All-time NBA team rankings, 1 - 1,485 unveiled today

[jayfan]

According to the Elo rating system. From fivethirtyeight.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-best-nba-teams-of-all-time-according-to-elo/

Here's the top 10:

1 '95-96 Chicago Bulls
2 '96-97 Chicago Bulls
3 '85-86 Boston Celtics
4 '14-15 Golden State Warriors
5 '08-09 Los Angeles Lakers
6 '91-92 Chicago Bulls
7 '97-98 Chicago Bulls
8 '90-91 Chicago Bulls
9 '88-89 Detroit Pistons
10 '82-83 Philadelphia 76ers

[SouBeachTalents]

According to the Elo rating system. From fivethirtyeight.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-best-nba-teams-of-all-time-according-to-elo/

Here's the top 10:

1 '95-96 Chicago Bulls
2 '96-97 Chicago Bulls
3 '85-86 Boston Celtics
4 '14-15 Golden State Warriors
5 '08-09 Los Angeles Lakers
6 '91-92 Chicago Bulls
7 '97-98 Chicago Bulls
8 '90-91 Chicago Bulls
9 '88-89 Detroit Pistons
10 '82-83 Philadelphia 76ers

:lol at them being top 5 all time. They aren't even close to top 10 all time

[Raymone]

3peat Lakers are that low? '87 Lakers?

[HOoopCityJones]

:lol at them being top 5 all time. They aren't even close to top 10 all time

Someone sounds shook a Kobe led Team is Top 5 all time.

01 Lakers were obviously better.

[SouBeachTalents]

Someone sounds shook a Kobe led Team is Top 5 all time.

01 Lakers were obviously better.

Bro, you honestly think that team is top 5 all time? '00 & '01 Lakers are clearly better

[jayfan]

Yeah, not sure what all goes into the Elo rating equation. The article explains it, but I haven't really read it yet.



.

[ImKobe]

:lol at them being top 5 all time. They aren't even close to top 10 all time

00-01 Lakers should be in their place. The way Shaq and Kobe were playing in the Playoffs, I don't think many teams in NBA history would stand a chance.


Someone sounds shook a Kobe led Team is Top 5 all time.

01 Lakers were obviously better.


Kobe led the 01 Lakers in winshares in the Playoffs and him averaging 32/7/6 during that 11-win streak with 9.7 points on above 50% shooting in 4th quarters made them that great though. Shaq for once wasn't the best player in the world during that amazing stretch.

[Dr Hawk]

I wish I could watch 01 Lakers vs 15 Warriors

[kennethgriffin]

Wait

.....



So kobe lead the 09 lakers to being one of the top 5 rankings ever with only having


-6ppg benched bynum

-worst starting pg ever for a title team derek fisher

-no allstar selections ever crack head odom

-0-16 as leader top 90 all time according to HOF monitor pau gasol as his 2nd option

- sasha

- farmar




?????????


Ummmmm



Wtf lmfao

[CavaliersFTW]

'67 Sixers and '72 Lakers would wipe the floor with most of those teams did they give this an arbitrary cut off or something? :lol

[dh144498]

lol 08-09 lakers.
:biggums:

[BlakFrankWhite]

13-14 Spurs should Be. Top 5

Most innovative exciting offense ever seen

[ProfessorMurder]

:roll: '09 Lakers?

F*ck off.

[Kobe_6/8]

I wish I could watch 01 Lakers vs 15 Warriors

If the 15 Rockets lost to the Warriors by 1 in Golden State, the Lakers would son them.

Just lol'ed at the thought of Shaq playing the 15 warriors.

[bballnoob1192]

3peat Lakers are that low? '87 Lakers?
those teams were insanely top heavy. so the fact that they are not on this list means this list is probably using some kind of average talent system. im guessing

[SouBeachTalents]

Teams that should easily be on this list

'72 Lakers
'71 Bucks
'67 76ers
'87 Lakers

[jayfan]

Teams that should easily be on this list

'72 Lakers
'71 Bucks
'67 76ers
'87 Lakers

They're all on the list. It's 1-1,485.

[HOoopCityJones]

those teams were insanely top heavy. so the fact that they are not on this list means this list is probably using some kind of average talent system. im guessing

It's more about how you start and how you finish. It's a very interesting read.

Only reason why past Teams are so low is because they determined it's much harder to win in 30 Team league than a 10 Team one.

GSW is so high because they've been pretty dominant all year. Even in the post season.

[dh144498]

They're all on the list. It's 1-1,485.

:roll:
:lol

[SouBeachTalents]

They're all on the list. It's 1-1,485.

Lol, I was referring more top 10. Especially over some of the teams they picked like '09 Lakers & '98 Bulls

[HOoopCityJones]

Lol, I was referring more top 10. Especially over some of the teams they picked like '09 Lakers & '98 Bulls


Quit hating, it has nothing to do with the Lakers in 09.

You just flat out can't stand that a Kobe led Team is in the top 5 all time, just admit it.

[ImKobe]

Quit hating, it has nothing to do with the Lakers in 09.

You just flat out can't stand that a Kobe led Team is in the top 5 all time, just admit it.

whether it's 09 or 01, who cares. 09 Lakers were pretty tough to beat, they started peaking during the Finals in terms of ball movement between Kobe and Pau and Kobe's playmaking plus Ariza was clutch as hell and shot really well overall.

[jayfan]

And the distinction of worst team in (modern) NBA history goes to the....


1992-1993 Dallas Mavericks


:applause:


.

[R.I.P.]

According to the Elo rating system. From fivethirtyeight.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-best-nba-teams-of-all-time-according-to-elo/

Here's the top 10:

1 '95-96 Chicago Bulls
2 '96-97 Chicago Bulls
3 '85-86 Boston Celtics
4 '14-15 Golden State Warriors
5 '08-09 Los Angeles Lakers
6 '91-92 Chicago Bulls
7 '97-98 Chicago Bulls
8 '90-91 Chicago Bulls
9 '88-89 Detroit Pistons
10 '82-83 Philadelphia 76ers

Good ranking. Mavs basically beat #5, #11 and #40 on the way to their title and are #45. :lol

[Kargo]

Good ranking. Mavs basically beat #5, #11 and #40 on the way to their title and are #45. :lol

Horrendous list...Mavs 07 are #33 and Mavs 2011 are #45.

You don't need another single example to demonstrate how awful it is.

[kennethgriffin]

Its official


Kobe is the g.o.a.t




Out of all those teams listed he had by far the weakest supporting cast

[KG215]

Horrendous list...Mavs 07 are #33 and Mavs 2011 are #45.

You don't need another single example to demonstrate how awful it is.
Well, the '09 Lakers being in the top 5 all-time, when they've probably got around 5 teams alone in franchise history better than their '09 squad, is a pretty strong demonstration of how you should take this Elo Rating ranking with a pretty big grain of salt and a lot of caution.

[kshutts1]

List is just another example as to how badly using just numbers fails.

I will never understand why someone would make a ranking, like this Elo thing or PER, etc, and not look at the end result and be like "oh, my ranking sucks".

At least PER is a great tool to use for measurement, so long as applied properly. This Elo thing never should have gone to print.

[DMAVS41]

List is just another example as to how badly using just numbers fails.

I will never understand why someone would make a ranking, like this Elo thing or PER, etc, and not look at the end result and be like "oh, my ranking sucks".

At least PER is a great tool to use for measurement, so long as applied properly. This Elo thing never should have gone to print.

It's using, very clearly, mostly the regular season.

Haven't had a chance to look at the list, but from the posts here....ranking the 09 Lakers and 07 Mavs that high is absurd.

But if it's only the regular season it makes a lot more sense.

[HOoopCityJones]

Its official


Kobe is the g.o.a.t




Out of all those teams listed he had by far the weakest supporting cast

:facepalm

[KG215]

Its official


Kobe is the g.o.a.t




Out of all those teams listed he had by far the weakest supporting cast
Right, now care to point out what other teams in 2009 had a better #2 option and supporting cast than Kobe? Because how his supporting cast compares to supporting casts in different seasons is pretty irrelevant. Relative to the league in 2009, Kobe had arguably the best supporting cast, especially after Garnett got injured and missed the playoffs.

[dh144498]

someone please ban kennith...... tired of his trolling. Not even funny.

[kennethgriffin]

:facepalm


So the 2009 lakers had 3 to 5 hall of famers like those other teams?


Lol youre really L'ing today

[kennethgriffin]

someone please ban kennith...... tired of his trolling. Not even funny.


Im tired of people saying dumb sh*t on here... like lamar odom = dennis rodman and pau gasol = top 25 all time legend scottie pippen


Kukoc > anyone after gasol/odom by a country mile

Harper > fisher ( dude averaged 20ppg a season before joining chicago lol )

Kerr > farmar ( isnt kerr the all time 3pt% record holder )



Seriously people?

[HOoopCityJones]

It's using, very clearly, mostly the regular season.

Haven't had a chance to look at the list, but from the posts here....ranking the 09 Lakers and 07 Mavs that high is absurd.

But if it's only the regular season it makes a lot more sense.

It considers playoffs too.

[Spurs5Rings2014]

So the 2009 lakers had 3 to 5 hall of famers like those other teams?


Lol youre really L'ing today

Who in those plays offs had a better roster?

[Jacks3]

lol @ the disrespect for the 09 Lakers. They won 65 games and had a SRS of 7.3. They won the West by 10 freaking games, and went 16-7 in the post-season with the 8th playoff scoring margin of all-time (+166). They were utterly dominant.

[kennethgriffin]

lol @ the disrespect for the 09 Lakers. They won 65 games and had a SRS of 7.3. They won the West by 10 freaking games, and went 16-7 in the post-season with the 8th playoff scoring margin of all-time (+166). They were utterly dominant.


Prime kobe was pretty damn good

[KG215]

So the 2009 lakers had 3 to 5 hall of famers like those other teams?


Lol youre really L'ing today
You've yet to address this:

What other team in 2009 had a better playoff roster than the Lakers? What other true/legit contender in 2009 had a #2 option better than Pau Gasol?

[CavaliersFTW]

lol @ the disrespect for the 09 Lakers. They won 65 games and had a SRS of 7.3. They won the West by 10 freaking games, and went 16-7 in the post-season with the 8th playoff scoring margin of all-time (+166). They were utterly dominant.
It's not disrespect to them, but rather disrespect to a slew of other teams that were CLEARLY more dominant.

No one is saying the '09 Lakers were a bad team. But several teams historically speaking were not even a little, but rather a lot more dominant. Same with the 98 Bulls. They both have absolutely no business being over teams like '67 Sixers, '71 Bucks, '72 Lakers, '87 Lakers, etc. They've got zero argument other than probably the people who picked them were thinking "OOOH I watched them. Never watched the old teams so they get bumped down cause ...old"

[DMAVS41]

It considers playoffs too.

Then it's way off...the 07 Mavs were half the team the 11 Mavs were.

If it includes playoffs and ranks those teams where it does...not worth anything.

And the 09 Lakers are maybe a top 20 team ever. Maybe...

[Lensanity]

08-09 Lakers aren't even close to being the hest Laker team ever. Wtf!?

[Psileas]

Keep ELO to chess. As long as a team doesn't win the title, it's never going to be seen as the best team in basketball. Some of these results are cringe worthy: The '67 Sixers are rated #16, below the '09 Cavaliers and the '97 Jazz, the '72 Lakers below the '98 Jazz, the '01 Lakers below the 2010 Magic, the '87 Lakers are 22nd, the '71 Bucks are 29th...Just stop it.

[QUOTE]Instead of resetting each team

[rmt]

13-14 Spurs should Be. Top 5

Most innovative exciting offense ever seen

I don't know if long-term they can be considered top 5, but those last 3 games of the Finals - oh-la-la - that was the greatest display of offensive team basketball I've ever seen (it was like Federer in 2004-07). They showed signs of dominance throughout that season, but this season basically the same team just never got it together - well, maybe after ASG, there were flashes - but not the dominance of last year.

[CavaliersFTW]

Keep ELO to chess. As long as a team doesn't win the title, it's never going to be seen as the best team in basketball. Some of these results are cringe worthy: The '67 Sixers are rated #16, below the '09 Cavaliers and the '97 Jazz, the '72 Lakers below the '98 Jazz, the '01 Lakers below the 2010 Magic, the '87 Lakers are 22nd, the '71 Bucks are 29th...Just stop it.



And this is, partially, where the whole thing fails. Oh, the 2008 Celtics rank 39th. Yeah, it happens when you happen to have sucked in the previous season.
WHAT!? :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

[ZMonkey11]

The 03-04 San Antonio Spurs (25) out rank the team that beat them, 03-04 Los Angeles Lakers (121) and the NBA Champs, Detroit Pistons (81).

04-05 Pistons pushed way down (116) when they took the Spurs (23) to 7 games, and should have taken the series in 6.

I'm going to go ahead and say this list is stupid.

[BlakFrankWhite]

I'll say it again

How come 2014 spurs aren't top 5?....they won 62 games in the reg season in the tough western conference...playing the most entertaining and elite offense EVER

Destroyed title contenders Thunder and the Heat one after the other...

Seriously,no one hears remembers how they gave the re-peating Heat a good 'ol spanking?

[Lamar Odumbb]

Thats why I hate computer based rankings like BCS in football. The 85 Lakers would destroy the 09 Lakers. The 2001 Lakers would beat the 91 Bulls.

[ShawkFactory]

Im tired of people saying dumb sh*t on here... like lamar odom = dennis rodman and pau gasol = top 25 all time legend scottie pippen


Kukoc > anyone after gasol/odom by a country mile

Harper > fisher ( dude averaged 20ppg a season before joining chicago lol )

Kerr > farmar ( isnt kerr the all time 3pt% record holder )



Seriously people?Teams Jordan faced > teams Kobe faced.

Jordan > Kobe

[kennethgriffin]

Teams Jordan faced > teams Kobe faced.

Jordan > Kobe


The teams jordan faced that were epic were the ones that demolished jordan

80s celtics, pistons


When they went away and kareem retired. Thats when jordan won


And the 2000 blazers, 2001-2010 spurs, 2002 kings, 2008-2010 celtics are all better than any team the bulls went through from 1991 to 1998


Fat butt barkley lol.. reggie miller lmao

[PejaTheSerbSnip]

I don't know if long-term they can be considered top 5, but those last 3 games of the Finals - oh-la-la - that was the greatest display of offensive team basketball I've ever seen (it was like Federer in 2004-07). They showed signs of dominance throughout that season, but this season basically the same team just never got it together - well, maybe after ASG, there were flashes - but not the dominance of last year.

You, sir, are a wise man. :applause: :cheers:

[1987_Lakers]

The 2010 Orlando Magic are #19. How is that even possible?

[jstern]

I heard Phil Jackson once say, (I think on Conan) that his first 3 peat Bulls team was better than his second.

Either that, or that they were more talented.

[ShawkFactory]

The teams jordan faced that were epic were the ones that demolished jordan

80s celtics, pistons


When they went away and kareem retired. Thats when jordan won


And the 2000 blazers, 2001-2010 spurs, 2002 kings, 2008-2010 celtics are all better than any team the bulls went through from 1991 to 1998


Fat butt barkley lol.. reggie miller lmao
I'd take the time to make an actual response but that would be pointless wouldn't it?

[LAZERUSS]

Looks like just another..."pull the teams out of a hat" ranking.

A few years ago Richard Billingsley came out with a Top-200 all-time college ranking, and it was pure trash. And virtually no reasonable criteria was used, either.

Just a quick example on the OP... the '72 Lakers.

Not only did LA go 69-13, and then 12-4 in the post-season, they absolutely destroyed teams. If you include the post-season, they went 7-1 against the 57-25 Bulls; 8-2 against the HOF-laden Knicks; 5-1 against the 51-31 Warriors; 4-1 against the 49-33 Sonics; 4-1 against the 56-26 Celtics; 4-2 against the 47-35 Suns (the only team to hang two regular season losses on the Lakers); and... 8-3 against the defending champion, and 63-19 Bucks.

They had at least one rout of every team they faced that year, and in some cases, two or more (they slaughtered a very good Warrior team by margins of 30 and 63 points.)

They also posted a ppg differential of +12.3 which is tied with the '95-96 Bulls as the highest margin ever.

Of course, this team also reeled off a still-record 33 straight wins, which was obviously impressive, but unlike the '13 Heat, who had many narrow wins in their 27 game streak, the Lakers romped in those 33 games by a average margin of +15.6 ppg.

And again, if you factor in that they wiped out Kareem's defending champion and 63-19 Bucks, 8-3, it is all the more impressive. The Bucks had nearly the same identical roster from the previous season, when they stampeded the league with a 66-16 record, and they overwhelmed their opposition in the playoffs, 12-2.


I'm sorry, but in terms of league domination, including the post-season, the '72 Lakers have a legitimate claim to the GOAT team.

[CavaliersFTW]

I'll say it again

How come 2014 spurs aren't top 5?....they won 62 games in the reg season in the tough western conference...playing the most entertaining and elite offense EVER

Destroyed title contenders Thunder and the Heat one after the other...

Seriously,no one hears remembers how they gave the re-peating Heat a good 'ol spanking?
Because as good as those Spurs were, significantly more than 5 teams are better than them when you look at the entire history of the NBA. And their ball movement isn't anything that hasn't been seen before it's how several past teams in the history of the game have also run their offense and won titles.

[SouBeachTalents]

Looks like just another..."pull the teams out of a hat" ranking.

A few years ago Richard Billingsley came out with a Top-200 all-time college ranking, and it was pure trash. And virtually no reasonable criteria was used, either.

Just a quick example on the OP... the '72 Lakers.

Not only did LA go 69-13, and then 12-4 in the post-season, they absolutely destroyed teams. If you include the post-season, they went 7-1 against the 57-25 Bulls; 8-2 against the HOF-laden Knicks; 5-1 against the 51-31 Warriors; 4-1 against the 49-33 Sonics; 4-1 against the 56-26 Celtics; 4-2 against the 47-35 Suns (the only team to hang two regular season losses on the Lakers); and... 8-3 against the defending champion, and 63-19 Bucks.

They had at least one rout of every team they faced that year, and in some cases, two or more (they slaughtered a very good Warrior team by margins of 30 and 63 points.)

They also posted a ppg differential of +12.3 which is tied with the '95-96 Bulls as the highest margin ever.

Of course, this team also reeled off a still-record 33 straight wins, which was obviously impressive, but unlike the '13 Heat, who had many narrow wins in their 27 game streak, the Lakers romped in those 33 games by a average margin of +15.6 ppg.

And again, if you factor in that they wiped out Kareem's defending champion and 63-19 Bucks, 8-3, it is all the more impressive. The Bucks had nearly the same identical roster from the previous season, when they stampeded the league with a 66-16 record, and they overwhelmed their opposition in the playoffs, 12-2.


I'm sorry, but in terms of league domination, including the post-season, the '72 Lakers have a legitimate claim to the GOAT team.

I personally have them ranked second behind the '96 Bulls

[kamil]

Looks like just another..."pull the teams out of a hat" ranking.

A few years ago Richard Billingsley came out with a Top-200 all-time college ranking, and it was pure trash. And virtually no reasonable criteria was used, either.

Just a quick example on the OP... the '72 Lakers.

Not only did LA go 69-13, and then 12-4 in the post-season, they absolutely destroyed teams. If you include the post-season, they went 7-1 against the 57-25 Bulls; 8-2 against the HOF-laden Knicks; 5-1 against the 51-31 Warriors; 4-1 against the 49-33 Sonics; 4-1 against the 56-26 Celtics; 4-2 against the 47-35 Suns (the only team to hang two regular season losses on the Lakers); and... 8-3 against the defending champion, and 63-19 Bucks.

They had at least one rout of every team they faced that year, and in some cases, two or more (they slaughtered a very good Warrior team by margins of 30 and 63 points.)

They also posted a ppg differential of +12.3 which is tied with the '95-96 Bulls as the highest margin ever.

Of course, this team also reeled off a still-record 33 straight wins, which was obviously impressive, but unlike the '13 Heat, who had many narrow wins in their 27 game streak, the Lakers romped in those 33 games by a average margin of +15.6 ppg.

And again, if you factor in that they wiped out Kareem's defending champion and 63-19 Bucks, 8-3, it is all the more impressive. The Bucks had nearly the same identical roster from the previous season, when they stampeded the league with a 66-16 record, and they overwhelmed their opposition in the playoffs, 12-2.


I'm sorry, but in terms of league domination, including the post-season, the '72 Lakers have a legitimate claim to the GOAT team.

I'd be thoroughly amused if you turned out to be about 15 years old.

[Psileas]

Looks like just another..."pull the teams out of a hat" ranking.

A few years ago Richard Billingsley came out with a Top-200 all-time college ranking, and it was pure trash. And virtually no reasonable criteria was used, either.

Just a quick example on the OP... the '72 Lakers.

Not only did LA go 69-13, and then 12-4 in the post-season, they absolutely destroyed teams. If you include the post-season, they went 7-1 against the 57-25 Bulls; 8-2 against the HOF-laden Knicks; 5-1 against the 51-31 Warriors; 4-1 against the 49-33 Sonics; 4-1 against the 56-26 Celtics; 4-2 against the 47-35 Suns (the only team to hang two regular season losses on the Lakers); and... 8-3 against the defending champion, and 63-19 Bucks.

They had at least one rout of every team they faced that year, and in some cases, two or more (they slaughtered a very good Warrior team by margins of 30 and 63 points.)

They also posted a ppg differential of +12.3 which is tied with the '95-96 Bulls as the highest margin ever.

Of course, this team also reeled off a still-record 33 straight wins, which was obviously impressive, but unlike the '13 Heat, who had many narrow wins in their 27 game streak, the Lakers romped in those 33 games by a average margin of +15.6 ppg.

And again, if you factor in that they wiped out Kareem's defending champion and 63-19 Bucks, 8-3, it is all the more impressive. The Bucks had nearly the same identical roster from the previous season, when they stampeded the league with a 66-16 record, and they overwhelmed their opposition in the playoffs, 12-2.


I'm sorry, but in terms of league domination, including the post-season, the '72 Lakers have a legitimate claim to the GOAT team.

Damn, that's a 40-11 record, the equivalent of a 64 win season against exclusively good and great teams! :bowdown:

[Wade's Rings]

How did they leave the 2005-2006 Heat off the Top 10? jk jk

[SwayDizzle]

09 Lakers were legit. Arguably the best Lakers team ever.

[LAZERUSS]

I personally have them ranked second behind the '96 Bulls

:cheers:

Here is my all-time Top-10:

1. '72 Lakers
2. '67 Sixers
3. '96 Bulls
4. '71 Bucks
5. '87 Lakers
6. '86 Celtics
7. '91 Bulls
8. '83 Sixers
9. '85 Lakers
10. '01 Lakers (only because of their overwhelming dominance in the post-season.)

I realize that there are many other great teams that you could substitute, but IMHO, my Top-4 are untouchable.

And before someone else scoffs at the '71 Bucks...

They not only went 66-16 in the regular season, with a +12.2 ppg differential, they were 65-11 with a staggering +13.6 ppg differential before coasting in their last six games. Not only that, but they outshot their opponents from the field by an eye-popping .509 to .424 margin (that .085 margin is the all-time record BTW.)

Then, in the post-season, they not only went 12-2, they outscored their opponents by a massive (and I believe record) margin of +14.5 ppg. Oh, and they outshot those opponents by a .497 to .395 margin!

Again...

:cheers:

[SouBeachTalents]

:cheers:

Here is my all-time Top-10:

1. '72 Lakers
2. '67 Sixers
3. '96 Bulls
4. '71 Bucks
5. '87 Lakers
6. '86 Celtics
7. '91 Bulls
8. '83 Sixers
9. '85 Lakers
10. '01 Lakers (only because of their overwhelming dominance in the post-season.)

I realize that there are many other great teams that you could substitute, but IMHO, my Top-4 are untouchable.

And before someone else scoffs at the '71 Bucks...

They not only went 66-16 in the regular season, with a +12.2 ppg differential, they were 65-11 with a staggering +13.6 ppg differential before coasting in their last six games. Not only that, but they outshot their opponents from the field by an eye-popping .509 to .424 margin (that .085 margin is the all-time record BTW.)

Then, in the post-season, they not only went 12-2, they outscored their opponents by a massive (and I believe record) margin of +14.5 ppg. Oh, and they outshot those opponents by a .497 to .395 margin!

Again...

:cheers:

:cheers: Nice list, here's mine

1. 1996 Bulls
2. 1972 Lakers
3. 1997 Bulls
4. 1971 Bucks
5. 1986 Celtics
6. 1967 76ers
7. 1983 76ers
8. 1987 Lakers
9. 1992 Bulls
10. 2001 Lakers

[ShawkFactory]

09 Lakers were legit. Arguably the best Lakers team ever.
You really think they'd beat the 87 Lakers in a series?

Actually...do you really think they would even be that competitive?

87 Lakers would win in 5 maybe 6.

[LAZERUSS]

Damn, that's a 40-11 record, the equivalent of a 64 win season against exclusively good and great teams! :bowdown:

And they were one win away from a 70-12 record, too.

Late in the season, they were standing at 67-12 when they faced a 22-56 Cavs team. They somehow lost, 124-120...to a team that they had beaten two weeks before by a 132-98 margin. Incidently, the Cavs were one of the few teams that they "only" faced four times that year (going 3-1.)

[LAZERUSS]

You really think they'd beat the 87 Lakers in a series?

Actually...do you really think they would even be that competitive?

87 Lakers would win in 5 maybe 6.

That '87 Laker team was awesome, but their '85 team may have been even better.

[Marchesk]

Only reason why past Teams are so low is because they determined it's much harder to win in 30 Team league than a 10 Team one..

What's the logic behind this? There's more shitty teams in a 30 team league, and you only play each team a few times. Having to player everyone a bunch of times means they know you real well.

[KG215]

09 Lakers were legit. Arguably the best Lakers team ever.
They're probably not even a top 5 Laker team ever, and nowhere close to being arguably the best Laker team ever.

[Psileas]

And they were one win away from a 70-12 record, too.

Late in the season, they were standing at 67-12 when they faced a 22-56 Cavs team. They somehow lost, 124-120...to a team that they had beaten two weeks before by a 132-98 margin. Incidently, the Cavs were one of the few teams that they "only" faced four times that year (going 3-1.)

IMO, they would have won 70+ had Jerry West not missed a few games early on, when they lost 3 close games.
Speaking of close games, how about this: They also lost 3 games by 1 point, including one in OT.
They only lost 4 games by 10+, and only a single game (vs Boston) was a clear loss. The 120-104 loss to Milwaukee, as we all know, came harder than the score shows. A 14 point loss to Phoenix was only a 3 point game after 3 Q's, and another 14 point loss, to Baltimore, was only a 6 point game after 3 Q's. So, they were either the winners or competitive for 3+ quarters in 81 out of their 82 games (and the only available on video regular season game of them vs Milwaukee, basically, was their 2nd worst game). :eek:

[gts]

Yeah, not sure what all goes into the Elo rating equation. The article explains it, but I haven't really read it yet.



.it's by fan vote... :lol

j/k



edit here's how it's done

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-we-calculate-nba-elo-ratings/

[LAZERUSS]

IMO, they would have won 70+ had Jerry West not missed a few games early on, when they lost 3 close games.
Speaking of close games, how about this: They also lost 3 games by 1 point, including one in OT.
They only lost 4 games by 10+, and only a single game (vs Boston) was a clear loss. The 120-104 loss to Milwaukee, as we all know, came harder than the score shows. A 14 point loss to Phoenix was only a 3 point game after 3 Q's, and another 14 point loss, to Baltimore, was only a 6 point game after 3 Q's. So, they were either the winners or competitive for 3+ quarters in 81 out of their 82 games (and the only available on video regular season game of them vs Milwaukee, basically, was their 2nd worst game). :eek:

I either watched, or listened to, every Laker game in that season (KABC 790), and it was truly a magical season.

You hear or read the term "runs" all the time in pro basketball, but this team was the pure definition of it. There were games in which they would fall behind by 15 points, and end up winning by 20.

I still remember watching the 162-99 blowout of the Warriors near the end of the season. That game stands out to me for two reasons. One, LA built a 30 point second quarter lead, but then the Warriors made a late quarter run, and cut the deficit to 15 at the half. After that it was just an avalanche.

The second thing that stood out was a run early in the second quarter, when the Lakers passed the ball into Chamberlain on something like four straight possessions. Why was that significant? Because on those four possessions, Wilt powered his way into the ala Shaq, and received lob passes point blank at the rim, slammed them, and Thurmond was helpless to stop it. I always wondered what scoring numbers THAT Wilt could have put up had his teams and teammates employed that strategy his entire career.

And, as a side-note to the above...in the Laker game in which their 33 game winning streak was snapped in Milwaukee, there was a sequence in which Kareem came down with a rebound, and he and Hairston were tangled up. Kareem basically sucker-punched Hairston, and an outraged Wilt came storming in. Kareem retreated to the corner, and his prayers were answered when the officials stepped in to prevent any bodily damage. However, in the very next play, LA went into Chamberlain, and he just barreled right thru and over Kareem for an easy lay-in. CLEARLY, had Wilt played like THAT his entire career, and likely the NBA would have just folded.

As for your point about West missing games early, you and I both know it, but for the benefit of those that don't...West did not play in a losing game until that Milwaukee loss in January. It's interesting that the 33 game winning streak coincided with West's return, and Baylor's "retirement."

I have pointed this out before, but virtually no one saw the '72 Lakers coming. Before the start of the season, their new coach, Bill Sharman, inherited an old roster (Goodrich was 28, Hairston was 29, West was 33, Wilt was 35, and Baylor was 37.) Not only that, but in the course of their two previous seasons, they had lost either Wilt, or West and Baylor, to significant injuries. And, as it would turn out, Baylor's injury in early '70, essentially ended his career. So, this was not only an old roster, it was also an injured-plagued roster that was full of question marks.

In the '70-71 season, and as mentioned above, the Lakers lost Baylor almost immediately, and then West in the last quarter of the season, and neither played in the playoffs. And Chamberlain, himself, was only a year removed from major knee surgery, and IMO, had the worst season of his career. Of course the "worst" season of Wilt's career, would have been a career year for 95%+ of the rest of the players in NBA history.

BUT, even in the "worst" season of his career, Wilt basically outplayed a PEAK Alcindor (Kareem) in their 10 H2H's that season, including their five playoff H2H's. He almost matched Kareem's scoring; he easily outrebounded him; and he outshot Kareem from the field by a significant margin. Most observers would claim that he held a 3-1-1 advantage in those five playoff games. Unfortunately for Wilt, and thanks to injuries, he had zero help in that series, and the Bucks steam-rolled to a series win, en route to a sweeping title.

And those Bucks were universally predicted to easily romp to a title in the '71-72 season, as well. Aside from Oscar, they were a very young roster, and most all returned for their title defense in '71-72.

Meanwhile, virtually no one gave the Lakers any chance. There were some pre-season publications which had LA finishing third in their division.

On top of all of that, Sharman stunned everyone by claiming that he wanted this team to RUN. Of course, there was one stumbling block to that plan...Baylor. After game nine Sharman convinced Laker ownership that Baylor had to go. Elgin finally conceded, and the "official" reason given was "retirement." Sharman inserted second year player Jim McMillian into the starting lineup, and the rest, as they say, was history.

Continued...

[LAZERUSS]

Continuing...

Sharman's defensive strategy was for the Laker defenders to funnel everythiing into Wilt, and then for Chamberlain to rebound, and start the outlet. That strategy worked to near-perfection.

The '71 Lakers had plodded their way to 114.8 ppg in a league that averaged 112.4. They outscored their opposition by a 114.8 ppg to 111.7 ppg margin, and outshot by a .476 to .446 margin. In their '72 season, they exploded to a league-leading 121.0 ppg, and only surrendered 108.7 ppg...all while outshooting their opposition by a .490 to .432 margin.

And RUN they did. Their 121.0 ppg came in an NBA that averaged 110.2 ppg, and not only that, but the next best team was a distant second at 116.3 ppg. They scored 120+ in 44 games. They scored 130+ in 19 games. They scored 140+ in six times. Thy scored 150+ in four games. And, of course, their season high was that 162-99 burial of the Warriors.

I mentioned earlier, but including the playoffs (in which they went 12-3), they went 7-1 against the 57-25 Bulls; 8-2 against the HOF-laden 48-34 Knicks; 4-1 against the 56-26 Celtics; 5-1 against the 51-31 Warriors; 5-1 against the 49-33 Sonics; 4-2 against the 47-35 Suns; and an astounding 8-3 against the reigning world champion, and 63-19, Bucks.

And included were at least one, and usually more, roust of every team that they faced that season. Even the all-powerful Bucks were wiped out by margins of 123-107, and then in game five of the WCF's, 115-90. They won 19 games by 20+; six by 30+; and four by 40+.


In the playoffs, they swept the Bulls in the first round. In the WCF's against the Bucks, they went 4-2. However, even that is a little deceptive. After their no-show in game one, a 93-72 loss, they proceeded to win four of the next five, including that 115-90 blowout in game five, and then a remarkable 4th quarter double-digit deficit comeback win in Milwaukee. And in the Finals, again with a no-show in game one (a 114-92 loss), they then won the next four straight.

This team certainly has a claim as the GOAT team.

[ISHGoat]

wow the fuking spurs with 9 years of 1700+ seaons.. got dam

[sd3035]

According to the Elo rating system. From fivethirtyeight.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-best-nba-teams-of-all-time-according-to-elo/

Here's the top 10:

1 '95-96 Chicago Bulls
2 '96-97 Chicago Bulls
3 '85-86 Boston Celtics
4 '14-15 Golden State Warriors
5 '08-09 Los Angeles Lakers
6 '91-92 Chicago Bulls
7 '97-98 Chicago Bulls
8 '90-91 Chicago Bulls
9 '88-89 Detroit Pistons
10 '82-83 Philadelphia 76ers

That's absolutely astonishing considering it was a one man team

[UK2K]

According to the Elo rating system. From fivethirtyeight.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-best-nba-teams-of-all-time-according-to-elo/

Here's the top 10:

1 '95-96 Chicago Bulls
2 '96-97 Chicago Bulls
3 '85-86 Boston Celtics
4 '14-15 Golden State Warriors
5 '08-09 Los Angeles Lakers
6 '91-92 Chicago Bulls
7 '97-98 Chicago Bulls
8 '90-91 Chicago Bulls
9 '88-89 Detroit Pistons
10 '82-83 Philadelphia 76ers

This team is stacked and a blast to watch. At #4? Little high but this years version of Golden State is top 10, no question.

[Tmuston Beltics]

1471 '11-12 Charlotte Bobcats:rolleyes: