GOAT List: Top 25 Greatest Teams in NBA History

[G.O.A.T]

http://imagecache6.allposters.com/LRG/27/2797/IC8OD00Z.jpg

The GOAT List:
The 25 Greatest Single Season Teams in NBA History

These are the Top 25 teams in NBA history ranked in ascending order starting with today's post of the #25 ranked team. I'll give each team it's own post and delve into the players achievments and events that made it so great and so significant within the scope of history in the NBA.

The teams are limited to Championship Winners and are ranked using numerous criteria including their regular season and post season records, length and frequency of win streaks, margin(s) of victory, record relative to the rest of the leagues top teams, number of all-star and hall of fame players on the roster and their impact on the NBA as a whole.

My hope is that this thread will not turn into a bunch of lists of teams and arguing over who should be higher or lower and instead can be a thread that encourages discussion and the sharing of knowledge between passionate basketball fans. Enjoy and let the listing begin.

Index

#25 - The 1969 Boston Celtics (http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/952) (coach Bill Russell) - page 1
#24 - The 1950 Minneapolis Lakers (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=4798011&postcount=42) (coach John Kundla) - page 3
#23 - The 1982 Los Angeles Lakers (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=4805413&postcount=50) (coach Pat Riley) - page 4
#22 - The 2005 San Antonio Spurs (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=4809055&postcount=58) (coach Gregg Popovich) - page 4
#21 - The 1962 Boston Celtics (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=4820994&postcount=67) (coach Red Auerbach) - page 5
#20 - The 1984 Boston Celtics (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=4830847&postcount=91) (coach KC Jones) - page 7
#19 - The 2008 Boston Celtics (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=4843567&postcount=105) (coach Doc Rivers) - page 7
#18 - The 1991 Chicago Bulls (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=4880340&postcount=148) (coach Phil Jackson) - page 10
#17 - The 1964 Boston Celtics (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=4882296&postcount=155) (coach Red Auerbach) - page 11
#16 - The 1985 Los Angeles Lakers (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=4989685&postcount=158)(coach Pat Riley) - page 11
#15 - The 1960 Boston Celtics (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=4994470&postcount=161) (coach Red Auerbach) - page 11
#14 - The 1970 New York Knicks (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=5000034&postcount=162) (coach Red Holzman) - page 11
#13 - The 2000 Los Angeles Lakers (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=5034404&postcount=170) (coach Phil Jackson) - page 12
#12 - The 2001 Los Angeles Lakers (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=5034404&postcount=170) (coach Phil Jackson) - page 12
#11 - The 1997 Chicago Bulls (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=5046214&postcount=190)(coach Phil Jackson) - page 13
--------------------------------------------------------------------
#10 1987 Los Angeles Lakers (coach Pat Riley)
#9
#8
#7
#6
#5
#4
#3
#2
#1

[PowerGlove]

Mods sticky this.

Good to have you back man.

[griffmoney2084]

in before shaq/kobe lakers get vastly underrated even with the greatest playoff record of all time and 2 of the top 10 players ever

[PowerGlove]

in before shaq/kobe lakers get vastly underrated even with the greatest playoff record of all time and 2 of the top 10 players ever
Too bad you weren't in before teams were made up of more than two players.

GTFO here.

[Toizumi]

Good to have you back indeed.
This list should be good. Never mind the stuff some idiots might post in this thread. Please finish the list, ignore the trolls and have good discussions with the true NBA fans on this board :cheers:

How did things go with the book? I tried to PM you for the rest of the articles for the top 100 players list btw. do you have a link to where you finished the list or something? would like to read the rest of it..

[G.O.A.T]

#25 1969 Boston Celtics

http://www.nba.com/media/encyclopedia/1969Celtics_375_060320.jpg

Head Coach: Bill Russell
Most skilled Player: John Havlicek
Most Important Player: Bill Russell
Other Starters: Bailey Howell, Larry Siegfried, Em Bryant
Key Bench Players: Sam Jones, Don Nelson, Satch Sanders

Regular Season Record: 48-34 (4th in Eastern Division)
Postseason Record: 12-6
NBA Finals: Beat the Los Angeles Lakers four games to three.
Longest Winning Streak: 5 games (three times)
Points Scored per Game: 111.0
Points Allowed per Game: 105.4

Season Stats (http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/BOS/1969.html)

http://cache4.asset-cache.net/xc/81368784.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=77BFBA49EF8789215ABF3343C02EA548BA66BA9F0A5ED069 F1CD3A40627644075CDDFEE979BBEDAC

-The only team on the list to win fewer than 50 games, the only team not to have home court advantage for a single playoff series. These were the last of the Celtics 11 Championship teams in Bill Russell 13 seasons. It was Russell’s final year as a player and final year as Celtics coach. He had made this decision before the season started but decided to keep it to himself. In 1966-67, Russell’s first season as a coach the Celtics, string of eight straight titles was halted by Wilt Chamberlain’s Philadelphia 76ers, the following year the Celtics got revenge en route to another title and Wilt demanded out of Philly. So before the 1968-69 season began he was traded to Los Angeles, the Lakers had lost to the Celtics four of the last five years in the NBA finals and had always cited their lack of an upper echelon center to compete with Russell as the principal cause. Now joining 1968 All-NBA first team selections Jerry West and Elgin Baylor was the two-time reigning MVP and his 7’1+”, 300 pound frame. The Celtics were old, their top eight players were all at least 28 when the season started, most were in their thirties. Couple that with the fact that almost all of Russell’s teammates from the earlier titles, save for Sam Jones also playing his final season in 1969, had retired or advance so far in age that they were relegated to the bench. Even Jones lost his starting spot during the season to Larry Seigfried who had been cut by multiple NBA teams prior to joining Boston. It wasn’t just Seigfried either, most of the Celtics now were cast-offs. Starting forward Bailey Howell was deemed over the hill by the Bullets and traded for pennies on the dollar. Joining Seigfried in the back court was Em Bryant who had scored right around five points a game in four seasons with the Knicks before being dealt to Boston by Phoenix who got him in that season’s expansion draft. Off the bench the Celtics main weapon was Don Nelson, Nellie had been cut by the Lakers a few years prior and Russell took the awkward forward under his wing and told not to worry about his weaknesses (defense and rebounding) and do what he did best (score).


http://www.nysun.com/pics/1262.jpg

Despite their depleted and aging line-up, the Celtics were able to get off to a hot start, a signature of their dynastic run in the 1960’s. They started the year 19-6 before fatigue and injuries began to befall them. Russell was so exhausted at one point that he collapsed during a game and began to convulse from extreme fatigue and dehydration. He routinely took IV’s before and after games to make it through the 82 game grind of a season. Still, as they always had, the Celtics played through injuries and even as the Knicks behind Willis Reed and Walt Frazier and the Bullets with Earl Monroe and rookie center Wesley Unseld began to pull away in the standings, the Celtics kept their focus on one thing, the same thing it had always been, winning a Championship. A huge key to their success during the season was the play of John Havlicek who had shed his sixth man role a few years prior and was now becoming on of the games best all-around players. A defensive star, Hondo also led Boston in scoring at 21.6 a night and assist at 5.4 justr ahead of Russell. Balance was always the Celtic way and this particular season was no different with seven Boston players chipping in double figure averages. Russell averaged 10-19-5 and finished 4th in the MVP voting (won by Unseld). He was a unanimous selection to the first ever All-Defensive team as well. Havlicek was all-NBA adding over seven rebounds to his other impressive numbers and Howell averaged 19 and 9 while shooting a team best 49% from the field. So as the regular season came to an end, Boston, at 48-34, found itself in fourth place, the final qualifying spot in the East. It was the highest win loss total of Russell’s career and it meant that Boston would be matched up against the 76ers in the first round. Philly had won 55 games during the regular season without Wilt. Their core of Billy Cunningham, Hal Greer, Chet Walker and Luke Jackson was still in tact. However they provided little resistance against Boston which advanced through the best of seven Eastern Semifinals in five games. In the Conference Finals the young and hungry Knicks were waiting, and they’d keep waiting. The Celtics steamrolled them in six and were back in the Finals where as expected, the Lakers and the most formidable trio in NBA history would be waiting.


http://www.nba.com/media/1969BOSLAL2_627.jpg

The Lakers took the first tow games of the series at home behind 53 and 41 points from Jerry West. Havlicek was nearly his equal racking up 80 total points in the two games, but it was not enough. Russell who had focused the Celtic defense on Chamberlain, as always, for the first two games and had held the giant to just 19 points, switched the strategy late in game three to allow him to roam and help on West and Baylor, it worked as the Lakers perimeter duo went 1-14 down the stretch and the Celtics got back into the series. Game for was physical, sloppy and ugly. But like so many games in this great rivalry, it came down to the final play. Down by one with seconds to play, Boston called a time out and, as he had learned to do over his three years as a coach Russell asked “What do we do now?”. It was Larry Siegfried who spoke up and suggested a play from his Ohio State days that was called the picket fence. It was a triple screen for a shooter coming from the weak side toward the inbounder. Russell called on Sam Jones to deliver in the clutch as he so often had and took himself out of game, knowing there would be no time for a rebound if Jones missed. Jones came off the screens, took the pass and slipped as he began his shot, losing his balance and watching as Chamberlain came out after him, Jones hoisted the ball with extra arc and it bounced twice of the rim and backboard before falling in and evening the series. Back in LA for game five, the Lakers ran the Celtics out of the building, West leading the way with 39 more points. The Celtics too held serve at home in game six, winning 99-90 with Russell outscoring and rebounding Chamberlain and not missing a single shot from the field or the line. It set the stage for another game seven showdown. Russell was 10-0 in these games in his career, but never before did he have to get it done on the road against an opponent like this. The Lakers had won all three playoff games at home and had taken five of seven regular season games against Boston. So confident in his teams chances of winning, Laker owner Jack Kent Cooke placed balloons and confetti in the rafters and including a post game celebration program under the seats for the home fans. When Russell saw this he went into the Celtics locker room, showed it too his teammates and said simply “It’s a shame…all those balloons are going to go to waste”. The Celtics proceeded to stifle and stun Los Angles throughout the first three quarters and built a sizeable lead at 91-76 entering the final stanza. But Boston went cold and West got hot for the Lakers.


http://www.corbisimages.com/images/67/AFC5015E-9EB8-4AAE-8EC6-E1A03B295390/BE051855.jpg

They steadily knifed into the Boston margin and had cut it to nine when Chamberlain grabbed a defensive rebound and landed awkwardly on his already sore knee. He took himself out of the game to rest his ailing knee and when he asked to return, he was told no by stubborn coach Butch Van Breda Kolf who had feuded with Wilt for control all season. Still the Lakers continued to close the gap with Wilt on the bench and his replacement Mel Counts shooting jumpers at center. A Counts jumper with 2 and half to play narrowed the margin to one and the teams went back and forth from there. With one minute remaining and Boston ahead by just one still, the Lakers nearly stole the ball from Havlicek in the corner, but the deflection instead found it’s way to Don Nelson who tossed a one hander from the foul line off the back of the iron. The ball bounced straight up in the air over the top of the backboard and back down through the net. On the next play a doubled team West forced a contested jumper Russell rebounded after another Celtic turnover, it was again Russell, this time blocking Mel Counts shot and taking the ball away, who saved the day. The Celtics held on for a 108-106 victory and another NBA title.



http://northstationsports.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/russell-rings.jpg

[1987_Lakers]

Welcome back G.O.A.T:rockon:

[artificial]

Man, you left me hanging for the damn mail of the GOAT players list :lol

Anyway, good to see you back. Had barely been logging to this site, but I guess I'll check more often now.

[Yung D-Will]

Man, you left me hanging for the damn mail of the GOAT players list :lol

Anyway, good to see you back. Had barely been logging to this site, but I guess I'll check more often now.

Me too lol been waiting for the email forever xD

[Mr Clutch Melo]

Can you PM me the Top 10 GOAT players? Been waiting on it for a while:oldlol:

[jlauber]

Glad to see you back. This Forum needs you!

[SCdac]

2005 Spurs are bound to be underrated... because they're not a "sexy" pick.

They were one of the most dominant team of the 2000's though, undoubtedly

The Spurs went 43-23 versus playoff teams that particular year.

Considering the way they were winning (point differential, etc), it was very impressive and indicative of their contending status.

Here's a good article on it (a part of it at least), by Neil Pane from Basketball Reference.com


Back in April, that result seemed surprising, perhaps even a glitch in WhatIfSports' programming... but maybe it shouldn't have. San Antonio simply dominated the league's good teams in '05: they had 43 wins over playoff teams, and 28 of them came by 10 or more points (by comparison, the 2000 Lakers had 6 fewer wins of 10+ pts despite winning 6 more total games; likewise, the '03 Spurs were even less dominant, winning just 19 of 48 by 10+). And along with the 4th-best scoring differential vs. playoff teams of any squad since 2000 (+5.4 PPG), in the playoffs San Antonio went through Phoenix (+7.8 SRS vs. playoff teams), Detroit (+5.9), Seattle (+4.0), and Denver (+3.6), one of the toughest gauntlets any team on this list had to run.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/blog/?p=7213

[rmt]

Welcome back!

[joyner82]

1999 Spurs will be underrated IMO. That's a top 6-8 team all time IMO.

[NY-Knicks]

Great to see you back, these lists are always a great read and it opens up a lot of discussions.

Couple of teams
1995-1996 Bulls (72 wins)
2003-2004 Pistons (one of the best defensive teams of all time)
2000-2001 Lakers (best playoff record of all time)
1971-1972 Lakers (33 game winning streak)

[NY-Knicks]

It's really too bad you stopped the other thread because I really enjoyed it. Hope that this one will be just as good, will you put this in the book as well?

[G.O.A.T]

It's really too bad you stopped the other thread because I really enjoyed it. Hope that this one will be just as good, will you put this in the book as well?

Yeah, the '69 Celtic Post is the template for the section (minus the pictures and lack of editing). I am currently working on that section and decided to share it here to get some more perspective before the final edit.

Thanks for the Support

[NY-Knicks]

I wasn't alive in 1969 and honestly I haven't seen any gametape of the Celtics that year so my opinion relies on what I've read and heard, not what I have seen.

[Funky Pool]

That's an interesting topic, but I have a question :

Can the teams without championships be eligible ?

I'm thinking of the 99' New York Knicks who got to the finals after finishing at the 8 spot in the East, nobody did that before i think, and it was a team with true warriors like Spree and Larry Johnson.
Or the 2001 Sixers who were the only team to beat the Lakers in the playoffs, and who did a great regular season as well with lots of individual trophies (A.I, Aaron Mckie, Mutombo, Coach Brown).

I mean that's just examples, but do you have to be a champion to be in this list ?

[Gifted Mind]

Glad to see you back



On a side-note, teams that I feel are generally underrated for various reasons

- Russell's Celtic Teams
- Recent Champions (Past 4-5 years)

[G.O.A.T]

That's an interesting topic, but I have a question :

Can the teams without championships be eligible ?

I'm thinking of the 99' New York Knicks who got to the finals after finishing at the 8 spot in the East, nobody did that before i think, and it was a team with true warriors like Spree and Larry Johnson.
Or the 2001 Sixers who were the only team to beat the Lakers in the playoffs, and who did a great regular season as well with lots of individual trophies (A.I, Aaron Mckie, Mutombo, Coach Brown).

I mean that's just examples, but do you have to be a champion to be in this list ?

I covered this in the intro, only Champions were considered. It's a top 25, there have been over 60 NBA Champions. I just can't consider runners-up or otherwise.



teams that I feel are generally underrated for various reasons

- Russell's Celtic Teams
- Recent Champions (Past 4-5 years)

The tough thing about the Russell Celtics is picking a favorite. 1965 is the popular pick and the year they won the most games, 1964 is Russell's pick, the first post-Cousy team. 1963 features Russell, Cousy, Hondo, Heinsohn, Satch, Ramsey, Luscutoff and both Jones plus a 35 year old Clyde Lovellette as Russell's back-up. That or 1961 with Sharman in place of Hondo and Cousy, Ramsey and Heinsohn in their prime are the best rosters. 1960 is the year they lost the most games and '66, '68 and '69 are the years they beat the best competition in the playoffs.

As for recent Champs, very good point and I tend to agree. That said, I only found one team worthy of inclusion from that group in this list.

[robertshaw_1]

2001-2002 sacramento kings are better than 50% of the NBA champions.

[Gifted Mind]

The tough thing about the Russell Celtics is picking a favorite. 1965 is the popular pick and the year they won the most games, 1964 is Russell's pick, the first post-Cousy team. 1963 features Russell, Cousy, Hondo, Heinsohn, Satch, Ramsey, Luscutoff and both Jones plus a 35 year old Clyde Lovellette as Russell's back-up. That or 1961 with Sharman in place of Hondo and Cousy, Ramsey and Heinsohn in their prime are the best rosters. 1960 is the year they lost the most games and '66, '68 and '69 are the years they beat the best competition in the playoffs.


I agree it's difficult to pick a favorite out of the Boston teams. However, with a franchise that can win 11 titles in 13 years and 8 in a row, it would be tough to put my money on any opposing team. This team won over and over, year after year, time after time, yet I'm supposed to believe that another team with 1 strong year could take them out in a playoff series? Could they really take out a Boston Celtic team that with a similar core proved themselves so many times while not losing? It would be tough. The reason I feel they are underrated is many see so many championships, and forget exactly how difficult it is to win that many championships in a row. It's quite an extraordinary feat. Also, many look at their records, but forget that it was a much more difficult task to achieve a high record in those days do to the number of times you face all the strong teams in the league with multiple HOFs.




As for recent Champs, very good point and I tend to agree. That said, I only found one team worthy of inclusion from that group in this list.

I can almost guarantee you that in 4-5 years the 08 Boston Celtics and 09/10 Lakers will be on most Top 15 teams of All-Time lists. Not only will they, but they should already be there.

Let's take the 08 Boston Celtics for example. Their 66-16 is one of the best All-Time, one game behind 86 Celtics. Their point differential is on par with the 86 Celtics. They featured one of the greatest defensive teams of All-Time, a key to winning championships. And their competition was tough as well especially in the finals. And ultimately they will be known to have 3 (possibly 4) HOFs on that squad.

The 09 or 10 Lakers are another example. In 09 they won 65 games, as much as Magic's showtime Lakers ever won. They also featured a high point differential, great offense and defense, a Top 10 player of All-Time, and strong overall talent. Also, any strong team that can repeat deserves extra points, because it's as if they proved themselves over again.

The accomplishments the Boston and Laker teams have had on their championship runs are on par with many of the All-Time greatest teams. It's just a matter of time people recognize this.

[magnax1]

I want to see where you rank the 00 lakers vs the 01 Lakers. Are you going to finish your GOAT list though?

[Yung D-Will]

2001-2002 sacramento kings are better than 50% of the NBA champions.
Please who are these 50% of championship teams that the kings are better then.

[G.O.A.T]

I want to see where you rank the 00 lakers vs the 01 Lakers. Are you going to finish your GOAT list though?

Scouts honor on this one...circumstances beyond my control on the other.


Please who are these 50% of championship teams that the kings are better then.

The '02 Lakers?

[robertshaw_1]

Please who are these 50% of championship teams that the kings are better then.

02 lakers for sure.

every single champion from 2003 to 2010

1993-1994 1994-1995 rockets also.

[Disaprine]

looking forward in seeing the rest. :cheers:

[magnax1]

Sacramento got just as screwed in 03 with Webbers injury. They could've repeated if not for their terrible luck.

[G.O.A.T]

I can almost guarantee you that in 4-5 years the 08 Boston Celtics and 09/10 Lakers will be on most Top 15 teams of All-Time lists. Not only will they, but they should already be there.

Let's take the 08 Boston Celtics for example. Their 66-16 is one of the best All-Time, one game behind 86 Celtics. Their point differential is on par with the 86 Celtics. They featured one of the greatest defensive teams of All-Time, a key to winning championships. And their competition was tough as well especially in the finals. And ultimately they will be known to have 3 (possibly 4) HOFs on that squad.

The 09 or 10 Lakers are another example. In 09 they won 65 games, as much as Magic's showtime Lakers ever won. They also featured a high point differential, great offense and defense, a Top 10 player of All-Time, and strong overall talent. Also, any strong team that can repeat deserves extra points, because it's as if they proved themselves over again.

The accomplishments the Boston and Laker teams have had on their championship runs are on par with many of the All-Time greatest teams. It's just a matter of time people recognize this.

Quickly, we're on the same page with the Celtics, I believe I ended up with six of their eleven teams on this list, so that say a lot, to make up almost a quarter of the list.

On to the Celtics and Lakers. I will tell you that it came down to the '08 Celtics and '09 Lakers. I ruled out the '10 version because of their lackluster regular season and struggles in the finals against a supremely out-manned Boston squad. The top ten on this list are very special. They dominated the regular season (60+ wins) and Postseason (Either multiple sweeps or no seven game series) Had major win streaks (multiple 8+ game streaks) and with one exception outscored their opponents by at least 8 points per game on average.

I don't see either the Celtics of 2008 or the Lakers of 2009 ever cracking a top 15. You'd have to knock out teams with equal or better resumes in MUCH more competitive and less watered down eras. Look at the drop of in win percentage of those teams come the postseason. Both teams were taken to seven games in the conference semi-finals for goodness sake.

I might have stole a spot from the one of those two I left out by including the '69 Celtics purely out of sentiment and love for the underdog story. But I feel okay about that.

The strongest subjective argument I can make is one based on how much easier it is to win 60 games in today's NBA than it was in the 1960's or even 1980's.

Example

The 1964 Celtics made the final cut. They went 59-21 during the regular season compared to 65-17 by the '09 Lakers and 66-16 from the 2008 Celtics. At first it seems like the Lakers and modern Celtics had significantly better regular seasons, but consider this:

The 1964 Celtics played elite competition in 38 of their 80 games.

Cincinnati with Oscar Robertson and Jerry Lucas 12 times

The Warriors with Wilt Chamberlain and Nate Thurmond 8 times

The Lakers with Jerry West and Elgin Baylor 9 times

The Hawks with Bob Pettit and Lenny Wilkens 9 times

Compare that to todays schedule which had Boston in 2008 playing the leagues elite teams that year (Detroit, LA, SA, New Orleans, Utah and Phoenix) 13 times and Los Angeles playing 2009's elite teams (Denver, San Antonio (barely), Boston, Orlando and Cleveland) a total of 13 games against the elite.

To put it another way, when Boston started the 1963-64 season 23-3 they lost all three games to the Royals (Oscar was MVP that year) who they also beat four times in that stretch.

Imagine if last year the Lakers had to play seven of their first 25 against the Cavs and MVP to be Lebron James, as well as eight more combined games against the Magic, Celtics and Suns. Would they have started 23-3?

Who knows, but in 2009 they started 21-3 and in those 24 games they played a total of three games against the leagues top seven teams after themselves and zero against the top four. (Boston, Orlando, San Antonio, Cleveland)

Anyway...there's that.

[Manute for Ever!]

Great to have you back, GOAT, ignore the trolls and I hope you see this through. :cheers:

[EarlTheGoat]

Wow, excellent thread idea. Im suscribing to this, should be an interesting read.

The first team you posted kinda reminds me of this season`s Celtics. They didnt win many games in the regular season (in comparison with other contenders), the key stars and players were/are very old, and few people gave them a chance.

They managed to get to the finals with heart, defense and experience, a lot of experience. In the finals they took LA to seven games also, although in 2010 the final result was different, but it still was very close.

I wonder what more teams will be included, I expect some teams from the 80s: Lakers, Celtics and Sixer, some years of the 90s Bulls and perhaps Spurs and Lakers from the 00s. But who knows.

[Gifted Mind]

Quickly, we're on the same page with the Celtics, I believe I ended up with six of their eleven teams on this list, so that say a lot, to make up almost a quarter of the list.

On to the Celtics and Lakers. I will tell you that it came down to the '08 Celtics and '09 Lakers. I ruled out the '10 version because of their lackluster regular season and struggles in the finals against a supremely out-manned Boston squad. The top ten on this list are very special. They dominated the regular season (60+ wins) and Postseason (Either multiple sweeps or no seven game series) Had major win streaks (multiple 8+ game streaks) and with one exception outscored their opponents by at least 8 points per game on average.

I don't see either the Celtics of 2008 or the Lakers of 2009 ever cracking a top 15. You'd have to knock out teams with equal or better resumes in MUCH more competitive and less watered down eras. Look at the drop of in win percentage of those teams come the postseason. Both teams were taken to seven games in the conference semi-finals for goodness sake.

I might have stole a spot from the one of those two I left out by including the '69 Celtics purely out of sentiment and love for the underdog story. But I feel okay about that.

The strongest subjective argument I can make is one based on how much easier it is to win 60 games in today's NBA than it was in the 1960's or even 1980's.

Example

The 1964 Celtics made the final cut. They went 59-21 during the regular season compared to 65-17 by the '09 Lakers and 66-16 from the 2008 Celtics. At first it seems like the Lakers and modern Celtics had significantly better regular seasons, but consider this:

The 1964 Celtics played elite competition in 38 of their 80 games.

Cincinnati with Oscar Robertson and Jerry Lucas 12 times

The Warriors with Wilt Chamberlain and Nate Thurmond 8 times

The Lakers with Jerry West and Elgin Baylor 9 times

The Hawks with Bob Pettit and Lenny Wilkens 9 times

Compare that to todays schedule which had Boston in 2008 playing the leagues elite teams that year (Detroit, LA, SA, New Orleans, Utah and Phoenix) 13 times and Los Angeles playing 2009's elite teams (Denver, San Antonio (barely), Boston, Orlando and Cleveland) a total of 13 games against the elite.

To put it another way, when Boston started the 1963-64 season 23-3 they lost all three games to the Royals (Oscar was MVP that year) who they also beat four times in that stretch.

Imagine if last year the Lakers had to play seven of their first 25 against the Cavs and MVP to be Lebron James, as well as eight more combined games against the Magic, Celtics and Suns. Would they have started 23-3?

Who knows, but in 2009 they started 21-3 and in those 24 games they played a total of three games against the leagues top seven teams after themselves and zero against the top four. (Boston, Orlando, San Antonio, Cleveland)

Anyway...there's that.

I'm aware of the difficulty of posting a stronger record in the 60s. In fact, I mentioned that in my last post while praising the Boston Celtic Dynasty.



Also, many look at their records, but forget that it was a much more difficult task to achieve a high record in those days do to the number of times you face all the strong teams in the league with multiple HOFs.


Nonetheless, I must admit I spoke incorrectly about them being Top 15. Normally when "Greatest Teams of All-Time" lists are made, teams are limited to either 1 team per core players, or 1 team per every 3-4 years. Thus, you would see only the 96 Bulls, and not the 97 and 98 Bulls because of these stipulations. Thinking in terms of this, I said Top 15. However, if you wanted to have a raw list of Top 25 teams, with no limits on teams according to players or time frames, then no they would not be Top 15. And you brought up excellent points demonstrating why.

[Toizumi]

[QUOTE]Down by one with seconds to play, Boston called a time out and, as he had learned to do over his three years as a coach Russell asked

[Gotterdammerung]

I'm very glad to see you posting again, GOAT. This board has improved slightly since your departure, because of an influx of historians and older, wiser posters that isn't crippled by the ESPN generation. :cheers:

What's often missing from the top all-time team list are reasons why team# 10 would beat team# 15 in a neutral setting. One day I may manage to pull that off, perhaps with only the top 10. :hammerhead:

Here's my list:


15th. 1983 Philadelphia Sixers
14th. 1995 Houston Rockets (my all time favorite :bowdown:)
13th. 2008 Boston Celtics
12th. 2005 San Antonio Spurs
11th. 1971 Milwaukee Bucks
10th. 1987 Los Angeles Lakers
9th. 1970 New York Knicks
8th. 2001 LA Lakers
7th. 1989 Detroit Pistons
6th. 1984 Boston Celtics
5th. 1965 Boston Celtics
4th. 1992 Chicago Bulls
3rd. 1972 LA Lakers
2nd. 1996 Chicago Bulls
1st. 1967 Philadelphia 76ers

[NY-Knicks]

I'm very glad to see you posting again, GOAT. This board has improved slightly since your departure, because of an influx of historians and older, wiser posters that isn't crippled by the ESPN generation. :cheers:

What's often missing from the top all-time team list are reasons why team# 10 would beat team# 15 in a neutral setting. One day I may manage to pull that off, perhaps with only the top 10. :hammerhead:

Here's my list:


15th. 1983 Philadelphia Sixers
14th. 1995 Houston Rockets (my all time favorite :bowdown:)
13th. 2008 Boston Celtics
12th. 2005 San Antonio Spurs
11th. 1971 Milwaukee Bucks
10th. 1987 Los Angeles Lakers
-->9th. 1970 New York Knicks <--
8th. 2001 LA Lakers
7th. 1989 Detroit Pistons
6th. 1984 Boston Celtics
5th. 1965 Boston Celtics
4th. 1992 Chicago Bulls
3rd. 1972 LA Lakers
2nd. 1996 Chicago Bulls
1st. 1967 Philadelphia 76ers

:applause:

[AJ2k8]

Welcome back G.O.A.T.. Good to see you around:cheers:

[Gotterdammerung]

:applause:
The 1970 edition was possibly the most intelligent team ever: completely resourceful, unsulfish, and due to their tremendous savvy, they controlled the tempo of almost every game. Strong line-up, strong bench, impeccable philosophy by Holzman: "hit the open man." A cohesive ball club, in which the whole was much better than the sum of their parts. The Knicks inherited the principles of the Russellian Celtics that a powerful defense could generate sufficient offense to win titles. :applause:

Their weaknesses? Not enough size in the frontcourt. No overwhelming speed. No power players off the pench.

[G.O.A.T]

I'm very glad to see you posting again, GOAT. This board has improved slightly since your departure, because of an influx of historians and older, wiser posters that isn't crippled by the ESPN generation. :cheers:

What's often missing from the top all-time team list are reasons why team# 10 would beat team# 15 in a neutral setting. One day I may manage to pull that off, perhaps with only the top 10. :hammerhead:

Here's my list:


15th. 1983 Philadelphia Sixers
14th. 1995 Houston Rockets (my all time favorite :bowdown:)
13th. 2008 Boston Celtics
12th. 2005 San Antonio Spurs
11th. 1971 Milwaukee Bucks
10th. 1987 Los Angeles Lakers
9th. 1970 New York Knicks
8th. 2001 LA Lakers
7th. 1989 Detroit Pistons
6th. 1984 Boston Celtics
5th. 1965 Boston Celtics
4th. 1992 Chicago Bulls
3rd. 1972 LA Lakers
2nd. 1996 Chicago Bulls
1st. 1967 Philadelphia 76ers

You forgot an obvious one...(probably) It's a lot of peoples #1 all-time.


Anyway, one of the main reasons I decided to come back for the off-season was the post you did on Shaq and Wilt. I've seen a few posts like that around, as I've still browsed the site for news, just never logged in. The more I seen and the now that the volume of posters is down a lot, I thought it'd be a good time to get some more perspective on some of the things I've been working on.

Anyway, I think it's really hard to say why a team from the 1960's specifically would beat a team from the 1990's. They were two different games. The three-point line changes everything, not to mention the rate of league expansion vs. growth of talent pool equation. I mean there's never really been anything like the 1960'sa Celtics since them, which leads me to believe that it's probably not possible. Not just the winning, but the fact that almost everyone of those guys who started as Celtics and retired as Celtics. And the outgoing players trained the guys who replaced them. To put it biblically Cousy and Sharman beget KC and Sam, Ramsey beget Hondo, Heinsohn begat Sanders and to some extent Auerbach beget Russell. In my opinion the of the eleven greatest players to ever where the Celtics uniform (prior to KG) Nine of them were career Celtics (Russ, Cousy, Hondo, Bird, McHale, Cowens, Pierce, Heinsohn, Sam Jones) and the other two (Parrish and Sharman) joined Boston very early in their careers and played out at least their prime there.

Getting back on track though...I think a discussion about why Team A beats Team B in a hypothetical is a lot of fun, but I don't think it provides for a very interesting list because it's opinion based.

What I've tried to do is demonstrate specific characteristics and accomplishments that set these specific teams apart from the numerous other deserving candidates.

A legit case can be made for any team that has ever won an NBA title, the fact that they beat everyone who was put in front of them suggests nothing to make us assume that they would certainly lose to any other team, fellow Champions or not.

So when I post #24 later today and people start complaining because they think (and are probably right) that a team they like better and are more familiar with could easily beat this team, I'll not be surprised and I won't shy away from expressing a counterpoint, but I'm not going to expect anyone to change their mind.

[jlauber]

You forgot an obvious one...(probably) It's a lot of peoples #1 all-time.


Anyway, one of the main reasons I decided to come back for the off-season was the post you did on Shaq and Wilt. I've seen a few posts like that around, as I've still browsed the site for news, just never logged in. The more I seen and the now that the volume of posters is down a lot, I thought it'd be a good time to get some more perspective on some of the things I've been working on.

Anyway, I think it's really hard to say why a team from the 1960's specifically would beat a team from the 1990's. They were two different games. The three-point line changes everything, not to mention the rate of league expansion vs. growth of talent pool equation. I mean there's never really been anything like the 1960'sa Celtics since them, which leads me to believe that it's probably not possible. Not just the winning, but the fact that almost everyone of those guys who started as Celtics and retired as Celtics. And the outgoing players trained the guys who replaced them. To put it biblically Cousy and Sharman beget KC and Sam, Ramsey beget Hondo, Heinsohn begat Sanders and to some extent Auerbach beget Russell. In my opinion the of the eleven greatest players to ever where the Celtics uniform (prior to KG) Nine of them were career Celtics (Russ, Cousy, Hondo, Bird, McHale, Cowens, Pierce, Heinsohn, Sam Jones) and the other two (Parrish and Sharman) joined Boston very early in their careers and played out at least their prime there.

Getting back on track though...I think a discussion about why Team A beats Team B in a hypothetical is a lot of fun, but I don't think it provides for a very interesting list because it's opinion based.

What I've tried to do is demonstrate specific characteristics and accomplishments that set these specific teams apart from the numerous other deserving candidates.

A legit case can be made for any team that has ever won an NBA title, the fact that they beat everyone who was put in front of them suggests nothing to make us assume that they would certainly lose to any other team, fellow Champions or not.

So when I post #24 later today and people start complaining because they think (and are probably right) that a team they like better and are more familiar with could easily beat this team, I'll not be surprised and I won't shy away from expressing a counterpoint, but I'm not going to expect anyone to change their mind.

The '86 Celtics were a great team, but unfortunately, we never got to see them play the Lakers that year. In any case, here is my top-5, and I could go into detail while the '72 Lakers are #1 (they absolutely DOMINATED the league, and EVERY team.) Perhaps later I will post the reasons, but here is my list...

1. 71-72 LA
2. 66-67 Philaldephia
3. 95-96 Chicago
4. 70-71 Milwaukee
5. 86-87 LA

As for those great Celtic teams... most all of them were deserving. Later on I'll give you MY take on them.

BTW, an interesting fact about the '69 Celtics...the Lakers were ONE PLAY away from winning the Finals, 4-1. Had Johnny Egan been able to hold onto the ball in that pivotal game four, the Lakers would have won that game, and been up 3-1. In game five Wilt finally asserted himself, and crushed Russell, and LA won easily, 117-104. So, ONE PLAY separated those two teams from a 4-1 series loss to a 4-3 series win.

[Gotterdammerung]

You forgot an obvious one...(probably) It's a lot of peoples #1 all-time.
Crap. I put down 1984 when I meant 1986. Was thinking of a whackjob fan who argued that the 84 celtics was superior to the 86 edition, and he actually had a decent case. :rolleyes:

The 1986 Celts was definitely the strongest of the Bird Celtics, but they fall short due to extenuating circumstances (86 Lakers wilted to the upstart Rockets).

Also, I could shove in the 1980 Lakers and the 1977 Blazers in there somewhere in the teens.


Anyway, one of the main reasons I decided to come back for the off-season was the post you did on Shaq and Wilt.
Why, thanks. Its always great to know that I inspired others! :cheers:


Anyway, I think it's really hard to say why a team from the 1960's specifically would beat a team from the 1990's. They were two different games. The three-point line changes everything, not to mention the rate of league expansion vs. growth of talent pool equation.
No question.

If you transplanted any of the 1960s team to today, they would more than likely lose, due to a lack of familarity with many sophisticated things (illegal defenses, new rules, athleticism, tattoos, plastic surgery, etc.). But I wonder what would happen if they were given a month or so worth of training, preperation, a training camp of sorts, maybe a summer's worth of updating, and then the round robin tournament of the GOAT teams kicks off.

Also, vice versa: wht happens when you send, say, the 2010 Lakers to 1965? Will they be able to up the pace and play with the faster teams? Be able to score without the advent of the 3 point line, without modern rules, survive all that physical play?


Getting back on track though...I think a discussion about why Team A beats Team B in a hypothetical is a lot of fun, but I don't think it provides for a very interesting list because it's opinion based.

On the contrary:

Because we do pre-season speculation, and pre-game speculation, and playoff predictions, that makes for all the interest in the game. Now, if we chose to adhere to the rules why teams win or lose championships (chemistry, maturity, talent, savvy, coaching, etc.) Then we can sort of guess which GOAT would have the edge over another.

But if we're simple homers who grew up worshipping a team, we'll bend those principles in the favor of our teams. I'd argue for the 1995 Rockets over every team, and pick a stat that elevates them over the other GOATs.


What I've tried to do is demonstrate specific characteristics and accomplishments that set these specific teams apart from the numerous other deserving candidates.
One drawback to that is if you stick to an abstract standard, a stat-heavy criteria, you'll end up with an implausible list, like Hollinger.

A legit case can be made for any team that has ever won an NBA title, the fact that they beat everyone who was put in front of them suggests nothing to make us assume that they would certainly lose to any other team, fellow Champions or not.
You're not gonna sabotage your list that easily. :D

So when I post #24 later today and people start complaining because they think (and are probably right) that a team they like better and are more familiar with could easily beat this team, I'll not be surprised and I won't shy away from expressing a counterpoint, but I'm not going to expect anyone to change their mind.
Don't worry. As long you educate us ig'nant fools, you've done your job. :bowdown:

[G.O.A.T]

#24 1950 Minneapolis Lakers

http://assets.espn.go.com/photo/2009/0529/espndb_1950nbachamp_576.jpg

Head Coach: Johyn Kundla
Most skilled Player: George Mikan
Most Important Player: George Mikan
Other Starters: Jim Pollard, Vern Mikkelsen, Arnie Ferrin, Slater Martin
Key Bench Players: Herm Schaefer, Bob Harrison, Swede Carlson

Regular Season Record: 51-17 (1st Central Division)
Postseason Record: 11-2
NBA Finals: Beat the Syracuse Nationals four games to two.
Longest Winning Streak: 14 games
Points Scored per Game: 84.1
Points Allowed per Game: 75.7

[SIZE="3"][URL=

[magnax1]

50's NBA teams and players=confusing. I have no idea what to think of them.

[G.O.A.T]

50's NBA teams and players=confusing. I have no idea what to think of them.

This article will give you a little background on why they were so important.

Think of them as any other pro athletes in the 1950's. They were playing the game at the highest level that existed at that time.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Nice write up on the 1969 Celtics, one of the more interesting teams in NBA history. I'll be interested to see if you have one of the 3peat Laker teams, if so, which one? The 2001 team destroyed the playoffs, but had a modest regular season for an all-time great team and the 2000 team started 67-13 and they didn't seem to care much about the last 2 games and they were 64-12, but lost a game Shaq missed, but they didn't dominate the playoffs and lacked a 3rd guy in the playoffs, they didn't have a true 3rd guy the following year, but Kobe improved and gave them 2 superstars, hence their dominance.

[1987_Lakers]

My top 10 right now
1. 1986 Celtics
2. 1996 Bulls
3. 1987 Lakers
4. 1967 Sixers
5. 1972 Lakers
6. 1983 Sixers
7. 1971 Bucks
8. 1965 Celtics
9. 1989 Pistons
10. 1970 Knicks

[Gotterdammerung]

This article will give you a little background on why they were so important. Think of them as any other pro athletes in the 1950's. They were playing the game at the highest level that existed at that time.

I agree - just place the 50's teams in context, and we can appreciate them for what they were. Mikan was the most unstoppable inside force of the pre-shotclock era with 27.4 ppg. They didn't record rebounds back then, but Mikan was also a force on the boards. Next to Mikan was yet another powerhouse in Vern Mikkelsen: in addition to his scoring pizzazz (11.6 ppg) he was an excellent defender and rebounder. The other frontcourt player was the dynamite Jim Pollard (14.7 ppg, 3.8 assists). They called him the kangaroo kid due to his leaping ability. Some think he could have flourished in the modern era (post-shotclock).

The Lakers had a 3 headed beast in the back court: Slater Martin, Arnie Ferrin and Herm Schaefer. Smart, quick, accurate from outisde, and reliable entry-passers for Mikan's devastating inside play.

The bench was solid and dependable (including one of the 3 guards that didn't start): Bob Harrison (4.5 ppg), Don Carlson (4.7 ppg), Tony Jaros (3.9 ppg). Bud Grant was also on the team, but he never played, and went on to become an NFL head coach (Minnesota Vikings?).

The '50 Lakers had a straightforward gameplan: physical defense, pound the boards, have Mikan dominate the post. With Mikan and Mikkelsen, the Lakers had a physical edge over every other team - with the exception of 6' 5" Nat 'Sweetwater' Clifton of the Knicks. Even though the guards were fast, the fast-break wasn't allowed.

But there's no way this team could keep up with the up-tempo of the modern game, and there was no size (only Mikan and Mikklesen were taller than 6' 5"). :hammerhead:

[G.O.A.T]

The '50 Lakers had a straightforward gameplan: physical defense, pound the boards, have Mikan dominate the post. With Mikan and Mikkelsen, the Lakers had a physical edge over every other team - with the exception of 6' 5" Nat 'Sweetwater' Clifton of the Knicks. Even though the guards were fast, the fast-break wasn't allowed.

But there's no way this team could keep up with the up-tempo of the modern game, and there was no size (only Mikan and Mikklesen were taller than 6' 5"). :hammerhead:

Clifton didn't come along until the 1950-51 season, he was part of that famous integration class of Chuck Cooper, Hank DeZonie, himself and Earl Lloyd. The arrivial of black players (though just a few) along with the new wider lane rules had an impact on Mikan, lower his scoring average but not interrupting his dominance.

[Heilige]

Clifton didn't come along until the 1950-51 season, he was part of that famous integration class of Chuck Cooper, Hank DeZonie, himself and Earl Lloyd. The arrivial of black players (though just a few) along with the new wider lane rules had an impact on Mikan, lower his scoring average but not interrupting his dominance.


Welcome back! :cheers:


I sent you a PM awhile ago but you never responded; it was who were the top 10 players from your GOAT list you never completed. Also, about info. regarding the basketball book you are working on...

[G.O.A.T]

#23: 1982 Los Angeles Lakers

http://assets.espn.go.com/photo/2009/0529/espndb_1982nbachamp_576.jpg

Head Coach: Pat Riley
Most skilled Player: Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
Most Important Player: Magic Johnson
Other Starters: Jamaal Wilkes, Norm Nixon, Kurt Rambis
Key Bench Players: Bob McAdoo, Michael Cooper

Regular Season Record: 57-25 (1st Pacific Division)
Postseason Record: 12-2
NBA Finals: Beat the Philadelphia 76ers four games to two
Longest Winning Streak: 9 games
Points Scored per Game: 110.2
Points Allowed per Game: 105.5


http://cache1.asset-cache.net/xc/81363644.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=77BFBA49EF8789215ABF3343C02EA548A9E07B2676FDF68E DAB4E0E19C49C9933E20B11350374145

[FONT="Palatino Linotype"]-Thirty years after Mikan delivered the Minneapolis Lakers a title the year of the NBA

[ShaqAttack3234]

Interesting post on the '82 Lakers. I knew Magic feuded with Paul Westhead, but I didn't know he feuded with Norm Nixon.

[DuMa]

Schweet thread broski

[L.A. Jazz]

[CENTER][SIZE="6"]In November Magic asked to be traded...
interesting

[G.O.A.T]

interesting

November 30, 1981
Don't Blame Me, I Just Want To Have Fun!
The Lakers were winning, but Magic Johnson and the owner were not enjoying it. Solution: Can the coach
Anthony Cotton



Thirty minutes after the Los Angeles Lakers had thrashed the San Antonio Spurs 136-116 last Friday night at The Forum, Magic Johnson felt not only relieved and vindicated but just plain good, too. He had scored 20 points, grabbed 10 rebounds, dished out 16 assists, had three steals and one block

[G.O.A.T]

That wasn't the kind of excitement Buss had in mind. On Nov. 15 he met with West and General Manager Bill Sharman and told them he wanted to dismiss Westhead for uninspired victories over what he perceived to be inferior opponents. He says he was talked out of it by the other two. That evening the Lakers struggled through another double-overtime game, beating the Pacers 124-123. Three nights later came the Utah game and Magic's moment. At 11:30 a.m. the next day Buss again met with West and Sharman. With Johnson's trade demand in the papers, all three men were now in agreement that a change should be made, and West volunteered his services. Buss accepted the offer and then tried to notify some of the Laker veterans. He succeeded only in reaching the captain, Abdul-Jabbar, who later said, "I'm disappointed at the way it happened." There was also a conversation with Johnson that lasted less than a minute. The subject: a birthday party that Buss and Johnson were to attend that evening.

At approximately 1:30, Westhead, who was about to leave his Forum office to go home and study some San Antonio game films, was called and asked to meet with Buss in less than an hour. By 3:15 he was unemployed, although he refused to believe his offense was to blame. "No one—player or coach—could have been more desirous of running the ball than I was," Westhead said. "I don't know that it wasn't happening; it's difficult to make an evaluation after 11 games. Very clearly, if we weren't running it wasn't a result of me and what I was trying to do."

Riley agrees: "Any time you run an offense with a center in the low post," he says, "you're going to have trouble with the half-court offense, a lack of movement, and it also tends to put restrictions on freelancing. Even when we won the championship there were players unhappy with the offense."

This time it was Johnson who spoke up: "Why was it wrong for me to talk? Should I shut up and be unhappy and jeopardize the team, waiting for something to blow up?

"Ask anyone who saw us. We were the dullest team in the league. I'd look at films and say, 'What is this?' We would get dressed before games and there would be no enthusiasm, nothing; we'd all just sit there."

If there ever was a time that Johnson didn't want to be blah, it was against the Midwest Division-leading Spurs last Friday, when for the first time he would be cast in the role of a villain. "I know I'm going to be booed but I have to deal with it," he said. "As long as I know in my heart that I didn't try to get him fired, I can handle it." Would he make something special happen right away in an effort to win over the fans? He giggled and said, "If it comes right away, that would be good. I think something good will be there."

Johnson, the first Laker starter introduced, was roundly booed, and the razz-berries resumed the first time he touched the ball. Even though he passed off for an assist the next time downcourt, the noise continued, but things were slowly changing. First came a trickle of cheers, then a torrent halfway through the second period. Rebounding a missed shot, Johnson dribbled down the left sideline. Just after he crossed halfcourt, he alley-ooped a pass to a streaking Michael Cooper for a dunk. Twenty-eight seconds later he scored on a jump hook. Twenty-two seconds thereafter he fed Abdul-Jabbar for a basket. Less than a minute later Johnson was slicing through the middle for a layup. And 26 seconds after that he repeated the act. In the final five minutes of the half, Johnson would score eight more points and pass for another pair, capping a quarter of 14 points, four rebounds and five assists.

The second half was more of the same as Johnson's enthusiasm spread to the other Lakers, particularly Mitch Kupchak, who for the game was 11 for 11 from the field with 17 rebounds, and Abdul-Jabbar, who scored 30 points, even filled the wings on some fast breaks, and brought the ball upcourt a couple of times. The Lakers' 136 points surpassed their high this season in regulation time by 15 points and were 28 more than their season average. More important, especially for Johnson, there were at least 30 Laker points off the fast break, more than they had in any game under Westhead. After the game, Riley, the un-coach, accepted congratulations all around for the sage advice he gave his team. "I told them to wing it—just like I was doing," he said. Another smiling face belonged to Buss, who thanked each player individually for his effort. "This, I think, is the beginning of Showtime," said Buss. "At least the curtain is up."

But, alas, the curtain is down on the old Magic. Johnson, who had been criticized from coast to coast, was clearly still a great player. Just as clearly, he's no longer such a great guy.

[Yung D-Will]

Great way to learn about teams you never saw play thx for the hard work G.O.A.T

[L.A. Jazz]

thanks a lot for this article. great read.

[G.O.A.T]

#22 2005 San Antonio Spurs

http://assets.espn.go.com/photo/2009/0529/espndb_2005nbachamp_576.jpg

Head Coach: Gregg Popovich
Most skilled Player: Tim Duncan
Most Important Player: Tim Duncan
Other Starters: Manu Ginobili, Tony Parker, Bruce Bowen, Nazr Mohameed
Key Bench Players: Brent Barry, Robert Horry, Beno Udrih

Regular Season Record: 59-23 (1st Southwest Division)
Postseason Record: 16-7
NBA Finals: Beat the Detroit Pistons four games to three.
Longest Winning Streak: 8 games
Points Scored per Game: 96.2
Points Allowed per Game: 88.4

Stats


[FONT="Palatino Linotype"]- .683, 740, .647, .707, .707, .732, .695, .720, .768, .707, .683. Those are the Spurs winning percentages between 1998 and 2008. In that span the organization won over 600 regular season games, 24 playoff series, advanced to six Western Conference Finals and won in all four of their NBA finals appearances. It started in 1997 when after David Robinson missed the regular season and the Spurs were one of the leagues worst teams, their lottery ball hit and the #1 pick of the 1997 draft and the rights to Tim Duncan were theirs. Alongside Robinson and with veteran Spurs, Avery Johnson, Sean Elliot and Mario Elie, the Spurs won the 1999 NBA Title. Over the next three seasons, the Lakers took hold of the NBA and the Spurs veterans

[jlauber]

[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]
#22 2005 San Antonio Spurs

http://assets.espn.go.com/photo/2009/0529/espndb_2005nbachamp_576.jpg

Head Coach: Gregg Popovich
Most skilled Player: Tim Duncan
Most Important Player: Tim Duncan
Other Starters: Manu Ginobili, Tony Parker, Bruce Bowen, Nazr Mohameed
Key Bench Players: Brent Barry, Robert Horry, Beno Udrih

Regular Season Record: 59-23 (1st Southwest Division)
Postseason Record: 16-7
NBA Finals: Beat the Detroit Pistons four games to three.
Longest Winning Streak: 8 games
Points Scored per Game: 96.2
Points Allowed per Game: 88.4

Stats


[FONT="Palatino Linotype"]- .683, 740, .647, .707, .707, .732, .695, .720, .768, .707, .683. Those are the Spurs winning percentages between 1998 and 2008. In that span the organization won over 600 regular season games, 24 playoff series, advanced to six Western Conference Finals and won in all four of their NBA finals appearances. It started in 1997 when after David Robinson missed the regular season and the Spurs were one of the leagues worst teams, their lottery ball hit and the #1 pick of the 1997 draft and the rights to Tim Duncan were theirs. Alongside Robinson and with veteran Spurs, Avery Johnson, Sean Elliot and Mario Elie, the Spurs won the 1999 NBA Title. Over the next three seasons, the Lakers took hold of the NBA and the Spurs veterans

[jlauber]

BTW, where do you rank Popovich among the great coaches?

[G.O.A.T]

BTW, where do you rank Popovich among the great coaches?

He's in the top ten all-time with Auerbach, Phil, Riley, Daly, Larry Brown, Alex Hannum, Red Holzman, John Kundla and whoever else I feel like tossing in I.E. Rick Adelman or Rudy T or Heinsohn etc.

[jlauber]

He's in the top ten all-time with Auerbach, Phil, Riley, Daly, Larry Brown, Alex Hannum, Red Holzman, John Kundla and whoever else I feel like tossing in I.E. Rick Adelman or Rudy T or Heinsohn etc.

I'll give a shout out to another ex-Celtic...Bill Sharman. IMHO, his coaching job with the 71-72 Lakers has to rank among the best ever. He took over an aged and injury-ravaged team, that had been on the decline for a couple of years. They had finished 48-34 in 70-71 and most experts tabbed them for near the middle to bottom of the Pacific Divison. Coming into the season, they had all FIVE starters at over the age of 30 (Baylor, Hairston, Wilt, Goodrich, and West.) During the pre-season he asked his team to RUN. He went to Wilt and asked him to concentrate on defense and rebounding (much like Sharman's former teammate, Russell), and to start the break with his outlet passes.

He did realize that Baylor was a shell, and was relieved when Baylor retired after the first nine games. He inserted second-year player, Jim McMillian, into Baylor's starting slot...and the rest was history. An immediate 33 game winning streak. A devastating offense that terrorized the NBA, and led the league in scoring at 121 ppg. The Lakers not only won...they won big. They outscored their opponents by a record +12.3 over the course of the season, and went on to set a then-record of 69-13. In the post-season, they swept the 57-25 Bulls, 4-0. Then they knocked off the defending champion Bucks (63-19), a team that many not only felt that would win the title again, but would be a dynasty...4-2. And finally, they routed the Knicks, and their FIVE HOFers, 4-1 to win the title.

[Yung D-Will]

:rockon:

[G.O.A.T]

Thanks for the support Yung^

#21 will be posted today.

In the mean time, anyone else have any comments or thoughts on the 2005 Spurs and their #22 ranking

[magnax1]

I think the 05 Spurs were definitely the worst Spurs championship team. I guess 03 was pretty close, but 05 neither Ginobili or Parker were in their best years, and they didn't have the insane depth of the 03 team. I have a hard time deciding between 07 and 99 as the best. 99 was destructive defensively, but wasn't special at all offensively. I think that 07 was a bit better, but I'm not sure.

[Gotterdammerung]

In the mean time, anyone else have any comments or thoughts on the 2005 Spurs and their #22 ranking

I would put them higher, since the Duncan-led Spurs were the only team to beat the Shaq-Kobe Lakers more than once in the playoffs.

But they didn't have sufficient muscle in the middle, and the elite type of depth (not counting Robert Horry) that most of the greatest teams ever had. Plus, their perimeter scoring was erratic.

I'd pick them over the '50 Lakers, '94 Rockets, and perhaps the '08 Celtics, but that's more of a homer pick than anything. :oldlol:

[G.O.A.T]

#21 1962 Boston Celtics

http://assets.espn.go.com/photo/2009/0529/espndb_1962nbachamp_576.jpg

Head Coach: Red Auerbach
Most skilled Player: Bill Russell
Most Important Player: Bill Russell
Other Starters: Bob Cousy, Tom Heinsohn, Sam Jones, Satch Sanders
Key Bench Players: Frank Ramsey, KC Jones, Jim Loscutoff

Regular Season Record: 60-20 (1st Eastern Division)
Postseason Record: 8-6
NBA Finals: Beat the Los Angeles Lakers four games to three.
Longest Winning Streak: 9 games
Points Scored per Game: 121.1
Points Allowed per Game: 111.8

Stats (http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/BOS/1962.html)

[FONT="Palatino Linotype"]- The second installment of the Celtic Dynasty brings us to the middle of the Red

[rmt]

I think the 05 Spurs were definitely the worst Spurs championship team. I guess 03 was pretty close, but 05 neither Ginobili or Parker were in their best years, and they didn't have the insane depth of the 03 team. I have a hard time deciding between 07 and 99 as the best. 99 was destructive defensively, but wasn't special at all offensively. I think that 07 was a bit better, but I'm not sure.
This is the way I rank them:
1. 99 and 05 tie

99 - Twin Towers were great defensively. Duncan was young and mobile and Robinson was still good. Very tough to score on them. Rest of the cast was tough, seasoned veterans.

05 - the big 3 + Bowen were closest to their primes. Very versatile team - had size (Duncan, Nazr, Rasho), passing (Duncan, Manu, Barry, Beno), 3pt shooting (Barry, Bowen, Manu, Horry), good defense, and intangibles. My favorite team.

07 - least talented but well-oiled, mentally tough team. Got lucky that Dallas lost to GSW.

03 - Duncan at his peak and a young, mentally fragile team that constantly gave up big leads. Rookie Manu, 2nd year just turned 20 year old Parker, streaky Jackson, 38 year old Robinson with a bad back in his last year.

[SCdac]

In the mean time, anyone else have any comments or thoughts on the 2005 Spurs and their #22 ranking

I posted about the 2005 Spurs in the first page, and how they were utterly dominant (in terms of how they were winning and who they were beating), in relation to other championship teams... Thought they were bound to be underrated, but glad to see they at least made your list. They weren't that deep (not that it mattered, rotations tighten up in the playoffs), they didn't have David Robinson and other "big names", and the Finals weren't watched by many outside of DET and SA, but that team was about as strong as it gets in the 2000's. It's not about stats and all-star appearances to prove it, it's about watching that team hunker down and make it absolutely tough for the opposition to score.

I can say alot on that team, it was my favorite, but I'll just add that this was one of Bruce Bowen's best seasons. For the third straight season, he started all 82 games, he made the all-defensive first team, and received more first place votes for DPOY than ever before in his career (finishing runner up to Ben Wallace), all at the age of 33.

His defensive versatility proved useful, once again. He guarded 20-year-old Carmelo in the first round, Ray Allen and Shard in the second, Steve Nash and Joe Johnson in the WCF, then covered Rip Hamilton in the Finals. In game 7 against the Pistons, with just a couple minutes away from a championship, Pop has Bowen guarding Chauncey Billups, one of the best ball-handlers in the league. Bowen forces him into a tough three pointer, and with his length and anticipation blocks the shot, and gets the ball back to help seal the deal.... Here's a very brief gif, but it can be viewed on youtube, etc
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y147/adrumaddict/bowenblocksbillups.gif


His three point shooting was as good as ever too. Underrated three point shooter, largely because his three's typically came from the corners which gives the perception his three point was limited or couldn't be above-average. He was catch-and-shoot player, but he perfected the three point shot. He shot a respectable .403 % from beyond the arch for the season, which placed him at 20th in the league. But in 23 playoff games he shot .433 % from beyond, and .448 % in the Finals. In game 2 of the Finals he hit 4 three's, then the next game hit 4 three's again, even though he hadn't hit that many since the start of the season back in november. With Duncan working out of the post like a pro, it created numerous shots on the perimeter, for Manu, Bowen, Barry, Horry, etc. Often times, when players didn't respect Bowen's range, they found themselves getting...
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y147/adrumaddict/bowen1pc9.gif

2005 champs = underrated and eager to make for that .4 Fisher debacle.

[SCdac]

This is the way I rank them:
1. 99 and 05 tie

99 - Twin Towers were great defensively. Duncan was young and mobile and Robinson was still good. Very tough to score on them. Rest of the cast was tough, seasoned veterans.

05 - the big 3 + Bowen were closest to their primes. Very versatile team - had size (Duncan, Nazr, Rasho), passing (Duncan, Manu, Barry, Beno), 3pt shooting (Barry, Bowen, Manu, Horry), good defense, and intangibles.

07 - least talented but well-oiled, mentally tough team. Got lucky that Dallas lost to GSW.

03 - Duncan at his peak and a young, mentally fragile team that constantly gave up big leads. Rookie Manu, 2nd year just turned 20 year old Parker, streaky Jackson, 38 year old Robinson with a bad back in his last year.

I pretty much agree with the way you ranked them. :applause:

[magnax1]

This is the way I rank them:
1. 99 and 05 tie

99 - Twin Towers were great defensively. Duncan was young and mobile and Robinson was still good. Very tough to score on them. Rest of the cast was tough, seasoned veterans.

05 - the big 3 + Bowen were closest to their primes. Very versatile team - had size (Duncan, Nazr, Rasho), passing (Duncan, Manu, Barry, Beno), 3pt shooting (Barry, Bowen, Manu, Horry), good defense, and intangibles.

07 - least talented but well-oiled, mentally tough team. Got lucky that Dallas lost to GSW.

03 - Duncan at his peak and a young, mentally fragile team that constantly gave up big leads. Rookie Manu, 2nd year just turned 20 year old Parker, streaky Jackson, 38 year old Robinson with a bad back in his last year.
I don't really get why you rank 05 over 07 since 07 was almost the exact same roster, except Ginobili and Parker both had their best, or close to their best seasons.

[SCdac]

I don't really get why you rank 05 over 07 since 07 was almost the exact same roster, except Ginobili and Parker both had their best, or close to their best seasons.

Did you watch Ginobili in the 2005 post season? He was a man possessed. Not to mention, Manu made the all-star game that season, and the Spurs were playing out-of-this-world defense. Check my first post in this thread, there's a link from basketball reference that goes into depth about how dominant the 2005 Spurs were against (not just regular teams, but) playoff teams. It's not all about the make up of the rosters, but also the way they were playing. In 2007, it wasn't quite as tough a road to a championship (imo), but still tough. 2007 added Fin, Oberto, Elson, and Vaughn, but with the added depth their Reg season record and defense didn't necessarily improve (nor did it drop off). When the Spurs traded for Nazr Mohammed, he gave them a servicable big man in the middle, who could block/contest shots, and also put the ball in the basket efficiently.

[rmt]

I don't really get why you rank 05 over 07 since 07 was almost the exact same roster, except Ginobili and Parker both had their best, or close to their best seasons.
05 was Manu's peak - played great in the Finals, won Olympic Gold the summer before and had his only All-Star game that year.

Parker's peak was 08-09. He was guarded by a hobbled Larry Hughes in the first 2 games and by rookie Daniel Gibson in the last 2 games of the 07 Finals. So Spurs went with the mismatch.

The team was old in 07 - Bowen (37), Horry (37), Barry (36), Kurt Thomas (35), Finley (34) - they couldn't keep up with the young, quick teams.

[G.O.A.T]

I think that because of the drop off of Bowen and Duncan, the rise of Parker and Ginobili are minimal. Especially since I think the 2005 Finals is the best series of Manu's career. And Parker was in his prime on the very edge of it about to be. He set career highs in points, assists and FG% in 2005.

I also think they had Horry and Brent Barry at just the right time.

They were just as good as far as win loss and more impressive staistical in 2005 and their Finals against Detroit earns them way more than the sweep of Lebron and Cleveland.

[beermonsteroo]

:bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown: :cheers: :cheers: :cheers:

[jlauber]

G.O.A.T

Great post on the 61-62 Celtics!!!

:applause:

[G.O.A.T]

G.O.A.T

Great post on the 61-62 Celtics!!!

:applause:

Have you ever seen video of Wilt's game seven goal tending call vs. Heinsohn?

[jlauber]

Have you ever seen video of Wilt's game seven goal tending call vs. Heinsohn?

No. I thought it was on Sam Jones (which, I also didn't see.)

[Round Mound]

From All The Finals I`ve seen I`d go with

1986 Celtics
1985 Lakers
1983 Sixers

[ThaRegul8r]

Have you ever seen video of Wilt's game seven goal tending call vs. Heinsohn?

No. I thought it was on Sam Jones (which, I also didn't see.)

It was Heinsohn. Jones hit the game-winner.

[L.A. Jazz]

was there a big discussion if it was a goaltend or was it pretty clear?
(maybe you have some articles, again)

The 2005 finals were pretty lame, but game 5 was great, and i will never forget Sheed's BIG mistake leaving ROBERT HORRY wiede open.

[G.O.A.T]

was there a big discussion if it was a goaltend or was it pretty clear?
(maybe you have some articles, again)

The 2005 finals were pretty lame, but game 5 was great, and i will never forget Sheed's BIG mistake leaving ROBERT HORRY wiede open.

As for the goaltend, I've never seen it but everything I've read points to controversy. All the Warriors say it wasn't all the Celtics say it was. Either way it took a tie game out of overtime and gave Boston the game seven win.

As for the 2005 Finals, I mentioned this in another thread but when Dave Cowens talked about that play prior to the 2005-06 season on Piston pre-game he said that the play was designed to force the first first pass to the corner and trap to make them use more time. However, I believe (and Cowens did not say this) it was Billups who missed his rotation from Parker to Horry which would have allowed more time for recovery or at least force Parker to hit the shot, which likely would have been a two and forced overtime.

[PHILA]

I've read several older posters on this board (and others) claim it was a blown goaltend call. Legends like Paul Arizin have stated that Sam Jones happened to sink a "deep set shot" as time expired for the two point victory.

However a couple of articles state that Sam Jones 'fired the winning basket over giant Wilt Chamberlain with two seconds left..'

Sarasota Journal (http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=5B4eAAAAIBAJ&sjid=1YsEAAAAIBAJ&pg=5003,843173&dq)

Eugene Register-Guard (http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=-SERAAAAIBAJ&sjid=zOIDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6499,996218&dq)

Ocala Star-Banner (http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=1_8ZAAAAIBAJ&sjid=nQ4EAAAAIBAJ&pg=6379,1418629&dq)

[G.O.A.T]

I've read several older posters on this board (and others) claim it was a blown goaltend call. Legends like Paul Arizin have stated that Sam Jones happened to sink a "deep set shot" as time expired for the two point victory.

However a couple of articles state that Sam Jones 'fired the winning basket over giant Wilt Chamberlain with two seconds left..'

Sarasota Journal (http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=5B4eAAAAIBAJ&sjid=1YsEAAAAIBAJ&pg=5003,843173&dq)

Eugene Register-Guard (http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=-SERAAAAIBAJ&sjid=zOIDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6499,996218&dq)

Ocala Star-Banner (http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=1_8ZAAAAIBAJ&sjid=nQ4EAAAAIBAJ&pg=6379,1418629&dq)

Very interesting. In "24 seconds to shoot" Leonard Koppett recalls that Heinsohn's shot was goal-tended and that The Warriors tried a long pass play of the backboard at the end similar to Hannum's playin the 1957 Finals.

Nice find, I'm going to try and get to the bottom of this. I'd hate to get it wrong for the book.

[jlauber]

Very interesting. In "24 seconds to shoot" Leonard Koppett recalls that Heinsohn's shot was goal-tended and that The Warriors tried a long pass play of the backboard at the end similar to Hannum's playin the 1957 Finals.

Nice find, I'm going to try and get to the bottom of this. I'd hate to get it wrong for the book.

In Cherry's book on Wilt, he says that Heinsohn's shot was goal-tended at the 1:24 mark, giving Boston a 107-102 lead. Both Wilt and his coach McGuire were furious with the call, but Mendy Rudolph upheld the goal-tend. 16 seconds left, Chamberlain dunked an offensive rebound, was fouled and MADE the FT, to TIE the game at 107-107. That led to Sam Jone's winning shot with 2-3 seconds left (and over Wilt.)

After the game, McGuire was quoted as saying, "I don't mind getting beaten, but I hate losing on a lousy decision like that."

BTW, Russell is often credited with "holding" Wilt to 22 points in that game (on 7-14 shooting), but according to the newspaper accounts, Wilt's DEFENSE was all over the floor in that game seven. And, Tom Meschery, Wilt's teammate, who scored 32 points in that game, had this comment after the game: "The Boston players, man for man, were better players than the Warriors. To go as far as we did was Wilt's doing."

[G.O.A.T]

In Cherry's book on Wilt, he says that Heinsohn's shot was goal-tended at the 1:24 mark, giving Boston a 107-102 lead. Both Wilt and his coach McGuire were furious with the call, but Mendy Rudolph upheld the goal-tend. 16 seconds left, Chamberlain dunked an offensive rebound, was fouled and MADE the FT, to TIE the game at 107-107. That led to Sam Jone's winning shot with 2-3 seconds left (and over Wilt.)

After the game, McGuire was quoted as saying, "I don't mind getting beaten, but I hate losing on a lousy decision like that."

BTW, Russell is often credited with "holding" Wilt to 22 points in that game (on 7-14 shooting), but according to the newspaper accounts, Wilt's DEFENSE was all over the floor in that game seven. And, Tom Meschery, Wilt's teammate, who scored 32 points in that game, had this comment after the game: "The Boston players, man for man, were better players than the Warriors. To go as far as we did was Wilt's doing."

Excellent insight thank you. I've heard all those elements of the story before, the order you present them in makes perfect sense.

[jlauber]

Excellent insight thank you. I've heard all those elements of the story before, the order you present them in makes perfect sense.

Glad to be of some help. I'll just take 30% of the profits from your book as compensation. Hopefully it will make millions.

Seriously, if you ever need some info on Wilt, I do have quite a few resources, although I wish I had more (like ALL of his boxscores.)

[G.O.A.T]

Anybody want to take a guess at which team is next...?

I'll give you a hint if you choose to highlight it. It's either a Laker or Celtic team

[magnax1]

Maybe 09 or 10 Lakers?

[KGMN]

07-08 Celtics?

Wait, you're writing a book? Sorry if I'm being stupid, but I'm pretty new here.

[G.O.A.T]

#20 1984 Boston Celtics

http://themixtapemonster.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/84-celtics.jpg

Head Coach: KC Jones
Most skilled Player: Larry Bird
Most Important Player: Larry Bird
Other Starters: Robert Parrish, Dennis Johnson, Cedric Maxwell, Gerald Henderson
Key Bench Players: Kevin McHale, Danny Ainge, Scott Wedman, Quinn Buckner

Regular Season Record: 62-20 (1st Atlantic Division)
Postseason Record: 15-8
NBA Finals: Beat the Los Angeles Lakers four games to three.
Longest Winning Streak: 9 games (three times)
Points Scored per Game: 112.1
Points Allowed per Game: 105.6

Stats (http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/BOS/1984.html)

-After a four year build up following their classic college showdown, Magic Johnson and Larry Bird were finally playing each other for a Championship again. After entering the NBA prior to the 1979-80 season, Magic and Bird won the next three NBA titles. Magic’s Lakers beating Julius Erving’s Sixers in 1980 and 1982 and Bird’s Celtics beating Moses Malone’s Houston Rockets in 1981. In 1983, Erving and Malone joined forces in Philly and beat both Boston and LA-LA land on their way to the title, but in the 1984 playoffs they were upset in the opening round by New Jersey. With the road cleared, Boston battled through the East and arrived in the Finals against the Lakers with the Boston Garden being the opening site for this long awaited showdown. The Celtics would emerge as Champions in seven games despite looking overmatched for most of the series. The overcoming of LA, the decline of the Sixers and Bird’s winning the MVP for the 1983-84 season had the basketball world almost in lock step thinking that Larry Legend was the games greatest player.
But the 1984 Celtics in retrospect were a lot more than the stage for Bird’s breakout. They were a near perfectly constructed team that won 62 games in a league with only three other 50 game winners. They were 10 games better than Philadelphia, second in the East and eight games better than Los Angeles, the top dog in the West. They had Bird, their centerpiece and the MVP who averaged 24-10-7. Joining him up front were Robert Parish, Cedric Maxwell and Kevin McHale the 1984 Sixth Man of the Year award winner. The Celtics had acquired McHale and Parish simultaneously in a shrewd draft day deal in 1980 that involved sending Golden State #1 overall pick, Purdue Center Joe Barry Carroll, for Parish, who was to busy being high to play basketball, and the rights to the #3 pick, McHale. Now Parish, probably still high but focused, was averaging 19 points and 11 rebounds and McHale was giving Boston 18 and 7 and led them in blocked shots off the bench. Maxwell chipped in 12 and 6 with excellent efficiency and was the most aggressive attacking the basket. The Celtics four man front court rotation all shot better than 49% from the field and 75% from the line. In the backcourt was mainstay Gerald Henderson, who was equally efficient shooting 53% from the field and averaging 12 points and 4 assists and Dennis Johnson. Johnson had been acquired in the off-season from Phoenix, unlike the Parish/McHale deal, this one was not about being sharp, but Phoenix wanting to get ride of Johnson. DJ gave the Celtics 13 points 4 rebounds and 4 assists and provided a presence in the backcourt as a former Finals MVP and a playoff tested warrior. Backing up Johnson and Henderson were veteran Quinn Bucker (4 points 3 assists) and third year man Danny Ainge (5 points 2 assists). The Celtics also had former Kansas City King All-Star and one-time 20 per game scorer, Scott Wedman (5 points 2 rebounds) playing his first full season with Boston and a true enforcer M.L. Carr for when the going got rough.

http://sportszone.auatv.com/files/2010/03/Bird_vs_Magic_1984_NBA_Finals.jpg

On the bench for Boston was legendary Celtic guard KC Jones replacing Bill Fitch who had led Boston to an average of 61 wins in his four seasons as head coach and had helped them win the 1981 NBA Finals. Fitch had resigned following the 1982-83 season with the being sold and coming off an embarrassing playoff defeat at the hands of another former Celtic, Don Nelson and the Milwaukee Bucks. Under Jones the Celtics lost their opener, then reeled off nine straight wins. But they were up and down for the first month other than their streak and after an overtime loss to the defending Champion Sixers put Boston a game and a half back in the standings. The Celtics then went on a 25-3 tear that included a 105-104 win in Philadelphia and a 102-98 back home at Boston Gardens. Bird was really hitting his stride and the cast around him was healthy and clicking. It was another loss in Philadelphia, this one in double overtime that propelled the Celtics on another spurt, this one to finish the regular season. They won 11 of their last 12 to finish with the eighth 60-win season in Celtic history. The postseason opened against the pesky Washington Bullets who hung close in both games in Boston but came up empty, after an overtime win in game three, they ran out of gas and Boston prevailed in four. In the second round Boston and Bird were challenged by one of the all-time great playoff performances. Bernard King had just finished lifting New York over the Pistons by averaging over 40 points per game in the five game series. Against Boston he averaged just over 30 but it was not enough to derail the Celtics who held serve at home with four double-digit wins and prevailed in seven. It was a rematch with the Bucks awaiting them, this time in the Conference Finals. It was however anticlimactic as Boston won the first two at home by an average of twenty points and after splitting in Milwaukee closed it out at home with a 115-108 victory.

http://cache1.asset-cache.net/xc/89045053.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=77BFBA49EF878921CC759DF4EBAC47D04C8C5066BACC42FB 674470C630C9D181DB8E0BB41DA87BE0

That brings us to the NBA Finals. As game one drew near the Magic vs. Bird angle gave way to a new story line, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and his migraine headaches. His participation in the game was in jeopardy up until the player introductions. But once the game started it wasn’t Kareem that was the question mark, but the Celtics ability to contend. Los Angeles built a double-digit lead in the first quarter and held off every Celtic charge. Kareem played brilliantly despite the headache, scoring 23 first half points and finishing with 32 points on 12 of 17 shooting. McHale led the Celtics with 25 and Bird followed with 24 and 14 rebounds.

[G.O.A.T]

The Celtics responded valiantly coming out on fire in game two and built a 13-point lead late in the first half only to see the Lakers rally back behind Magic and James Worthy. Worthy made 11 of 12 shots from the field and finished with a game-high 29 points. For much of the second half the game went back and forth with the two teams exchanging runs. Los Angeles led 115-113 with 18 seconds left when Kevin McHale went to the line. McHale missed both and Los Angeles had control of the game. However they didn’t hold on tight enough. Magic misunderstood Riley and called a timeout after the miss, when Riley only wanted it on a make. Boston set up a full court trap and when Magic reversed the ball to Worthy, he tried a cross court pass to Byron Scott, but it was stolen by Gerald Henderson who laid it in to tie the game. Next Magic waited until too late to start the Lakers play and did not get a shot off in regulation. In overtime the Lakers had another chance to win, but Henderson found reserve forward Scott Wedman for a key jumper in the final minute to put Boston up three and seal the deal. Bird led the way for Boston in game two with 27 points and 13 rebounds but it was the bench, McHale, Wedman, Ainge who combined for 35 points off the bench that made the difference. In game three in Los Angeles, the Lakers continued to assert their dominance, Magic had Showtime in high gear with a triple double including a finals record 21 assists.


http://cdn.bleacherreport.net/images_root/slides/photos/000/244/844/81372697_display_image.jpg?1275490230

In game four the Celtics frustration came to a head and the series may have turned when Kevin McHale took out Laker forward Kurt Rambis on a break away and a never brawl broke out. The physical play galvanized the Celtics and they hung tough but again found themselves down in the final minute. Kareem fouled out on a Robert Parish basket and Parish cut the lead to two, then Magic threw an errant pass, which turned into a Parish steal and two Larry Bird free throws that sent the game into overtime. There it was again Bird the hero with a fall away 15 footer in the final 15 seconds to put Boston up for good. Jabbar had 32, Worthy 30 and Magic his second straight triple double with 20-11-17. But Dennis Johnson finally stepped up with 22 points and 14 assists. Parish contributed 25 points and 12 rebounds before fouling out in overtime and of course Bird who had 29 points and 21 rebounds in a classic finals performance. The Celtics took their first series lead in game five behind 15-20 shooting for 34 points and 17 rebounds for Bird, McHale followed with 19 and 1o and Boston won 122-103. Los Angeles held serve at home with a 119-108 victory behind a fourth quarter rally. Jabbar, Worthy, Magic and Michael Cooper scored over 20 points. Boston got 28-14-8 from Bird but it was not enough. The series would come down to a seventh game. 1981 Finals MVP Cedric Maxwell would proclaim before the game in the Celtics locker room, “Get on my back fellas and I’ll take us home” He would go on to lead Boston on the night with 24 points 8 rebounds and 8 assists. Dennis Johnson added 22 and Bird 20 and 12 rebounds on his way to NBA Finals MVP honors. The game almost went off without drama as Boston lead by 10-15 for much of the fourth quarter but Los Angeles cut it to three in the final minute. Boston however hit it’s free throws down the stretch and closed out the first of three Boston/LA series with a 111-102 win and their second World Championship of the decade.



http://cdn3.ioffer.com/img/item/101/609/397/MmdI4HULetSCahO.jpg

[SourPatchKids]

:applause: fantastic read. Bird vs magic was epic.

[1987_Lakers]

1984 was a transcendent year for the NBA.

[SinJackal]

I was interested in where the Spurs would rank on your list. . .but since you said you thought the '05 Spurs were the best Spurs team ("at their peak", as you put it). . .I'm assuming (logically) you're not putting any more Spurs teams on there. . . The Spurs are getting shafted imo.

For the team that's won the 4th most titles ever, out of 62 seasons, it's weird how they barely crack the top 25 best list, and with only one team. I would say maybe it's just the era you're sorta not liking, but something tells me the 2000 Lakers are going to be in multiple spots above them.

It's just your opinion though, so not a big deal. I guess. :confusedshrug:

[AK47DR91]

Damn, I want to watch that 1984 series. Anybody know a good site to watch free old school hoops? I'd prefer streaming style. Don't like DLing.

Great write ups, by the way, GOAT. :cheers:

[G.O.A.T]

I was interested in where the Spurs would rank on your list. . .but since you said you thought the '05 Spurs were the best Spurs team ("at their peak", as you put it). . .I'm assuming (logically) you're not putting any more Spurs teams on there. . . The Spurs are getting shafted imo.

For the team that's won the 4th most titles ever, out of 62 seasons, it's weird how they barely crack the top 25 best list, and with only one team. I would say maybe it's just the era you're sorta not liking, but something tells me the 2000 Lakers are going to be in multiple spots above them.

It's just your opinion though, so not a big deal. I guess. :confusedshrug:

The '99 team was just off the list, literally 27th. The fact is though they don't have a great season where they dominated their competition among those four titles. Their regular season win totals are 60, 59, 58. Interestingly the '99 team was on pace to win 61 games in a 82 game season. Only the 1999 team had an extremely impressive playoff run and the lockout really spoiled that season for me.

I certainly can see your point about the Spurs being such a successful franchise for the last decade plus and only getting on team on the list to represent them. Still this is a single season greatest team list, not a dynasty or greatest franchise list. Of the Lakers last five Championships only two made the cut and of the Pistons (my team) three title teams, only one is on the list. So it's certainly not a deliberate bias against the Spurs.

Their win total for any season would be on the low end and they never had the great start or extended winning streaks a lot of the teams that made the final cut did.

[SCdac]

Going 15-2 in the playoffs (98-99 Spurs), including sweeping the Lakers and Blazers, was indeed impressive. That Spurs team was deep, and the duo of 33 year old Robinson and 22 year old Duncan was one of the best ever. The Spurs, in the sports world in it's entirety, are always pretty under noticed, for whatever reasons. Maybe because San Antonio is not a massive market, or because the Spurs are largely a defensive, low-key kind of team, or that they typically don't get rolling toward the second half of the season. I'd say that 2003 Spurs team should definitely deserve a spot, in the 25 games leading up to the playoffs the Spurs were a convincing 21-4, and they went through the defending champion Lakers to get to the Finals. Younger players in Stephen Jackson, Ginobili complemented by veterans in Steve Kerr, Danny Ferry. Just perfectly constructed teams, and didn't lack the dominance it takes to win a championship, but ranking "dominance" can be tricky I'm sure, and subjective. And there's alot of championship teams.

[jlauber]

LOL!

Now I know why you made the comment asking us to guess which team was next. I assume it was based on my post on teams that SHOULD have won the title.

Excellent writeup, as always. And while I don't believe them to have been a better team than the Lakers that year, I give them credit for taking advantage of LA's blunders. They were a gritty team and would go on to become one of the greatest team's in NBA history in '85-86.

IMHO, the Lakers and Celtics of the 80's were the two most talent-laden teams in the history of the league. And what a decade it was. The great Sixer teams of the first half of the 80's, and the "Bad Boys" of the late 80's bookended the entire decade. Throw in the rise of the Bulls by the end of the 80's, and it was arguably the greatest decade in NBA history.

[G.O.A.T]

LOL!

Now I know why you made the comment asking us to guess which team was next. I assume it was based on my post on teams that SHOULD have won the title.

Excellent writeup, as always. And while I don't believe them to have been a better team than the Lakers that year, I give them credit for taking advantage of LA's blunders. They were a gritty team and would go on to become one of the greatest team's in NBA history in '85-86.

IMHO, the Lakers and Celtics of the 80's were the two most talent-laden teams in the history of the league. And what a decade it was. The great Sixer teams of the first half of the 80's, and the "Bad Boys" of the late 80's bookended the entire decade. Throw in the rise of the Bulls by the end of the 80's, and it was arguably the greatest decade in NBA history.

It's a very strange series, one I revisit often. The Celtics were so outmatched despite haivng had the much better regular season, but that was sort of the Hallmark of those 1981-1984 Laker teams, Kareem and Magic were sort of wrestling for leadership and control.

I seen a really interesting piece one time that suggests that the 1980's Lakers were actually considerably more talented relative to their competition than the 1960's Celtics. If you examine it, it's interesting just how many great players and superb role players passed through LA-LA land during the penultimate decade of the last century.

[jlauber]

It's a very strange series, one I revisit often. The Celtics were so outmatched despite haivng had the much better regular season, but that was sort of the Hallmark of those 1981-1984 Laker teams, Kareem and Magic were sort of wrestling for leadership and control.

I seen a really interesting piece one time that suggests that the 1980's Lakers were actually considerably more talented relative to their competition than the 1960's Celtics. If you examine it, it's interesting just how many great players and superb role players passed through LA-LA land during the penultimate decade of the last century.

I would have loved to have seen the '85-86 Celtics vs. the 86-87 Lakers. As great as those two team's were, they might still be playing in OT in a game seven...

Keep up the great work!

[magnax1]

It's a very strange series, one I revisit often. The Celtics were so outmatched despite haivng had the much better regular season, but that was sort of the Hallmark of those 1981-1984 Laker teams, Kareem and Magic were sort of wrestling for leadership and control.

I seen a really interesting piece one time that suggests that the 1980's Lakers were actually considerably more talented relative to their competition than the 1960's Celtics. If you examine it, it's interesting just how many great players and superb role players passed through LA-LA land during the penultimate decade of the last century.
It is probably true that LA was more talented comparatively then the 60s Celtics were. The Celtics had some great players, but having 2 of the best 5 players for 5 or so years, the best 6th man for a couple years, Wilkes, Nixon, Worthy, Scott, and Cooper. The Celtics were probably pretty equal except that they didn't have a second/first option comparable to Kareem except Cousy for a few years. I think that Magic being on such a talented team has caused him to become a bit over rated.

[Gotterdammerung]

Good post, GOAT. Sorry I gotta sound like a broken record. :facepalm

Here are the common reasons why the 86 Celtics were better than the 84 version:

Bird wasn't as athletic, but he was at the peak of his game, and since he didn't have to play defense, he had more than enough energy to hit jumpers at the drop of the hat.
McHale perfected his deadly inside game.
Parish didn't start declining yet.
DJ was bulkier, but better integrated into the team, and thus could play physical defense, be a streak shooter more timely, and bullrush to the hoop more effectively.
Ainge perfected his jumpshooting, which more than offset Henderson's departure.
Most importantly, Walton controlled the paint in his limited minutes.


But here are the reasons of that aforementioned contrarian to popular opinion: the 84 edition was even better.
84 Celtics had 62 wins, 8 better than the runner up (lakers).
86 version had 67, but only 5 better than the runner up (guess who).
84 was also better on the road (29 wins vs 27). This spelled a higher degree of dominance.
Plus, the 84 Celtics beat a 62 win Lakers in the finals, while the 86 Celts beat a weaker team (51-win Rockets).

Notwithstanding Walton, the 84 Celtics were far deeper: Cornbread Maxwell, Ainge, Wedman, Buckner versus Wedman, Walton, Sichting.
Plus Parish indeed was on the decline. All his stats were down. Henderson and Ainge were both equal from the outside (35.1 and 35.6 respectively), but Henderson was quicker and a better defender. Plus Bird was great at team defense. See some of the comments by the Rockets players from the 86 Finals. :hammerhead:

[G.O.A.T]

It is probably true that LA was more talented comparatively then the 60s Celtics were. The Celtics had some great players, but having 2 of the best 5 players for 5 or so years, the best 6th man for a couple years, Wilkes, Nixon, Worthy, Scott, and Cooper. The Celtics were probably pretty equal except that they didn't have a second/first option comparable to Kareem except Cousy for a few years. I think that Magic being on such a talented team has caused him to become a bit over rated.

It's probably better served as it's own thread with explanations, but a closer look at the two dynasties shows just how close and similar the two were.


Role---------------------1957-66 Celtics----------1980-89 Lakers
Catalyst-----------------Bill Russell----------------Magic Johnson
Established Star---------Bob Cousy/John Havlicek--Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
From Sub to Star--------Sam Jones---------------James Worthy
Scoring Forward---------Tom Heinsohn------------Jamaal Wilkes
Backcourt sidekick #1----Bill Sharman--------------Norm Nixon
Backcourt sidekick #2----KC Jones-----------------Byron Scott
Defensive Stopper-------Tom Sanders-------------Michael Cooper
Sixth Man---------------Frank Ramsey------------Bob McAdoo
Unsung Hero #1---------Jim Loscutoff-------------Kurt Rambis
Unsung Hero #2---------Larry Siegfried------------AC Green
Hired Guns--------------Andy Phillip ’57-----------Spencer Haywood ‘80
------------------------Carl Braun ‘62-------------Swen Nater ‘84
------------------------Clyde Lovellette ’63 ’64----Mychal Thompson ‘87-‘89
------------------------Willie Naulls ‘64-’66--------Orlando Woolridge ’89
------------------------Bailey Howell ‘66

[G.O.A.T]

#19 2008 Boston Celtics

http://www.nba.com/media/celtics/Champs_07_08.jpg

Head Coach: Doc Rivers
Most skilled Player: Kevin Garnett
Most Important Player: Kevin Garnett
Other Starters: Paul Pierce, Ray Allen, Rajon Rondo, Kendrick Perkins
Key Bench Players: James Posey, Eddie House, Leon Powe, PJ Brown, Sam Cassell

Regular Season Record: 66-16 (1st Atlantic Division)
Postseason Record: 16-10
NBA Finals: Beat the Los Angeles Lakers four games to two.
Longest Winning Streak: 10 games
Points Scored per Game: 100.5
Points Allowed per Game: 90.3

Stats (http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/BOS/2008.html)

[FONT="Palatino Linotype"]-The Celtics franchise when looked at today is one of unparalleled success sandwiched by relative mediocrity. From 1957 to 1986 Boston won more titles than the rest of the leagues teams combined. In the eleven years prior to when Russell and Red first lit up, and the twenty-one after Bird

[G.O.A.T]

http://www.nba.com/media/playoffs2008/boshuddle_080530.jpg

And they were playing like one. They opened the season with eight straight wins. They were 20-2 by mid-December and 29-3 just after the New Year. They were undefeated against the Western Conference until February 19th. On the year the Celtics ran off a ten game winning streak, two streaks of nine games and an eight and seven game streak. They went 35-6 on the year at home and finished with 66 wins. More than any of Russell’s teams and all but one of Bird’s. They did it with defense; they were the league’s elite defensive team anchored by Kevin Garnett who would win the league’s Defensive Player of the Year Award. Perkins and Rondo were surprisingly good defensive players and James Posey off the bench was a lock down guy. Galvanized by the play of those around them superstars Allen and Pierce elevated their defensive games as well. The Celtics allowed just 90.3 points per game with opponents shooting league lows of 32% from three-point range and 42% from the field overall while turning it over more frequently than against any other opponent. Garnett’s 19 points 9 rebounds and 3 assist averages were the lowest of the decade for him, but he finished third in the MVP voting as his sacrifice was more obvious than any drop off in his level of play. Pierce was the leading scorer with 20 points a night to go along with 5 rebounds and 5 assists. He was named to the All-NBA third team. Ray Allen averaged 17-4-3 on 45-40-90 shooting. He made the all-star team. Rondo exceeded everyone’s expectations posting 11-4-5 and showing a knack for getting inside while Perkins became one of the top post defenders in the league while contributing seven points and six rebounds nightly. As mentioned Posey main contributions were on defense, but it was the surprising play of Leon Powe (8 points 4 rebounds) and Eddie House (8 points 2 assists) off the bench that helped Boston win so many games and stay fresh for the playoffs.

http://bloggista.com/files/2008/06/nba2008_game5_kobevsgarnett.jpg

When the postseason did role around, Boston would be glad it had fought so hard to secure home court throughout. Their first round match-up was against the pesky eighth seeded Atlanta Hawks. Atlanta, which was making its first postseason appearance since 1999 won all three of its home games forcing the heavily favored Celtics to seven games before their season came to an end. In the second round the task only got tougher as the defending Eastern Conference Champion Cleveland Cavaliers and LeBron James stood in their way. James tested the Celtics defense and they were up to it as another seven game series produced a Celtic win. Pierce dueled with James in the seventh game scoring 41 points, (James had 45) in a 97-92 Celtic win. It the Eastern Conference Finals it was the veteran Pistons, advancing that far for the sixth straight year. Detroit tested Boston right away taking game two and the home court advantage from the Celtics who were winless on the road in the postseason to that point. But Boston bounced back with a split in Detroit and in game five it was Kevin Garnett with 33 points and Ray Allen, who had struggled with his shooting all postseason to that point who hit 5 of 6 three’s en route to 29 points and a crucial 106-102 victory. Boston then really showed its drive for the Championship by closing out the Pistons and their string of Eastern Conference Finals the same way the Pistons had down to them in 1988. It was Paul Pierce with 27 points leading the way for the Celtics.


http://www.joeiverson.com/Library/finals08/GameSix/CelticsWin/team.jpg

In the Finals, appropriately waiting for them were the Los Angeles Lakers. 50 years and 25 Championships after their first meeting in 1959, when the Lakers were still based in Minneapolis the two teams squared off with the title on the line for the first time in over two decades. In the opener, a five point Lakers lead at half time disintegrated as Paul Pierce scored 15 himself in the third and Boston held Los Angeles to just 15 in the fourth and won by ten. The victory put Los Angeles down in a series for the first time all postseason. In game two Boston would dig an even deeper hole for the Lakers as the Celtics got 21 bench points from Leon Powe and outscored LA 63-39 in the middle two quarters and held off a late Lakers run to take a 2-0 series lead heading back to Los Angeles for three. The Lakers scored a game three victory in a see-saw battle, but Boston took the lead and control of the series in game four outscoring LA 26-18 in the fourth quarter. The Lakers had built a 20-point first quarter lead against Boston only to see the C’s, close the gap to two with a 21-3 run to close the third quarter. It was Posey and House with 29 points off the bench to compliment 55-25-15 from the big three. The Lakers built and lost another 20 point first half lead in game five but regrouped and extended the series to a sixth game back in Boston. The Celtics however were all business back home. Boston outscored the Lakers 34-15 in the second quarter and the Lakers never got the lead under 20 after that. Kevin Garnett had 26 and 14 rebounds. Allen scored 26 hitting seven three-pointers. Rondo had 21 points and Paul pierce 17 and 10 assists in a 131-92 win for Boston which closed out the series and any talk of a curse. They were back, just as always before when they fall, they get back up again.

[Toizumi]

Great post GOAT. This squad is one of my personal favorites.

I remember how excited I was on draft night when I heard that Ray Allen was coming to the C's. It was cool to know that there would be another superstar duo in the league.
When they closed the deal for Garnett I was staying with a couple of friends (NBA heads), we all sorta knew that the Celtics were gonna take it that year. That trio was just too good. They lacked depth, but they added some guys during the season and KP and Rondo turned out to be good role players.

The franchise needed this succes. Their 90's teams and some of the 00's teams were horrible (Walker and Pierce had 1 or 2 good runs though?

You mentioned Ron Mercer in your post and called him a bust. I kinda agree.. but the thing with him is that he always looked like a capable player. He had the skillset, the athleticism.. and although he was one dimensional he wasn't terrible. I can't remember why Boston gave up on him back then... were they really dissapointed about his productivity?

[G.O.A.T]

Great post GOAT. This squad is one of my personal favorites.

I remember how excited I was on draft night when I heard that Ray Allen was coming to the C's. It was cool to know that there would be another superstar duo in the league.
When they closed the deal for Garnett I was staying with a couple of friends (NBA heads), we all sorta knew that the Celtics were gonna take it that year. That trio was just too good. They lacked depth, but they added some guys during the season and KP and Rondo turned out to be good role players.

The franchise needed this succes. Their 90's teams and some of the 00's teams were horrible (Walker and Pierce had 1 or 2 good runs though?

You mentioned Ron Mercer in your post and called him a bust. I kinda agree.. but the thing with him is that he always looked like a capable player. He had the skillset, the athleticism.. and although he was one dimensional he wasn't terrible. I can't remember why Boston gave up on him back then... were they really dissapointed about his productivity?

I think he was sort of a paint in the ass, they knew he was going to want more than he was worth when his deal came up (which had a year left when he was traded) and decided to cut their losses. They brought in Fortson and Eric Williams who contributed to their good Pierce/Walker teams so they did okay there.

Meanwhile Mercer bounced around the league for another five or six years and then went away. I don't think he ever played in the playoffs either.

He had skills to score, he was just a little to one-dimensional as you say and certainly not a character guy.

[G.O.A.T]

Anybody have thoughts on the last teams on the list.

Celtics Champions from

1962
1984
&
2008

How would you guys rank them? Which one is best and why?

[L.Kizzle]

Anybody have thoughts on the last teams on the list.

Celtics Champions from

1962
1984
&
2008

How would you guys rank them? Which one is best and why?
They all played the Lakers in the years they won, which of those Laker squads was the best??

Elgin and West
Kareem and Magic
Kobe and Gasol

[jlauber]

Anybody have thoughts on the last teams on the list.

Celtics Champions from

1962
1984
&
2008

How would you guys rank them? Which one is best and why?

I think you have them ranked properly. Of that group, the '08 team dominated in the Finals more than the other two.

I imagine you will address it before your list is completed, but my question would be, which Russell-led team was his best? As for the greatest Celtic team, here again, not to steal your thunder, but I suspect that the '86 team will be near the top of your All-Time list.

[L.Kizzle]

I think you have them ranked properly. Of that group, the '08 team dominated in the Finals more than the other two.

I imagine you will address it before your list is completed, but my question would be, which Russell-led team was his best? As for the greatest Celtic team, here again, not to steal your thunder, but I suspect that the '86 team will be near the top of your All-Time list.
Maybe they dominated because they had a weaker opponent?

[MasterDurant24]

They all played the Lakers in the years they won, which of those Laker squads was the best??

Elgin and West
Kareem and Magic
Kobe and Gasol
Well, Magic played pretty damn bad in the Finals that year so I'm going Elgin and West.

[SourPatchKids]

I bet almost all 17 celtics championship teams are gonna be on here.

[jlauber]

Well, Magic played pretty damn bad in the Finals that year so I'm going Elgin and West.

Actually, while Magic blew game two at the end of regulation by not getting a shot off, and then blew game four at the end of regulation, by missing TWO FTs...his overall numbers were actually very good...

18.1 ppg, 7.7 rpg (he led LA), 13.6 apg, and .560 from the field.

BTW, LA outshot Boston by a staggering .515 to .442 margin in that series. Amazingly, EVERY Boston player shot less than 50% in that series, while Magic shot .560, Worthy shot .638, and Rambis shot .629.

[Snoop_Cat]

GOAT, I'm thinking that with the 08 Celtics at #19, they will be the highest of the decade? I would assume that one of the 3 peat Lakers in the early decade would get a mention too but if I can't really justify their teams being rated higher as as an overall team, they were too dependent on a duo despite their postseason dominance. I would personally rank the 08 Celtics higher but I'm biased since they're my generation of stars.

[MasterDurant24]

Actually, while Magic blew game two at the end of regulation by not getting a shot off, and then blew game four at the end of regulation, by missing TWO FTs...his overall numbers were actually very good...

18.1 ppg, 7.7 rpg (he led LA), 13.6 apg, and .560 from the field.

BTW, LA outshot Boston by a staggering .515 to .442 margin in that series. Amazingly, EVERY Boston player shot less than 50% in that series, while Magic shot .560, Worthy shot .638, and Rambis shot .629.
Hmm, interesting...those stats are actually spectacular.

[jlauber]

Hmm, interesting...those stats are actually spectacular.

Yeah...yet he was nicknamed, "Tragic Johnson" after that series.

[magnax1]

I think that the 08 Celtics should actually be considerably higher. Their defense was statistically the second best of the ABA-NBA merger, they had three of the top 10 players in the NBA, and their team went 9 or 10 deep. It's really to bad about KG's injury though, because 09 would've just been a repeat of the 08 finals if not for that.

[G.O.A.T]

GOAT, I'm thinking that with the 08 Celtics at #19, they will be the highest of the decade? I would assume that one of the 3 peat Lakers in the early decade would get a mention too but if I can't really justify their teams being rated higher as as an overall team, they were too dependent on a duo despite their postseason dominance. I would personally rank the 08 Celtics higher but I'm biased since they're my generation of stars.

Take a look back at those Laker teams and you'll see how much they dominated the regular and postseason, it's on another level that the '08 Celtics have never reached. With 10 losses, Boston holds the record for playoff losses by a Champion. Having Shaq and Kobe in their physical and mental prime (debatable for Kobe, but when he was buying into to Phil and Shaq look out) outweighs KG, Pierce and Allen all past or at the end of their physical prime. Plus LA had more established role players, whereas that Celtic teams was unproven and (supposedly) washed-up guys.



I think that the 08 Celtics should actually be considerably higher. Their defense was statistically the second best of the ABA-NBA merger, they had three of the top 10 players in the NBA, and their team went 9 or 10 deep. It's really to bad about KG's injury though, because 09 would've just been a repeat of the 08 finals if not for that.

Their defense was very very good during the season, but it really dropped pff in the postseason. The gave up 100+ points to opponents 13 times all regular season and seven times in the playoffs. They lost 16 games all regular season and 10 in the playoffs. They didn't win a road game in the first two rounds etc.

I'll not speculate about what would have happened in '09 although I probably agree with you. Still this Celtic team, as great as it was, has a lot of flaws that coupled with the era and conference they played in (A lot of bad teams) does not give them a resume to match-up with the next 18 teams.

Think about it this way, by being ranked 19th, there are 18 Champs better, but there are also 36 Champs they are ranked ahead of.

[L.A. Jazz]

i remember that series to well. Leon Powe was killing the Lakers, i couldnt believe it. While the Celtics could stop the Lakers for some stretches, the Lakers had problems with the Celtics bench. Andi remember Gasol's problems with Perk and KG.

...Leon Powe, i still cant believe it... :facepalm

i really liked PP and his game, but in this series he changed my mind with his acting. it was disgusting. but i am not arguing his FMVP. it could have been Co-MVPs with KG.

[Snoop_Cat]

Take a look back at those Laker teams and you'll see how much they dominated the regular and postseason, it's on another level that the '08 Celtics have never reached. With 10 losses, Boston holds the record for playoff losses by a Champion. Having Shaq and Kobe in their physical and mental prime (debatable for Kobe, but when he was buying into to Phil and Shaq look out) outweighs KG, Pierce and Allen all past or at the end of their physical prime. Plus LA had more established role players, whereas that Celtic teams was unproven and (supposedly) washed-up guys.






True, I just thought that overall as a 5 man team-unit, they'd be higher but I'm not disagreeing.
Will the 04 Pistons be making a debut as well?

[Gotterdammerung]

True, I just thought that overall as a 5 man team-unit, they'd be higher but I'm not disagreeing.
Will the 04 Pistons be making a debut as well?
I doubt they will be ranked ahead of the Spurs team that beat them in '05 or the Celtics team that ended their mini-dynasty. The mid-00's pistons were a force, indeed, a great one-time title team that made what, 2 finals back-to-back, and 6 eastern conference trips in a row? But I'd seriously question GOAT's criteria if he snuck in the '04 Pistons there ahead of '05 Spurs or the '08 Celtics, never mind the other GOAT teams.

[G.O.A.T]

I doubt they will be ranked ahead of the Spurs team that beat them in '05 or the Celtics team that ended their mini-dynasty. The mid-00's pistons were a force, indeed, a great one-time title team that made what, 2 finals back-to-back, and 6 eastern conference trips in a row? But I'd seriously question GOAT's criteria if he snuck in the '04 Pistons there ahead of '05 Spurs or the '08 Celtics, never mind the other GOAT teams.

Spot on.

If I was listing the greats teams of all-time the "goin to work" Pistons would probably crack the top 20. Let's see real quick in no particular order

Russell/Cousy/Heinsohn Celtics 57-63
Russell/Hondo/Sam Jones Celtics 64-69
MJ/Pippen/Grant Bulls 89-93
MJ/Pippen/Rodman Bulls 95-98
Bad Boy Pistons 87-91
Shaq/Kobe Lakers 99-04
Kareem/Magic/Wilkes Lakers 80-84
Magic/Kareem/Worthy Lakers 85-89
Bird/McHale/Parrish Celtics 81-88
Willis Reed/Walt Frazier Knicks 68-74
Duncan/Manu/Parker Spurs 03-08
Dr.J/Toney/Moses/Cheeks Sixers 80-84
Hakeem's Rockets 94-97
Mikan/Pollard/Mikkelsen/Martin Lakers 50-54
Kareem/Oscar/Dandridge Bucks 71-74
Unseld/Hayes/Dandridge Bullets 76-79
Johnson/Williams/Sikma Sonics 77-80
West/Wilt/Goodrich Lakers 72-73
Cowens/Hondo/JoJo Celtics 72-77
Dolph Schayes and Syracuse 50-61
Pettit's Hawks 57-61
Wilt's Sixers 65-68
Kobe/Gasol/Odom Lakers 08-present
Garnett/Pierce/Allen Celtics 08-present
Baylor/West Lakers 61-68
Webber/Peja/Bibby Kings 00-04

They are better than 10-15 of those at least right?

[jlauber]

I know you won't have the 67-68 76ers, nor the 83-84 Lakers in your list, but IMHO, those two teams were among the best ever.

I have really decided where I would rank them, only because, like you, I value titles, but both would have been top-20 for sure, had they won titles.

[magnax1]

Their defense was very very good during the season, but it really dropped pff in the postseason. The gave up 100+ points to opponents 13 times all regular season and seven times in the playoffs. They lost 16 games all regular season and 10 in the playoffs. They didn't win a road game in the first two rounds etc.

I'll not speculate about what would have happened in '09 although I probably agree with you. Still this Celtic team, as great as it was, has a lot of flaws that coupled with the era and conference they played in (A lot of bad teams) does not give them a resume to match-up with the next 18 teams.

Think about it this way, by being ranked 19th, there are 18 Champs better, but there are also 36 Champs they are ranked ahead of.
I just don't agree. I don't think there are 10 better teams then the 08 Celtics. You could make a case that they didn't play as well in the playoffs, but I don't think thats a fair to say when you only play a max of four teams in the playoffs, and even then they still destroyed LA, the favorites, in the finals. I think its hard to hold a couple game 7 series against them when they beat the best team in the league pretty easily.

[G.O.A.T]

I just don't agree. I don't think there are 10 better teams then the 08 Celtics. You could make a case that they didn't play as well in the playoffs, but I don't think thats a fair to say when you only play a max of four teams in the playoffs, and even then they still destroyed LA, the favorites, in the finals. I think its hard to hold a couple game 7 series against them when they beat the best team in the league pretty easily.

When you're measuring the greatest ever, that matters.

For the Celtics to be in the to ten all-time on my list, they have more losses for the regular+postseason than any other team and the lowest win percentage.

A lot of teams have done everything the Celtics did for the 2008 season, and many have also done things Boston never did that year.

[magnax1]

When you're measuring the greatest ever, that matters.

For the Celtics to be in the to ten all-time on my list, they have more losses for the regular+postseason than any other team and the lowest win percentage.

A lot of teams have done everything the Celtics did for the 2008 season, and many have also done things Boston never did that year.
Its not like they dominated the teams in the early rounds and didn't play well in the later rounds, it was the other way around. And like I said, to say a team was better because they played better against an individual team instead of the whole league isn't a great argument because it could just because of matchup problems. Especially when they won anyway.
I really just don't think how well a team played in the playoffs is a fair way to compare teams. Its like saying the Celtics were better then LA last year because they played better against the bobcats, rockets, and Blazers where LA struggles against those teams. Or the 07 Mavs were worse then the Warriors when they would've played better against every other team.

[Slamman]

Anyone who puts the '82 Lakers at #23 and behind both the 2005 Spurs and 2008 Celtics is obviously a younger fan and never watched the era.


This team was arguably one of the top 5 or 6 teams in league history and seems completely forgotten when talking about the best Laker team....

Kareem......23.9 on 58%
Magic........18.6 on 54%
JWilkes......21.1 on 53%
Nixon........17.6 on 49%
Cooper......11.9 on 52%
Kupchak....14.3 on 57%
McAdoo.....9.6 on 46%....(averaged 16.7 on 56% in playoffs)

This was the team that started showtime, and had one of the most lethal fastbreaks in league history. Kareem still in his prime and Magic almost averaged a triple double for the regular season. 18.6...9.6...9.5

One of the greatest teams of all time yet nobody seems to remember them. Horrible pick at 23....:hammerhead:

[Gotterdammerung]

Anyone who puts the '82 Lakers at #23 and behind both the 2005 Spurs and 2008 Celtics is obviously a younger fan and never watched the era.


This team was arguably one of the top 5 or 6 teams in league history and seems completely forgotten when talking about the best Laker team....

Kareem......23.9 on 58%
Magic........18.6 on 54%
JWilkes......21.1 on 53%
Nixon........17.6 on 49%
Cooper......11.9 on 52%
Kupchak....14.3 on 57%
McAdoo.....9.6 on 46%....(averaged 16.7 on 56% in playoffs)

This was the team that started showtime, and had one of the most lethal fastbreaks in league history. Kareem still in his prime and Magic almost averaged a triple double for the regular season. 18.6...9.6...9.5

One of the greatest teams of all time yet nobody seems to remember them. Horrible pick at 23....:hammerhead:
I'll let GOAT defend himself, but I have to give your words some weight here.

It's tough to rank anyone from this watered down era over the 80's, especially when you're talking about the earlier editions of the Lakers. Absolutely LOADED. That lineup? with McAdoo off the bench? An embarrassment of riches. :facepalm

[Gotterdammerung]

I just don't agree. I don't think there are 10 better teams then the 08 Celtics. You could make a case that they didn't play as well in the playoffs, but I don't think thats a fair to say when you only play a max of four teams in the playoffs, and even then they still destroyed LA, the favorites, in the finals. I think its hard to hold a couple game 7 series against them when they beat the best team in the league pretty easily.
Had KG not pulled his abdominal muscle in '09, they could have easily repeated, and made your argument twice as persuasive. :banghead:

[Premeditated]

the 96 Bulls are obviously the best team ever. that was the most talented team ever. They had one of the greatest top 7 player ever in MJ, they had Phil Jackson in his prime coaching years, Scottie Pippen was a top 5 player and the greatest perimeter defender in the league who almost won MVP and is in the HOF, they had the greatest 3 point shooter in Kerr, one of the greatest defender and rebounding big man in Rodman.

won 72 games.

no question the 96 Bulls was the greatest team ever.

[MasterDurant24]

the 96 Bulls are obviously the best team ever. that was the most talented team ever. They had one of the greatest top 7 player ever in MJ, they had Phil Jackson in his prime coaching years, Scottie Pippen was a top 5 player and the greatest perimeter defender in the league who almost won MVP and is in the HOF, they had the greatest 3 point shooter in Kerr, one of the greatest defender and rebounding big man in Rodman.

won 72 games.

no question the 96 Bulls was the greatest team ever.
Hell no. Bad Boy Pistons had possibly the greatest point guard ever in Isiah Thomas, top 5 perimeter defender in Joe Dumars, one of the greatest defenders and rebounders in Rodman, very physical, nasty players in Laimbeer and Mahorn, 3 very good scorers in Dantley, Johnson, and Aguirre, and a great coach in Chuck Daly.

And they swept the Lakers.

71-72 Lakers won 33 games straight, and had three Hall of Famers in Goodrich, Chamberlain, and West.

80s Sixers, Celtics, and Lakers all had better teams.

[G.O.A.T]

Anyone who puts the '82 Lakers at #23 and behind both the 2005 Spurs and 2008 Celtics is obviously a younger fan and never watched the era.


This team was arguably one of the top 5 or 6 teams in league history and seems completely forgotten when talking about the best Laker team....

Kareem......23.9 on 58%
Magic........18.6 on 54%
JWilkes......21.1 on 53%
Nixon........17.6 on 49%
Cooper......11.9 on 52%
Kupchak....14.3 on 57%
McAdoo.....9.6 on 46%....(averaged 16.7 on 56% in playoffs)

This was the team that started showtime, and had one of the most lethal fastbreaks in league history. Kareem still in his prime and Magic almost averaged a triple double for the regular season. 18.6...9.6...9.5

One of the greatest teams of all time yet nobody seems to remember them. Horrible pick at 23....:hammerhead:

Here's what bothers me. You didn't even read my post and yet you feel qualified to make a harsh judgement.

I am young relative to this team, I was very young in 1982 and have little memory of this team, however, I've researched them endlessly and based on your post, I know more about them than you.

Yet you evaluate my ranking, without reading my post about the '82 Lakers.

How do I know you didn't read it?, A number of reasons such as:

1) Mitch Kupchak - You cite him as having averaged 15 ppg for the season, except, he missed 80% of the season, he was injured before new year, thus Rambis became a starter. I wrote about that, but you failed to read it and then used stats you pulled up from a website to make your point without even looking into them thoroughly.

2) Kareem - Again you cite stats as evidence of the team greatness...except with Kareem 23.9 ppg on is a career low as were all of his stats for that season, you could have learned that by reading my article, but you chose to insult me instead. You say he was still in his prime, yet he dropped out of the All-NBA voting for the first team ever and was contemplating retirement in two years time.

3) Showtime - You credit this team for starting showtime as if it's a factor I didn't consider, except I did, big-time. And even posted an article about that very subject just after the post. I talked at length in this thread about Magic and his impact on Paul Westhead's firing and how it was becoming his style and his team under Riles.

4) Never watched the Era - Who cares, if you were alive for the era, you seen 10-25 games max...I can find five on youtube. I wasn't alive for the Civil War either, but I was allowed to teach it because I studied it and the history around it extensively. There is a poster on here named Jlauber who claims to be (and has given no reason to be doubted) old enough to have seen all of the NBA's greats except Mikan in action, yet he never scolds anyone for having not witnessed the era, instead he tries to educate...I suggest you try the same approach.


I am fully willing and happy to learn anything about any era, but usually when someone disagrees with me here, they only want to prove I am wrong, that serves me no purpose. I have been wrong thousands of times, and will be thousands more, but I am constantly searching greater understanding, and because of this, I am confident in my ranking of them at #22, so much so I won't even bother to use basic stats to prove my point.

[crosso√er]

Very intriguing read; keep up the good job.

[ShaqAttack3234]

4) Never watched the Era - Who cares, if you were alive for the era, you seen 10-25 games max...I can find five on youtube.

This is actually a very good point. There are tons of games available from the 1980 on. Hell, I've seen tons of 1979-1980 Laker games yet I wasn't even born yet when that season took place. How? I downloaded a ton of games, got one in a trade, watched quite a few on youtube or when they've been on hardwood classics ect. Hell, the entire 1980 finals are up on youtube.

Granted, I do think it's much harder to rank players and teams from before the 1979-1980 season because not as many games are available, but anyone can become educated on 80's basketball if you make the effort.

[Yung D-Will]

Here's what bothers me. You didn't even read my post and yet you feel qualified to make a harsh judgement.

I am young relative to this team, I was very young in 1982 and have little memory of this team, however, I've researched them endlessly and based on your post, I know more about them than you.

Yet you evaluate my ranking, without reading my post about the '82 Lakers.

How do I know you didn't read it?, A number of reasons such as:

1) Mitch Kupchak - You cite him as having averaged 15 ppg for the season, except, he missed 80% of the season, he was injured before new year, thus Rambis became a starter. I wrote about that, but you failed to read it and then used stats you pulled up from a website to make your point without even looking into them thoroughly.

2) Kareem - Again you cite stats as evidence of the team greatness...except with Kareem 23.9 ppg on is a career low as were all of his stats for that season, you could have learned that by reading my article, but you chose to insult me instead. You say he was still in his prime, yet he dropped out of the All-NBA voting for the first team ever and was contemplating retirement in two years time.

3) Showtime - You credit this team for starting showtime as if it's a factor I didn't consider, except I did, big-time. And even posted an article about that very subject just after the post. I talked at length in this thread about Magic and his impact on Paul Westhead's firing and how it was becoming his style and his team under Riles.

4) Never watched the Era - Who cares, if you were alive for the era, you seen 10-25 games max...I can find five on youtube. I wasn't alive for the Civil War either, but I was allowed to teach it because I studied it and the history around it extensively. There is a poster on here named Jlauber who claims to be (and has given no reason to be doubted) old enough to have seen all of the NBA's greats except Mikan in action, yet he never scolds anyone for having not witnessed the era, instead he tries to educate...I suggest you try the same approach.


I am fully willing and happy to learn anything about any era, but usually when someone disagrees with me here, they only want to prove I am wrong, that serves me no purpose. I have been wrong thousands of times, and will be thousands more, but I am constantly searching greater understanding, and because of this, I am confident in my ranking of them at #22, so much so I won't even bother to use basic stats to prove my point.
:bowdown:

[Slamman]

Here's what bothers me. You didn't even read my post and yet you feel qualified to make a harsh judgement.

I am young relative to this team, I was very young in 1982 and have little memory of this team, however, I've researched them endlessly and based on your post, I know more about them than you.

Yet you evaluate my ranking, without reading my post about the '82 Lakers.

How do I know you didn't read it?, A number of reasons such as:

1) Mitch Kupchak - You cite him as having averaged 15 ppg for the season, except, he missed 80% of the season, he was injured before new year, thus Rambis became a starter. I wrote about that, but you failed to read it and then used stats you pulled up from a website to make your point without even looking into them thoroughly.

2) Kareem - Again you cite stats as evidence of the team greatness...except with Kareem 23.9 ppg on is a career low as were all of his stats for that season, you could have learned that by reading my article, but you chose to insult me instead. You say he was still in his prime, yet he dropped out of the All-NBA voting for the first team ever and was contemplating retirement in two years time.

3) Showtime - You credit this team for starting showtime as if it's a factor I didn't consider, except I did, big-time. And even posted an article about that very subject just after the post. I talked at length in this thread about Magic and his impact on Paul Westhead's firing and how it was becoming his style and his team under Riles.

4) Never watched the Era - Who cares, if you were alive for the era, you seen 10-25 games max...I can find five on youtube. I wasn't alive for the Civil War either, but I was allowed to teach it because I studied it and the history around it extensively. There is a poster on here named Jlauber who claims to be (and has given no reason to be doubted) old enough to have seen all of the NBA's greats except Mikan in action, yet he never scolds anyone for having not witnessed the era, instead he tries to educate...I suggest you try the same approach.


I am fully willing and happy to learn anything about any era, but usually when someone disagrees with me here, they only want to prove I am wrong, that serves me no purpose. I have been wrong thousands of times, and will be thousands more, but I am constantly searching greater understanding, and because of this, I am confident in my ranking of them at #22, so much so I won't even bother to use basic stats to prove my point.

I didn't mean to sound harsh, but I'm not sure you realize just how good Norm Nixon and Jamaal Wilkes were at this time. Along with Magic, these three probably formed the greatest 3 man fastbreak in NBA history. And their half court game was absolutely fantastic obviously with Kareem posting up, Jamaal lighting it up from outside, Magic being Magic, and Nixon breaking down defenses with his tremendous speed and quickness. The team shooting percentage was off the charts. Add a bench of Cooper, McAdoo, and Rambis and hard to argue this wasn't one of the top 10 teams of all time.

This team had two of the top 5 greatest players in NBA history (in or close to their prime), with a supporting cast that was also one of the best ever.

I'm pretty sure that if you polled every NBA head coach and GM that ever worked in the league, not one of them would put the 2008 Celtics or 2005 Spurs ahead of this team....nor would any fan that watched each era closely.

.....but since you were to young to remember the early 80's teams and are basing your rankings on research only, I'll give you a pass....

[MasterDurant24]

I do think that the early 80s Lakers were the best.

[Gotterdammerung]

There are a couple more points to consider: how many times do you rank repeat champs in a list of all-time greatest teams?
do the likely outcome of a hypothetical matchup between these teams factor in the list?

One could easily deduce the hypothetical outcome based on the teams' strengths, weaknesses, tendencies, etc., according to fundamental basketball principles.

The first point is probably the more problematic one, tho. Do you penalize the 1997 Bulls, despite their 69 wins, for being a repeat titlelist? If they're included, then do you include every other titlelist, irrespective if they won in other years?

[G.O.A.T]

.....but since you were to young to remember the early 80's teams and are basing your rankings on research only, I'll give you a pass....

And I'll pass on reading any more of your posts.

[G.O.A.T]

There are a couple more points to consider: how many times do you rank repeat champs in a list of all-time greatest teams?
do the likely outcome of a hypothetical matchup between these teams factor in the list?

One could easily deduce the hypothetical outcome based on the teams' strengths, weaknesses, tendencies, etc., according to fundamental basketball principles.

The first point is probably the more problematic one, tho. Do you penalize the 1997 Bulls, despite their 69 wins, for being a repeat titlelist? If they're included, then do you include every other titlelist, irrespective if they won in other years?

I limited this to single season teams.

I view the 97 Bulls as a completely separate team from the 1996 Bulls and base my rankings on what they did in their season.

Still, if you look at the list when it's done, you'll notice that very few repeat Champions both made the list...Example's Only one of the Lakers Back-to-Back champs from the 80's made it. Only one Bad Boys team made it.

The exceptions are the teams that belonged to MJ\Phil or Russ\Red...those teams seemed to be able to maintain the high level of play year to year.

As far as hypothetical head to head, no. I understand what you mean, but then it's just opinion and my bias will take over even if I intend for it not to.

The current way I do it breaks teams into tiers based on their statistical resumes against the competition they faced. Then I weigh the fundamental and philosophical arguments for and against each team and balance that with my opinion if I watched them or have extensively researched them.

I can't stand the idea of "Pippen would easily lock down Bird and Rodman negates McHale etc, but DJ is a true test for MJ..."

Who cares, it never happened and it never will. I'd rather learn about real things than pontificate about hypothetical impossibilities.

As usual very thoughtful response from you, I appreciate your perspective on the topic.

[Slamman]

And I'll pass on reading any more of your posts.

Geez dude, if you're going to post a list of "goat" expect some folks to disagree. No need to get defensive. Ever thought that maybe a few of us that actually watched the NBA throughout the 70's and 80's may have a better understanding of the greatest than someone like yourself that never watched the NBA before MJ??

These kind of lists would probably be better served if the guy making them actually watched the teams play .....and if you did, there's no way in hell you'd ever put Boston or San Antonio ahead of that particular Laker team...unless of course you're one of the millions of Laker haters or a Celtic or Spurs fan.

By putting the '82 Lakers at #23 you open yourself up to criticism and basically gives the rest of the list (and yourself) no credibility at all.

The '80s Lakers, Celtics and the 90's Bulls were the greatest teams of all-time, and if you don't agree you should probably figure out a better way of spending your time than making up lists you're obviously not qualified to do.

[G.O.A.T]

In regards to the 1982 Lakers who one poster suggested were underrated by me as the #23 Championship Team All-Time.

I did some more research on the team and the season, watched as much video as was available and have come to the following conclusions.

1) It was probably the most talented of the 80's Lakers team top to bottom with four of their five starters in their prime including Kareem and Magic who were both legit MVP candidates.

2) Their 1-3-1 Trap was the best it's ever been, previously I thought the addition of Worthy which moved Cooper up front on the trap made the '84 and '85 version better, but this group with Nixon at the head and Magic, Wilkes and Cooper stealing the lob passes and turning them into fast breaks was just absolutely nuts.

3) They dominated the postseason more so than I gave them credit for. Yes the West was weak, but they went undefeated through the West and went undefeated at home winning every game by at least 10 points.

4) Now for the downside. They were awful at the power forward spot. They had no support for Kareem who at 34, had already proven vulnerable to active post players like Moses Malone in 1981. They were fortunate that the 1982 Sixers were also weak up front offensivley.

5) They never really gelled. Magic created a rift early in the year when he got Westhead fired and some guys, including Nixon, never really trusted him again. They had considerably more talent than anyone else in the league amongst their top seven yet they finished with just the third best record in the league.

6) Their scoring differential was just 4.8 ppg, second lowest on my list of 25 teams. Another sign that they won because of their talent more than their aspiration for greatness.

Finally, I left the 1961 Celtics off the list as well, they are very comparable to the '82 Lakers. Loaded with talent, Russell, Cousy, Sharman, Heinsohn, Ramsey, Sanders, KC Jones, Sam Jones, Gene Conley and Jim Loscutoff. But they went just 57-22 during the regular season and never had a double figure win streak (The '82 Lakers longest streak was also nine games) Both turned it on in the postseason and dominated like they should have all year, but that doesn't excuse them for having average (By Champions standards) win-loss records and resumes in what were essentially transition years for the league.

[ShaqAttack3234]

1) It was probably the most talented of the 80's Lakers team top to bottom with four of their five starters in their prime including Kareem and Magic who were both legit MVP candidates.

I wouldn't say either Magic or Kareem were in their primes that year. Kareem was a bit past his, but still great and I consider Magic's prime to be when he developed more of a halfcourt game which made him tougher to stop. I think it was the mid 80's when he started becoming consistent with his mid-range shot and a little later when he started posting up a lot.

[Slamman]

In regards to the 1982 Lakers who one poster suggested were underrated by me as the #23 Championship Team All-Time.

I did some more research on the team and the season, watched as much video as was available and have come to the following conclusions.

1) It was probably the most talented of the 80's Lakers team top to bottom with four of their five starters in their prime including Kareem and Magic who were both legit MVP candidates.

2) Their 1-3-1 Trap was the best it's ever been, previously I thought the addition of Worthy which moved Cooper up front on the trap made the '84 and '85 version better, but this group with Nixon at the head and Magic, Wilkes and Cooper stealing the lob passes and turning them into fast breaks was just absolutely nuts.

3) They dominated the postseason more so than I gave them credit for. Yes the West was weak, but they went undefeated through the West and went undefeated at home winning every game by at least 10 points.

4) Now for the downside. They were awful at the power forward spot. They had no support for Kareem who at 34, had already proven vulnerable to active post players like Moses Malone in 1981. They were fortunate that the 1982 Sixers were also weak up front offensivley.

5) They never really gelled. Magic created a rift early in the year when he got Westhead fired and some guys, including Nixon, never really trusted him again. They had considerably more talent than anyone else in the league amongst their top seven yet they finished with just the third best record in the league.

6) Their scoring differential was just 4.8 ppg, second lowest on my list of 25 teams. Another sign that they won because of their talent more than their aspiration for greatness.

Finally, I left the 1961 Celtics off the list as well, they are very comparable to the '82 Lakers. Loaded with talent, Russell, Cousy, Sharman, Heinsohn, Ramsey, Sanders, KC Jones, Sam Jones, Gene Conley and Jim Loscutoff. But they went just 57-22 during the regular season and never had a double figure win streak (The '82 Lakers longest streak was also nine games) Both turned it on in the postseason and dominated like they should have all year, but that doesn't excuse them for having average (By Champions standards) win-loss records and resumes in what were essentially transition years for the league.

I tip my hat to you for going back and checking this team out a little closer and I apologize for any negative remarks I made concerning your research. That was probably uncalled for.

I've been watching the NBA since 1970 and I always have felt that the '82 team (at least in the playoffs) was on par with the '85 and '87 teams and with Kareem being much younger, possibly even better. Nixon/Wilkes were close in terms of overall team impact that Worthy/Scott were.

I'm assuming now that your rankings are based on the regular season and playoffs, which if is the case, ranking them #23 may be somewhat realistic. If you're rankings are based only on playoffs, I'm guessing you'd rank them much higher. True?? Based on the playoffs alone I'd put them top 5 minimum.

[G.O.A.T]

I'm assuming now that your rankings are based on the regular season and playoffs, which if is the case, ranking them #23 may be somewhat realistic. If you're rankings are based only on playoffs, I'm guessing you'd rank them much higher. True?? Based on the playoffs alone I'd put them top 5 minimum.

They'd be higher for sure, but there are still a lot of teams to consider:

2001 Lakers 15-1 postseason
1983 Sixers 12-1 postseason (swept Finals)
1991 Bulls 15-2 postseason
1989 Pistons 15-2 postseason (swept Finals)
1996 Bulls 15-3 postseason (+11 differential)
1987 Lakers 15-3 postseason (Beat Celtics)
1971 Bulls 12-2 postseason (swept Finals)
1950 Lakers 10-2 postseason
1964 Celtics 8-2 postseason (Against Wilt's Warriors and (MVP) Oscar's Royals.

I'd say those are the candidates to go along with the '82 Lakers for the top five.

[G.O.A.T]

#18 1991 Chicago Bulls
http://assets.espn.go.com/photo/2009/0529/espndb_1991nbachamp_576.jpg

Head Coach: Phil Jackson
Most skilled Player: Michael Jordan
Most Important Player: Michael Jordan
Other Starters: Scottie Pippen, Horace Grant, Bill Cartwright, John Paxson
Key Bench Players: B.J. Armstrong, Will Perdue, Craig Hodges, Cliff Levingston, Stacie King

Regular Season Record: 61-21 (1st Central Division)
Postseason Record: 15-2
NBA Finals: Beat the Los Angeles Lakers four games to one.
Longest Winning Streak: 11 games
Points Scored per Game: 110.0
Points Allowed per Game: 101.0

Stats (http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/CHI/1991.html)

- This is my favorite Bulls team. They were the also the team I have easily hated the most of any team ever. In 1991 I wanted so very badly for the Pistons to three-peat as Champs, but Chicago absolutely annihilated them that season. They swept them and the Pistons did the whole “lets not shake their hands” thing, led by Isiah. That sucked, but this team was magnificent. They were so much like the Pistons, they had built to this, in fact, all of Chicago professional basketball had built to this. For whatever reason, pro hoops in the windy city took quite some time to stick. Chicago had it’s first superstar in 1946 when DePaul star George Mikan chose the Chicago American Gears as his team and won the 1946-47 NBL title. However the following season the team jumped leagues and collapsed and Mikan became a Minneapolis Laker, joined the NBA and the rest is history. In the NBA, Chicago had an original franchise, the Stags, which folded in 1950 after four competitive seasons and a 1947 Finals loss. Then in 1962 the NBA granted a franchise to Chicago that still exists today, but it’s not the Bulls, it’s the NBA’s ninth franchise, today’s Washington Wizards. Seriously. In 1961 they were founded as the Chicago Packers and no one showed up to see their 18-62 expansion team. So they went bold and changed their name to the Zephyrs, but that just confused people even more, and when the team improved to 25-55, well, it was over. The next season ownership packed up and moved to Maryland where they became the “Baltimore Bullets”. Later they were the Capitol Bullets, then the Washington Bullets and now, finally, they’ve settled on the worst of their six different names as the Washington Wizards. Fortunate for us, the NBA was determined to put a team in Chicago, so when expansion came up again in 1966, Chicago got the nod as the NBA’s tenth team. The Bulls were created and unlike most expansion teams, they didn’t totally suck. In fact, by the 1970’s they were very good. The Bulls won 50-plus games four straight years from 1971-1974 and came within a game from advancing to the NBA Finals in 1975. However soon after they bottomed out, and by 1984, they’d gone seven seasons with just one playoff appearance to show.


http://trendyand2kids.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/michael-jordan.jpg

Enter Michael Jordan. He was the foundation for the Bulls and really the NBA over the next decade and a half. Chicago returned to the postseason in his rookie year. After he missed most of his second year, he returned in time for the playoffs and to push the ’86 Celtics to the brink with a record 63 points in the Garden. The next season, 1987, the Bulls improved to 40 wins for the first time in six years, but again were beaten by Boston in the playoffs. In the draft that season Chicago acquired Scottie Pippen and Horace Grant, adding them to a front court with Charles Oakley and the backcourt of Jordan and John Paxson who was acquired in a free agency the year prior. In 1988 the Bulls advanced past the first round by defeating the Cleveland Cavaliers. However in the second round they would encounter a new nemesis; The Detroit Pistons. The Bulls, who had won 50 games during the regular season managed just one in a five game series against Detroit as the Pistons advanced, 4-1, to the Eastern Conference Finals. Prior to the 1988-89 season, Chicago traded Oakley to the Knicks for centers Bill Cartwright and Will Perdue. The Bulls this time progressed to the Eastern Conference Finals, with Jordan’s game five buzzer beater knocking off 57-win Cleveland in the first round and a 4-2 series win over Patrick Ewing and the Knicks in round two. In the conference Finals the Pistons were waiting. And though Chicago offered greater resistance in this battle, it still went to Detroit in the end with the Pistons wrapping it up at Chicago Stadium. Before the 1989-90 season Chicago made one more change, they named Phil Jackson Head Coach replacing Doug Collins. The Bulls improved to 55 wins and knocking off Milwaukee and Philadelphia again found themselves facing Detroit in the conference finals. The Bulls inched closer, pushing the series to seven before the Pistons again prevailed. Three consecutive seasons of losing to the Pistons in five games, six games and finally seven games in 1990, three “learning experiences” for Chicago and Jordan. But their resolve would prove true and the Bulls would soon be ready to overcome their greatest obstacle.


http://www.nba.com/media/bulls/pippen8_051208.jpg

[G.O.A.T]

http://www.chicagobreakingsports.com/billlaimbeer.jpg

“Expectations grew every year…” said Jordan discussing the build up to the 1990-91 season. “Our team had improved every year, we had grown as a whole.” John Paxson echoed that sentiment noting that getting more players involved had made them a stronger team. “You can’t have a guy who averages 35-38 a game and win a Championship. Other guys need to be involved.” It was the mental growth of Jordan, as much as anything that would propel the Bulls to the next level that season. Jordan had accepted a new role with the team, still as their leader and go-to-guy of course, but in a new context. As he put it…“My role as a leader is a utility. Step up and plug in the holes where we need.” With Jordan at the peak of his physical skills and now learning the secret to winning, the Bulls looked nearly unstoppable. Fittingly and predictably, the Bulls and Pistons met in the Eastern Conference Finals in the ’91 Playoffs. This time though it was Chicago, winners of 61 games during the regular season, that held home court. It was the Bulls who were deeper and more well rested than the back-to-back Champion Pistons playing in their fifth consecutive conference Finals. The animosity between the two teams was obvious and at a fever pitch heading into the series. “This is a team we didn’t like, they are at where we are trying to get.” Said Michael Jordan. Pippen added entering the fourth go round with Detroit; “They feel like they can beat us at will”. And until that series they had, but when Chicago took game one by double digits and then rode 35 from Jordan to a 105-97 game tow win Detroit knew they were in danger. They promised Chicago that the next game they won would be the hardest they ever had. The Bad Boys got physical and tried to intimidate and provoke the young Bulls. But Chicago had grown up and were not falling for those tricks again. “In the past we’d break down mentally and become individuals which is what they want you to do.” Now the Bulls stayed together and pulled away a crucial game three win in Detroit 113-107. Leading three games to none,. Pippen noticed the change in the once confident Pistons. They had been beaten and now “They would have to take the beating we were giving them.” But before the final bell the Pistons had had enough, they walked off the court without shaking hands, and the Bulls walked on to the NBA Finals. The Bulls had finally defeated the Pistons and had done so in definitive fashion. As Bill Cartwright, the team’s veteran center put it “To get past those guys was almost the Championship to us” Almost.

http://www.nba.com/media/bulls/jordan_magic_050418.jpg

For that distinction one more foe lay in the way of the Bulls; the Los Angeles Lakers. Naturally the series was being built up as Michael versus Magic and in some ways that fitting as the Bulls eventually victory would sort of being a symbolic passing of the torch from one great whose career is winding down to another whose is just beginning. However as the series progressed it was obvious that the Bulls as a team were growing together and that that as much as Jordan’s individual greatness is why they would overwhelm the Lakers, whose core of Magic, James Worthy and Byron Scott had already won three titles together. In game one at Chicago, the Lakers should that experience and grinded the game out with the Bulls carrying a two point lead into the final possession. Jordan got a look at a final shot to tie the game and out one right on line but it rattled out and just like that Los Angeles had the upper hand in the series. Magic had a triple double and Worthy, Sam Perkins and Vlade Divac combined for 60 points. Despite 36-8-12 from Jordan, Chicago could find little offensive rhythm. The Bulls had a remarkable answer in game two when Pippen was switched to Magic defensively to lessen the responsibility on Jordan. Both players responded wonderfully. Pippen harassed Magic into 4-13 shooting and Jordan set an NBA Finals record with 13 consecutive field goals made of course famously capped by his right to left mid air switch lay-up. On the game Jordan finished 15-18 and scored 33 points to go with 7 rebounds and 13 assists as the Bulls even the series with a 107-86 win. All four other Bulls starters also reached double figures led by Pippen who had 20 and 10 assists. Back in Los Angeles the Lakers again asserted their tempo and had Chicago playing a tight game late. A fumbled pass found Vlade Divac running down the lane where he scored and was fouled and put the Lakers ahead by two with 10 seconds to play. On the inbounds, Jordan dribbled down the right side against Byron Scott, eluded him with a hesitation and hit a shot up over a helping Divac to send the game into overtime. At that point the Bulls believed they would win the series, they cruised in OT to a 104-96 win led by their big three; Jordan (29-9-9) Pippen (19-13-5) and Grant (22-11-3). In game four their a confident Bulls bunch asserted themselves defensively and swarmed the slower Lakers from all angles. The Bulls shot 53% and LA just .366. Again all five Bulls starters were in double figures led by Jordan with 28 and 13 assists. Magic was reserved in the post game saying that, “I can’t feel bad. They’ve just given us a nice butt kicking.” At this point it wasn’t a question of if, but when Chicago would close out the series. It was answered right away. The Bulls answered every LA run in an old fashioned shootout and survived a classic game from Magic with 16 points 11 rebounds and 20 assists. Jordan and Pippen each topped 30 points and combined added 17 rebounds, 17 assists and 10 steals. In the end a 108-101 win meant an emotionally exhausted Jordan grasping the Championship trophy and crying, it meant validation for the rest of the team. As Cartwright put it “Your credibility is measured by your teams success. When you get in the league a lot of your goals are more individual, but once you’ve been around for a while you realize the most important thing is team.” This was a truly great team.


http://i.cnn.net/si/multimedia/photo_gallery/0801/athletes.who.cry/images/278097.jpg

[Pearleojam]

Great list G.O.A.T! :rockon:

[jlauber]

G.O.A.T,

I know you are trying to keep the suspense up, but it is dfficult to comment on these selections without seeing the entire list.

For instance, posters have already mentioned the 81-82 Lakers. Well, we now know that they didn't make your list, but without knowing, how can we make a comparison? If you had not said anything, that Laker team might have been 16th, or 6th, etc.

The bottom line, though, is that you are giving us all a valuable history lesson. I can't speak for other's (although from what I have read, they do agree), but I personally enjoy that aspect.

[G.O.A.T]

G.O.A.T,

I know you are trying to keep the suspense up, but it is dfficult to comment on these selections without seeing the entire list.

For instance, posters have already mentioned the 81-82 Lakers. Well, we now know that they didn't make your list, but without knowing, how can we make a comparison? If you had not said anything, that Laker team might have been 16th, or 6th, etc.

The bottom line, though, is that you are giving us all a valuable history lesson. I can't speak for other's (although from what I have read, they do agree), but I personally enjoy that aspect.

I've decided to shorten the posts and speed up the list. Starting today.

[nycelt84]

That picture is not the '91 Bulls team. Rodman and Kerr were not on that squad.

[jlauber]

I've decided to shorten the posts and speed up the list. Starting today.

I don't mean to rush you. I know that there is a lot of time and effort in these posts. I just think readers should wait until your entire list has been posted before making comments on the rankings themselves. If someone wants to comment on your other aspects, fine...but they should not be rushing to judgement (other than I would argue that the '84 Lakers were a better team than the '84 Celtics.)

In any case, keep up the great work.

[G.O.A.T]

#17 1964 Boston Celtics

http://assets.espn.go.com/photo/2009/0529/espndb_1964nbachamp_576.jpg

Head Coach: Red Auerbach
Most skilled Player: Bill Russell
Most Important Player: Bill Russell
Other Starters: Sam Jones, Tom Heinsohn, KC Jones, Tom Sanders
Key Bench Players: John Havlicek, Willie Naulls, Frank Ramsey

Regular Season Record: 59-21 (1st Eastern Division)
Postseason Record: 8-2
NBA Finals: Beat the SF Warriors four games to one.
Longest Winning Streak: 8 games
Points Scored per Game: 113.0
Points Allowed per Game: 105.1

Stats (http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/BOS/1964.html)

[FONT="Palatino Linotype"]- An absolute machine. A team so disciplined and professional they simply could not be beat. This was an old Celtic team, a team that had won five straight titles and 6 in 7 years, a team that had lost the likes of Bill Sharman and Bob Cousy and now had 8 of it

[jlauber]

I sure wish I could get some confirmation on the Wilt-Russell FG% in that series. I KNOW that I read it somewhere, where Wilt shot .521 in the previous round against the Hawks...which would mean that he shot .590 against Russell. As for Russell, he shot .356 in the entire post-season, and half of those games were against Wilt. We do know that Wilt outscored Russell, per game, 29-11, and outrebounded him, per game, 27-25.

[PHILA]

Funny how the Celtics were the worst offensive team in the league while being the best defensive team in the league. An excellent post from Neil Paine on this great team.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/blog/?p=585


I sure wish I could get some confirmation on the Wilt-Russell FG% in that series. I KNOW that I read it somewhere, where Wilt shot .521 in the previous round against the Hawks...which would mean that he shot .590 against Russell. As for Russell, he shot .356 in the entire post-season, and half of those games were against Wilt. We do know that Wilt outscored Russell, per game, 29-11, and outrebounded him, per game, 27-25.
Would be outstanding if indeed true.

[G.O.A.T]

The 1985 Los Angeles Lakers

http://www.sportsecyclopedia.com/nba/lala/1985Lakers.jpg

Head Coach: Pat Riley
Most skilled Player: Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
Most Important Player: Magic Johnson
Other Starters: James Worthy, Byron Scott, Kurt Rambis
Key Bench Players: Bob McAdoo, Michael Cooper, Mike McGee, Larry Spriggs, Mitch Kupchak

Regular Season Record: 62-20 (1st Pacific Division)
Postseason Record: 15-4
NBA Finals: Beat the Celtics four games to two.
Longest Winning Streak: 10 games
Points Scored per Game: 118.2
Points Allowed per Game: 110.9

Stats (http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/LAL/1985.html)

-The third of the Lakers five Championships in the 1980's. Magic Johnson finished second to Larry Bird for the MVP, but got his revenge in the NBA Finals where his Lakers won in six. However it was the 37 year old Kareem Abdul-Jabbar who stole the show in the Finals averaging nearly 30 points a game en route to his second Finals MVP. This was the last season for Bob McAdoo and Jamaal Wilkes (who missed the postseason with illness) as Lakers. Beyond their two superstars, 1985 was about the play of James Worthy who averaged better than 22 points per game on 62% shooting during the 1985 postseason. Part of the Lakers greatness in 1985 was the fact that they peaked at the right time. They won 31 of their last 35 regular season games and when you factor in the playoffs, the Lakers finished the year 46-8.

I rank this addition of the Lakers behind the '87 version because that team had a defined leader they followed whereas this team was lead by Magic during the season on a quest to get back to the Finals and atone for the mistakes of 1984 that earned him the moniker "Tragic" Johnson, but it was Kareem who asserted himself after an embarrassing game one performance and propelled the Lakers past their nemesis Boston.

I rank this team ahead of the '82 team because that team lacked the focus and chemistry required to be among the all-time greats even though they were probably as or more talented. Though Magic's game had taken a leap by 1985, Kareem's had slipped significantly on the defensive end. He was still a great scorer with the games most certain weapon, but he was no longer a force in the paint or on the backboards.

I put the '85 Lakers ahead of the '64 Celtics and '91 Bulls despite the fact that those teams have greater regular season and/or postseason win percentages because of their crest, their peak. In addition their opponent in the Finals was greater, a defending Champion and their arch-rival. The '64 Celtics beat an overmanned Warriors team that needed Wilt to carry them as far as they got. The '91 Bulls beat the Los Angeles Lakers at the end of their run, with Kareem retired and Magic, Worthy and Scott at the tail end of their careers as well.

[MakeHistory78]

^^^^Good Job and this is a great thread.:applause:

[Jr Llaban]

Bump :cheers:

[G.O.A.T]

#15 The 1960 Boston Celtics

http://www.sportsvideodaily.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/espndb_1960nbachamp_576.jpg

Head Coach: Red Auerbach
Most skilled Player: Bill Russell
Most Important Player: Bill Russell
Other Starters: Bob Cousy, Tom Heinsohn, Bill Sharman, Gene Conley
Key Bench Players: Frank Ramsey, Sam Jones, KC Jones

Regular Season Record: 59-16 (1st Eastern Division)
Postseason Record: 8-5
NBA Finals: Beat the Celtics four games to two.
Longest Winning Streak: 17 games
Points Scored per Game: 124.5
Points Allowed per Game: 116.2

Stats (http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/BOS/1960.html)

-This edition of the Russell Celtics, the fourth installment so far in the top 25, is my personal preference over the more commonly glorified 1961 team. This was a team on a mission all season. They raced out to a 30-4 start in typical Celtic fashion, but kept their foot on the gas all season. Cousy was at the tail end of his prime, Sharman was playing his last productive season. After Loscutoff went down, the fifth starting spot became a revolving door. Both Conley, a 6'9" former major league pitcher and both KC and Sam Jones became part time starters as Frank Ramsey reprised his role as sixth man in one of his finest seasons. The Warriors, led by rookie Wilt Chamberlain who took the league MVP finished in second place in the league with 49 wins.

In the postseason the Celtics met up first with Chamberlain and the Warriors and though the series was a six game struggle, Boston emerged victorious and the Fantastic Phenom Chamberlain was resigned to retirement or at least he that's how he felt in the aftermath. The Finals found a familiar foe, the St. Louis Hawks awaiting Boston. The Celtics had hammered the Hawks in a thrilling seven game series in 1957 but were dismissed in six from the 1958 Finals when Pettit took advantage of an injured Russell and scored an amazing 50 points in the clinching victory.

The 1960 Finals was another dramatic (sort of) seven game showdown. Russell was his usually fantastic self in the Finals averaging 17-25-5 and matching his own Finals record with 40 rebounds in game two and saving his best for last with a 22 point 35 rebound 4 assist effort as Boston clinched their third title in four seasons. Cousy was brilliant in support with 19 points 6 rebounds and 14 assists. The Celtics dominated in all four wins, it was the Hawks who had control of the close games, a rarity in future Finals.

This was the season the Celtics dynasty really began to me. Before the playoffs I found five articles that predicted the winner of the 1960 playoffs. Only two of the five selected the Celtics as Champions. Boston did not have any All-NBA first team players and only Russell and Sharman made the second team. Cousy, who led the league in assists missed the All-NBA team for the first time in nearly a decade.

I rank this Celtics team here because they were the best of the Russell/Cousy era. They beat Wilt's best Warrior team and Pettit and the Hawks still at their peak. In the playoffs they knocked off the last two league MVP's Wilt ('60), Pettit ('59) and the last two franchises to win a title not named the Boston Celtics. {St. Louis ('58), Philadelphia ('56)}

There are no other teams in NBA history who have accomplished that feat. The Detroit Pistons came closest in 1988. When the beat Birds Celtics and had Magic Lakers on the ropes until a phantom call.

This Celtic's team is not higher for the following reasons. Only Russell, Ramsey and Heinsohn were in their primes amongst the Celtic staples. Cousy and Sharman were at the end, the Jones boys were still getting their feet wet and guys like Conley, Loscutoff and Guarilia were becoming less and less relevant in a faster and more athletic NBA. Additionally, they were not dominant in the playoffs. The needed six to beat the Warriors and Seven to beat the Hawks. Yes they were good teams, but in the future, great Champions would peak during the playoffs and run over even quality competition. Boston almost burned out that season, but Red and Russell wouldn't let them.

After their 30-4 start, the Celtics struggled through a 2-7 stretch before Russell, who usually rested at practice refused to lose a game that the second team needed to win to end practice. By the time the Red ended practice despite Russell's team not having lost, the Celtics were exhausted and Russell's message was sent. Boston went on a seven game win streak and finished the year 29-5.

A great team from a great season. The first of Wilt/Russell eight playoff showdowns and the year before Oscar and West joined the NBA. It was the season that set the tone for the decade's Dynasty and the 15th greatest time of all-time if you ask me.

[G.O.A.T]

#14 The 1970 New York Knicks

http://assets.espn.go.com/photo/2009/0529/espndb_1970nbachamp_576.jpg

Head Coach: Red Holzman
Most skilled Player: Walt Frazier
Most Important Player: Willis Reed
Other Starters: Dave DeBusschere, Dick Barnett, Bill Bradley
Key Bench Players: Cazzie Russell, Dave Stallworth, Mike Riordan

Regular Season Record: 60-22 (1st Eastern Division)
Postseason Record: 12-7
NBA Finals: Beat the Lakers four games to three.
Longest Winning Streak: 18 games
Points Scored per Game: 124.5
Points Allowed per Game: 116.2

Stats (http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/NYK/1970.html)

-Slowly they built themselves into a power, the most downtrodden franchise of the 1960's, which lost all three of it's Finals appearances in the 1950's was now standing on top of the basketball world, winners of the NBA playoffs for the year 1970. There was a sense of destiny right from the start, but it was almost unrealized as this blue collar bunch almost ran out of gas before the finish line. They had began the season 23-1, their lone loss coming at the hands of San Fransisco by just three points. They finished the season, playoffs included just 15-14 in the last 29, but it was enough to end the franchises 24 year wait for the Championship it always felt it deserved. The playoffs were a grueling test of their resolve and maturity.

It opened with an Eastern division semifinal against the Baltimore Bullets. Baltimore had finished the 1969 season with the leagues best record and rookie center Wesley Unseld had captured the MVP. In 1970 it was the Knicks and their center, Willis Reed taking the leagues best record and MVP trophy into the postseason. However in this series, it was their counterparts, the guards who stole the show. In game one the Knicks survived a 39 point onslaught by Earl Monroe and escaped with a victory in double overtime. It was the perfect start to a postseason that would require the final minutes and overtime more often than not to settle games. A Frazier triple-double put New York up 2-0, but Monroe led four Bullets with 20+ points and outscored Frazier 25-24 in the Bullets game three win. Baltimore evened it up in game four despite 25 from Frazier. In game five Willis Reed would explode for 36 points and 36 rebounds (corrected by Regul8r) and the Knicks again had control. The Bullets again evened the series with a game six win and when Monroe went off for 32 and 10 assists in game seven and Frazier and Reed scored just 29 points combined, it was almost impossible to believe the 127-114 final in favor of New York, but with 26 points each from Barnett and DeBusschere, the Knicks were moving on.


http://www.nba.com/knicks/photos/willis_return640x403.jpg

They rolled over the Milwaukee as the Bucks super talented rookie Lew Alcindor piled up 30 point games but only won once in the five game set. Willis Reed outscored and rebounded Alcindor in the final three games of the series, helping New York secure their first trip to the Finals in nearly 20 years. There it was the Los Angeles Lakers and their three-headed Hall of Fame monster awaiting them. The Lakers had came within a single game of knocking off the Boston Celtics the year before in the Finals and now with Russell in retirement, this was their year. However an injury during the regular season the Chamberlain had threatened to derail their fate. But they got it back on track and with Wilt as healthy as he'd been all season headed to the Finals. The Knicks took game one behind 37 from Reed as Wilt wilted at the line making just 1-10 shots. Game two went to Los Angeles as Jerry West scored 33, out-dueling Reed who finished with 29-15-5 and Frazier who had a 12-12-12 triple double. A Dick Barnett jumper rimmed out just before the buzzer and the series was even. Game three, fittingly enough was a battle of big threes. Los Angeles got 34 and 9 assists from Jerry West, 21 and 26 from Wilt Chamberlian and a triple double (13-12-11) from Elgin Baylor. For the Knicks, DeBusschere (21-15) and Frazier (19-11) had very good games, but again it was Willis Reed with 38 and 17 who carried the load even after West hit half court heave at the buzzer that sent it into overtime. New York's win put them up 2-1. Game four went to overtime again and Wilt imposed his will with 25 rebounds and West turned into an all-timer 39 and 18 assists as the Lakers again drew even.

The crucial fifth game has been well documented. The Lakers built a big lead early and when Willis Reed went down with a leg injury in the first quarter after having averaged 32 a game through the first four, did not return and left a gaping whole in the Knicks middle. The Lakers were unable to exploit it immeditley though as an extended court press put the Knicks back in control frustrating the Lakers away from their preferred options, West and Wilt, and slowly working back into the game and eventually winning 107-100. Reed would not return for game six leaving 6'6" Dave DeBusschere to fend with the Goliath Chamberlain. Wilt took advantage. An amazing 45 points and 27 rebounds and fittingly, this thrilling series was coming down to a seventh game. The setting was New York's Madison Square Garden and the question on everyone's mind was "Would Willis play?". As both teams took the court for warm-ups, Reed was nowhere to be seen. But then just before game time he came jogging down the isle toward to court and the place just erupted. The Lakers, rather they knew it or not were in trouble already. After Reed came out and hit two early jump shots, MSG, it's roof ablaze, had begun the celebration. Reed was ineffective an immobile, but most importantly inspirational. The Knicks were up by fourteen after one and more than thirty at the half. Reed never scored again, he finished with 4 points and 3 rebounds in 27 minutes, but the rest of his teammates were unconscious. The Knicks shot 50% from the field and made 21-23 free throws. Barnett had 21, Bradley 17, DeBusschere 18 and 17 rebounds and Walt Frazier one of the most spectacular stat lines in Finals history. 12-17 field goals, 12-12 free throws, 36 points 7 rebounds 19 assists. The Knicks won 113-99, their first Championship and the first of the NBA-post Russell.

http://cdn.bleacherreport.net/images_root/slides/photos/000/241/334/1970-willis-read_display_image.jpg?1275206063

I rank the '70 Knicks ahead of the '60 Celtics because the NBA was better in 1970 than it was in 1960. The two teams are very close in terms win-loss (Knicks 72-29 including playoffs, Celtics 67-21) both faced two teams with multiple HOFers in their prime during the playoffs. The Knicks beat a rookie Alcindor and the Celtics a rookie Chamberlain. Both teams were a strong eight deep but I give a slight edge to the Knicks best five (Reed-DeBusschere-Frazier-Bradley-Barnett) over the Celtics (Russell-Cousy-Heinsohn-Sharman-Ramsey). The reason I believe this is defense, this was not one of the Celtics best defensive teams, though offensively they were as sleek as any. The Knicks could play any style with anyone. Had the '60 Celtics run into the '70 Lakers, I'm not sure they could have handled them. It's not that Frazier and Barnett are better than Cousy and Sharman, just that their evolved style would give them fits.

They are below 13 teams left on the list because they, like many before them on this list, never achieved historic domination in their attaining greatness. These next thirteen teams have in one way or another.


http://assets.nydailynews.com/img/2010/02/22/alg_knicks_five.jpg

[ThaRegul8r]

In game five Willis Reed would explode for 36 and 16 rebounds and the Knicks again had control.

Reed had 36 points and 36 rebounds, not 16:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=AtoqAAAAIBAJ&sjid=0mwDAAAAIBAJ&pg=5350,453822

[Psileas]

Heh, that's actually an error I've seen again (no pun to the OP, who's doing a great job). 36 rebounds seems like a typo for Reed, who was a very good, but not really an elite rebounder (after all, he had more great rebounders playing next to him). Those 1970 battles with Unseld were epic. Unseld, having one of his career's best series, had crushed Reed a couple of games before and Reed got his revenge here.

[ThaRegul8r]

Heh, that's actually an error I've seen again (no pun to the OP, who's doing a great job). 36 rebounds seems like a typo for Reed, who was a very good, but not really an elite rebounder (after all, he had more great rebounders playing next to him). Those 1970 battles with Unseld were epic. Unseld, having one of his career's best series, had crushed Reed a couple of games before and Reed got his revenge here.

Unseld destroyed the league MVP in a Game 3 127-113 Baltimore win, with 23 points and 34 rebounds to Reed's 12 points and five rebounds, and outrebounded the entire Knicks team 34-30.

Unseld also outplayed Reed in Baltimore's 102-92 Game 4 win, and in Baltimore's 96-87 Game 6 win.

[G.O.A.T]

Unseld destroyed the league MVP in a Game 3 127-113 Baltimore win, with 23 points and 34 rebounds to Reed's 12 points and five rebounds, and outrebounded the entire Knicks team 34-30.

Unseld also outplayed Reed in Baltimore's 102-92 Game 4 win, and in Baltimore's 96-87 Game 6 win.

Great points all around as usual. I had the first half rebound numbers. I do need to find more excuses to talk about Unseld and those early 70's Bullets with him and Pearl.

[G.O.A.T]

Heh, that's actually an error I've seen again (no pun to the OP, who's doing a great job). 36 rebounds seems like a typo for Reed, who was a very good, but not really an elite rebounder (after all, he had more great rebounders playing next to him). Those 1970 battles with Unseld were epic. Unseld, having one of his career's best series, had crushed Reed a couple of games before and Reed got his revenge here.

If you could have added one non-superstar from that Pearl/Wes era ('69-'71) to the Bullets to ensure as best you could they'd win a title who would it be? (No Lakers, Bucks or Knicks)

[KG5MVP]

Hurry up I want to know who's top 3

[ThaRegul8r]

Hurry up I want to know who's top 3

You don't rush a good thing. Continuing the standard of quality is more important than just speeding through it just so people can complain about where certain teams are ranked.

[G.O.A.T]

2000 NBA Champions
http://assets.espn.go.com/photo/2009/0529/espndb_2000nbachamp_576.jpg

Head Coach: Phil Jackson
Most skilled Player: Shaquille O'Neal
Most Important Player: Shaquille O'Neal
Other Starters: Kobe Bryant, Glen Rice, Ron Harper, AC Green
Key Bench Players: Robert Horry, Derek Fisher, Rick Fox, Brian Shaw

Regular Season Record: 67-15 (1st Eastern Division)
Postseason Record: 15-8
NBA Finals: Beat Pacers four games to two
Longest Winning Streak: 19 games
Points Scored per Game: 100.8
Points Allowed per Game: 92.3

Stats (http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/LAL/2000.html)


2001 NBA Champions
http://assets.espn.go.com/photo/2009/0529/espndb_2001nbachamp_576.jpg

Head Coach: Phil Jackson
Most skilled Player: Shaquille O'Neal
Most Important Player: Shaquille O'Neal
Other Starters: Kobe Bryant, Derek Fisher, Horace Grant, Rick Fox
Key Bench Players: Robert Horry, Brian Shaw, Tyrone Lue, Ron Harper

Regular Season Record: 56-26 (1st Eastern Division)
Postseason Record: 15-1
NBA Finals: Beat 76ers four games to one
Longest Winning Streak: 19 games (11 playoff)
Points Scored per Game: 100.6
Points Allowed per Game: 97.2

Stats (http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/LAL/2001.html)

-So what do I do here? Two teams, very similar, but playing under very different circumstances. One dominated the regular season like few others have and one dominated the postseason like few other have. Here's a real quick breakdown of the dominance of each:

The 2000 Lakers won 67 games, tied for fifth most all-time by an NBA Champion. They didn't lose back-to-back games until the end of January, between February 4th and April 5th they went 30-1. They had three winning streaks of ten games or more, one of just two NBA Champions to accomplish this feat ('71 Bucks). During a ten game winning streak in late February into early March they won nine of those games by double figures. Their 8.5 points per game differential is the second highest of the decade (2008 Celtics). They finished eight games better than the next best team in the league Portland at 59-23.

The 2001 Lakers struggled through the regular season considering their success in 2000, however they were playing without Derek Fisher for most of the season. However from the time Fisher returned they Lakers went 30-6 including the playoffs en route to the title. They swept Portland who pushed them to seven games in the 2000 WCF by an average of 15 points per game in the first round. In the second round they swept Sacramento which had teken them to a fifth in final game in 2000 playoffs first round. The Conference Finals they swept San Antonio getting revenge for being swept by the eventual Spurs in 1999. Tim Duncan had missed the 2000 playoffs with injury and the Lakers had faced a weaker Phoenix team instead. In the Finals, the 76ers won the opener in overtime behind a legendary AI performance, but then LA won three straight to clinch the title. Their 15-1 record is the best in NBA playoff history.

So which team was better. The one that won 30 of 31 regular season games and an NBA title or the one that won 15 of 16 playoff games and an NBA title?

First let's look at the common bonds
Phil - Coach
Shaq - Superstar
Kobe - Sidekick Superstar
Horry - Sixth Man
Shaw - Third guard

Okay, so Shaq was about the same, still in his peak and dominant both season. Kobe got slightly better from 2000 to 2001 I'd say. Horry and Shaw were the same guys.

That's it...everyone else had a different role from one year to the next.

So let's look at those parts that changed

Starting Guard
2000: Ron Harper 7-4-3 regular season; 9-4-3 playoffs
2001: Derek Fisher 12-3-4; 14-4-3
Edge: 2001

Fisher really complimented Bryant well. He also averaged 2 steals per game; when he was healthy they were better.

Starting Power Forward
2000: AC Green 5-6-1; 4-4-1
2001: Horace Grant 9-7-2; 6-6-1
Edge: 2001

Grant brought more to the table physically and was better in the playoffs.

Starting Small Forward
2000: Glen Rice 16-4-2; 12-4-2
2001: Rick Fox 10-4-3; 14-4-2
Edge: 2001

Rice never fit in and come playoff time he was a liability more than an asset. Fox elevated his postseason play, was better defensively and needed less shots.

Bench 7-10
2000: Fox 7-2-1, 4-2-1; Fisher 6-2-3, 5-1-2; Shaw 4-3-3, 5-2-3; Travis Knight 2-2-0, 1-0-0;
2001: Shaw 5-4-3, 4-4-3; Harper 7-4-2, 2-1-1; Lue 3-1-1, 2-1-1; Isaiah Rider 8-2-2, DNP
Edge: 2000

If the 2001 team had a weakness, it was their depth.

So clearly I favor the team that the 2001 Lakers could put on the court, especially in the postseason. They were a more cohesive unit and I believe that their playoff run was the peak of their dynasty and the best basketball team we've seen in the past 12 years. So...


http://cdn.bleacherreport.net/images_root/slides/photos/000/257/576/kobe-bryant-shaq-jackson_display_image.jpg?1276469620

http://www.midwestsportsfans.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/kobe-shaq-finals.jpg

http://www.bongonews.com/StoryImages/p1_kobe_ap_2005-01-19.JPG



#12: 2001 Los Angeles Lakers
#13: 2000 Los Angeles Lakers

[nycelt84]

The 2001 Lakers should be way higher and at least in the Top 5. They had one of the most dominating postseasons of any team in NBA history and in reality that's the only thing that really counts.

[PHILA]

Unseld destroyed the league MVP in a Game 3 127-113 Baltimore win, with 23 points and 34 rebounds to Reed's 12 points and five rebounds, and outrebounded the entire Knicks team 34-30.

Not saying you're wrong, but this video credits Unseld with 36 rebounds.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBActox-NO0#t=1m28s

[KG5MVP]

#1 has to be the 95-96 bulls, GOAT record, GOAT player at his shooting/skills prime, Pippen at his prime, Rodman at his last years of prime, excellent roleplayers

[G.O.A.T]

The 2001 Lakers should be way higher and at least in the Top 5. They had one of the most dominating postseasons of any team in NBA history and in reality that's the only thing that really counts.

The era they played in makes it real tough. Their line-up beyond Shaq and Kobe is all role players. A 15-1 postseason is very impressive, but their 26 regular season losses and 27 total loses are at least five more than anyone else on the list ahead of them. The '83 Sixers went 12-1, the '71 Bucks 12-2, '89 Pistons 15-2, '91 Bulls 15-2 and the '82 Lakers 12-2. All of those teams have 3 HOF caliber players of more in their prime (as oppose to 2 on the Lakers) and won more games in the regular season and some even swept the finals. Is 15-1 automatically more impressive than what those teams did for a whole season because they lost one more playoff game.

[PHILA]

Kobe got slightly better from 2000 to 2001 I'd say.
I thought he was a lot better, especially late in the season. Not sure if he's ever improved more between two seasons.

[Da_Realist]

The 2001 Lakers should be way higher and at least in the Top 5. They had one of the most dominating postseasons of any team in NBA history and in reality that's the only thing that really counts.

I agree. They should be up there with the very best teams of the last 30 years. They had no real weaknesses. Dominating post-player, who when motivated, was PHENOMENAL. A #2 that was better than most teams best player. And more importantly...and I think this point gets lost a lot of times because everyone is blinded by the 2 stars, but the bench was the key for the Lakers. Rick Fox, Derek Fisher, Robert Horry... those guys were not only superb role players but they were all clutch. Not only could Shaq or Kobe beat you, but Horry made huge shots. Fisher made huge shots. Fox made timely plays on both ends. This team was one of the best. And on top of all that, they had the best coaching staff in the league.

[PHILA]

I agree. They should be up there with the very best teams of the last 30 years. They had no real weaknesses. Dominating post-player, who when motivated, was PHENOMENAL. A #2 that was better than most teams best player. And more importantly...and I think this point gets lost a lot of times because everyone is blinded by the 2 stars, but the bench was the key for the Lakers. Rick Fox, Derek Fisher, Robert Horry... those guys were not only superb role players but they were all clutch. Not only could Shaq or Kobe beat you, but Horry made huge shots. Fisher made huge shots. Fox made timely plays on both ends. This team was one of the best. And on top of all that, they had the best coaching staff in the league.

Indeed a shame, the Sixers could have realistically had a chance to win the series (or at least go up 3-0) if not for a couple of daggers from Fisher & Horry in consecutive games.

[G.O.A.T]

They should be up there with the very best teams of the last 30 years. They had no real weaknesses.

They are in my opinion, up there with the very best teams of the last 30 years. I don't think you'll be able to find a weakness with any of the eleven teams ranked ahead of them either. They are as low as they are because injuries and inconsistent motivation and focus caused them to have a very pedestrian regular season by all-time great standards.

[Da_Realist]

Indeed a shame, the Sixers could have realistically had a chance to win the series (or at least go up 3-0) if not for a couple of daggers from Fisher & Horry in consecutive games.

No...Way. The Sixers had no shot at all. The Lakers won in 5 games. I was pulling hard as hell for the Sixers but even I could see the Lakers were the far better team. Don't let the close games fool you. When a team beats you four straight games, including 3 straight on your court, that's a clear indication that team is better. Way better.

[Da_Realist]

They are in my opinion, up there with the very best teams of the last 30 years. I don't think you'll be able to find a weakness with any of the eleven teams ranked ahead of them either. They are as low as they are because injuries and inconsistent motivation and focus caused them to have a very pedestrian regular season by all-time great standards.

I think my evaluation is a little different. I'm not necessarily going by what they accomplished or what their records were but in a totally subjective all-time tournament in my head. Who would win among all the great teams? The 2001 Lakers would be my darkhorse to win the whole damn thing (this all-time tournament). They would give any Bulls or Pistons team trouble (Shaq in the middle), physically beat up the 80's Lakers and while the Celtics Big 3 are preoccupied with Shaq they would have no answer for Kobe.

Not saying the 2001 Lakers would win...but I'm not saying they wouldn't either.

I see your point, though. And going by that criteria, I can see how the ranking fits.

[PHILA]

No...Way. The Sixers had no shot at all. The Lakers won in 5 games. I was pulling hard as hell for the Sixers but even I could see the Lakers were the far better team. Don't let the close games fool you. When a team beats you four straight games, including 3 straight on your court, that's a clear indication that team is better. Way better.

Of course, however the Sixers had a lot of resilience. By Game 4, it seemed they had burned out & the injuries + fatigue caught up with them after a long hard postseason, plus Shaq came out very strong at the start of the game. It was hard enough for them just to come from behind like that in those games and keep it close against a much more powerful team. But anything is possible. Up 3-0, I don't think they'd let the Lakers come back to win.

http://i53.tinypic.com/212bng4.jpg

[Da_Realist]

Of course, however the Sixers had a lot of resilience. By Game 4, it seemed they had burned out & the injuries + fatigue caught up with them after a long hard postseason, plus Shaq came out very strong at the start of the game. It was hard enough for them just to come from behind like that in those games and keep it close against a much more powerful team. But anything is possible. Up 3-0, I don't think they'd let the Lakers come back to win.

http://i53.tinypic.com/212bng4.jpg

They would have never been up 3-0. Under no circumstances would they have beaten the Lakers 3 straight games.

[PHILA]

They would have never been up 3-0. Under no circumstances would they have beaten the Lakers 3 straight games.

Just looking at it from game by game basis, flawed as it is. It's a nice thought. :cheers:

[PHILA]

I think my evaluation is a little different. I'm not necessarily going by what they accomplished or what their records were but in a totally subjective all-time tournament in my head. Who would win among all the great teams? The 2001 Lakers would be my darkhorse to win the whole damn thing (this all-time tournament). They would give any Bulls or Pistons team trouble (Shaq in the middle), physically beat up the 80's Lakers and while the Celtics Big 3 are preoccupied with Shaq they would have no answer for Kobe.

Not saying the 2001 Lakers would win...but I'm not saying they wouldn't either.

I see your point, though. And going by that criteria, I can see how the ranking fits.

Yes they would cause a lot of matchup problems, however I like the '67 Sixers in the all time matchup. Just too powerful inside with nearly all the key players at their peaks (except Billy C who was not too bad as a 2nd year player). Would be a very interesting matchup. How effective would the Laker shooters be with Shaq not commanding a double team at will? Kobe Bryant would be the key, and the Sixers have some great defenders to throw at him.

[nycelt84]

I think my evaluation is a little different. I'm not necessarily going by what they accomplished or what their records were but in a totally subjective all-time tournament in my head. Who would win among all the great teams? The 2001 Lakers would be my darkhorse to win the whole damn thing (this all-time tournament). They would give any Bulls or Pistons team trouble (Shaq in the middle), physically beat up the 80's Lakers and while the Celtics Big 3 are preoccupied with Shaq they would have no answer for Kobe.

Not saying the 2001 Lakers would win...but I'm not saying they wouldn't either.

I see your point, though. And going by that criteria, I can see how the ranking fits.

I agree that's the way I was looking at it also. In my opinion ever since I've watched the NBA I have never seen a team look as unstoppable and unbeatable as the '01 Lakers did in the playoffs.

[Gotterdammerung]

Pretty ballsy of you to rank the Lakers that low, GOAT. I have to applaud you for not kowtowing to popular opinion. :cheers:

I too have them about 8th on my list. The 01 Lakers had probably the greatest mega-superstar duo ever, and a roster full of perfect role players and a system that harmonized and maximized everyone's talents and potential.

Shaq was definitely the mightiest and most intimidating player of the day. Besides his strengths what couldn't he do?
make free throws.
rotate quickly on defense.
launch himself quickly to beat quick bigs to rebounds.

If Shaq was option #1, the alpha dog, then Kobe was option #1.5, the alpha dog junior, and the next best player in the league. He was already drawing MJ-like compliments by then, with his strength, range, hops, passing ability, defense, rebounding, fastbreak, and ability to take over the clutch. His drawbacks? Rampant narcissism that created unnecessary disharmony.
But that was under control once the money games were on the line.

Rick Fox was a pugnacious defender: you couldn't shake him with a simple screen or even with the slickest one-on-one dribbling skills. Plus Fox nailed clutch 3 pointers whenever the opponent doubled the mega-stars and kicked the ball out to him in the corner. He already mastered the game in the 1st year. Fox's weakness? A strange wavering game-to-game focus.

Despite being on the decline, Horace Grant was still one of the best defenders of post-up bigs in the league. His mid-range jumper and mastery of the triangle were impeccable.

Derek Fisher replaced Ron Harper and bounced back from injury to prove himself a shrewd, lefty. Even back then he didn't have the lateral quickness to keep up with his speedier counterparts, but Fisher had the uncanny anticipation to jump and draw charges. Plus his clutch shooting and excellent demeanor complimented the triangle offense. Shaw and Horry were both clutch shooters off the bench.

Justification
But the reason I rank them this low is Shaq's substandard FT shooting that made him absolutely useless in the clutch. The '01 Lakers did not play consistent defense, and they also lacked an overall team speed that prevented them from scoring easy baskets.

Now i find the 01 Lakers similar to the 71 Bucks in which both had an unstoppable force in the middle, an incredibly talented guard, and both were essentially a half-court team. But I rank the 01 Lakers ahead of the '71 Bucks cuz this edition of Shaq would've worn out the 2nd year Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. Kobe also would have been way too much for Dandridge, Smith or even an aging Oscar Robertson. Also, the Bucks' offense was way too predictable, the very opposite of the fluctuating triangle of the Lakers.

[Da_Realist]

Pretty ballsy of you to rank the Lakers that low, GOAT. I have to applaud you for not kowtowing to popular opinion. :cheers:

I too have them about 8th on my list. The 01 Lakers had probably the greatest mega-superstar duo ever, and a roster full of perfect role players and a system that harmonized and maximized everyone's talents and potential.

Shaq was definitely the mightiest and most intimidating player of the day. Besides his strengths what couldn't he do?
make free throws.
rotate quickly on defense.
launch himself quickly to beat quick bigs to rebounds.

If Shaq was option #1, the alpha dog, then Kobe was option #1.5, the alpha dog junior, and the next best player in the league. He was already drawing MJ-like compliments by then, with his strength, range, hops, passing ability, defense, rebounding, fastbreak, and ability to take over the clutch. His drawbacks? Rampant narcissism that created unnecessary disharmony.
But that was under control once the money games were on the line.

Rick Fox was a pugnacious defender: you couldn't shake him with a simple screen or even with the slickest one-on-one dribbling skills. Plus Fox nailed clutch 3 pointers whenever the opponent doubled the mega-stars and kicked the ball out to him in the corner. He already mastered the game in the 1st year. Fox's weakness? A strange wavering game-to-game focus.

Despite being on the decline, Horace Grant was still one of the best defenders of post-up bigs in the league. His mid-range jumper and mastery of the triangle were impeccable.

Derek Fisher replaced Ron Harper and bounced back from injury to prove himself a shrewd, lefty. Even back then he didn't have the lateral quickness to keep up with his speedier counterparts, but Fisher had the uncanny anticipation to jump and draw charges. Plus his clutch shooting and excellent demeanor complimented the triangle offense. Shaw and Horry were both clutch shooters off the bench.

Justification
But the reason I rank them this low is Shaq's substandard FT shooting that made him absolutely useless in the clutch. The '01 Lakers did not play consistent defense, and they also lacked an overall team speed that prevented them from scoring easy baskets.

Now i find the 01 Lakers similar to the 71 Bucks in which both had an unstoppable force in the middle, an incredibly talented guard, and both were essentially a half-court team. But I rank the 01 Lakers ahead of the '71 Bucks cuz this edition of Shaq would've worn out the 2nd year Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. Kobe also would have been way too much for Dandridge, Smith or even an aging Oscar Robertson. Also, the Bucks' offense was way too predictable, the very opposite of the fluctuating triangle of the Lakers.

Fair and balanced assessment. :cheers:

[G.O.A.T]

Pretty ballsy of you to rank the Lakers that low, GOAT. I have to applaud you for not kowtowing to popular opinion. :cheers:

I too have them about 8th on my list. The 01 Lakers had probably the greatest mega-superstar duo ever, and a roster full of perfect role players and a system that harmonized and maximized everyone's talents and potential.

Shaq was definitely the mightiest and most intimidating player of the day. Besides his strengths what couldn't he do?
make free throws.
rotate quickly on defense.
launch himself quickly to beat quick bigs to rebounds.

If Shaq was option #1, the alpha dog, then Kobe was option #1.5, the alpha dog junior, and the next best player in the league. He was already drawing MJ-like compliments by then, with his strength, range, hops, passing ability, defense, rebounding, fastbreak, and ability to take over the clutch. His drawbacks? Rampant narcissism that created unnecessary disharmony.
But that was under control once the money games were on the line.

Rick Fox was a pugnacious defender: you couldn't shake him with a simple screen or even with the slickest one-on-one dribbling skills. Plus Fox nailed clutch 3 pointers whenever the opponent doubled the mega-stars and kicked the ball out to him in the corner. He already mastered the game in the 1st year. Fox's weakness? A strange wavering game-to-game focus.

Despite being on the decline, Horace Grant was still one of the best defenders of post-up bigs in the league. His mid-range jumper and mastery of the triangle were impeccable.

Derek Fisher replaced Ron Harper and bounced back from injury to prove himself a shrewd, lefty. Even back then he didn't have the lateral quickness to keep up with his speedier counterparts, but Fisher had the uncanny anticipation to jump and draw charges. Plus his clutch shooting and excellent demeanor complimented the triangle offense. Shaw and Horry were both clutch shooters off the bench.

Justification
But the reason I rank them this low is Shaq's substandard FT shooting that made him absolutely useless in the clutch. The '01 Lakers did not play consistent defense, and they also lacked an overall team speed that prevented them from scoring easy baskets.

Now i find the 01 Lakers similar to the 71 Bucks in which both had an unstoppable force in the middle, an incredibly talented guard, and both were essentially a half-court team. But I rank the 01 Lakers ahead of the '71 Bucks cuz this edition of Shaq would've worn out the 2nd year Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. Kobe also would have been way too much for Dandridge, Smith or even an aging Oscar Robertson. Also, the Bucks' offense was way too predictable, the very opposite of the fluctuating triangle of the Lakers.

Really strong analysis

On the last paragraph, I agree with your conclusion, that the Lakers of '01 would be a very tough match-up for the '71 Bucks, but that's something I don't consider when evaluating teams historically. The I have the Bucks ahead of the Lakers because their regular season was so amazing. Having the focus to win at that level for an entire regular season and than seeing it through in the playoffs takes a level of mental toughness that only the greatest teams have.

If it was an all-time teams tournament I'd have the same finale every time because if Russell or Jordan had a Championship caliber cast around them, history tells us they are the two closest things to a sure title. I believe anyone who thinks otherwise values their own opinion too much.

[Gotterdammerung]

Really strong analysis Thanks, GOAT.

If it was an all-time teams tournament I'd have the same finale every time because if Russell or Jordan had a Championship caliber cast around them, history tells us they are the two closest things to a sure title. I believe anyone who thinks otherwise values their own opinion too much.
As long you rank the 67 Sixers in the top 3, i'm good :banana:
I agree with how you rank the GOAT teams, that we should credit the objective facts of their entire season/playoff performance, but I also add the element of a hypothetical tournament, how they would perform versus each other. That makes for a bit more entertaining reading, IMO, if nothing else.

The Russell/Jordan teams are definitely in my top 5, though. :pimp:

[G.O.A.T]

The 1997 Chicago Bulls

http://www.ickscorner.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/img_38_3_11.jpg

Head Coach: Phil Jackson
Most skilled Player: Michael Jordan
Most Important Player: Michael Jordan
Other Starters: Scottie Pippen, Dennis Rodman, Ron Harper, Luc Longley
Key Bench Players: Toni Kukoc, Steve Kerr, Brain Williams (Bison Dele), Jason Caffey, Bill Wennington, Randy Brown, Jud Buechler

Regular Season Record: 69-13 (1st Central Division)
Postseason Record: 15-4
NBA Finals: Beat the Jazz four games to two.
Longest Winning Streak: 12 games
Points Scored per Game: 103.1
Points Allowed per Game: 92.3

Stats

-Following the record breaking 1995-96 season, which saw Michael Jordan complete his mission to return to the top, the Bulls somehow provided an encore performance almost as breathtaking. Winning 69 games, just three fewer than the previous regular season and still tied for second most all-time ('72 Lakers). They lost at home just twice during the regular season; to Miami in December and in the season finale against the Knicks. They did it in a competitive Eastern Conference too, one with six 50-win teams as compared to just five teams over .500 in the West. They outscored opponents by over 10 points per game, fourth best in NBA history and were never even pushed in the postseason. They had a 3-1 lead or larger through four games of all four playoff series. It was complete domination and it was complete Michael Jordan, with his imprint all over the team.

The Bulls won with defense, swarming relentless defense like usual, but they were also the leagues top offensive team in 1996-97. For the Bulls it was about efficiency and winning the battle of possessions. They had the third highest field goal percentage in the league, were second in rebounding and committed the second fewest turnovers. They did it with balance, sort of. The Bulls had just three players average double-figure scoring during the regular season and just two come playoff time, however they had exceptional overall depth able to go ten deep every night. Seven players who played in at least 55 games averaged between 5 and 9 points per game.

They were an old, battle-tested team. Jordan (33) and Pippen (31) were two of seven players on the the roster over thirty that season, the oldest, Robert Parish at 43. Luc Longley was the junior member of the starting line-up at 29. But instead of wearing down, the Bulls remained level all season. They won 17 of their first twenty. 18 out of twenty in the second quarter of the season, 18 out of twenty in the third quarter, 16 out of twenty in the fourth quarter and lost their last two of the season, to the Heat and Knicks. The first round of the playoffs featured a battle with the Washington Bullets who had big three of their own that put up very good production. 23 year old former University of Michigan Fab Fivers Chris Webber and Juwan Howard teamed with veteran point guard Rod Strickland to combine for 56 points 22 rebounds and 18 assists compared to 56-29-13 from the Jordan/Pippen/Rodman trio. But the Bulls experience and Jordan in-particular was too much. Michael had 29-8-8 in game one, 55 points in game two and in game three the Bulls triplet shined just a little brighter than their Bullet adversaries. Rodman was auspiciously active with a14 points and a double-double. Jordan had a game high 28, including 14 in the fourth quarter and Pippen who had a 20-7-4-3 line for the game and was a key all series defensively on Chris Webber, made the biggest play of all with a baseline drive and dunk and one, with Chicago down one in the last 15 seconds, to clinch to series.

The second round featured another challenge in the Atlanta Hawks, and perhaps a greater challenge in themselves. With Dennis Rodman going all Dennis Rodman and missing practices, lacking energy and not even producing on the glass, the Bulls grew tiered of his act. "I'm doing all the rebounding" Said Jordan questioning Rodman's effort. Scottie Pippen put it more directly. "If you're not going to lead us in rebounding, don't lead us in technical fouls." The disharmony and discourse amongst the defending champs and the sensational play of Hawk guards Mookie Blaylock and Steve Smith allowing Atlanta to steal a game in Chicago and take the home court advantage back to the Omni. But the veteran Bulls flexed their resolve and systematically dismantled the Hawks at home winning game three 100-80 putting six players in double figures including Jason Caffey who posted a double-double starting in place of Rodman. Before game four, Jordan who was averaging 12 rebounds per game in the series was asked about his scoring average decreasing and if it was a product of the Hawks defense. Michael responded say "I'm not worried about my scoring because over the years I've learned it's defense that will win Championships." In prophetic fashion, it was again the Bulls defense that punished the Hawks and ultimately won them the game. The Hawks shot just 31% and Jordan and Pippen 27 and 26 points respectively as Chicago took control 3-1 with an 89-80 win. The Bulls closed out the Hawks at home and began preparing for the conference Finals which would be against the Miami Heat. The Heat had split their four game season series with the Bulls winning the last two meetings of the season and came into the series confident. They built a 16-point lead in game one only to watch Jordan and the Bulls disassemble them down the stretch. The Bulls won 84-77 behind 24-4-4-3 from Pippen, a game high 19 rebounds from a re-focused Rodman and a Classic Jordan performance. His Airness poured in 27 points and grabbed 9 rebounds for the victors. No one should ever be forced to watch game two, I knew what I was in for when I reviewed it so I ffwr'ed thru most of the shots, especially Jordan's. Michael was 4-15 but managed 23 points 9 rebounds and 3 assists. Pippen chimed in with 23 and some nice perimeter shooting as well continued outstanding defense. At one point Doc Rivers, then a play by play man opined "Scottie Pippen in this playoffs had played the best basketball of his career." I can't disagree, he was such a perfect compliment to MJ in the Washington, Atlanta and Miami series it almost makes me cry from it's beauty. At one point, Pippen, unselfish and smart enough to know to defer to ensure the Bulls win all those titles, passes up an open three to give the ball back to MJ; the Bulls possession ends in a shot clock violation. Jordan chews Pippen out and there is a beautiful moment where they cameras pan to a laughing Phil Jackson understanding the moment and appreciating it from both players perspectives then reveling in the irony. It's one of those moments where you know a team is great. Not because of how they are playing necessarily, but because of how in-tune with each other and most importantly a common goal they are. But I digress; Bulls win 75-68...I told you.T Game Three. The Heat have their proverbial backs against the wall, Riley resorts to whining about Jordan getting preferential treatment, and guess who finds his shooting touch? Jordan annihilated the Heat and specifically went after Riley, though subtly and calculated as always, in his post game interview. Michael hit 14-25 shots and finished with 34-8-5 as Chicago put Miami in the dust with a 3-0 series lead. The Heat would salvage game four before the Bulls finished them off and were back in the Finals again.

Utah had won 63 games during the regular season and had advanced to the Finals for the first time in franchise history. They had the MVP, Karl Malone who had edged Jordan in the vote. In addition he and Stockton were the leagues only all-star duo with more time together than Jordan and Pippen. Their supporting cast of Hornacek, Ostertag, Russell, Shandon Anderson, Eisley, Antoine Carr and Greg Foster was as strong if not stronger than the Bulls and in in game one they proved they belonged. A back and forth battle came down to the final possessions. When John Stockton missed a three-point shot with the game tied, a long rebound resulted in a loose ball foul on the Bulls. It put the MVP at the line, but Malone rimmed out two free throws and the Bulls had one more shot in regulation. Jordan caught the ball with five seconds left, sized up his defender Bryon Russell and gave him a cross over hesitation with a single dribble left and drilled a 19-foot stake through the heart of the Jazz. The last of his 31 points were the difference and Chicago was up 1-0. Game two was all Bulls with Jeffrey leading the way. 38 points 13 rebounds 9 assists and did it all to the tune of the Chicago fans chanting M-V-P all night long. The Bulls were in control of the series, but the scene was shifting to Utah for the next three. The Jazz took control of game three early and answered every Chicago run as they dominated game three and got back in the series. They carried the confidence of their insanely enthusiastic fans into game four which the Bulls mucked up a la the Miami series. In the one game of the series that the Mailman actually outplayed Jordan, Utah evened things up with a 78-73 victory. Than came this...

[G.O.A.T]

The flu game. All the build up for game five surrounded Michael Jordan and the flu-bug that ham bit him the night before. Jordan had a fever and was dehydrated and suffering from exhaustion as the game went on, but with impeccable resilience carried on and keep the Bulls in the game despite a direct and efficient Utah attack. With 45 seconds remaining Jordan tied the game with a free throw, he missed his next attempt but gathered the rebound on a deflection. The Bulls got into a triangle set and in the two-man game Scottie Pippen passed out of a double-team to an open Jordan for a critical three-point basket. The Jazz quickly sliced the lead to one as Stockton set up up an Ostertag jam, but Karl Malone failed to foul in the back court and the Bulls beat Utah's press an extended the lead to three with six seconds to play. Chicago fouled with .2 left not allowing Utah a chance to tie and the Bulls had control of the series up 3-2 heading to Chicago with two chances to clinch the title. They'd only need one. Despite a valiant effort from Utah in game six, it came down to one possession again. During the timeout to set up their final play, reserve guard Steve Kerr told Michael Jordan, if they double, he'd be ready. Determined not to let Jordan beat them again, Kerr was prophetic as the Utah double team left him open from the top of the key for the decisive basket. Jordan had finished the "flu game" with 38 points 7 rebounds 5 assists and three steals. He finished game six with 39-11-4-1 and his fifth Championship ring and Finals MVP.

[1987_Lakers]

Great read^

Although 97_bulls isn't going to be happy about the ranking.:oldlol:

[opps]

Welcome back GOAT

who the **** are you???

[G.O.A.T]

Great read^

Although 97_bulls isn't going to be happy about the ranking.:oldlol:

I could have put them up a spot or two maybe, but I wanted the top 10 to represent ten different teams. No necessarily ten different stars, but no teams with three common starters made the top ten.

I'll spoil the suspense and list the ten teams I have left chronologically:

'65 Celtics
'67 Sixers
'71 Bucks
'72 Lakers
'83 Sixers
'86 Celtics
'87 Lakers
'89 Pistons
'92 Bulls
'96 Bulls

The four eighties teams were the hardest to rank. I found audio of a play-by-play or color guy saying "best team ever" about all three, or at least putting them in that conversation.

Bill Russell said the '83 Sixers could have played with and maybe even beaten the '67 Sixers and '65 Celtics. Hubie Brown called the Pistons rise to the top, "the toughest mountain any team has ever climbed" Then he did some typically Hubie and said something to the effect of "okay, and when they get to the top, there's Michale Jordan waiting for them okay. Some reward huh?"
The '86 Celtics and '87 Lakers are considered the best single season teams form the decade two dynasties and assembled amazing regular and postseason resumes. It was very difficult and I'll probably still change my mind some more.

[LastChanceToWin]

Strong username to thread correlation

[G.O.A.T]

This is really tough because trying to be objective has taken me away from a lot of my preconceived notions. But before I advance I thought it compelling and essential to share with you all some of the criteria I've investigated in evaluating what I believe are representative of the 10 best single season teams in NBA history.

Without further adieu...

Combined Regular Season and Postseason Winning percentage

'96 Bulls - 87-13 - .870
'72 Lakers - 81-16 - .835
'67 Sixers - 79-17 - .823
'86 Celtics - 82-18 - .820
'71 Bucks - 78-18 - .813
'83 Sixers - 77-18 - .811
'87 Lakers - 80-20 - .800
'92 Bulls - 82-22 - .788
'89 Pistons - 78-21 - .788
'65 Celtics - 70-22 - .761

Vs. Elite Opponents

What makes an elite opponent. A team that won 60% or more of the regular season games and/or made a legit run at the title in the playoffs. Records include regular and post-seasons. All teams that reached the Finals are considered elite opponents, but not necessarily in the regular season.

'86 Celtics - 20-5 - .800
'72 Lakers - 27-7 - .794
'96 Bulls - 23-6 - .793
'83 Sixers - 19-6 - .760
'71 Bucks - 18-7 - .720
'65 Celtics - 26-11 - .703
'89 Pistons - 21-9 - .700
'92 Bulls - 22-10 - .688
'67 Sixers - 19-10 - .655
'87 Lakers - 9-7 - .563

Percentage of Games vs. Elite opponents

It's important to consider the quality of the teams in the league and how well each all-time great team fared against the best teams, but also how many of their games were against these great teams. How often were they challenged by the leagues top opponents...

'65 Celtics - 37 of 92 games - 40.2%
'72 Lakers - 34 of 97 games - 35.1%
'92 Bulls - 32 of 104 games - 30.8%
'89 Pistons - 30 of 99 games - 30.3%
'67 Sixers - 29 of 95 games - 30.2%
'96 Bulls - 29 of 100 games - 29%
'83 Sixers - 25 of 95 games - 28.3%
'71 Bucks - 25 of 96 games - 26%
'86 Celtics - 25 of 100 games - 25%
'87 Lakers - 16 of 100 games - 16%

Percentage of Games and record vs. Bad Teams

Bad teams are defined as teams that win fewer than 30 games during the regular season and do not qualify for the playoffs.

'67 Sixers - 8-1 - 9.4% of games vs. bad teams
'65 Celtics - 9-1 - 10.9% of games vs. bad teams
'71 Bucks 11-1 - 12.5% of games vs. bad teams
'92 Bulls - 15-1 - 15.4% of games vs. bad teams
'86 Celtics - 15-3 - 18% of games vs. bad teams
'72 Lakers - 17-1 - 18.6% of games vs. bad teams
'83 Sixers - 16-2 - 18.9% of games vs. bad teams
'87 Lakers - 19-1 - 20% of games vs. bad teams
'96 Bulls - 19-1 - 20% of games vs. bad teams
'89 Pistons - 18-2 - 20.2% of games vs. bad teams

More later...

[1987_Lakers]

This is really tough because trying to be objective has taken me away from a lot of my preconceived notions. But before I advance I thought it compelling and essential to share with you all some of the criteria I've investigated in evaluating what I believe are representative of the 10 best single season teams in NBA history.

Without further adieu...

Combined Regular Season and Postseason Winning percentage

'96 Bulls - 87-13 - .870
'72 Lakers - 81-16 - .835
'67 Sixers - 79-17 - .823
'86 Celtics - 82-18 - .820
'71 Bucks - 78-18 - .813
'83 Sixers - 77-18 - .811
'87 Lakers - 80-20 - .800
'92 Bulls - 82-22 - .788
'89 Pistons - 78-21 - .788
'65 Celtics - 70-22 - .761

Vs. Elite Opponents

What makes an elite opponent. A team that won 60% or more of the regular season games and/or made a legit run at the title in the playoffs. Records include regular and post-seasons. All teams that reached the Finals are considered elite opponents, but not necessarily in the regular season.

'86 Celtics - 20-5 - .800
'72 Lakers - 27-7 - .794
'96 Bulls - 23-6 - .793
'83 Sixers - 19-6 - .760
'71 Bucks - 18-7 - .720
'65 Celtics - 26-11 - .703
'89 Pistons - 21-9 - .700
'92 Bulls - 22-10 - .688
'67 Sixers - 19-10 - .655
'87 Lakers - 9-7 - .563

Percentage of Games vs. Elite opponents

It's important to consider the quality of the teams in the league and how well each all-time great team fared against the best teams, but also how many of their games were against these great teams. How often were they challenged by the leagues top opponents...

'65 Celtics - 37 of 92 games - 40.2%
'72 Lakers - 34 of 97 games - 35.1%
'92 Bulls - 32 of 104 games - 30.8%
'89 Pistons - 30 of 99 games - 30.3%
'67 Sixers - 29 of 95 games - 30.2%
'96 Bulls - 29 of 100 games - 29%
'83 Sixers - 25 of 95 games - 28.3%
'71 Bucks - 25 of 96 games - 26%
'86 Celtics - 25 of 100 games - 25%
'87 Lakers - 16 of 100 games - 16%

Percentage of Games and record vs. Bad Teams

Bad teams are defined as teams that win fewer than 30 games during the regular season and do not qualify for the playoffs.

'67 Sixers - 8-1 - 9.4% of games vs. bad teams
'65 Celtics - 9-1 - 10.9% of games vs. bad teams
'71 Bucks 11-1 - 12.5% of games vs. bad teams
'92 Bulls - 15-1 - 15.4% of games vs. bad teams
'86 Celtics - 15-3 - 18% of games vs. bad teams
'72 Lakers - 17-1 - 18.6% of games vs. bad teams
'83 Sixers - 16-2 - 18.9% of games vs. bad teams
'87 Lakers - 19-1 - 20% of games vs. bad teams
'96 Bulls - 19-1 - 20% of games vs. bad teams
'89 Pistons - 18-2 - 20.2% of games vs. bad teams

More later...

:applause: Nice. I find it weird that the '86 Celtics were 20-5 vs .600 teams while the '87 Lakers were only 9-7.

Another dominant stat I just found for the '86 Celtics. The Celtics were 10-0 at home in the postseason, they won 9 of those games by 11+ points. The only game they didn't win by 11+ at home in the postseason was the game MJ scored 63.

[G.O.A.T]

:applause: Nice. I find it weird that the '86 Celtics were 20-5 vs .600 teams while the '87 Lakers were only 9-7.

Another dominant stat I just found for the '86 Celtics. The Celtics were 10-0 at home in the postseason, they won 9 of those games by 11+ points. The only game they didn't win by 11+ at home in the postseason was the game MJ scored 63.

They, the Celtics, finished the year 50-1 at home in '86.

The Celtics were actually 31-5 vs. .600 teams regular and postseason combined. I didn't count regular season Atlanta, with 50 wins and a 4th seed in the East as Elite.

Four of the leagues top six teams were in the East in '87. Boston, Detroit and 57-win Atlanta are counted among the elite and Milwaukee also won 50 games for the sixth time in the decade.

The '87 Lakers played a 37 win team, 42 win team and 39 win team in the playoffs.

The Lakers best competition in the West, Dallas, which took three of five from LA during the regular season, was upset in the first round.

I was tempted to consider Houston among the elite teams, but with just 42 wins and being eliminated in the playoffs by a sub-.500 team I couldn't. They had injuries, disharmony and suspensions ruin what most thought would be the heir apparent to the Lakers dynasty in the West.

[G.O.A.T]

Each of these ten teams have what I believe is a case for being the best team of all time. In these next ten posts, I hope to briefly lay-up the case for and against each team as the greatest ever.

I'll Start with the 1972 Los Angeles Lakers

The Case For the '72 Lakes

-A record 33 game winning streak during the regular season.
-69-13 regular season record set records for single-season wins and winning percentage
-Started the season 39-3
-Never lost more than 2 consecutive games
-Two of the top 15 players all-time
-Wilt led the league in rebounding and West led the league in assists
-Won 79% of their games against Elite opponents (Bucks, Knicks, Bulls, Celtics)
-Played 35% of their games against those elite opponents (27-7)
-12.3 points per game regular season differential is highest all-time
-Defeated last two NBA Champions (Bucks and Knicks) en route to the title.

The Case Against the '72 Lakers

-Only three players in my top 150 all-time
-Superstars were past their prime
-NBA Expansion (from 9 teams in 1966 to 17 at the start of the 70-71 season)
-ABA Stealing Star Power (Some of the best ABA players were Julius Erving, Rick Barry, Artis Gilmore, Dan Issel, George McGinnis and Mel Daniels are among the top 125 all-time. All would have likely been NBA all-stars)
-The Knicks were without Willis Reed, the Bucks were playing with an injured Oscar. They had lost to both of those teams (with injuries of their own) previously.

When I look at the 1972 Lakers I see a team with great timing. Their core of players had only one semi-major injury all year (to Flynn Robinson for about 20 games) West and Wilt were as healthy as they'd been at any time since becoming teammates. 1972 was the a huge year for the ABA. The 1971 off-season was the first in which the ABA beat the NBA to more good players. The 1972 NBA All-rookie team: Elmore Smith, Clifford Ray, Phil Chenier. Austin Carr and Sidney Wicks. The ABA's: Julius Erving, George McGinnis, Artis Gilmore, John Roche and Johnny Neumann. Which five would you want? Look at it this way, what if the 1984-85 NBA All-rookie team was this: Sam Bowie, Sam Perkins, Alvin Robertson, Kevin Willis and Jay Humphries. And a rival league had this: Hakeem Olajuwon, Michael Jordan, Charles Barkley, Tim McCormick and Ron Anderson. Think that might have diminished the 80's a bit?

Still on paper, they are among the very best ever. They dominated the regular season like no one else has. Their 33 game winning streak is 13 better than any other Champion on this list. Whats more impressive is they also had winning streaks of 9, 8 and 7 games. They won every close game in the playoffs, all three of their defeats came by double figures and only once did they lose after game one of a series. McMillian and Hairston had great years and Flynn Robinson, Leroy Ellis and Pat Riley made for a solid bench.

The toughest part for me in ranking the '72 Lakers is considering the impact of the era. They, and all champions from this era just don't have the depth you associate with traditionally great teams. Between the ABA and expansion, all the teams were a little more flawed and weaker than in the decade before and after. Still in response to this the Lakers and other Champions form that era dominated like few have. They won more games and by more points than the Champions from the presumably more competitive eras. What do y'all think?

[Gotterdammerung]

Solid case against the 72 Lakers as the all-time greatest. :cheers: I'll post my interpretation shortly, later today.

[Gotterdammerung]

I lean heavily on Rosen's book, the Pivotal Season.

the 1972 Lakers were easily the most versatile team ever. They were also the most unstoppable running team of all time, predicated on Chamberlain's utter mastery of the board plus his dead-eye outlet passes to relentless streakers in West & Goodrich. And if the situation called for it, the game slowed down, the Lakers could rely on Chamberlain's methodological post-ups to play grind-it-out basketball. They could go small ball, or go large ball. They could send out a line-up of defenders or shooters. That explains why the 72 Lakers blitzed through the regular season with record breaking performances (as listed by GOAT, 33 games in a row, plus 12.3 scoring margin).

Jerry West (26 ppg, 9.7 assists, first in the league) was their foolproof, reliable scorer. Everybody knew the patented Jerry West move: dribble at top speed to his right, then at the exact same time, pull up & shoot. Not only was West clutch, he was also a tremendous finisher, and his great leaping ability allowed him to snare far more rebounds than the average guard. Moreover, West was also so proficient on defense that opponents were instructed exactly what to do when they were leading a fastbreak and West was the lone man back. Due to his long arms & quick hands, opponents were mandated to NEVER pass the ball, and take it all the way to the hoop. West always took immediate advantage whenever his opponent lost him on defense by turning his head or took a step in the wrong direction.

Gail Goodrich (26 ppg), aka "stumpy," was barely 6 foot tall, but had extremely long arms and huge hands, and most importantly - he was a lefty. Nobody could match his intensity, and he was also in perpetual motion. Stumpy had an endless bag of tricky moves to the hoop (flips, hooks) and an uncannily deadly fall back jumper. However, he wasn't much on defense. Hence the Lakers hid him on the other side of court.

Despite being in his advanced dotage, Chamberlain was still in the limelight (15 ppg, 19.2 boards, 1st in league, and 65% FG). At 35 years old, Wilt was persuaded by Coach Sharman to turn into a bigger Bill Russell. That meant completely devote his game to defense and rebounding and passing and setting screens. If teams stopped the Lakers' fastbreak, Chamberlain could still score with a bunch of go-to moves (fadeaway jumpers, spinning dunks, or from the right box, unstoppable finger-rolls).

Happy Hairston (13 ppg, 13 boards) was a small power forward at 6' 7", 225 lbs. Besides his proficiency at rebounding, Hairston was also a terror on the fast break. Relentless, always dove for loose balls, and his passing and defense was adequate. His only weakness was a penchant for launching ill-advised shots.

Jim McMillian (19 ppg) was a shrewd, savvy small forward. Once the Lakers convinced Elgin baylor to retire (he wasn't playing defense or practiced hard, and he refused to run), they were 6-3. Then McMillian replaced him and the Lakers didn't lose again for 33 games in a row. McMillian was deadly accurate from either baseline, and he took advantage of screens to perfection. Also, he made accurate passes, and made astute decisions, and played physical defense. His game was so smooth, teammates called him "butter."

The 72 Lakers had a powerful bench: Pat Riley played defense like someone robbed his home and slept with his wife last night (with anger), and he hit enough jumpers to keep defenses honest. Flynn Robinson had this unstoppable rainbow jumper he launched on anyone anytime. LeRoy Ellis was the fastest big man in the league, and his mid range jumper as well as his driving hooks made him a secret weapon. John Q Trapp was another bully with a jumper.

Coach Sharman was innovative with his changes to tradition: shootarounds, have aging players run a fast-breaking offense. His game plan was always full-speed ahead, a combo of quickness and precision, with enough room for self-expression but also always with accountability.

Why the 72 Lakers were 3rd best ever, and why they would beat most of the GOAT teams, including the 92 bulls:
72 Lakers had tremendous team speed, and in most cases, a vastly superior bench. Chamberlain would've overwhelmed most centers, and Hairston was way too quick for most power forwards, including Grant. Stumpy, while diminutive, was too clever and tricky to be held by most point guards. McMillian used screens and misdirection cuts, which would've freed him from the octopus-like defense of Scottie Pippen. MJ was bigger and stronger than West, but Mr. Clutch had that one unstoppable pull & pop move. The largest factor was Chamberlain's utter mastery of the boards and the interior defense.

[G.O.A.T]

I lean heavily on Rosen's book, the Pivotal Season.

the 1972 Lakers were easily the most versatile team ever. They were also the most unstoppable running team of all time, predicated on Chamberlain's utter mastery of the board plus his dead-eye outlet passes to relentless streakers in West & Goodrich. And if the situation called for it, the game slowed down, the Lakers could rely on Chamberlain's methodological post-ups to play grind-it-out basketball. They could go small ball, or go large ball. They could send out a line-up of defenders or shooters. That explains why the 72 Lakers blitzed through the regular season with record breaking performances (as listed by GOAT, 33 games in a row, plus 12.3 scoring margin).

Jerry West (26 ppg, 9.7 assists, first in the league) was their foolproof, reliable scorer. Everybody knew the patented Jerry West move: dribble at top speed to his right, then at the exact same time, pull up & shoot. Not only was West clutch, he was also a tremendous finisher, and his great leaping ability allowed him to snare far more rebounds than the average guard. Moreover, West was also so proficient on defense that opponents were instructed exactly what to do when they were leading a fastbreak and West was the lone man back. Due to his long arms & quick hands, opponents were mandated to NEVER pass the ball, and take it all the way to the hoop. West always took immediate advantage whenever his opponent lost him on defense by turning his head or took a step in the wrong direction.

Gail Goodrich (26 ppg), aka "stumpy," was barely 6 foot tall, but had extremely long arms and huge hands, and most importantly - he was a lefty. Nobody could match his intensity, and he was also in perpetual motion. Stumpy had an endless bag of tricky moves to the hoop (flips, hooks) and an uncannily deadly fall back jumper. However, he wasn't much on defense. Hence the Lakers hid him on the other side of court.

Despite being in his advanced dotage, Chamberlain was still in the limelight (15 ppg, 19.2 boards, 1st in league, and 65% FG). At 35 years old, Wilt was persuaded by Coach Sharman to turn into a bigger Bill Russell. That meant completely devote his game to defense and rebounding and passing and setting screens. If teams stopped the Lakers' fastbreak, Chamberlain could still score with a bunch of go-to moves (fadeaway jumpers, spinning dunks, or from the right box, unstoppable finger-rolls).

Happy Hairston (13 ppg, 13 boards) was a small power forward at 6' 7", 225 lbs. Besides his proficiency at rebounding, Hairston was also a terror on the fast break. Relentless, always dove for loose balls, and his passing and defense was adequate. His only weakness was a penchant for launching ill-advised shots.

Jim McMillian (19 ppg) was a shrewd, savvy small forward. Once the Lakers convinced Elgin baylor to retire (he wasn't playing defense or practiced hard, and he refused to run), they were 6-3. Then McMillian replaced him and the Lakers didn't lose again for 33 games in a row. McMillian was deadly accurate from either baseline, and he took advantage of screens to perfection. Also, he made accurate passes, and made astute decisions, and played physical defense. His game was so smooth, teammates called him "butter."

The 72 Lakers had a powerful bench: Pat Riley played defense like someone robbed his home and slept with his wife last night (with anger), and he hit enough jumpers to keep defenses honest. Flynn Robinson had this unstoppable rainbow jumper he launched on anyone anytime. LeRoy Ellis was the fastest big man in the league, and his mid range jumper as well as his driving hooks made him a secret weapon. John Q Trapp was another bully with a jumper.

Coach Sharman was innovative with his changes to tradition: shootarounds, have aging players run a fast-breaking offense. His game plan was always full-speed ahead, a combo of quickness and precision, with enough room for self-expression but also always with accountability.

Why the 72 Lakers were 3rd best ever, and why they would beat most of the GOAT teams, including the 92 bulls:
72 Lakers had tremendous team speed, and in most cases, a vastly superior bench. Chamberlain would've overwhelmed most centers, and Hairston was way too quick for most power forwards, including Grant. Stumpy, while diminutive, was too clever and tricky to be held by most point guards. McMillian used screens and misdirection cuts, which would've freed him from the octopus-like defense of Scottie Pippen. MJ was bigger and stronger than West, but Mr. Clutch had that one unstoppable pull & pop move. The largest factor was Chamberlain's utter mastery of the boards and the interior defense.

Well that was awesome, anyone else have anopinion on this team before I move on?

[G.O.A.T]

Next the 1983 Philadelphia 76ers...

The Case For the '83 Sixers
-12-1 playoff record was best all time in 1983
-34-5 to the season; 57-9 late peak.
-Roster featured the the winner of the 1981,'82 & '83 regular season MVP's
-Four All-Stars during 1983 season (Doc, Moses, Toney, Cheeks)
-Also featured Sixth Man of the Year and All-Defensive selection Bobby Jones
-19-6 vs. Elite Teams (Boston, Milwaukee, Los Angeles, San Antonio)
-Undefeated in overtime during regular season and playoffs; 9-1 in games decided by 2 points or less.


The Case Against the '83 Sixers
-Average Depth at Best. Power Forward Mark Ivaroni was not starter material, Jones was only above average reserve.
-Poor Title Defense; A healthy Philadelphia lost in the first round of the 1984 playoffs to New Jersey
-Top Competition Weakened - Boston (3-3 vs. Philly) was in chaos and lost to Milwaukee in the second round. New Jersey (3-3 vs. Philly) had Larry Brown quit on them near the end of the season and lost 9 of their last 12 games and took a first round exit to 44 win New York. Los Angeles was without James Worthy for the entire finals and without Nixon and McAdoo for most of games three and four.
-Not statistically dominant. Bottom half of the top ten in offense and defense. Only led the league in rebounding, no other major stat. Point differential of +7.7 is second lowest in the top ten.

The 1983 Philadelphia 76ers are one of the most inconsistently ranked teams I seem among the all-time greats. I think people are torn on whether their 1983 Championship in the middle of a nine year domination by LA and Boston was a result of them being one of the best teams of the decade for that one season, or if it was more a result of those two teams being in transition. Either way they were a team that did what they were supposed to do. Julius Erving had led Philadelphia to the NBA Finals in 1980 and 1982 losing in six games to the Lakers, in 1981 they blew a 3-1 ECF series lead against Boston. Before the 1982-83 season they acquired Moses Malone and he turned them into an instant favorite with his relentless play. He won his second straight MVP and going into the playoffs predicted a "fo-fo-fo" playoff sweep, meaning the Sixers would go undefeated. They came within a game of doing it on their way to the franchises first title in 16 years, when head coach Billy Cunningham was coming off the Philly Bench, not sitting at the head of it.

The Sixers played very well against 50 win teams, scoring 13 wins in 18 regular season games, the swept the Lakers and Suns, the West's two top winners and won five of six from the Central Division Champion Bucks. Individually Malone led the league in rebounding and Maurice Cheeks finished fifth in steals. Doctor J joined Moses on the All-NBA first team and Andrew Toney averaged 20 points per game on 50% shooting from the guard position. Still what makes them difficult to rank is the way they followed the title up. They fell off the map completely, losing in the first round in 1984 and losing in five during the 1985 ECF against the Celtics (having added a rookie Barkley). They never had to face a healthy Los Angeles or Boston and those were the clear powers of the decade, it's hard to hold that against them, but it's hard to ignore.

[magnax1]

Bobby Jones was only an above average backup? Wasn't he 6th man of the year and DPOTY at one point, Clint Richardson was also a very good backup.
Also, it's not like the Lakers were just injury riddled. If I remember correctly the only player who was injured was Nixon, and he still played.
I really like the 83 Sixers as a team. They have as much talent as any team ever, and two top 15 players, one in his peak year and another only a few years removed from MVP (though Dr. J wasn't really the same player he was in the 70's) Then on top of that they have Cheeks, a great defender and super efficient point guard, and Andrew Toney who's stats don't represent how good he was.

[G.O.A.T]

Bobby Jones was only an above average backup? Wasn't he 6th man of the year and DPOTY at one point, Clint Richardson was also a very good backup.
Also, it's not like the Lakers were just injury riddled. If I remember correctly the only player who was injured was Nixon, and he still played.
I really like the 83 Sixers as a team. They have as much talent as any team ever, and two top 15 players, one in his peak year and another only a few years removed from MVP (though Dr. J wasn't really the same player he was in the 70's) Then on top of that they have Cheeks, a great defender and super efficient point guard, and Andrew Toney who's stats don't represent how good he was.

You misread, I said Jones was their only above average sub. I mentioned him winning sixth man elsewhere in the post. Clint Richardson was a career back-up who never even averaged 10 ppg (I think). My little brother beat Earl Cuerton 3-1 in a one on one game in 1991 at a basketball camp.

Your memory fails you on the Lakers. Worthy missed the whole series. Nixon and McAdoo both missed all of game four after playing limited minutes while injured in game three.

I mentioned and agree with all the other points you made.

[magnax1]

You misread, I said Jones was their only above average sub. I mentioned him winning sixth man elsewhere in the post. Clint Richardson was a career back-up who never even averaged 10 ppg (I think). My little brother beat Earl Cuerton 3-1 in a one on one game in 1991 at a basketball camp.

Your memory fails you on the Lakers. Worthy missed the whole series. Nixon and McAdoo both missed all of game four after playing limited minutes while injured in game three.

I mentioned and agree with all the other points you made.
I'd have to disagree about richardson though. I didn't really know about his stats, but I noticed him when he was on the floor and he seemed to have an impact. He was a big guy and could guard both PG and SG at a high level.
I'd have this team around the top 5 teams ever, I can see that they did have depth issues, but they just scored extremely efficiently, and out rebounded everyone, and that really is something that you can't really counter against.

[G.O.A.T]

I'd have to disagree about richardson though. I didn't really know about his stats, but I noticed him when he was on the floor and he seemed to have an impact. He was a big guy and could guard both PG and SG at a high level.


He fit good with their team, I won't deny that, but he's not as good a seventh man as Mark Aguirre, Mychal Thompson or Scott Wedman, the other 80's representatives on this list. Remember I'm just mentioned the factors for and against them here, not ranking them.


I'd have this team around the top 5 teams ever, I can see that they did have depth issues, but they just scored extremely efficiently, and out rebounded everyone, and that really is something that you can't really counter against.

Nor do I plan to try as for the rebounding, I mentioned they led the league in that category. Be careful about calling them an extremely efficient scoring team though. They shot less than one and a half percent better than the league average from the field, make the third least three-pointers and were right at the league average in FT%.

The key to their efficiency was almost solely Moses Malone. The Sixers were third in FTA, with Moses averaging a team best 10 per game and second in offensive rebounds, with Moses leading the league at six a night. Without him they were slightly below average. So if a good team had an elite defender who was able to limit/neutralize Moses, the Sixers were likely in trouble.

I like this team a lot, Toney is one of my favorite unsung players and Doctor J was my favorite out of he Magic and Bird (and certainly that a-hole Jordan) until I hit high school. I liked Moses simply because he feasted on Kareem, who I hated. As a 6'8" white guy who excelled at defensive when i played basketball, I love Bobby Jones, how can I not, I probably looked just as awkward playing the game. The point is, I am not trying to make any judgments on this team right now, simply presenting both sides of the argument.

[G.O.A.T]

The Third team of which I will argue for and against in the 1965 Boston Celtics

The Case For the 1965 Boston Celtics

-Played over 40% of their games against Elite competition. 26 wins vs, Elite teams (L.A., Cincy, Philly w/Wilt)
-16 game winning streak was longest of the decade until the 69-70 Knicks broke it with their seventeenth straight on November 26th 1969. Second longest all-time in the 10 or less teams era.
-Three of the top 50 players all-time in their primes. Russell and Sam Jones had arguably their best years. Five Hall of Famers in all on the roster
-Led the league in opponents scoring and rebounding. 2nd in assists, third in scoring.
-62-18 record set an NBA mark for wins in a season and was a record 13 games better than Los Angeles the next best team at 49-31.
-Seventh consecutive title for the Dynasty, a record for all team sports.
- A solid eight deep against every opponent led by Russell who wins his fourth MVP in five years and leads the league in rebounding for the fourth time.
-Only played 10% of their games vs. sub 30-win teams.


The Case Against the 1965 Boston Celtics

-8-4 playoff record is worst of the top ten, 62-18 regular season is second lowest in terms of win percentage.
-Barely survived series with Sixers in Havlicek Stole the Ball game seven
-Played in a less athletic (in terms of depth players), less refined era.
-Poor shooting team, eighth of nine teams in 1965 from the field (41%)
-Russell's back-up was 6'6" Willie Naulls. Their only two big men besides Bill were rarely used John Thompson and Mel Counts
-The Lakers were without Elgin Baylor for the NBA Finals.


The Celtics were always looking for and finding motivation. In 1959 it was about avenging their loss in 1958, in '60 it was about proving the experts who thought Wilt would topple their dynasty wrong and about revenge against the Hawks finally. In 1961 it was the three-peat, trying to join the Lakers in basketball history. In 1962 it was about overtaking them. 1964 was about proving they could do it without Cousy and 1965 was about winning one for Walter Brown. Brown, the Celtics founder and longtime owner died in 1964 and the Celtics were determined to win their seventh in a row just for him. Heinsohn even came back for one more season to help with the effort, though his lungs had turned to sandpaper years ago.

The people who argue against this team see their win total and playoff record and then watch a couple games from the era and dismiss this as a team that was good, but wouldn't translate to other eras. I don't necessarily agree with that, but it is mostly a legit question. Boston did not have traditional size like most of the other teams on this list do, they only had four or five top notch athletes that would measure up to today's players and though they had a great fast break, the dirty little secret about Boston is that their offense was not that great and certainly not very efficient.

One of the things you can not overlook when examining this team is the 16 game win streak. It's pretty remarkable when you consider they beat the Lakers on the road twice, three times overall, beat Bob Pettit and the Hawks three times and Wilt and the Warriors once, Wilt and the Sixers once and Oscar and the Royals twice. In fact they only played tow games against last place opponents during that streak and 11 of the 16 against playoff teams. It measures up favorably with all the other comparable streaks and some that would appear far greater.

Note too that the individual numbers of seven of the Celtics top eight went up for the postseason including Russell who averaged 17-25 and team high 6.3 assists in the postseason and Sam Jones who scored 29 a night to go with five rebounds and three feeds. The Celtics had that understanding of what playoff time meant and knew how to raise their games. They won three of the five games vs. Los Angeles by over 25 points in the Finals and never lost a home game in the playoffs.

[G.O.A.T]

Next up, the case for and against the Bad Boys, the 1989 Detroit Pistons


The Case For the 1989 Detroit Pistons
-15-2 playoff record; defeated the the Celtics who win the '84 and '86 title, Lakers who won the '85, '87 and '88 title and Bulls who won the '91, '92 and '93 titles en route to Championship.
-Held opponents under 100 points in 15 of 17 playoff games. (No team allowed less than 100 per game during the regular season; league average 109 ppg)
-26-1 at home after Aguirre for Dantley trade (45-6 overall)
-Ended the Lakers and Celtics dynasties of the 1980's; held off the Bulls dynasty for two years.
-Led league in rebounding and opponents 3-pt%, second in field goal percentage defense and points allowed per game.
-10-0 in regular season against other three final four teams (Chicago, Phoenix, LA)
-Greatest depth of any team maybe all-time. Nine legit NBA starters, all in their prime.

The Case Against the 1989 Detroit Pistons
-63-19 is worst regular season record among the top ten.
-Only team without a 20 ppg scorer in the top ten
-No winning streaks of 10 games or more
-NBA Expansion season. Pistons played 20 games against teams with fewer than 30 wins.
-Celtics lost Bird for the season, Lakers lost Byron Scott for all of the Finals, Magic for last two games and change.


I am very biased towards this team personally, but having watched the '89 ECF and NBA Finals again this week, I can confidently say they were as great as I remember. They played 9 guys every night and each had a role. Zeke, Joe D, the Microwave, Buddah, Lamb, Ricky Mahorn, Spider, Worm and Pumpkin Head. Each setting their own ego aside in favor of the greater good for the team. Six different players led Detroit in scoring during the playoffs and only in the NBA Finals against the Showtime run n' gun Lakers did anyone eclipse 100 points and they still got swept. As Pat Riley said after game one "We had a lot of problems tonight, but the biggest problem was the Detroit Pistons, they kicked our ass."

Watching game four end, the Pistons bench sat arm in arm and chanted, at first quietly and then with crescendo "Bad-Boys, Baad-Boys, Baaad Boys". John Salley embracing a tearful Isiah Thomas on the bench and telling him "You made this shit happen." Joe Dumars annihilating the Lakers defense, scoring 26 in the first half of game two as a highest of highlights in a series where he eventually won Finals MVP. Rodman's personal coming out party guarding Michael Jordan, Scottie Pippen, James Worthy and Magic Johnson all at some point during the playoffs.

They were dirty, they were hated, but that was their plan. They got you more worried about getting even with them, then beating them. If they had a weakness it was that they often won sloppy. They mucked it up. If you were beating them, they'd hurt you, if you weren't they'd hurt you anyway. Most of the teams they played hated, but respected them. In years after some pundits said that they ruined the game. What they actually did was play defense and not accept the limits of the rules as perceived. They stretched them to unprecedented lengths, stopping at nothing to win, and they did.

[G.O.A.T]

The fifth of the ten teams I'll take a closer look at, the 72-win 1996 Chicago Bulls.


The Case For the 1996 Chicago Bulls
-72 regular season wins, most all-time. 87 total wins most all-time
-15-3 playoff record Never trailed or tied in a series.
-49-2 Home Record second best all-time
-23-6 vs. Elite competition (New York, Orlando, Seattle, Utah, San Antonio)
-Led the NBA in rebounding and points scored, 2nd in points allowed
-Highest scoring differential of all-time (+12.3 ppg)
-Eleven winning streaks of five games or more. (High of 18)
-41-3 to start the season; 31-1 stretch mid-season
-Three All-Defensive First Team Players (Jordan, Pippen, Rodman)
-.870 combined winning percentage is highest ever.
-Eight games better than 64-win Seattle the leagues second best record.

The Case Against the 1996 Chicago Bulls
-NBA Expansion season. Bulls were 19-1 against teams with 30 or fewer wins
-Only team in the top ten to lose back-to-back games in postseason
-'97 Bulls had a more talented and complete roster
-Only three players who averaged double figure scoring
-Bulls feasted on shorter three-point line which benefited teams without a front court post presence.


This is the team that set out to be the greatest ever and did almost everything they possibly could to make that claim at the end of the year. They rolled through Miami, New York and Orlando with just one loss despite missing third leading scorer Toni Kukoc during parts of each of the later two series. Pippen and Jordan were the leagues top scoring duo, MJ winning his eighth individual scoring crown and Dennis Rodman was the NBA's top rebounder again. The rest of the roster were role players who fit as good as any ever have. Veteran Ron Harper brought a lot of the same things to the table as Jordan and Pippen and with them shouldering much of the burden, his weaknesses never were exposed. Luc Longley's passing and subtle post scoring gave the Bulls another option early in games, and a bg body to hold down the post defensively. Off the bench Steve Kerr was the NBA's top three-point marksman, Bill Wennington a quality jump shooter backing up the pivot, Jud Buechler a hard nosed player with a consistent set shot and Randy Brown a low mistake back-up guard who played with energy.

The strongest case against this team is the era. It was the first year of the 29 team NBA and the beginning of the High School to NBA influx. Teams were younger, more raw and the disparity between the best and the rest was as great as it had ever been. It was a league filled with mediocre teams; 14 of the 29 teams won between 35-48 games. 15 teams had a scoring differential of three points or less and three of the four divisions had runaway winners. So while the Bulls can't be punished for beating who the league put in front of them, it is the most likely argument from someone who believes another of the teams on this list deserves the top spot.

[G.O.A.T]

Starting the second half of the cases, the 1987 Lakers.


The Case For the 1987 Lakers
-Magic Johnson had career year and Lakers had best regular season of the 1980's
-Team repeated in 1988 with exact same top eight; first repeat Champion in 19 years.
-15-3 in postseason, matched record for best in the four round era at the time. Took 2-1 edge over Bird's Celtics in NBA Finals
-27-2 stretch near end of the season after acquiring Mychal Thompson from the Spurs.
-Offensive Giant. Seven double digit scorers; each starter shot at least 49%.
-2nd in PPG (117.8), Field Goal percentage (.517). First in 3-pt% (.367) and assists. Scored at least 97 points in 97 of 100 games. Averaged 122 ppg in postseason.
-Went 6-2 against the Celtics, the defending Champs and their unquestioned top rival, including a regular season 2-0 sweep.


The Case Against the 1987 Lakers
-Struggled against elite teams; 10-7, the lowest win total and win percentage of any team in the top ten.
-Played in very weak Western conference. Faced 37, 39 and 42 win teams in Western Conference playoffs.
-Only 17% of their games were against elite competition, by far the lowest in the top ten.
-20% of their games were against teams with at least 53 losses including six against the 12-70 Clippers; the worst team of the decade.
-Injuries limited their top competition; McHale was playing with a broken foot, Walton was out, the Rockets collapsed internally.

Thoughts?

[1987_Lakers]

Another case for the 1987 Lakers
- I believe they had a +11.4 point differential in the playoffs. 2nd All-time, but like you mentioned their competition wasn't the best.

Case against
- Struggled against quick guards. Sleepy Floyd put up 29 in 1 Q vs them in postseason & struggled against Isiah Thomas & K. Johnson in later years.

[Gifted Mind]

Just popping on ISH, and I have to say excellent work GOAT. You have done a lot of insightful research and I think everything you conclude in this thread will be the most undistorted and proper answers given yet to this topic.

[G.O.A.T]

Another case for the 1987 Lakers
- I believe they had a +11.4 point differential in the playoffs. 2nd All-time, but like you mentioned their competition wasn't the best.

Case against
- Struggled against quick guards. Sleepy Floyd put up 29 in 1 Q vs them in postseason & struggled against Isiah Thomas & K. Johnson in later years.

I mentioned the playoff record, but you're right, that is a significant differential no matter the competition. I overlooked including that, my mistake.

I sort of thought of that PG issue as being more prevalent after the '87 run. I remember the KJ series in '90 and Isiah in '88. But in '87 they didn't face the same type of guards.



Just popping on ISH, and I have to say excellent work GOAT. You have done a lot of insightful research and I think everything you conclude in this thread will be the most undistorted and proper answers given yet to this topic.

As always thanks, and though you're usually pressed for time, if you have any input on the subject it'd be welcomed should you feel compelled.

[G.O.A.T]

The Case for and Against the '71 Bucks

The case For the 1971 Bucks
-Two of the greatest players all-time playing at a high level
-12-2 playoff mark was best in the three round format for over a decade.
-Peaked at 64-11 through 75 games. Finished the year 66-16, 14 games better then the leagues next best team.
-Led the league in scoring assists and field goal percentage, becoming the first team ever to shoot over 50% from the field collectively. Also led the league in fg% defense.
-Outscored opponents by an average margin of 12.2 ppg; second best all-time.
-Despite it being an expansion season, the Bucks played only 12 games against teams with fewer than 30 wins. That makes up 12.5% of their schedule, third lowest among the top ten teams.
-Winning Streaks of 10, 16 and a then record 20 games.
-Didn't lose back-to-back until the 77th game of the season.
-Never were pushed beyond five games in the playoffs.

The Case Against the 1971 Bucks
-Played just 26% of their games against elite opponents; third lowest among the top ten (Elite teams include Lakers, Knicks, Bulls and the Bullets in the Finals)
-Weakened era; expansion and ABA had caused the number of professional teams to rise from nine to 25 in just four and a half years.
-Injuries struck some of the other top teams. The Lakers lost West and Baylor for the postseason, Bullets lost Gus Johnson for parts of the season and most of the Finals.
-The defending Champion Knicks were upset by the Bullets in the playoffs. New York had won four of five from the Bucks during the regular season.
-Neither Kareem (then Lew Alcindor) or Oscar or Dandridge, their best three players were at their peak., though all were close. Beyond that, the team had limited depth.
-After they won the title, they were expected to be the NBA's next dynasty, but never recaptured the greatness of the 1970-71 season.

[Da_Realist]

Next up, the case for and against the Bad Boys, the 1989 Detroit Pistons


The Case For the 1989 Detroit Pistons
-15-2 playoff record; defeated the the Celtics who win the '84 and '86 title, Lakers who won the '85, '87 and '88 title and Bulls who won the '91, '92 and '93 titles en route to Championship.
-Held opponents under 100 points in 15 of 17 playoff games. (No team allowed less than 100 per game during the regular season; league average 109 ppg)
-26-1 at home after Aguirre for Dantley trade (45-6 overall)
-Ended the Lakers and Celtics dynasties of the 1980's; held off the Bulls dynasty for two years.
-Led league in rebounding and opponents 3-pt%, second in field goal percentage defense and points allowed per game.
-10-0 in regular season against other three final four teams (Chicago, Phoenix, LA)
-Greatest depth of any team maybe all-time. Nine legit NBA starters, all in their prime.

The Case Against the 1989 Detroit Pistons
-63-19 is worst regular season record among the top ten.
-Only team without a 20 ppg scorer in the top ten
-No winning streaks of 10 games or more
-NBA Expansion season. Pistons played 20 games against teams with fewer than 30 wins.
-Celtics lost Bird for the season, Lakers lost Byron Scott for all of the Finals, Magic for last two games and change.


I am very biased towards this team personally, but having watched the '89 ECF and NBA Finals again this week, I can confidently say they were as great as I remember. They played 9 guys every night and each had a role. Zeke, Joe D, the Microwave, Buddah, Lamb, Ricky Mahorn, Spider, Worm and Pumpkin Head. Each setting their own ego aside in favor of the greater good for the team. Six different players led Detroit in scoring during the playoffs and only in the NBA Finals against the Showtime run n' gun Lakers did anyone eclipse 100 points and they still got swept. As Pat Riley said after game one "We had a lot of problems tonight, but the biggest problem was the Detroit Pistons, they kicked our ass."

Watching game four end, the Pistons bench sat arm in arm and chanted, at first quietly and then with crescendo "Bad-Boys, Baad-Boys, Baaad Boys". John Salley embracing a tearful Isiah Thomas on the bench and telling him "You made this shit happen." Joe Dumars annihilating the Lakers defense, scoring 26 in the first half of game two as a highest of highlights in a series where he eventually won Finals MVP. Rodman's personal coming out party guarding Michael Jordan, Scottie Pippen, James Worthy and Magic Johnson all at some point during the playoffs.

They were dirty, they were hated, but that was their plan. They got you more worried about getting even with them, then beating them. If they had a weakness it was that they often won sloppy. They mucked it up. If you were beating them, they'd hurt you, if you weren't they'd hurt you anyway. Most of the teams they played hated, but respected them. In years after some pundits said that they ruined the game. What they actually did was play defense and not accept the limits of the rules as perceived. They stretched them to unprecedented lengths, stopping at nothing to win, and they did.

Well said. I would also like to point out that point differential with this team is irrelevant. The 89 Pistons were built to wear the opponent down, not pummel them. They were more like Rocky than Apollo Creed. Their goal was to make the other team quit mentally and physically. The result was a team well versed in winning close, down-to-the-wire slugfests. This was the makeup of the team and it won't show in the stat sheet but it's just as effective a way to win. That also explains why they didn't win 10 or more straight games. The mental concentration it takes to win that way had to take a toll. They won 63, but watching them live, it felt like they won every game that year.

[G.O.A.T]

Well said. I would also like to point out that point differential with this team is irrelevant. The 89 Pistons were built to wear the opponent down, not pummel them. They were more like Rocky than Apollo Creed. Their goal was to make the other team quit mentally and physically. The result was a team well versed in winning close, down-to-the-wire slugfests. This was the makeup of the team and it won't show in the stat sheet but it's just as effective a way to win. That also explains why they didn't win 10 or more straight games. The mental concentration it takes to win that way had to take a toll. They won 63, but watching them live, it felt like they won every game that year.

Also interesting to note that they lead the league in personal fouls, technical fouls and opponents free throw attempts, so they were dominate defensively despite suffering the penalty for their style of play and deserved reputation.

The level at which they played after the Dantley trade alone puts them in the top ten for me. 45-6 and 26-1 at home down the stretch of the NBA season and into and through the playoffs. They won almost 90% of their games while playing more than 60% of those games against teams with 46+ wins and more than 70% against playoff teams.

[G.O.A.T]

The case For and Against the 1986 Boston Celtics

The case For the '86 Celtics
-50-1 record at home including playoffs, best all-time.
-Greatest front line of all-time with four All-NBA and Hall-of-Fame players including MVP (Bird), two more all-stars (Parish, McHale) and Sixth Man of the Year (Walton)
-20-5 vs. Elite competition (Bucks, Sixers, Rockets, Lakers) best win percentage among top 10 teams.
-15-3 in the playoffs; won first two in all four series.
-Never lost more than two in a row (only did that twice)
-1st in rebounding margin, opponents field goal percentage and three-point percentage; 2nd in assists, 3-pointers made, free throw percentage and field goal percentage; 3rd in opponents points per game.
-Winning streaks of 14 and 13 games; one of six teams all-time with two 13+ game win streaks in the same season. Also had two more nine and two more eight game winning streaks.
-Rotation seven deep featured former or current all-stars.

The case Against the '86 Celtics
-Only played 25% of their games against elite competition. Second lowest among top ten.
-15-3 vs. teams with fewer than 30 wins. Most losses against sub-30 win team of any top ten.
-Only five games better than team with leagues second best record; lowest margin of any top ten team.
-Lakers were upset by Houston which prevented the Finals rubber match most expected in 1986.

[Da_Realist]

Also interesting to note that they lead the league in personal fouls, technical fouls and opponents free throw attempts, so they were dominate defensively despite suffering the penalty for their style of play and deserved reputation.

Good point. I wonder how many points they were gifted because the opponents didn't want to compete. This team was mentally tough. And like the energizer bunny they kept comin' and comin' and comin...

[bootsy]

Whether you agree with them or not(and most of them I do). This is a great list/read man. Great job GOAT.

[1987_Lakers]

At the moment my top 10 looks something like this...

1. 1986 Celtics (Greatest mix of talent & chemistry, no question)
2. 1996 Bulls ( 72-10, MJ & suffocating defense)
3. 1987 Lakers (Unstoppable offense also good D)
4. 1967 Sixers ( The NBA voted this team the greatest ever in 1980)
5. 1972 Lakers (33 straight wins, 69 wins overall)
6. 1983 Sixers (This team had 5 legit All-Stars. Went 12-1 in PS)
7. 1992 Bulls (MJ at his peak. Won 67 games.)
8. 1971 Bucks (Started season 65-11. Kareem & the Big O)
9. 1965 Celtics (Greatest dynasty ever, but not quite the best single season team)
10. 1989 Pistons (Amazing defensively, tough & extremely deep)

[G.O.A.T]

The Case for and Against the 1992 Chicago Bulls


The Case For the '92 Bulls
-Jordan and Pippen at their peak during the Championship years. MVP Michael Jordan 30-6-6-3.2 (combined steals/blocks) 52%-83%, Pippen 21-8-7-3.0 (all-defensive first team, all-Nba second team)
-67 regular season wins ten games better than anyone else during the 91-92 season.
-Won games by a margin of 10.4 per night; 4th best among the top ten
-Played 30.8% of their games against elite competition (Cleveland, New York, Portland, Utah) 3rd most among the top ten and tops amongst teams post-merger in the top 25
-37-5 to start the season
-Played just 16 games against teams with fewer than 30 wins. Won 13 game by double figures
-Very competitive NBA era; eight 50 win teams, eleven 47+ win teams in a 27 team NBA.
-Winning streaks of 14 and 13 games; one of six teams all-time with two 13+ game win streaks in the same season.


The Case Against the '92 Bulls
-15-7 playoff record; most losses among the top ten
-Role players like Cartwright, Paxson and Hodges were fading; Armstrong was not ready yet, no consistent quality front court sub
-Lost home games in three of four playoff series
-22-10 for a .688 win percentage against elite opponents, third lowest among the top ten

[magnax1]

Starting the second half of the cases, the 1987 Lakers.


The Case For the 1987 Lakers
-Magic Johnson had career year and Lakers had best regular season of the 1980's
-Team repeated in 1988 with exact same top eight; first repeat Champion in 19 years.
-15-3 in postseason, matched record for best in the four round era at the time. Took 2-1 edge over Bird's Celtics in NBA Finals
-27-2 stretch near end of the season after acquiring Mychal Thompson from the Spurs.
-Offensive Giant. Seven double digit scorers; each starter shot at least 49%.
-2nd in PPG (117.8), Field Goal percentage (.517). First in 3-pt% (.367) and assists. Scored at least 97 points in 97 of 100 games. Averaged 122 ppg in postseason.
-Went 6-2 against the Celtics, the defending Champs and their unquestioned top rival, including a regular season 2-0 sweep.


The Case Against the 1987 Lakers
-Struggled against elite teams; 10-7, the lowest win total and win percentage of any team in the top ten.
-Played in very weak Western conference. Faced 37, 39 and 42 win teams in Western Conference playoffs.
-Only 17% of their games were against elite competition, by far the lowest in the top ten.
-20% of their games were against teams with at least 53 losses including six against the 12-70 Clippers; the worst team of the decade.
-Injuries limited their top competition; McHale was playing with a broken foot, Walton was out, the Rockets collapsed internally.

Thoughts?
As for a case against the 87 Lakers, you sort of ignored how they really lacked defensively at some positions. They still had the issues that caused the Rockets to beat them in 86. They would've had trouble guarding post players, and Magic and Kareem both weren't capable of holding all star scorers at anything below 30 points. They had a good team defense to sort of make up for it, but I think if they faced similar problems to their 86 season, they might not have faired much better.
I really don't like this team much on an all time scale. They just have holes on defense that i think that lots of rather mediocre teams would be able to take advantage of. Could you see the Lakers ever effectively guarding athletic 00's guards like Lebron, TMac, VC, or Wade? Or Kareem having to battle against the Monstrous centers of the 60's or 90's?


The Case for and Against the 1992 Chicago Bulls


The Case For the '92 Bulls
-Jordan and Pippen at their peak during the Championship years. MVP Michael Jordan 30-6-6-3.2 (combined steals/blocks) 52%-83%, Pippen 21-8-7-3.0 (all-defensive first team, all-Nba second team)
-67 regular season wins ten games better than anyone else during the 91-92 season.
-Won games by a margin of 10.4 per night; 4th best among the top ten
-Played 30.8% of their games against elite competition (Cleveland, New York, Portland, Utah) 3rd most among the top ten and tops amongst teams post-merger in the top 25
-37-5 to start the season
-Played just 16 games against teams with fewer than 30 wins. Won 13 game by double figures
-Very competitive NBA era; eight 50 win teams, eleven 47+ win teams in a 27 team NBA.
-Winning streaks of 14 and 13 games; one of six teams all-time with two 13+ game win streaks in the same season.


The Case Against the '92 Bulls
-15-7 playoff record; most losses among the top ten
-Role players like Cartwright, Paxson and Hodges were fading; Armstrong was not ready yet, no consistent quality front court sub
-Lost home games in three of four playoff series
-22-10 for a .688 win percentage against elite opponents, third lowest among the top ten
I don't like this team much either. Just not enough talent. I don't think Horace Grant as your third best player, and a pretty huge drop off after that isn't enough to rank the 92 Bulls over most all time teams. They won, but that was more of a product of Jordan and Pippen alone being enough for a 25+ points advantage at those two positions.

[Niquesports]

As for a case against the 87 Lakers, you sort of ignored how they really lacked defensively at some positions. They still had the issues that caused the Rockets to beat them in 86. They would've had trouble guarding post players, and Magic and Kareem both weren't capable of holding all star scorers at anything below 30 points. They had a good team defense to sort of make up for it, but I think if they faced similar problems to their 86 season, they might not have faired much better.
I really don't like this team much on an all time scale. They just have holes on defense that i think that lots of rather mediocre teams would be able to take advantage of. Could you see the Lakers ever effectively guarding athletic 00's guards like Lebron, TMac, VC, or Wade? Or Kareem having to battle against the Monstrous centers of the 60's or 90's?


I don't like this team much either. Just not enough talent. I don't think Horace Grant as your third best player, and a pretty huge drop off after that isn't enough to rank the 92 Bulls over most all time teams. They won, but that was more of a product of Jordan and Pippen alone being enough for a 25+ points advantage at those two positions.
I really disagree with you about the 87 lakers. There team D is so underrated.The team was built to beat the 86 Celtics and that is what they did. As far as defending a T mac or Wade who cares they got 30 on everyone. What people have to understand about this Lakers team was that their offense was a part of there Defense. Becasue they had a fast break that was so effective teams had to adjust there half court sets to make sure they could get back.ITs not so much how would the 87 Lakers defend another team as much as how would another team defend them.

[G.O.A.T]

As for a case against the 87 Lakers, you sort of ignored how they really lacked defensively at some positions. They still had the issues that caused the Rockets to beat them in 86. They would've had trouble guarding post players, and Magic and Kareem both weren't capable of holding all star scorers at anything below 30 points. They had a good team defense to sort of make up for it, but I think if they faced similar problems to their 86 season, they might not have faired much better.
I really don't like this team much on an all time scale. They just have holes on defense that i think that lots of rather mediocre teams would be able to take advantage of. Could you see the Lakers ever effectively guarding athletic 00's guards like Lebron, TMac, VC, or Wade? Or Kareem having to battle against the Monstrous centers of the 60's or 90's?

They sort of addressed the center issue by trading for Mychal Thompson that year. Between him and Kareem being allowed to play a more concentrated role, they were much better at center than in '86. With AC Green and Rambis at the four they had two guys who were good for 10+ rebounds per 36 minutes and and Cooper was still among the NBA's best perimeter defenders and I believe could have handled any generations wing players as well as did those of the 1980's. Remember this is the guy who drew the assignment against Bird, Dantley, Aguirre, English, Bernard King, Nique, X-Man etc.

Scott was really coming on as a solid defensive PG allowing Magic to play against the teams third perimeter option for much of the game. Defensively they were sixth in opponents fg% and 3-pt fg%. They had a plus 3 rebounding edge and blocked more shots than the previous season.

I still see your point, but I'm not sure their weaknesses are as glaring defensively as you might think.

[G.O.A.T]

Last but certainly not least the 1967 NBA Champion Philadelphia 76ers

The Case For the '67 Sixers
-Voted Greatest Team of All-Time in 1980 by panel of NBA experts
-Interrupted Celtics dynasty of the 1960's. Only team to break through and did so emphatically winning the series in five
-Third highest combined regular season and playoff win% all-time. Set the standard at the time with 68-13 regular season record
-Led the league in scoring, field goal percentage and assists
-MVP Wilt Chamberlain had arguably the best individual season of all-time
-Excellent depth; Top six was best in basketball. Players like Bill Melchioni and Matt Goukas rarely played and went on to have strong careers
-Played just nine games (went 8-1) vs. teams with fewer than thirty wins. Fewest among the top ten
-Started the season 37-3; worst stretch was 11-7 when they played 15 of those games away from home late in the year
-Scored at least 103 points in 95 of 96 games (Boston held them to 87 early in the year)

The Case Against the '67 Sixers
-Were just 19-10 against elite opponents (Boston, San Fransisco)
-Longest win streak was 11 games; tied for second lowest among the top ten
-Only three Hall of Famers (Should be Four) on the roster; a small number for Champions in that era
-Lost with same core and coach to the older Celtics in 1968

[G.O.A.T]

Based on the cases for and against laid out on the last three pages and your pre-existing knowledge/opinions of the teams in question, what are your personal top five's?

[1987_Lakers]

Based on the cases for and against laid out on the last three pages and your pre-existing knowledge/opinions of the teams in question, what are your personal top five's?

1. 1986 Celtics (Greatest mix of talent & chemistry, no question)
2. 1996 Bulls ( 72-10, MJ & suffocating defense)
3. 1987 Lakers (Unstoppable offense also good D)
4. 1967 Sixers ( The NBA voted this team the greatest ever in 1980)
5. 1972 Lakers (33 straight wins, 69 wins overall)

BTW G.O.A.T, in the 86 Celtics post you mentioned they were 20-5 vs elite competition, but they were really 21-4, nothing big, just thought I'd let you know.:D

2-0 vs Lakers
4-2 vs Sixers
6-2 vs Rockets
9-0 vs Bucks

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/BOS/1986_games.html

[G.O.A.T]

1. 1986 Celtics (Greatest mix of talent & chemistry, no question)
2. 1996 Bulls ( 72-10, MJ & suffocating defense)
3. 1987 Lakers (Unstoppable offense also good D)
4. 1967 Sixers ( The NBA voted this team the greatest ever in 1980)
5. 1972 Lakers (33 straight wins, 69 wins overall)

BTW G.O.A.T, in the 86 Celtics post you mentioned they were 20-5 vs elite competition, but they were really 21-4, nothing big, just thought I'd let you know.:D

2-0 vs Lakers
4-2 vs Sixers
6-2 vs Rockets
9-0 vs Bucks

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/BOS/1986_games.html

Thanks for the correction, and your contribution to the thread.

I find it frustrating that no one has any comments now, but as soon as I start ranking someone's team lower than they want me to I'll have heaps of arguments posted. Too many people here want to argue instead of learning and sharing knowledge.

[Rose]

. Too many people here want to argue instead of learning and sharing knowledge.
I like learning and sharing hence why I read your threads, and we talked about the random NBA facts thing for awhile:lol

So....when can I pick up a copy of the book?

[G.O.A.T]

I like learning and sharing hence why I read your threads, and we talked about the random NBA facts thing for awhile:lol

So....when can I pick up a copy of the book?

Some people are like you, but too few.

The Book is still targeted for June. Right in line with the NBA Finals, though I am pushing for October and the start of the 2011-12 season.

I plan to and so far am on schedule to have a website up by May, will keep you posted.

[magnax1]

My top 5 would be
96 Bulls
67 Sixers
72 Lakers
83 Sixers
71 Bucks
I haven't seen the 67 Sixers play though... So it's probably not a fair list.

[1987_Lakers]

My top 5 would be
96 Bulls
67 Sixers
72 Lakers
83 Sixers
71 Bucks
I haven't seen the 67 Sixers play though... So it's probably not a fair list.

Just curious, why no '86 Celtics & '87 Lakers in your top 5?

[magnax1]

Just curious, why no '86 Celtics & '87 Lakers in your top 5?
I'd rather have the 82 Lakers, and they'd be about tied with the Celtics of 86. As far as Talent goes, they're probably top 4, but I don't think they're beating teams with players like Wilt or Jordan at the head of the team. On top of that, 80's defenses aren't impressive in any way, and somehow seemed to regress from their late 60's early 70's counterparts.

[Rose]

Some people are like you, but too few.

The Book is still targeted for June. Right in line with the NBA Finals, though I am pushing for October and the start of the 2011-12 season.

I plan to and so far am on schedule to have a website up by May, will keep you posted.
Well I'd love to get more debate in with you on greatest teams, but with school coming to an end this semester I'm cramming in some shit. And my watching of the Finals is back to about 95. and holy shit was Hakeem good, just watching mixes of his scoring and blocks doesn't cover it.

Awesome I'm honestly really excited for your book. And definitely your website, what's gonna be on the website? like a blog of some modern games and players? Or history? both maybe?

[Niquesports]

1. 1986 Celtics (Greatest mix of talent & chemistry, no question)
2. 1996 Bulls ( 72-10, MJ & suffocating defense)
3. 1987 Lakers (Unstoppable offense also good D)
4. 1967 Sixers ( The NBA voted this team the greatest ever in 1980)
5. 1972 Lakers (33 straight wins, 69 wins overall)

BTW G.O.A.T, in the 86 Celtics post you mentioned they were 20-5 vs elite competition, but they were really 21-4, nothing big, just thought I'd let you know.:D

2-0 vs Lakers
4-2 vs Sixers
6-2 vs Rockets
9-0 vs Bucks

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/BOS/1986_games.html

1987 Lakers
1971 Bucks
2000 Lakers
1967 Sixers
1983 Sixers
Anyone of the Russ,Johnes,Hondo teams
1986 Celtics

[tommyhtc]

on the 67 sixers,
I don't think they broke the 60s celtics run,
Red just retired,
I don't see how Russell can win it the first year as a coach.

[RUCKER]

If the 2004 Detroit Pistons aren't on your top 5 list, then you automatically lost all credibility.

[Nash-tastic]

If the 2004 Detroit Pistons aren't on your top 5 list, then you automatically lost all credibility.
Well he's one of the best posters around here, and you're the one without credibility so you shouldn't be the one to talk

[Gotterdammerung]

Well he's one of the best posters around here, and you're the one without credibility so you shouldn't be the one to talk
No doubt you're right, but just to humor him, I wonder what justifies that extremely generous ranking of a team that took advantage of an imploding team in the '04 Lakers, and failed to repeat the following year, and kept losing in the ECF for the next 3 years. They were going to be the Buffalo Bills of the NBA if it wasn't for Kobe Bryant's sabotage. :confusedshrug:

[Gotterdammerung]

The Book is still targeted for June. Right in line with the NBA Finals, though I am pushing for October and the start of the 2011-12 season.

Excellent news, GOAT, the best i've heard all day. :cheers: Will you post the remainder of your list or is that going to be exclusive to your book? If so, then I'll post some of my observations/opinions in conjunction to your earlier remarks.

[Rose]

1. 1996 Bulls (potential homer pick?)
2. 1986 Celtics
3. 1987 Lakers
4. 1972 Lakers
5. 1967 76ers

That's just based on what you've written. I haven't watched any of those teams yet really aside from the 96 Bulls. So I'll probably change this after I watch some finals games from all the other teams.

[G.O.A.T]

#10 1987 Los Angeles Lakers

http://www.nba.com/media/playoffs2004/challenge_photo_lakers1987.jpg

Head Coach: Pat Riley
Most skilled Player: Magic Johnson
Most Important Player: Magic Johnson
Other Starters: James Worthy, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Byron Scott, AC Green
Key Bench Players: Michael Cooper, Mychal Thompson, Kurt Rambis

Regular Season Record: 65-17 (1st Pacific Division)
Postseason Record: 15-3
NBA Finals: Beat the Boston Celtics Four games to Two
Longest Winning Streak: 11 games
Points Scored per Game: 117.8
Points Allowed per Game: 108.5

Stats (http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/LAL/1987.html)


Why #10? - Their resume simply doesn't measure up. The Showtime Lakers dominated the 1980's as a whole but never dominated a single season. 1986-87 was as close as they came, but it was not their most talented roster, nor did their competition elevate themselves they way they had in years past. The Lakers played by far the fewest and won by far the fewest percentage of their games against elite competition. They did not play a single team with a .600+ winning percentage in the Western Conference Finals, the only team that gave them trouble, Dallas, who won the season series vs. LA was upset in the first round. Also a disappointment were the Rockets who had over powered the Lakers in the 1986 playoffs.

Magic was at his all-time best yes, but Jabbar had finally found age catching up with him and took by far his most limited role as a Laker. The Lakers acquired Mychal Thompson from San Antonio to split time with Kareem, but he hardly had time to become acclimated to the Lakers and was much better the next year. Even with Thompson in the fold, they were just eight deep and didn't have anyone beyond that eight they were comfortable using.

The two of other three teams from the decade in the top ten swept the Lakers in the Finals during the decade. That was sort of their M.O. during the decade. If no one else was great during a season, the Lakers would win the title. Most of all I think these other nine teams beat them in a seven game series. The '86 Celtics were in such better shape than the '87 team that extended LA to six games. The '89 Pistons beat the same core of players with Orlando Woolridge replacing Rambis. The '67 Sixers front line would greatly overwhelm the Lakers, the '65 Celtics did everything the '87 Lakers did just a little better. The '71 Bucks and '72 Lakers simply have better resumes and had great 1-2 punches at the top and the Lakers didn't have the depth to exploit them. The '83 Sixers, likewise were too big and physical for the Lakers, and the Bulls '92 and '96 teams were even greater than the '91 team that blitzed the older, favored Lakers in those NBA Finals.

There is no question in my mind that this is one of the greatest teams of all-time. However as I looked deeper and deeper into these teams and their special seasons, I didn't see the '87 Lakers jumping off the page the way a lot of these other ball clubs did. The thing that frustrates me the most is that the '85 or '82 Lakers should be in this spot, but those teams never had the clear leader like what magic had become in 1987 to keep them focused and motivated at the level you need to maintain greatness over the 100+ games of an NBA season and playoffs.

[Niquesports]

#10 1987 Los Angeles Lakers

http://www.nba.com/media/playoffs2004/challenge_photo_lakers1987.jpg

Head Coach: Pat Riley
Most skilled Player: Magic Johnson
Most Important Player: Magic Johnson
Other Starters: James Worthy, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Byron Scott, AC Green
Key Bench Players: Michael Cooper, Mychal Thompson, Kurt Rambis

Regular Season Record: 65-17 (1st Pacific Division)
Postseason Record: 15-3
NBA Finals: Beat the Boston Celtics Four games to Two
Longest Winning Streak: 11 games
Points Scored per Game: 117.8
Points Allowed per Game: 108.5

Stats (http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/LAL/1987.html)


Why #10? - Their resume simply doesn't measure up. The Showtime Lakers dominated the 1980's as a whole but never dominated a single season. 1986-87 was as close as they came, but it was not their most talented roster, nor did their competition elevate themselves they way they had in years past. The Lakers played by far the fewest and won by far the fewest percentage of their games against elite competition. They did not play a single team with a .600+ winning percentage in the Western Conference Finals, the only team that gave them trouble, Dallas, who won the season series vs. LA was upset in the first round. Also a disappointment were the Rockets who had over powered the Lakers in the 1986 playoffs.

Magic was at his all-time best yes, but Jabbar had finally found age catching up with him and took by far his most limited role as a Laker. The Lakers acquired Mychal Thompson from San Antonio to split time with Kareem, but he hardly had time to become acclimated to the Lakers and was much better the next year. Even with Thompson in the fold, they were just eight deep and didn't have anyone beyond that eight they were comfortable using.

The two of other three teams from the decade in the top ten swept the Lakers in the Finals during the decade. That was sort of their M.O. during the decade. If no one else was great during a season, the Lakers would win the title. Most of all I think these other nine teams beat them in a seven game series. The '86 Celtics were in such better shape than the '87 team that extended LA to six games. The '89 Pistons beat the same core of players with Orlando Woolridge replacing Rambis. The '67 Sixers front line would greatly overwhelm the Lakers, the '65 Celtics did everything the '87 Lakers did just a little better. The '71 Bucks and '72 Lakers simply have better resumes and had great 1-2 punches at the top and the Lakers didn't have the depth to exploit them. The '83 Sixers, likewise were too big and physical for the Lakers, and the Bulls '92 and '96 teams were even greater than the '91 team that blitzed the older, favored Lakers in those NBA Finals.

There is no question in my mind that this is one of the greatest teams of all-time. However as I looked deeper and deeper into these teams and their special seasons, I didn't see the '87 Lakers jumping off the page the way a lot of these other ball clubs did. The thing that frustrates me the most is that the '85 or '82 Lakers should be in this spot, but those teams never had the clear leader like what magic had become in 1987 to keep them focused and motivated at the level you need to maintain greatness over the 100+ games of an NBA season and playoffs.

I think what makes the 87- lakers imo the best team of all time "that I have seen" was the mind set. I dont think any team could have beat them that year. Worthy was at his peek and imo he became a All Time Great . NOt sure how a team of players that were the first to repeat since the Russ Celtics isn't a top 2 or 3 team ?

[jlauber]

I think what makes the 87- lakers imo the best team of all time "that I have seen" was the mind set. I dont think any team could have beat them that year. Worthy was at his peek and imo he became a All Time Great . NOt sure how a team of players that were the first to repeat since the Russ Celtics isn't a top 2 or 3 team ?

Having read your take a couple of days ago, I am inclined to agree. Magic and Worthy were in their primes, Scott was just coming into his; Kareem was still an offensive force (17.5 ppg on .564 shooting), Thompson was his backup but was among the better centers in the league, and with Kareem gave LA a 28-11 duo per game; the Green-Rambis duo were worth 16-13 every game; and then there was Cooper, who was not only DPOY, but had developed a solid 3 pt shot. That team could outscore teams with a blistering break, or pound them in the half-court with Worthy, Kareem, Scott, and Magic.

They would have given any team matchup problems, including my favorite team, the '72 Lakers.

IMHO, they were at least top-5, and perhaps should be even higher.

[G.O.A.T]

bump gonna finish posting these, this month.

Nine teams remaining...

1965 Celtics
1967 Sixers
1971 Bucks
1972 Lakers
1983 Sixers
1986 Celtics
1989 Pistons
1992 Bulls
1996 Bulls

[Odinn]

I believe 1983 Sixers should be top 5.