looks a lot fancier on paper because of the scoring and spacing that this era provides. The league was very different in 2011 or 2012. Guaranteed Ray Allen, even at 37 years old, in today's game would be a serious weapon. He put up 10 PPG on 64% TS% in the 2 finals appearances against an elite defense.

What's he doing against Dallas in 2024? Or against any of the teams Boston faced in the first three rounds?[/QUOTE]
His shooting would actually be less notable in today’s league. Not saying he’d be worse just that elite shooting is way more common now.

[QUOTE=HoopsNY;14920386]This is where the eras come into play. Boston's depth looks a lot fancier on paper because of the scoring and spacing that this era provides. The league was very different in 2011 or 2012. Guaranteed Ray Allen, even at 37 years old, in today's game would be a serious weapon. [B]He put up 10 PPG [/B]on 64% TS% in the 2 finals appearances against an elite defense.

What's he doing against Dallas in 2024? Or against any of the teams Boston faced in the first three rounds?[/QUOTE]

[IMG]https://media0.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPTc5MGI3NjExeGtteXBveHZjenZ1ejV2bmtpYnE0Zm9zNzFnaTJvOGE5MmxweGEyayZlcD12MV9pbnRlcm5hbF9naWZfYnlfaWQmY3Q9Zw/UVAasrbF1ly0nx0xQi/giphy.webp[/IMG]

[QUOTE=1987_Lakers;14920381]Well, thanks for clearing that up, despite it contradicting what you just said a few minutes ago.



:oldlol:[/QUOTE]
If you really knew basketball history you would know that various Celtics averaged 20+ throughout various years in the 60s and the standards were different in general. A guy could shoot in the low 40%s, average in bthe teens, and be considered a good scorer. That was a different era.

[QUOTE=1987_Lakers;14920390][IMG]https://media0.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPTc5MGI3NjExeGtteXBveHZjenZ1ejV2bmtpYnE0Zm9zNzFnaTJvOGE5MmxweGEyayZlcD12MV9pbnRlcm5hbF9naWZfYnlfaWQmY3Q9Zw/UVAasrbF1ly0nx0xQi/giphy.webp[/IMG][/QUOTE]

Yea, focus on the 10 PPG while ignoring the 64% TS% (including 48% from 3).