PDA

View Full Version : Fantasy matchup : Legendary Celtics vs Legendary Lakers



MiamiHeat
06-01-2010, 07:59 PM
Fantasy matchup unreal (http://www.boston.com/sports/basketball/celtics/articles/2010/06/01/fantasy_matchup_would_be_unreal/)
By Gary Washburn
Globe Staff / June 1, 2010

The Celtics have won nine of 11 NBA Finals against the Lakers, making this not so much a rivalry as a domination.

In the golden era of fantasy sports, when all-time teams can be pitted against each other via video screens, the Globe decided to match the 15 top Celtics and Lakers from those 11 Finals to see who would win a seven-game series.

That’s Bob Cousy vs. Magic Johnson. Bill Russell vs. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. Paul Pierce vs. Elgin Baylor. And before we begin, this is just players who faced the Lakers or Celtics in a Finals, so that leaves out Dave Cowens for the Celtics and Shaquille O’Neal for the Lakers.

And these are the best 15 overall players from those 11 series, meaning position was ignored. The “rosters’’ are mostly made up of guards and forwards, given the lack of great centers besides Russell, Wilt Chamberlain, Abdul-Jabbar, and Robert Parish.

Here are the starting fives for each team:

Celtics: Cousy, John Havlicek, Larry Bird, Kevin McHale, and Russell.

Lakers: Magic, Jerry West, Kobe Bryant, Baylor, and Abdul-Jabbar.

For the Celtics, there could be some debate as to whether Pierce could replace Havlicek or Kevin Garnett could step in for McHale. Havlicek was inducted into the Hall of Fame in 1984, scored more than 26,000 points, and won all five Finals against the Lakers. While Pierce is a Celtics great and has one Finals victory over the Lakers, Havlicek has better credentials at this point.

McHale and Garnett are closer. They were equally talented in their prime and McHale actually traded Garnett to the Celtics as a general manager, so maybe he should get the nod on that alone. Since McHale was a lifelong Celtic and helped win three titles, we gave the nod to him.

The most pressing question about the Lakers was Abdul-Jabbar or Chamberlain, and Kareem won for two reasons: he beat the Celtics in two Finals and was a more productive player during those Finals. Chamberlain infamously asked out of Game 7 of the 1969 championship series against the Celtics and an angry Butch Van Breda Kolff did not put the big man back in the game. So on this team, he is relegated to the bench.

After further examination, the Celtics’ bench on this fantasy Finals team is a lot deeper than the Lakers’. Not only would you have several members from those storied Celtics teams of the ’60s, the Big Three also could come off the bench, as well as Dennis Johnson and Parish.

There would be little drop-off when Cousy got tired because DJ could spell him. Garnett could be teamed with Russell and nobody would score inside. Pierce and Bird could be an unstoppable 3-4 scoring tandem, and Parish could come off the bench to give Russell a breather.

The Lakers would have to depend on their amazing starting five. The Celtics would be hard-pressed to stop West, Bryant, and Baylor at the same time. In fact, no NBA defense would be capable of containing those three. And Magic Johnson would have little trouble seeing over the defense for entry passes or running the break to give the ball to Bryant for a streaking layup or Baylor for one of his spinning jumpers.

And Russell retired a year before fans could determine whether he could block the sky hook. In the short time an aging Chamberlain played against Abdul-Jabbar, he was unable to do anything besides swipe in vain. While Russell would control the paint, block shots, and get rebounds, Abdul-Jabbar’s size (7 feet 2 inches) and the sky hook would prove to be major issues.

The Lakers would have a thin bench, but Michael Cooper would be an X-factor against Bird or Pierce. At 6-6, he would have the height and length to check Bird, who is two inches taller than Pierce. So both Celtics would have their troubles with Cooper.

The Celtics could go to their ’60s lineup off the bench with Tom Heinsohn and Don Nelson, along with Sam Jones and K.C. Jones to join Cousy, or 1981 Finals MVP Cedric Maxwell could come off the pine to spell Pierce or either Jones.

As for the Lakers, an aging but still effective Bob McAdoo could spell Bryant without a drop in scoring, but he might have trouble on defense, and Jamaal Wilkes could hit long-range jumpers while brushing his teeth, but by the time the Lakers faced the Celtics, he was more of a role player.

Current Lakers Lamar Odom and Pau Gasol would give the older Celtics some trouble with their athleticism and Derek Fisher could spell Magic. DJ’s defense could prevent Fisher from distributing but Fisher’s guile would make the matchup even.

Kurt Rambis and A.C. Green would give the Lakers toughness, but that would be offset by Garnett and Maxwell.

The Lakers likely would win the series if they only needed to play with their starting five. It’s hard to argue against a team of Magic, Kobe, Baylor, West, and Kareem.

But the Celtics would have more depth. Garnett off the bench is a menacing thought and Parish would flourish in limited playing time. Maxwell, the Joneses, Pierce, Ray Allen, Heinsohn, Nelson, and Johnson would be just too tough in a seven-game series.

The series would be close because Bryant and Baylor would have the ability to win games on their own, as would Magic.

But in a Game 7, with both teams exhausted, the Celtics would win with their talented reserves.

Celtics, four games to three.

mogrovejo
06-01-2010, 08:09 PM
Good article.

21_Blessings
06-01-2010, 08:09 PM
Magic dominates that backcourt. Game over. Kareem has like 5 inches on Russell.

MiamiHeat
06-01-2010, 08:13 PM
Russell was a defensive power house....but I don't think he would be able to stop Kareem.

21_Blessings
06-01-2010, 08:14 PM
He's not stopping Kareem. You'd have to put Mchale on him.

21_Blessings
06-01-2010, 08:22 PM
Imagine a Magic, West, Kobe, Worthy/Baylor fast break :lmao

Lakers by 30.

TheManFromAcme
06-01-2010, 08:23 PM
That's some good stuff MH. :tu

But can we really compare athletes from the 60's, 70's and even 80's era to todays well conditioned athlete. Physiological differences are there when comparing these guys especially guys from the 60's don't you think.

I am wondering what happens to this well written scenario if you throw a one Shaquille O'neal into all of this? A prime Shaq at that.

lefty
06-01-2010, 08:27 PM
Pfft

WHo has won most of the Finals between those 2 teams?

Throughout the NBA's existence, it's safe to say that the Celtics have clearly owned L.A

So, All-Time Celts win


By a wiiiiiiiiiiiiiiide margin







Thread closed

TheManFromAcme
06-01-2010, 08:35 PM
Pfft

WHo has won most of the Finals between those 2 teams?

Throughout the NBA's existence, it's safe to say that the Celtics have clearly owned L.A

So, All-Time Celts win


By a wiiiiiiiiiiiiiiide margin











Thread closed

Nice in depth analysis

Ashy Larry
06-01-2010, 08:41 PM
basically, run Iso with Kobe. Who guards him? Cousy? Bird??

Cousy would be a defensive liability and would get ripped if Bean is guarding him especially with that one handed dribble shit.

mogrovejo
06-01-2010, 08:44 PM
basically, run Iso with Kobe. Who guards him? Cousy? Bird??

Cousy would be a defensive liability and would get ripped if Bean is guarding him especially with that one handed dribble shit.

Geez.. :bang

21_Blessings
06-01-2010, 08:45 PM
Kareem, Wilt, Shaq center rotation :lmao

TheManFromAcme
06-01-2010, 08:48 PM
Kareem, Wilt, Shaq center rotation :lmao

Unfreakin unbelievable if such rotation existed huh?

This truly WOULD CLOSE THIS THREAD.:lol

Ashy Larry
06-01-2010, 08:49 PM
Geez.. :bang

I mean, if that's ya best point guard, that squad is fucked:

he guards Magic :lol

he guard Kobe :lol

both would literally post his tiny ass up ...... make sure Compton's finest Dennis Johnson is on the squad

he's fucked

Ashy Larry
06-01-2010, 08:54 PM
I guess they're saying only the Celtic and Laker teams that has faced each other which would leave out Shaquille, since he didn't play against the Celtics in any finals

TheManFromAcme
06-01-2010, 08:55 PM
I mean, if that's ya best point guard, that squad is fucked:

he guards Magic :lol

he guard Kobe :lol

both would literally post his tiny ass up ...... make sure Compton's finest Dennis Johnson is on the squad

he's fucked

The pride of Pepperdine.. :tu

mogrovejo
06-01-2010, 08:57 PM
You have no credibility whatsoever. Cousy is known for his unprecedented ball-handling skills, especially due to his ability to handle and pass the ball equally well with both hands.

I doubt you've watched a single minute of Cousy and 90% of those guys playing.

Ashy Larry
06-01-2010, 08:58 PM
the whole thing is flawed but if you were to take greats versus greats, I think the Lakers would easily roll. Most of the Celtics greats are pretty much dudes from the 60s. I mean, they retire people's numbers who really isn't Hall of Fame material. I still love McHale in the post though. The Black Hole was a masterpiece on the block.

mogrovejo
06-01-2010, 08:59 PM
All those past Lakers are really great and the Cs would have no chance.

That's why the record is 9-2.

Damn, it's always hilarious to see how hard Lakers fans buy their own hype.

Ashy Larry
06-01-2010, 09:00 PM
You have no credibility whatsoever. Cousy is known for his unprecedented ball-handling skills, especially due to his ability to handle and pass the ball equally well with both hands.

I doubt you've watched a single minute of Cousy and 90% of those guys playing.


are you kidding me??? every game or clip I've seen, the dude is constantly dribbling with his right hand and as soon as he dribbles with his left hand, he goes right back to his strong hand which is evidently his right. LOL

due would get ripped constantly and too damn small to guard 6'9" Magic or 6'6" Bean. Hell, even Red said he'd take Magic over Cousy. :lol

mogrovejo
06-01-2010, 09:02 PM
You've never seen a game or a clip, stop pretending.

Cousy was ambidextrous.

Ashy Larry
06-01-2010, 09:05 PM
You've never seen a game or a clip, stop pretending.

Cousy was ambidextrous.

and his whopping 37% field goal percentage really wouldn't worry the Lakers .....

a 6'1"point guard with one good hand and a one handed set shot vs. 6'9" Earv or 6'6" Bean who can basically jump over him equals Lakers in 5

mogrovejo
06-01-2010, 09:05 PM
FYI, 90% of the players in that era couldn't use their off-hand to save their lifes.

You were unlucky to assume Cousy was one of them. His ability to use both hands is a big reason why people say he created/revolutionized the point-guard position and was the first modern point-guard.

mogrovejo
06-01-2010, 09:05 PM
So, next time around don't pretend to know more than you actually do.

LnGrrrR
06-01-2010, 09:07 PM
are you kidding me??? every game or clip I've seen, the dude is constantly dribbling with his right hand and as soon as he dribbles with his left hand, he goes right back to his strong hand which is evidently his right. LOL

due would get ripped constantly and too damn small to guard 6'9" Magic or 6'6" Bean. Hell, even Red said he'd take Magic over Cousy. :lol

How many clips have you seen? :lol

LnGrrrR
06-01-2010, 09:08 PM
a 6'1"point guard with one good hand and a one handed set shot vs. 6'9" Earv or 6'6" Bean who can basically jump over him equals Lakers in 5

Yeah, because there's no way a team with a short PG like Cousy or Rondo could ever hope to defeat a team with a 7 footer or Kobe Bryant on it...

Ashy Larry
06-01-2010, 09:08 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=isqr0ErQtp8


dude dribbled the ball 20 times and twice with his left hand ...... are you kidding me ????

Ashy Larry
06-01-2010, 09:10 PM
Yeah, because there's no way a team with a short PG like Cousy or Rondo could ever hope to defeat a team with a 7 footer or Kobe Bryant on it...

I'm looking at the match ups and even you would have a 6'1" Rondo guarding Magic or Bean before you'd have a 6'1" Cousy on either one

mogrovejo
06-01-2010, 09:11 PM
Okay, now you've seen Cousy playing exactly 8 seconds.

Ashy Larry
06-01-2010, 09:13 PM
Okay, now you've seen Cousy playing exactly 8 seconds.

eight seconds is all I need to know he would get worked and would be a defensive liability ......

Smooth Criminal
06-01-2010, 09:59 PM
It's beyond me why people assume Tommy Heinson and the like could compete with today's athletes. They just weren't good enough IMO

Ashy Larry
06-02-2010, 01:00 PM
It's beyond me why people assume Tommy Heinson and the like could compete with today's athletes. They just weren't good enough IMO


:lol

TheManFromAcme
06-02-2010, 01:13 PM
No disrespect for both Laker and Celtic legends of yesteryear but come on!
The current athlete today has evolutionized and morphed into a specimen that was unheard of 35-40 years ago.
Look closely at any vintage 60's and even early 70's films (youtube will help) and really study everything from player physique, ball movement, hops, pivoting moves, speed and so on. There is an obvious almost lethargic sense to the way they play compared to todays basketball player. Todays player is much more dynamic. The one thing I can really say about yesteryears player is that they really didn't count on the dunk as much and were much more pure shooters and a hell of a lot better free throw shooters.

Diets, collegiate programs, weightlifting and a plethora of other resources exist for todays NBA player that weren't around back then.

In fact, I am convinced that a Division 1 powerhouse college team can really give any of those Laker/Celtic teams a damn good run for their money if not beat them.

Evolution is a hell of a thing.

LnGrrrR
06-02-2010, 01:34 PM
It's beyond me why people assume Jerry West and the like could compete with today's athletes. They just weren't good enough IMO

Agreed. :tu

TheManFromAcme
06-02-2010, 01:38 PM
Agreed. :tu


Nice job Ln......
you sneaky bean-town boy you...:toast

Bob Lanier
06-02-2010, 02:04 PM
The current athlete today has evolutionized and morphed
What

hell of a lot better free throw shooters.
What

Muser
06-02-2010, 02:05 PM
Better FT shooters? :lmao

TheManFromAcme
06-02-2010, 02:29 PM
What

What

What are you "what-ing" about Bob?

Pretty simple really. Sorry you don't get it. I understand.

TE
06-02-2010, 02:45 PM
Celtics would be to thin in the frontcourt. No disrespect to Bill Russel, but a prime shaq would give him the same play Dikembe Mutombo received in the 2001 finals.

Bob Lanier
06-02-2010, 02:50 PM
What are you "what-ing" about Bob?

Pretty simple really. Sorry you don't get it. I understand.
Well, on the second count you're simply incorrect. The league average FT% in 1959 was 75.6%. This season it's 75.9%. It's been higher and lower, but not even the "6-5 honkies" back then were on average great free throw shooters. Not everyone was Rick Barry.

On the first, I'm sorry, but I don't understand what
The current athlete today has evolutionized and morphed means, and I'm pretty sure it isn't my fault.

TheManFromAcme
06-02-2010, 03:17 PM
Well, on the second count you're simply incorrect. The league average FT% in 1959 was 75.6%. This season it's 75.9%. It's been higher and lower, but not even the "6-5 honkies" back then were on average great free throw shooters. Not everyone was Rick Barry.

On the first, I'm sorry, but I don't understand what means, and I'm pretty sure it isn't my fault.

So you think players from that era are athletically the same as todays athlete?

That was really the meat of my point.

LnGrrrR
06-02-2010, 03:36 PM
Nice job Ln......
you sneaky bean-town boy you...:toast

:lol :toast I couldn't avoid a setup that obvious.

Bob Lanier
06-02-2010, 03:55 PM
So you think players from that era are athletically the same as todays athlete?
Some are. Some aren't. Some would be with weight training. Some of today's bodybuilders would be exhausted in a more uptempo game. What any of this has to do with, um, "evolutionizing and morphing," is a mystery. What does it mean to evolutionize and morph?

resistanze
06-02-2010, 03:58 PM
The Lakers would eat the Celtics. A lineup Magic/Kobe/Worthy/Kareem/Shaq would be hilarious to defend.

RedsLakers24
06-02-2010, 03:58 PM
http://img199.imageshack.us/img199/3752/gomesmurderface.gif

lefty
06-02-2010, 04:04 PM
Nice in depth analysis
No in depth analysis needed when the Celts have hostorically owned the Lakers

TheManFromAcme
06-02-2010, 04:19 PM
Some are. Some aren't. Some would be with weight training. Some of today's bodybuilders would be exhausted in a more uptempo game. What any of this has to do with, um, "evolutionizing and morphing," is a mystery. What does it mean to evolutionize and morph?

Physiologically speaking, athletes of that era were different. You didn't have Shaq's or Dwight Howards or Michael Jordan "built" players back then is what I am trying to convey to you. I am don't understand why you can't grasp that.

:wtf

cobbler
06-02-2010, 04:24 PM
So, next time around don't pretend to know more than you actually do.

I see the pompous ASS is back at it. :lol

cobbler
06-02-2010, 04:28 PM
How many clips have you seen? :lol

Apparently Ashy has never attended the Ambidextrous Dribbling Workshop.

:lmao

Ashy Larry
06-02-2010, 04:39 PM
Apparently Ashy has never attended the Ambidextrous Dribbling Workshop.

:lmao

where do I sign up ???? And I've never had any problem dribbling the ball with my left. Normally, teams didn't know what was my strong hand until I shot the ball.

cobbler
06-02-2010, 04:46 PM
where do I sign up ???? And I've never had any problem dribbling the ball with my left. Normally, teams didn't know what was my strong hand until I shot the ball.

Just messing with Mongro and his "holier than thou" arttitude. He thinks because he goes to workshops that he actually knows the game. :lol

Bob Lanier
06-02-2010, 04:46 PM
Physiologically speaking, athletes of that era were different. You didn't have Shaq's or Dwight Howards or Michael Jordan "built" players back then is what I am trying to convey to you. I am don't understand why you can't grasp that.

:wtf
What does different musculature have to do with "evolutionization" or "morphing"?

TheManFromAcme
06-02-2010, 06:30 PM
What does different musculature have to do with "evolutionization" or "morphing"?

:pctoss

Forget it. It's not your fault.
The point was made clearly but I guess some can and some cannot digest simple logical points.

SomeCallMeTim
06-02-2010, 07:50 PM
http://img199.imageshack.us/img199/3752/gomesmurderface.gif

:lol

No clue who that is or what the relevance is to the thread...

But that makes it all the funnier.

Like I said before, give me a good reaction gif anyday.

SomeCallMeTim
06-02-2010, 07:54 PM
What does different musculature have to do with "evolutionization" or "morphing"?

Hmm.

Players looking completely different than they did back then would seem to be the very definition of evolving and morphing, not to mention being able to leap higher, dunking the ball, ambidexterity, greater strength, etc.

What is open to debate is whether this makes today's players and game better, but to pretend there hasn't been evolution among players seems silly to me.

Bob Lanier
06-02-2010, 08:06 PM
Do you know what the word "evolution" (never mind "evolutionizing") means?

TheManFromAcme
06-03-2010, 07:36 AM
Do you know what the word "evolution" (never mind "evolutionizing") means?

Being that I was using it in context with the development of players from one era to another, it's pretty simple to ascertain what I was trying to convey. Several people with deep interest and knowledge of the game concur with what I've typed and for lack of a better term and to assist you..."Get it".


Again. I understand. It's not your fault. :wakeup