How do this year's Celtics compare to previous Finals finalists

[Dino Pitino]

Hard to compare the Celtics to many or any Finals winners, because except for the '04 or '89-90 Pistons there aren't any championship teams in recent superstar-centric history we compare well with. But I have a feeling we might compare better to Finals runnersup in recent history who might have won in some other, lesser year had they faced a team in the Finals other than the dynastic buzzsaw they lost to. In particular, I am curious how we compare this year to teams like the '96 Sonics, '99 Knicks, '01 Sixers, and '03 Nets. Finalists who put up a decent fight relative to their upper-echelon opponent and whose strengths were guards and defense.

G Isaiah, Rozier
G Bradley, Smart
F Crowder, Brown
F Amir, Olynyk
C Horford

G Payton, McMillan
G Hawkins, Askew
F Schrempf
F Kemp
C Perkins, Johnson

G Kidd, Harris
G Kittles
F Jefferson, Rogers
F Kenyon, Williams
C Collins, Mutombo

G Ward, Childs
G Houston
F Sprewell
F LJ, Thomas
C Camby, Dudley

G Iverson, Snow
G McKie
F Bell
F Hill, Jones
C Mutombo

Feels good (man) to know we might have a squad comparable to some recent Finalists at their peak and yet our roster is still full of prospects yet to evolve, picks yet to mature, and cap space yet to be used.

[More Banners]

The '96 Sonics would destroy us. That I can say for sure. GP was an amazing 2-way player that could own it in so many ways, Kemp was a heck of a player before he...well, earlier in his career, and Shremph (sp?) was young but solid on both ends.

They are a good team that ran into a buzzsaw. I don't think the Nets were very good, th conference was historically bad.  The Iverson sixers might be the best comparison, and everyone knew they really weren't going to win it and should've probably been blown up.

[celticsclay]

The '96 Sonics would destroy us. That I can say for sure. GP was an amazing 2-way player that could own it in so many ways, Kemp was a heck of a player before he...well, earlier in his career, and Shremph (sp?) was young but solid on both ends.

They are a good team that ran into a buzzsaw. I don't think the Nets were very good, th conference was historically bad.  The Iverson sixers might be the best comparison, and everyone knew they really weren't going to win it and should've probably been blown up.

They should have blown up a team before it made the finals? They won 1 game against an amazing Lakers team and lost game 2 and 3 by 5 points each. Obviously they were big underdogs in finals, but blowing up a team that made it there seems like an insane suggestion.

[More Banners]

The '96 Sonics would destroy us. That I can say for sure. GP was an amazing 2-way player that could own it in so many ways, Kemp was a heck of a player before he...well, earlier in his career, and Shremph (sp?) was young but solid on both ends.

They are a good team that ran into a buzzsaw. I don't think the Nets were very good, th conference was historically bad.  The Iverson sixers might be the best comparison, and everyone knew they really weren't going to win it and should've probably been blown up.

They should have blown up a team before it made the finals? They won 1 game against an amazing Lakers team and lost game 2 and 3 by 5 points each. Obviously they were big underdogs in finals, but blowing up a team that made it there seems like an insane suggestion.

All they had was a petulant AI and role players. They weren't going anywhere. They sold tickets, sure, but couldn't improve.

[Boris Badenov]

The '96 Sonics would destroy us. That I can say for sure. GP was an amazing 2-way player that could own it in so many ways, Kemp was a heck of a player before he...well, earlier in his career, and Shremph (sp?) was young but solid on both ends.

They are a good team that ran into a buzzsaw. I don't think the Nets were very good, th conference was historically bad.  The Iverson sixers might be the best comparison, and everyone knew they really weren't going to win it and should've probably been blown up.

They should have blown up a team before it made the finals? They won 1 game against an amazing Lakers team and lost game 2 and 3 by 5 points each. Obviously they were big underdogs in finals, but blowing up a team that made it there seems like an insane suggestion.

All they had was a petulant AI and role players. They weren't going anywhere. They sold tickets, sure, but couldn't improve.

I'm with Clay if only because I just can't imagine what other team you would put around Iverson that would be better. I think that team was way more than the sum of its parts because of how all those guys fit with AI (and also a testament to Larry Brown's coaching for how he managed it all).

[Tr1boy]

Not any better ... Espcially the 60 win Hawks team

Good news... Cavs are older and dont look as good

[Donoghus]

The '96 Sonics would destroy us. That I can say for sure. GP was an amazing 2-way player that could own it in so many ways, Kemp was a heck of a player before he...well, earlier in his career, and Shremph (sp?) was young but solid on both ends.

They are a good team that ran into a buzzsaw. I don't think the Nets were very good, th conference was historically bad.  The Iverson sixers might be the best comparison, and everyone knew they really weren't going to win it and should've probably been blown up.

They should have blown up a team before it made the finals? They won 1 game against an amazing Lakers team and lost game 2 and 3 by 5 points each. Obviously they were big underdogs in finals, but blowing up a team that made it there seems like an insane suggestion.

All they had was a petulant AI and role players. They weren't going anywhere. They sold tickets, sure, but couldn't improve.

I'm with Clay if only because I just can't imagine what other team you would put around Iverson that would be better. I think that team was way more than the sum of its parts because of how all those guys fit with AI (and also a testament to Larry Brown's coaching for how he managed it all).

They took on Webber about 3 years too late.

[GC003332]

Hard to compare the Celtics to many or any Finals winners, because except for the '04 or '89-90 Pistons there aren't any championship teams in recent superstar-centric history we compare well with. But I have a feeling we might compare better to Finals runnersup in recent history who might have won in some other, lesser year had they faced a team in the Finals other than the dynastic buzzsaw they lost to. In particular, I am curious how we compare this year to teams like the '96 Sonics, '99 Knicks, '01 Sixers, and '03 Nets. Finalists who put up a decent fight relative to their upper-echelon opponent and whose strengths were guards and defense.

G Isaiah, Rozier
G Bradley, Smart
F Crowder, Brown
F Amir, Olynyk
C Horford

G Payton, McMillan
G Hawkins, Askew
F Schrempf
F Kemp
C Perkins, Johnson

G Kidd, Harris
G Kittles
F Jefferson, Rogers
F Kenyon, Williams
C Collins, Mutombo

G Starks,Childs
G Houston, Ward
F Sprewell
F LJ, Thomas
C Camby, Dudley

G Iverson, Snow
G McKie
F Bell
F Hill, Jones
C Mutombo

Feels good (man) to know we might have a squad comparable to some recent Finalists at their peak and yet our roster is still full of prospects yet to evolve, picks yet to mature, and cap space yet to be used.

For the record Starks wasn't a member of the Knicks in 1998-99 , he was with the Warriors.

[Dino Pitino]

For the record Starks wasn't a member of the Knicks in 1998-99 , he was with the Warriors.

Oops, thanks.

[PhoSita]

Here's a listing of the Offensive and Defensive Efficiency (per ESPN) of the Conference Champions for the last 10 years:

I also listed the best player for each team in parentheses.

15-16: GSW - 1st, 4th (Curry) .... CLE - 4th, 10th (LeBron)

14-15: GSW - 2nd, 1st (Curry) .... CLE - 4th, 20th (LeBron)

13-14: SAS - 6th, 4th (Kawhi) .... MIA - 2nd, 11th (LeBron)

12-13: SAS - 7th, 3rd (Duncan).... MIA - 1st, 7th (LeBron)

11-12: OKC - 2nd, 9th (Durant) .... MIA - 6th, 4th (LeBron)

10-11: DAL - 8th, 7th (Dirk) .... MIA - 3rd, 5th (LeBron)

09-10: LAL - 11th, 5th (Kobe) .... BOS - 13th, 5th (Garnett)

08-09: LAL - 3rd, 5th (Kobe) .... ORL - 8th, 1st (Howard)

07-08: LAL - 4th, 9th  (Kobe) .... BOS - 12th, 1st (Garnett)

06-07: SAS - 5th, 2nd (Duncan) .... CLE - 17th, 4th (LeBron)


Boston Celtics this year: 8th, 11th (Isaiah Thomas)


Of the teams listed, I guess the Celts are most comparable to the 2010-2011 Mavericks.  Like the Mavericks, the Celts are well above average in both offense and defense, but aren't top 5 in either category.

The other major similarity I see is that both teams relied a great deal on one elite offensive superstar to carry the team's offense, while the rest of the pieces picked up the slack in other areas.  However, Dirk had won an MVP award in the past and arguably reached a higher level in the playoffs than he ever did in the regular season.  Thomas, by comparison, is playing better in this regular season than he ever has in the past.

Unlike almost all of the other teams on the list, however, the Celts have no track record prior to this season of being a top team with the current core group.  The Mavericks had made a Finals back in 06 and won 67 games in 07.  You could say Cleveland was more or less in that position in 07, though they had at least won 50 games and a playoff series the year before.

Overall, I'd say it's a little bit of a stretch to see this Celts team making a Finals, but they do have one transcendent offensive talent in Thomas, and teams with greater flaws have made the Finals before.

[More Banners]

While we have a better future than our own 2002 team, that team was better too, and didn't make the finals.

[Dino Pitino]

While we have a better future than our own 2002 team, that team was better too, and didn't make the finals.

Not sure the '02 Celtics were better.
Why do you think they were?