Assuming they win the title, how high are the 2024 Celtics all-time?

[thedangerouskitchen]

If the 83 Sixers were capable of SWEEPING the Showtime Lakers (who had SIX, count 'em 6 HOFERS on the roster, including two -2- GOAT level players), they would absolutely massacre the 2024 Celtics.

[thedangerouskitchen]

And yet, you can never resist and he gets you hook, line and sinker every freaking time.

And I just got you, with ease, because I knew damn well you wouldn't be able to resist. You have the awareness of a turnip.

See, this is why you're a stupid man (or the world's easiest mark, take your pick): Nobody "gets me" when they make obvious foolish statements (like the 2024 Celtics are the second greatest team in NBA history - lol). It's clear as day it's a troll thread AND being a troll myself, I simply play along.

It's really that simple. You're just not very bright, grizz.

My ass TDK. You are so freaking wedded to MJ, the 90s, anything Chicago that you can't resist. You don't "play along", you get played. You are Chicago Artie.

If that's what you must tell yourself to justify your stupidity, so be it.

Exhibit A, my first post ITT:

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=133448&p=1881683#p1881683

Now go ahead and explain how I 'supposedly' got played, dumbski.

[PhutureDynasty]

If the 83 Sixers were capable of SWEEPING the Showtime Lakers (who had SIX, count 'em 6 HOFERS on the roster, including two -2- GOAT level players), they would absolutely massacre the 2024 Celtics.

Could you imagine Moses versus whoever the Celtics have at big?

Malone by himself cancels out the Celtics shooting advantage.

[_Vcsgrizzfan_]

See, this is why you're a stupid man (or the world's easiest mark, take your pick): Nobody "gets me" when they make obvious foolish statements (like the 2024 Celtics are the second greatest team in NBA history - lol). It's clear as day it's a troll thread AND being a troll myself, I simply play along.

It's really that simple. You're just not very bright, grizz.

My ass TDK. You are so freaking wedded to MJ, the 90s, anything Chicago that you can't resist. You don't "play along", you get played. You are Chicago Artie.

If that's what you must tell yourself to justify your stupidity, so be it.

Exhibit A, my first post ITT:

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=133448&p=1881683#p1881683

Now go ahead and explain how I 'supposedly' got played, dumbski.

You got played. Again. You can't help yourself. If you could, you'd ignore it after a post or two. You just can't. You get played like Charlie Daniels plays the fiddle.

[Bush4Ever.]

All due respect to the 83 76ers, but they were the 5th rated offense and defense in 1983.

The Celtics were the 1st and 3rd rated offense in 2024, an overwhelmingly superior era in absolute terms.

The 76ers had a net rating of 7 and change. The Celtics *versus the West* (in a superior era) had a net rating of 14 and change.

The 2024 Celtics would legit beat them by 50 points playing in a normal manner. Even if they played their bench the whole game, they would win by 35-40 points.

There's no shame in a boomer team losing to a modern team (that likely supports BLM, leftists politics, and the like)...time moves forward. Pretty much every generational cohort has understood that except boomers, because they are the only cohort to be born into paradise...causing them to think *they* were the causal mechanism behind an easy mode life, wealth, etc...when in reality they were individually mediocre and simply coasted under supremely ideal circumstances in life.

[PhutureDynasty]

All due respect to the 83 76ers, but they were the 5th rated offense and defense in 1983.

The Celtics were the 1st and 3rd rated offense in 2024, an overwhelmingly superior era in absolute terms.

The 76ers had a net rating of 7 and change. The Celtics *versus the West* (in a superior era) had a net rating of 14 and change.

The 2024 Celtics would legit beat them by 50 points playing in a normal manner. Even if they played their bench the whole game, they would win by 35-40 points.

There's no shame in a boomer team losing to a modern team (that likely supports BLM, leftists politics, and the like)...time moves forward. Pretty much every generational cohort has understood that except boomers, because they are the only cohort to be born into paradise...causing them to think *they* were the causal mechanism behind an easy mode life, wealth, etc...when in reality they were individually mediocre and simply coasted under supremely ideal circumstances in life.

Nah

[Bush4Ever.]

And yes TDK, you got controlled and mentally castrated by me in this thread.

I took you all the way from you openly claiming the Celtics were a scrub team with no chance to win a title to you openly stating they were an "above-average title team" (which isn't true but not outrageously incorrect). I got bored with that so I baited you into making outrageously inaccurate statements again by playing on your (real) insecurities.

NO ONE has stepped up with CONTENT to explain why the Celtics aren't a historically great team. There's a reason for that.

[ElJorge]

All due respect to the 83 76ers, but they were the 5th rated offense and defense in 1983.

The Celtics were the 1st and 3rd rated offense in 2024, an overwhelmingly superior era in absolute terms.

The 76ers had a net rating of 7 and change. The Celtics *versus the West* (in a superior era) had a net rating of 14 and change.

The 2024 Celtics would legit beat them by 50 points playing in a normal manner. Even if they played their bench the whole game, they would win by 35-40 points.

There's no shame in a boomer team losing to a modern team (that likely supports BLM, leftists politics, and the like)...time moves forward. Pretty much every generational cohort has understood that except boomers, because they are the only cohort to be born into paradise...causing them to think *they* were the causal mechanism behind an easy mode life, wealth, etc...when in reality they were individually mediocre and simply coasted under supremely ideal circumstances in life.

Nah

Lol

[Bush4Ever.]

Let me put this simply:

Saying (with no joking/trolling) a team like the 82 Lakers (1st and 13th best offense/defense) or 83 76ers (5th and 5th) etc...would beat the 24 Celtics is like saying a 400 yard sprinter who places 3rd in a JV race would beat the guy who wins the varsity race by five seconds.

It's just dumb.

[thedangerouskitchen]

The fact that the 1983 Sixers finished #5 in Offense and Defense with four (4) HOFERS on their roster (in addition to All Star Andrew Toney) just shows you how deep and talented the NBA was at the time.

at bush-league thinking the 2024 Celtics (with Jaylen Brown as their best player in the Finals - lololol) is even coming within 20 points of winning a single game against that juggernaut Sixers team.

Spoiler:

Jaylen Brown is your best player -

[thedangerouskitchen]

My ass TDK. You are so freaking wedded to MJ, the 90s, anything Chicago that you can't resist. You don't "play along", you get played. You are Chicago Artie.

If that's what you must tell yourself to justify your stupidity, so be it.

Exhibit A, my first post ITT:

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=133448&p=1881683#p1881683

Now go ahead and explain how I 'supposedly' got played, dumbski.

You got played. Again. You can't help yourself. If you could, you'd ignore it after a post or two. You just can't. You get played like Charlie Daniels plays the fiddle.

As noted, you just aren't very bright grizz.

[_Vcsgrizzfan_]

If that's what you must tell yourself to justify your stupidity, so be it.

Exhibit A, my first post ITT:

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=133448&p=1881683#p1881683

Now go ahead and explain how I 'supposedly' got played, dumbski.

You got played. Again. You can't help yourself. If you could, you'd ignore it after a post or two. You just can't. You get played like Charlie Daniels plays the fiddle.

As noted, you just aren't very bright grizz.

[Da Stars.]

You got played. Again. You can't help yourself. If you could, you'd ignore it after a post or two. You just can't. You get played like Charlie Daniels plays the fiddle.

As noted, you just aren't very bright grizz.

That better be Devil went down to Georgia. Ire else.

[Bush4Ever.]

"The 1983 NBA was the most skilled year of NBA basketball ever! So deep!"

-TDK

Reality: The NBA hit a half a three a game on 24 percent in 1983, and 74 percent of free throws.

The 2024 NBA hit 13 threes on 37 percent and more than 78 percent of free throws.



"The alpha boomers of 1983 played great defense on those free throws!"
-TDK, in his next post, probably

[thedangerouskitchen]

Bush has no retort for this POWERFUL statement...

The fact that the 1983 Sixers finished #5 in Offense and Defense with four (4) HOFERS on their roster (in addition to All Star Andrew Toney) just shows you how deep and talented the NBA was at the time.

Walk it off, rookie.

[Bush4Ever.]

Bush has no retort for this POWERFUL statement...

The fact that the 1983 Sixers finished #5 in Offense and Defense with four (4) HOFERS on their roster (in addition to All Star Andrew Toney) just shows you how deep and talented the NBA was at the time.

Walk it off, rookie.

The "retort" is simple, silly:

They were great relative to era, but terrible to modern standards. Since AS/HOF status is based on how good you are compared to in-era peers, they were AS/HOFers (who lost in the first round next year, mind...but let's ignore that), while being miserable to modern standards.

The smartest person in the special ed room isn't more intelligence than the person who graduates last from Harvard Med next year.

This isn't complicated stuff. By the way, thank you for submitting to the idea of the Celtics not being a scrub team.

You *should* apologize for saying that...but I don't expect miracles.

[_Vcsgrizzfan_]

Bush has no retort for this POWERFUL statement...

The fact that the 1983 Sixers finished #5 in Offense and Defense with four (4) HOFERS on their roster (in addition to All Star Andrew Toney) just shows you how deep and talented the NBA was at the time.

Walk it off, rookie.

Dude, he buried you. Your argument makes as much a sense as saying the the 1963 Celtics would beat the 2024 Celtics because they had such and such amount of HOFers. It isn't an argument. The game just gets better and more skilled with time. There isn't a team from the 80s that is beating close to cellar dweller teams from now. It isn't that complicated.

[thedangerouskitchen]

Bush has no retort for this POWERFUL statement...

The fact that the 1983 Sixers finished #5 in Offense and Defense with four (4) HOFERS on their roster (in addition to All Star Andrew Toney) just shows you how deep and talented the NBA was at the time.

Walk it off, rookie.

The "retort" is simple, silly:

They were great relative to era, but terrible to modern standards.

at "modern standards":

- Weak/soft/zero-contact Defense
- Rules that heavily favor the Offense
- 40% of said Offense via chucking 3's and MISSING them 65% of the time on average
- Garbage Officiating
- Players incapable of playing 38-42 minutes / all 82 games

This era is a complete joke, bush-league... even the NBA Commissioner, VP of Ops, and many current players/coaches agree.

Grab some bench, rookie.

[thedangerouskitchen]

Bush has no retort for this POWERFUL statement...

The fact that the 1983 Sixers finished #5 in Offense and Defense with four (4) HOFERS on their roster (in addition to All Star Andrew Toney) just shows you how deep and talented the NBA was at the time.

Walk it off, rookie.

Dude, he buried you. Your argument makes as much a sense as saying the the 1963 Celtics would beat the 2024 Celtics because they had such and such amount of HOFers. It isn't an argument. The game just gets better and more skilled with time. There isn't a team from the 80s that is beating close to cellar dweller teams from now. It isn't that complicated.

You measure greatness by how a team performs/ed against their peers, dumbski... and the 83 Sixers faced (and beat) VASTLY SUPERIOR competition relative to the teams the 2024 Celtics beat.

Thus, the 83 Sixers >>>>>>> 24 Celtics.

Like I says... you're not very bright AND you prove it after every post.



SIDE NOTE: You and bush are complete morons if you think "better" = chucking 40% of your Offense from spots on the floor where teams MISS 65% of the time on average. Re-read that statement, then realize how dumb you two really are.

[_Vcsgrizzfan_]

Bush has no retort for this POWERFUL statement...

The fact that the 1983 Sixers finished #5 in Offense and Defense with four (4) HOFERS on their roster (in addition to All Star Andrew Toney) just shows you how deep and talented the NBA was at the time.

Walk it off, rookie.

Dude, he buried you. Your argument makes as much a sense as saying the the 1963 Celtics would beat the 2024 Celtics because they had such and such amount of HOFers. It isn't an argument. The game just gets better and more skilled with time. There isn't a team from the 80s that is beating close to cellar dweller teams from now. It isn't that complicated.

You measure greatness by how a team performs/ed against their peers, dumbski... and the 83 Sixers faced (and beat) VASTLY SUPERIOR competition relative to the teams the 2024 Celtics beat.

Thus, the 83 Sixers >>>>>>> 24 Celtics.

Like I says... you're not very bright AND you prove it after every post.



SIDE NOTE: You and bush are complete morons if you think "better" = chucking 40% of your Offense from spots on the floor where teams MISS 65% of the time on average. Re-read that statement, then realize how dumb you two really are.

You are so disingenuous.

It's the first time you've mentioned "relative to era" ITT. What you said in reality, was that the 96 Bulls AND the Sonics of the same year would mop the floor with the 2024 Celtics.

Ironically (but not surprisingly since you're barely above special ed kid status), what you don't understand is Bush was relying on "relative to era" to largely make his case, being their relative superiority in both defence and offence (1st in 1 case and 2nd in the other with a massive net differential) in this season. You had nothing for that, so, instead, you just said that the Bulls AND Sonics would both "mop the floor with them".

I couldn't give a shit about the Celtics but the data is powerful. I only enjoyed him walking you around by your collar. It's always predictable and funny.

If you really want to open the can of worms of "relative to era", I could have a ton of fun exposing your mental gymnastics trying to praise certain players and teams while denigrating others in the most inconsistent manner.

With respect to your constant bashing of modern basketball, it's drivel. The object of the game is to win, to score more points than your opponent.

The league average in 2024 on 3 point shots was 36.6%. If you allow for end of quarter Hail Mary's, we don't even need to round up, we can just call it 37% for simplicity's sake. At 3 points per make, that is 111 points per 100 shots. That is equivalent to 55.5% shooting percentage on 2s.

On it's own, that makes taking a large percentage of 3s logical.

But it goes well beyond that. Taking a lot of 3s forces defences to cover way more court, and makes it easier to get better looks at the rim and near the bucket for easier jumpers. The league's teams aren't stupid. They know they have to play like that. If you aren't a legitimate 3 point shooting offense, you are behind the 8 ball offensively. If you could be successful without it, people would try.

We can quibble about what the ideal percentage of shots is to take from deep. It depends mostly on personnel obviously, but whether it is 30%, 35%, 40% or even 50% if shooting skills get good enough, that's immaterial. The 3 is huge part of the offense because of both its equivalence versus two point shots and because it allows for teams to get easier twos.

Personally, I think the league will have to extend the 3 point line further, and potentially completely eliminate the corner 3. As shooting skills improve slowly over time, the risk/reward between 3s and 2s could get too skewed towards 3s such that balance is lost. We are near that point IMO.

As someone who has watched the development of the game since 1970, it's crazy to see how skills have evolved. Every team had a bunch of slugs back as recently as the early 2000s. It was obviously much more pronounced in the 70s, 80s and 90s, but the point remains. Tons of bench type guys today would have been starters and some even stars back in the 80s.

At different points, I've felt I must be seeing the pinnacle but I haven't yet, and I don't expect I will anytime soon now. I just enjoy.