|
| 
 enlarge | Actors: K.c. Jones, Larry Bird, Robert Parrish, Kevin Mchale, Dennis Johnson
Studio: WARNER HOME VIDEO
Category: DVD
List Price: $49.98
Buy New: $19.99
You Save: $29.99 (60%)
New (39) Used (9) Collectible (1) from $19.99
Rating:  8 reviews
Sales Rank: 5188
Format: Box Set, Closed-captioned, Color, Dvd-video, Ntsc, Widescreen
Language: English (Original Language)
Rating: NR (Not Rated)
Autographed: No
Memorabilia: No
Region: 1
Aspect Ratio: 1.66:1
Number Of Discs: 7
Running Time: 780 Minutes
Shipping Weight (lbs): 1
Dimensions (in): 0 x 0 x 0
MPN: TM1336
UPC: 883929009008
EAN: 0883929009008
ASIN: B0010V4VKI
Release Date: April 15, 2008
Shipping: Eligible for Super Saver Shipping
Availability: Usually ships in 24 hours
|
| Customer Reviews:
Showing reviews 6-8 of 8
 Response April 17, 2008
pete7079 (Boston)
3 out of 8 found this review helpful
While the Bulls in the 90s were exceptional they do not compare to this Celtics team. You mention about Jordans performance in the playoffs against this team. While you are correct that he scored 112 pts in two games and was unstoppable, you fail to mention that many consider those games the best Jordan ever played. He played at his best and still lost all three games. And yes the competition was superior in the 80s. The east was dominant then and these Celtics teams had to battle through the Hawks, Sixers, Bucks, Pistons etc. The Bulls of the 90s had no such competition. You can talk about records all you want. Look at the players. Offense was higher because the talent was better. Guys could actually shoot. Those good teams of the 80s were filled with all stars and hall of famers. You correctly mention that the mediocre Rockets took them to 6 games. While you are correct you fail to mention that there was a bench clearing brawl in Houston with ejections that changed the course of game 3 and helped Houston win. The 86 Celtics had 4 Hall of Famers (should be 5, D. Johnson got stiffed) and 7 players who made the all star team in their careers. All of this and they still played as a team and were considered one of the most unselfish groups of players ever. The 90s Bulls had Jordan who is amazing as we know and an overrated Pippen as we know. Rodman was a nutcase and unpredictable at this point. Guys like Cartright, Paxon, Kerr etc were role players. I find it odd that you mention the 87 Lakers as a greatest team, but shoot down this Celtics team. The 87 Lakers were incredible and it still took them 6 games and a Magic Sky Hook to beat the 87 Celtics who were decimated by injury and tragedy. Len Bias had died, Walton missed the whole season, McHale had a broken foot and Parish, Bird and Ainge were hurt. All of this and if Magic misses that sky hook it goes to 7 games and anything could have happend. Those Bull teams never played a team like those Laker and Celtic teams.
 A GREAT TEAM, BUT...THE GREATEST??? February 17, 2008
VWC (IL)
11 out of 32 found this review helpful
Hopefully, they will continue to release these NBA Finals series on DVD. Unfortunately, they usually cut the championship celebration coverage a little bit short, as well as the introduction to several games. For those interested in my opinion of where this team ranks with the greatest of all-time, read below.
When discussing historic NBA teams, many Boston fans and sports writers most always consider the 1985-86 Celtics team as the greatest of all-time. The team that they are usually the quickest to compare them to is the 1995-96 Chicago Bulls. It seems safe enough for some Celtics fans to accept other teams being ranked ahead of them on the various polls and lists of all-time greatest champions over the years. But when it comes to the Bulls being ranked ahead, they usually become very critical. Bob Ryan of the Boston Globe once said "had it only occured to the Celtics that they could have won 70 games, they would have done it (been the first to do it)...not those Bulls teams". Other Boston fans have said similar statements ("if the Celtics had not been so bored..."). When Bill Walton was asked to compare the two teams he said "granted, Michael Jordan is a pretty good player, but Dennis Johnson is a player that you wanted on your team if you were going into a big game". To sum up such arrogant and ridiculous statements from some Boston fans and former players, they sound a little jealous. First of all, nobody on that Celtics team had anyone that came CLOSE to containing Michael Jordan. In the first two games of the playoffs, Jordan scored 112 points against those Celtics. That was done by a 2nd year player returning from a broken foot injury, on a terrible Bulls team (with 37 less wins than Boston) against the so-called greatest team ever. Boston's trio of Parish, McHale and Bird is considered the greatest front line of all-time. Celtics fans argue that those players would be much too difficult for the '90s Bulls and would "dominate" them. But in the years following the '86 season while the Celtics were playing against the "Jordan/Pippen" Bulls, Boston's front line was even more productive or nearly as productive offensively (their combined numbers prove it). The only thing is, those Bulls teams still split the season series with Boston every time, BEFORE the Bulls were even a championship team. So, to discuss what WOULD HAVE happened against a Jordan/Pippen Bulls team that was finally in CHAMPIONSHIP form is useless, since it never happened. It's not safe to assume what would have or what could have happened in any contest that's never been seen, since there have been so many upsets in sports over the years. There are easier ways to judge how the 1986 Celtics stand historically against teams like the '96 Bulls, as well as other past champions. I have broken things down into numerous categories. By the way, these are not MY stats. These are official NBA stats available for anyone to research:
REGULAR SEASON RECORDS: There are 6 other championship teams in NBA history with equal or better records than the '86 Celtics (who had 67 wins) - The '96 Bulls (72 wins), '72 Lakers (69 wins), '97 Bulls (69 wins), '67 76ers (68 wins), '92 Bulls (67 wins) and the '00 Lakers (67 wins).
PLAYOFF RECORDS: The '86 Celtics went 15-3 in the post season. There are other past champions with equal or better records. The '01 Lakers went 15-1. The '89 Pistons, '91 Bulls and '99 Spurs all went 15-2. The '87 Lakers and '96 Bulls both went 15-3. Though not as many rounds were played, the '71 Bucks went 12-2 and swept the Finals. The '72 Lakers went 12-3. The '83 Sixers were 12-1 and swept the Finals. Even less games were played during earlier eras, but of note: The '50 Lakers went 10-2, and the '61 and '64 Celtics lost only 2 games (8-2).
HOME AND AWAY RECORDS: The 1986 Celtics had a 40-1 home record which is outstanding (Several other teams had only 2 losses. The '53 Lakers also had only 1 loss but played 10 less games).
However, it is more difficult to win on the road...
15 other championship teams had better road records than the '86 Celtics. This includes the '67 and '83 Sixers, '71 Bucks, '72 and '87 Lakers, '92, '96 and '97 Bulls, as well as a couple of other Boston teams from the past. Plus, the Celtics were only 5-3 on the road during the playoffs that year.
COMPETITION: This is what is talked about most often when comparing the '86 Celtics to other eras, particularly the '90s when Chicago dominated. Boston fans pick on the Bulls due to the expansion that occured during that decade and give no credit to Chicago's accomplishments because of this. By that logic, sports teams could have PERFECT regular season and playoff records, but would NEVER be given as much credit as any team that came before expansion occured. When the '07 Patriots were on the verge of possibly making history with the most wins of all-time and a perfect season, no one, including members of the '72 Dolphins, was doubting this team's place as the greatest, or at least tied for the greatest ever. This is an obvious double standard. The NFL has even more teams than the NBA due to expansion.
The competition was probably better overall in '86, but was it really THAT much better? In 1996 the league's shooting percentage was 46%. But in 1986 it was only slightly better at 48%. In fact, the '90s was the second best shooting decade in the history of the NBA. So where are the FACTS about all of the superior hot shooting the league had back in the '80s compared to the '90s?
In 1986 there were only 4 other teams in the eastern conference with winning records. That means that MORE than half of the teams in Boston's conference were LOSING teams. In 1996 MORE than half of the teams in the Bulls' conference had WINNING records. Also in '86, there were only 10 teams in the entire NBA with winning records. In '96 there were more (14). It's ironic that Boston fans make fun of Chicago's competition because of the 6 expansion teams that were added between '86 and '96. Three of those teams had a better record than one of Boston's playoff opponents in '86. And other than Philadelphia, 4 of those new teams had better records than anyone else in Boston's division in '86.
What about the top teams? There were more teams that won over 50 games in 1996 than there were in '86. In addition, there were 2 other teams (besides Chicago) to win over 60 games in '96. The Bulls defeated both of them in the playoffs. In 1986 there was only 1 other team to win at least 60 games, but Boston did not face them in the playoffs.
How about Finals competition? It took the '86 Celtics 6 games to defeat the Houston Rockets, who won a whopping 16 less games than Boston during the regular season. That's the 2nd largest difference in wins between 2 teams in an NBA Finals series over the past 30+ years. The only series worse than that over that many years was the '81 Finals, when Boston faced a below .500 team with 22 less wins. How is that considered SUPERIOR competition?
The 1996 Bulls defeated a 64 win Seattle team in 6 games. Never before or since have 2 teams with better records matched up in an NBA Finals. Chicago then beat the Jazz the following year, who also won 64 games and shot .504 from the field (nearly identical to the '86 Celtics). That Jazz team also holds the NBA record for most wins in the second half of a season.
Okay, what about the argument that Boston's eastern conference was always so much tougher than what the Lakers had to face in the west each year? During the entire decade of the 1980s, there were only 3 seasons in which the east had more winning teams than the west. Half of the times that the Lakers appeared in the western conference finals, they played a team with a better or nearly equal record than one of the opponents in the eastern finals.
The eastern conference also became much more physical and better defensively starting in the late '80s and into the '90s. Is it coincidence that Boston began to get injured and started fading when teams like the Pistons and Knicks began to rise?
The topic of the high number of individual all-stars that Boston had to face in the '80s compared to the '90s is also brought up frequently by their fans. This is another lie. During the entire 1980s the Celtics did have to face several players that made all-star teams, especially during the playoffs - 57 of them as a matter of fact. However, the Bulls faced 70 all-stars during the playoffs in the '90s.
Finally, there is the dominant center theory. How could teams like the Bulls, without a dominant center, ever beat those Celtics teams? Boston fans repeatedly ask this question. It's the same type of old school theory that once claimed that any team without a dominant center could never win an NBA championship. Well, what about some of the teams that played Boston so well in the 1980s? How about the starting center for the Sixers who knocked Boston out of the playoffs in '80 and '82? Caldwell Jones, who made 2 All-Defensive 1st teams, never made an NBA All-Star team. Luc Longley, the Bulls' starting center for their second three-peat, was taller than Caldwell, outweighed him, outscored him, and amazingly did just as well statistically in the defensive categories. What about Tree Rollins, the Hawks' starting center when they pushed Boston to 7 games in 1988 (when the Celtics still had the best record in the east)? Longley was taller, outweighed him, outscored him, and was nearly even or better in every other statistical category. Even forward/center Kevin Willis who also started for the Hawks that season (and eventually made 1 all-star team), had no OVERALL statistical advantage (during that particular season) over a center like Longley. What was Boston's reason for having to come back from a 3-2 deficit in that series against centers with Longley-like production? There were no injuries and Boston won games 6 and 7 by only 2 points. Former NBA greats like Bob Lanier, who were at the end of their careers, were still able to start at center for teams that defeated Boston in the playoffs (Bucks/1983). Longley's points per game during his 3-peat years were less than a point shy of Lanier's efforts that year. And Luc was as good as or better in all other statistical categories too. Look at another Bulls center like Dave Corzine. He was nearly the lowest scoring starting center in the NBA in 1988, but the Bulls still split the season series with Boston.
SUCCESS AGAINST RIVALS & OTHER TEAMS THAT WERE IN THEIR PEAK: Great teams are sometimes measured by how well they faired against other competitive teams that were also in their prime. The 1986 Celtics did not have to face any of the other championship franchises from that decade during the playoffs. Yet, it's Boston fans who find fault in teams like Chicago and make claims that the Bulls never defeated any other heavyweights on their way to a title. The best team that the '86 Celtics faced in the playoffs was the Milwaukee Bucks who were a consistently good team, but one that never advanced past a conference finals during that era. When Boston did have to face those other teams that won titles during any other year in the playoffs during the '80s, look at how they did:
L.A. Lakers- They beat Boston 2 out of 3 times in the Finals that decade. In fact, during the entire Magic vs. Bird era, the Lakers won the overall matchup 25 games to 18.
Philadelphia 76ers- During the Sixers' peak ('80 to '83), they faced Bird's teams 3 times. Philadelphia won 2 out of those 3 times even though Boston had home court advantage every time. It took a 1 point, game 7, home court victory for Boston to beat Philly the one year they did. In 1983 Boston could not advance far enough to even play the Sixers. This was because the Celtics were swept by the Bucks, a team with the nearly equivalent production of a Luc Longley at center, despite having home court advantage again. Boston finally won, convincingly, against a good Sixers team in '85, but one that had aged and was past their prime.
Detroit Pistons- During the Pistons' peak (roughly '87 to '91), Boston lost 3 out of 4 times to them, despite having home court advantage again twice.
Plus, the only times the Celtics did beat one of those teams, while those teams were in their peak years, it took them a full 7 games to do it.
So, when reviewing the competition that the 1980s Celtics beat in order to advance to or win an NBA Finals series, it wasn't as impressive as some may suggest:
-In the 1981 Finals, the Celtics took 6 games to beat a Houston Rockets team with a LOSING record. And besides, wasn't the "other" competition in the west supposed to be so much easier?
-In the 1984 Finals, the Celtics beat the Lakers in 7 games (The Lakers actually beat themselves. They held leads in the final seconds of 2 games, then stupidly threw the ball away). However, that Lakers team had by far the worst record of ANY Magic Johnson Lakers team to advance to an NBA Finals series.
-In 1985 Boston did beat a good Sixers squad to advance to the championship round. The Celtics had home court advantage again in the Finals though, and still lost to the Lakers, including the clinching game in Boston Garden.
-In the 1986 Finals, Boston took 6 games to beat another one-hit wonder Rockets team, winners of 16 less games than the Celtics (only 2 of those Rockets were on the roster in '81). Houston was just above .500 again the following season.
-In 1987 Boston advanced again to the Finals, by beating a good second place Pistons team (not in Boston's division) in 7 games. But again, it took a bad mistake by the other team to help Boston advance (Isiah's pass without calling time-out).
Some of the other great championship teams have defeated more notable opponents than the '86 Celtics. The '67 76ers defeated the 8-time defending champion Celtics in 5 games. The '72 Lakers defeated the defending champion Bucks, who still finished with 63 wins. Three '80s Lakers teams defeated the defending champions in the playoffs. The Sixers and Pistons of the '80s also beat defending champions to get their rings. The Bulls also swept the 2-time defending champion Pistons on the way to their first title.
If you're thinking "well, what about the other opponents during the '90s that the Bulls faced?", remember:
Teams like the New York Knicks, Seattle Supersonics, Phoenix Suns, Utah Jazz, Cleveland Cavaliers, Miami Heat and Orlando Magic ALL had the best records in the HISTORY of their franchises while they faced the Bulls in the playoffs, but the Bulls won every time (in 6 games or less). Plus, some of their other opponents like Portland were in 2 NBA Finals in 3 years and had a franchise and league best 63 wins the year in between, and the Lakers had played in 8 of the previous 11 Finals. And to those who criticize Chicago for winning during an era with no other "championship" teams to challenge them, did it ever occur to those people that the Bulls were just that dominant? What about the Celtics of the '60s? How many other champions did they have to face during the majority of their first 8 titles? This is another double standard.
OFFENSE:
-Points per game: The 1986 Celtics scored 114.1 points per game. There were 14 other championship teams that beat Boston out in that category, including every Lakers title team from '72 to '87. The '67 76ers lead the list with 125.2 points per game. Only twice did a Larry Bird-Celtics team even finish in the league's top 3 in ppg.
-Offensive Rating (available since 1977-78 season): This is how many team points were scored per 100 possessions. The '86 Celtics are 9th on the list of NBA champions at 111.8 (they were only 3rd in the league). The '87 Lakers are #1 on the list (1st in the league). 5 out of the 6 Bulls championship teams (who were also #1 in the league) are also ahead of the '86 Celtics.
-FG Percentage: The '86 Celtics, for as great as their front court was, rank only 8th all-time in field goal percentage for a championship team. The '85 Lakers are #1. In fact, all of Magic Johnson's title teams rank in the top 10. The '91 and '92 Bulls also rank ahead of the '86 Celtics. And it looks like teams after the Magic/Bird era COULD shoot after all. 8 title teams from 1990 and after are in the top 25 best shooting teams of ALL the 60+ NBA champions.
-3 Pt. Shooting: The 3-point line was not brought into the NBA until the 1980 season and was not used very often at first. So we'll never know how much this would have affected the success of some of the earlier great teams and games that did without it. The '86 Celtics rank 12th all-time for championship teams in 3 point percentage. Their rival, the Lakers from '87, rank ahead of them at #6. But the #1 championship 3 point shooting team of all-time is the '96 Bulls, the only championship team to shoot over .400 for a season. Three of those '96 Bulls, who shot regularly from the perimeter, had a better percentage than any of those '86 Celtics including Bird himself. And though Larry was thought of as the 3 point shooting champion, an even more amazing fact is that 5 of those '96 Bulls players had better CAREER 3 point shooting percentages than Bird.
-Offensive Rebounding (This stat has been kept since the 1973-74 season): Only 8 out of the 34 championship teams since this stat has been kept, have fired the ball up more than the '86 Celtics. The '85, '87 and '88 Lakers didn't even shoot that much. You would think that the '86 Celtics would have more offensive rebounds to get with so many more shot attempts, especially with having a worse field goal percentage than Magic's teams and some of those Bulls teams. But get this...The '86 Celtics rank only #24 out of those other 34 title teams in offensive rebounds. All of Magic's Lakers and all of Jordan's Bulls championship squads are among the many that had more offensive rebounds than those Celtics. The '93, '96 and '98 Bulls, as well as the '82 Lakers are all among the top 10 teams.
-Turnovers (this stat has been kept since the 1973-74 season): Something that is almost always mentioned about the '86 Celtics is how well they handled and passed the ball. But, 21 championship teams (since this stat has been kept) have all turned the ball over fewer times than Boston in '86. The '92 Bulls lead the list in fewest turnovers, with the other 5 Bulls championship teams in the top 10. All 3 Pistons, and all 4 Spurs championship squads also had fewer turnovers per game than those Celtics.
-Frontcourt/Backcourt: Parish, McHale and Bird in '86 had the all-time highest scoring starting frontcourt for a championship team (63.2 combined points per game). The next best was the '71 Bucks -Kareem, Smith and Dandridge (61.8 ppg). Hardly anyone talks about the best backcourts in NBA history though. Boston ranks with some of the lowest championship teams ever in this category offensively. Over 40 other starting backcourts from championship teams scored more points per game than Boston's in '86. Ainge and D.Johnson scored a combined 26.3 points per game. But, look at how they did compared to the #1 scoring backcourt of all-time. West and Goodrich on the '72 Lakers scored a combined 51.7 points per game. The next best was Jordan and Armstrong on the '93 Bulls (44.9).
DEFENSE:
-Points allowed per game: In '86, Boston finished 3rd in the league by allowing 104.7 points per game. But, 36 out of the other 60 championship teams in NBA history all allowed fewer points than the '86 Celtics. Only one other time did a Bird-Celtics team finish in the league's top 3 defensively.
-Defensive Rating (available since 1977-78 season): This is points allowed per 100 possessions. The '86 Celtics are only 14th on this list. The '99 Spurs are #1, while their other 3 championship teams make the top 10. Teams like the '83 Sixers and '96 Bulls are also ahead of the Celtics in this category.
Actually, only 3 times did the '80s Celtics have a player that made the NBA's 1st All-Defensive Team. Kevin McHale and Dennis Johnson both made that team in '87. But look at the other championship franchises in the '80s. The Lakers had someone nearly every year from '80 to '88 (7 times). The Sixers had a 1st Team All-Defensive player for 7 straight seasons. During four of those seasons they had at least 2 players on the list, and in '83 there were 3 Sixers to receive that honor. Detroit had 2 1st Team All-Defensive players in both '89 and '90. How do they compare to the Bulls? The Bulls had someone on that list for 11 straight seasons ('88-'98). BOTH Jordan and Pippen were 1st Team All-Defensive players in '92, '93, '96, '97, and '98. In '96 though, they actually had 3 players to receive the honor (Rodman was the other). So, in 1996 the Bulls had 3 out of the top 5 defensive players in the NBA.
-Defensive Shooting Percentage: Since this stat has been kept starting in the 1970-71 season, 26 teams have held their opponents to a lower shooting percentage than those '86 Celtics. 4 out of the 6 Bulls championship teams are among the many that rank ahead of Boston.
-Defensive Rebounding: Boston fans should be happy to know that the '86 Celtics rank #5 since this stat has been kept, starting in the 1973-74 season. But wait a minute...25 out of those other 34 teams ALLOWED fewer shot attempts from their opponents. Put it in perspective. The '86 Celtics had 4.2 more defensive rebounds per game than the '96 Bulls, but allowed 1,048 more shot attempts.
TOTAL REBOUNDS: This may be hard to believe about Boston's "greatest frontline in NBA history" from '86. But, Chicago's starting frontcourt of Longley, Rodman and Pippen averaged more rebounds per game than them in '97 (That same frontline from Chicago averaged less than 1 rebound per game shy of Boston's frontline in '96 and '98 also). With over 220 more shots missed by Boston and their opponents in '86, along with Boston's highly praised Hall of Fame dominance at those positions, you would think Boston would have a DECISIVE advantage over Chicago's frontline in that category. More myth. In fact, more than 20 other starting frontcourts from title teams outrebounded the one from Boston in '86. There were more than 20 other championship clubs that outrebounded the '86 Celtics as a team.
POINT DIFFERENTIAL AND AVERAGE MARGIN OF VICTORY: When judging who the most dominant single season teams of all-time were, you obviously would start by looking at teams that won the championship. Then, you probably have to look at the teams that had at least sole possession of the best record in the league and what their records were (some were listed in the first category). After that, you could look at how much they dominated the rest of the league each night. Point differential is the difference between points scored and points allowed. The 1986 Celtics are tied for 6th on this list of champions with a point differential of +9.4 points per game. The '67 76ers had the same number. The '71 Bucks (+12.2), '72 Lakers (+12.3), '92 Bulls (+10.4), '96 Bulls (+12.2), and '97 Bulls (+10.8) all had better point differentials than the '86 Celtics.
Then, there is the average margin of victory. The '86 Celtics are only tied for 13th on this list with a 13.0 point avg. margin. Actually, 3 other Celtics teams from the '60s are ahead of them. The '71 Bucks are #1 on the list (17.5). The '72 Lakers, '87 Lakers, '96, '97, and '92 Bulls are all in the top 10.
STAYING POWER: This is the least important factor, especially when discussing what a team did in a SINGLE season. But it helps to support the argument of how long a great team could last. The Celtics of the 1980s were always one of the top teams, but never repeated as champions. Bill Russell's Celtics obviously top this category. There were also 6 other eras of teams that won either 2 or 3 consecutive championships - the Lakers of the '50s, '80s and of this decade, the Bulls, Pistons, and even the Houston Rockets. When one takes into consideration what was at stake - the pressure to win 70 games and an NBA title - no other NBA team has ever been placed in the position that the '96 Bulls were in and been able to live up to every expectation. Then, that same core of players remarkably won 2 more in a row.
In summary, the 1986 Boston Celtics were truly ONE of the NBA's greatest teams. I guess the question is though, why have some fans declared this particular team as the SINGLE greatest in history? What do they base that on? Saying "coulda, shoulda, woulda" in regards to missed opportunities (like winning 70 games), and bragging about matchups we'll never see does not hold up very well for Celtics fans. There are several other teams with nearly equal or better accomplishments (* indicates a better feat than the '86 Celtics):
What about the '67 76ers? -68 wins*, 2 home losses and only 8 road losses*, +9.4 point differential, #1 all-time ppg. for an NBA champion*.
How about the '72 Lakers? -69 wins*, only 7 road losses*, longest winning streak in NBA history-33 games*, longest road winning streak (16 games)*, led the league with 121.0 ppg*, largest point differential of any NBA champion*, 2nd largest margin of victory in NBA history*, 12-3 in the playoffs.
Nobody talks about the '71 Bucks. -66 wins, led league with 118.4 ppg*, tied for 2nd largest point differential of all-time*, largest average margin of victory in NBA history (17.5)*, only 2 home losses, only 13 road losses*, only 2 losses in the playoffs*, swept the Finals*, 3rd longest winning streak in NBA history*.
Look at the '83 Sixers -65 wins, only 1 loss in the playoffs*, swept the defending champions in the Finals*, only 11 road losses*, 3 1st Team All-Defensive players*.
What about the Lakers of the '80s? The '87 Lakers for example, are often thought of as the best -65 wins, 15-3 in playoffs, 117.8 ppg*, #4 all-time for NBA champions in FG%*, #1 all-time offensive rating*, 6th all-time in average margin of victory*, only 13 road losses*.
Then there's the '90s Bulls. Just look at the '96 team for starters -72 wins-most in NBA history*, only 2 home losses, most road wins in NBA history*, 15-3 in playoffs, tied for 2nd all-time in point differential*, 5th all-time in average margin of victory*, longest home winning streak-44 games (dates back to end of previous season)*, #1 3 pt. shooting championship team in history*, defeated a team tied for the winningest Finals (losing) opponent in history*, #8 all-time for fewest turnovers for a champion*, 3 1st Team All-Defensive players*.
These are just a few of the teams and achievements that deserve to be mentioned on the list. It's very hard to compare eras anyway, especially the oldest decades. There are too many factors that seperate each era. After listening to many Boston fans though, the facts don't support their opinions. Webster's dictionary defines the word "legend" as a story or body of stories handed down for generations and popularly believed to have a historical basis. Another definition of the word is this: an unauthenticated story from earlier times, preserved by tradition and popularly thought to be historical. These definitions appropriately describe the 1986 Celtics. If talked about enough, fans as well as the media help to make those legends grow taller with each passing year. When examining the various categories of actual facts though, the '86 Celtics consistently rank behind other championship teams nearly every time.
And to the Celtics fans who think it's not all about stats and records when comparing greatness, why are those things recorded in the first place? Style, hustle, determination, and especially "pride" cannot be measured. But if you still want to ignore all the numbers, I guess that would include the number of championships your franchise has.
Arguably The Greatest Team to ever take the court January 31, 2008
Jack Ace Rothstein (USA)
16 out of 23 found this review helpful
I mentioned in an earlier post of the 1985 Lakers DVD that I'd pay $100 for this particular set. Luckily, the set is much less expensive. You can't see it now, but I'm salivating at just the thought of this DVD set.
The 1985-86 Boston Celtics was a team of legend. This team was built to beat the 1985 Lakers and the team responded exceptionally well. The team went 67-15 in a league that was much more competitive than in any season after 1989. This team still holds an NBA record going 40-1 at home during the regular season and with the playoffs, 50-1. If the Celtics didn't get bored so easily, this team would've been the first to win 70 games. Recently ESPN did a poll to rank the 20 greatest single season NBA teams, the 1985-86 Boston Celtics came in at #3 behind the 1971-72 Lakers (very reasonable) and the 1995-96 Bulls (completely ridiculous).
The team had Larry Bird at the peak of his MVP career, Kevin McHale dominating the low post as a now starter, Robert Parish maintaining his presence in the middle, Dennis Johnson (called the greatest player I've ever played with by Larry Bird) at the point, and the up and coming Danny Ainge. In addition, the team had recently acquired Bill Walton who won the Sixth Man of the Year in this season backing up both Parish and McHale. It also had great role players like Scott Wedman and Jerry Sichting. Finally, it had former Celtic great K.C. Jones coaching the team with the just perfect understated coaching style that worked for this particular team.
But it wasn't just the names, it was how they played together. McHale said that the greatest team is not the one with the five best players but rather the five players that play the best together. If the Lakers Showtime offense is like classical music (very precise, very timed), then the Celtics passing game would be considered more like jazz (very improvisational and tactical but in the hands of geniuses, a thing of beauty). This team could beat you in every way possible, inside, outside, a half court game, a running game, a low scoring game, or a shootout.
This set has all 6 uncut NBA Finals games on CBS from 1986 and a documentary on the 1986 season. For Rockets fans, you'll also get to see the 1986 Rockets, a team that had so much future potential but could never capitalize, with future HoF Akeem Olajuwon and potential HoF Ralph Sampson plus many of the great role players that played in the 1981 Finals such as Robert Reid. I'm pretty sure that this 1986 Rockets teams could beat any of the Rockets teams that eventually won the title considering this team beat the Showtime Lakers in 5 games.
However this set is truly for anyone who yearns to see the great teams and competitive spirit of the NBA in the 1980s. It's also for people who want to see a passing game like no other between Bird, McHale, Parish, DJ and Walton. Truly a sight to behold.
|
|
|
|
Information about prices, products, services and merchants is provided by third parties and is for informational purposes only. Basketball-shopper.com does not represent or warrant the accuracy or reliability of the information and will not be liable for any errors, omissions or delays in this information or any losses, injuries or damages arising from its display or use.
|
| |
