Most talented teams in the league year by year post-merger

[ShaqAttack3234]

Not how good the team is or how well the players complement each other, just the most talented team each year.

2014- Los Angeles Clippers
2013- Miami Heat
2012- Miami Heat
2011- Miami Heat
2010- Denver Nuggets
2009- Boston Celtics
2008- Boston Celtics
2007- Phoenix Suns
2006- San Antonio Spurs
2005- Phoenix Suns
2004- Los Angeles Lakers
2003- Sacramento Kings
2002- Sacramento Kings
2001- Portland Trailblazers
2000- Portland Trailblazers
1999- Portland Trailblazers
1998- Los Angeles Lakers
1997- Chicago Bulls
1996- Chicago Bulls
1995- Phoenix Suns
1994- Seattle Supersonics
1993- Phoenix Suns
1992- Portland Trailblazers
1991- Portland Trailblazers
1990- Detroit Pistons
1989- Detroit Pistons
1988- Detroit Pistons
1987- Los Angeles Lakers
1986- Boston Celtics
1985- Los Angeles Lakers
1984- Los Angeles Lakers
1983- Los Angeles Lakers
1982- Los Angeles Lakers
1981- Los Angeles Lakers
1980- Los Angeles Lakers
1979- Washington Bullets
1978- Philadelphia 76ers
1977- Philadelphia 76ers

Obviously, even with injuries, if I felt there was a large enough sample size to judge the team when healthy I still went with them such as the '09 Celtics and '04 Lakers.

Anyway, the years I'm most unusure of are.

1983- Sixers had won 58 games and lost in game 6 of the finals to LA the previous year, and then essentially added the best player in the league in both '82 and '83 by a clear margin(Moses Malone) while losing an inferior center Caldwell Jones for Moses to replace. Along with Moses, they had another all-nba 1st team superstar in Dr. J, a 3rd option Andrew Toney who was one of the league's most explosive scorers and shooters and averaged 25 ppg himself in the 10 games Dr. J missed, plus a 4th Sixer who made the all-star team in Mo Cheeks who was one of the league's best defensive guards. Hell, they essentially had 5 all-star caliber players since Bobby Jones minutes were dropped to 23.6 mpg in '83, but he was then voted 6th man of the year, had been an all-star in both '81 and '82 and was a perennial all-defensive 1st team guy dating back to his ABA days. So despite a huge drop off after their top 5 players, how many teams with 2 superstars(including the best player in the league) have a total of 5 all-star caliber players?

But, if I give the Sixers '83, how do I justify giving it to LA in '84? Despite the Sixers underachieving in '84, they had the same team, and while Magic improved noticeably in '84, Kareem's decline was also pretty noticeable and they took a step back in terms of talent losing Norm Nixon and replacing him with a rookie Byron Scott.

Actually, the '85 Sixers have a pretty good case over LA as well. Philly still had the championship core of Moses, Dr. J, Toney, Cheeks and Jones. They were older, but Moses was still one of the best players in the league finishing all-nba 1st team and 3rd in MVP voting, while Dr. J still averaged 20 per game, and they also had Barkley in his rookie year!

1996- Chicago was better than Orlando, but Orlando was younger, and many at the time probably would have said more talented individually. They were predicted to be the next dynasty. A slightly past-prime Jordan was better than a slightly pre-prime Shaq, but probably not more talented, while Pippen was a better player than Penny, but not by that much, and not individually more talented. Meanwhile, Rodman was clearly better than any 3rd guy on the Magic, but people do tend to think of offense more when it comes to talent. And I would take Kukoc over Anderson or Scott, but Anderson and Scott were legit scorers themselves, while Chicago only had 3 such players in Jordan, Pippen and Kukoc, and Horace Grant was an underrated player. Very good power forward, but Chicago was deeper. After the top 5, Orlando's only decent role player was Brian Shaw, a good defensive guard with length, but Shaw wasn't an incredible player(6.6 ppg on 6.5 FGA, just 37.5 FG%, only 28.5 3P% even with the shortened line and a 46.3 TS% as well as a horrible 24.4 TO%) while Chicago had better role players in Harper, Kerr and Longley. That's why I went with Chicago.

1997- The Bulls pretty much had their '96 team except Jason Caffey who as a legit offensive 4 who could score with his mid-range and post game. Meanwhile, LA did have Shaq just 1 year from his prime at 25, Eddie Jones who wasn't as good as Pippen, but one of the best two-way guards, Nick Van Exel who could be a knucklehead, but could also take over a game, Elden Campbell whose effectiveness was limited when Shaq was in the game, but a very talented low post player himself...similar to the Armen Gilliam situation with Barkley in the early 90's, Robert Horry when he was a lean, athletic small forward similar to his prime Houston days, and while 18 year old Kobe was a non-factor playing 15.5 mpg off the bench, but there's no doubt he was an exceptional talent who could already get his own shot and score. The bulls had better players, especially among their top 4, but more talented? I'm not sure.

2006- Very tough year. I thought about Dallas who had a ton of offensive firepower on the perimeter around Dirk, Phoenix who had Nash and two of the league's most versatile forwards in Marion and Diaw as well as a seemingly endless supply of shooters, and Detroit with arguably the league's best starting 5 and a very good big man coming off the bench in McDyess. However, I chose the Spurs because they had 3 all-star caliber players in their prime with Duncan, Parker and Ginobili, arguably the league's best wing defender in Bowen who could also hit corner 3s, Horry who was always a solid role player and then great backcourt depth with Finley and Barry shooting/scoring threats themselves.

2010- I went with Denver for depth and offensive firepower, I mean they had Melo in his best year as a Nugget, Billups who averaged a career-high in scoring, a nice big man trio in Nene, K-Mart and Birdman, a solid two-way role player in Afflalo, Jr who is a knucklehead, but there's no denying his talent. Dude can light it up and go off foe 35-40 off the bench and a real threat in Ty Lawson backing up Billups! But I did strongly consider LA and Boston so I'm willing to hear arguments for them.

2011- I was reluctant to pick Miami because of how top-heavy they were, though they did at least have shooting, defending and rebounding around their big 3. I primarily went with Miami because they were such an obvious consensus for most talented similar to the 2000 Blazers and 2004 Lakers. But I also consider LA who had Kobe, Pau, Bynum healthy for once in the playoffs and Odom in probably his best season in the NBA. Boston is a candidate, but the center position is a problem because Shaq's injury was career-ending at 39 so I can't really consider him and they were left with a broken down Jermaine O'Neal. Then there's the Spurs who were very deep, still had Manu and Parker in their primes and won 61 games with their new offense.

Actually, the Spurs are tough because of their depth from 2012-2014, you could make a case for them every year, but they're not the first team I think of in terms of individual talent, and I'm not sure how to judge them as far as talent vs the system and coaching.

Thoughts on any year? Add anything you'd like to the discussion. Remember, this is NOT the best team, but the most talented each year.

[AnaheimLakers24]

kobe da underdog

bran is a fagt with stacked squads

[ShaqAttack3234]

Both have had help when they won, and played exceptional to do it. Same with Shaq, Jordan, Bird ect. Lets not turn this into one of those things, please.

That's not what this is about.

[BuffaloBill]

Do you think the Clippers were by far the most talented team this past season? I see that being said a lot. But I'd say it's a toss up between LAC/HOU/OKC imo

[JohnFreeman]

How does CP3 and Griffin get away with such choking?

[Le Shaqtus]

How does CP3 and Griffin get away with such choking?

They don't, no one expects them to be good that's why.

No matter how stacked that Clippers team gets they always fall short so it's best just to expect them to go nowhere.

[Dragic4Life]

They don't, no one expects them to be good that's why.

No matter how stacked that Clippers team gets they always fall short so it's best just to expect them to go nowhere.
WHAT???? The best PG in the league and a top 3 PF in the league isn't expected to be good?:wtf: :facepalm

[AnaheimLakers24]

They don't, no one expects them to be good that's why.

No matter how stacked that Clippers team gets they always fall short so it's best just to expect them to go nowhere.
loser ass mentality

I bet this is how you always feel about the shitty magic

[JohnFreeman]

They don't, no one expects them to be good that's why.

No matter how stacked that Clippers team gets they always fall short so it's best just to expect them to go nowhere.
CP3 has to be the most overrated player

[BuffaloBill]

How does CP3 and Griffin get away with such choking?


People would shit on them if they lost to anyone not named the thunder or spurs. And CP3 doesnt really "get away" with choking

[Genaro]

I would disagree with some years. 2001 specially. Lakers weren't stacked but just have Shaq and Kobe made them the best team in the league. The role players weren't brilliant but they were efficient.

[ArbitraryWater]

I would disagree with some years. 2001 specially. Lakers weren't stacked but just have Shaq and Kobe made them the best team in the league. The role players weren't brilliant but they were efficient.

Yea, when you have arguably the 2 best in the game, that's enough.... :lol :facepalm

Otherwise 2011 wouldn't say Miami either... But that would be dumb.

[ArbitraryWater]

My List:

2014- Los Angeles Clippers/Thunder - Rockets/Warriors/Spurs
2013- Miami Heat/Thunder/Lakers/Pacers/Spurs
2012- Oklahoma City Thunder (Come on now) - Lakers / Spurs / Heat
2011- Miami Heat
2010- Los Angeles Lakers / Boston Celtics
2009- Boston Celtics / Los Angeles Lakers
2008- Boston Celtics
2007- Phoenix Suns
2006- San Antonio Spurs
2005- Phoenix Suns
2004- Los Angeles Lakers
2003- Sacramento Kings - Dallas Mavericks/Los Angeles Lakers
2002- Sacramento Kings - Los Angeles Lakers
2001- Los Angeles Lakers
2000- Portland Trailblazers
1999- Portland Trailblazers
1998- Los Angeles Lakers
1997- Chicago Bulls
1996- Chicago Bulls
1995- Phoenix Suns
1994- Seattle Supersonics
1993- Phoenix Suns
1992- Portland Trailblazers
1991- Portland Trailblazers
1990- Detroit Pistons
1989- Detroit Pistons
1988- Detroit Pistons
1987- Los Angeles Lakers
1986- Boston Celtics
1985- Los Angeles Lakers
1984- Los Angeles Lakers
1983- Los Angeles Lakers
1982- Los Angeles Lakers
1981- Los Angeles Lakers
1980- Los Angeles Lakers

Not sure about the next teams before the 2000's...

Hard to define. I say: Talented/Stacked/Loaded... Superstars win.

Take the Top 5 Players in the League, usually one of them will end up winning. Look at their Supporting Casts, the one with the best help usually has the most loaded / talented team... Basically, the titles from 2008-2010 were Kobe's to win... All other top guys in the league at the time, LeBron/Wade/Dirk, were left on mediocre rosters... The only superstar with a good, great team, was Kobe... Howard's was complimentary and got hot in '09.

Or, simply exclude the best player... Others say, Cast/Team/Roster = Talented + Deep... The 2 factors.

[nightprowler10]

Good call on Nuggets 2010.

[RoundMoundOfReb]

I'd put OKC for 2012 and this year...but it's debatable...

[Norcaliblunt]

2005 Suns???? That team had no bench whats so ever. They had rookie Leandro Barbosa, and a bought out end of career Jim Jackson. And even the starting line up was incompetent without Nash. When Nash went down for like a 6 game stretch they went 0-6, something like that. Most talented team? My ass!

[ShaqAttack3234]

Do you think the Clippers were by far the most talented team this past season? I see that being said a lot. But I'd say it's a toss up between LAC/HOU/OKC imo

Not by far. I think it's primarily between the Clippers and Spurs for 2014 with a good case for both teams.

As for Houston, they did have a lot of talent starting with Dwight who from January on was pretty much looking like Orlando Dwight, Harden who I think is overrated, but still the best shooting guard and a top 15 player, Chandler Parsons who is an offensive threat and a very good all around 3, Terrence Jones who turned out to be a serviceable stretch 4, Jeremy Lin who is a legitimately talented offensive point guard who can make plays off the dribble, a fine backup defensive point guard in Beverley and a good defender and rebounder in Asik who didn't have much value for the 2014 Rockets, but that's irrelevant in terms of talent because he could start on most teams.

So they're definitely up there as far as talent, near the top, but the Clippers and Spurs surpass them, imo.

As for OKC, ehhh, I think the lack of a 3rd scorer then starting a true offensive liability in Perkins and Sefolosha is a good defender, but his 3 point shot from 2013 so that's two weak offensive players.

Ibaka could get his efficient 15 ppg due to his very good jumper, athleticism and finishing, but he was more of a guy who would get his playing in the flow or off the stars. They really missed a Harden or Martin. Jackson was a talented offensive player off the bench who was sort of a poor man's Westbrook and could be explosive, so there's that, and lamb showed some talent, but for some reason, coaching genius Scott Brooks didn't give him consistent time, instead favoring a 39 year old Fisher.

Look at what happened when the Spurs were able to deny Durant or Westbrook pretty well, they'd wind up with a tough contested jumper late in the clock. Part of that was Brooks stagnant offense, but also the cast. Some of the scoring totals for OKC outside of Durant was embarrassing.

They're sort of like the 3peat Lakers as far as being top-heavy, though the 3peat Lakers obviously never had a 3rd player near Ibaka's level, or even a player outside of Shaq and Kobe with Jackson's ability off the dribble.

I'd say it comes down to the Clippers or Spurs.


I would disagree with some years. 2001 specially. Lakers weren't stacked but just have Shaq and Kobe made them the best team in the league. The role players weren't brilliant but they were efficient.

This is the one year I think the Lakers have a case for most talented during the 3peat seeing their ceiling in the playoffs, and Shaq was at peak 2000 level as far as ability and level of play from February through the end of the playoffs, while Kobe really came into his own in the 2001 playoffs, and on the strength of that, was also a top 3 player, and based on just his playoff play, was a top 2 player in the league. In fact, while I'd now take 2001 Duncan over him, back in 2001, I thought Kobe was the 2nd best player in the league behind Shaq, though I was a "Kobe hater" early in the 2000-2001 season.

That was the greatest duo of all-time, but they didn't even have a 3rd guy who could create their own shot. And part of their '01 playoffs was match ups and Fisher playing over his head. Horace Grant was a poor offensive player at 35, but still a good post defender and that was VERY useful since they faced Portland, Sacramento and San Antonio, and he defended Sheed, C-Webb and Duncan in their primes very well, while Fisher was on a hot streak and simply shot over his head. From the time Fisher returned from his injury in March 2001 on, he was a solid role player and good shooter, but still typically shot a mediocre percentage because of his shot selection, however, he was on a streak in the 2001 playoffs so he was extremely efficient. Fox was good defensively and from an all around standpoint, but not that talented, though I've always liked Horry for his passing and help defense, and 2001 was when he was starting to become a pretty good 3 point shooter. And Brian Shaw was a solid role player as a guard with length at 6'6" who could defend, but a mediocre offensive player. And they weren't exactly deep since they didn't get anything beyond their top 6.

Meanwhile, some Blazers like Sabonis, Pippen, Smith and especially Schrempf were starting to show their age, and Kemp was a bust for them, but Sabonis and Smith were still very solid players, prime Sheed was a beast, Bonzi picked up where he left off in 2000 except in a bigger role, Dale Davis was a very good defender and rebounder and Damon Stoudamire was a legitimate offensive talent.

Sacramento really took the next step in 2002 with Bibby replacing Williams while Jackson and especially Hedo improved, but if not Portland, they might be the team I'd lean towards just as far as individual talent. Look at C-Webb, Peja, Vlade and Christie. Plus, while Sacramento benefited from limiting Williams role and minutes, there's no doubt he was a legitimate talent. The difference, though in taking the next step was

Actually, you could put a healthy Spurs team right up there. Duncan was supported by Robinson who was still a top 5 defender, imo and averaged 17/12 in the playoffs giving the Spurs an incredible match up advantage vs almost every team, and they had perimeter talent with Anderson an athletic slasher and open court player who make plays off the dribble, but also shot 40% on 3s, and Daniels could be explosive and was sort of a smaller, poor man's version of Daniels, but also shot 40% on 3s, and overall, to support the twin towers, the Spurs actually finished 1st in 3P% at 41%.

You could make a case for Portland, Sacramento, LA or San Antonio as far as just talent.


My List:

2014- Los Angeles Clippers/Thunder - Rockets/Warriors/Spurs
2013- Miami Heat/Thunder/Lakers/Pacers/Spurs
2012- Oklahoma City Thunder (Come on now) - Lakers / Spurs / Heat
2011- Miami Heat
2010- Los Angeles Lakers / Boston Celtics
2009- Boston Celtics / Los Angeles Lakers
2008- Boston Celtics
2007- Phoenix Suns
2006- San Antonio Spurs
2005- Phoenix Suns
2004- Los Angeles Lakers
2003- Sacramento Kings - Dallas Mavericks/Los Angeles Lakers
2002- Sacramento Kings - Los Angeles Lakers
2001- Los Angeles Lakers
2000- Portland Trailblazers
1999- Portland Trailblazers
1998- Los Angeles Lakers
1997- Chicago Bulls
1996- Chicago Bulls
1995- Phoenix Suns
1994- Seattle Supersonics
1993- Phoenix Suns
1992- Portland Trailblazers
1991- Portland Trailblazers
1990- Detroit Pistons
1989- Detroit Pistons
1988- Detroit Pistons
1987- Los Angeles Lakers
1986- Boston Celtics
1985- Los Angeles Lakers
1984- Los Angeles Lakers
1983- Los Angeles Lakers
1982- Los Angeles Lakers
1981- Los Angeles Lakers
1980- Los Angeles Lakers

Not sure about the next teams before the 2000's...

Hard to define. I say: Talented/Stacked/Loaded... Superstars win.

Take the Top 5 Players in the League, usually one of them will end up winning. Look at their Supporting Casts, the one with the best help usually has the most loaded / talented team... Basically, the titles from 2008-2010 were Kobe's to win... All other top guys in the league at the time, LeBron/Wade/Dirk, were left on mediocre rosters... The only superstar with a good, great team, was Kobe... Howard's was complimentary and got hot in '09.

Or, simply exclude the best player... Others say, Cast/Team/Roster = Talented + Deep... The 2 factors.

Appreciate the effort, but I have a question before I respond fully. When you list multiple teams, are you putting them in order or are you just putting them as virtual toss ups?

Because if it's the latter, then I'd say the '02 Lakers fall clearly behind Sacramento who had a superstar(C-Webb), one of the league's top shooters and another 20 ppg scorer(Peja), Bibby who stepped up and played like a star in the playoffs averaging 20, one of the league's most skilled centers Vlade, one of the league's best defensive guards Christie who was solid offensively, Bobby Jackson who averaged 20 ppg in Bibby's extended absence in 2003 and Hedo who was a very versatile scorer who could handle the ball, pass or shoot. The Kings had 7 players average double figures while the Lakers had 3 with the 3rd being Fisher who couldn't create his own shot or finish, and for comparison, the Kings went 20-8 without their best player C-Webb while the Lakers were just 7-8 without Shaq, and their schedule wasn't even tough during that time. The Kings are still a playoff team without C-Webb(hell, they had the best record in the West before C-Webb returned in 2004) while none of the 3peat Lakers would have a chance at the playoffs without Shaq as opposed to the '98 Lakers who I could see making the playoffs without him. I'd also put the Mavs with Dirk, Nash, Finley and Van Exel ahead of LA as far as just talent in 2002.

OKC does have a good case for 2012. I went back and forth between them and Miami and threw in the Spurs as well who had a very deep team with Parker who was nearing his peak, a resurgent Duncan, Manu who was a year past his prime, but still played very well, rookie Kawhi Leonard, Diaw, Splitter, Stephen Jackson who shot really well for them ect. But the Lakers really had nobody outside of Kobe, Pau and Bynum, and both Kobe and Pau were declining.

As for 2013, I don't think the Pacers belong in that class as far as talent. great defensive team, but mediocre offensively. 2013 Lakers are interesting because many would have had them as the most talented entering the season, but they were old.

Good responses, though, everyone! :cheers:

[Big#50]

I would disagree with some years. 2001 specially. Lakers weren't stacked but just have Shaq and Kobe made them the best team in the league. The role players weren't brilliant but they were efficient.
Two top 7 players ever in the same team amd in their prime.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Yea, when you have arguably the 2 best in the game, that's enough.... :lol :facepalm

Otherwise 2011 wouldn't say Miami either... But that would be dumb.

Not really similar because the 2011 Heat had Bosh as a 3rd option. The 3peat Lakers never had anyone remotely close to that. Hell, Bosh had averaged 24/11 on 52 FG% and 59 TS% the previous season, and pretty consistently proved he was still a high percentage 20+ ppg guy in Miami when Wade was out while becoming a very good defender. Plus, Miami had better shooters.

[Big#50]

Not really similar because the 2011 Heat had Bosh as a 3rd option. The 3peat Lakers never had anyone remotely close to that. Hell, Bosh had averaged 24/11 on 52 FG% and 59 TS% the previous season, and pretty consistently proved he was still a high percentage 20+ ppg guy in Miami when Wade was out while becoming a very good defender.
Wth thought you'd never post here again.

[ShaqAttack3234]

2005 Suns???? That team had no bench whats so ever. They had rookie Leandro Barbosa, and a bought out end of career Jim Jackson. And even the starting line up was incompetent without Nash. When Nash went down for like a 6 game stretch they went 0-6, something like that. Most talented team? My ass!

The D'Antoni teams never had the deepest benches, but look at all of the firepower in that top 5. if you have a better candidate, feel free to post it, I'm open to suggestions.


Two top 7 players ever in the same team amd in their prime.

I have Kobe 11th, and while I have Shaq 4th, I'd generally say top 4-6 range, and am getting more and more tempted to putting Lebron 4th above Shaq. Plus, I'd say '03-'09 was Kobe's prime.

[Gotterdammerung]

Welcome back, ShaqAttack3234 :cheers:

I missed your thorough posts and threads. Hardly see much here to object or disagree, except that you repeat Daniels' name in this post twice (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=10408359&postcount=17) by accident. To be frank, I'm more interested in the older teams, prior to 1980, and all the way back to 1957, Bill Russell's first season. There just isn't enough information or data on the pre-merger era.

You and GOAT should collaborate on a book or a project together because you both compliment each other well- GOAT with narration and you with analysis.
:pimp:

[kshutts1]

I think OKC has been the most talented team in the league since the last year they had Harden.

Miami has been one of the better built teams (along with SA), in terms of talent and fit and clearly defined roles, but they have not been more talented than OKC. Maybe their first year together...

[ArbitraryWater]

OP, I read a lot of your older stuff :applause:

Most was still with fatal.. Especially interesting Wilt reads :D :cheers:

Put things into perspective really.. I remember coming on here (Circa 2012-2013 as reader only) and I got like brainwashed from the selective jlauber shit, thought of Wilt as 1B for GOAT... lol

[ArbitraryWater]

Not by far. I think it's primarily between the Clippers and Spurs for 2014 with a good case for both teams.

As for Houston, they did have a lot of talent starting with Dwight who from January on was pretty much looking like Orlando Dwight, Harden who I think is overrated, but still the best shooting guard and a top 15 player, Chandler Parsons who is an offensive threat and a very good all around 3, Terrence Jones who turned out to be a serviceable stretch 4, Jeremy Lin who is a legitimately talented offensive point guard who can make plays off the dribble, a fine backup defensive point guard in Beverley and a good defender and rebounder in Asik who didn't have much value for the 2014 Rockets, but that's irrelevant in terms of talent because he could start on most teams.

So they're definitely up there as far as talent, near the top, but the Clippers and Spurs surpass them, imo.

As for OKC, ehhh, I think the lack of a 3rd scorer then starting a true offensive liability in Perkins and Sefolosha is a good defender, but his 3 point shot from 2013 so that's two weak offensive players.

Ibaka could get his efficient 15 ppg due to his very good jumper, athleticism and finishing, but he was more of a guy who would get his playing in the flow or off the stars. They really missed a Harden or Martin. Jackson was a talented offensive player off the bench who was sort of a poor man's Westbrook and could be explosive, so there's that, and lamb showed some talent, but for some reason, coaching genius Scott Brooks didn't give him consistent time, instead favoring a 39 year old Fisher.

Look at what happened when the Spurs were able to deny Durant or Westbrook pretty well, they'd wind up with a tough contested jumper late in the clock. Part of that was Brooks stagnant offense, but also the cast. Some of the scoring totals for OKC outside of Durant was embarrassing.

They're sort of like the 3peat Lakers as far as being top-heavy, though the 3peat Lakers obviously never had a 3rd player near Ibaka's level, or even a player outside of Shaq and Kobe with Jackson's ability off the dribble.

I'd say it comes down to the Clippers or Spurs.



This is the one year I think the Lakers have a case for most talented during the 3peat seeing their ceiling in the playoffs, and Shaq was at peak 2000 level as far as ability and level of play from February through the end of the playoffs, while Kobe really came into his own in the 2001 playoffs, and on the strength of that, was also a top 3 player, and based on just his playoff play, was a top 2 player in the league. In fact, while I'd now take 2001 Duncan over him, back in 2001, I thought Kobe was the 2nd best player in the league behind Shaq, though I was a "Kobe hater" early in the 2000-2001 season.

That was the greatest duo of all-time, but they didn't even have a 3rd guy who could create their own shot. And part of their '01 playoffs was match ups and Fisher playing over his head. Horace Grant was a poor offensive player at 35, but still a good post defender and that was VERY useful since they faced Portland, Sacramento and San Antonio, and he defended Sheed, C-Webb and Duncan in their primes very well, while Fisher was on a hot streak and simply shot over his head. From the time Fisher returned from his injury in March 2001 on, he was a solid role player and good shooter, but still typically shot a mediocre percentage because of his shot selection, however, he was on a streak in the 2001 playoffs so he was extremely efficient. Fox was good defensively and from an all around standpoint, but not that talented, though I've always liked Horry for his passing and help defense, and 2001 was when he was starting to become a pretty good 3 point shooter. And Brian Shaw was a solid role player as a guard with length at 6'6" who could defend, but a mediocre offensive player. And they weren't exactly deep since they didn't get anything beyond their top 6.

Meanwhile, some Blazers like Sabonis, Pippen, Smith and especially Schrempf were starting to show their age, and Kemp was a bust for them, but Sabonis and Smith were still very solid players, prime Sheed was a beast, Bonzi picked up where he left off in 2000 except in a bigger role, Dale Davis was a very good defender and rebounder and Damon Stoudamire was a legitimate offensive talent.

Sacramento really took the next step in 2002 with Bibby replacing Williams while Jackson and especially Hedo improved, but if not Portland, they might be the team I'd lean towards just as far as individual talent. Look at C-Webb, Peja, Vlade and Christie. Plus, while Sacramento benefited from limiting Williams role and minutes, there's no doubt he was a legitimate talent. The difference, though in taking the next step was

Actually, you could put a healthy Spurs team right up there. Duncan was supported by Robinson who was still a top 5 defender, imo and averaged 17/12 in the playoffs giving the Spurs an incredible match up advantage vs almost every team, and they had perimeter talent with Anderson an athletic slasher and open court player who make plays off the dribble, but also shot 40% on 3s, and Daniels could be explosive and was sort of a smaller, poor man's version of Daniels, but also shot 40% on 3s, and overall, to support the twin towers, the Spurs actually finished 1st in 3P% at 41%.

You could make a case for Portland, Sacramento, LA or San Antonio as far as just talent.



Appreciate the effort, but I have a question before I respond fully. When you list multiple teams, are you putting them in order or are you just putting them as virtual toss ups?

Because if it's the latter, then I'd say the '02 Lakers fall clearly behind Sacramento who had a superstar(C-Webb), one of the league's top shooters and another 20 ppg scorer(Peja), Bibby who stepped up and played like a star in the playoffs averaging 20, one of the league's most skilled centers Vlade, one of the league's best defensive guards Christie who was solid offensively, Bobby Jackson who averaged 20 ppg in Bibby's extended absence in 2003 and Hedo who was a very versatile scorer who could handle the ball, pass or shoot. The Kings had 7 players average double figures while the Lakers had 3 with the 3rd being Fisher who couldn't create his own shot or finish, and for comparison, the Kings went 20-8 without their best player C-Webb while the Lakers were just 7-8 without Shaq, and their schedule wasn't even tough during that time. The Kings are still a playoff team without C-Webb(hell, they had the best record in the West before C-Webb returned in 2004) while none of the 3peat Lakers would have a chance at the playoffs without Shaq as opposed to the '98 Lakers who I could see making the playoffs without him. I'd also put the Mavs with Dirk, Nash, Finley and Van Exel ahead of LA as far as just talent in 2002.

OKC does have a good case for 2012. I went back and forth between them and Miami and threw in the Spurs as well who had a very deep team with Parker who was nearing his peak, a resurgent Duncan, Manu who was a year past his prime, but still played very well, rookie Kawhi Leonard, Diaw, Splitter, Stephen Jackson who shot really well for them ect. But the Lakers really had nobody outside of Kobe, Pau and Bynum, and both Kobe and Pau were declining.

As for 2013, I don't think the Pacers belong in that class as far as talent. great defensive team, but mediocre offensively. 2013 Lakers are interesting because many would have had them as the most talented entering the season, but they were old.

Good responses, though, everyone! :cheers:

The "-" means different tier, would come next and the "/" is like tossup, same tier. Yea, 2002 is definitely all Kings... But I added Lakers in 2002 and not in 2000, because Kobe was a grown man now, that could take over games.. Deadly 1-2 Punch, and when you have 2 of the top 5 Players in the league, I think you should be mentioned.

[SCdac]

How a roster looks on paper only interests me so much (if we're not factoring in how they complement each other or which teams were ultimately the best). More interested in why these "superior talent" teams failed, and why "less talented" teams ultimately prevailed. Interested where talent and impact meet, or where talent is hollow/misleading once teams hit the final stages of the season. I'd definitely take the best team over the most talented team of any given year. Good to have you back, Shaqattack.

[ArbitraryWater]

How a roster looks on paper only interests me so much (if we're not factoring in how they complement each other or which teams were ultimately the best). More interested in why these "superior talent" teams failed, and why "less talented" teams ultimately prevailed. Interested where talent and impact meet, or where talent is hollow/misleading once teams hit the final stages of the season. I'd definitely take the best team over the most talented team of any given year. Good to have you back, Shaqattack.

I hope you don't mean the Champion by that because that would be obvious, but more so, the most stacked team, right?

Like on paper and how they mesh on the court... Think '11 Heat.
Then again, the '13 Lakers simply didn't mesh but I think they should be mentioned, because I partly fault the leader for that.

[SCdac]

I hope you don't mean the Champion by that because that would be obvious, but more so, the most stacked team, right?

Like on paper and how they mesh on the court... Think '11 Heat.
Then again, the '13 Lakers simply didn't mesh but I think they should be mentioned, because I partly fault the leader for that.

Some times the best team is, to use Shaqattack's term, "most talented", some time they're not.

Again, I'd take the best team of any year (the proven winner) over the "more talented" team. Because clearly basketball is won on the court not on paper.

It doesn't matter if a team is supposed to win (ie. "most talented"), if they're ultimately not ready or capable of winning it all for a variety of reasons (ie. lacking experience, choking, falling apart, lack of chemistry, etc. etc.).

The 2005 Phoenix Suns for instance, the "most talented" team of that year, got crushed by the San Antonio Spurs and nearly swept. Surely they were not the most talented defensive team, so I'm assuming these are mostly offensive rankings.

[robert_shaww]

1991, 1992, and 1993 no chicago bulls : :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol

[G.O.A.T]

1979 - I'm going to say the Lakers were a more talented team than the Bullets man for man.

The Bullets had a great front court with Unseld, Dandridge and Hayes

But their guards, while both had good years, were never all-star level players then or at any point of their career. Greavy and Henderson would be the modern-day equivalent of a something like a Brandin Knight, Wilson Chandler back court. Those are your fourth and fifth best players.

Your sixth man is Mitch Kupchak who had his best year (16-7), but was another guy who was never an elite talent.

The rest of the rotation is nondescript guys. Greg Ballard would become a very nice player, but was in just his second year and had been a bit of a disappointment as a rookie. Chenier had been done for over a year, never reclaimed any kind of his old form and Dave Corzine, a career journeyman was just a rookie.

The 1979 Lakers had Kareem. The best or second best player in the NBA. Moses won the MVP this season, but Jabbar was dominant as usual.

Jamaal Wilkes, an all-star and key player on Champions before and after the '79 season, he averaged 18-8-3-2 on 50/75 that season, a typical prime year.

They had Norm Nixon, a promising point guard coming of an all-rookie first team season and had the best statistical year of his career in 78-79. 17-3-9-3 on 54/78.

They had Adrian Dantley who averaged 17-6-2-1 on 51/85, that gives the Lakers four guys averaging 17ppg or more on better than 50% shooting. The Bullets have 2 guys who average 17+ and 2 who shot over 50%, but they are not the same guys. And for Dantley, that's not the full story, it's not just that from 1979-80 to 1985-86 he'd make six all-star games and average 30ppg, he was averaging 27 a game for the Pacers when the Lakers traded for him the year prior.

Just those four alone make it interesting, but then you throw in the following:

Lou Hudson, he was 34 years old, in his last season, but he was also a a six-time all-star and averaged 14 ppg the previous year.

Ron Boone was also up in age, 32, but he was just two seasons removed from averaging 22 ppg in the NBA and had averaged 18-3-4 the previous season. Before that Boone was an ABA great who once was considered the best guard in the league. After he left LA he averaged 13-3-4 for the Jazz at age 33.

Dave Robisch, another guy who struggled that season, but it's because there was too much talent that didn't fit together. Before coming to the Lakers Robisch was a 14-8 career player, the year after he left the Lakers, 1979-80, he averaged 15-8. Bascially his prime production equaled Kupchak's peak season. The Lakers 8th best player was better than the Bullets sixth.

Kenny Carr would become a 12-8 player the next season, a 15-10 player in 2 years.

Jim Price was a former all-star who averaged 16-4-6-2, arguably a better season than either Bullet starting guard ever had. He had also averaged 12-3-3 for the Pistons in the second half of the '78 season.

Michael Cooper, just a name on this roster, but we know what he became.


I'll take the way the Bullets pieces fit together, but man for man, the Lakers had more talent in 1979.

[Bodhi]

Why did you come back from realgm Shaq? I thought that you had left for good

[Angel Face]

I agree with the Bulls not having the most talent during their 1st three peat. It's all about MJ with the help of Pippen during those times. The reason why they lose to Pistons the earlier years before Pippen developed. It's basically a one man show. Contain MJ, make him less effective, it's over for the Bulls. After Pippen became Pippen, 3 peat. :pimp:

[ShaqAttack3234]

Welcome back, ShaqAttack3234 :cheers:

:cheers:


I missed your thorough posts and threads. Hardly see much here to object or disagree, except that you repeat Daniels' name in this post twice (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=10408359&postcount=17) by accident.

:oldlol: Yeah, I meant Derek Anderson. I do that sometimes. I write a lot, but tend to do it pretty quickly. I should probably proofread a bit more.


To be frank, I'm more interested in the older teams, prior to 1980, and all the way back to 1957, Bill Russell's first season. There just isn't enough information or data on the pre-merger era.

Yeah,


You and GOAT should collaborate on a book or a project together because you both compliment each other well- GOAT with narration and you with analysis.
:pimp:

Thanks, much appreciated, but the idea of me having any sort of involvement in a book is funny because I'm picturing what would happen if I went to a publisher with my "qualifications."

For fans of It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia, I'm picturing it going exactly like when Mac and Charlie tried to apply for a job to get health insurance. :oldlol:

GOAT would undoubtedly be a much better candidate for something like a book than me.


I think OKC has been the most talented team in the league since the last year they had Harden.

Miami has been one of the better built teams (along with SA), in terms of talent and fit and clearly defined roles, but they have not been more talented than OKC. Maybe their first year together...

I can see the case for that. They certainly have a lot of athleticism, and the scoring talent of Durant and Westbrook, in addition to Lamb and Jackson, who are talented players, despite their limited roles.


The "-" means different tier, would come next and the "/" is like tossup, same tier. Yea, 2002 is definitely all Kings... But I added Lakers in 2002 and not in 2000, because Kobe was a grown man now, that could take over games.. Deadly 1-2 Punch, and when you have 2 of the top 5 Players in the league, I think you should be mentioned.

Thanks for the clarification. Yeah, LA on the strength of those 2 was always in the mix, but I just remember the sense that the Lakers were vulnerable in 2002, more than in 2001. During the Spurs series in one of the games in 2002, Kobe was talking about the different ways that they had to beat teams and mentioned that they couldn't beat every team on talent because some teams could match their talent, he mentioned Sacramento and Dallas in particular. I think you could make the case for the '02 Lakers being more talented than Dallas because Dallas didn't have the bench and had some holes, despite having the 3rd and 4th options, but I think we agree, Sacramento was in a league of their own as far as talent, and many to this day feel they were not just the most talented team, but the best team as well.

The more I think about it, I might go with LA for 2001. Sort of a transition year with Portland aging and Sacramento building their roster while there was this sense that when LA turned it on, they were in a different class, which turned out to be right.


How a roster looks on paper only interests me so much (if we're not factoring in how they complement each other or which teams were ultimately the best). More interested in why these "superior talent" teams failed, and why "less talented" teams ultimately prevailed. Interested where talent and impact meet, or where talent is hollow/misleading once teams hit the final stages of the season. I'd definitely take the best team over the most talented team of any given year. Good to have you back, Shaqattack.

That sort of discussion is more than welcomed in this thread. That's sort of what interested me about this. Why the most talented team wasn't the best team, and things like how the players complemented each other, coaching and other factors.

[L.A. Jazz]

Love the topic.
it shows that having talent means nothing when the parts dont fit because of individual playing style and strengths, age, health, depth, roles, coaches' system,...

[ShaqAttack3234]

OP, I read a lot of your older stuff :applause:

Most was still with fatal.. Especially interesting Wilt reads :D :cheers:

Put things into perspective really.. I remember coming on here (Circa 2012-2013 as reader only) and I got like brainwashed from the selective jlauber shit, thought of Wilt as 1B for GOAT... lol

I'd rather not get into a Wilt debate here. I will say that my opinion on Wilt isn't so strong these days, but I won't mention where I rank him, what I think about his postseason performances ect. for obvious reasons.

But what I will say, without placing any blame is that speaking of "super teams", the '69 Lakers were one of the first with Wilt joining forces with West and Baylor. Like many similar teams, they were top-heavy, so you could probably debate who had the most talent, but that was an example of problems with star and coach, multiple stars fitting together ect., which has continued to be relevant for a lot of these teams.


1991, 1992, and 1993 no chicago bulls : :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol

1991? Doesn't seem like you're too familiar with the league at the time. Pippen was only just coming into his own and Grant was a year away from his prime. Meanwhile, Portland had Drexler, Porter, Kersey, Cliff Robinson, Buck Williams, Ainge and Duckworth, and all averaged double figures, plus, Portland not only got the best record in the league, but it was considered an upset when they were beaten by the Lakers who weren't lacking in talent themselves with Magic, Worthy, Scott, Perkins and Vlade.

'92? Portland largely had the same team, but Pippen and especially Grant and Armstrong improved, so you could make a case for either of them or the Cavs who had great talent with Price, Daugherty, Nance, Hot Rod Williams, Ehlo and Terrell Brandon.

'93? Phoenix had 7 players average double figures including Barkley, KJ, a 3rd all-star in Dan Majerle, Cedric Ceballos, Richard Dumas(that was pretty much his only year of significance, but look at what he did that year for someone who was not one of the best players on his own team!), Tom Chambers off the bench and Danny Ainge, who was still a great shooter.


1979 - I'm going to say the Lakers were a more talented team than the Bullets man for man.

The Bullets had a great front court with Unseld, Dandridge and Hayes

But their guards, while both had good years, were never all-star level players then or at any point of their career. Greavy and Henderson would be the modern-day equivalent of a something like a Brandin Knight, Wilson Chandler back court. Those are your fourth and fifth best players.

Your sixth man is Mitch Kupchak who had his best year (16-7), but was another guy who was never an elite talent.

The rest of the rotation is nondescript guys. Greg Ballard would become a very nice player, but was in just his second year and had been a bit of a disappointment as a rookie. Chenier had been done for over a year, never reclaimed any kind of his old form and Dave Corzine, a career journeyman was just a rookie.

The 1979 Lakers had Kareem. The best or second best player in the NBA. Moses won the MVP this season, but Jabbar was dominant as usual.

Jamaal Wilkes, an all-star and key player on Champions before and after the '79 season, he averaged 18-8-3-2 on 50/75 that season, a typical prime year.

They had Norm Nixon, a promising point guard coming of an all-rookie first team season and had the best statistical year of his career in 78-79. 17-3-9-3 on 54/78.

They had Adrian Dantley who averaged 17-6-2-1 on 51/85, that gives the Lakers four guys averaging 17ppg or more on better than 50% shooting. The Bullets have 2 guys who average 17+ and 2 who shot over 50%, but they are not the same guys. And for Dantley, that's not the full story, it's not just that from 1979-80 to 1985-86 he'd make six all-star games and average 30ppg, he was averaging 27 a game for the Pacers when the Lakers traded for him the year prior.

Just those four alone make it interesting, but then you throw in the following:

Lou Hudson, he was 34 years old, in his last season, but he was also a a six-time all-star and averaged 14 ppg the previous year.

Ron Boone was also up in age, 32, but he was just two seasons removed from averaging 22 ppg in the NBA and had averaged 18-3-4 the previous season. Before that Boone was an ABA great who once was considered the best guard in the league. After he left LA he averaged 13-3-4 for the Jazz at age 33.

Dave Robisch, another guy who struggled that season, but it's because there was too much talent that didn't fit together. Before coming to the Lakers Robisch was a 14-8 career player, the year after he left the Lakers, 1979-80, he averaged 15-8. Bascially his prime production equaled Kupchak's peak season. The Lakers 8th best player was better than the Bullets sixth.

Kenny Carr would become a 12-8 player the next season, a 15-10 player in 2 years.

Jim Price was a former all-star who averaged 16-4-6-2, arguably a better season than either Bullet starting guard ever had. He had also averaged 12-3-3 for the Pistons in the second half of the '78 season.

Michael Cooper, just a name on this roster, but we know what he became.


I'll take the way the Bullets pieces fit together, but man for man, the Lakers had more talent in 1979.

The Lakers have a valid case by that point because their problem wasn't talent yet, but more how the roster was constructed with Wilkes and Dantley at the forwards as opposed to a real 4, and the lack of a perimeter defender in the rotation(Seattle's backcourt, particularly Gus Williams and his 31 ppg lit them up), but Kareem had actually shifted to more of a high-post facilitator role that year because LA had as much talent as they did.

With that said, I can't really consider Cooper because it was his rookie season and he played a total of 3 games for the '79 Lakers, so it's tough to say what he really was in '79.


Why did you come back from realgm Shaq? I thought that you had left for good

I did address this a few times, but obviously, not everyone saw it. Anyway, I don't think Jeff wants us to mention any other forums by name, and I'll respect that, but anyway, what happened last summer is I tried to change either my password or email(don't remember which) and there was some glitch that deactivated my account for a while, and it didn't get reactivated until about 4-5 months ago. And I just figured, what the hell, I'll post in a few topics here a few days ago.

[ArbitraryWater]

Thanks for the clarification. Yeah, LA on the strength of those 2 was always in the mix, but I just remember the sense that the Lakers were vulnerable in 2002, more than in 2001. During the Spurs series in one of the games in 2002, Kobe was talking about the different ways that they had to beat teams and mentioned that they couldn't beat every team on talent because some teams could match their talent, he mentioned Sacramento and Dallas in particular. I think you could make the case for the '02 Lakers being more talented than Dallas because Dallas didn't have the bench and had some holes, despite having the 3rd and 4th options, but I think we agree, Sacramento was in a league of their own as far as talent, and many to this day feel they were not just the most talented team, but the best team as well.

The more I think about it, I might go with LA for 2001. Sort of a transition year with Portland aging and Sacramento building their roster while there was this sense that when LA turned it on, they were in a different class, which turned out to be right.

Yea 2002 Lakers is really like the 1993 Bulls, 1998 Bulls, or even 2014 Heat even if they didn't make it... The famous 3rd year, the struggle of the 3-peat... And if you think about it, 2013 Heat should be the 3-peat year lol

Like the 1993 Bulls, 1998 Bulls, 2002 Lakers, they would have barely gotten by... 2003 Lakers go down against the Spurs like the 2014 Heat.