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

[Bush4Ever.]

Assuming they win the title in a relatively normal (or better) manner of course?

Notes:

Net rating of 11.6 in the best era of basketball ever. This is higher than ANY team from the 80s and first half of the 1990s, and the 4th highest all-time behind the 96+97 Bulls, and 2017 Warriors.

1st and 3rd best offense/defense in the NBA during 2024. The 2017 Warriors were 1st/2nd. The 1996 Bulls were 1st/1st. The 1997 Bulls were 1st and 4th.

64 wins. 2017 Warriors had 67. Bulls 72 and 69.

Breezing through the playoffs, in the best season of ball in history, with legions of megastars present (wow!). Pretty much every legendary team did this, but the Celtics did it in the best year.

I say 2nd, behind the 2017 Warriors. The Bulls were more relatively dominant, but have to be penalized for playing teams that only had maybe 2-3 players on par with modern players. The Celtics/Lakers/76ers teams of 80s are hilariously overrated on a historical/quantitative front (as opposed to narratives and boomer media-driven). If you could combine the regular season and playoffs of the 2000 and 2001 Lakers, you'd likely have another strong contender. The 1971 Bucks are a legendary team no one really talks about (because it was pre-boomer media) as well.

Now, all of this is with the qualifier that they have to win the title. That's a non-negotiable. But as it stands right now...we are talking a top-level legendary team. Not a run-of-the-mill title team....we are broaching on GOAT status.

This is really, really amazing. If the "peaked in high school" boomer crowd had a connection to them, they would have been crowned as the GOAT team already.

[Bush4Ever.]

Note that MANY of the Celtics/Lakers teams boomers cite as being the gold standard for excellence struggled HUGELY in the playoffs.

The 1988 Lakers went to a G7 *three* times in a row.
The 1984 Celtics went to a G7 against a 47 win team.
The 1992 Bulls went to a G7 against a goon-squad non-talented Knicks team
The 2000 Lakers nearly blew it against Portland (G7)

And so on...

If the Celtics win the ECFs in five or fewer games, and the Finals in say...six or fewer games....they move beyond any 80s/90s team in terms of quality and observable, tangible performance.

[wailuaFC]

It’s kind have been a forgone conclusion this team would win the title the second they were assembled. I find it wild that they lost games to the teams they’ve played, but hey, even the lakers went 16-1. Still think the Steph/KD warriors were a better team and the shaq/kobe lakers would be too much for them. But I think it’s a pretty easy bet the Celtics win, and I’ve been consistent on that since the playoffs started

[Havlicekstealsit]

In terms of modern team titles, I might put them above the 08 squad. I know they needed multiple 7 game sets to make it out of the east, but defensively they were just nuts. They were 29-3 by early January & once beat the Knicks 104-59. And who can forget 131-92 to close out the Finals.

[thedangerouskitchen]

2024 Celtics (with arguably the easiest road to the Finals in NBA history) better than the 96 and 97 Bulls???



Bush is clearly drunk, or stoned, or both... or he's trolling very, VERY badly.

[wailuaFC]

It’s kind have been a forgone conclusion this team would win the title the second they were assembled. I find it wild that they lost games to the teams they’ve played, but hey, even the lakers went 16-1. Still think the Steph/KD warriors were a better team and the shaq/kobe lakers would be too much for them. But I think it’s a pretty easy bet the Celtics win, and I’ve been consistent on that since the playoffs started

I should expound on this. They are a rare team whose best player is in the 5-10 range. The 01 lakers had arguably the best player in the league as well as a top 5-10 player, the Steph/KD lakers had 3-4 top 20 players in the league, two of who were top 10. I’d guess their team as a whole is probably top 5 since 2000. They have a huge benefit of a shitty eastern conference and by being so healthy and deep that even if they were missing a starter or two they’d be fine, which boosts all their metrics. By far and away the favorite, but because they don’t have that guy, I don’t think they’re an all time team

[PhutureDynasty]

They'll probably be getting pretty high if they win.

That's all I have for this thread.

Thank you for reading this post.

[Da Stars.]

Bush gives shit to Arty for making the playoffs in the weak east. Does that not also inflate the numbers for Boston. Can either the Mavs or Wolves beat Boston, yes. Does that mean they will, no.

[Bush4Ever.]

Bush gives shit to Arty for making the playoffs in the weak east. Does that not also inflate the numbers for Boston. Can either the Mavs or Wolves beat Boston, yes. Does that mean they will, no.

The Celtics won 77 percent of their games against the West and 78 percent against the East.

The Magic won 50 percent of their games against the West and 62 percent against the East.

Like the Lakers for most of the 1980s, they are the best team....that just so happens to be nested within a shitty
conference.

[Bush4Ever.]

2024 Celtics (with arguably the easiest road to the Finals in NBA history) better than the 96 and 97 Bulls???

Bush is clearly drunk, or stoned, or both... or he's trolling very, VERY badly.

The Bulls were more relatively dominant, but not by much, as I highlighted in the OP.

The difference in relative dominance is like 5 percent, but the quality of the league is at least 300 percent better from the 90s.

Getting a 3.9 in special education classes (90s basketball) is not going to impress anyone more than a 3.8 in AP classes (modern ball).

[Bush4Ever.]

I should expound on this. They are a rare team whose best player is in the 5-10 range. The 01 lakers had arguably the best player in the league as well as a top 5-10 player, the Steph/KD lakers had 3-4 top 20 players in the league, two of who were top 10. I’d guess their team as a whole is probably top 5 since 2000. They have a huge benefit of a shitty eastern conference and by being so healthy and deep that even if they were missing a starter or two they’d be fine, which boosts all their metrics. By far and away the favorite, but because they don’t have that guy, I don’t think they’re an all time team

They had a *higher* net rating against the West than East this year (14 vs. 10).
https://www.statmuse.com/nba/ask/celtic ... ng-vs-west

Why does it matter where the relative advantage comes from? You can absolutely have situations where gaps in first two are made up (and change) by the rest of the rotation. The 1989 Pistons had zero All-NBAers, zero players inside the top 15 in MVP vote, and one all-star...and rolled to 63 wins and a title on the back of depth and defense.

It all ends in the same place. How much are you winning, and to what degree (with some consideration for quality of opponents)?

[wailuaFC]

I should expound on this. They are a rare team whose best player is in the 5-10 range. The 01 lakers had arguably the best player in the league as well as a top 5-10 player, the Steph/KD lakers had 3-4 top 20 players in the league, two of who were top 10. I’d guess their team as a whole is probably top 5 since 2000. They have a huge benefit of a shitty eastern conference and by being so healthy and deep that even if they were missing a starter or two they’d be fine, which boosts all their metrics. By far and away the favorite, but because they don’t have that guy, I don’t think they’re an all time team

They had a *higher* net rating against the West than East this year (14 vs. 10).
https://www.statmuse.com/nba/ask/celtic ... ng-vs-west

Why does it matter where the relative advantage comes from? You can absolutely have situations where gaps in first two are made up (and change) by the rest of the rotation. The 1989 Pistons had zero All-NBAers, zero players inside the top 15 in MVP vote, and one all-star...and rolled to 63 wins and a title on the back of depth and defense.

It all ends in the same place. How much are you winning, and to what degree (with some consideration for quality of opponents)?

There’s the old train of thought that the best player wins the series, and it’s relatively true. It’s why Russell, KAJ, MJ won so much. Of course there’s outliers, and it’s not needed to expound upon. But when you’re comparing this Celtics to most all time teams, I’d say most of the best, if not every single one that we’d consider truly great teams, had a player better than Tatum. Celtics depth 1-6 could be the 04 pistons and over come it, but going off what history has shown, I’m taking the field of elite teams over this years Celtics

[thedangerouskitchen]

2024 Celtics (with arguably the easiest road to the Finals in NBA history) better than the 96 and 97 Bulls???

Bush is clearly drunk, or stoned, or both... or he's trolling very, VERY badly.

The Bulls were more relatively dominant, but not by much, as I highlighted in the OP.

The difference in relative dominance is like 5 percent, but the quality of the league is at least 300 percent better from the 90s.

Getting a 3.9 in special education classes (90s basketball) is not going to impress anyone more than a 3.8 in AP classes (modern ball).

Hate to burst your bubble (again... and again, and again) but your silly rating system AND your wild assertions (backed by zero fact or substance) are about as useful as a wad of chewing gum stuck to the bottom of my shoe.

In the world of reality the 96 or 97 Bulls would steamroll any team in today's NBA: 3 GOAT level "perimeter" Defenders (and 2 other standout "perimeter" defenders in Harper and Brown), the GOAT Player, the GOAT #2 man, the GOAT Rebounder (pound-for-pound), the (then) GOAT Euro player, the (then) GOAT 3-point shooter (% wise).

It would be a 4-game sweep by the Bulls, with the average margin of victory 20+ PPG.

See, we all have opinions... only mine is right.

[wailuaFC]

2024 Celtics (with arguably the easiest road to the Finals in NBA history) better than the 96 and 97 Bulls???

Bush is clearly drunk, or stoned, or both... or he's trolling very, VERY badly.

The Bulls were more relatively dominant, but not by much, as I highlighted in the OP.

The difference in relative dominance is like 5 percent, but the quality of the league is at least 300 percent better from the 90s.

Getting a 3.9 in special education classes (90s basketball) is not going to impress anyone more than a 3.8 in AP classes (modern ball).

Hate to burst your bubble (again... and again, and again) but your silly rating system AND your wild assertions (backed by zero fact or substance) are about as useful as a wad of chewing gum stuck to the bottom of my shoe.

In the world of reality the 96 or 97 Bulls would steamroll any team in today's NBA: 3 GOAT level "perimeter" Defenders (and 2 other standout "perimeter" defenders in Harper and Brown), the GOAT Player, the GOAT #2 man, the GOAT Rebounder (pound-for-pound), the (then) GOAT Euro player, the (then) GOAT 3-point shooter (% wise).

It would be a 4-game sweep by the Bulls, with the average margin of victory 20+ PPG.

See, we all have opinions... only mine is right.

Crazy how much help Jordan needed

[Bush4Ever.]

Hate to burst your bubble (again... and again, and again) but your silly rating system

It's not my rating system and it's literally just subtracting points allowed from points made and norming to 100 possessions.

Literally no subjectivity whatsoever.

But you knew that already, of course

[Bush4Ever.]

Crazy how much help Jordan needed

The rule with TDK is pretty simple.

If you want to get an accurate rating of Pippen, ask TDK to evaluate Jordan.
If you want to get an accurate rating of Jordan, ask TDK to evaluate Pippen.

I'm old enough on the board to remember the very old days when TDK bashed Kobe like he bashes Lebron now, and praised Lebron then like he praises Kobe now.

He's a wacky individual! LMAO!

[thedangerouskitchen]

The Bulls were more relatively dominant, but not by much, as I highlighted in the OP.

The difference in relative dominance is like 5 percent, but the quality of the league is at least 300 percent better from the 90s.

Getting a 3.9 in special education classes (90s basketball) is not going to impress anyone more than a 3.8 in AP classes (modern ball).

Hate to burst your bubble (again... and again, and again) but your silly rating system AND your wild assertions (backed by zero fact or substance) are about as useful as a wad of chewing gum stuck to the bottom of my shoe.

In the world of reality the 96 or 97 Bulls would steamroll any team in today's NBA: 3 GOAT level "perimeter" Defenders (and 2 other standout "perimeter" defenders in Harper and Brown), the GOAT Player, the GOAT #2 man, the GOAT Rebounder (pound-for-pound), the (then) GOAT Euro player, the (then) GOAT 3-point shooter (% wise).

It would be a 4-game sweep by the Bulls, with the average margin of victory 20+ PPG.

See, we all have opinions... only mine is right.

Crazy how much help Jordan needed

As much help as Russell (4-7 HOF teammates every year he played), Bird, Magic/Jabbar, LeFraud, Steph/KD, and many others.

First 3-Peat Bulls didn't have nearly as great talent though... so you have no point.

[thedangerouskitchen]

Hate to burst your bubble (again... and again, and again) but your silly rating system

It's not my rating system and it's literally just subtracting points allowed from points made and norming to 100 possessions.

Literally no subjectivity whatsoever.

But you knew that already, of course

Whatever it is, it's beyond silly if it's used to suggest or imply that the 2024 Celtics > 96 or 97 Bulls.

[wailuaFC]

Hate to burst your bubble (again... and again, and again) but your silly rating system AND your wild assertions (backed by zero fact or substance) are about as useful as a wad of chewing gum stuck to the bottom of my shoe.

In the world of reality the 96 or 97 Bulls would steamroll any team in today's NBA: 3 GOAT level "perimeter" Defenders (and 2 other standout "perimeter" defenders in Harper and Brown), the GOAT Player, the GOAT #2 man, the GOAT Rebounder (pound-for-pound), the (then) GOAT Euro player, the (then) GOAT 3-point shooter (% wise).

It would be a 4-game sweep by the Bulls, with the average margin of victory 20+ PPG.

See, we all have opinions... only mine is right.

Crazy how much help Jordan needed

As much help as Russell (4-7 HOF teammates every year he played), Bird, Magic/Jabbar, LeFraud, Steph/KD, and many others.

First 3-Peat Bulls didn't have nearly as great talent though... so you have no point.

Did bird have 3 GOAT level "perimeter" Defenders (and 2 other standout "perimeter"..) the GOAT Player, the GOAT #2 man, the GOAT Rebounder (pound-for-pound), the (then) GOAT Euro player, the (then) GOAT 3-point shooter (% wise). ?
Did Magic have 3 GOAT level "perimeter" Defenders (and 2 other standout "perimeter"..) the GOAT Player, the GOAT #2 man, the GOAT Rebounder (pound-for-pound), the (then) GOAT Euro player, the (then) GOAT 3-point shooter (% wise). ?
did LeBron have 3 GOAT level "perimeter" Defenders (and 2 other standout "perimeter"..) the GOAT Player, the GOAT #2 man, the GOAT Rebounder (pound-for-pound), the (then) GOAT Euro player, the (then) GOAT 3-point shooter (% wise). ?
sure seems like Jordan had more help than any other player ever

[thedangerouskitchen]

Crazy how much help Jordan needed

The rule with TDK is pretty simple.

If you want to get an accurate rating of Pippen, ask TDK to evaluate Jordan.
If you want to get an accurate rating of Jordan, ask TDK to evaluate Pippen.

I'm old enough on the board to remember the very old days when TDK bashed Kobe like he bashes Lebron now, and praised Lebron then like he praises Kobe now.

He's a wacky individual! LMAO!

I DID praise LeBron... prior to "The Decision" when he showed his true colors as a gutless coward who couldn't lead two #1 seeded, 60+ win teams past LOWER seeds in the playoffs, so he colluded with two (then) Top 10 players in the league to form a Super Team and then boast about how "easy" it was going to be... and then he went out and humiliated himself in the 2011 Finals, losing to another lower seed in embarrassing fashion.

From that moment on I lost all respect for him, as a person and a player because he clearly isn't a pimple on a plimple on MJ's ass.

As for Pippen, I have always been consistent: GOAT level Defender and one of the most complete/all-around players in the game who was mentored and tutored by Jordan. Knuckleheads like you try and push the "Jordan never won without Pip" narrative, so in those instances I have to quickly dispel the stupidity.

Jordan's legacy has never changed either, in my posting over the years: He's the undisputed GOAT, and the closest to perfection we have ever seen from a player.

If that's wacky, so be it.



(PS: Nice deflection from your foolish 24 Celts > 96 / 97 Bulls analysis.