NBA: Boston Celtics 1985-86
buy bestselling dvd movies, videos find reviews, ratings, prices
|
 |
List Price: $49.98
Our Price:
$34.99
You Save: $14.99
Features
• Box set
• Closed-captioned
• Color
• DVD-Video
• Widescreen
• NTSC |
| [ + Zoom ] [ Buy Now ] |
DVD : Not yet released |
|
NBA: Boston Celtics 1985-86 Customer Reviews
|
|
|
|
♥♥♥♥♥ |
A GREAT TEAM, BUT...THE GREATEST???
|
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.
Some Boston fans have said that if this team would not have been so bored, they would have been the first team to win 70 games (not the Bulls). There have also been several arguments about which team is better, the '86 Celtics or the '96 Bulls. Bill Walton wrote in response to this: "granted Michael Jordan is a pretty good player, but Dennis Johnson is someone you would want on your team in a big game." To sum up these ridiculous statements of 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(who was returning from a broken foot injury). In the first two games of the playoffs, Jordan scored 112 points against those Celtics. That's not bad for a terrible Bulls team with no other go to guys. I wonder what could have happened if the Bulls would have actually had some other pieces to their dynasty, including a Jordan in CHAMPIONSHIP form.
Next, comes the argument that the competition in '86 was so much better than in '96. It was probably better, but was it really THAT much better? There were the same number of losing teams (13) in both seasons. There were 6 teams in '86 with 50 or more wins. In '96 there were more (7). There were only 2 teams in '86 with 60 or more wins (The Celtics were one of them and did NOT face in the other in the playoffs). In '96 there were 3 teams with 60 or more wins (the Bulls were one of them and they beat the other TWO in the playoffs).
Now, let's look at Finals opponents. There were so many other opponents in Finals history that were better than what Boston had to face. The Houston Rockets won only 51 games and just happened to get hot at the right time (it took Boston six games to shake them). In fact, the same can be said about Bird's first Finals win. The '81 Rockets, who took the Celtics to six games, were only 40-42. When it took the Celtics 7 games in '84 to beat the Lakers, it was because the Lakers beat themselves (the Lakers held leads in the final seconds of 2 games, then stupidly threw the ball away). ALL of the other champions of the 80s had to face better, and more exciting Finals opponents (look up their records to start with). Then, you can look at the '96 Bulls. They faced a Seattle team that won 64 games. The next season the Bulls also faced a 64 win team that was on a roll (the Jazz, who hold the record for the most wins in a second half of a season).
It's not necessarily fair to look at the high number of points that the Celtics let their opponents score that season, compared to some other eras. Everyone was scoring more in the 80s, even the bad teams. However, there were other teams with a better point differential than the '86 Celtics, who beat opponents by 9.4 points per game. For example, the '71 Bucks were at 12.2, the '72 Lakers had 12.3, and the '96 Bulls had 12.2. Offensively, there were SEVERAL other championship teams that could score more than Boston.
When comparing championship teams, one usually has to look at overall records. That does not always tell the whole story, but it's a good indicator of what category a team could be placed in. The fact is, there were other championship teams with better regular season records than that Celtics team, who won 67 games. There were also SEVERAL other champions with better playoff records. To say coulda, shoulda, woulda (in regards to something like winning 70 games) does not hold up very well.
In summary, the '86 Celtics were ONE of the NBA's greatest teams. It's very hard to compare eras anyway, especially the oldest decades. Looking at the past 25 years though, one could make a case for a few other teams to be called the GREATEST. The '83 Sixers, the '87 Lakers and the '96 Bulls should all be considered just as good or better than the '86 Celtics. |
|
NBA: Boston Celtics 1985-86 dvd movie.