LeBron vs. Bird / '14 Heat vs '86 Celtics.

[wutang112878]

 
Is it? Stylistically, it's a huge difference, but in terms of effectiveness? Statistically, Bosh is as valuable if not more so than mid-80's Kareem. I know i know i know. Kareem vs. Bosh? Har har har. This should not be crazy. We're talking 10-15 years after Kareem's peak. He was about to retire. He was old as shit. It shouldn't be controversial to say that 39-year old (back when that really meant something) Kareem isn't a huge advantage over an all-star center in their prime.
 

 
 
First off, this is a great debate, very fun to discuss.
 
But wow, Bosh is up there with Kareem?  Kareem was still averaging close to 20ppg and shooting 57%, and when your team can just dump it off in the post on demand and you are going to get 1.14 points per shot thats a huge thing.  Bosh's numbers are helped by 3s and 3s are great to spread the floor (remember that inside out spreads the floor as well) but you cant take them on demand.  So to me if Kareem & Bosh's PPS were identical I think Kareem is more valuable because of his on demand offensive ability.  Kareem was old in years but he was effective from an efficiency standpoint to almost the very end, and his one freak move required almost zero athletic ability.
 
 

Well, that's basically all you need. Fast breaks are run by wing players primarily. And it's also misleading, Bosh is a good moving big-man, who can also spot up for a 3 on a fast break, and LeBron and Wade can run down the court like no other while having always have the option to kick out to Ray Allen or the many other 3-point shooters that trail on their fast breaks. This didn't exist much in the 80s but it's a huge part of today's game, especially for the Heat. To claim that any team is superior to Heat in the open court requires A LOT of evidence.
 
And the Heat have nothing like Magic? LeBron is like Magic, only better and more versatile.  

 
So you're implying that as long as you have 2 great fast break players thats all you need so having 4 of those guys provides no additional value?  There are diminishing returns but there are still returns.  I dont think we can prove statistically how efficient or effective either teams fast break is, but I can say that the Lakers fast break was the best I have ever seen.
 
Lebron is a different type of player.  You have made the case that 'no one can defend Lebron because of all of his unique abilities', and my counterpoint is that Magic also has unique abilities that are comparable to Lebron.  I realize you think Lebron is the best player in the world ever and forever, but there are superstars who have had similar impacts on their teams in different ways and Magic is one of those guys.

 

[Mugthis]

Just for fun:

LeBron passing (make sure to at least see the final pass of the clip):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KT-zhe-5ORA
 
Magic passing:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4Dm0lZTqCc
 
Bird passing:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhnRtgBGMl4
 
Kobe passing:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFSdKRHflFo

 

[Devizier]

I think the matchup would be okay, all things considered, save for one major factor:
 
Spacing. The 85-86 Celtics were almost entirely a two-point shooting team, with only Bird and Ainge taking a significant number of threes. The Heat feature five players, including four of their starters, that shoot three pointers more often than the Celtics do. This would put a ton of stress of the Celtics' D, and having a rangy center like Bosh on the court would really take Parish out of his element.
 
The Celtics have some advantages offensively, foremost among them size. Bosh is fairly weak for a center, especially in the traditional sense, and Parish (or even McHale at PF) would be able to overpower him in the low post pretty often. That means the Heat would have to play one of their stronger, but suckier guys like Haslem or Andersen. 
 
But the Heat advantage on the other end is too much. If the Celtics cant force the Heat to play big, then it's Parish, not McHale, who is forced to wander away from the basket and defend Bosh. You then might see McHale on James -- and Bird on Rashard Lewis, or whomever the Heat start at the other forward position.

 

[riboflav]

 
Is it? Stylistically, it's a huge difference, but in terms of effectiveness? Statistically, Bosh is as valuable if not more so than mid-80's Kareem. I know i know i know. Kareem vs. Bosh? Har har har. This should not be crazy. We're talking 10-15 years after Kareem's peak. He was about to retire. He was old as shit. It shouldn't be controversial to say that 39-year old (back when that really meant something) Kareem isn't a huge advantage over an all-star center in their prime. 
 

The Heat's break is made great primarily by Lebron and Wade.

 
Well, that's basically all you need. Fast breaks are run by wing players primarily. And it's also misleading, Bosh is a good moving big-man, who can also spot up for a 3 on a fast break, and LeBron and Wade can run down the court like no other while having always have the option to kick out to Ray Allen or the many other 3-point shooters that trail on their fast breaks. This didn't exist much in the 80s but it's a huge part of today's game, especially for the Heat. To claim that any team is superior to Heat in the open court requires A LOT of evidence.
 
And the Heat have nothing like Magic? LeBron is like Magic, only better and more versatile.  

 
This made my day. 

 

[Kliq]

Their is a huge difference between the Lakers fast break and the Heat fast break. The Heat get most of their fast break points off of turnovers, but against a hyper-intelligent passing team like Boston, wouldn't that be greatly reduced, compared to playing a team like Indy? The Lakers started fast breaks out of nothing. Rambis would take the made shot, run under the rim and toss a perfect outlet to Magic and away they went. No team, except maybe the early-60s Celtics ran a break like that.

 

[Mugthis]

 
This made my day. 

 
Why?
 
Wing players are generally the fastest players with the best ball handling, best passing, most athleticism. They also tend to be the ones who steal the ball and recover long rebounds and hence be in position for the fast break.
 
And, you are aware that the game, especially the 3 pointer, has changed quite a bit, right?
 
In the 85-86 season, made 3-pointers represented about 1% of all FGA. This year, they are nearly 10%! How many made 3-point baskets off of fast breaks do you think there was in 1986? Maybe 1 every 4 games? 10? I honestly don't know. But there were less than 1 made 3 pointer (of any kind) per game in 1986. 

 

[Mugthis]

Their is a huge difference between the Lakers fast break and the Heat fast break. The Heat get most of their fast break points off of turnovers, but against a hyper-intelligent passing team like Boston, wouldn't that be greatly reduced, compared to playing a team like Indy? The Lakers started fast breaks out of nothing. Rambis would take the made shot, run under the rim and toss a perfect outlet to Magic and away they went. No team, except maybe the early-60s Celtics ran a break like that.

 
This is a difference in style, not effectiveness. This represents structural changes in the game as opposed to the Lakers' inherent fast-break superiority. I see no reason why the Heat couldn't adapt to that style of play and do similar if not superior feats. I do question the Lakers' ability to adapt to today's space-and-pace style of play. They'd still probably be great, but they'd suffer adapting more than the Heat would do the 80's style. Just like the Celtics.

 

[wutang112878]

 
This is a difference in style, not effectiveness. This represents structural changes in the game as opposed to the Lakers' inherent fast-break superiority. I see no reason why the Heat couldn't adapt to that style of play and do similar if not superior feats. I do question the Lakers' ability to adapt to today's space-and-pace style of play. They'd still probably be great, but they'd suffer adapting more than the Heat would do the 80's style. Just like the Celtics.

 
I think you missed his point that because the Heat's fast break is predicated on the turnover, as opposed to a continual Mike D'Antoni push of the pace, if they are not generating turnovers they are not going to have any fast breaks.
 
Riddle me this.  Why wouldnt the Heat struggle to adjust to a team who pushed the pace the way the Lakers did?  Where you would hit a shot and immediately would have to sprint to get back on defense.  The Heat are not accustomed to this type of track meet and even Lebron can get winded, and Wade isnt exactly Mr Durable.

 

[Mugthis]

Didn't feel like doing dissertation research, so I made this instead:
 

 

[Mugthis]

 
I think you missed his point that because the Heat's fast break is predicated on the turnover, as opposed to a continual Mike D'Antoni push of the pace, if they are not generating turnovers they are not going to have any fast breaks.
 
Riddle me this.  Why wouldnt the Heat struggle to adjust to a team who pushed the pace the way the Lakers did?  Where you would hit a shot and immediately would have to sprint to get back on defense.  The Heat are not accustomed to this type of track meet and even Lebron can get winded, and Wade isnt exactly Mr Durable.

 
It's a fair point. The Heat (especially Wade), are shitty/lazy at transition D. 

 

[lars10]

 
I think you missed his point that because the Heat's fast break is predicated on the turnover, as opposed to a continual Mike D'Antoni push of the pace, if they are not generating turnovers they are not going to have any fast breaks.
 
Riddle me this.  Why wouldnt the Heat struggle to adjust to a team who pushed the pace the way the Lakers did?  Where you would hit a shot and immediately would have to sprint to get back on defense.  The Heat are not accustomed to this type of track meet and even Lebron can get winded, and Wade isnt exactly Mr Durable.

 

Let alone the Celtics..who routinely inbounded the ball at a fast pace after a made basket... Bird always tried to catch DJ or Ainge sneaking out after a made or missed three...  It's all over the video I posted earlier.  That's something that doesn't exist nearly as much in today's game.
 
edit: accidental double quote

 

[Mugthis]

Same thing, but all relative to one another.
 

 

[Mugthis]

Let alone the Celtics..who routinely inbounded the ball at a fast pace after a made basket... Bird always tried to catch DJ or Ainge sneaking out after a made or missed three...  It's all over the video I posted earlier.  That's something that doesn't exist nearly as much in today's game.
 
edit: accidental double quote

 
One thing that should be noted is that the Heat (and the Spurs, and Rivers' Celtics) all deemphasized offensive rebounds in favor transition D. In this sense, the Lakers and Celtics may have some issues. 

 

[wutang112878]

Do the Heat de-emphasize defensive rebounding too?  Because they were 30th in both offensive and defensive rebounding this year.
 
Help me reconcile these:
 

 
One thing that should be noted is that the Heat (and the Spurs, and Rivers' Celtics) all deemphasized offensive rebounds in favor transition D. In this sense, the Lakers and Celtics may have some issues. 

 

 
It's a fair point. The Heat (especially Wade), are shitty/lazy at transition D. 

 
So does it really matter if they emphasize something they suck at?

 

[Mugthis]

I just think it's more accurate to say they have lapses on transition D but are good overall. In other words, they are high variance when it comes to transition D. I'm not actually sure this is true, but it seems reasonable. 

 

[ivanvamp]

Just a reminder:  The Heat would have absolutely no answer for this:
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdtgUOiWHJg
 
No, Bosh couldn't defend that.  Nor could Anderson.  Nor could LeBron.  Some of the most talented 7-footers the league has seen (Olajuwan, Sampson, Ewing, etc.) couldn't defend him in the post.  The Heat would have to commit multiple defenders to him, which frees up Bird and Ainge and Wedman to bomb away.

 

[CantKeepmedown]

It's amazing how a simple up and under was so effective back then.  McHale was a machine.  Lanky as hell around the basket and could even shoot a 15-20 footer quite comfortably. 

 

[wutang112878]

Its really a great example on how players can model their games.  McHale had 3 main moves as I remember.  The 'face up, just barely scoot past you for a layup/mini hook', the 'face up, do the up and act as if you are doing the scoop under, then execute the under' and the 'fade away' which he didnt go to often but used it and was effective with it just enough so that defenders couldnt play completely up on him.  Even though none of them looked like amazing athletic feats, the combination of those 3 moves and keeping the defender guessing and just barely off balance even though he was so close is what made the guy an unstoppable force in the post.

 

[ivanvamp]

I remember McHale's best moves being:
 
1.  The fadeaway (as Johnny Most used to call it, the "Pumpkin")
2.  The up-and-under…fake on the fadeaway, then step through
3.  The jump hook
 
But he had so many more moves.
 
Interestingly enough, he was so dominant a low post scorer and he never used his left hand.  
 
More to my point:  There is not a player on the current Heat roster that would have a prayer of stopping McHale.  

 

[Just a bit outside]

I think the matchup would be okay, all things considered, save for one major factor:
 
Spacing. The 85-86 Celtics were almost entirely a two-point shooting team, with only Bird and Ainge taking a significant number of threes. The Heat feature five players, including four of their starters, that shoot three pointers more often than the Celtics do. This would put a ton of stress of the Celtics' D, and having a rangy center like Bosh on the court would really take Parish out of his element.
 

Don't you think that this may be a product of the era.  These players didn't grow up with the 3-point shot and therefore didn't practice like today's players.  I feel that guys like Ainge, Bird, Wedman, and Sichting would all be good, high volume 3-point shooters if they grew up with the 3-point line and the game was played like it is today.

 

[Bernie Carbohydrate]

 
 
Also, Bird was/is a far better leader than Lebron. Let's go back to the 2010 Eastern Finals, were LeBron turned invisible when his team needed him most. Bird would have never, ever, done that at any point in his career. Lebron has matured greatly since he came to Miami and I doubt we will see a performance like that again, but when comparing their two careers, that is an ugly black mark on his resume.
 

 
I disagree.  Larry came up small vs. the Bucks in the 83 playoffs.  He was annoyed with coach Bill Fitch and sulked (Kobe style) for half the season.  When they playoffs came around the Celts beat Atlanta 2-1 despite Larry shooting an atrocious .403 from the floor.  Cedric Maxwell has an good series, but Bird wasn't anyone's MVP.
 
In the second round when they faced Milwaukee, Larry went 7-17 from the floor in game one (Celtics loss), 10-22 in game two (Celtics loss), and 9-20 in game three (the Celtics were finished, since it was a 5-game series). Like the 2010 Cavs, the 83 Celts were supposed to roll over their opponents. Getting swept by the Bucks?  Why didn't Bird put the Celtics on his back and will them to win?  He was "never, ever" invisible, right?
 
Luckily Larry didn't have the team owner calling him out in the press for being a quitter after the playoff exit.

 

[wutang112878]

Don't you think that this may be a product of the era.  These players didn't grow up with the 3-point shot and therefore didn't practice like today's players.  I feel that guys like Ainge, Bird, Wedman, and Sichting would all be good, high volume 3-point shooters if they grew up with the 3-point line and the game was played like it is today.

 
Larry, Danny and Wedman no doubt, they were career 37.6%, 37.8%, and 33.5% 3pt shooters respectively.  I dont know about Sichnting for his career he shot 27%, not sure if he really had the range and size (he was 6 1) needed to be a good 3pt shooter.

 

[Kliq]

The only guy that could defend McHale one-on-one in NBA history just happened to be Mychal Thompson. Thompson roomed with McHale in college and was the only guy that knew all of his moves. What a coup that was for the Lakers.

 

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

I think the defenses would be surprisingly ineffective against each other.  The Pacers showed how much trouble MIA has against teams with competent inside games, and the Cs aren't liable to throw away five possessions a half.
 
However, the Cs simply couldn't guard the 3-point line.  In 1986, they hadn't realized how important the 3-ball was.
 
Cs score more baskets; MIA scores more points.
 

 
I disagree.  Larry came up small vs. the Bucks in the 83 playoffs.  He was annoyed with coach Bill Fitch and sulked (Kobe style) for half the season.  When they playoffs came around the Celts beat Atlanta 2-1 despite Larry shooting an atrocious .403 from the floor.  Cedric Maxwell has an good series, but Bird wasn't anyone's MVP.

 
I don't know if 1983 was a good example.  IIRC, the buzz was that the Cs hated Fitch and wanted him gone.  Too bad we didn't have the internet back then; that would have made for great fodder.  Plus, Bird has a dislocated finger on his shooting hand and had the flu too.

 

[bosockboy]

Celts had a much better bench. Walton was so good in '86.

 

[RetractableRoof]

The Celtics were facing the Lakers in 86 with all their athletes and were forced as much as possible to play disciplined team defense (including transition defense).  I find it amusing to hear that they wouldn't have the ability to defend the Heat and their 3 point shooting.  The passing that was going on by the Celtics (& Lakers) would have shredded the Heat - they don't play nearly a good enough half court defense.  The only current team passing in any way near a similar way is the Spurs - and they aren't bringing the roster the 86 Celtics did.  McHale would have shredded the Heat inside - they could have fed him all game long - easily 40+ points a game if necessary just because no one on the Heat could have guarded him.  The fast break of the Celtics would have forced the Heat to defend the transition - which they already don't do much of.  The Heat would be expending so much energy on defense, they aren't deep enough to spell James in that situation.  The Celtics would be able to spread the defense of James around a number of players (people forget the quality of defense DJ brought even that late in his career) - and Lebron might well have a Jordanesque 50-60 himself - but the Celtics would still win as a team.  The two biggest concerns of the Celtics I could see would be DJ being able to consistently make the outside shot to prevent the Heat from sagging on defense, and a potential foul discrepancy with the Jordan rules crap that Lebron gets away with.  If Bird/McHale/Parish got treated with the same respect from the referees they would be entitled to, then fouls wouldn't be that big of a deal.  Oh and after all that I didn't mention that Walton was still coming off the bench to be guarded by... ?
 
I've given this some thought... who to ask that might have a perspective and with no axe to grind and might provide an informed answer.  If you ask Bird or the Celtics you get a biased response.  If you ask Magic/Jordan you might get a biased old-school bias.  I think the person/people to ask would be a coach of some sort like Chuck Daley [RIP] (though not Riley I guess).  Maybe Phil though I'm not sure he'd give a straight answer.  Maybe Popovich in San Antonio.  Someone who either played or coached against the 80's team and is still involved enough to be breaking down film of the current teams.  Anyone heard of an opinion from someone in that group?

 

[lars10]

Having watched this first half...McHale would have dominated...the Heat go for a ton of head fakes.
 
Spurs seem to set up a lot higher though...From those clips it looks like McHale set up much lower than Duncan.

 

[lars10]

I've given this some thought... who to ask that might have a perspective and with no axe to grind and might provide an informed answer.  If you ask Bird or the Celtics you get a biased response.  If you ask Magic/Jordan you might get a biased old-school bias.  I think the person/people to ask would be a coach of some sort like Chuck Daley [RIP] (though not Riley I guess).  Maybe Phil though I'm not sure he'd give a straight answer.  Maybe Popovich in San Antonio.  Someone who either played or coached against the 80's team and is still involved enough to be breaking down film of the current teams.  Anyone heard of an opinion from someone in that group?

Isaiah?, Barkley?

 

[The_Powa_of_Seiji_Ozawa]

so Lebron's superior physicality and conditioning in crunch time is predicated on the stadium's air conditioning functioning? I'll take Bird, thanks.

 

[riboflav]

so Lebron's superior physicality and conditioning in crunch time is predicated on the stadium's air conditioning functioning? I'll take Bird, thanks.

 
You must not have read the game thread where it was argued that leg cramps are as bad as, if not worse, than ACL injuries. 

 

[luckiestman]

 
You must not have read the game thread where it was argued that leg cramps are as bad as, if not worse, than ACL injuries. 

 
not quite what i said. i said you can actually play on a leg without an acl easier than you can on a cramping muscle. ive been in the room for plenty of acl pops where the guys screamed then thinks he is ok until the mri confirmed the injury.
 
you just cant physically move well on a cramped muscle.  it isnt a worse injury than an acl tear

 

[luckiestman]

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2009/11/no_ligaments_no_problem.html
 
Blair is not the first professional athlete to play with a missing ACL. In 2008, San Diego Chargers quarterback Philip Rivers blew out his right knee but played with a completely nonfunctional ACL in a conference championship game against the New England Patriots. The Chargers lost, and Rivers underwent an extensive reconstructive operation. Pittsburgh Steelers wide receiver Hines Ward is missing the ACL in his left knee—the result of a bike accident during childhood. Like Blair, he didn't realize the deficiency until he left college to go professional.

 

[lars10]

 
not quite what i said. i said you can actually play on a leg without an acl easier than you can on a cramping muscle. ive been in the room for plenty of acl pops where the guys screamed then thinks he is ok until the mri confirmed the injury.
 
you just cant physically move well on a cramped muscle.  it isnt a worse injury than an acl tear

Yeah adrenalin kicks in so people think they're fine so they keep playing sometimes doing more damage to cartilage or other ligaments.
 
Still can't quite figure out why LeBron keeps having this problem with cramping though...and only in the Finals?  (Haven't heard of it in other games).  Seems like something he should prep for given he's had this problem before.
 
Edit:  Apparently this is the third year in a row?  Once in '12, once in '13 in game 1 and now again in '14 in game 1?
 
Edit2: so this is a thing now? http://thatnbalotterypick.com/lebroning-has-turned-into-an-nba-finals-cramping-meme/

 

[luckiestman]

Yeah adrenalin kicks in so people think they're fine so they keep playing sometimes doing more damage to cartilage or other ligaments.
 
Still can't quite figure out why LeBron keeps having this problem with cramping though...and only in the Finals?  (Haven't heard of it in other games).  Seems like something he should prep for given he's had this problem before.
 
Edit:  Apparently this is the third year in a row?  Once in '12, once in '13 in game 1 and now again in '14 in game 1?

 
 
its very weird. ive only seen cramping regularly with guys cutting weight and practicing (wrestling/grappling). 

 

[luckiestman]

#Lebroning is funny but I remember the last time Leron got killed "good job, good effort" and I also remember what happened in game 6. Spurs best be ready

 

[lars10]

#Lebroning is funny but I remember the last time Leron got killed "good job, good effort" and I also remember what happened in game 6. Spurs best be ready

ugh.  A game 6 that should never have happened.

 

[OCST]

The only guy that could defend McHale one-on-one in NBA history just happened to be Mychal Thompson. Thompson roomed with McHale in college and was the only guy that knew all of his moves. What a coup that was for the Lakers.

 
I seem to remember Charles Barkley saying that Kevin McHale was the toughest player to defend that he ever played against.

 

[Mugthis]

Making me look stupid, Bron Bron.

 

[riboflav]

That must have some adrenaline rush Mankins had for the entire season (five months) on a torn ACL. 

 

[lars10]

That must have some adrenaline rush Mankins had for the entire season (five months) on a torn ACL. 

I only meant initially..it makes you think that maybe you're ok and nothing is wrong.  It is possible to play with a torn ACL I've read... don't believe there is pain associated with it... just a loss of knee stability.

 

[PedroKsBambino]

I think the matchup would be okay, all things considered, save for one major factor:
 
Spacing. The 85-86 Celtics were almost entirely a two-point shooting team, with only Bird and Ainge taking a significant number of threes. The Heat feature five players, including four of their starters, that shoot three pointers more often than the Celtics do. This would put a ton of stress of the Celtics' D, and having a rangy center like Bosh on the court would really take Parish out of his element.
 
The Celtics have some advantages offensively, foremost among them size. Bosh is fairly weak for a center, especially in the traditional sense, and Parish (or even McHale at PF) would be able to overpower him in the low post pretty often. That means the Heat would have to play one of their stronger, but suckier guys like Haslem or Andersen. 
 
But the Heat advantage on the other end is too much. If the Celtics cant force the Heat to play big, then it's Parish, not McHale, who is forced to wander away from the basket and defend Bosh. You then might see McHale on James -- and Bird on Rashard Lewis, or whomever the Heat start at the other forward position.

 
I see the same challenges, but don't understand how you get to that outcome.  
 
At one end, the Celtics are going to get a TON of easy shots in the paint from all three forwards, and they are going to win (likely decisively, though athleticism of Heat helps some) on the boards, and they are going to cause major foul trouble for Miami's bigs.  Walton is also a gigantic advantage---he is the Celts third big and he'd be the best rebounder and interior defender on the Heat by a large margin.  Even in the world of three pointers,  I'm not sure how the Heat make up for that gap inside.
 
At the other end, I agree the Heat will get some threes, and the wings are going to get a lot of good looks, but they also are facing a team with rim protectors as good (likely better) than any team the Heat have run into.  Those Celtics teams were stuck with different defensive rules, and while that hardly makes up for having weaker defensive players, it does help.   I also wonder a little about the matchups here---certainly a theory that McHale does a lot of reps on Lebron, but I think they'd go with McHale on Bosh (negating much of what Bosh does), DJ on Wade (which would be a good matchup for Celtics), and Ainge and Parish shading to Lebron's side to help Bird.   If that's the setup, I much prefer Celts offensive matchups to Heat's.    Especially since it's just unrealistic to expect Bosh to make it more than 25 minutes a game without fouling out against McHale, and he's going to put up 40 a game against anyone else the Heat have.
 
As to the threes, there is a little of a question about eras, too, that I would argue you are misinterpreting.  The Heat hit far more threes than the 1986 Celtics did (by a factor of 5x!), but that's most about era not capabilities.   The average team hit 77 threes in 1986, the league high was 141, and the Celts had 138.  Considering the Celtics average margin of victory and lack of close games, and their league-leading 3p% (.351), easy to conclude they were the best team in the league from 3.  
 
In contrast, the Heat hit more in absolute numbers, but were only 14th in the league in threes hit this year, and shot them at essentially the same rate as the Celtics (.364).   All that is to say that put in the same context style-wise (as the hypothetical assumes) I think the data suggests the Celts would be a much better three-point shooting team, and they are also the better passing team, and so the spacing argument cuts clearly and meaningfully in the other direction here....unless we assume teams do not adjust to era/style at all, which seems silly to me.  
 
If the Heat are losing badly inside and losing outside, I just don't see the case for them overall.   They are more athletic and Lebron is a huge matchup problem, but the 86 Celtics beat Jordan who was a matchup problem too.  If one looks at the players based on how they played their contemporaries the Celtics should win this in 5-6 games; if we grant that the Heat play in a more athletic and physical era and credit that, they certainly push it to 6.
 
I think this year's Spurs team is a tougher matchup for Celtics than the Heat would be, because they can compete with the size.

 

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

 
At the other end, I agree the Heat will get some threes, and the wings are going to get a lot of good looks, but they also are facing a team with rim protectors as good (likely better) than any team the Heat have run into.  Those Celtics teams were stuck with different defensive rules, and while that hardly makes up for having weaker defensive players, it does help.   I also wonder a little about the matchups here---certainly a theory that McHale does a lot of reps on Lebron, but I think they'd go with McHale on Bosh (negating much of what Bosh does), DJ on Wade (which would be a good matchup for Celtics), and Ainge and Parish shading to Lebron's side to help Bird.   If that's the setup, I much prefer Celts offensive matchups to Heat's.    Especially since it's just unrealistic to expect Bosh to make it more than 25 minutes a game without fouling out against McHale, and he's going to put up 40 a game against anyone else the Heat have.
 
As to the threes, there is a little of a question about eras, too, that I would argue you are misinterpreting.  The Heat hit far more threes than the 1986 Celtics did (by a factor of 5x!), but that's most about era not capabilities.   The average team hit 77 threes in 1986, the league high was 141, and the Celts had 138.  Considering the Celtics average margin of victory and lack of close games, and their league-leading 3p% (.351), easy to conclude they were the best team in the league from 3.  
 
In contrast, the Heat hit more in absolute numbers, but were only 14th in the league in threes hit this year, and shot them at essentially the same rate as the Celtics (.364).   All that is to say that put in the same context style-wise (as the hypothetical assumes) I think the data suggests the Celts would be a much better three-point shooting team, and they are also the better passing team, and so the spacing argument cuts clearly and meaningfully in the other direction here....unless we assume teams do not adjust to era/style at all, which seems silly to me.  

 
It's not really a question of adjusting for styles; teams are just built differently here.   In 1986, teams were built with the three as an afterthought.  Current teams are built with the three as the major focus.
 
Would the Cs be able to defend the high PnR with three pointers spaced all over the floor?  i tend to doubt it, particularly since LeBron is such a match-up problem for them and would require lots of help.  And unlike modern teams, the Cs weren't built with the idea that you could play one big man and four shooters.

 

[PedroKsBambino]

 
It's not really a question of adjusting for styles; teams are just built differently here.   In 1986, teams were built with the three as an afterthought.  Current teams are built with the three as the major focus.
 
Would the Cs be able to defend the high PnR with three pointers spaced all over the floor?  i tend to doubt it, particularly since LeBron is such a match-up problem for them and would require lots of help.  And unlike modern teams, the Cs weren't built with the idea that you could play one big man and four shooters.

Don't see how your explanation is anything other than an acknowledgement that it is exactly a style question, though.  Think about it---it is not as if teams in 1986 were unable to shoot a three.
 
What you're arguing is that the sets they ran then were not focused on creating three point opportunities and today they are; I agree with that.  But that certainly doesn't mean that if the teams played right now the 1986 Celtics would do everything exactly the same (nor that the Heat would).   To make the case the Celtics would have had a lot less spacing you need to be able to demonstrate the Celtics weren't able to hit three points shots, and the data suggests just the opposite. That's what I mean about it being silly to assume teams don't change when we have two different eras playing each other...we can say that they lack capabilities, but not that the way they deploy those capabilities wouldn't change.   There are PLENTY of teams from 1986 who simply couldn't hit three pointers---the Celtics just aren't one of them.
 
I agree the high pick and roll is an issue; however, the Heat are going to get destroyed inside and on the boards so I'd take my chances trading those for Lebron off the pick and roll.     The Heat do not shoot threes more accurately (and relative to era they shoot them less accurately), and while one can try to argue they shoot so many more that we should credit that difference, it's by no means clear that is a reasonable way to interpret the data.  So while the Heat can put four shooters and a big on the floor, they are not a great three point shooting team and the Celtics would shoot about 70% off of that unit, wouldn't they?  You've got three Celtics on the floor who the Heat can't really guard in the post and two of them have a smaller guy on them on top of that? I doubt the Heat would even try that for anything other than a desparation change-of-pace.  If this year's Pacers can give the Heat problems with size, isn't it very obvious what would happen here?  The Heat of a couple years ago would be more interesting too watch, though don't know that the outcome would be different.
 
The 1986 Celtics are one of the handful of best teams in NBA history, with a very strong argument for being the best.  This year's Heat team is great, but c'mon...they aren't even as good as last year's Heat team.   Celts point differential was 9.4 points; Heat was only 4.8 this year.  I can't see the case for the Heat on this unless someone believes NBA players have improved something like 33% since 1986...and if that's the discussion, we should look at that question directly.   If we're really talking 'best LBJ Heat team' that too is a little more interesting question.

 

[wutang112878]

 
It's not really a question of adjusting for styles; teams are just built differently here.   In 1986, teams were built with the three as an afterthought.  Current teams are built with the three as the major focus.
 
Would the Cs be able to defend the high PnR with three pointers spaced all over the floor?  i tend to doubt it, particularly since LeBron is such a match-up problem for them and would require lots of help.  And unlike modern teams, the Cs weren't built with the idea that you could play one big man and four shooters.

 
These are really 2 different styles of play but if we look at some big picture numbers there is some evidence of how dominant the Celtics were and why even if some of that dominance is lost because they cant play the Heats style its still going to be competitive.
 
First is the point spread, Celts averaged 111.8 and their opponents averaged 102.6 spread of 9.2  Lets use last years #s for the Heat since they were better, they averaged 102.9 and opponents averaged 95 so a 7.9 spread, but some of that is because of the Celts faster style of play.  Offensively they had comparable turnover and FT/FGA numbers, but lets look at eFG% and ORB%.  Celts were 51.8% and 31.3% respectively, while the Heat were 55.4% and 20.6%  So the Heat will get more points per individual shot, but the Celts ORB% is more than going to compensate for that because for every possession they are going to create 10% more possessions with their rebounds.
 
So the next issues is the 3s and we think of it as a huge concern but I think we might be overstating it.  The Heats 2pt & 3pt FG% was 53.6% & 39.6% respectively or (ignoring FTs) 1.072 points per shot on 2s and 1.188 on 3s.  The Heat took 22.1 3s a game so they scored 2.5 more points per game taking 3s than their 2s.  So I would argue guarding their 2s is just as important as guarding their 3s, and if you stop the 2s and make the drive and kick out strategy a little less effective that might compensate for any issues they had with pick and rolls and defending the 3 point line in general.
 
 
Its going to be an incredible match-up because it will really come down to 'who can impose their style of play onto the game' which is why I dont think there is a definitive winner.  I do think the Celts would win because I am biased toward them, but I just cant believe they have no shot at competing with the Heat

 

[Mugthis]

Don't see how your explanation is anything other than an acknowledgement that it is exactly a style question, though.  Think about it---it is not as if teams in 1986 were unable to shoot a three.
 
What you're arguing is that the sets they ran then were not focused on creating three point opportunities and today they are; I agree with that.  But that certainly doesn't mean that if the teams played right now the 1986 Celtics would do everything exactly the same (nor that the Heat would).   To make the case the Celtics would have had a lot less spacing you need to be able to demonstrate the Celtics weren't able to hit three points shots, and the data suggests just the opposite. That's what I mean about it being silly to assume teams don't change when we have two different eras playing each other...we can say that they lack capabilities, but not that the way they deploy those capabilities wouldn't change.   There are PLENTY of teams from 1986 who simply couldn't hit three pointers---the Celtics just aren't one of them.
 
I agree the high pick and roll is an issue; however, the Heat are going to get destroyed inside and on the boards so I'd take my chances trading those for Lebron off the pick and roll.     The Heat do not shoot threes more accurately (and relative to era they shoot them less accurately), and while one can try to argue they shoot so many more that we should credit that difference, it's by no means clear that is a reasonable way to interpret the data.  So while the Heat can put four shooters and a big on the floor, they are not a great three point shooting team and the Celtics would shoot about 70% off of that unit, wouldn't they?  You've got three Celtics on the floor who the Heat can't really guard in the post and two of them have a smaller guy on them on top of that? I doubt the Heat would even try that for anything other than a desparation change-of-pace.  If this year's Pacers can give the Heat problems with size, isn't it very obvious what would happen here?  The Heat of a couple years ago would be more interesting too watch, though don't know that the outcome would be different.
 
The 1986 Celtics are one of the handful of best teams in NBA history, with a very strong argument for being the best.  This year's Heat team is great, but c'mon...they aren't even as good as last year's Heat team.   Celts point differential was 9.4 points; Heat was only 4.8 this year.  I can't see the case for the Heat on this unless someone believes NBA players have improved something like 33% since 1986...and if that's the discussion, we should look at that question directly.   If we're really talking 'best LBJ Heat team' that too is a little more interesting question.

 
You're basically giving the Celtics an adjustment for era (they'd adapt to the modern 3-point game) but not the Heat (they couldn't adapt to the 80's post and midrange game). 

 

[PedroKsBambino]

 
You're basically giving the Celtics an adjustment for era (they'd adapt to the modern 3-point game) but not the Heat (they couldn't adapt to the 80's post and midrange game). 

 
How so?  I have said nothing at all like the Heat failing to adjust to changes that I'm aware of.  What do you think suggests otherwise?
 
Capability and frequency are very different things when projecting changes, I think.  The suggestion the Celtics wouldn't/couldn't shoot more threes seems contrary to the data we have.  

 

[reggiecleveland]

Those discussing style are correct. The Heat's athleticism on the perimeter expose the weakest part of the Celtics, and the dominant front line of the Celtics puts pressure on the Heat's weak forwards.
 
I pick the Celtics, because like many GOAT team candidates they have more than one great player at or near peak. McHAle was mpore of the focus of the O later, but it is hard to argue he or Parish were much better at any other time. Bird was clearly at his peak. Lebron is at his peak, but Wade is not. Bosch may be at his peak but McHale was a much better player. Lebron may be better than Bird, may be, but he would at the very least have his hands full with 86 Bird. The Celtics front line depth would just wear them out. Your second big guy is Birdman, then you have zombie Oden and 5 rebound a game Rashard Lewis? Look what they did to Ralph and Hakeem.
 
The 85 or 87 Celtics were missing a healthy Walton and did not have the shear numbers up front the to be as dominant. I am not sure the Celtics beat the Heat with any other Bird era teams but in 86 they win.

 

[wutang112878]

 
You're basically giving the Celtics an adjustment for era (they'd adapt to the modern 3-point game) but not the Heat (they couldn't adapt to the 80's post and midrange game). 

 
On this specifically the point is that the Heat dont have a single player who could guard McHale one on one without getting absolutely shredded.  That has nothing to do with what era they played in.

 

[ivanvamp]

I'm sure Miami would have doubled McHale, not only because they would have needed to in order to prevent him from putting up 50, but also because their superior athleticism meant that they probably could stand a decent chance to rotate fast enough off those double teams.

This is where the Celtics' passing expertise would have to come into play.

 

[RetractableRoof]

Saying that Miami would have double teamed McHale is one thing. Saying it would be effective is another. Watch the clip above... it wasn't simply a highlight clip. It was him night in and night out that season. Single team, double team, triple team... it didn't matter. The reason he didn't score 30 a game is because the team didn't ask him to. His nickname was the black hole... it went in to him and didn't come back out. That Celtics team could beat you 10 different ways. They passed the ball until they got the matchup they wanted or could exploit and then they finished. If the ball went into McHale he was going to score or miss the double team wasn't going to matter. Teams tried to beat him by doubling early. That is why Parish got so many <5 ft bunnies.

Those Celtics eschewed the very stats people used to compare them to others. Bird left one game early in the 3rd quarter during a blowout. They realized he was 1 or 2 steals from a quadruple double and asked him to come back in. He refused to pad his numbers that way. That season they blew teams out and sat the bench instead of padding the numbers.

There are lots of times that people inflate the deeds of old teams to unrealistic proportions. This isn't one of those times. Bosh would be the 4th best big man on that Celtics team.