National Celtics discourse
- Thread starter RorschachsMask
- Start date
It’s also just a slam of the entire team, this Celtics team is miles ahead of that one.
And yeah, Tatum is much better than anyone on that team lol.
Yep. The national media, just like folks here and everywhere, have a percentage of people who simply cannot say "I was wrong". They'll say shit like this in order to cling to their bad takes like it's the remnants of an 8 ball after a long weekend.
The days of facts and honest analysis from most sports media are as bygone as black and white TV and phone booths.
Kudos to the few here and elsewhere who own up to their mistakes. They're fucking unicorns.
Kyrie seemed to think for a second before getting offended I expect it was "On a flat earth you wouldn't have fallen you would have kept travelling horizontally."
My HS french 1&2 (which took 3 years) is a little rusty..... But I think I heard "Petite Pritchard" which is awesome.
Please stop taking this guy seriously.
View: https://twitter.com/_JasonLT/status/1803954386667995237
View: https://twitter.com/_JasonLT/status/1803954386667995237
I’ve always felt Tatum & Brown were more like the Jordan/Pippen Bulls than the Spurs and don’t get the Pistons thing at all.
The Pistons comparison avoids a couple of really key points. Tatum is far better than anyone on that Pistons team (no one on that team ever even made 1st team all-NBA, while Tatum has made 3 straight), and the 24 Celtics lost a whopping 14 fewer games than the 04 Pistons, which is the difference between historically dominant and historical forgettable, at least from a statistical standpoint. Hell, part of the reason that Pistons team was such a big underdog is because even in that season, they weren't all that dominant until the year was finished (they were the 3 seed and had just the 6th most wins in the whole league).
That said, stylistically, I get it. When you're looking for deep, balanced starting 5s, that's where they start to look similar. This video was posted here a few days ago, the relevant part is just over a minute long, starting at 55 seconds in:
View: https://youtu.be/vh8IrVs6lto?si=VtGDXbvzHLmXmg_3&t=55
A lot of the national media is (and has been) using the 04 Pistons as a comparison to disparage Tatum (the 04 Pistons didn't have any superstars, which means the 24 Celtics don't have any superstars, which means Tatum isn't a superstar) and to take the entire team down a peg (that Pistons team only won a single title and that championship felt kind of fluky because their opponent was a super team that exploded in the finals, therefore this Boston team is fluky). That doesn't mean the comparison doesn't have merit, it's just not the way that some are talking about it.
I don't think I've heard anyone try to make it, but ironically the 89 Pistons might be a better comp. They were also extremely well rounded, were lead by a superstar who wasn't truly in the best player conversation, their 2nd best player was a 2-way all-star who won finals MVP, and they were dominant in both the regular season (63-19) and in the playoffs (15-2). That team won again the next year, which is probably why people don't like making the comparison. Everyone is much more comfortable thinking about this Celtics team as a one-off.
Last edited:
Tatum and Brown are both better than anyone on that Pistons team. The Pistons best player was Rasheed Wallace right?
for a generic NBA player, assuming their reaction is more reliable than fan behavior is reasonable.
for Kyrie Irving, based on his very public track record, assuming his reaction is more reliable than fan behavior is counter factual star-fucking behavior that should embarrass Breen and ABC.
that’s just the reality of Kyrie’s past behavior and as I said elsewhere, Breen should know better or should be off the air and replaced by someone with a more reality-based filter. And I like Breen—but his reaction here brings his ability to discern reality into serious question
In fairness to the Pistons, the took the Spurs to Game 7 the following season and then reached the ECF each of the succeeding three seasons. They were legit good and well-coached.
The East was also extremely weak during that period. Who was their competition? michael redd and the bucks?
They also made it to the ECF the year before they won, so 6 straight trips to the conference finals. Even in a weak east that's fairly impressive. Fair or not, if Boston doesn't win another with Tatum/Brown, they will absolutely be mentioned by many right alongside the 04 Pistons as an extremely well balanced team that made it to the final 4 a ton, and only broke through once.
I agree with most of the points about the 2003-04 Pistons: they are a good comp in terms of roster construction (I said this in a previous post too), this year's Celtics are way better, Tatum (and maybe Brown) are better than anyone on that Pistons team.
But, it's not fair to look at that entire 2003-04 season for them, because they got Rasheed Wallace at the trade deadline, he instantly had good chemistry and was instantly their 2nd best player (Billups was the best player that year). They were a much more dominant team after that trade, going 20-6 the rest of the season (63-win pace), and that includes losing their first two games after the trade. If you don't count those, they went 20-4 (68-win pace).
But, it's not fair to look at that entire 2003-04 season for them, because they got Rasheed Wallace at the trade deadline, he instantly had good chemistry and was instantly their 2nd best player (Billups was the best player that year). They were a much more dominant team after that trade, going 20-6 the rest of the season (63-win pace), and that includes losing their first two games after the trade. If you don't count those, they went 20-4 (68-win pace).
I wrote this earlier today to my brother and brother in law. Does anyone disagree with any of these points?
i think i can sum up this discussion in 4 points.
1) objectively / statistically it was one of the 5-10 best seasons in history
2) subjectively it doesn’t quite feel that way because a) easy path and b) non traditional best player in tatum (he’s not steph or lebron or mj or whatever)
3) next year chances are they will have a tougher road which will give them another opportunity to prove themselves, which ties into
4) all of the great all time teams we are discussing won at least 2 and i think more like 3+ titles. 80s celtics, 90s bulls, spurs, warriors. one of the reasons we don’t count the 2008 celtics (aside from the 16-10 playoff record) is them failing to win again. so, if the celts go back to back, they will absolutely get their due as one of the top all time teams. even just winning once more. look at the 2003-2004 patriots. the 2003 squeaked by every week including the super bowl so everyone kind of discounted them. then the 2004 team was much more dominant including in the playoffs so they got their due.
i think i can sum up this discussion in 4 points.
1) objectively / statistically it was one of the 5-10 best seasons in history
2) subjectively it doesn’t quite feel that way because a) easy path and b) non traditional best player in tatum (he’s not steph or lebron or mj or whatever)
3) next year chances are they will have a tougher road which will give them another opportunity to prove themselves, which ties into
4) all of the great all time teams we are discussing won at least 2 and i think more like 3+ titles. 80s celtics, 90s bulls, spurs, warriors. one of the reasons we don’t count the 2008 celtics (aside from the 16-10 playoff record) is them failing to win again. so, if the celts go back to back, they will absolutely get their due as one of the top all time teams. even just winning once more. look at the 2003-2004 patriots. the 2003 squeaked by every week including the super bowl so everyone kind of discounted them. then the 2004 team was much more dominant including in the playoffs so they got their due.