Bill Russell's Celtics were great, but Tim Duncan's Spurs have been better

[SsKSpurs21]

Follow up article about the Elo all-time team rankings. kinda long but pretty interesting...

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/bill-russells-celtics-were-great-tim-duncans-spurs-have-been-better/

[Sarcastic]

At the end of the day all that matters is 1 team won 8 in a row, and 1 team never even repeated.

[TheMarkMadsen]

At the end of the day all that matters is 1 team won 8 in a row, and 1 team never even repeated.

Game over

[Mass Debator]

Basically the article is saying what ISH is saying about past eras. "The modern era is superior and more difficult to play in because of better athletes, more competition, more advanced technology, and more complex plays. Players of the 60s would be warming the bench today."

I'm like, oh well. One dominated its era with consistent championships in a row and the other was persistent at trying to get one every year. Can't really rank eras. It's like comparing the person who invented the wheel of stone vs the one who made the durable yet flexible rubber tire.

Both dynasties were great, but in the end, the all time ranking GOAT list is made by the media and its trying to convince you to follow.

[oarabbus]

Modern era GOAT confirmed

[Marchesk]

Players of the 60s would be warming the bench today.

Yeah, because Wilt, Russell, Thurmond, Bellamy, Unseld, Reed are all worse than Deandre Jordan and Roy Hibbert.

[Marchesk]

Also, how many of the 30 teams are contenders? Can you really use the Knicks, 76ers and Lakers as part of the argument for today's competition being better?