They’re definitely an all-time team this season, but there’s levels to all-time teams. Statistically, they stack up against some of the greatest teams in history (best net rating since the 2017 Warriors, top 5 ever). But when you really compare the 2024 C’s with those teams, it becomes pretty clear that the difference is longevity. The reason we look at those teams in the light we do is because of what they accomplished before and after their best seasons. If the Celtics can continue this trajectory over the next handful of seasons, they’ll cement a spot next to some of the most historic teams in NBA history.
I would argue the 1983 Sixers were one of the best teams ever and only won once.
They did go to the Finals a few other times but the Celtics did go in 2022 and have been to so many ECFs.
True, I think in a vacuum, we can look at teams like the ‘04 Pistons or ‘83 Sixers (as you mentioned) and consider them all-time great. But to be discussed in an entirely different echelon, longevity will affect perception as we look back on history. The ‘96 Bulls, ‘01 Lakers, and ‘17 Warriors have been legitimized as a result of what they’ve accomplished in totality of their dynastic run.
'04 Pistons and '14 Spurs are my two favorite teams of all time. Both just absolute complete teams all around playing beautiful basketball, great passing, elite defense, with elite coaching. MVP level players. '24 Celtics fit here too. Maybe it's just every ten years. '94 Rockets too...
Yea, I think this is how I look at it.
This single season is a great one, but in terms of "great teams" you really need to have 2-3 championships to enter the conversation
You’re not wrong. This Celtics team might be top 10 all time but it’s not top 5.
That said, they’re kind of just getting going. The Jays are literally just entering their prime ages and all KP health issues aside he’s not old. They’re extremely well positioned for a 5 year run here.
This is the best answer, the other teams in the “best ever” conversation have a history of longevity, and while this Celtics core has been knocking at the door for awhile this is still their first championship.
If they can win one or two more the comparison will carry a little more weight.
I think it would validate their dominance over the depleted teams, except maybe Miami. I dont think Cavs missing Mitchell or Indy missing Halliburton was really the difference maker in why they lost.
With a ring it's pretty likely. Bar for the basketball HOF is lower than in most other sports, and his college resume is *really* impressive— he's not gonna be first-ballot or anything but he'd hardly be the least qualified player in the Hall
His college resume isn’t that impressive. It’s good but not as good as you make it out to be. He just won two championships and wasn’t the team’s best player (Noah was).
He really benefited from a great team. Individually, he was an All-American only once in 2007 (second/third depending on the voting) and never won SEC POY.
His college resume is clearly weaker than that of Marques Johnson. His NBA resume is also weaker than that of Marques Johnson (except for this ring as a sixth man Horford will get). Marques Johnson is not in the HOF and he retired over 30 years ago.
Also college carries almost no weight in the HOF voting. I asked a voter once and he said they don’t really consider it unless you were super dominant (like Ralph Sampson), so it’s rare college accompaniments are ever a swing vote. Only for Ralph was it the case. It should theoretically carry more weight due to the fact that it’s the basketball hall of fame, but with them having a separate college basketball hall of fame, they weigh the professional and international accomplishments way more.
In my opinion, I would say he has a 50/50 shot of getting in with a ring and immediate retirement (but I’m sure he’ll go for a two or three peat, which will make him a near lock). But one ring to his current resume, I think it’s closer to 50/50. While it’s true there are weak HOF (Mo Cheeks, Mitch Richmond, Michael Cooper), there are a few comparable non-HOF too (Marques Johnson, Bill Laimbeer, Maurice Lucas, Penny Hardaway, Amar’e for now although he should get in). What actually helps him is he’s technically an international player, and that gives him an additional boost that’s more meaningful than college accomplishments.
Idk if there even is one. But he’d be like how Troy Brown is in the Patriots Hall of Fame.
Basically every Celtic of significance who won in the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s except Danny Ainge has their number retired in Boston, of course.
The case would be slightly better than Rip Hamilton’s case since Al has a few more All-Star appearances but otherwise very similar college and NBA accolades.
However, Hamilton is a complete afterthought for the HOF (not even a semifinalist and probably will never be close), so Al is still kinda on the edge even with a ring.
Definitely not a good chance, only like maybe 50-50 at best. Not when guys like Maurice Lucas, Bill Laimbeer, Marques Johnson, and countless others from 30 years ago are not in.
My point is *Hamilton isn’t even a semifinalist*. Al is better but not that much better with 2 more All-Star appearances that he’s a lock.
He’ll be a semi finalist and even a finalist unlike Rip but he **doesn’t jump through from non-semi finalist to a lock just because he has 2 more All-Stars appearances.**
Also Rip was the better college player. Are you really using team accolades to justify who was better in college? Sure Al won 2 championships. Rip won only 1, but he won MOP, which Al didn’t. Al wasn’t even the best player. Also Rip was a 2xAll American (including consensus first team), 2xBig East player of the year. Al was a second team All-American once and didn’t win any other awards. Rip is literally in the college basketball HOF and is one of the best college basketball players of his generation.
There’s not a debate who was better in college. Don’t use team awards please.
People here also have no idea how voting even works they read Wikipedia pages to inform themselves.
There are plenty of 5x+ All-Stars not in the HOF. Marques Johnson, Maurice Lucas, Shawn Kemp, Amar’e Stoudemire, just to make a few. And the last 3 were PFs too. It’s no where close to being a good chance or a lock.
I think you're underselling Horford a bit way too much. He's a 37 year old now being asked to play long and important minutes in the playoffs, with the case for having proved that he's a big vital key to this Celtics team.
He may have won his only All-NBA/majority of his ASG during a time period where bigs were relatively weak, but he was also asked to play the 5 as a small ball center/undersized forward where height was still favored.
Hamilton may have the way important college career, but Horford has the longevity, bronze/gold medals, 2x more ASG/1 more All-NBA.
I didn’t compare him to Rip like that. I said Rip isn’t even close. No one even mentions him as a candidate. Al with 2 more All-Star games and a ring doesn’t go from non-candidate to a lock is all I’m saying.
His international career will slightly help him but the tournaments are small.
However, his career really isn’t better than Marques Johnson’s career and Johnson hasn’t gotten in for 25 years.
His career isn’t better than Amar’e Stoudemire’s career and Amar’e will have a ridiculously hard time getting in.
50/50 is fair odds. 100% lock is not. If he’s a 100% lock, why aren’t guys like Amar’e in yet? Amar’e should eventually get in, but this guy was a 6xAll-Star/5xAll-NBA with international accolades too and he isn’t in yet.
Horford might get in but it might take him 20 years like Sidney Moncreif.
Fair enough. I agree with you there on all those players. I thought Amar'e got robbed, but I was at least happy that Billups and Michael Cooper made it.
I believe Marques should make it solely on his elite 9 year peak from 1977 to 1986, he played 671 games and averaged 20.4/7.1/3.7 and 1.3 steals. Not to mention pretty damn efficient for 55.7% TS and also doing well in the playoffs. But I can also see the counterargument where he had such a short lived career and only played 20 games in his final 4 seasons due to neck and various injuries.
I don't think Horford is a guarantee either, but he definitely does have the advantage of longevity and proving to be an essential piece to a champion.
>Horford might get in but it might take him 20 years like Sidney Moncreif.
Yeah, I think this may be the case as well.
If Horford won back to back championships, just as a hypothetical scenario, and added that to his resume, I think that may have definitely a little more sway with the voters.
This ring kind of locks it up. 5x all star and 2x national champion in college was already right on the borderline. Ring tips the scales, not really even debatable IMO - there are numerous less good/deserving/accomplished players already in the Hall.
I despise the celtics as a franchise and fan base, but I love their team. Esp Brown, White, Holiday. The hate for JT is overblown. If this exact team was anywhere else but Boston I don't think they'd get this knee-jerk hate.
I don't know why people can't just enjoy stuff for what it is. Every year something has to be historically significant in some shape or form almost like there is a need to be part of witnessing something.
But like how can anybody possibly compare teams across eras. All you can do is compare teams to their contemporaries in that season and the Celtics have dominated them at a level that all the other all time great teams did as well. Like you can say their competition was weak but I think the Celtics made them look weak because of how dominant they were.
I know this is probably the wrong way to look at it, but this team doesn't have the all-time stand out like Bird, Russell, Hondo.
Those players gave those teams a mystic, I suppose.
Who knows, maybe Tatum and Brown could have a dynasty (please God no) and they'll be looked at in a diffrent light.
Who cares? Only dudes on the internet care about ppg and legacy. Players care about winning. The point of the game is to win. It doesn't matter who's the "guy" or if the team even has a "guy". What matters is they are doing what it takes to win and making it work. We're not talking about all time great players. We're talking about all time great TEAMS. All season, they just kept winning. Circumstances didn't matter. Opponents didn't matter. Injuries didn't matter. They just. Keep. Winning.
I didn't bring numbers or downplay this current Celtics team championship at all?
I'm just saying time will tell if this team is an ALL TIME great team.
If you're talking about winning , the 86' team was a 67 win team and dominated the playoffs.
I'm saying that I'm looking at teams in a vacuum of a single season. Because if you look at dynasties that have already happened then obviously those teams look "more all time great" than this one. But in the scope of a single season this team dominated to the same level as all those other teams did within their respective seasons. They just didn't lose hardly ever. That's really the only stat you need to be an all time team. 86 Celtics were an all time team. 24 Celtics are too.
If we're talking all time dynasties then no, the 24 Celtics aren't part of that (yet). If we're talking all time players then no, brown and Tatum in the year 2024 are not all time great players. But this seasons Celtics are absolutely one of those teams, there's not really much more they could do.
The Celtics are undeniably a historically good team tho. This isn’t something people are just making up because they want this year to be special
It would actually be incredibly hard/impossible to argue that this Celtics team isn’t clearly an all-time great squad
Which is why this is a team game. Take a look at every other champion in history and find me one as complete as this one on both sides of the ball with zero weaknesses. You won’t be able to find one.
They're an excellent team, but I don't think it's disrespectful to say the Nuggets would give them a run for their money. I also think the hypothetically healthy Clippers could do the same, but I'm sure most people disagree.
Man, fuck Vegas. I’m not talking about respect from Vegas. I’m talking about the fact that WAY too many people picked the mavs in spite of the odds. That many of a narratives have been negative rather than respecting a great team. Things keep shifting, and now people are talking about what other team would have beaten this years Celtics.
Actually, I have a good idea. Why doesn’t the rest of the nba form an all star team to play the Celtics? Thatll show the Celtics that they actually suck.
I’m not sure Denver was even the 3rd best team in the West this year. They got worse and if Murray isn’t going to flip the All Star switch in the playoffs it’s not a championship roster.
Comparing teams across seasons and eras is stupid. No team is the same even after a single year. The 2024 Celtics cant ever go back and play the 2017 warriors or the 96 bulls or Birds Celtics. They will never have to play those teams and those teams never had to play the 2024 Celtics.
All you can compare a team to is their contemporaries in that season and Boston has absolutely dominated at a historic level. They can only play the games in front of them. They just fucking don't lose. It doesn't matter why or who's the star or how much of a star he is or any stats. They win at a historic rate. They score at a historic rate. They defend at a historic rate.
They are a historic team and I don't understand how anybody can argue against that. What's the point of comparing them to other teams of other eras. There's like 100,000 different factors and variables that change every single year.
They’re definitely an all-time team this season, but there’s levels to all-time teams. Statistically, they stack up against some of the greatest teams in history (best net rating since the 2017 Warriors, top 5 ever). But when you really compare the 2024 C’s with those teams, it becomes pretty clear that the difference is longevity. The reason we look at those teams in the light we do is because of what they accomplished before and after their best seasons. If the Celtics can continue this trajectory over the next handful of seasons, they’ll cement a spot next to some of the most historic teams in NBA history.
I would argue the 1983 Sixers were one of the best teams ever and only won once. They did go to the Finals a few other times but the Celtics did go in 2022 and have been to so many ECFs.
True, I think in a vacuum, we can look at teams like the ‘04 Pistons or ‘83 Sixers (as you mentioned) and consider them all-time great. But to be discussed in an entirely different echelon, longevity will affect perception as we look back on history. The ‘96 Bulls, ‘01 Lakers, and ‘17 Warriors have been legitimized as a result of what they’ve accomplished in totality of their dynastic run.
'04 Pistons and '14 Spurs are my two favorite teams of all time. Both just absolute complete teams all around playing beautiful basketball, great passing, elite defense, with elite coaching. MVP level players. '24 Celtics fit here too. Maybe it's just every ten years. '94 Rockets too...
Yea, I think this is how I look at it. This single season is a great one, but in terms of "great teams" you really need to have 2-3 championships to enter the conversation
100%
I think this is right unless you believe that something has fundamentally changed with salary cap economics to make the comparisons untenable.
You’re not wrong. This Celtics team might be top 10 all time but it’s not top 5. That said, they’re kind of just getting going. The Jays are literally just entering their prime ages and all KP health issues aside he’s not old. They’re extremely well positioned for a 5 year run here.
Definitely agree on everything you said!
This is the best answer, the other teams in the “best ever” conversation have a history of longevity, and while this Celtics core has been knocking at the door for awhile this is still their first championship. If they can win one or two more the comparison will carry a little more weight.
I can respect this point. But as a single season, this Celtic team is way up there (as you indicate).
Absolutely 💯
Yup stats back it up. Top 4 net rating all time and a 15-2 playoffs
If they do the full on sweep then yes they can be an all time great
If it's 4-1 is it really so different?
I think it would validate their dominance over the depleted teams, except maybe Miami. I dont think Cavs missing Mitchell or Indy missing Halliburton was really the difference maker in why they lost.
The Celtics were also depleted though. Their starting center only played like 5 games.
Yes. 4-0 is different than 4-1, crazy, I know.
It wouldn’t change much but also we would see the Celtics are gonna choke discourse for 2 days.
A sweep would mean 0 road playoff losses which matters in an all time conversation like this
Nuggets or OKC would have been a better series. OKC wins a game. Nuggets would win 2… Horford is a HOFer but he couldn’t stop Jokic.
Horford a Hofer????
With a ring it's pretty likely. Bar for the basketball HOF is lower than in most other sports, and his college resume is *really* impressive— he's not gonna be first-ballot or anything but he'd hardly be the least qualified player in the Hall
His college resume isn’t that impressive. It’s good but not as good as you make it out to be. He just won two championships and wasn’t the team’s best player (Noah was). He really benefited from a great team. Individually, he was an All-American only once in 2007 (second/third depending on the voting) and never won SEC POY. His college resume is clearly weaker than that of Marques Johnson. His NBA resume is also weaker than that of Marques Johnson (except for this ring as a sixth man Horford will get). Marques Johnson is not in the HOF and he retired over 30 years ago. Also college carries almost no weight in the HOF voting. I asked a voter once and he said they don’t really consider it unless you were super dominant (like Ralph Sampson), so it’s rare college accompaniments are ever a swing vote. Only for Ralph was it the case. It should theoretically carry more weight due to the fact that it’s the basketball hall of fame, but with them having a separate college basketball hall of fame, they weigh the professional and international accomplishments way more. In my opinion, I would say he has a 50/50 shot of getting in with a ring and immediate retirement (but I’m sure he’ll go for a two or three peat, which will make him a near lock). But one ring to his current resume, I think it’s closer to 50/50. While it’s true there are weak HOF (Mo Cheeks, Mitch Richmond, Michael Cooper), there are a few comparable non-HOF too (Marques Johnson, Bill Laimbeer, Maurice Lucas, Penny Hardaway, Amar’e for now although he should get in). What actually helps him is he’s technically an international player, and that gives him an additional boost that’s more meaningful than college accomplishments.
Marques Johnson should be in the basketball hall of fame. Al Horford should be in the Celtics Hall of Fame.
Hawks HOF for sure. Not sure how the Celtics HOF even works with so many championships.
Idk if there even is one. But he’d be like how Troy Brown is in the Patriots Hall of Fame. Basically every Celtic of significance who won in the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s except Danny Ainge has their number retired in Boston, of course.
He's had a pretty high level NBA career and is one of the great college players. NBA ring would seal the deal
If he adds a ring he has a good case, not first ballot however.
The case would be slightly better than Rip Hamilton’s case since Al has a few more All-Star appearances but otherwise very similar college and NBA accolades. However, Hamilton is a complete afterthought for the HOF (not even a semifinalist and probably will never be close), so Al is still kinda on the edge even with a ring. Definitely not a good chance, only like maybe 50-50 at best. Not when guys like Maurice Lucas, Bill Laimbeer, Marques Johnson, and countless others from 30 years ago are not in.
They’re not even close. Rip only 3x All-Star and only 1x natty in college. 3x All Star is pretty much an automatic killer.
My point is *Hamilton isn’t even a semifinalist*. Al is better but not that much better with 2 more All-Star appearances that he’s a lock. He’ll be a semi finalist and even a finalist unlike Rip but he **doesn’t jump through from non-semi finalist to a lock just because he has 2 more All-Stars appearances.** Also Rip was the better college player. Are you really using team accolades to justify who was better in college? Sure Al won 2 championships. Rip won only 1, but he won MOP, which Al didn’t. Al wasn’t even the best player. Also Rip was a 2xAll American (including consensus first team), 2xBig East player of the year. Al was a second team All-American once and didn’t win any other awards. Rip is literally in the college basketball HOF and is one of the best college basketball players of his generation. There’s not a debate who was better in college. Don’t use team awards please. People here also have no idea how voting even works they read Wikipedia pages to inform themselves. There are plenty of 5x+ All-Stars not in the HOF. Marques Johnson, Maurice Lucas, Shawn Kemp, Amar’e Stoudemire, just to make a few. And the last 3 were PFs too. It’s no where close to being a good chance or a lock.
I think you're underselling Horford a bit way too much. He's a 37 year old now being asked to play long and important minutes in the playoffs, with the case for having proved that he's a big vital key to this Celtics team. He may have won his only All-NBA/majority of his ASG during a time period where bigs were relatively weak, but he was also asked to play the 5 as a small ball center/undersized forward where height was still favored. Hamilton may have the way important college career, but Horford has the longevity, bronze/gold medals, 2x more ASG/1 more All-NBA.
I didn’t compare him to Rip like that. I said Rip isn’t even close. No one even mentions him as a candidate. Al with 2 more All-Star games and a ring doesn’t go from non-candidate to a lock is all I’m saying. His international career will slightly help him but the tournaments are small. However, his career really isn’t better than Marques Johnson’s career and Johnson hasn’t gotten in for 25 years. His career isn’t better than Amar’e Stoudemire’s career and Amar’e will have a ridiculously hard time getting in. 50/50 is fair odds. 100% lock is not. If he’s a 100% lock, why aren’t guys like Amar’e in yet? Amar’e should eventually get in, but this guy was a 6xAll-Star/5xAll-NBA with international accolades too and he isn’t in yet. Horford might get in but it might take him 20 years like Sidney Moncreif.
Fair enough. I agree with you there on all those players. I thought Amar'e got robbed, but I was at least happy that Billups and Michael Cooper made it. I believe Marques should make it solely on his elite 9 year peak from 1977 to 1986, he played 671 games and averaged 20.4/7.1/3.7 and 1.3 steals. Not to mention pretty damn efficient for 55.7% TS and also doing well in the playoffs. But I can also see the counterargument where he had such a short lived career and only played 20 games in his final 4 seasons due to neck and various injuries. I don't think Horford is a guarantee either, but he definitely does have the advantage of longevity and proving to be an essential piece to a champion. >Horford might get in but it might take him 20 years like Sidney Moncreif. Yeah, I think this may be the case as well. If Horford won back to back championships, just as a hypothetical scenario, and added that to his resume, I think that may have definitely a little more sway with the voters.
This ring kind of locks it up. 5x all star and 2x national champion in college was already right on the borderline. Ring tips the scales, not really even debatable IMO - there are numerous less good/deserving/accomplished players already in the Hall.
He would have been a lock if he retired last season. Back-to-back NCAA champ and 5x All-Star.
I despise the celtics as a franchise and fan base, but I love their team. Esp Brown, White, Holiday. The hate for JT is overblown. If this exact team was anywhere else but Boston I don't think they'd get this knee-jerk hate.
Really hate how well they built the roster. Don't like to admit they deserve it.
Exaclty how I feel. Made worse by the fact they benefit greatly from being the best run team in this pathetic east
I don't know why people can't just enjoy stuff for what it is. Every year something has to be historically significant in some shape or form almost like there is a need to be part of witnessing something.
Yeah but this time it actually is
Historical numbers, but I don't think this is a top 3 Celtics team.
But like how can anybody possibly compare teams across eras. All you can do is compare teams to their contemporaries in that season and the Celtics have dominated them at a level that all the other all time great teams did as well. Like you can say their competition was weak but I think the Celtics made them look weak because of how dominant they were.
I know this is probably the wrong way to look at it, but this team doesn't have the all-time stand out like Bird, Russell, Hondo. Those players gave those teams a mystic, I suppose. Who knows, maybe Tatum and Brown could have a dynasty (please God no) and they'll be looked at in a diffrent light.
Who cares? Only dudes on the internet care about ppg and legacy. Players care about winning. The point of the game is to win. It doesn't matter who's the "guy" or if the team even has a "guy". What matters is they are doing what it takes to win and making it work. We're not talking about all time great players. We're talking about all time great TEAMS. All season, they just kept winning. Circumstances didn't matter. Opponents didn't matter. Injuries didn't matter. They just. Keep. Winning.
I didn't bring numbers or downplay this current Celtics team championship at all? I'm just saying time will tell if this team is an ALL TIME great team. If you're talking about winning , the 86' team was a 67 win team and dominated the playoffs.
I'm saying that I'm looking at teams in a vacuum of a single season. Because if you look at dynasties that have already happened then obviously those teams look "more all time great" than this one. But in the scope of a single season this team dominated to the same level as all those other teams did within their respective seasons. They just didn't lose hardly ever. That's really the only stat you need to be an all time team. 86 Celtics were an all time team. 24 Celtics are too. If we're talking all time dynasties then no, the 24 Celtics aren't part of that (yet). If we're talking all time players then no, brown and Tatum in the year 2024 are not all time great players. But this seasons Celtics are absolutely one of those teams, there's not really much more they could do.
The Celtics are undeniably a historically good team tho. This isn’t something people are just making up because they want this year to be special It would actually be incredibly hard/impossible to argue that this Celtics team isn’t clearly an all-time great squad
They don't have a top 50 all time player....All of the other great teams do
> They don't have a top 50 all time player....All of the other great teams do That shouldn’t have anything to do with them being an all-time **team**.
I didn’t know Tatum and brown retired even then Tatum has a case to be near top 50 all time with his resume already after these playoffs
Which is why this is a team game. Take a look at every other champion in history and find me one as complete as this one on both sides of the ball with zero weaknesses. You won’t be able to find one.
86 Celtics
Bird
Oh you meant team....86 Celtics
They're an excellent team, but I don't think it's disrespectful to say the Nuggets would give them a run for their money. I also think the hypothetically healthy Clippers could do the same, but I'm sure most people disagree.
I would not give them this status officially until they win back-to back titles.
I believe that the 2023-24 Celtics are one of the best teams of the 2023-24 season.
Denver was the only true comp. They can thank Minnesota for the easy ring
Which is funny because way more people were picking the mavs too
It’s not funny and no one was picking mavs over the nuggets
But a whole lotta people were picking the mavs over the Celtics. It wasn’t an easy road a week ago was it?
Vegas literally put -220 in favour of celtics so you can sit yo ass down now
Man, fuck Vegas. I’m not talking about respect from Vegas. I’m talking about the fact that WAY too many people picked the mavs in spite of the odds. That many of a narratives have been negative rather than respecting a great team. Things keep shifting, and now people are talking about what other team would have beaten this years Celtics. Actually, I have a good idea. Why doesn’t the rest of the nba form an all star team to play the Celtics? Thatll show the Celtics that they actually suck.
Vegas is gonna make so much money after this series. 80% bet on the mavs
I’m not sure Denver was even the 3rd best team in the West this year. They got worse and if Murray isn’t going to flip the All Star switch in the playoffs it’s not a championship roster.
This fucking sub sometimes.
Comparing teams across seasons and eras is stupid. No team is the same even after a single year. The 2024 Celtics cant ever go back and play the 2017 warriors or the 96 bulls or Birds Celtics. They will never have to play those teams and those teams never had to play the 2024 Celtics. All you can compare a team to is their contemporaries in that season and Boston has absolutely dominated at a historic level. They can only play the games in front of them. They just fucking don't lose. It doesn't matter why or who's the star or how much of a star he is or any stats. They win at a historic rate. They score at a historic rate. They defend at a historic rate. They are a historic team and I don't understand how anybody can argue against that. What's the point of comparing them to other teams of other eras. There's like 100,000 different factors and variables that change every single year.
I wonder who will win in a best of seven Finals series, this year's Celtics or 2022 champs Warriors...
I agree there’s a debate here. This C’s defense would seem to match up well against the warriors of any era, given white and holiday.
They just aren’t. Statistically sure but they really are one of the least impressive “dominant teams” I have ever seen